Global Warming

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and much more optimistic than it might have been. I felt, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that we could have fallen into a bit of a doom loop, but thanks to my noble friend Lord Teverson’s tour de force introduction, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, called it, which gave good examples of how things link up, we have had a very positive debate.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for saying that we had not talked enough about wetlands, because that is what I intend to talk about in my wind-up. I will look at a couple of examples of how habitat restoration can substantially increase biodiversity, mitigate aspects of climate change and store carbon. Salt marshes and wetlands at the confluence of freshwater and saltwater are examples of this.

There are now 470 hectares of wetlands at the mouth of the River Parrett in Somerset. They are known as the Steart Marshes, which started out as a flood management project in 1998. I must declare an interest as my husband, Humphrey Temperley, was then chair of the Wessex flood management board. He was passionate and committed to this ambitious project for many years, so I have learned an awful lot about it. Under a different regime, it continues to thrive and go from strength to strength.

It is a multifaceted and, as my noble friend called it, triple-win situation. The mudflat habitat and tidal creeks provide nursery areas for fish, including sea bass, and overwintering migrant birds thrive. There are otters, marsh harriers and any number of species that had been in substantial decline. There is grazing for Dexter and other cattle and sheep command a premium price as salt marsh lamb. There is a lot of community engagement and Manchester Metropolitan University has estimated that, since the restoration, 30,000 tonnes of carbon have been stored that would not have been otherwise. It has certainly fulfilled its original aim of flood mitigation and management.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned that it is sometimes controversial to do things of this sort. Indeed, this was, but, happily, one of the irritants in the way of further salt marsh plans in the area has been removed. The then Conservative MP for Bridgwater, Ian Liddell-Grainger, said such schemes were a waste of money. Thank goodness the community by the Severn estuary had the good sense to replace him with Rachel Gilmour MP, who has a wealth of experience in environmental issues.

There are lots of estuary and salt marsh projects. There is a huge project under way in the Humber which I have not visited yet. It is being undertaken between the Wildlife Trusts and Ørsted, the huge wind farm company. That is an example of a big one and there is a small one that I hope to visit tomorrow on the Dart estuary between Totnes and Dartmouth.

My noble friend did not limit his debate to what was happening in the UK; he also mentioned mangrove forests. That is another win-win-win situation. When I visited Sri Lanka in 2011 with War on Want, I was taken to see a community project then in its infancy. Noble Lords will remember that in 2004 Sri Lanka suffered terrible effects of the tsunami. Also, shrimp farms and salt pans had degraded the coastal strip very adversely, affecting fishing and making the coast vulnerable to erosion as well as tsunamis. The tsunami provided the impetus to think about mangrove forests and the immediate protection they offered, and the community was replanting them. In 2015 Sri Lanka became the first nation to legally protect all its mangrove forests and a decade later, in 2024, Sri Lankan mangrove regeneration programmes were recognised by the UN as one of its first World Restoration Flagships. Both wetlands here and mangrove forests there give us firm examples of a win-win-win. Blue carbon sequestration in mangrove forests is one of the most efficient methods of sequestration in the world.

I have to leave the cheerful examples now and move to some of the questions I have for the Minister. I certainly do not accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, that this Government are worse than the last. She must have forgotten all the things that happened as a result of Brexit, such as no more regulation around water and air. The loss of the EU water framework directive alone should give her pause for thought. This Government are busy bringing in regulations that will make sure that some of these issues are addressed in the short and long term. There was also a starvation of funds to Natural England and the Environment Agency, which meant that they were not able to deal with the things she mentioned, such as the North Yorkshire issue. I feel that this Government are making a very good start.

However, I have to ask the Minister about neonicotinoids. They are a proven mortal threat to our pollinators. I mention it particularly tonight because the government decision is imminent on whether or not to allow a fifth year of derogation from the ban. I believe it would be an utter disgrace if this Government cave in and allow a fifth year of derogation. I agree there might be a bit of loss to the sugar beet growers but it is nothing compared with the loss of our pollinators. Each year for the previous four years the Conservative Government allowed the derogation even though the negative effects to our pollinators was known and proven. That derogation was subject to farmers implementing a strict rotation system but after four years it is unlikely that even they can comply with the conditions, because, as the Minister must know, you are not allowed to use the same fields that you have used neonics in for 46 months, so unless they are very large holdings, that rotational requirement is probably being ignored or not enforced. A further condition is that they monitor the levels of neonics in the environment and submit the results to the Government. Is the Minister satisfied that that data has come in and is it feeding in to the decision?

As I mentioned, I absolutely do not doubt that exiting the EU has had an extremely detrimental economic impact, but I believe that it has had an even more detrimental effect on our biodiversity.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, called for a soil action plan. I absolutely echo his call.

Finally, will we in some form follow the EU chemical strategy for sustainability, particularly to address the issue of forever chemicals? They are really dangerous: they turn up in drinking water, and they threaten not only this generation but generations to come. We really need a chemical strategy with teeth to make sure that any manufacturing does not threaten this country’s drinking water in any way whatever. The Government should look at having that sort of regulation.

Having said that, I am delighted to have been able to take part in this debate. I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

Avian Flu: Turkeys in Norfolk

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of avian flu affecting turkeys in Norfolk.

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

My Lords, following the detection of avian influenza in England, Defra has stood up its well-established response to control and eradicate disease. This has included humane culling of affected birds and establishing disease control zones to help prevent onward spread. The latest information is that there have been six cases in England—three in Norfolk, with two that affect turkeys. Defra will continue to monitor the situation and will consider a regional avian influenza protection zone if risk warrants this.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply—that sounds like good news for Christmas, because there are no more outbreaks in turkeys at present. As someone who once raised turkeys for my local WI market for Christmas, I can empathise with the free-range turkey producers. Can the Minister say how affected poultry farmers, who have the rest of the winter and of the 2025 avian flu season to survive, are compensated should they need to cull? Have the Government changed any aspects of the compensation scheme since they became the Government? Finally, given that insurance against avian flu is virtually impossible to get now, will the Government consider bringing in their own insurance scheme?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

First, the compensation scheme that we are looking at is the same as previously, in that poultry owners will be compensated for the value of the birds if they were healthy at the time of the cull. We have no plans to change that. Secondly, I am extremely aware of the complications around insurance. When we had the previous outbreak, I met a number of poultry owners who were having real problems with insurance. We are very concerned about this, and we will work with insurance companies to monitor the situation.

Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Parminter and her committee on producing this report. It is both an impressive route map for government and a salutary report, as it shows the scale of the work needed. As the report states, one of the keys to achieving the target, besides firm and unwavering government support, is public buy-in. This is what I want to talk about today.

The recommendation in paragraph 80 is that

“the Government expand the role of robust citizen science”.

The report underlines the importance of citizen science in helping assess the achievement of targets. It is undoubtedly also a way of capturing the hearts and minds of participants.

I still remember well, aged 18, doing my A-levels, recording everything I could find in my square metre above Pickering—I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is here today. As a southern, lowlands girl, I really had not seen sundews before, and it was thrilling.

There are many citizen science projects, whether by genus or by ecosystem, and I should just run through a few that are happening at the moment. I am sure that noble Lords have taken part in some of these. There is the Big Garden Bird Watch from the RSPB. As its CEO, Beccy Speight, says,

“With birds now facing so many challenges due to the nature and climate emergencies, every count matters. By taking part, individuals are not only practicing their own mindfulness, but they are also part of something much bigger”.


I think that captures what I want to say here very well. Then there is the Big Butterfly Count, which usually takes place during July and August. For amphibians and reptiles, there is advice on frog spawn, for example; or, in Scotland, on helping to restore the natterjack toad’s habitats. The UK Tree Health Citizen Science Network has been formed from a group of individuals and organisations working across a range of projects and activities that engage people with trees.

Particularly topical is River Watch, which the Canals and Rivers Trust is running in order to involve the public in checking rivers for sewage and other pollution. I am sure the noble Lords do not need me to remind them that, when the UK was in the EU, we were subject to the water framework directive, which meant that the Government had the responsibility to carry out detailed pollution analysis of waterways and report every year. There has not been a survey done along the lines of the water framework directive since 2019, so I ask the Minister what the Government will use as a replacement for the water framework directive survey.

Then there is Buglife, a very energetic campaigning organisation that involves people in monitoring both the good, such as grasshoppers, and the bad, such as the invasive flatworm, which usually comes in with imported pot plants. Buglife’s website headlines a quotation that I think is worth repeating here, from Sir David Attenborough:

“If we and the rest of the back-boned animals were to disappear overnight, the rest of the world would get on pretty well. But if the invertebrates were to disappear, the world’s ecosystems would collapse.”


I congratulate Buglife on outlining why insects are so important, and it has been doing it for a long time—for example, on bees, which have just been in the headlines.

Then there are the wildlife trusts. They are particularly important, with over 900,000 members and 39,000 volunteers, who work together to make their local area wilder and make nature a bigger part of everyday life. Local nature reserves are very accessible to people, and something that people can feel is theirs. We need to encourage this feeling that nature is both our responsibility and ours to enjoy. That will be critical to achieving 30 by 30 and reversing biodiversity decline more widely.

Although digital tools are terrific—I must admit to being a huge fan of the Merlin app, because I do not see all that well, and being able to recognise a bird by its song or cry is incredibly helpful—they just do not replace the actual experience of walking through that damp, mossy wood, finding the first wood anemone announcing spring or seeing the flash of greeny-yellow and hearing the yaffle of the woodpecker; or, even better, of lying on the warm summer grass, watching the blue butterflies and trying to identify one blue from another, which I seldom succeed in: is it a holly blue or an adonis blue?

I am sorry that the Government are not going to extend the right to roam. Too much of our countryside is still inaccessible to the public. In the year 2000, the Labour Government made such a good start with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. I am particularly pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is here because, as the Minister responsible, he really spent day and night, including many nights in Committee, achieving the outcomes of that Act.

The Labour manifesto mentioned nine new national riverside walks and three new national forests. Can the Minister give any idea of timescale for these? Importantly also, when Steve Reed was shadow Minister, he mentioned that there would be a White Paper on access to nature. That would be really important and should be an integral part of helping us to achieve what is suggested in this excellent report.

Pollution in Rivers and Regulation of Private Water Companies

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Addington, whose practical examples are extremely useful in this debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville on explaining so vividly why untreated sewage going into our rivers is an issue.

I will turn to something slightly different—treated sewage, or sewage sludge—and explain why it is still a problem for our rivers and land. Sewage sludge is recycled to land, where it can act as a useful fertiliser containing nitrogen, phosphorus and organic matter. The regulation governing this dates from water privatisation in 1989 and, appropriately, its acronym is SUAR, pronounced “sewer”—Sludge (Use in Agriculture) Regulations. Those regulations are over 30 years old, and were devised simply to deal with the human faeces element of sewage. But, in the 30 years since, the water companies have been selling more and more of the services to industry, so the industrial effluent element of the sludge has increased, as have the variety and toxicity of the pathogens, chemicals and heavy metals in the resulting sludge.

That sludge is spread on to farmland and, in theory, it should stay there, drilled into the grasslands that feed our livestock. Whether you think that toxic cocktail is a good thing in the grasslands that feed our livestock is a different issue, one I will not talk about today. But what happens as the ground becomes waterlogged, like it has been for these last few months? Farmers are given guidance to avoid run-off. The guidance says they have a responsibility to make sure that liquid sludge does not run off into roads, adjacent land, rivers or waterways. If it rains heavily enough to cause run-off, the spreading must stop. The guidance says that spreading must not take place on

“frozen, waterlogged or very dry ground”.

But, with climate change, the ground is nearly always either waterlogged or very dry.

The Environment Agency was very concerned about this growing issue of toxic chemicals, so it commissioned some consultants in the spring of 2015 to undertake a study of all this. They worked with about 50 farms and undertook a much wider paper trail review. The Environment Agency’s conclusion was that the trade in sewage sludge and other waste had changed radically, making it much harder for the Environment Agency, the regulators or farmers to know what was being spread on fields—microplastics, pesticides, residues and all sorts of other things.

The Environment Agency came up with a plan. It developed a strategy for safe and sustainable sludge use, which was published in 2020. It explained why the regulatory changes are needed—of course, there have been many changes in the supply chain industry feeding into the sewage sludge—and it identified the new hazards that were emerging. It said:

“Modern sludge practices may harm the environment”.


It proposed a number of things, particularly more soil testing and improved record keeping, and more upstream sludge treatments—such as the sewage treatment works and those through trade effluent controls, which are key—as well as better storage and pre-spreading control. It had a plan, because some of the elements in this sludge are very toxic—zinc, cadmium, mercury, chromium, selenium, arsenic, antibiotics, dioxins, furans, phthalates and microplastics. Is there a legal limit for the amount of sludge that can be spread on to farmland? Who sets the limit, and has it been changed recently?

As I understand it, there are no restrictions on using treated sludge on growing crops of cereals or oil seed rape, and treated sludge can be used on grassland so long as there is no harvesting or grazing within three weeks of use. Given the list of toxins that I have just outlined, it seems that three weeks is pretty minimal.

So there is a big issue here, and it is particularly an issue because all of those toxins can still wash out—and do wash out—into streams or get absorbed into the soil and so into the ground water. The water company or supplier of the sludge is responsible for the testing of potentially toxic elements in the soil. Can the Minister say how often that happens? Does his department actually see the results of this?

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, who is not in his place, said that this should not be party political. However, the party-political element of the issue that I have just raised is the fact that the regulator—the Environment Agency—did actually suggest the solution that we revoke the regulations from 1989 and bring them up to date with environmental permitting regulations. There was a deadline set of 2023. Well, that simply did not happen. Why not? The Government could have put all this into the Environment Act; or, as the Environment Agency suggested, it might need a small, additional legislative change. None of that has happened, however, and that was a purely political choice. So that toxic cocktail will continue to be spread on our agricultural land, and a large element of it will continue to end up in our waterways.

England Coast Path

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am most grateful for my noble friend’s confirmation from Natural England. I want to confirm the enthusiasm within Natural England to secure this path and all that it represents: 2,711 miles.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister correctly mentioned the effect of the path on economic development. What effect have the Government found it has on remote rural areas, not just on farmers but all the local economy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the figures I have for 2017-18 state that £350 million is spent in local coastal economies; that is with what we have already. It is estimated that it directly supports 5,900 full-time equivalent jobs in local coastal economies.

Brexit: Environmental Regulation

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Well, this member of the Government is delighted to say that the United Kingdom is a world leader on animal welfare and environmental standards. We will not water down our standards as part of trade negotiations; I have said that before. We are committed to making sure that any future trade agreements work for consumers, farmers and businesses across the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, what would happen to complaints already with the Commission? Are any arrangements in place for them to be received and acted on during the interregnum?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Yes, during the period up to 31 December, under the relevant clause—I cannot remember which—of the withdrawal Bill, there would be EU oversight of all the arrangements. The point, as I mentioned, is that the OEP is due to come in on 1 January 2021. It would then take over the oversight.

National Biodiversity Network Report

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Biodiversity Network report State of Nature 2019.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, we are working at home and in the overseas territories to address biodiversity loss. Partnerships between government, farmers and conservationists have seen particular successes, often through habitat restoration, supported by agri-environment schemes. For example, we have supported local recoveries of the marsh fritillary and cirl bunting and the reintroduction of the short-haired bumblebee. Our 25-year plan marks a step change in ambition. The Environment Bill introduces measures to ensure that the Government are held to account against our ambitious goals.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his recognition that the rate of species decline is dire. If we leave the EU, I think it will be even more dire. How does the Minister explain what happened at Defra when the then Secretary of State, Michael Gove, said about the proposed ban on slug pellets:

“Once outside the EU, we will continue to make decisions on pesticides based on the best … science”.


The best science in this case was the Expert Committee on Pesticides, which recommended a ban because of the unacceptable risks to birds and mammals. Defra proposed a ban, the manufacturers objected and went to court, and Defra just gave up. The ban has been overturned, even though there are perfectly practical alternatives available, and now thrushes, hedgehogs and so on are dying in their hundreds again. It is also affecting drinking water. Is this the sort of approach that Defra intends to take?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

No, it most certainly is not, which is why we are bringing forward the environmental land management scheme as part of the post-CAP arrangements. It is why we have published the Green Finance Strategy and why more than 370,000 acres in England have been set aside for new wildlife-rich habitats. I could go on, particularly on the international stage. All of this is because we need to enhance the environment. We will always turn to the best scientific advice on pesticides and chemicals. Clearly, that is why we decided that neonicotinoids are not acceptable. We will take action if the science directs it.

River Ecosystems

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the figures have shown how not only Natural England but the Environment Agency and the water companies have actually produced very strong improvements in difficult times, when everyone has had to retrench. River basin management plans involving Natural England, Defra and water companies are all about improving water quality across river basins from 2015 to 2021. All of this, and a lot more, is why water quality and supply will be increasingly important.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, among the most important components of sewage that have become more detrimental to wildlife are the pharmaceuticals going down the lavatory as part of human sewage. They are causing infertility in everything from killer whales to dog whelks, because hormones are extremely damaging to wildlife in the long term. Can sewage treatment plants do anything to improve this situation?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this goes back to the products produced and the importance, with research and technology, of alternatives. It is why our ban on microbeads is tremendously important. We need to do more, both in our own products but more generally with what we put on the land. That is where alternatives and precision farming will be very important.

Ivory Bill

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to be taking part in the Second Reading of this most important Bill. The Government are to be congratulated on bringing the Bill forward, as is the Minister on his excellent and comprehensive introduction. Given how much consensus has been achieved even on the trickier issues of antiques, I will not dwell on the detail of the Bill. However, I will mention some important points around it.

With regard to the illegal wildlife trade, bans work. Before 2005, the rainforests of Africa and South America were being stripped of their bird populations. Some species were driven to the edge of extinction, macaws in particular. Initially the UK was a bit reluctant to join in but in the end it lent its vote to the EU, and the EU trade ban came in in 2005. Now, if you want a parrot, it has to be bred in captivity.

A study in 2017 by scientists from the University of Copenhagen and the University of Porto, published in Science Advances, looked specifically at how the EU’s ban had affected the number of birds traded annually. They found that it had dropped from 1.3 million to 130,000—a drop of about 90%. Obviously 100% would be perfect but given that the trade is illegal there will always be some who flout the law, but I suggest that that is an incredibly impressive figure. Legislation in this area definitely has been shown to work.

After legislation, two sectors play a particularly important part in achieving the objective—those who work in the media and those who are in the front line. I congratulate the Guardian newspaper on its ongoing campaign in support of environmental defenders. Last year, 197 people were killed for defending land, wildlife or natural resources. In recording every defender’s death, the Guardian hopes to raise awareness of the deadly struggle on the environmental front line. This House should commend the Guardian for highlighting these astonishingly brave people who, knowing the risks, lay down their lives for wildlife. It is often about habitat destruction, which I believe is as dangerous for wildlife as the trade in the products. Certainly that would be true for elephants. If they have no habitat, it is hard for them to exist.

The Minister mentioned avarice in his opening remarks, and much of this trade is based on avarice. Some people, however, think that it is based on necessity, such as when river sand is taken at completely unsustainable rates for use in development. Others mine minerals of all sorts around the world, including copper in South America—which I have seen at first hand—as well as nickel. I went to Lake Izabal in Guatemala, where some of the last manatees on earth live. Very sadly, the Solway Investment Group, which takes something like 2.2 billion tonnes of nickel a year and claims to do environmental assessments, has put that lake under extreme threat and, no doubt, the manatees with it. We have a responsibility for the mines because they are often owned by multinationals based in the UK, Canada or the US. Agribusiness is another destroyer of habitats. It is the biggest driver of violence against the defenders I mentioned, in the drive for soy, palm oil, sugar cane and beef. There is an awful lot to be done about habitat destruction, but I realise that that is not the subject of this Bill.

The BBC has done a lot to raise public awareness. Its programme “Natural World” recently featured a beast that I really had not appreciated, the pangolin. “Natural World” did for pangolins what “The Blue Planet” did for oceans. The pangolin, a little-known, scaly mammal found in Africa and Asia, is apparently now the most poached and illegally trafficked animal in the world. The conservationist Maria Diekmann rescues and rehabilitates pangolins. It really was an extraordinary programme and anyone who did not see it should watch it on catch-up. It showed what one person working on the front line could do to build a campaign to raise awareness of the plight of an animal that most people have never heard of. What she did that was particularly powerful was to go to where the pangolins’ scales are sold for medicine—China—and join forces with a Chinese social media megastar to campaign to the Chinese people about not buying this product.

I again congratulate the Government on hosting the Illegal Wildlife Trade Conference in the UK in October and commend them for their lead on this. At that conference, will the Government recognise the role of environmental defenders with a memorial wall? In particular, and especially poignant this afternoon, will they recognise the role of Esmond Bradley Martin, whose ground-breaking investigations helped the fight against elephant poaching? He died after being stabbed at his home in Nairobi. Bradley Martin was a geographer by training but he brought the illegal trade to the attention of the world. He had been working on this for a lifetime, since the 1970s, looking in detail at the movement of elephant ivory and rhino horn, among other substances. John Scanlon, head of CITES, said:

“He was tireless in his efforts to protect elephants and rhinos … His research and findings across multiple continents had a real impact … He was a longstanding and highly regarded member of the Cites technical teams looking into the poaching of elephants and smuggling of their ivory. He will be sadly missed by all at Cites but his legacy will live on”.


This Bill is part of that legacy.

Bee Population

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, first I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on her very informative and excellent introduction. It is wonderful that she has such an appropriate name for this debate. She outlined really well that it is a toxic mix of habitat loss, parasites and pesticides that is affecting our bee population. The only thing to be said for the drastic reduction in some of the numbers is that it has motivated government and the public—and, indeed, industry, the farmers—into doing far more to counteract whatever it is that is affecting bees so adversely. Because it is a toxic mix, it has been very complex to establish which part of that mix, whether it is the pesticides, the habitat loss or the parasites, is responsible for the decline in which species.

The thing that continues to slightly confuse our debate is the terminology. We use the term “bees” when we mean honey bees, but we also use the term generically, as the noble Baroness said. There are 250 species of bee in the UK: 25 are bumblebees, one is the honey bee, and there are 224 species of solitary bees. Of course, the solitary bees are equally important in pollination and they have suffered something like a 50-year decline in diversity. Undoubtedly, a lot of that is due to habitat loss. Particular bees focus on particular plants, and I say to the Minister that it is important to bear this in mind when developing wildlife corridors. Wild flowers, as he knows, are not just generic. We sometimes find in seed packets in garden centres that just say “Wild Flowers”, but specific plants grow in specific geologies and at particular altitudes.

I think it is widely accepted that bees are declining—but, in fact, according to the last House of Commons research, 7.7% of species were said to be declining, 12.6% were stable and 0.7% were increasing, yet we know nothing about 79% of these bee species because the research has not been done yet. I particularly welcome the fact there is going to be research across the EU, known as PoshBee—it was mentioned on “Farming Today” this morning—looking at exactly what is affecting all these various pollinators. I congratulate the Government on endorsing the proposal to ban the outdoor use of the three sorts of neonics. Research is undoubtedly very important. We have organisations in this country, such as the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and the Natural Environment Research Council, all applying their minds to it.

I hope and expect that when the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, comes to speak, he will be a bit less excoriating than he has been in the past about green groups and a bit less defensive of neonicotinoids, because the fact is that research proves that there are a lot of unknowns in this area—so it is quite right that these questions are asked. I know it makes for lively reading on his blog to be dismissive of many pieces of research that have been done, but I think that probably, as somebody who has done so much work in the area of science, and exploring it, he can accept that there is a lot still to be explored in this area.

I welcome the fact that there is going to be a new Bill on a national network of pollinator corridors. We definitely need species-rich wildflower habitats. I am sure that many noble Lords speaking in this debate will have read The Moth Snowstorm by Michael McCarthy, in which he makes the very good point that we really need to engage our natural wish to nurture nature and our natural propensity to take joy in nature. That will be far more motivating to people than sustainable development policies. I am not dismissing the policies, because there is a need for government action and policies, but there is a huge need for public motivation.

For example, we could say that it is not just pesticides but herbicides that are a threat to pollinators. Weed killing can take out all sorts of the food elements that a bee will depend on. There is also the close mowing of lawns, because clover in a lawn is a rich source of nectar, as are dandelions and thistles. I am worried about the herbicides which wipe out every bit of food that a pollinator might hope to find. Lawns made of Astroturf are the final straw: they will not provide anything for any pollinator. So there is lots of action that the public can take. I have seen many designs of bee hotels, which are really interesting. I am looking forward to building one over the summer out of pellets, old flowerpots and so on.

When it comes to farmers, there is also much going on that we can welcome. The Crop Protection Association sent a helpful briefing on its BeeConnected scheme, which talks about how the responsible farmer or grower will be obliged to tell beekeepers when they are going to spray. That is a great step forward that will allow beekeepers to take the necessary precautions—what about the 249 other species that are not looked after by a beekeeper? They will be out and about, soaking up the pesticide. That is an issue on which I hope the Government and industry will work together and will think about.

In vineyards, which I know a bit about as I have one, pyrethrum use is allowed under the organic regime but it is actually more toxic than many of the modern mite-focused sprays. Again, organic regulations need to be looked at to make sure that they are as up to date and pollinator-friendly as possible.

Finally, I ask the Minister for some clarification about protection for local wildlife sites, which will be really important in this pollinator corridor work. Protection status was called into question under the new planning policy framework. When I asked a Question on this—HL7636—the Answer said that the Housing Minister had written to all Peers and MPs clarifying protections for local wildlife sites. Well, I have not had a letter. Perhaps other noble Lords have. Perhaps the Minister can say that he will make this letter publicly available and clarify that the Government do not intend to change planning protection for local wildlife sites.