Environment and Climate Change Committee
Wednesday 9th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:00
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
Good morning and welcome to the Lords Committee on the Environment and Climate Change. For this morning's session, we will be hearing from the office for Environmental Protection, and I'm delighted to have with us Dame Helen Ghosh, the newly appointed chair of the Oep, and its CEO, Natalie Prosser, and we look forward to hearing your evidence. Before we start, may I remind everyone that the session will be webcast live on Parliament TV and that a transcript will be taken and made public.
Witnesses will have an opportunity to review the transcript and, if necessary, make very minor amendments. Members are reminded that they should declare any relevant interest the first time they speak, and this, of course, applies equally to all witnesses, which I don't think maybe is so relevant in today's case. And I will take the opportunity here to say that I'm a director of Peers for the planet. So before we start, may I come to you, Dean, Dame Helen, and ask you to introduce yourself?
Witnesses will have an opportunity to review the transcript and, if necessary, make very minor amendments. Members are reminded that they should declare any relevant interest the first time they speak, and this, of course, applies equally to all witnesses, which I don't think maybe is so relevant in today's case. And I will take the opportunity here to say that I'm a director of Peers for the planet. So before we start, may I come to you, Dean, Dame Helen, and ask you to introduce yourself?
10:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much. So I'm Helen Ghosh became chair of the office for Environmental Protection on the 1st of June this year. My previous career was 30 years in the civil service in a variety of departments, latterly as Permanent secretary at Defra and then at the Home Office. I moved from there into the NGO sector and became the Director general of the National Trust for almost six years, and then from there moved to my immediately previous role as a master of Balliol College at Oxford University.
In all these roles, in various ways, I had contact with the issues , the environmental, natural resource issues that concern the office for Environmental Protection, and therefore it's it's a delight to be in this role in this organisation, which I think can have a has already had and can continue to have a real a real and measurable impact on the outcomes for the natural environment and resources. So it's been a pleasure. And I have to say, my first two months have reinforced my view that it is a great privilege to be carrying out the role.
In all these roles, in various ways, I had contact with the issues , the environmental, natural resource issues that concern the office for Environmental Protection, and therefore it's it's a delight to be in this role in this organisation, which I think can have a has already had and can continue to have a real a real and measurable impact on the outcomes for the natural environment and resources. So it's been a pleasure. And I have to say, my first two months have reinforced my view that it is a great privilege to be carrying out the role.
10:03
10:03
10:03
10:03
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you. Well, my initial impressions of the Oep are all very positive. As your lordships will know from your previous hearings with Representatives. It has was set up, I think, very effectively. It's an efficient, impactful organisation. I find a number of highly committed staff and excellent senior team. I saving her presence here today, an outstanding chief executive and I pay tribute to Glenys Stacey, my predecessor, for the work she did to make it such a going concern, one might say.
I think the challenge that we now have with the experience of the last four years or so, but in particular with the resource challenge we face for the future three years, the current year and two future years, we have been given flat cash as our settlement, both for our English activities , activities in England and Northern Ireland. And that is a real challenge since it's obviously affects in is in effect a real terms cut.
So we are having to go through a process, as we do every year and have done every year in the past, but being very clear about what our priorities should be, focusing on the things that really make a difference, that are most salient to both the government achieving its environmental improvement plan targets, but more broadly that in England and Northern Ireland, the environment is both protected but improved. So that process of prioritisation is extremely important to us. We are just about to well, in fact, the staff have begun the process, but the board will be looking at the new draft strategy for the organization.
We have to do every three years. We have to renew our strategy, and that will be an opportunity for us to think about priorities and organizational shape and so on. And in fact, therefore, this appearance is very timely since the views of members of the committee will be very useful in feeding into that strategy review process.
I think the challenge that we now have with the experience of the last four years or so, but in particular with the resource challenge we face for the future three years, the current year and two future years, we have been given flat cash as our settlement, both for our English activities , activities in England and Northern Ireland. And that is a real challenge since it's obviously affects in is in effect a real terms cut.
So we are having to go through a process, as we do every year and have done every year in the past, but being very clear about what our priorities should be, focusing on the things that really make a difference, that are most salient to both the government achieving its environmental improvement plan targets, but more broadly that in England and Northern Ireland, the environment is both protected but improved. So that process of prioritisation is extremely important to us. We are just about to well, in fact, the staff have begun the process, but the board will be looking at the new draft strategy for the organization.
We have to do every three years. We have to renew our strategy, and that will be an opportunity for us to think about priorities and organizational shape and so on. And in fact, therefore, this appearance is very timely since the views of members of the committee will be very useful in feeding into that strategy review process.
10:06
10:06
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Indeed, I entirely support the statement made by my the outgoing chair and and acting chair when they were reporting on the most recent EIPEIP23, where they said, actually the most important thing in achieving the government's ambitions is to get nature friendly farming right. And that obviously, as this committee is aware, has many aspects, both in terms of support systems, protected areas, regulation and so on. So I think that's an area we will be focusing on and is a focus for our work in this current year.
We are also engaging ourselves in the issues around reform, reform of the water industry, which is in process at the moment following the Cunliffe review is of great interest to us because, well, certainly, among other things, we need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future in terms of the areas of regulation that our public authorities are responsible for, and we will be monitoring very carefully the what one might describe as the unfolding issues around planning.
So I think those are areas are if we look at what our priorities are for this coming year, marine is also a very significant area for us. And we have a major investigation going on. On the issue of good environmental status and the continuing failure of that to be achieved. So I would say nature friendly farming, keeping our eye on and playing a positive and perhaps innovative part in some of the developments on water reform.
And marine, I would say, would be our priorities for the next couple of years in Northern Ireland. The the absolutely central and and important issue there is nutrients and managing nutrients produced by the by livestock farming, as well as obviously sewage outflows. And our team there are working very hard on that in various aspects. Both investigations, for example, but also in relation to nutrient action plans and regulations.
So in Northern Ireland Nutrients is is front and centre of our work.
We are also engaging ourselves in the issues around reform, reform of the water industry, which is in process at the moment following the Cunliffe review is of great interest to us because, well, certainly, among other things, we need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future in terms of the areas of regulation that our public authorities are responsible for, and we will be monitoring very carefully the what one might describe as the unfolding issues around planning.
So I think those are areas are if we look at what our priorities are for this coming year, marine is also a very significant area for us. And we have a major investigation going on. On the issue of good environmental status and the continuing failure of that to be achieved. So I would say nature friendly farming, keeping our eye on and playing a positive and perhaps innovative part in some of the developments on water reform.
And marine, I would say, would be our priorities for the next couple of years in Northern Ireland. The the absolutely central and and important issue there is nutrients and managing nutrients produced by the by livestock farming, as well as obviously sewage outflows. And our team there are working very hard on that in various aspects. Both investigations, for example, but also in relation to nutrient action plans and regulations.
So in Northern Ireland Nutrients is is front and centre of our work.
10:09
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
Excellent. Thank you. Before I come on to members who have indicated they would like to ask a supplementary, can I maybe this is more for for you, Natalie, but I'll leave it to for you to decide who who is best placed to answer this. The committee has finished an inquiry on pet parasite medications, and we found that some of the chemicals the the ones that are used traditionally imidacloprid and fipronil. Fipronil are are being because they are so harmful to the environment, are being phased out in favor of isoxazolines and related compounds whose impact on the environment is not so well documented and researched.
My question is not really about the impact on the environment, but the committee found that we really could not get a handle on how much of these chemicals were in the environment, because that sells data was not open to available to us because of commercial sensitivity, we were told. And yet we know that in similar circumstances, for example, for antibiotics, that sales data is available. Now, given that the oops has a remit to to apply environmental law, I just wonder whether that is something that you could help us.
My question is not really about the impact on the environment, but the committee found that we really could not get a handle on how much of these chemicals were in the environment, because that sells data was not open to available to us because of commercial sensitivity, we were told. And yet we know that in similar circumstances, for example, for antibiotics, that sales data is available. Now, given that the oops has a remit to to apply environmental law, I just wonder whether that is something that you could help us.
10:10
10:10
10:10
10:10
10:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm not sure I can assist chair, with that specific question, but I think I mentioned last time I was before you that we have an ongoing concern about how we regulate chemicals more generally in this country, that we've identified that as a potential very serious threat. And I think the committee's work just just illustrates that in relation to a very specific chemical, we do have a small amount of work looking at the chemicals regime in the round, and that's really so that we can identify areas that we could sharpen our focus on.
We don't have a great deal of resource to attend to that, but I think what I would recognise, chair, is that chemicals present a very material threat to our environment, whether it's pesticides or pet treatments, and we are concerned that the system, the overall regulatory system we have, may not be adequate for dealing with that. So I'm afraid I can't answer your specific question, but I think I'm recognising the salience of the issue, and I think it does warrant further attention.
We don't have a great deal of resource to attend to that, but I think what I would recognise, chair, is that chemicals present a very material threat to our environment, whether it's pesticides or pet treatments, and we are concerned that the system, the overall regulatory system we have, may not be adequate for dealing with that. So I'm afraid I can't answer your specific question, but I think I'm recognising the salience of the issue, and I think it does warrant further attention.
10:11
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
Yeah. Thank you very much. I wonder if you could write. The reason why I ask is because I know it's one of your it's your remit to monitor and report on the implementation of environmental law. I just wonder whether there is anything in the environmental law that says that this data should be made available, where the chemicals involved have been shown to be so harmful to the environment. So I'll leave that there.
Thank you very much. Baroness Whitaker.
Thank you very much. Baroness Whitaker.
10:12
Baroness Whitaker
-
-
Baroness Whitaker
Thank you very much for your very clear exposition. You mentioned resources, obviously, and enforcement. Now, you're not the only body who enforces regulations concerned with the environment. So I wondered, first of all, how you liaise with other enforcers as to who does what. And also, do you have any thoughts yet about how you ought to prioritize enforcement? Because it can be very expensive?
10:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. Clearly, I think one of the. Outstanding features of the office for Environmental Protection is it has very clear purposes role legislation, and the board of the office has very particular powers in relation to its functions, and it is not true to say that we are the regulator of regulators. But of course, the public authorities whom we are regulating, whether it's the natural, whether it's natural England off what the Environment Agency in particular, and of course, Defra itself are are to some extent both partners in achieving outcomes, but also often the object of our investigation.
So again, this is something I'm exploring. Clearly. We have close connections with those regulators who are themselves responsible for regulating for administering various aspects of environmental regulation. But and again, Natalie has many years of experience of doing this. We have to remain close to them in terms of understanding. Being able to when when things get tricky on an investigation, you know, negotiate a satisfactory outcome for our purposes and for theirs.
So in that sense, yes, we liaise with them on a continuous basis. But sometimes, of course, life gets tough and we have to use some of our more. Powerful tools either to get information out of them in terms of an information notice, in terms of requiring them to carry out what we regard as the appropriate. Steps to to resolve what is a poor environmental outcome. So as it happens, a number of the heads of the key regulatory bodies, so Natural England and Environment Agency, because of my past career, I kind of know, you know, I know, I understand something quite a lot about the organisations, but we have to be both close and distant.
Of course, the other. Partner that we have in in a fundamental sense, in terms of the future of the natural environment in this country, is the Climate Change Committee. There are very clear lines drawn up in the act as to what they do and what we do, and there's a memorandum of understanding about their role and our role. But there again, particularly on the adaptation side, we have to understand what their view of the pressures from , sadly, the inevitable increase in temperatures and the impact on nature and the natural environment will have.
So, for example, Baroness Brown came to our most recent board meeting with the chief executive, Emma Pinchbeck, and talked to us about their latest report, which we will now be able to, as it were, absorb into our thinking about the. I would say we sort of operate in at least four dimensions, the three dimensions. But then time. And when one thinks about the length, both interim targets, but also the longer targets which collectively we're trying to achieve, actually the impact on climate of climate change, particularly as illustrated.
Well, as has been vividly illustrated this summer, is one that we have to have in our minds all the time.
So again, this is something I'm exploring. Clearly. We have close connections with those regulators who are themselves responsible for regulating for administering various aspects of environmental regulation. But and again, Natalie has many years of experience of doing this. We have to remain close to them in terms of understanding. Being able to when when things get tricky on an investigation, you know, negotiate a satisfactory outcome for our purposes and for theirs.
So in that sense, yes, we liaise with them on a continuous basis. But sometimes, of course, life gets tough and we have to use some of our more. Powerful tools either to get information out of them in terms of an information notice, in terms of requiring them to carry out what we regard as the appropriate. Steps to to resolve what is a poor environmental outcome. So as it happens, a number of the heads of the key regulatory bodies, so Natural England and Environment Agency, because of my past career, I kind of know, you know, I know, I understand something quite a lot about the organisations, but we have to be both close and distant.
Of course, the other. Partner that we have in in a fundamental sense, in terms of the future of the natural environment in this country, is the Climate Change Committee. There are very clear lines drawn up in the act as to what they do and what we do, and there's a memorandum of understanding about their role and our role. But there again, particularly on the adaptation side, we have to understand what their view of the pressures from , sadly, the inevitable increase in temperatures and the impact on nature and the natural environment will have.
So, for example, Baroness Brown came to our most recent board meeting with the chief executive, Emma Pinchbeck, and talked to us about their latest report, which we will now be able to, as it were, absorb into our thinking about the. I would say we sort of operate in at least four dimensions, the three dimensions. But then time. And when one thinks about the length, both interim targets, but also the longer targets which collectively we're trying to achieve, actually the impact on climate of climate change, particularly as illustrated.
Well, as has been vividly illustrated this summer, is one that we have to have in our minds all the time.
10:16
10:16
Lord Redwood
-
-
Lord Redwood
Yes. Dame Helen, you described three areas, very general areas as aims, which I would have thought would have had policy work led by accountable ministers, by a range of departments policed by independent regulators. So I think it would be helpful to the committee if you could give us one example of a recent unique intervention by your body, which has done some good and has been taken up with the headline of costs and benefits of it.
10:17
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Some I think there are a number of such outcomes. I would say, for example, the investigation that we did into combined sewage outflows was one such. It was clear when we did our investigation, and that's a matter both, of course, environmental concern, but great public concern. In that instance, it was clear that our investigation showed that there was essentially confusion between Defra and Environment Agency, and often as to what the regulations meant and what the standards of of implementation should be and.
It our clarification of what the the current law, including some important court cases, actually meant, has has changed the operational practice of all the relevant bodies to good effect. The issue about monitoring, of course, monitoring is something that where it is very important to us, I imagine we may get on to the subject of waste and later on in the hearing. But for example, the most recent report on waste inspections, which which found, as you know, all sorts of failures in both statement of achievement and process and outcomes.
We are very conscious there that what will now have to happen when the response from government is formally agreed, that the things that were promised to be done are really done in terms of combined sewage outflows. Of course, the monitoring is one where the data back to the data issue, the data is one that is available, is is available, and we will be using the existing data sets to do our monitoring and then feed that back into our assessment reports.
It our clarification of what the the current law, including some important court cases, actually meant, has has changed the operational practice of all the relevant bodies to good effect. The issue about monitoring, of course, monitoring is something that where it is very important to us, I imagine we may get on to the subject of waste and later on in the hearing. But for example, the most recent report on waste inspections, which which found, as you know, all sorts of failures in both statement of achievement and process and outcomes.
We are very conscious there that what will now have to happen when the response from government is formally agreed, that the things that were promised to be done are really done in terms of combined sewage outflows. Of course, the monitoring is one where the data back to the data issue, the data is one that is available, is is available, and we will be using the existing data sets to do our monitoring and then feed that back into our assessment reports.
10:19
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Thank you. I'll try and do short short questions if I may. But you're both very welcome. It's lovely to to see you here before us. You're on the record in 2025 as saying that progress towards improving the environment has slowed and that the government is still largely off track in achieving its legal environmental commitments. And in January, we heard that the revised environmental plan was sort of a little too early to form an assessment.
So are you in a position to form a more general assessment as to where the government is on, on achieving these? And if I give a specific example of the failure to to give legally binding species targets as sort of a.
So are you in a position to form a more general assessment as to where the government is on, on achieving these? And if I give a specific example of the failure to to give legally binding species targets as sort of a.
10:20
10:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yeah. Yes. As you say, I think we we found that in relation to EIP23, which of course is not the most recent EIP our report found, I think they were off track on 21 out of 43. Targets. The EIP25 the published by the Labour Government. We. We advised on how we thought the structure and approach of IPE 25 could be improved, and we do think it's improved in a number of areas, particularly around having.
And this is a persistent failure in. In many, many elements of the. Both government and public authorities, other public authorities. Implementation that there should be clear delivery plans, measurable outcomes. The EIP25 is better on that. It's not ideal, but it is better on that. We will be producing our report on their progress report, the government's progress report in January. And that will obviously deal with, as it were, two two halves.
It will deal with the 2526 year part of which is covered by EP25, partly still by 23. And then we will give our opinion on progress in that year. I don't think we have any reason to think that there will be a significant change that any of our. We've got this wonderful infographic, which sadly has a great deal of red and a little bit of amber and tiny numbers of green against the the sort of dartboard of achievement.
I don't think we are expecting anything to have changed significantly, but we do think EIP25 gives us a basis for. If implemented, if the. The measures are implemented for at least better delivery plans and better KPIs on the specific question of species and specific figures, I turn to my chief executive. Do you know.
And this is a persistent failure in. In many, many elements of the. Both government and public authorities, other public authorities. Implementation that there should be clear delivery plans, measurable outcomes. The EIP25 is better on that. It's not ideal, but it is better on that. We will be producing our report on their progress report, the government's progress report in January. And that will obviously deal with, as it were, two two halves.
It will deal with the 2526 year part of which is covered by EP25, partly still by 23. And then we will give our opinion on progress in that year. I don't think we have any reason to think that there will be a significant change that any of our. We've got this wonderful infographic, which sadly has a great deal of red and a little bit of amber and tiny numbers of green against the the sort of dartboard of achievement.
I don't think we are expecting anything to have changed significantly, but we do think EIP25 gives us a basis for. If implemented, if the. The measures are implemented for at least better delivery plans and better KPIs on the specific question of species and specific figures, I turn to my chief executive. Do you know.
10:22
10:22
10:22
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Okay. You mentioned water and reform of the water sector. Yes. When we were part of the European Union, there was a very effective enforcement regime where water companies were brought to book. And I believe that that's one of the reasons why we've now got cleaner water than we had in the 1980s. Do you believe that the current regime is as effective? And can I ask in particular, what work might you be doing on the Water Framework Directive and where? Because I'm slightly concerned that the Clean Water bill seems to have been delayed to to next year, the Water Framework Directive has been a key part of of the water regime in this country.
They've obviously moved on in the EU to a different phase. But do you have any ongoing work in that regard?
They've obviously moved on in the EU to a different phase. But do you have any ongoing work in that regard?
10:23
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We do. We are currently carrying out a. And one of our investigations of the Water Framework Directive implementation and outcomes. You know, it is well known, not least from the Court of Appeal, that the government is failing in its. To achieve its Water Framework Directive targets. So in that sense, it's already known that the law is being broken, which is, of course, one of the things that our investigation will highlight.
We are also and that investigation will conclude this year, I assume, and therefore we will be making that public our findings on that public. We know that the government, as part of its water bill, is thinking of adjusting the measures in the Water Framework Directive, insofar as in the current legislative arrangements, that is possible. That's, of course, of interest stroke concern to us, and we've already started to have some discussions of an informal kind with Defra officials and Environment Agency and others who will be involved in that.
So that is an issue which is very salient and current for us.
We are also and that investigation will conclude this year, I assume, and therefore we will be making that public our findings on that public. We know that the government, as part of its water bill, is thinking of adjusting the measures in the Water Framework Directive, insofar as in the current legislative arrangements, that is possible. That's, of course, of interest stroke concern to us, and we've already started to have some discussions of an informal kind with Defra officials and Environment Agency and others who will be involved in that.
So that is an issue which is very salient and current for us.
10:24
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
-
-
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
And just one last question, if I may. The government is reluctant to implement, for example, schedule three of the Floods and Water Management Act to make suds mandatory. Yes. They say that the planning regime covers this. There has been an appeal which has literally driven a coach and horses. I think it was Gladman where they literally just said, no, no, you don't need to worry about this. Just build where you like.
So do you share my concern that without these mandatory statutory targets, then developers will just be able to because without suds, you are going to have sewage spills potentially into existing houses and certainly into watercourses, because water companies are not statutory consultees are not going to be statutory consultees, and they're not given the tools to prevent the sewage spilling in this way. Do you share that concern? I will.
So do you share my concern that without these mandatory statutory targets, then developers will just be able to because without suds, you are going to have sewage spills potentially into existing houses and certainly into watercourses, because water companies are not statutory consultees are not going to be statutory consultees, and they're not given the tools to prevent the sewage spilling in this way. Do you share that concern? I will.
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Not specifically on suds, but I would what I do think is that there are some serious dysfunctionalities in the current system. It's one of the reasons we've focused on water framework directive compliance and implementation is that we think part of the root cause of why we haven't managed to grip pollution in rivers is because of the lack of engaging with why pollution is getting into the rivers in the first place, which the framework is meant to prevent. That's rather a concise answer to a long issue, but there we go.
10:26
10:26
Lord Jay of Ewelme
-
-
Lord Jay of Ewelme
Well thank you. Thank you very much. Welcome. Very good to see both of you here today. My question really follows on from what Baroness Whitaker was saying. I mean, the the office's functions, as I understand it, include scrutinising, advising and enforcing regulations and legal and legal compliance. Now, as you've already said, an awful lot at the moment is going wrong in the environment. And my question is, do you think you'll need to put more emphasis than you have done in the past on enforcement, and do you think you have the powers for enforcement, and do you think that enforcement will be a part of the strategy that you're drafting at the moment? More emphasis on enforcement?
10:27
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. No, that's a very interesting question. I think my impression after two months is that we've achieved outcomes and outcomes in a number of areas, you know, waste, sewage outflows and so on. By by making transparent the failures, by achieving a common understanding of what the regulations require you to do, which of course is an absolutely fundamental to our processes. And then proposing practical and achievable measures for the public authorities involved to change their practice.
And I think that has been successful. What we have never done so far, and that is up to and including, you know, the the , the the sub nuclear option for us is a decision notice, which we have done in some cases, and there may be cases to come on that what we have never done is initiated an environmental review, a judicial review in effect. Why haven't we done that? And I know some NGOs are concerned that we never have, partly because it's a blunt instrument.
It's a costly, blunt instrument. It doesn't necessarily, as we know from judicial review, it can you know, it is possible that it simply passes back to the public authority decision making rather than being this is the outcome. This is the thing you need to do. That's the thing you need to do. And that's what we have achieved short of using our environmental review powers. But I wouldn't rule it out for the future.
I
And I think that has been successful. What we have never done so far, and that is up to and including, you know, the the , the the sub nuclear option for us is a decision notice, which we have done in some cases, and there may be cases to come on that what we have never done is initiated an environmental review, a judicial review in effect. Why haven't we done that? And I know some NGOs are concerned that we never have, partly because it's a blunt instrument.
It's a costly, blunt instrument. It doesn't necessarily, as we know from judicial review, it can you know, it is possible that it simply passes back to the public authority decision making rather than being this is the outcome. This is the thing you need to do. That's the thing you need to do. And that's what we have achieved short of using our environmental review powers. But I wouldn't rule it out for the future.
I
10:29
10:29
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes. And, but I think just to challenge the we don't just comment on the we are challenging the fact that they're not doing things right. And we are making sure that they change their practice for the future. And that's this point about monitoring the outcomes. I think there are two possible scenarios for why we would use an environmental review power. I mean, one is when there is clear disagreement on what the law actually means, you know, when is an environmental target an environmental target and what behaviour should it produce? And if it is clear that we are not going to reach the kind of fruitful outcome that we want to achieve, if it's clear that we are so far apart from the public authority concerned and the outcome is so disastrous for the environment, we might do it then.
So seriousness would be one. And can we just have clarity from the courts as to what what the law means?
So seriousness would be one. And can we just have clarity from the courts as to what what the law means?
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Earl Russell
-
-
Earl Russell
Yeah, very briefly. I mean, in answer to the first question, you talked about the work you're doing on your draft strategy for the next three years. And then in response to this second question you've talked about, sadly, there's lots of red and orange and not much green. I don't want to go over the same territory as the last question, but I guess I wanted to ask you, fundamentally, we're coming up against 2030. targets really, really quickly. I welcome all the work your organization is doing to hold the government to account.
But I guess my overarching question is if, as a result of your work, government policy doesn't change in such a way that we're hitting those targets, what more can we do to improve processes and mechanisms to make sure that actually we don't continue to fall further and further off track? And what, what what is a strategy for you as an organization? Should that continue to be the case? Sorry, that's a bit of a.
But I guess my overarching question is if, as a result of your work, government policy doesn't change in such a way that we're hitting those targets, what more can we do to improve processes and mechanisms to make sure that actually we don't continue to fall further and further off track? And what, what what is a strategy for you as an organization? Should that continue to be the case? Sorry, that's a bit of a.
10:31
10:31
10:31
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
How can make systems? If you look at our systems, I think one of the things that the board will be looking at is the extent to which, I mean, we are obviously the starting point is what does the law and the regulation say? And are the people who are operating it doing the right thing, and then is it achieving good outcomes? So it has to look at process as well as outcomes. The depth with which we find evidence, of course, is something that could enable us to at least stand still in terms of the output of investigations and reports that we do.
They need to be I'm very convinced from my past life that, you know, the best can sometimes be the enemy of the good and our public. I think I said this to the select committee in the other House. You know, our reports are very thick and the details are there. But, you know, making sure that what we do and the work we do is, is enough. Not necessarily perfect, but good enough, I think is something and we will be be considering that with our teams.
I think the fact that we are so focused on outcomes and the fact that we are very focused on. Please have a well, you know, anyone who's tried to run any project knows that having a plan, having milestones, knowing what you're trying to achieve, being transparent about those are all the things that we build into. I think on every occasion when we've done an investigation, that's what we're trying to get the government to do in.
If you think of government targets and and 2030, I think, for example, we've done, you know, the EIP25 is much better than it might have been because those were the kinds of things we asked for. Can we have data? Can we have delivery plans. Can we have clear measurement of progress? So I think we can we are we are having a generic effect across the whole range of environmental issues, as well as the detailed effect on individual the issues that we think are most salient.
So I think that would be my answer to your question. But you know, we do hear times winged chariot hurrying near all the time.
They need to be I'm very convinced from my past life that, you know, the best can sometimes be the enemy of the good and our public. I think I said this to the select committee in the other House. You know, our reports are very thick and the details are there. But, you know, making sure that what we do and the work we do is, is enough. Not necessarily perfect, but good enough, I think is something and we will be be considering that with our teams.
I think the fact that we are so focused on outcomes and the fact that we are very focused on. Please have a well, you know, anyone who's tried to run any project knows that having a plan, having milestones, knowing what you're trying to achieve, being transparent about those are all the things that we build into. I think on every occasion when we've done an investigation, that's what we're trying to get the government to do in.
If you think of government targets and and 2030, I think, for example, we've done, you know, the EIP25 is much better than it might have been because those were the kinds of things we asked for. Can we have data? Can we have delivery plans. Can we have clear measurement of progress? So I think we can we are we are having a generic effect across the whole range of environmental issues, as well as the detailed effect on individual the issues that we think are most salient.
So I think that would be my answer to your question. But you know, we do hear times winged chariot hurrying near all the time.
10:33
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
Thank you. Before I move on to Lord tree's question, just a quick supplementary. Follow us on. Well, from Earl Russell's question in January 2026, Professor Robin McDonald, the chief scientist for the Oep, when asked whether he thought it was still possible to meet the 2030 target to halt the decline of species abundance, said yes, and I quote. However, to not take action on this point is a choice to not meet the target.
Dame Helen, you said that we need better delivery plans and we need better KPIs. But there is. I'm sensing a little sense of the urgency required to meet these targets. Those dates are just around the corner. We're not on track to meet those targets by those dates. Does the government understand the urgency of putting in place action plans to deliver these targets?
Dame Helen, you said that we need better delivery plans and we need better KPIs. But there is. I'm sensing a little sense of the urgency required to meet these targets. Those dates are just around the corner. We're not on track to meet those targets by those dates. Does the government understand the urgency of putting in place action plans to deliver these targets?
10:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, as I said and and the chief executive may well have comments to add, given her sort of longer time horizons of understanding of where we've got to, why we've got to where we've got to. I would say there is a real issue, I think, for us. And and it arises in at least one of our current investigations is what does a target mean? Is it just something we're aspirationally trying to trying to achieve? Or is it something that where we should be showing particular kinds of action? And that is a debate that I think will be particularly salient in relation to at least one of our current investigations.
When is a target a target? And I think getting some sense from government that they appreciate the importance of the targets. They're not just there for show, they're not just aspirational, they really mean something and they are taking action.
When is a target a target? And I think getting some sense from government that they appreciate the importance of the targets. They're not just there for show, they're not just aspirational, they really mean something and they are taking action.
10:35
10:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, some of some of the targets are in statute. Some of the targets are ones that the government has itself a taken on of itself. I mean, so for example, the the 30 by 30 is one that the government committed to under the biodiversity concordat. But there are specific statutory targets of which I think the only one that we think is on any kind of positive track is the air quality target.
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So the framework is very clear that responsibility sits with ministers for achieving these targets. These are targets put into law, recommitted to by the current government, that they're on the face of it, and ministers are responsible for delivering them. Our role here is to provide clear and objective evidence to the degree they are delivering on.
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, we challenge them through the process set down in the Act that we have done our pretty hard hitting, well, hard hitting reports on their progress since the statutory regime was set up. They have they have to respond. Parliament. They respond via Parliament. Our report is published in Parliament. In terms of transparency and accountability, I think it's a very clear framework and we will continue. We will continue to do that because that is our job.
10:37
10:37
10:37
Lord Trees
-
-
Lord Trees
Could I just ask a quick supplementary, though, on the role, if I may? One of the things I've been struck in our various reports on nitrogen, chemical pollution, waste in general, is how bad we are at seeing the value in waste. Yes. And and I wonder, apart from pointing out what's wrong currently with what's going on and so on, do you have any role in sort of catalysing, encouraging, nudging innovation in the way we handle waste, which would reduce environmental contamination? Hugely?
10:38
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, we have certainly spoken out very strongly in to say that the government should really fulfil its. I think it must be a commitment to have a strategy to have a circular economy strategy, which indeed pulls together all the parts of the waste cycle, you know, not just so not just how it is handled, but, you know, at every stage in the cycle so that the resource resources are better used . And that would pick up. So clearly, we have gone in on some particular elements.
So the waste inspections one.
So the waste inspections one.
10:38
10:39
Lord Trees
-
-
Lord Trees
Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much, Lord chair, I've got a question about biodiversity net net gain, and I'm wondering what your assessment is of the government's approach to that. And particularly, could we focus maybe on a couple of things. There was a suggestion in the government consultation that brownfield sites would be exempt from the brownfield, from the biodiversity net gain requirements. And I think the OAP objected to that.
And I'd like to know what the outcome of that is. And on the matter of water, we have done a report in this Committee on Drought and particularly the role of data centres and their vast potential consumption of water resources, and they're not regarded as essential statutory consultees in planning for water resource. And what are your thoughts about that?
And I'd like to know what the outcome of that is. And on the matter of water, we have done a report in this Committee on Drought and particularly the role of data centres and their vast potential consumption of water resources, and they're not regarded as essential statutory consultees in planning for water resource. And what are your thoughts about that?
10:40
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
We are very worried about the chipping away at biodiversity net gain. You know, we've got smaller sites being excluded. We've got larger sites. We've got the the the proposal on brownfield sites. We are very worried. And also, I think most recently in the nppf, something about a provision to say that the local authorities can't seek higher standards. We are very worried about biodiversity net gain and will continue to monitor the outcome.
As you as you know, we we commented on the planning and infrastructure bill that we thought that it was regressive in pure legal terms, despite them having taken on board some of our comments, but that it is possible. We hope that in practice it's it achieves it. It isn't regressive in practice, but being being is something we're particularly concerned about. I don't think they took if they made, insofar as we've made comments to them about biodiversity net gain, did they take anything on board?
As you as you know, we we commented on the planning and infrastructure bill that we thought that it was regressive in pure legal terms, despite them having taken on board some of our comments, but that it is possible. We hope that in practice it's it achieves it. It isn't regressive in practice, but being being is something we're particularly concerned about. I don't think they took if they made, insofar as we've made comments to them about biodiversity net gain, did they take anything on board?
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think there has to be a whole broader strategy about water resources, which goes beyond the specific question of data centres. We we are looking at a very serious water resilience issue. That's only going to be exacerbated. And we need to get very serious about the the new regime, through water reform, has to grapple with scarcity as much as it does with pollution. And that includes demands from business and how water is used and the type of water that is used.
So I do think it's a serious question, and I would like to see the water reforms grapple with it. It would be unavoidable, I think, for national resilience.
So I do think it's a serious question, and I would like to see the water reforms grapple with it. It would be unavoidable, I think, for national resilience.
10:42
10:42
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
And of course, data centres don't need to use water to cool. There may well be incentives in the current system to use water cooling. It's not the only option. And that's why that water resources strategy is so important. Because if water was more expensive to use than other other technologies, that might solve the core problem. Yes.
10:42
10:43
10:43
Baroness Coffey
-
-
Baroness Coffey
Thank you. Good morning , Dame Helen. Good morning. Morning. It builds on what Lord trees has just been raising. For openness. I was the one who basically wrote IP 23 arriving in the department. When I was told that it wouldn't be possible to deliver it on time, so we made sure it was. It might not have been quite as fulsome as perhaps was liked, but nevertheless, the key focus was achieving that apex target.
So I just wanted to get what level of confidence you have that the new Edp's are making it more likely or less likely to achieve that apex target, the one that's set out in primary legislation.
So I just wanted to get what level of confidence you have that the new Edp's are making it more likely or less likely to achieve that apex target, the one that's set out in primary legislation.
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:44
10:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, I thought it was EIP no no no. Yes yes yes. Environmental delivery plans. Yeah. Yes. Well we we wait and see. I mean in principle if the in particular if natural England has enough resources to implement and monitor and do all the things that are necessary to achieve outcomes, then they could be a good thing. I think they are themselves concerned about what is the phrase, the the, the measure of significant improvement.
Or
Or
10:44
10:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Overall improvement, you know, does it achieve an overall improvement? And they are, I think, concerned about how that is measured and whether it will be achieved, which actually goes back to the point about regression, whether or not they will be attractive to developers is another matter. And I think the sort of constant the chief executive referred to it, you know, BNG is new, and then you introduce something else. And then there is something else, the , the the welter of new provisions around the environment and planning is such that for anyone to understand it is a challenge, let alone for it seriously to have the positive impact we want it to have.
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So the overall rollout of EDP is particularly with the ten year time horizon on their delivery, I think it will be nigh on impossible at this point in time to see whether they'll have a positive or negative effect, particularly on the 2030 target. I think it has the potential, but it also has potential risks. But it it's far too early to know, but I'm very interested to see that first EDP.
10:46
10:46
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
Thank you. I was just actually trying to remind myself when that volume came on, what the government's apex targets are. And it is to halt the decline in species. Have we halted that decline in the abundance of species? No targets. So we're still on the downward trend. We're still getting worse and worse, let alone improving and protecting the 30% by 2030.
10:46
10:46
10:46
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
But there's an awful lot of detail underneath that headline data. So which which species are improving and declining. And you have to really get underneath it. Whether what is happening at the moment will allow that to flatline and reverse. So I think it's the 2042 target, which is recovering species that's really, really salient. Our view is that if the policies are not in place to realistically say with some confidence that we've halted, the prospect of that final target is put in jeopardy, it is possible, potentially, for the government to hit the 2030 target, but that might not actually tell us in a meaningful way whether they're actually on course for the real win, which is reversing that decline.
I think there is a lot of noise in the data at the moment, which makes it somewhat unreliable to say with.
I think there is a lot of noise in the data at the moment, which makes it somewhat unreliable to say with.
10:47
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Certainty, yes, our current investigation on SBAs wild birds is, well, I think, throw up some very interesting data of the kind. Natalie describes a wild birds being certainly farmland birds. I remember when I was at Defra, you know, plummeting in the 70s. And basically we were just about achieving flatlining. That's what we were achieving. And I think in some areas of species, we're still only just doing that.
10:47
10:47
Lord Rooker
-
-
Lord Rooker
Okay. Can I declare interest first? When I joined Defra in 2006 as Minister of State, Helen was the newly appointed PM, and when I left Defra in 2008, she became a referee for me. So that's on the record. I'm going to ask about waste inspections, but I just want to point something up about your organisation. In some ways it was touched on, but not in detail by Lord J.
Your organisation was really only set up following Brexit because we lost the ability to have fines levied on people who weren't delivering by the European Union. And I know, and you will have known as a firm when the fines were delivered, it did make a hell of a difference in the attitude of the department. Now, your office was set up to replace that. Clearly, you can't find the government. No, but it's the importance of why you were set up was to replace that really, really powerful tool.
And in a way, the thrust of our questions this morning has been how you're using that powerful tool. And my area of question is the waste inspection report, which found the Environment Agency's regime for waste sites to be inadequate. That's a very polite way of putting it. And what we want to know is what's been the response of the Environment Agency. Your report, the failing on almost every aspect of waste and following our waste report.
They haven't really done the business, as it were, in other waste sites have been discovered in terms of being proactive in the evidence we've had is they're not really itching their key performance indicators. So what's your approach? What has been your attitude to the Environment Agency's response to your report?
Your organisation was really only set up following Brexit because we lost the ability to have fines levied on people who weren't delivering by the European Union. And I know, and you will have known as a firm when the fines were delivered, it did make a hell of a difference in the attitude of the department. Now, your office was set up to replace that. Clearly, you can't find the government. No, but it's the importance of why you were set up was to replace that really, really powerful tool.
And in a way, the thrust of our questions this morning has been how you're using that powerful tool. And my area of question is the waste inspection report, which found the Environment Agency's regime for waste sites to be inadequate. That's a very polite way of putting it. And what we want to know is what's been the response of the Environment Agency. Your report, the failing on almost every aspect of waste and following our waste report.
They haven't really done the business, as it were, in other waste sites have been discovered in terms of being proactive in the evidence we've had is they're not really itching their key performance indicators. So what's your approach? What has been your attitude to the Environment Agency's response to your report?
10:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I will hand over to Natalie on this, since she obviously has been closely involved in this. We think that there was I think the Environment Agency had recognised some of their failures, but certainly not all of their failures. And we think that our report, particularly in relation to transparency, KPIs, process outcomes, has been very positive. And we are working and we'll continue to work closely with them on outcomes. But I think that's how we would summarize it.
We've
We've
10:50
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
been engaging with the Environment Agency for some considerable time prior to publication of this report, and if you've read the report, you will see that it makes for some very difficult reading in terms of the overall metrics and the quality of the inspections of regulated waste sites. And I should be clear, it's regulated, not illegal waste that we're focusing on. I think to give the Environment Agency credit, although that has been a difficult process of surfacing these issues, they have engaged really meaningfully with what we've brought to light.
They the response to our report has not been published, but I do understand it to be imminent. And my understanding is that all of our recommendations have broadly been accepted. And it's not just the EP that have brought these issues to light. There was a National Audit Office report along similar lines very recently, and the Dan review surfaced similar issues. So I have a pretty reasonable degree of confidence that the issues we've highlighted will be gripped.
And I think the the scrutiny and shining a light on this, which is an area that is often not subject to this kind of scrutiny, I think will be a motivating factor in those changes sticking. And we will be following up with the Environment Agency to see the positive change. And I think I think I have a pretty high degree of confidence that the issues raised have been taken seriously and will be addressed. And there is work to do.
They the response to our report has not been published, but I do understand it to be imminent. And my understanding is that all of our recommendations have broadly been accepted. And it's not just the EP that have brought these issues to light. There was a National Audit Office report along similar lines very recently, and the Dan review surfaced similar issues. So I have a pretty reasonable degree of confidence that the issues we've highlighted will be gripped.
And I think the the scrutiny and shining a light on this, which is an area that is often not subject to this kind of scrutiny, I think will be a motivating factor in those changes sticking. And we will be following up with the Environment Agency to see the positive change. And I think I think I have a pretty high degree of confidence that the issues raised have been taken seriously and will be addressed. And there is work to do.
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
So just just to ask a further question on on waste first, the the issue that the committee identified was so much bigger in scale than we had ever imagined, 38 million tonnes of waste illegally managed every year, enough to fill Wembley Stadium 35 times over. That is not the sort of waste that is fly tipped on the side. You know, the odd mattress or the sofa. This is organised waste on a very, very large scale.
We did not because the scope of our inquiry was limited to illegal waste dumps and time was limited and we did not look at permitted waste sites. So we're very grateful to the EP for filling that gap for us. But it has really highlighted where the bulk of that waste is coming from, and it is coming from permitted sites regulated by the Environment Agency. And what really struck me in your report is that the Environment Agency has been ticking the boxes off the KPIs.
When they obviously have not been met as not just met by a small margin, but have not been met by a large margin. There is large scale landfill tax evasion taking place right under the Environment Agency's nose. This is where the the bulk of the 38 million tonnes of waste is coming from. What does that say about our environmental regulator that they can allow this level of toxicity to end up in triple C sites like Hoads Wood and another one in in Kent.
In forests lands, you know, in protected lands, in open land that people live in. This is really quite shocking.
We did not because the scope of our inquiry was limited to illegal waste dumps and time was limited and we did not look at permitted waste sites. So we're very grateful to the EP for filling that gap for us. But it has really highlighted where the bulk of that waste is coming from, and it is coming from permitted sites regulated by the Environment Agency. And what really struck me in your report is that the Environment Agency has been ticking the boxes off the KPIs.
When they obviously have not been met as not just met by a small margin, but have not been met by a large margin. There is large scale landfill tax evasion taking place right under the Environment Agency's nose. This is where the the bulk of the 38 million tonnes of waste is coming from. What does that say about our environmental regulator that they can allow this level of toxicity to end up in triple C sites like Hoads Wood and another one in in Kent.
In forests lands, you know, in protected lands, in open land that people live in. This is really quite shocking.
10:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No, it is indeed. And I think when we produce our report on IPE 25, we will be saying that we think, you know, the current set of targets to reduce illegal waste will be are inadequate and lack ambition, and that they should be trying harder. And we don't rule out the possibility of looking at waste, illegal waste tipping at some stage in the future, depending on the success of of the various initiatives that the government's made in recently on illegal waste.
But I entirely agree with you. It is a shocking issue.
But I entirely agree with you. It is a shocking issue.
10:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think it speaks to the real need to have that waste resources strategy, because these issues are fundamentally interconnected. How we use resources generally, how that feeds into the waste system and how it all hangs together. And of course, this committee has found very, very serious shortcomings in relation to illegal waste. And we have found fundamental weaknesses into the regulation of the licence waste sector. Although I said I have a lot of confidence that those issues are in fact being gripped.
But I think all that lends evidence to the fact that how we use waste, how we manage waste, and the approach to it is a serious.
But I think all that lends evidence to the fact that how we use waste, how we manage waste, and the approach to it is a serious.
10:56
10:56
10:56
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
10:56
10:56
10:56
Earl Russell
-
-
Earl Russell
Yeah, very briefly, I too. I think the whole committee welcomes your report because obviously we looked at the legal side and you looked at the legal side and actually the false positives coming from the E inspections were extremely worrying. So I'm extremely grateful for you for highlighting that. I guess I wanted to ask you a slightly broader question. I mean, I think the government my impression is the culture in the department in the EA has shifted substantially. And obviously that's partly a result of media pressure, partly a result of our report and your report.
But could I ask you just a little bit more broadly about the issue of of compliance and the work of government departments? Is it are there lessons that could be learned, perhaps from the waste example, that could be applied to other areas of enforcement in government, in the ways that are actually your organisation? Parliament can hold other areas to account. I mean, is it kind of a case study that could be applied to other areas where actually we're getting false positives, for example, where.
But could I ask you just a little bit more broadly about the issue of of compliance and the work of government departments? Is it are there lessons that could be learned, perhaps from the waste example, that could be applied to other areas of enforcement in government, in the ways that are actually your organisation? Parliament can hold other areas to account. I mean, is it kind of a case study that could be applied to other areas where actually we're getting false positives, for example, where.
10:57
10:58
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
There have been multiple reviews looking at the whole system of environmental regulation. I don't need to repeat what they have found. And there are multiple issues with the coherence of the system in targeting activity against greatest harm, about the ability to take a risk based , rather than a resource driven approach to regulation. I think there are lots of lessons. We did publish a another report prior to this where we looked at inspection regimes across multiple environmental regimes, and we found really high degrees of variation in approach.
And that may well be driven by where funding is available as opposed to not. So I think the answer is yes, but I think it's a whole system issue. And we need to take forward these learnings, both from us and from the other reviews and implement change.
And that may well be driven by where funding is available as opposed to not. So I think the answer is yes, but I think it's a whole system issue. And we need to take forward these learnings, both from us and from the other reviews and implement change.
10:58
10:58
10:59
10:59
10:59
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I haven't we haven't looked at the specific economic regulation of Thames Water that would be somewhat outwith our remit. We did look at Ofwat overall performance in terms of its enforcement responsibilities and its historical under enforcement, under our CSOs investigation, and that has driven a change in approach on Ofwat. But we haven't looked specifically at their oversight of Thames.
10:59
10:59
10:59
Baroness Coffey
-
-
Baroness Coffey
about to say, you could imagine taking the Environment Agency to court, if necessary, for breaching the regulator's code if they've misled on what's compliant or not. However, my real question is, do you see a role for the OEP following up on basically enforcing the rulings that have been made by judges, particularly the ones in which you intervene? I'm very interested in the Pickering Fishery Association.
11:00
11:00
11:00
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Yes, yes. No. I mean, it's something that the board has recently discussed that it's all very well to say, you know, done and dusted. We've done the report or we've intervened successfully in the case, as in the case of Pickering. And now let's move on to the next thing. But in fact, we need to make sure that the things we said that the undertakings given are, are fulfilled and that the outcomes, therefore we hope and trust are progressively improve.
And that is something we are now. We are, as we always have been. But I don't, I think, shine a greater light on and put, when we're talking about our strategy, really build into our processes a process for doing that and, and using our relevant powers as necessary. Thank you.
And that is something we are now. We are, as we always have been. But I don't, I think, shine a greater light on and put, when we're talking about our strategy, really build into our processes a process for doing that and, and using our relevant powers as necessary. Thank you.
11:01
11:01
Lord Trees
-
-
Lord Trees
11:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I Natalie, can comment on, as it were, the history we have. We are worried about the current government Defra policy on SFF. I in the sense that they are putting all their eggs in that basket. They seem to be taking an approach which is if we can get the maximum coverage of species, and perhaps some of those people will then move into the higher teams, higher tier landscape recovery or countryside stewardship schemes, then everything will get better.
Actually, the SFI will not alone will not achieve the improvements that are necessary. So things like the under-resourcing of of the higher tier schemes are something that concern us. You know, 500,000,000/20 years isn't very much money for, for instance. Sorry, the second part of your question.
Actually, the SFI will not alone will not achieve the improvements that are necessary. So things like the under-resourcing of of the higher tier schemes are something that concern us. You know, 500,000,000/20 years isn't very much money for, for instance. Sorry, the second part of your question.
11:02
11:02
Baroness Rafferty
-
-
Baroness Rafferty
SFI scheme to address some of your concerns? Our concern is that they need to be putting more effort into the higher tier schemes. That will really make a difference to outcomes. And so in that sense, we . Made our view very clear, both, I think, in our report on IP 23. We are also. We're also initiating. And in this sense it's an informal report rather than an .
investigation doing our own report or investigation this year into what are the broader elements that will achieve the outcomes of nature friendly farming, i.e. Defra tends just to talk about its its Elms schemes, its support schemes. But of course it's as we know, it's a whole ecosystem. And so we are doing we want to put ourselves in the best position to give the best possible advice and comment on what Defra is doing.
And so we are.
investigation doing our own report or investigation this year into what are the broader elements that will achieve the outcomes of nature friendly farming, i.e. Defra tends just to talk about its its Elms schemes, its support schemes. But of course it's as we know, it's a whole ecosystem. And so we are doing we want to put ourselves in the best position to give the best possible advice and comment on what Defra is doing.
And so we are.
11:03
11:03
Baroness Rafferty
-
-
Baroness Rafferty
Gathering data. We're having a roundtable in, I think, a few weeks time with everyone from British Retail Consortium through to. The the real farmers, just to get, sorry, real farmers in a sense, the real farming conference. I couldn't think how else to describe them. Those who are passionately engaged in the nature friendly farming debate, so that we can get some picture of what needs to be done across the whole.
11:03
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Obviously, now as ever, it's all in the doing. But we have we have seen progress to give Defra credit. So they're not on SFI specifically. We do think they've taken our. recommendation in that regard very seriously. And I think the next thing is about how we look even more broadly about initiatives on farm, about the benefit of things like farm clusters and nature markets, and getting more. investability into nature. So I think there's an awful .
Lot
Lot
11:04
11:04
Baroness Sheehan
-
-
Baroness Sheehan
signs from government. Okay, good. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you. And thank you, Dame Helen and Natalie, for being so generous with your time and for appearing before the committee and answering our. questions with such. openness and, and willingness as well. So I know it's it's quite a challenging. Task that you have for you to deliver a scrutiny of.
11:05
11:05
11:05