Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 13th September 2023 Lords Chamber

This is why the Government have decided to act. It is why this debate matters so much. I hope my explanation has been an assistance to noble Lords in considering these amendments.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as may be relevant to this debate. I will speak in a minute to my Amendments 247YYAA, 247YYAB, and 247YYAC, but I must start by asking the Minister—I remain surprised by this—why she has, on Report, tabled such a large number of amendments that seek to reverse previous government policy on nutrient neutrality.

As the Office for Environmental Protection, set up by the Government in the Environment Act 2021, has stated—and I quote from Dame Glenys Stacey’s letter of 30 August—

“The proposed changes would demonstrably reduce the level of environmental protection provided for in existing environmental law. They are a regression”.


After a further exchange of letters with the Defra Secretary of State and a meeting, Dame Glenys wrote a second letter on 1 September. Again, I quote:

“What is certain is that the proposed amendments would amount to regression in law”.


She goes on to say:

“This is contrary to statements made in each House of Parliament on behalf of the Government”.


I have quoted from the Office for Environmental Protection to show that this is not in any way a political attack on the Government’s policy. The Office for Environmental Protection is the public body set up to protect and improve the environment by holding government to account. Ministers must therefore understand that any opposition to these amendments comes only from a desire by Members of this House, on all sides, to protect and improve the environment.

We all recognise the need to build more houses, and where possible to remove obstacles to achieving this, but surely none of us wishes this to be achieved at the expense of further damage to the environment. Ministers say this is fully mitigated, but that is not clear in the amendments. More houses create more sewage, and therefore there must be mitigation. But the Government appear to be relieving housebuilders from the cost of this mitigation and passing it to the taxpayer.

The announcement of additional money for Natural England is very welcome, but surely there must be a continuing requirement for housebuilders to contribute financially to mitigation. The Minister, in her letter to Peers on 29 August, said:

“The Government intends to work with the house building industry to ensure that larger developers make an appropriate and fair contribution to this scheme over the coming years”.

I must respectfully say to the Minister that that is not enough. There must be a legal requirement for housebuilders to contribute in each case to protecting the environment from further pollution created by new houses.

I now turn to the three amendments in my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their names. I know also that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, had wanted to sign but was pipped at the post by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Noble Lords will therefore understand that these are cross-party amendments with no party-political motivation.

For the benefit of noble Lords who have not been able—or inclined—to get into the detail of this large group of late-in-the-day government amendments, I must quote from them. In government Amendment 247YYA, in new Regulation 85A(2)—inserted by paragraph 11 of part 2 of new Schedule 13—it reads:

“When making the relevant decision, the competent authority must assume that nutrients in urban waste water … will not adversely affect the relevant site”.


I am surprised that any Minister from any department—or any party—could propose to Parliament such a paragraph. It is instructing a planning authority to disregard the facts. By any definition, that would be bad law. In paragraph (3) of new Regulation 85A, which I also seek to delete, the Bill instructs the planning authority not even to assess any possible pollution and, in paragraph (4), the planning authority is again instructed to disregard any assessment made by third parties, even the appropriate nature conservation body. I hope that all noble Lords will agree with me that this is just too far.

Here, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for various meetings in the last few days. I also received at 7 pm yesterday a long letter from the noble Lord, Lord Benyon. Ministers argue that all the government amendments in this group are a package and that we should not look at individual clauses in isolation. I regret that I do not accept that argument. I believe that the duty of this House is to improve and then approve clear and coherent legislation. The government amendments are defective in wording and contrary to science in intention. I cannot believe that any noble Lord of whatever party could vote in favour of such proposed legislation.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to this group of amendments, which come under the broad heading of nutrient neutrality. I declare my interest as a member of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The committee will release a report next week on the impact of environmental regulations on development. As our report is still under wraps, I cannot quote from it, but it provides important insights into the issues before us regarding nutrient neutrality, and my comments today will not, I think, clash with any of the committee’s findings.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[The Duke of Wellington]

247YYAA: In paragraph 11, inserted regulation 85A, leave out paragraphs (2) to (4)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and two others in the name of the Duke of Wellington, would delete from the new Schedule 13 the requirement placed on a local authority to assume that nutrients in waste water will not cause harm to the environment.

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, it is clear to me that the purpose of the three cross-party amendments I tabled would be best achieved if we vote against the whole of the government amendment. Therefore, I will not move my amendments.

Amendment 247YYAA (to Amendment 247YYA) not moved.

Queen’s Speech

Duke of Wellington Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Duke of Wellington (CB)]

My Lords, I speak on the environment—one of the themes of today’s debate—and, in particular, the urgent need to improve the quality of water in our river systems. The gracious Speech includes a commitment to “set binding environmental targets”. I imagine that this mainly refers to carbon emissions, but I suggest that Ministers should be more concerned about the shocking amounts of raw sewage, plastic and other domestic products that are daily allowed to enter our rivers.

I wonder whether the Minister watched “Panorama” on BBC1, five weeks ago. The programme was entitled “The River Pollution Scandal”. I think it is required viewing for Ministers and officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The programme is not easy to watch, as it shows, in a most revolting way, the amount of untreated, raw sewage discharged into rivers and the used domestic products that now cover the beds of the Thames and other rivers.

In the previous Session, there was a Private Member’s Bill in the other place tabled by the right honourable Member for Ludlow, Philip Dunne, which sought to limit these discharges and prohibit certain plastic products entering the sewage system. Unfortunately, the Government were not prepared to accept or take over Philip Dunne’s Bill. I have therefore tabled a similar Private Member’s Bill in this House and have been allotted 12th position in the ballot, but I would much prefer to persuade the Minister and his colleagues to amend the Environment Bill so that it has the same intent and rigour as Philip Dunne’s Bill.

On the day after the Queen’s Speech, Defra announced that it would table amendments in this House to place three additional legal duties on the Secretary of State: to publish a plan by September 2022 to reduce sewage discharges, to report to Parliament progress on implementing the plan and to require water companies to publish annual data on these discharges. I say to Ministers as politely as I can that this is far too little and shows no sense of urgency. We have two Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in this House, and Rebecca Pow, in the other place—both of whom care passionately about the environment.

If a farmer allows a cupful of silage effluent or other farm waste to drip into a ditch, he will find himself in trouble with the Environment Agency, but water companies are allowed to release millions of gallons of raw sewage into rivers every year. There was a piece on Radio 4 on Saturday about Ilkley in West Yorkshire. The locals have calculated that on more than 100 days a year, raw sewage is discharged into the River Wharfe. The water company’s response is that it plans to reduce the discharges by 20% over five years. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships’ House thinks that this is good enough. Will the Minister state whether he thinks that the situation in Ilkley is acceptable?

On my way here this morning, I read with great interest a press release from Ofwat, the water regulator, entitled:

“Water sector to plunge £2.8 billion into the green recovery”


I thought that it might have pre-empted my speech but, sadly, when I read further, I found that only just over 5% of this sum is to be devoted

“to help eliminate harm caused by storm overflows”.

Surely this is an insufficient reaction to the seriousness of the situation.

I conclude by asking Her Majesty’s Government to think again. Should cleaning up our rivers not be a higher and more urgent priority? I ask my fellow Members of this House to support appropriate amendments that we intend to table when the Environment Bill reaches us.