Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]
Friday 18th October 2024
(2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEnvironmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, late on Friday afternoon, or even early on Friday afternoon, is known in academic circles as the graveyard slot. I hope that this is not the slot where my Bill enters the graveyard. In introducing the Bill, I declare my interests as set out in the register; in particular, that I am on the scientific advisory board of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, a consortium of NGOs and Cambridge University, and that I am an independent scientific adviser to Drax, the power company. I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss the Bill —in fact, twice—and Richard Benwell and Matt Browne of Wildlife and Countryside Link for their help in preparing the Bill and providing a briefing.
We have outstanding legislation in this country relating to climate and the environment, so why the need for further legislation? I intend to explain that over the next few minutes. The Climate Change Act 2008, and its associated secondary legislation, sets a legally binding target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050 and to meet the interim targets in the carbon budgets. Furthermore, the same Act places a requirement on the Government to ensure that the country adapts to the inevitable impacts of climate change on our infrastructure, buildings, land and people.
The Environment Act 2021 also places specific legal obligations on the Government, including targets on biodiversity, water quality and use, woodland cover, waste and air quality. Examples include halting the decline of biodiversity by 2030 and reducing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in water from agriculture by 80% by 2038, compared with the 2020 baseline.
The unfortunate news is that, in spite of this excellent legislation, the Government are nowhere near on track to meet their legal obligations on climate and nature. The Climate Change Committee said in its report to Parliament in July this year:
“The UK has committed to reduce emissions in 2030 by 68% compared to 1990 levels, as its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to the Paris Agreement. It is the first UK target set in line with Net Zero. Now only six years away, the country is not on track to hit this target”.
In the same report on adaptation, the Climate Change Committee said:
“The UK’s Third National Adaptation Programme … lacks the pace and ambition to address growing climate risks, which we are already experiencing”.
In its January 2024 report, the Office for Environmental Protection said:
“Government remains largely off track to meets its environmental ambitions and must speed up and scale up its efforts in order to achieve them”.
The OEP concluded that the Government were on track to meet just four of the 40 targets it examined.
This is where my Bill comes in. The simple fact is that myriad day-to-day decisions that could help to deliver the targets are not in the hands of central government. It is as though the Government have a set of levers on their desk that they can pull, but the levers are not connected to anything under the desk. Instead, these actions are spread across many public authorities, which are listed in the Bill. These include land managers, such as the Forestry Commission, Forestry England and the national parks authorities; regulators such as Ofwat; local authorities responsible for planning decisions; and infrastructure authorities such as Network Rail and National Highways. The Bill encompasses not just the public sector but, indirectly, the private sector, such as water companies that are regulated by the authorities listed.
Meeting the legally binding targets will require a Stakhanovite effort not just from central government but from all those public authorities. In fact, I argue that, without action from the public authorities, there is little or no chance that the Government will meet their targets. This Bill would give the public authorities a duty to have as a priority helping to meet the targets. Contributing to the targets is referred to in the Bill as the environmental recovery objective and the listed public bodies have a duty to take all reasonable steps to meet that objective.
Some of the bodies predate the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act, so it is not surprising that they do not have a responsibility to help to meet the targets in these Acts. For instance, the work of Forestry England, the country’s largest landowner, is closely tied to legislation written over 100 years ago. In general, where public authorities do have duties in relation to the environment and climate change, the duties are weaker than those implied by the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act.
For example, National Highways, established under the Infrastructure Act 2015, has as one of its eight objectives to
“minimise the environmental impacts of operating, maintaining and improving the network and seek to protect and enhance the quality of the surrounding environment”.
It is also obliged to
“conform to the principles of sustainable development”.
These are well-intentioned obligations, but they do not imply a specific duty to help to meet the biodiversity or greenhouse gas emission targets, yet transport infrastructure can have a major impact on both. We know that surface transport accounts for roughly a quarter of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions and these emissions have barely reduced at all over the past 30 years.
Local authorities have a key role in this Bill, and councillors from across the political spectrum and from a range of councils across England have expressed their support for it, both personally to me in writing and in public statements. The briefing from Climate Action is very revealing and salient. It concludes that, without action by local authorities, the Government will not achieve its net-zero target and that voluntary action is not sufficient.
In 2024, according to the Local Government Authority, two-thirds of councils were not confident that they would reach their net-zero target. The barriers to achieving the targets include lack of money, lack of expertise and lack of political will. In Scotland, all councils have to produce an annual report on climate action. In England, under two-thirds of councils do so. That is the case for giving public authorities a duty to help meet the targets in the two Acts to which I have referred.
There will no doubt be objections to the Bill, so I will address three of them. The first objection is that it is unnecessary because the listed public authorities are already doing the work. The second is that it is too burdensome and costly for the nominated authorities to implement. The third is that it is too blunt an instrument.
It is apparent that the first two of these objections cannot both be true at the same time. If it is unnecessary because public bodies are already doing it, by definition it cannot be too burdensome. Some public authorities may already be contributing to the targets to the best of their ability. For them, there will be no extra burden or cost. However, as my examples have illustrated, not all public authorities contribute to meeting the targets. Many of them—perhaps most—have weaker obligations than those implied by the Bill. In fact, if all public authorities were contributing fully to meet the targets, one might ask why we are so far off track in meeting them.
What about costs? There might be some modest additional costs in the short term, but they have to be considered alongside the costs that will be avoided. These include costs associated with flood damage, damage to infrastructure from extreme weather, and loss of ecosystem services such as clean air and clean water, and—we now know from the excellent book by my noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown—good health. Those costs could be avoided by modest investment in taking action to help protect the climate and nature.
The third possible objection that I raise is that the Bill is too blunt an instrument, imposing requirements on public authorities that they cannot meet because of other priorities. However, although the Bill is prescriptive, it is not too prescriptive. It states:
“The environmental recovery objective is a principal objective”,
not the principal objective. So public authorities have it within their discretion to balance it against other objectives.
Finally, two further considerations are measurement and reporting. How will progress be measured and who will assess how well public authorities are doing? The targets are in the two Acts to which I have referred; therefore, the measurement of progress and the baseline for each target will be based on the criteria that the Government have set out in these Acts. The most obvious body to assess public authorities’ progress in meeting the targets would be the Office for Environmental Protection.
In summary, the Bill fills a gap in the Government’s plans for climate and nature. We know that they are not on track to meet their targets. If they do not accept the Bill, or at least the principles within it, I would ask the following question: if this is not part of the answer to the question of how to get back on track, what do the Government propose as an alternative? I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I thank him for bringing forward this terribly important Bill. I also thank Wildlife and Countryside Link, Green Alliance and Climate Action for their comprehensive briefings on it. This is not what you always see on a Private Member’s Bill, when you think of the weight of backing that represents.
To encourage the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, although there is no doubt that the graveyard slot means that we do not have the numbers we might have had, a recent headline from Scientific American noted that
“graveyards are surprising hotspots for biodiversity”.
So we can flower from this graveyard something rich, productive and great for the health and well-being of the country.
Ours is one of the most nature-depleted corners of this battered planet, as the public have increasingly come to understand over the past few years. There is a great deal of concern about the state of our rivers and seas, but there is also a growing understanding of the state of our peatlands, both uplands and lowlands. My social media feed sometimes seems to be entirely full of people desperately fighting to protect an ancient tree that is not only very valuable to a community but an absolute hotspot for biodiversity.
There is huge public concern to deliver on the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021, but as the noble Lord has already set out, it is patently obvious that we are not seeing delivery. Any one Act of Parliament, or action, cannot possibly deliver that. This week I attended, along with many other Members of your Lordships’ House, an event focused on the much-promised land use framework, which is among the other things we desperately need. Also, our Treasury needs to be given not a target for GDP growth but something like the New Zealand living standards framework, so that the environment is at the absolute heart of everything it does.
None the less, as the noble Lord has already set out, we have a whole set of bodies which are absolutely crucial to getting us moving in the right direction, at least, for our climate and nature targets, but they are not currently equipped to do so. They do not have the statutory framework to make this happen, and that is essentially what the Bill provides.
Let us consider the evidence. Under two recent Governments we have seen new oil and gas projects, new roads, airport expansion, and the destruction of ancient woodland and the valuable trees I talked about. As a vice-president of the Local Government Association, I stress the importance of local authorities being properly resourced to play their full part. They are not, and the Bill would help with that. The Green Party offers its strongest possible support for the Bill.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in full support of my noble friend Lord Krebs’ Environmental Targets Bill, specifically the need for public authorities’ duties to be aligned with climate and nature recovery targets.
My noble friend has already eloquently explained many of the reasons why we need the Bill, but I want to give another two important ones. First, the Environment Act targets as set out in secondary legislation have so far proved insufficient to improve the slow pace of delivery on our overarching nature recovery and climate aims, because some of the interim targets are not binding. In addition, some are far from perfect. They are set far into the future and are not easy for those responsible for delivery to interpret.
I will illustrate this with an example target from secondary legislation for marine protected areas:
“Before the … 31st December 2042 the number of protected features”
which
“… are in ‘favourable condition’ is … not less than 70% of the total number of”
all
“protected features within”
a marine protected area. After 35 years as an ecological scientist, I would not know where to begin on this target, and I do not think I would be alone in that.
Secondly, a point very relevant to the Bill, to which my noble friend alluded, is that most public bodies were established well before climate change and nature became national priorities. Many of these public bodies —for example, National Parks England—have solely economic objectives, which is why the Bill is needed to bring them up to date.
Can we do that on a piecemeal basis? It has been tried, often via amendments in this House, and has sometimes met resistance. One such effort, on the Crown Estate Bill, was dismissed as unnecessary earlier this week; I hope that the Minister will look kindly on the amendment I tabled yesterday to the water Bill.
Let me give noble Lords a specific example of this approach not working. At the end of last year, when the protected landscapes amendment to the then levelling-up Bill came into force, a requirement was placed on public bodies to further the objectives of protected landscapes; this included mitigating and adapting to climate change. Yet nothing has happened since then. We are still at a point where only 6% of national parks are managed effectively for nature and only a quarter of the SSSIs in national parks are in a favourable state, compared with the national average of 33%.
Can the measures proposed in the Bill work, or will this be just another set of hollow targets? We have some evidence suggesting that they can work. My noble friend Lord Krebs mentioned Climate Emergency UK, which publishes council climate action scorecards to rate local authorities’ progress towards climate targets. The Scottish councils, which have a statutory duty on climate action, score the highest of any councils in the country—well above the 52 councils in England and Northern Ireland, which have no statutory duty and are failing miserably on these climate targets. Once it becomes a statutory duty, it absolutely focuses attention and leads to action. Ensuring that all public bodies have an environmental recovery objective as part of their remits would be co-ordinated and impactful and would drive progress towards the various environmental targets. This Private Member’s Bill has my full support.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I too support the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing it and for his well-worded explanation of it. I am also grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Willis, for lending their support and for the speeches they have given.
The Bill requires specified public bodies to contribute to the delivery of statutory targets established under the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008. As it stands, our climate change and nature protection legislation has a gaping hole at its heart in that no statutory duty is applied to the many public bodies on whose everyday decisions and actions we depend in order to meet the targets. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it very well: the Government have all the levers on their desks, but the trouble is that the levers are not connected to anything. So far, our ad hoc efforts in this area have not worked. The state is already in possession of all the obligations but it does not have the statutory powers required to fulfil them.
The Bill is carefully crafted so as to be effective but, equally, not to be overly burdensome. Its thoughtful application includes regulators such as Ofwat, Ofgem and the Environment Agency; local authorities; key bodies such as Natural England, the Forestry Commission and National Highways; and some other 40 specified public bodies. It also contains an option for Ministers to include national parks in England and Wales by secondary legislation; I think this should be done.
The Bill uses well-versed legal language, saying that each of the identified bodies
“must, in the exercise of its functions, take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery”
obligations. This duty is specific and active. It provides a clever means of aligning the functions of many organisations around a single shared goal. The Bill is careful not to define how the obligations should be met. Equally, it does not introduce a significant extra cost; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, it may induce cost savings from cost implications avoided, bringing longer-term cost savings. Importantly, my understanding is that the Local Government Association has signalled its support for the Bill. The simple and sad truth is that, as a country, we do not assign a fair value to nature. Our statutory powers are inadequate and do not provide the required levels of protection.
The Bill updates many bits of individual legislation that were written long before the nature and climate change crisis. One example is that for the Forestry Commission, which is over 100 years old. Often, they do not have clear environmental goals. This Bill also saves all of us, as parliamentarians, a job of putting down multiple amendments to lots of Bills that simply waste precious parliamentary time.
The UK has many key targets in place, but without statutory obligations such as these we will just not meet them. The Labour manifesto states that the UK faces a nature crisis, accelerated by climate change, and argued that the UK has become
“one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world”.
Labour committed in the King’s Speech to improve access and I hope that this Government do that. We face an interlinked and conjoined nature and climate crisis, and we must work at pace and scale to meet it. That manifesto also included a clear commitment that Labour would take
“action to meet our Environment Act targets”.
Here is a clear and effective way to do that at pace and scale. I hope the Minister agrees and can lend government support to the passage of this Bill.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As an aside in relation to the previous Bill, as a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I published a report on the appalling abuse of delegated powers by all Governments over the past 30 years. It is just as well that I was not replying for the Official Opposition, because I would have probably supported the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
When the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, proposes something, we should all pay close attention because he speaks from a position of great authority. We have all had in the past 24 hours—at least, Conservative Members have—a note from the Chief Whip reminding us of the proper appellations and how we should address people in this House. In this House, we have noble and gallant Members and noble and learned Members. I always thought we should have a category of noble and expert Members, of which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would be the prime example. I recall a debate during the gene editing Bill, when the noble Lord was making some important but totally inexplicable technical point about DNA with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It was inexplicable to every other Peer present, as we had no idea what they were talking about.
On this occasion, I think I understand the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I worry about overreach and that it may detract from the core tasks some of these public bodies have. That is the fourth reason I would worry about the Bill, not that I necessarily support the other three reasons; I have no objection to them in principle.
Take national parks, about which I know a little. Legislation which has received universal support over the past 75 years gives them two purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the designated national parks, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the national parks do not have an economic objective. In fact, one of the criticisms many of the national parks make is that they do not have that economic objective in their powers.
We all agree that national parks and AONBs, now called national landscapes, need to do more to recover wildlife and biodiversity. I have lived in the Lake District national park for many years and, as the Minister will agree, it is just as devoid of wildlife as the areas outside it, unlike US national parks. Recognising that, Defra introduced the grant scheme for farming and protected landscapes. It offers grants to farmers, provided that they deliver on climate change and biodiversity goals. They must support nature recovery and mitigate the impacts of climate change. They must provide opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage. They must protect or improve the quality and character of the landscape or place.
I suggest that these remain in sync with the national park aims and that we need to let these develop. Indeed, I would urge the Government to expand them before imposing the requirements in this Bill. I also suggest that the national parks will be out of their depth in trying to assist in meeting a target for particulate matter or air improvement. On water quality, we shall probably debate amendments to the water Bill on sewage in Lake Windermere, over which the national park has no control.
On local authorities, this House made some substantial changes via the Environment Act 2021 to amend the NERC Act 2006 to conserve and, now, enhance biodiversity. A public authority must consider what action it
“can properly take, consistently with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the general biodiversity objective”.
That objective, set out in the Act, is
“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.
Section 104 of the 2021 Act creates local nature recovery strategies, and 48 designated “responsible authorities” are now developing such strategies, covering every inch of England. Every nature organisation agrees that this will be the greatest boost to wildlife recovery in our lifetime.
Noble Lords may say that takes care of the biodiversity targets, but what about climate change, water and air? To that I would say that many of the organisations listed here do not have the ability or competence to assist in meeting those targets. We spoke about the problems of water quality at Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill last week and will debate it in more detail in Committee, but the only organisations that can improve water quality are the water companies, the Coal Authority, which has a specific obligation, the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I see that Ofwat is listed in Clause 2(2)(i) as a public body which must
“take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective”.
I think there was probably agreement from all sides of the House last week that Ofwat has failed in its relatively narrowly defined key regulatory role, and no one would trust it with any responsibilities on climate change adaption, air quality and biodiversity recovery.
I would have similar concerns if we gave all local authorities the duties under this Bill to assist with all the targets on climate change and the Environment Act. My concern is that many local authorities with no expertise in the targets in this Bill would be diverted into doing this badly instead of the day job. As we have seen, many local authorities have gone off on woke tracks in recent years. If given these duties they will, I am certain, merrily employ climate change, air and water quality officers, and our dustbins will not get emptied regularly and recycling rates will fall further behind.
Let us look at Ofgem’s priorities. They are:
“shaping a retail market that works for consumers … enabling infrastructure for net zero at pace … establishing an efficient, fair and flexible energy system”,
and
“advancing decarbonisation through low carbon energy and social schemes”.
Ofgem is already on board with the net-zero targets and, I suggest, would be at a loss to assist with air quality and biodiversity aims.
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.
I will not go through all the 28 organisations, but a final example is Network Rail, which has as its objective
“to get people and goods to where they need to be, and in turn to support the UK’s economic prosperity. Our role is to run a safe, reliable and efficient railway, serving our customers and communities. We oversee the running of the railway as an entire system and work closely with train operators to deliver train services as safely, reliably and punctually as possible. We lead the industry’s planning for the future of the railway, and we’re committed to a sustainability agenda”.
I say that with a straight face. I think we all have views on how well Network Rail has fulfilled its primary purpose, and I would dread to see it having the slightest responsibility for net-zero or biodiversity objectives.
I am glad that this building is not included because I have counted six oil heaters trying to boost the heating in this building, as our 150 year-old steam generators are not quite working yet. I am not sure what contribution we are making in this House to burning extra carbon and use of electricity.
I have spoken more about biodiversity and nature recovery than climate change—possibly inevitably, since I am, for the next two months, still the deputy chair of Natural England and a member of the board of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, both organisations listed in the Bill. I submit that those two organisations do not need these provisions to drive forward, within their areas of expertise, all the relevant targets. They are already leading the way.
I also believe that climate change and nature recovery are two sides of the same coin and that, if we restore our peatlands, which hold 3 billion tonnes of carbon, plant the right trees in the right places, conserve our sea-floor and keep carbon trapped there, and go for nature-friendly solutions, then we can avoid the excessive cost of going too far, too quickly on heat pumps, electric cars and getting rid of gas boilers, not to mention the appalling damage to our natural landscape caused by wind turbines and pylons.
Personally, I have always considered biodiversity loss to be more important than climate change. With enormous political will and an awful lot of money, climate change can be reversed, but once a species is lost it is lost for ever, and the world is losing species at an alarming rate.
In Committee, I will judge the Bill by what these 28 public bodies can legitimately do, without detracting from their core duties, to increase species abundance and recover nature. I believe that that is the top priority and the key to unlocking climate change improvements and water quality. I wish the noble Lord well with his Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification, he appears to be suggesting that climate change and nature have to exist in certain silos and that getting people around the country by rail is a different and entirely separate silo. Do I take it from that that His Majesty’s Opposition’s position is that we should not mainstream climate and nature across all areas of action of government and public bodies?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Of course we want to “mainstream” it, but I am suggesting that some of the Bill may be overreach for some of the authorities and that they may not be competent to do it. I am not making any argument that it may be too costly, but we must try to achieve our targets on climate change reduction and in the Environment Act by the measures that the last Government took and that the current Government plan to take. I would be rather worried if we gave additional powers in the Bill to some of those authorities, but I remain to be convinced in Committee. I am sort of neutral on the Bill, and I respect the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his ability. In Committee, we can explore the points the noble Baroness raises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and congratulate him on securing this debate on his Private Member’s Bill this afternoon. I thank all Members who have stayed behind on a Friday afternoon to take part. It has been important to continue to highlight the intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change. There are, of course, vital issues which this House must continue to highlight and help find solutions to.
The intention of the Bill to drive and strengthen local and other public authority action towards meeting national environmental and climate targets and objectives is important. Indeed, the noble Lord and I have discussed the need to ensure that such action is appropriately and proportionately considered, supported and delivered. This is clear from the Government’s commitment to the 13 legally binding environmental targets set out under the Environment Act, which have been discussed during this debate. These include targets on water, biodiversity, resource efficiency, and tree and woodland cover. We intend to share more delivery information about this in the future to help ensure that we get on track to meet these statutory targets.
The Government have wasted no time—it was one of the Secretary of State’s first actions—in announcing a rapid review of the statutory environmental improvement plan, the EIP, to make sure that it is fit for purpose. After our rapid review of the EIP, we will publish a revised version. This revised plan will focus on cleaning up our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, looking at the numbers of trees we will need to plant, improving air quality and, importantly, halting the decline in species by 2030. Ensuring nature’s recovery is a key priority and is fundamental to the Government’s approach to economic growth. We will develop the new plan working closely with representatives of the public, private and third sectors, and I would hope that that would include noble Members of this House.
Throughout this time, action to deliver against existing commitments will continue at pace. This includes action on regulatory and policy measures intended to deliver the kinds of action that this Bill sets out to ensure, notably those under the Climate Change Act 2008, including our targets in the net zero strategy to reduce direct emissions from public sector buildings by 75% by 2037, and the Environment Act 2021. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the land use framework. I said in a debate earlier this week that we were looking to publish a Green Paper by the end of the year. This will be for consultation as part of the development of the framework as we go forward.
I want to mention local nature recovery strategies. They are an important tool that we can use while we take action to deliver against our existing commitments. They will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in a particular area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver these priorities. Forty-eight responsible authorities across the country are currently preparing nature recovery strategies for their area and we expect to see publication from March next year. They will be delivered through a combination of funding streams, such as biodiversity net gain, other green finance initiatives and public funding pots and, crucially, through an Environment Act requirement for public authorities to have regard to carrying out these activities.
This requirement, which is the biodiversity duty under Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, was strengthened through the Environment Act. Noble Lords who took part in that will remember our debates on this. It came into force in January of last year. Under the duty, all public authorities must consider the actions they can take to conserve and enhance biodiversity in England and, where actions are identified, set policies and objectives as soon as practicable to deliver actions and then take that action. In making their considerations and taking such action, all public authorities must have regard to any relevant LNRSs as well as to any relevant species conservation strategies or protected sites strategies prepared by Natural England.
Local authorities and local planning authorities must also publish five-yearly reports setting out the action they have taken under the duty. The first reports have to be published by 1 January 2026. We expect this strengthened duty to ensure that public authorities make the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity a core part of the delivery of their functions.
I want to make it very clear that this Government are fully committed to protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. We intend to take immediate action to realise the urgent step change needed to deliver 30 by 30 on land. We are currently in the process of reviewing our approach, and later this year we hope to confirm the criteria for land counting towards 30 by 30 in England. This will set a clear, ambitious standard to ensure that only areas that are effectively conserved and managed can contribute towards this commitment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, all mentioned protected landscapes. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, we both understand the challenges that the Lake District National Park particularly faces. The Government are actively considering further options to ensure that our protected landscapes have the tools and powers they need to deliver for people and nature, including through regulation and guidance. Relevant authorities must now seek to further the purposes of protected landscapes to deliver better outcomes for nature, people, climate and place. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, also asked about marine protected environments. The Government have taken significant steps to protect this environment. At the moment, there are 181 NPAs, including three highly protected marine areas. They cover about 38% of UK seas. Our priority now is to ensure that those areas are properly protected.
The Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly recognises the crucial role for climate adaptation. England’s third national adaptation programme summarises the collective actions that the UK Government are taking to address risks and opportunities from climate change and to ensure that adaptation is incorporated into government programmes. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, this is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2008 and government departments are required to respond to the risks and opportunities raised in the most recent climate change risk assessment report.
The Climate Change Committee monitors and evaluates the performance of governmental organisations that have actions to address climate risks, as set out in this national adaptation programme. It publishes its findings in a biannual progress report on climate adaptation. The last report was published in March 2023; the next will be in 2025. We will then review the CCC’s recommendations from that report.
I recognise the importance of the proposed Bill’s ambition and principles. However, there are measures in place seeking to realise this ambition. Some, I know, will need time to take form, but we are fully committed to this and are closely monitoring progress. Furthermore, the review and revision of our environmental improvement plan provides the ideal vehicle to consider the Bill’s principles and their practical implications, in the manner they deserve and in collaboration across society.
I turn briefly to the question of access, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. This is part of my portfolio and something that I am keen to work on in a proactive way. I am currently looking at our existing access to blue and green spaces, so that we can build on our manifesto commitment to create new river walks, and further access, going forward.
I finish by saying that, although time is not on nature’s side—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made that very clear—by working hand in hand across sectors on these vital issues, I am confident that we can use the opportunity of the Bill in front of us today to discuss and collectively agree on a way to deliver what sits at the heart of the vision of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: to reduce and adapt to the impacts of climate change and restore and improve our natural environment.
I thank the noble Lord again for bringing this Bill to the House and enabling this debate. I have been very pleased to have discussions on this with him and with other noble Lords. I look forward to working with him and other noble Lords who take a keen interest in this area as we review and revise our environmental improvement plan. I assure noble Lords that this Government are firmly committed to working collaboratively as we move forward to improve the natural environment.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and sacrificed their Friday afternoon. I will not spend a lot of time going through the contributions as I am sure we are all quite keen to get away.
However, I shall respond to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for whom I have the greatest respect, and I thank him for his kind words about me. He raised a mixture of points, including that some public authorities are already straining every sinew to help to meet the targets, that some of them have no capacity to do so and would not know how, and that for some of them some of the targets are irrelevant. These are all arguments worth exploring, and I hope that in Committee we can have a further debate on those points.
I have a particular point about Network Rail. Those of us who suffer at its hands travelling in and out of London all agree that we wish that Network Rail, the train operating companies and their public owner successor could actually get the trains to run on time and get us from A to B. However, it is nevertheless the case that Network Rail owns 55,000 hectares of land, is a neighbour to 7 million people and has a biodiversity strategy. Last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and I met its director of biodiversity, Neil Strong, and discussed this Bill with him. He was broadly supportive of it; he thought it would help Network Rail with its ambition to have no net loss of biodiversity by the end of this year—which by the way is way ahead of the Government’s target of 2030—although it was not clear to us that Network Rail was measuring biodiversity in the right way and therefore whether it would know if it had achieved the target. I do not think Network Rail would push back at the Bill if a duty were placed upon it, and it would be up to the company to balance that duty with the duty of getting the trains to run on time.
I thank the Minister for her response and for the two meetings we have had, and welcome her offer of further discussions. I took away a number of points from her response. The most important was that the revised environmental improvement plan may be a home for some of the ideas in the Bill, and I would very much like to discuss that with her.
Another important point made by the Minister, which I had forgotten to make and which had not been made before, is that this is about not just avoided costs but economic growth. The Government’s plans for green growth would be supported by the skills and actions that followed from the Bill.
The Minister also made the point that the Government are still relatively newly in place. She used the words, “reviewing” and “actively considering”. I take the point that many of these issues are under review. Perhaps, once those reviews have concluded, or even while they are being carried out, we will be able to discuss the merits or demerits of the proposal in my Bill. I am not claiming that it is a magic bullet, and there may be better solutions. If so, I would like to hear them, and I look forward to further discussions.