Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Report stage
Tuesday 18th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, I add our Benches’ support for Amendment 139 and will make three brief points. The first has been touched on by other Members, but I do not think the figures have been set out as strongly as they need to be.

If the Government are to achieve their 30 by 30 target by 2030, which is seven years away, they will have to rapidly increase the amount of protected areas that we have in the UK. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, 25% of our protected areas are national parks and AONBs—15% of them AONBs and 10% national parks. If we do not use the opportunities in those protected landscapes, it is frankly inconceivable that we will be able to get to 30 by 30. We cannot just extrapolate and say that all those areas will be able to equate to the 30 by 30 target, but the strongest increases in purposes will enable the landowners, and people who care for that land, to help move towards that target.

The second issue is connectivity, which the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, touched on. Given the size of the national parks and AONBs, and given the threats to our species and the impacts of climate change, we know that we need more connectivity between our sites. These large areas of our national parks and AONBs offer the best opportunities, if not for 30 by 30 then for providing areas of respite and connectivity for species. I wanted to highlight that point.

My third point has been touched on by other Members and I just want to reiterate it. This amendment gives equal weight to the other existing statutory purposes for national parks and AONBs. It does not say that nature is above the requirements for economic activity in them, which we accept, or above the rights of people to live and work in—and enjoy—a national park, which we accept. It is saying that, at the moment, it is not on a level playing field, and given the nature biodiversity crisis that we have, we need all the statutory purposes to be on a level. We need people to work; we need our farmers; we need people to want to live there.

With the AONB where I am in Surrey, I know how much nature underpins the economic activity and businesses—the food producers and wood crafters. We need all that activity. We are not saying that nature needs to be above that but that, at the moment, as the Government themselves admitted in the Glover review response, the terminology—to conserve and enhance—is not strong enough. That is what the Government said; that it is not strong enough and that they would do something about it. This is the chance to give it that level pegging and this is the Bill to do it in. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says, if the Minister is not prepared to accept the wording, can he please be clear in explaining why not?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say how much we support the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown. We have heard that it would deliver a new focus on nature by implementing the key recommendations from the Glover review of protected landscapes, all of which were previously agreed by the Government. This is an opportunity to move forward on them and I really hope that the Minister can give us some hope that we are going to achieve some of that.

Environment (Local Nature Recovery Strategies) (Procedure) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief, given the steer that was given that there was only half an hour for the dinner break, and there are other speakers to come after me. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for bringing forward this debate. Not only is she right to highlight the inadequacies in the statutory guidance; it also provides a vital opportunity to raise the issue which has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lord Teverson. It is that unless local nature recovery strategies have a sufficiently strong statutory underpinning, when the rubber hits the road and they actually come into contact with local planning authorities, they are not going to be able to do the job that we all want them to do.

I was at the same reception as my noble friend Lord Teverson. The Secretary of State there made it clear that she thought that LNRSs were a critical means of delivering on the ambition to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. She is absolutely right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we all agree on this. We really congratulate the Government on bringing forward local nature recovery strategies, but we need to do all we can now, at this critical juncture, to make sure they work.

I am not an expert on whether we need one single data format or not. I will take advice from the expert, the noble Baroness, Lady Willis. All I would say is that our committee has been looking at the issue of protected areas. I do not think it would be breaking confidence to say that the paucity of monitoring information out there and the lack of standardisation is already a problem; so let us not add to that but instead create mechanisms so that local planning authorities, farm managers and local developers can see what is important.

I want to ram home this point. I know it is a point that the Minister understands, and I am grateful, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that he did agree to meet us to talk about why the wording in the Environment Act in the moment, “have regard to”, is not sufficient. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, also referred to it. It does not matter if the Government transpose it into the LUR Bill; it has got to be much stronger than that. There has to be a significant strengthening to ensure that local planning authorities, as opposed to just the upper tiers, really take this forward. We need a stronger steer on them and we need reporting back.

I urge the Minister to carry on having discussions with noble Lords around the Chamber who are with him in his intentions. We need to make sure that the opportunities in the LUR Bill are taken.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, for her expert introduction to her concerns about the statutory instrument before us today. We know the local nature recovery strategies have a really important role to play in delivering on the Environment Act targets and of course the commitment to protect 30% of land, as noble Lords have said.

If you have these regulations, it is also important that they are then actually able to meet their policy objectives. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that this is a missed opportunity if we do not do that. Clearly a number of noble Lords have talked about the Environment Act, and the fact that it makes it clear that the local nature recovery strategies should give equal consideration to both habitats and species. I think that is a really important part of it.

I would also like to reiterate what my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, have said. We have all been incredibly supportive of what the Government are trying to achieve. Having said that, the Wildlife and Countryside Link has expressed concerns to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about exactly how this is going to be delivered. I think that is what a lot of the concerns expressed today are actually about.

One thing it drew attention to was the recommendation from environmental groups that a species expert hub should be set up as part of the preparation process. It would be designed to identify a national priority list for species groups and—thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said about the need for a local focus—would provide advice for individual local nature recovery strategies about what their local species priorities should be. So, there is a recognition that we need more support for those local strategies.

However, the regulations and guidance do not include such a hub. While direction to take reasonable steps to identify local nature sites is given to authorities through regulation 6, there is no corresponding regulation requiring efforts to identify local key species considerations. The Government responded to the concerns raised by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, but this particular question was not addressed. So, can I ask the Minister why Defra has decided not to progress these plans for a species expert hub?

We also know that the amount of weight given to LNRSs in the planning system has been raised, both in this debate and by others, as a concern. The regulations impose several duties on local authorities to help the successful preparation of LNRSs, including engaging with other authorities on consultation and strategy, for example. The concern is that, although the regulations do this, they omit the most consequential duty: the requirement to deliver the objectives of the local nature recovery strategy through the relevant local authority’s development plan—which, of course, is why this issue has also come up in the levelling-up Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and my noble friend Lady Jones said, what is really concerning is that authorities are required to have only a general regard to LNRSs in making planning decisions. That is a pretty weak duty. We tabled amendments to require a stronger duty, but the Government did not want to take them on board. Again, that is why we have returned to this issue in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill.

In Committee, the Minister pledged to reflect on the case for greater planning weight for LNRSs. As we move into Report, we will continue to seek progress on this, particularly through the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Jones and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Will the reflections the Minister has been carrying out lead to the Government accepting my noble friend’s amendment—or would they consider tabling an amendment of their own—in order to strengthen the position of LNRSs within our planning legislation? As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, these decisions need to be embedded in the planning system if we are to make genuine progress.

Concerns have recently been raised about the Government’s ongoing commitment to the environment. I do not doubt the Minister’s commitment at all, but the recently published Climate Change Committee report has some worrying comments in the foreword written by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, including the paragraph where he says:

“I urge Government to find the courage to place climate change once again at the heart of its leadership. It would be a terrible error if we in Britain hesitate just as the rest of the world wakes up to the opportunity of Net Zero”.


The report also notes:

“Land use and agriculture in England remains one of the few sectors where the Government has not set out a coherent, strategic approach to coordinated policy to meet the multiple needs for land”.


Both the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned ELMS as a way to drive the strategy forward. The report also notes that the land use strategy will be important for biodiversity, but warns that it

“must clearly outline the relationships and interactions with other relevant strategies and action plans across the UK”.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the strategy will work alongside local nature recovery strategies rather than building in more layers of complexity?

The report also mentions the spatial planning system, noting that it

“continues to cause issues, with inconsistent and misaligned decisions undermining local efforts to deliver Net Zero actions. The Government has committed to undertake a full review of the National Planning Policy Framework … to ensure it contributes to mitigation and adaptation as fully as possible”.

As local nature recovery strategies will interact with the NPPF and form part of the biodiversity net gain requirements, how will these different schemes interact?

Finally, in his resignation letter, former Minister the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, wrote:

“Our efforts on a wide range of domestic environmental issues have simply ground to a standstill”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, demonstrated her expertise in her excellent introduction. I am sure we will all listen carefully to the Minister’s response to see whether he is able both to reassure her on these issues and to restore some confidence in his Government’s commitment and approach to the environment.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we have heard the arguments made by those who argue for the exclusion of all animals with great sympathy. We think that both noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made good points. Their arguments around the concerns that the public have are extremely well made. I merely add one other reason why their case is strong, which has not been referred to, which is the evidence that was produced from ACRE, which the Minister referred to. What he did not make clear in his remarks was that ACRE said that in terms of unintended consequences, and DNA being retained in organisms used through this process, the likelihood of that happening is far higher with animals than it is with plants. That is another strong argument for a slower approach to proceeding with gene editing. I do not think anybody is saying that gene editing does not have any benefits, but we should be taking that slower approach, both because of how the public have shown their concern over animals and because of the advice from ACRE that that argument has merit.

I understand where the Government are coming from and therefore I have proposed four amendments in this group that would limit gene editing to just farmed animals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may have concerns over the wording I chose. My wording was chosen merely because that was the defined use in a previous piece of legislation, so we would not have to argue about what the term meant. I think it is useful in Committee to be probing the Government on excluding farmed animals for a number of reasons. First, as a number of colleagues have said, when we look at other particular areas, such as companion animals, it is not just the welfare treatment of companion animals, it is the actual characteristics that are being bred. Let us think about cropped ears or short muzzles for dogs. Those are not the sorts of things the public would like to see this legislation being used to introduce.

Equally, in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, there is the potential for an enormous number of unintended consequences if this technique is used for wild animals, not only for the animals themselves but for the biodiversity and ecosystems around them. There is a real worry at this stage, which causes me to feel that, if animals are to be included, it would be sensible to restrict editing to farmed animals. There are two other reasons why I think it is important. The first is that it is all the public have been asked about. The Minister talked about how the FSA and the department have been consulting the public; they have consulted with the public only on farm animals, not on the use of animals more broadly. The public have had no say in that at all, so I do not think it is right or proper that we should proceed with a piece of legislation with such huge implications for animals, given public concern that could threaten the capacity of this technology, which does have benefits, to be accepted by the public. They have had no say on companion animals or wild animals. Yes, they have had some say on farmed animals, but not more broadly. That is one concern I have.

My second concern is one that I raised at Second Reading, when I asked the Minister who else in the industry, in the scientific community, in the academic community and in the veterinary community had asked for anything other than farmed animals. The response was, no one. This is about the Government, in their terms, future proofing the legislation, but I do not believe it is appropriate to go beyond what people have been asked about, be it the public, the academics, the veterinarians, the scientists, business organisations, Rothamsted or anyone. No one has been making a case for anything beyond farmed animals, so I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up. On these Benches, we would prefer animals to be excluded in their entirety and to proceed more slowly. But, if that is not the case, we think there is an extremely strong case at the moment to limit it to farm animals. We are looking for a rather better response from the Minister than he gave at Second Reading as to why he thinks it is appropriate that anything beyond farmed animals should be included in this legislation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but many of them are consequential, so I will not go through them one by one. I have also added my name to Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have supported other amendments in this group, such as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The reason for this is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, there is a wider debate as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included or just some. That is why I put down a lot of amendments in this group. It is an area on which we really need to have proper debate and consideration, because it fundamentally changes much of what the Bill is trying to achieve if you have not just animals but all animals within the Bill, and without any timescales as to when these are going to be included.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Winston, because this is slightly different from any other discussion that we have had. It states that the legislation should not apply to equines or rhesus monkeys, for example. He also stressed that he was very cautious about including animals right at the start of the Bill. We will be very interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend, because it is a different area that he has raised.

I mentioned at Second Reading that I was concerned about the introduction of animals and how they have been included in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised an important point as to what was discussed with the public in the earlier stages that led up to the legislation in front of us. All the secondary legislation that preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals; likewise, much of the Government’s language and discussion focused on plants, not animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the consultation that was held by Defra referenced animals, but they did not seem to be the main focus of attention. Moreover, references to animals focused completely on farm animals. Many stakeholder groups were not expecting the Government to include animals in the Bill, which is partly why many are quite taken aback and have raised concerns.

If you look at the Bill, you will also see evidence of the lack of concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out. In many aspects, the Bill is a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions or provisions on its face. It also delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers, not only to bring in an awful lot of secondary legislation but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause, which I am sure that, at some point, we will get on to debate.

No one disputes that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to tackle avian flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution to these kinds of diseases, it would be hugely beneficial—not just in a financial sense, with much of the Bill focused on marketing, but also in terms of welfare.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the fact that he strongly supports animals in the Bill. I believe that that is because he is looking at the welfare aspects of this. However, I am concerned that he may be a little gung-ho about how quickly we need to move forward on this. I agree with him that we need to strengthen animal welfare laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, talked about the importance of breeding to remove disease and produce resistance to disease. I completely understand those arguments, but I am concerned that we may be moving too quickly without the regulatory framework that needs to be in place and without the considerations that we need to have around the inclusion of animals.

The other thing I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is the fact that the European Union timetable also indicates plants, not animals. Have the Government considered the implications of the EU moving ahead just with plants at this stage if we have animals as well? A large number of animal welfare organisations have expressed concerns; I ought to declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which is one of the groups that has said it is concerned about this Bill.

The RSPCA, which has already been mentioned, produced a particularly good briefing as to what these concerns are. Its thoughts are that, ideally, the Bill should not cover any animals but, if it does, it should be limited to farm animals only. We have heard a lot of arguments today as to why that should be. It also mentions, as one would expect the RSPCA to do, the impact of conventional breeding, particularly on dogs; a number of noble Lords have talked about that. It also says that gene editing in wild animals is done with the express purpose of altering ecosystems, with potentially unpredictable impacts, and that this should always be controlled by the GMO regulations; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that particular comment by the RSPCA. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also expressed concerns about wild animals.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, the other issue is that we need to take the public with us. If we are not careful about how we legislate around the animal aspect, we will lose them. It is terribly important that we are very careful about how we bring in and implement any animal aspects of this Bill, if at all. The Nuffield Council also raised concerns about bringing animal welfare in, stating:

“The welfare of animals is not a characteristic, like growth rate or milk yield, but a consequence of the interaction of biological and environmental factors.”


That is a really important thing to take home with us as we look at how we can move the Bill forward. It also said:

“There is a risk that the focus placed on individual traits in the Bill could distract from this broader consideration of welfare.”


It is terribly important that that concern is built into the Bill.

In our debate on a later group, we will debate the welfare advisory body in the Bill; now is not the time to do so but the question of whether that group is adequate will be a really important part of the Bill, particularly in terms of whether we should amend it to support that concern. Compassion in World Farming also raised concerns about this issue; I will not go into the detail as we discussed this at Second Reading.

I am slightly concerned that it has been suggested that ethical concerns should not be part of the broader debate. I would say that, where animal welfare is concerned, they should be. We must not forget those ethical concerns either.

I mentioned Professor Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at Defra, earlier. I am going to mention him again, because I thought his evidence was particularly interesting in the Commons Committee debate. He said:

“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”


He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare

“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be”—

as referenced by my noble friend Lady Jones—

“something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 28/6/22; col. 18.]

Where in the Bill is that set out, so that we have that guarantee of two to three years? Neither the process nor the timescales are laid out in the Bill. If we need more time to get the provisions right, why are we not focusing on doing that rather than asking noble Lords, essentially, to allow them to pass and then ask all these questions and put in this detail afterwards? That, to me, is not good legislation. These are big decisions we are making.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just wind up the debate we had on Monday. In this group, I have Amendment 52, which is about adding the improvement of

“economic, social and environmental well-being”

to the procurement objectives. I also put my name to a similar amendment, Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I completely support everything that he said in his introduction; it covered what I would have said in support of my amendment, so there is no point in going over all that again. In fact, we discussed a number of amendments in this group that looked at the economic, social, environmental and cultural benefit and value of the Bill and considered what we mean by “public benefit”. It was a useful debate to explore those potential objectives and what the definition of “public benefit” is. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to those discussions.

I also supported the amendments laid by my noble friend Lady Thornton, Amendments 47A and 52A. As my noble friend said, we believe that maximising social value is something that contracting authorities should have regard to. This is in line with the social value Act and the national procurement policy strategy, so this should all be put in line together. We also know that the Government are committed to expanding the use of social value within procurement to maximise these areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who is not in her place today—

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

I am in my place.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Oh, the noble Baroness is there; I was looking for her in the place in which she sat on Monday. She moved, just to confuse me. This is the trouble with picking things up later.

The noble Baroness rightly said that meeting net zero is a government-stated objective and we believe, as she does, that this should also be an objective within the Procurement Bill. It could make a genuine difference, should that be something that needs to be taken account of. We also support those noble Lords who said in the debate that this helps to meet the levelling-up agenda as well as achieving net zero.

We know that social value is included in the NPPS—the national procurement policy statement—so I ask the Minister: if it is in the policy statement, why is it not referenced in the Bill? It concerns me that the policy statement can be changed at any point, so not having it in the Bill and just having it in the statement means that it is not absolutely embedded within the legislation. I will briefly mention that, between 2012 and 2020, there was no statutory guidance on social value. This inhibits its development, so we need to ensure that this does not happen in future.

I express strong support for Amendments 49 and 58 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which are about climate and environmental matters and the importance of having these based within the Bill. She also said that “public benefit” needs further clarity, so I must ask again: does “public benefit” include environmental outcomes? It would be helpful to have further information on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke importantly about the fact that using procurement in this way is an opportunity to drive behaviour change, because we are not going to achieve the Government’s net-zero objectives without behaviour change.

Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, specifies a number of overarching requirements that a contracting authority must take due regard of when carrying out procurement. We support the main points that he made—particularly, as well as the carbon account, the ethical and human rights record of the supplier, as he said. I know that we will talk about this in a later debate, but that is important.

Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduced, again talked about defining “public benefit”. I think that the Minister can see that this is not party political: right across the Committee there is concern about what “public benefit” means and what it is going to deliver as part of the Procurement Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Purvis, also tabled amendments on this issue.

I finish by briefly mentioning an interesting briefing that I had from UKCloud. I do not know if other noble Lords have received it, but it is about the importance of maximising social value through procurement in the world that UKCloud works in—the cloud providers—and how doing so would be consistent with wider net-zero policy aspirations. UKCloud feels that it is important to support businesses in this country that are providing those kinds of platforms and support and that the sector can lead in the provision of clean, green technologies, which can help to digitise and decarbonise users of its services. It also believes that, if the sector got that kind of support from government, UK businesses would have the opportunity to really innovate and become leaders in this field. I found that an interesting briefing. If the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to share it with him, because it had some interesting thoughts in it. The briefing also said that UKCloud feels that weighting should be given to make sure that cloud providers for the UK Government are paying their taxes in full on all earned income in the UK—that is an important point—and that they should have a clear and measurable track record of investing in local jobs and skills. The briefing has some interesting points about how procurement could help its particular type of business. I finish there and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with regard to the Minister and his team’s unfailing co-operation and ambition for the Bill, which is the most important Bill on the environment that we have seen in this country for at least the last 30 years. When it came to us at Second Reading, all of us welcomed it but said that it needed to go a lot further. It would be churlish not to reflect on the fact that it has gone somewhat further, if not as far as most of us—perhaps including the Minister—hoped we might be able to achieve.

On the three final hills on which we have chosen in this House to fight today, we are in the position of having to accept that we are where we are, given the majority of the Government on the other side. On the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—he has indeed been a champion redoubtable—on pushing for remedies for the OEP, that is an incredibly important issue and it is of deep regret that it will not go into the Bill. However, I hope, like I am sure other Members around this Chamber, that the assurances that the Minister has given today can bear fruit should there be—as I am sure there will—instances in the future in the courts as these issues are challenged.

On the independence of the OEP, on which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, led so skilfully on behalf of this House, he is right to say that the Government seem to have an umbilical attachment to not wishing the OEP to have the independence that absolutely all in this House agree that it should. It is of deep regret that that has not made its way into the Bill. However, I think all of us in this House have confidence in the current holders of the OEP, and we hope that they will use the discretion given by Rebecca Pow in the other place so that they are not bound to the guidance if there are good reasons for not taking it forward. I hope that they will make full use of those powers and challenge the Government should they so feel the need.

Personally, where I am most concerned that the Government still have that guidance power to contain the independence of the OEP is on the issue of planning, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned. The Government still retain the ability to perhaps constrain the OEP from taking enforcement measures on planning applications, which may appear local and discrete but have nationally significant biodiversity implications. Given the fate of the biodiversity in our country at this time, we know just how important that may be.

Finally, on the issue of sewage, we on these Benches—particularly my noble friend Lord Oates, who has worked so closely with other colleagues from other Benches—thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for the campaign that he has taken forward, and indeed Philip Dunne, who I see is with us this afternoon. It is good to be able to say to them that we in this House thank them both for their campaigning to bring this appalling issue, which is really important for both the environment and human health, to the attention of the Government and the public more broadly. On behalf of all of us, I thank both of them for doing that.

As I say, we have probably pushed the Government as far as they are prepared to go on this issue. However, in having made the general public so aware of what is at stake, the Government can be under no illusion that, while we have done our job here today and in preceding weeks, if they do not listen, act and take the necessary steps to stop these appalling sewage discharges, the public will notice, and it will not just be the environment that pays the price in the future. The Government will pay the price at the next general election.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will particularly address the amendments from the Government and in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis on water quality, in Motions C and C1. First, I thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time in listening to our concerns throughout the passage of this Bill. While we welcome the government amendment to improve water quality, we must be clear that the Government did not want to include stronger provisions in this Bill to improve and protect our rivers and waterways, including from sewage discharges. We have the government amendment before us today because of the refusal of your Lordships’ House, Philip Dunne in the other place and in particular the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, to give up on campaigning to protect both our environment and public health. Once again, the Minister has been dragged back to debate this because people have been disgusted that the situation was allowed to continue. The Government truly brought the pong into ping-pong.

While the government amendment before us today does improve the Bill, noble Lords have said that they are finding it in some ways unsatisfactory, as it does not go far enough to address some of the concerns that have been raised today. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, talked about the considerable public support for his amendment, including from water companies, which he said just want more public investment from the Government in order to improve the sewerage system. He also expressed concern that the government amendment is considerably weaker than his in some aspects. We strongly supported the Duke on this issue, and believe that his original amendment was better than the government amendment before us today, and it is disappointing that Government refused to just accept it. My noble friend Lord Adonis has now picked this up, and he clearly laid out his reasons for doing so: his concerns that discharges have been increasing; that enforcement has not been what it should be; and that this is partly down to cuts to the Environment Agency, which have reduced its capacity to both monitor and take action.

I will now draw particular attention to three concerns raised by my colleague Luke Pollard in the other place. First, on prosecutions—the noble Duke mentioned their lack—will the Minister commit to reviewing the system of fines and penalties? The current penalties clearly do not have the effect of stopping certain water companies form routinely dumping raw sewage into our waterways. Penalties must be meaningful so that they change behaviour, or they are pointless. Water companies and the regulator, Ofwat, have consistently failed to stop damaging discharges. They know they that they are currently allowed to discharge raw sewage only in exceptional circumstances, but take no notice, which is why penalties and fines must be reviewed. Southern Water had committed no fewer than 168 previous offences before being fined this summer.

Secondly, we need to strengthen the duty of Ofwat to take action, to give water companies a clear direction on targets, ensure that there is a priority to clean up the most polluting discharges, and have oversight on progress from the relevant parliamentary committees. The regulator should have environmental experts available to strengthen its decision-making.

Thirdly, can the Minister further clarify what is meant by “progressive reduction”—the timescales mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis? By when, and by how much? Yesterday, I attended COP 26, as mentioned by the Minister in his introduction. Much is being made there of the importance of putting nature and the environment at the centre of policy-making and legislation. We know that one consequence of climate change in the UK is likely to be heavier rainfall. Without progressive reduction being pinned down properly, we are a very long way away from seeing an end to this persistent pollution.

In yesterday’s debate in the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, ran out of time to respond to these questions from my colleague, so I would be grateful if the Minister could take the opportunity to answer these points today. I also look forward to his reply to other concerns raised by noble Lords in this debate, including my noble friend Lord Adonis, and whether he can reassure the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that there will be proper parliamentary oversight and progress on ending the practice of discharging raw sewage into the waterways, because without proper oversight on progress, it will, as I said, take a very long time to change this behaviour at all.

I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions from my noble friend Lady Quin and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, regarding the true cost of tackling this issue. If he cannot answer these questions, can he explain why the Government are refusing to commit to addressing these very real concerns, which we have raised time and again?

Noble Lords are right: the Bill is in a better place now than when it started, and that is mainly down to concerns raised by your Lordships. But it is a shame that the Government have not been able to completely accept today’s important improvements.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, sadly, I was too slow to get my name on to this amendment, but I think that it has complete support around the House. I have just one point, which is that this is something that we must be focused on not only in the UK but globally. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we must have farming that is absolutely hand in glove with nature. When the Select Committee on Environment and Climate Change looked at COP 15 and some of the essential issues that must be tackled, this whole issue of addressing the global food chain was absolutely critical. Therefore, we commend the noble Baroness for all her campaigning on this issue and hope that the Government take the food strategy seriously as all of us in this House know that they should.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to which I have added my name. I commend her for the way she so ably introduced it—her knowledge is far greater than mine.

We have strongly welcomed the National Food Strategy and its recommendations that aim to deliver “healthy, affordable food” and build a sustainable agriculture sector in an efficient and cost-effective way. However, we support the noble Baroness’s amendment because it draws government attention to critical aspects of the impact of the ways in which we farm and produce our food, which, as she quite rightly says, are absent from the Environment Bill.

Amendment 118 first looks at the effect on biodiversity. There is no doubt that the precious biodiversity that sustains our food systems is in decline. The first ever global report on the state of biodiversity for food and agriculture, launched two years ago by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, confirms this. The National Food Strategy rightly observes:

“The global food system is the single biggest contributor to biodiversity loss, deforestation, drought, freshwater pollution and the collapse of aquatic wildlife. It is the second-biggest contributor to climate change, after the energy industry.”


The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, explained that, in the UK, agriculture contributes to, and is affected by, climate change. Every stage in the food production cycle—from preparing, growing and harvesting, through to production, storage, processing, packaging, transporting and cooking—releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Methane produced by livestock during digestion has received a lot of media coverage, while nitrous oxide emissions from mineral nitrogen fertilisers are also a problem. The Government have demonstrated that they are working to tackle this through the new ELM schemes, for example, but, as the strategy confirms, this will not be enough on its own.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke up for our farmers and, very importantly, said that never again should nature be separated from farming. The National Food Strategy also contains recommendations to address the major issues facing the food system, including climate change, biodiversity loss, land use, diet-related disease, health inequality, food security and trade. So it makes absolute sense to me that the approach should be reviewed, as proposed in this amendment, to ensure that it is making progress and continues to do so.

Amendment 118 also looks at the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and asks for a review in this area. If you read it, the National Food Strategy has an awful lot to say on emissions. For example, it says:

“Agriculture alone produces 10% of UK greenhouse gas emissions”


and that our

“food system accounts for a fifth of domestic emissions—but that figure rises to around 30% if we factor in the emissions produced by all the food we import.”

So there is no point in making UK farmers do all the hard work necessary to reduce carbon emissions and restore biodiversity, only to open up the market to cheap food produced to lower standards abroad. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about trade and referred to the impact of food miles. If we export all the environmental harms that we wish to avoid, while undercutting and potentially bankrupting our own farmers, we achieve nothing.

It is not a simple task to dramatically reduce emissions from food production or to monitor and review progress. This all needs to be an integral part of the process. So I commend the noble Baroness’s amendments to the Minister and look forward to a positive response.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Report stage
Wednesday 8th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for her excellent opening remarks. As she rightly said, a number of us spoke at some length on this matter in Committee. We have had excellent expositions from her and supporting evidence from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, of the merits of this case and why we need these statutory targets. It is not just this House that is calling on them —business is calling on them. This is what it needs to make the changes in the future for our country and for the sustainability of companies. Given that time is tight, if the noble Baroness were to press this to a vote, she would have the support of these Benches.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 11 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment to place a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to meet any interim targets. We were very disappointed that the Government did not agree that this is important if we are to make genuine progress in improving our environment. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, today that if she chooses to test the opinion of the House, she will have our support.

It has been made clear in the debate today, as it was in Committee, that we really need to make sure that the interim targets are going to be met. Amendment 14 would strengthen the EIPs to do this and link them to the targets to make them legally binding, as opposed to their current standing, which is really being nothing more than policy documents.

As I said in Committee when I provided your Lordships’ House with a number of examples of how voluntary environmental targets had been badly missed or even abandoned on a number of occasions, this really only emphasises the need to make sure that the interim targets are as legally binding as the long-term ones.

The Government have seen fit, as we know, to bring in a legally binding species abundance target for 2030, which we welcome and support. This shows that the Government do not, in principle, object to legally binding short-term targets and, indeed, accept that they can drive progress in that area. It seems very inconsistent, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, said earlier, that they are not doing it in this case. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, strongly explained, the Climate Change Act 2008 has been very successful in holding the Government to account on their interim targets. I have heard no compelling justification for why there should be this critical difference in the Environment Bill.

The Minister made the point in Committee that long-term targets provide much-needed certainty to business; the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, also mentioned business and the Aldersgate Group. The Minister said that for businesses to invest confidently they need flexibility around the interim targets but the Aldersgate Group representing business has said that that is not the case. In fact, it has been very clear that it wants other legally binding interim targets so that it can deliver the much-needed investment in nature restoration.

I acknowledge the noble Lord’s previous argument that change towards long-term goals and progress towards meeting them, does not always happen in a linear way. However, I do not accept that this is a convincing argument not to make the interim targets legally binding. Instead, it is an argument for the Government to apply some flexibility in the type of interim targets they may well be setting. We know that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion in setting these interim targets

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, made the point that if you get this set, it means that any early action taken is much more likely to be sustainable as well. So, if we set end goals far into the future, we need binding interim targets with monitoring and scrutiny to prevent the targets being potentially kicked into the long grass or left to the last minute.

Finally, I remind your Lordships’ House that, as I mentioned in Committee, this is not just an issue for Defra. This is important, because if we are to meet our environmental targets, other departments have to play their part. If the interim targets are not binding, why do we think that the DfT, BEIS, local government and others will be on the path to meet the long-term targets? They will have their own priorities, so they will need to be properly encouraged by legally binding targets to make the progress we need.

This amendment would hugely strengthen the Environment Bill and its outcomes. I urge the Minister to review his previous position and support it.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which I added my name. He is right to raise the concerns that a number of us have about the intentions of the Government in removing the protections on our most valuable ecological sites and habitats. He mentioned some species that are very important to him; for me it is about the bitterns and nightingales. The Government are proposing, as the noble Lord rightly said, to change the present situation, where there has to be overriding public interest to remove protections for particular sites, to one in which, basically, local authorities have to satisfy the needs of the Bill and meet overall targets for improving nature.

They are asking them to do all that on trust, and as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, rightly said, the Government’s amendment says that the Secretary of State will decide whether there has been a reduction of those protections. There is no guarantee of consultation with independent experts. I hope the Minister will answer the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on that point: will the Government guarantee to consult the independent experts? Without that, we must query their intentions.

There is a slightly broader point about consultation, one which the noble Earl, Lord Devon, raised. The current system works very well when there is proper consultation among all interested stakeholders in a given area, including the businesses, environmentalists and local action groups. It might work well in the Exe estuary; it certainly works well with us in the Thames basin, with the heath development framework. My local authority is working on that with 11 other local authorities, and we have managed to operate within the existing framework of the habitats directive. Meanwhile in Surrey—a heavily developed area—we are building the homes that are needed while protecting our most special ecological sites. The current consultation system is working, so there is no way we should give that up for a system in which there is no guarantee of consultation in future.

Secondly, on the point that the Government are asking us to take all this on trust, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that there is no impact assessment. Surprise, surprise: that is because there was no consultation and it was introduced at Report in the Commons. There is no impact assessment, but there have been multiple reviews of the legislation on the habitats directive and all of them said it should be improved, not revoked. That consultation has involved businesses as well as environmental NGOs and other stakeholders. It is a shame that the Government have not introduced the improvements asked for by those interested parties over the years, rather than going for the nuclear option of suddenly throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Thirdly, I come to what worries me most about the Government asking us to take this on trust. We have had debates about why they will not include in the Bill the state of nature targets for species abundance, and they said it was because at the moment, they cannot work out the metrics: they do not have the metrics in place and must work out what those targets are. If they must work them out, why do they think it is okay to get rid of the existing system, when we do not have those robust metrics in place? We should not be removing something that is delivering protection for our most valuable ecological sites and allowing developments in hotspots such as Surrey, if we do not have the metrics to prove that we can move from a system that is working to another which may be what the Government want, but for which we do not have the metrics.

The Government are asking us to take too much on trust at this stage. It makes me think that this is really more cover for future changes in the proposed planning Bill, through which they will sweep away protections for particular sites to allow more development in these new zoned areas. I accept that we have left Europe and we need to move ahead. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we need to move ahead independently. I do not care whether it is independently or not; I want us to move ahead so that we better protect our environment and, at the same time, build the affordable houses we need. The existing system is working and the Government need to provide some very good answers if they are to persuade the House that it should be swept away and replaced by something unproven and not clearly argued.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we support Amendments 255, 256 and 257AA in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others, which allow the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to be amended to further new objectives in addition to, rather than in place of, existing ones. Government amendments to the Bill were, disappointingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said in his introduction, brought in without consultation. They introduced new Clauses 105 and 106, providing powers for the Secretary of State to amend the habitats regulations. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that taking things on trust is simply not good enough in legislation. This Government may say, “Yes, you can trust us”, but who knows what the future holds?

We have heard that Clause 105 allows Ministers, as, as the noble, Lord Krebs, said, to swap the duty on public authorities to satisfy the requirements of the nature directives with a duty to satisfy the requirements of the Bill’s targets and environmental improvement plans. However, the new objectives are simply not a substitute for those of the nature directives. They serve an entirely different purpose. as noble Lords have said. The Bill’s targets aim to ensure overall national improvement across the natural environment.

To satisfy the expected Environment Bill requirements, habitats and species in general need to be increasing. By contrast, the nature directive is all about protecting particular habitats and species and specific sites and populations. They form the first line of defence for some of our most precious habitats and species, and any powers to amend them must be designed and considered very carefully to avoid unintended consequences. Any protections must be maintained and built on, not undermined.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Baroness Hayman of Ullock

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 52 is in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I would also like to express our support for Amendments 53 and 55.

Amendment 52 strengthens the environmental improvement plans by introducing a number of minimum requirements. It seeks to provide clear content requirements for each EIP, including an analysis of how specific measures will contribute to relevant targets, timetables for the adoption, implementation and review of each measure, and allocations for the delivery of each measure. It also seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at its beginning, thus providing a crucial link between targets and EIPs as a delivery mechanism.

Those targets are very important in relation to any environmental improvement plans that will come out of the Bill. Such plans are necessary to provide the comprehensive long-term vision that will guide legislation and policy to deliver better protection and the enhancement of our environment. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets, there is a risk that it will be nothing more than an abstract, descriptive narrative, with meaningful actions backloaded towards the end of each 15-year period that it covers.

Clause 7 also sets out requirements for the content of EIPs. We consider that these need to be strengthened to ensure that all EIPs include timebound, specific measures which are more explicitly linked to the delivery of long-term targets and the interim milestones.

The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, but then says that an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence. A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan. That document clearly demonstrates why we believe that Amendment 52 is necessary. Among other things, the 25-year plan does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill. It says a lot of very interesting things but is essentially a narrative document, containing long descriptive passages, with hundreds of possible actions, many of which are difficult to measure. There is a limited attempt to quantify the benefits of actions and to prioritise the most environmentally effective, or to demonstrate that they will lead to particular environmental outcomes. Both updates on the delivery of the current EIP and future plans need to be much more focused on actions and benefits if they are to drive a significant improvement in our natural environment.

Greener UK has suggested that EIPs should be more like plans to achieve the carbon budgets, as set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, or plans to achieve air quality objectives, as set out in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. Both of those require clear plans and steps to meet targets. Can the Minister say why this approach has not been taken for EIPs? Why does he believe it is not necessary to make the link between EIPs and the targets at its start? This amendment comprehensively makes those connections and introduces important minimum requirements that are necessary if the EIPs are really to make a difference. I beg to move.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 53 in this group, which is, in effect, another way of tightening the wording with regard to the requirements on the Government to report on the success or otherwise of meeting the environmental improvement plans. I strongly support Amendment 52, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, introduced so well just now, and which I co-signed, and Amendment 55, from the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.

As it stands in the wording at the moment, the Government basically have to identify “steps” in the environmental improvement plans to meet their targets. That word is incredibly vague. I could take a step, but it would not be very clear what it is. If they so wished, the Government could argue that a step would, for example, be to set up an advisory group or working group. It is not a concrete, clearly defined action. My very strong feeling is that we should borrow the wording in the Climate Change Act, which says very clearly that the Government have to “prepare such proposals and policies”. That is clear and specific, and those are measurable. To my mind, the term “steps” is insufficient. In this House, we know that words matter.

I am not trying to impugn the Government’s motives; I think it is just an oversight that the word was chosen. But if we are to enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do—to hold the Government to account—the wording in the legislation has to enable it to do that as easily as possible. I strongly believe that asking the Government to outline their policies and proposals, as opposed to just “steps”, would enable the OEP to do its job, which we know the Government want it to do, as undoubtedly does this Committee. In summing up, I ask the Minister to make the case clearly for why he thinks the word “steps” will enable the OEP to do the job we need it to do.