Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that we are ambitious and committed to delivering on a shared commitment that was reflected by the parties to the global stocktake at COP 28, so we have ambition in that area. Regarding the EU regulation, the UK and the EU share a common commitment to tackling deforestation in supply chains. As I am sure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords are aware, we are committed to resetting the relationship with the EU, and that will lead to closer engagement on issues exactly like this on deforestation. We also recognise the need to take action to ensure that the UK’s consumption of forestry commodities is not driving deforestation. Clearly, business also needs certainty, so it is absolutely something that we are looking at along with the EU.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, since the Environment Act was passed in 2021, the deforestation footprint from direct imports grew by more than 39,300 hectares, which is larger than the area of our New Forest. Does the Minister agree that action is a matter of extreme urgency?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that we need to take action on this. The Government are looking at the best way to do so in order to be most effective. The EU reset is also part of that because the EU’s deforestation programme that it is working on is ambitious and we need to look at how we align with that. Also, the DBT is undertaking the responsible business conduct review, looking at the effectiveness of the UK’s regime in preventing human rights, labour rights and environmental harms, and deforestation is part of that, so other action is taking place as we move forward in this area.

Plastic Pollution

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to provide consumers, farmers and landowners with sufficient information on genetically modified precision bred organisms, and fail to allow devolved authorities to implement their policy choices in areas where responsibility has been devolved to them.”

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, for clarity, I express that this is a regret amendment, not a fatal one. That is due in part to an error of mine, but I am choosing to regard this as an opportunity. I know that many Members would not vote for a fatal amendment, but here is an opportunity for noble Lords to show their concerns about this deeply flawed instrument before us. I will listen to the debate before deciding whether to divide the House.

Your Lordships do not have to take my word for the statement that this is a flawed instrument. I am sure that many Members of the House have already seen the 15-page—yes, 15-page—report from our hard-working Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which the Minister referred. It contains a great many concerns about the basic workability of what is here before us today; these are issues that I will get back to.

In bold on the front page of the committee’s report is a suggestion that

“The House may wish to question the Minister further”


on the concerns raised about

“about the lack of labelling requirements despite apparent strong consumer preferences for mandatory labelling”.

The committee also says that Members may want to ask about the impact on trade and on organic producers. I would also add—and we may hear more—about the impacts on Scotland and Wales.

I am confident these issues will be at the centre of our debate and that the Minister will be pressed on them. Trust in our food system, and trust that the label will tell you what you want to know about what is in the packet, is clearly crucial. We have seen in the US —and, yes, I will use the phrase—“Make America Healthy Again” deployed very often. This is what happens when trust breaks down.

There are already signs of growing concern here in the UK. I point noble Lords to an article in the Independent published yesterday, headlined:

“A mobile app told me my kids’ food isn’t healthy—now I am emptying out my kitchen cabinets”.


The writer comments:

“Like many other mums, I’ve become hooked on it”—


the app—

“mainly to check if the food I feed my kids is any good for them”.

Before I get back to that, and in deference to the fact that many new Members have joined your Lordships’ House since we debated the legislation behind this statutory instrument, I will explain the background. Many will remember, I am sure, the public reaction, the concern, which started in the 1990s, about the possibility of genetically modified organisms getting into the food system in the UK. Public concern here and around the world has not faded. Courts in the Philippines and Kenya, to take just two examples, have recently ruled against GM foods. In January, responding to a Trumpian push to force GMO crops on his country, the Mexican President said:

“We do not want GM … We are a sovereign free country”.


We were told that what is being proposed under the legislation was different and rather than introducing genes from other species, the gene-edited organisms that this covers would allow only genes from other organisms that would have interbred naturally or genes that had been deleted from the original organisms. But that is not really what is happening.

Handily, Rothamsted Research released news in the past month to help me illustrate the point. It had proclaimed success in gene-editing a wheat variety low in the amino acid asparagine, which on cooking can be converted to acrylamide, about which there are concerns. This wheat might be handy for the manufacturers of processed snacks since it is classed as a processing contaminant that legally needs to be monitored.

As with so much of this regulation, we are talking about benefiting biotech companies and food manufacturers, not consumers. But Rothamsted acknowledged to Euronews that it had encountered a snag. Foreign DNA it had introduced into the wheat, not wheat DNA at all, had proved impossible to breed out so this wheat cannot meet the definition of gene-edited and very clearly remains a GMO.

That lines up with an informative—rather technical, I confess—slide that I would be happy to share with any interested noble Lords that Dr Vladimir Nekrasov from Rothamsted presented at a Westminster Forum event on gene-editing that I chaired last week. It identified challenges to gene-editing, including limits to the understanding of the genetic networks controlling key traits in crops, the recalcitrance of some crops to gene-editing, the difficulty of changing multiple genes at the same time, and the difficulty in ensuring that the result is free of transgenes; that is, foreign genes.

In summary, this is not a simple or predictable process. It is not a precision process. As I said in Grand Committee last week, putting the terms engineering and biology together reflects a profound misunderstanding of how life works. Engineering is fine for machines but not for biology. In that debate I pointed to the astonishing new discovery that mitochondria can migrate between cells. In another new discovery this week, phys.org reports:

“Scientists make discovery that upends our beliefs about how cells divide”.


We are messing with systems we do not understand, like a child dismantling a clock and throwing the pieces into a microwave to see what happens.

I hope that explains the legislation—which, unfortunately, already exists—so I turn now to the practical problems of this instrument, many of which were outlined so clearly by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. In the interests of time, I will be brief; I believe other noble Lords will be picking up some of the points I am making. I have already referred to the failure to require labelling of gene-edited crops. The Minister spoke about a register that you might be able to look up online—I think the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out how utterly inadequate that is for the consumer, that mum such as the Independent writer, who is there in the supermarket, wondering what to buy for her children that night.

Method-of-production labelling is common in our food system. It is what allows us to choose free-range eggs, organic milk or fairtrade coffee or tea, or which items are halal or kosher. Indeed, we still do not know how these certifications will regard this gene-editing. Labelling allows consumers to meet their own personal food needs and to shop their values, which is surely the cornerstone of a democratic food system. The other issues—some of which the committee has already covered—for organic farmers and food producers include that gene-edited organisms remain GMOs and must be excluded from their supply chain. This regulation does not allow them to do that.

The Minister spoke about implementing the legislation, but the Government still have not solved the issue that none of these organisms can be sold commercially unless it is first on the national seed list. Will they be a separate listing on the list? This is very much unclear.

I will briefly mention the devolved nations because I have confidence that this issue will be covered very strongly by other noble Lords. I will set out where we are at. An English producer can sell a bag of gene-edited grain or a tomato into Scotland and Wales and the internal market Act means that that cannot be stopped. But once those commodities undergo further processing and become flour or tomato sauce, under Welsh and Scottish law they have to be labelled as GMOs. I really do not see how that is going to be solved.

Going beyond the other nations, in terms of trade issues, a new legal opinion published in the European Union says that not labelling what we are calling PBOs directly contravenes the obligations under the Cartagena protocol—which aims to prevent potential harm to biological diversity caused by the movement of GMOs across international borders—to which the UK is a party.

We could see the EU lay down a phytosanitary marker that says that unlabelled English PBOs will be rejected at the border. It is considering the possibility of bringing in something like these rules—its labels are NGT 1 and NGT 2. I will not go into the details of all of that here, but it has an entirely different classification system from what this regulation introduces. The complications—and I am happy to talk to any noble Lord who would like to discuss this later—are very high.

Finally, I note that while everyone in this legislation and regulation is talking about food crops, we are in fact talking about regulations affecting any plant, including ornamental and wild plants, and how we could be messing with our already much-depleted natural systems. But we are going to hear, and have already heard, from the Minister about feeding the world. I am going to go to Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, who spoke to Euronews about the Rothamsted difficulties. She said:

“We don’t need any new varieties to feed the world. Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It’s an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it”.


I am pro food security, pro agroecology and pro working for farmers and consumers and not for multinational food companies and giant agrochemical companies. I am pro a healthy food system, and so I beg to move.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, it will be no surprise to anyone in the House that I strongly support this statutory instrument. Precision breeding as a method of plant breeding is safer and more precise than the random selection methods of existing traditional breeding. Above all, it is the speeding up of the process of developing new and urgently needed varieties that makes it so important in today’s world.

If you have 15 to 20 years to spare and are dogged enough to pursue your single-issue target with the millions of options available to you from the 200 or 300 hybrids you are breeding every year—95%-plus of which you destroy—you might eventually be able to produce a variety with the vital characteristics you want. But we do not have the time for the 20 or so harvests needed for the random-chance mutations that such traditional breeding provides. We urgently and desperately need to make multifaceted improvements to a whole range of crops.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and, indeed, thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to those who said it would not take more than an hour—I am sorry about that.

First of all, I thank the Minister for saying that the issues around the organic sector need a lot of work. I am pleased that she has acknowledged that there is a real issue there and that work needs to be done.

I am also pleased that the Minister, reflecting on the contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dodds, acknowledged that there are big issues that need to be worked through with the devolved Administrations.

I make no apologies for returning to the issue of labelling, and I point out that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also returned to the issue of labelling. We heard, in a very powerful contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, that this is not just about issues of safety or the technology; it is about public confidence. That was one of the reasons why I led with that in my introduction to the regret amendment.

I note particularly the comment made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that the Government do not have any plans to take this forward with animals. I point out that the Minister herself tabled an amendment when we debated this under the previous Government to take animals out of the Act altogether. I very much hope that she and the new Government will stick to that position.

I highlight in particular the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pack. I am honoured that this was his first post-maiden speech. It will be considerably more significant than most such speeches because any government department will have to look very carefully at its future use of polling and the kind of transparency it uses in polling. In saying that, when I reflect on the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I think he was using polling that the noble Lord, Lord Pack, had pointed out issues with.

The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others—I give credit to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman —spoke of their concern about the situation of Africa, with its young and fast-growing population et cetera. But I point out that only 11 of 54 African nations have approved GM crops. For example, 2023 was the UN’s International Year of Millets. Many traditional existing crops in Africa that were swept aside in the colonial era have huge potential for public health, drought resistance and all the other characteristics that already exist.

The noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Blencathra, and others, said we are not talking about genetically modified organisms. The Act specifically defines precision breeding as genetic modification and then creates specific regulatory exemptions around it. There is no question, legally or scientifically, that PBOs are genetically modified.

With regard to identifying so-called PBOs, the FSA ordered a literature review by an adviser to the Government Chemist that made it very clear that it is possible—and it should be done—to create methods to detect organisms that have been genetically modified in this way. Since it has come up quite a lot, radiation breeding is not used anymore.

However, I can count and, on that basis, with reluctance, I have no alternative but to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, suggested that there was broad support for his Motion, and I rise to broaden that support and offer the Green Party’s support for both these Motions. I have no personal interest to declare, but the Green Party declares its great concern about food security in the UK and the state of the countryside in what is one of the most nature- depleted corners of this battered planet.

The background to this issue is the CAP scheme area payments. The Green Party has always argued against them, saying that they were deeply flawed and that those with the broadest shoulders got the biggest shovels of cash, while smaller farmers and growers got little or, in too many cases, failed to qualify at all. Our countryside was trapped in a world in which the message delivered by a series of Governments was, “Get big or get out of farming and growing”. We had the Agriculture Bill, your Lordships’ debate on which I took a substantial part in. It aimed to focus on environmental improvements and, indeed, after the intervention of your Lordships’ House, acknowledged the importance of food production. The SFI was supposed to be the scheme delivering on the environmental side of that. As we have already heard at length—I shall not track back over that ground—it was literally slammed shut. Many different metaphors could apply, but that seems a good one to me.

Many farmers are now clearly in a profoundly unsustainable position financially. They are being pounded continually by the dominance of the supermarkets and multinational food companies and are being forced to produce commodities rather than getting a fair price for their products. My particular area of concern is horticulture, vegetables and fruit, which is crucial for food security and public health.

I am not sure whether anyone has referred to the National Audit Office, which said that delay in the rollout of new schemes had made it difficult for farmers to plan their businesses and created “widespread uncertainty and risk”. That is true of many areas of our society, but particularly our farmers: if there is no possibility of planning for the future, it is essentially impossible to farm.

I have one constructive point to make, and I hope that the Minister will be able to agree with me on this, or at least accept my suggestion. She may know that there is a fast-growing campaign for a basic income for farmers as a way of supporting small farmers and growers in particular to be agricultural producers. This aims to guarantee financial security; boost mental well-being and reduce stress; promote inclusivity, innovation and ecological stewardship of the land; and strengthen local food systems and public procurement. Will the Minister agree to have a look at the basic income for farmers campaign, and perhaps arrange to meet me and the campaigners?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to make a brief intervention. I have absolutely no interests to declare and I have no criticism of my noble friend the Minister or the Minister in the other place, the Member for Cambridge. In fact, in 14 years in opposition, he was the only shadow Minister who ever contacted me to ask me to talk about my experience of Defra and MAFF during the new Labour years of government. He listened, and that was fine—it was good to do, and I have no complaints about that at all.

However, I am reminded of a time when, at that Dispatch Box in about early 2002, when I was on my third ministry and the first in this House, I said that, in my experience to that date, the Treasury had

“wrecked every good idea I have come across”—[Official Report, 16/4/02; col. 837.]

in government. Obviously, the Chancellor was not very happy about that. The fact is that, three ministries later, before I left government, I was thoroughly justified. We have a classic example of this tonight. I am in favour of the CAP going; I have no problem with that—I am a remainer, but that is not the issue. I am in favour of reform of the CAP but, to wreck a good idea, it takes the Treasury. I do not hold Ministers responsible for this at all.

The fact of the matter is that you go back through the memories on this issue. The Minister talked about diversification. I can remember a very senior official saying to me when I was at Defra—I left Defra in 2008, so we are going back a little bit—that they did not really pay much attention to a particular farmer in the Lake District because he was not a full-time farmer, because he diversified into writing. That was what was said to me—it was because he was not a full-time farmer. Noble Lords are obviously aware of who I am referring to.

It is only my respect for this House and our procedures that prevents me walking out, because I have not the slightest intention of voting to support these regulations. I understand the rules about fatal amendments, but the Government would have to pick it up and do it again—that is the reality. We have the power, but we do not use it; as a senior Cross-Bencher said recently, powers you do not use, you lose, so there will come a time when we do not have that. I do not intend to vote to support this, so I will do exactly what my friend from the gym, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said and I will abstain on both amendments. I will not hang around during the votes; I shall go.

Beaver: Reintroduction in England

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reintroduce the beaver in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that beavers can benefit biodiversity, improve water quality and reduce flooding, among other things. However, beavers can also potentially cause damage to property and infrastructure through flooding and foraging. This means that reintroductions must balance the benefits and the risks, and be carefully considered and planned. Defra continues to work with Natural England to develop our approach to beaver reintroductions and management.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, although it is disappointing, given that the benefits of beavers in the UK are already very evident. I wonder if she is aware of the case in the Brdy protected landscape area in the Czech Republic, where beavers demonstrably saved the local government €1 million by putting a dam exactly where it needed to be to prevent flooding. Could not so many communities in England now be benefiting from that kind of protection at no cost?

Avian Influenza

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right and, again, this is why I regularly meet with both the Permanent Secretary and the Minister at DAERA to discuss exactly these sorts of issues. We do not want any part of the UK to be at an unnecessary disadvantage. It is really important that we support egg producers and poultry producers in whichever part of the UK they are. I am certainly happy to discuss his suggestion with officials.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware of the disturbing outbreak of H5N9 in the US where, for the first time, this variant of avian influenza has proved to be highly pathogenic. As a result, some 119,000 ducks have been killed on one farm. Given that H5N1 is also circulating extremely widely in the US—clearly out of control in animals, and with some human cases—are the Government working with and speaking to the US Government? No one is safe until everyone is safe, and the current situation with highly pathogenic avian flu in the US is deeply concerning.

Foot and Mouth Disease

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is probably helpful to explain the disease outbreak in Germany, in order to put it in context. The German authorities have put in place strict controls to prevent onward spread, and they are currently investigating the circumstances of the outbreak. They have put in very strict controls already: the herd at the infected premises and all susceptible farmed livestock within a kilometre of the premises have been culled; there is a three-kilometre protection zone and a 10-kilometre surveillance zone surrounding the infected premises, out of which no susceptible animals can move; and clinical examination, sampling and testing of susceptible animals in the zone is under way.

It is also important to point out that at the moment, it is just one incident and there have been no further incidents. Our Chief Veterinary Officer is in close contact with the German chief veterinary officer so that, if we get any further information, we can act accordingly.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in offering sympathy today to all the farmers who are fearing a repeat of the previous disastrous events. As the German Animal Welfare Foundation said, we are seeing a continual stream of animal diseases breaking out around the world, due to

“industrial farming and a globalised trade in live animals”.

Is this not a sad further reminder of the fragility of our global food system, which has huge implications for food and economic security, welfare and human health?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

It is important to point out that our animal welfare and husbandry standards are very high compared to many other countries. One role we can play is to encourage other nations to follow the example of our animal husbandry standards. Also, we have very clear controls at our borders to ensure that the meat that comes into our country is of a standard we would expect.

Flooding

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, the Environment Agency does important work here. Of course, monitoring needs to be effective: otherwise, what is the point in doing the work? The Environment Agency provides regular reports for many applications. Regarding his suggestions, a review of the Environment Agency, alongside all other organisations within the Defra family, is currently being carried out by Dan Corry. As part of the Corry review, we should be looking at exactly what the different organisations should be responsible for and whether that is adequate or whether it should be looked at and changed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I preface my question by noting with approval that the Minister finished her answers to the Front-Bench questions by saying that building higher only pushes water out. I am pleased that she acknowledged that.

We should look at the tone of this Statement and indeed of much of the discussion we have had thus far. The Statement says that improving flood defences and drainage systems is a priority. It sounds like how we were talking about this issue in the 20th century. Where has “slow the flow” gone? Where is the understanding that pushing water from one place very often pushes it on to another community, and pushing it from one space simply causes damage in a different one? Where is the discussion about nature-based solutions to hold water and release it slowly and gradually?

A number of people have raised the issue of flood plains. Do the Government recognise that the flood plain is not beside the river? The flood plain is part of the river.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks what we are looking at beyond flood defences—the actual physical barriers. There was quite a discussion during the Water (Special Measures) Bill about natural flood management and the work we are doing and promoting in that area. She may recall that we amended the Bill to ensure that we looked at more natural flood management schemes—nature-based solutions, as she suggested. We are doing that not just through the Water (Special Measures) Bill; we have made a number of announcements on this issue because we see it as an important part of the long-term solution. We need to look at long-term solutions, particularly, as the noble Lord said, because of the climate change pressures. In a way, building a flood barrier is a short-term solution because we do not know how long it is going to last for, so we need to combine that with longer-term solutions. Recently, for example, some balancing ponds have been developed with a grant near where I live. That is the way forward: barriers and longer-term nature-based solutions hand in hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Since there is time, let me say that I visited Lancaster after it was hit by serious and major flooding. There was a lot of assessment afterwards of how the community had been able to cope. It was found that there were not the community structures—the organisations within local community groups, with people helping out their neighbours, et cetera. We have just seen one business owner in Leicestershire rescue someone from a flooded car when their life was in extreme danger. Often, communities are going to have to help themselves in this new climate emergency situation. Are the Government looking at how they can strengthen the many communities around this country that are at risk of being affected by flooding, so that they can cope with those crisis situations?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that one thing we have been looking at as a Government is more devolution to local areas. As part of that, it is important that we look at how best we can support our local communities, because it is always those communities that pick things up when you have problems like this. Supporting local communities, whether that is our local authorities, our parish councils or our town councils, is a really important part of the work that we need to do.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Ongoing attacks show that we need to do more to protect the public from dangerous dogs. There has of course been a ban on XL bullies, which has been updated recently. That is there to protect public safety, and we expect owners to comply with all the conditions in that legislation. More broadly, we are working with enforcement agencies and animal welfare groups to help prevent further attacks by encouraging responsible dog ownership, addressing dog control issues before they escalate and using the full force of the law where needed.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have heard this afternoon the Government’s announcement on plans for substantial changes to local government. Of course, much of the enforcement of animal welfare regulations happens at local government level. Can the Minister assure me that Defra is fully involved in making sure that, whenever the changes happen, the animal welfare elements are maintained as a strong force in whatever new arrangements come in?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can completely reassure the noble Baroness that we are working very closely on a cross-departmental basis on any issues that cover more than one department’s interests. I am sure she is aware that I have a very strong interest in animal welfare and will be doing all I can to ensure that it is considered at every level.

Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.