Independent Water Commission
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My right honourable friend said in his speech down the other end that the new regulator
“will stand firmly on the side of customers, investors and the environment and prevent the abuses of the past”.
That basically demonstrates that we need to look at the big picture about what went wrong in the past and what we need to do to rectify it in the future. I am sure that we can look at the noble Lord’s suggestions as we move forward to ensure that we have regulation and pricing that are fit for purpose.
Earl Russell (LD)
I declare my interest as a board member and director of the Water Retail Company. I thank the Minister for the Statement, and we welcome the report. I am sure the Minister will join me in thanking all the members of the public, charities and NGOs who have done so much work to ensure that we are aware of the level of the sewage crisis and the pollution in our water system. I noticed that there is no direct recommendation in the report to support citizen science. What action will the Government take to support these citizens? What is happening with the water restoration fund?
State of Climate and Nature
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place a week ago.
The state of climate and nature is one of the most important areas of policy that we can discuss in both Houses. However, true to form, the Secretary of State took advantage of a reasoned and evidence-led Met Office report to promote his own ideological pet project—clean power 2030—and to denounce any critic of his as anti-science, anti-jobs, anti-energy security and anti-future generation. That is a great shame.
As I have said many times in this House before, I am not a climate change denier. I have been to the Arctic and have seen first-hand the effects of global warming on the ice caps. To disagree with the Secretary of State is not climate denial, especially when we see that his unilateral acceleration to decarbonise the electricity grid by 2030 is ideologically driven and already putting the UK on a rocky road to economic ruin.
The Secretary of State referred to the need for “radical truth-telling”; perhaps it is time that he listened to his own advice. The leader of the Opposition, Kemi Badenoch, was right to say that net zero 2050, on its current trajectory, is impossible to achieve without serious cost implications for British taxpayers and industry. Even prominent Labour figures, such as Tony Blair, have argued in recent months that the Miliband plan is “riven with irrationality”. The GMB Union chief, Gary Smith, has warned about the decimation of working-class communities if we continue to shut down North Sea oil and gas.
At the heart of the Statement is a fundamental misunderstanding of the new global order. As much as the Secretary of State may wish to turn back the clock, we are no longer in 2008, when he introduced the first Climate Change Act, or in 2021, which represented peak global enthusiasm for net zero. The world has changed. In February this year, only 10 of the 196 countries party to the Paris Agreement submitted updated climate targets to the UN’s deadline. Of those, only three of the G20 countries, including the UK, submitted an updated target. Only one country reaffirmed the 2050 target with a pathway: the UK, representing 1% of global emissions.
Even the former high priests of net zero have accepted that the world has changed. Dr Fatih Birol of the International Energy Agency has now said that oil and gas will play a key role in global energy policy for decades to come. That is very different from his 2021 position of “No new hydrocarbons”. The Secretary of State talks up the need for the UK’s global leadership, yet today the UK has one of the highest energy prices in the world, which limits our growth and employment, and this is self-inflicted. Our country may have been the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution—indeed, the birthplace of AI—and today we are still leading the world in high-tech engineering, and advanced avionics and propulsion systems; but comparable major economies are not looking at the UK’s energy policy as an example of global leadership. They view us as a canary in the net-zero coal mine. The point is this: if we run ahead of the pack and fail, the pack will not follow.
Let us examine the real implications for climate and nature of the accelerated drive to clean power 2030. The Secretary of State wants to cover our green and pleasant land in solar panels and pylons. He talks of the dangers to our bird species, yet he wants to fill our skies with blades and turbines. He wants to compensate for the deficiencies of wind and solar technologies with battery energy storage, but neglects to consider the dramatic impact on our world of the mining of the critical minerals needed to support his plans. He talks of science, yet he does not accept the science of intermittency nor allow time for new technologies to emerge. The evidence is clear: solar farms will generate power 11% of the time. What shall we do for the remaining 89%? Onshore wind farms will generate power 26% of the time. What shall we do for the remaining 76%? Offshore wind farms will generate power 41% of the time. What shall we do for the remaining 59%?
The Government propose batteries as a solution to intermittency, but the battery anodes are made from petroleum coke and coal-tar pitch, and the battery cathodes are made from the mining of nickel, manganese, cobalt, iron and phosphate. Ironically, the source of the solution is the very materials that are vilified, and the mining of which is now prohibited in the UK. Has the Minister turned a blind eye to how open-pit mining disrupts habitats and landscapes, and how this extraction impacts water and pollution? I put these facts squarely to the Minister. The Government’s plans for clean power 2030 simply offshore our emissions and our jobs to other countries. Is that really what the Government meant by a “just transition”?
In conclusion, I submit that ideology at either end of the spectrum is deeply unhelpful. Whether it is clean power 2030 at one end, or “drill, baby, drill”, at the other, the harsh reality is that energy is a highly complex area which needs a pragmatic rather than an ideological solution. The Statement in the other place from the Secretary of State was an example of grandstanding without substance. This is what I hear time and again from policy professionals, academics, and leaders in the industry: there is no silver bullet; there is no one simple solution. But surely, we can coalesce around a pragmatic energy policy which is sane—first, secure; secondly, affordable; and only thereafter, net-zero emissions.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement, issued in response to the Met Office’s State of the UK Climate report, our most authoritative assessment of the UK’s changing weather patterns. We also very much welcome the intention to make this an annual update.
We see this Statement as a message of hope—that together we can start to reverse the impacts of climate change. Our climate has changed in my very own lifetime. The science is absolute, and our scientists are some of the best in the world. We are as certain of man-made climate change as we are that the earth is not flat. The Met Office report focuses on 2024, when the UK experienced its second-warmest February, warmest May and warmest spring since records began in 1884. The last three years have all been in the UK’s top five warmest on record. Mike Kendon, the Met Office report’s lead author, said:
“Every year that goes by is another upward step on the warming trajectory our climate is on. Observations show that our climate in the UK is now notably different to what it was just a few decades ago”.
The Met Office calculates that the UK is warming at a rate of around 0.25 degrees Celsius per decade, with the 2015-24 period 1.24 degree Celsius warmer than 1961-90. The UK is also getting wetter, with rainfall increasing significantly during the winter. Between October and March, rainfall in 2015-24 was 16% higher than 1961-90. The new normal is even more extreme.
These indisputable ground truths are an urgent and unmistakable call to action. Nature bears witness and suffers these unparalleled and accelerating changes. We are already one of most nature-deprived nations on earth. One-third of our natural species has been lost from UK biodiversity in my lifetime. Nature is struggling to adapt, just as we are. To those politicians who have given up on efforts to tackle climate change and remain happy to take funds from the fossil fuel companies, I say, you offer no solutions and no hope to our children. Like the tobacco lobby of the 1970s, who said, “One more puff of cigarette smoke in your lungs won’t hurt”, they say, “What are a few more tons of CO2 in our atmospheric lungs?”
The UK green economy grew by 10.3% last year. A green future is our only future, and it is a good future. Global green growth is our future climate solutions, our future energy security, and our future economic prosperity.
Those who say that we cannot afford the cost of preventing climate change never calculate the devastating consequences of not doing so. Analysis from the New Economics Foundation showed that the reversal of climate policies would cost the UK economy up to £92 billion, almost 3% of our entire GDP, and mean the loss 60,000 jobs before the end of the decade. British leadership is global leadership. When we work together at home, we lead the global conversation. We are lucky: we have the knowledge, we have the technology, and we have the time to enact change. We join calls for a return to this powerful cross-party consensus on climate change. We will always seek political co-operation on these common challenges.
It feels as though Labour has found its voice and will improve its communications—and better communications are required. I ask the Government to also tackle the growing problem of misinformation and disinformation. Their own message needs to be more coherent and consistent: less talk of nature protection as a blocker, and more honesty about the complexities and challenges that we face. The nature and climate challenges are interlinked and interdependent. Nature is not only nice to have but essential to all life. Labour’s messaging on nature has been muddled, but I thank the Minister for the amendments that have been brought forward to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. These are indeed welcome.
It is vital that we build new, clean energy infrastructure, but, equally, we must support nature recovery. This Government must champion the benefits of joined-up actions on climate and nature policies. Labour’s green mission is overly centralised: it is being done to us and not always with us. If Labour fails to work with and include our communities, public support will erode. The Government must listen to and take our communities with them. They must stop trying to do it all alone and empower and include our communities to help with the task. My party has suggested how new energy market reforms could be brought in to bring about reductions in our energy bills. These matters are urgent, so I ask the Minister: when will the Government be able to bring forward their plans to reduce our energy bills?
We must mitigate and adapt; both are needed. Not a single adaption delivery pathway plan was rated as good. The simple truth is that we have been better at changing our climate than we have been at adapting to the changes we ourselves have made. Our duty as politicians is to co-operate, create change and enable hope.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Earl for their interest in the Statement.
Going on some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Offord, he seems to be a bit glass half-empty at the moment. I encourage him to work with the Government to become a little more positive in his outlook. First, he asked about the cost of net zero. We believe that growth and net zero go hand and hand. Net zero is the economic opportunity of the 21st century, and it can support the creation of hundreds of thousands of good jobs across the UK and protect our economy from future price shocks from reliance on fossil fuels alone. We also believe that this is the way forward to getting the UK better energy security and to deliver a range of social and health benefits. Last week, the OBR showed clearly in its latest report on risks to the government finances that the cost of cutting emissions to net zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, just said.
Both noble Lords asked about bills. We are determined to cut bills for people. We appreciate that they have been high in recent years and the basis of our clean energy superpower mission is to look at how we can do exactly that. If we just carry on as we are, we are exposed to expensive, insecure fossil fuels, as we saw when Russia invaded Ukraine and prices went through the roof. We are driving forward with renewable power and with nuclear, because that is the way, in the long term, that we get to cut bills. We are also looking at how we cut the cost of electricity as part of that, so that, for example, if you put in a heat pump it makes financial sense. We have to look at it all along those lines.
Renewable infrastructure and the impact on nature were also mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. We believe that nature recovery and preserving our ecosystems are an essential part of the clean energy superpower mission. As we unblock barriers to the deployment of these clean power projects, we are committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, nature recovery is incorporated in development stages and that innovative techniques can be used to encourage nature recovery—the noble Earl mentioned the amendments that we are making to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for example—because we want to get that balance right.
The noble Lord, Lord Offord, also talked about jobs. We are working very hard to bring in a just transition that is fair and built on the principle of fairness, because we need to ensure energy security and protect prices, as I said, but also to ensure fairness for workers, because decarbonisation has to be seen as the route to reindustrialisation. Working towards net zero and adapting to climate change are essential if we are to prevent widening inequalities and to reduce inequality as it stands. We know that if we do not act, climate change impacts more severely the most vulnerable groups, so we have to move forward on this.
The oil and gas sector was mentioned. We know that oil and gas production in the North Sea is going to continue for decades to come. We want to manage its reduction in a way that ensures the just transition and that our offshore workers can continue to work in the industries of the future. We are publishing a response to the consultation on the North Sea energy future later this year. That will look at how we can address the transition of oil and gas workers into working in clean energy. On that point, Robert Gordon University notes that over 90% of the UK’s oil and gas workforce skills have a medium to high transferability to offshore renewables.
Last time, when we had coal and steel collapse and communities were left behind, that had a terrible impact, and we are determined that that will not be the case this time, so we are working in partnership with trade unions, businesses and local communities, investing in skills and running regional skills pilots in places such as Aberdeen and Pembrokeshire.
The question was asked: why should we bother when other countries are not pulling their weight? That is not exactly true: other countries are acting. Over the last decade, there has been a transformation in the extent to which countries are taking it seriously. At least three-quarters of global GDP is now covered by a country-level net-zero target. This rises to 80% when taking account of commitments made by subnational governments. India is often mentioned. It has a target of 500 gigawatts of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and of reaching net zero by 2070. China is also committed to peaking its CO2 emissions by 2030, with a target to reach net zero by 2060. I could go on.
Consumption and emissions were talked about, as well as offshoring emissions. There has been a substantial overlap between our carbon footprint and territorial emissions. This means that our ambitious carbon budget targets and commitment to making Britain a clean energy superpower will reduce our carbon footprint in the process of reducing our territorial emissions. The latest figures do not show that we are offshoring emissions from the UK to other countries. As the CCC states in its 2025 Progress in Reducing Emissions report:
“The reduction in territorial emissions since 1990 significantly outweighs the increase in emissions from imports over that period, reflecting the fact that emissions reductions in the UK have largely occurred without offshoring emissions”.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his support for the Statement, but also for his clear recognition of the huge challenges that we face in tackling climate change. I completely agree with him on the complexities that he was referring to. As he said, we absolutely need that balance between nature and development.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, also talked about the global impacts. I assure him that we are committed to working internationally and to multilateral action. We are not going to address climate change and the nature crisis on our own. The UK is steadfast in its commitment to the three Rio conventions, which aim to protect the global environment, the landmark Paris Agreement and the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. We also have international milestones coming up such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity. We will reaffirm our commitment to working with partners around the world to scale up integrated solutions that deliver for climate and nature. That will include demonstrating how our plans at home are working to make people in the UK safer, healthier and more prosperous.
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Amendment, etc.) Regulations 2025
Earl Russell Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we are very supportive of these measures and I very much welcome the Government bringing them forward as part of addressing an ever-growing problem. As the Minister rightly highlighted, e-waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world, with the 50 million tonnes currently generated globally predicted to grow to 75 million tonnes by 2035. The United Kingdom is the second-biggest generator of this waste per person in the world, so it is absolutely right that the Government are bringing forward measures to address it. I welcome the fact that this will be part of Defra’s wider circular economy strategy.
As has been said, we all buy and consume these things and try to recycle them, which can often be difficult to do. Many of these items are designed to be used once and then thrown away, and they are designed in such a way that it is almost impossible to take the batteries out of them. I call for further work to make sure that items are available on the marketplace from which it is actually possible to remove the batteries. I would really like to see a universal standard for that, particularly for vapes.
This statutory instrument applies to vapes and secondary online marketplaces, but the thread running through both of those is that the polluter should pay. We agree with that principle and it is welcome that it is here.
We agree with the Government’s plans for vapes to be put under the new categorisation 7.1. It was not correct that the toy and board-game industry was in part subsidising the recycling of vapes, which are far more dangerous and complicated to recycle.
I have tabled an amendment to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill to set minimum pricing for vape products. Picking up on what the noble Baroness said, I welcome the fact that Defra has brought forward measures to ban single-use vapes, but the truth is that manufacturers are finding ways around that by putting in a rechargeable point and a reusable coil. I have seen vapes selling online for as little as £2.99 which the manufacturers say pass the ban. To me, the answer is putting in minimum pricing and making sure that we have proper vaping products with long battery cycles that are designed to be reused, and keeping these products away from pocket-money prices and our children. I encourage the Minister to go further on those measures as part of the work of the Circular Economy Taskforce. That is an issue, but we welcome the measures in these regulations.
I turn to the second part, on the online marketplace and overseas sales. On the issue of dealing with the freeloading problem of online marketplaces that have been exempt from the regulations and have not been meeting the costs of the e-waste that they generate, whereas our bricks-and-mortar sellers have been, it is right that that will change and we welcome it. We also welcome the reclassification, which is good. Just for context, it is estimated that over 1 million tonnes of electronic waste are added to the UK marketplace each year via these platforms. That is a lot of stuff, which they need to be responsible for. Some have worried that this could impact online suppliers and that some might withdraw from the UK market. We do not share those concerns. We think these measures are properly set out and see no reason why they cannot be absorbed.
I conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. While we welcome the measures, they are quite complex and are being introduced quite quickly, and they will involve a lot of reporting, monitoring and verification and compliance mechanisms, which are required under the regulations. My questions to the Minister are as follows. Are there enough resources available within Defra? Is there enough time for doing this stuff? Does it have the appropriate staff available? Does it have the right procedures in place to monitor the impacts to make sure that enforcement is properly done?
With that, we welcome the regulations, and we look forward to this Government going further in these areas.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instrument and outlining its objectives. The ambition to ensure that all producers contribute fairly to the costs of collecting and treating waste electrical and electronic equipment is one that few would dispute. Indeed, His Majesty’s Official Opposition are in full support of these regulations.
This instrument makes two key changes. First, it makes online marketplace operators responsible for the WEEE obligations linked to electrical goods sold into the UK by non-UK sellers using their platforms. Secondly, it creates a new, separate category for e-cigarettes, vapes and heated tobacco products, removing them from the broader toys and leisure equipment category. Both are necessary steps to address long-standing imbalances.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I shall pose a number of questions that I hope the Government will consider as implementation progresses. First, on making online marketplace operators responsible for waste costs, what analysis has been conducted to assess likely compliance rates among these operators? Ensuring that the law translates into meaningful change is essential, and enforcement should be at the heart of that.
Secondly, how confident are the Government that enforcement will be sufficiently resourced, especially given past difficulties with online sellers who fall outside UK jurisdiction, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering? While it is logical to shift responsibility to platforms with a physical or legal UK presence, is there a risk that some operators may still find routes to avoid liability, either by reclassifying their service or by restructuring seller arrangements?
Thirdly, on the methodology for calculating the volume of electrical and electronic equipment sold through online platforms, how prescriptive is the guidance expected to be? Will methodologies be subject to review or audit by regulators to ensure transparency and comparability?
I turn to the creation of a dedicated vape category— I should declare an interest as a 15-year vaper myself—which we are told will allow for more targeted collection targets and financial obligations. How clearly defined will this new category be in practice, given the rapid evolution of vaping and nicotine delivery technologies? Will the Government commit to regularly reviewing the scope of this category to ensure it remains fit for purpose?
I would also welcome the Minister’s views on the transitional provisions. Are the timelines, particularly 15 November and 31 January, realistic for smaller operators, especially those newly brought into scope? What communication plans are in place to ensure these businesses are fully informed? Effective communication here will be important to the success of the instrument. I note that smaller producers that place less than 5 tonnes of electrical and electronic equipment on the market remain exempt from full financial obligations. Does this de minimis threshold continue to strike the right balance between supporting small business and ensuring environmental responsibility? I was hoping the Minister could help explain how the Government reached this threshold, which seems rather large.
In conclusion, we welcome the intent behind these regulations to create a fairer, more enforceable system, but, in doing so, we must ensure that compliance is not only a legal requirement but a level playing field. That requires clarity, transparency and, above all, careful oversight. I look forward to hearing how the Government will monitor these reforms and respond to the questions they inevitably raise.
Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2025
Earl Russell Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I support the fatal amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Grender. This fatal amendment rightly calls on this House to decline to approve the Agriculture (Delinked Payments) (Reductions) (England) Regulations, on the grounds that they accelerate the reduction of delinked payments without adequately establishing alternative funding schemes.
I will not repeat the arguments that have been made by my noble friend Lady Grender and others. We are all aware of the proposed dramatic acceleration in the reduction of delinked payments for 2025, and how this has come on top of the completely unexpected and sudden withdrawal of SFI payments. These two factors leave thousands of farmers who were in the process of applying—some 6,600 applications—frozen out of the payments system, and this is unacceptable.
This double blow of slashing established payments while closing the door to the replacement scheme has thrown thousands of farming businesses into disarray. It creates severe cash-flow crises for farmers across the country and has damaged the bond of trust between our farmers and this Government. It is particularly crippling for those who are yet to enter the agri-environmental schemes, and particularly impacts our upland and small-scale family-run farms, which are still largely excluded. The average English less-favoured area livestock farm could see its profits fall by almost half. The Government claim that the money saved from delinked payments will stay within the sector and I welcome the Minister’s guarantee to say that today.
I turn now to the arguments for the need for the fatal amendment before us today. Of course, these procedures should be used rarely or reserved for the issues of utmost importance. However, if the imminent collapse of so many of our family-run farms—which are the backbone of our farming businesses—due to unhelpful bureaucracy that is causing them to go bankrupt does not fit these conditions, I do not know what does.
The Conservative Benches have their own regret amendment on the Order Paper today. A regret amendment is too little and too late to offer our family farmers any hope of real, meaningful change that will save their livelihoods in time; it will not accomplish the meaningful change we require. The Conservative Benches have already made the argument that they do not support fatal amendments by convention. A simple look at history shows that this is simply not correct. The House of Lords Library briefing that I asked for shows that there have been 21 Divisions on fatal amendments since the start of the 2014-15 parliamentary Session.
Equally, the notion that the Conservatives do not call votes on their own fatal amendments is also historically incorrect. I remind the Conservative Benches that they called a vote on a fatal amendment—and won it, by the way—in response to the Blair Government’s proposals to prevent non-Labour candidates having an official election address at the first London mayoral elections. Other votes have been called: the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called a vote on the Prescription Only Medicines (Human Use) Amendment (No. 3) Order; Lord Dixon-Smith called a vote on the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations; Baroness Miller of Hendon called a vote on the Weights and Measures (Metrication Amendments) Regulations; Baroness Blatch called a vote on the Education Act 2002 (Modification of Provisions) (No. 2) (England) Regulations. So I appeal directly to the individual Members of the Conservative Benches to put aside their current perceptions of parliamentary procedure and stand behind our farmers in their hour of need. Vote in favour of the fatal amendment before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, regret is too gentle a word.
The dire financial situation our farmers face undermines the very foundations of British farming. It puts Britain’s food security at further risk and impacts our ability to fight climate change. It disproportionately affects smaller farmers, hill farmers and our vulnerable tenant farmers. Concerns have also been raised about the competitive disadvantages of our farmers against their Scottish and Welsh counterparts. It is shocking that the Government proceed without a comprehensive impact assessment that looks at the collective effects of these changes, and their cumulative impact on our farming communities. Farmers are essential custodians of our land, producing our food and caring for our environment. They need certainty, stability and fair financial support for the vital public goods they provide. The Government’s current approach offers none of this. Approving these regulations would endorse a flawed and damaging transition. I urge all noble Lords to support the fatal amendment and send a clear message to the Government that this approach is unacceptable and they must urgently change course to support our farmers properly.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I preface my remarks by thanking my noble friend Lord Rooker for his comments. They resonate so much with me in terms of how this Government have approached the farming sector, which is to be regretted. I will go on to say much in support of my noble friend here on the Front Bench.
I always remember that my father—who was not a farmer, by the way—used to say that the Treasury does its best to strangle every good initiative at birth. I very much concur with his comments.
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of the regulations before us today. I also thank her for her Answers to Written Questions on 3 April, where she laid out the Government’s plans for the reinterpretation of the sustainable farming incentive. I declare my interest as being in receipt of payments regarding a dairy farm.
However, after I submitted Written Questions to the Table Office, they were separated into distinct Questions. One became redrafted and reinterpreted and was thereby lost. However, in her Answers, which I am grateful for, she stated:
“Every penny of the reductions to delinked payments will stay within the sector”.
I know that was one of the concerns at the time of the SFI closure announcements, and I am glad she has reiterated it tonight. Her other replies on the Government’s intentions regarding SFI were extremely useful.
I have today resubmitted the Question and if I may will ask my noble friend tonight, so that it completes the picture regarding the intentions of the Government. This period of transition initiated on Brexit has been extremely long and arduous for farmers and growers. I was extremely critical of the previous Conservative Government cutting back on support payments under BPS over this transition period long before there was any clarity from government on environmental schemes ahead. That these have now been worked up and brought forward by this Government is to be welcomed.
The payment for environmental benefits has been made worthwhile and meaningful compared with the cost of the enterprise to undertake them. This has been reflected in the successful uptake of the sustainable farming incentive, leading to a full budget allocation, in contrast to the lack of uptake in the previous Conservative Government’s allocation.
My noble friend and her colleagues in the other place are to be congratulated. Now that there are meaningful programmes for environmental improvements, I can understand and appreciate that the Government wish to move ahead to these ELM schemes and hasten the change from the legacy systems of BPS in the transition. Now that there are these schemes, I cannot support these regret amendments.
However, the timing of the progressive withdrawal coincides with a pause in the success of the SFI scheme in bringing forward an oversupply of applications. It is imperative that this temporary pause is short-lived and that there is clarity on the way ahead, especially for the 3,000 to 6,000 applicants who were preparing to join the scheme.
So, my question which was overlooked and which I would now like to ask the Government is: is it their intention to maintain and continue with a universal scheme open to all farm types on an equal basis? We cannot and must not lose sight of the role of all farms in hitting environmental and sustainability targets. Can my noble friend the Minister assure the committee that any reinterpretation of SFI will continue to be available to all farms and continue to be worthwhile to bring the necessary changes and benefits to the UK’s agricultural land management?
The agricultural transition must continue to be inclusive. There has been a lot of complexity to navigate and the contemporary problems of overspend must not detract from fulfilling the promise of bringing forward a more sustainable agriculture, and I commend the department on how simple it is to enter the scheme.
Many of those in the process of an application may have been subject to the complex rules of the transition between an ELM or mid-tier Countryside Stewardship scheme, which were subject to five-year agreements, and the SFI incentive. Those farmers will need answers.
I realise that there are further dimensions around the policies that must be assessed with the forthcoming road map and the land use framework. However, I urge my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues in the department to bring forward a continuing and meaningful scheme as soon as possible.
Ancient Trees: Protections
Earl Russell Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord asks an interesting question, to which I do not actually know the answer. I shall look into it and get back to him.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, our ancient trees are an extremely important part of our national psyche and extremely important for our biodiversity. I welcome the Minister’s comments that the Government are looking at what more they can do to protect our ancient trees, but can I press her further? When do the Government feel they might bring forward legislation in this area? Would the Planning and Infrastructure Bill be such an opportunity?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Lord made a number of points there, on planning infra- structure, nature, biodiversity and a wider tree strategy. Defra and MHCLG have been talking extensively about environment and planning, and doing a lot of work on that ahead of any legislation in that area. Regarding nature and biodiversity, we are having a number of conversations in Defra on our priority legislation going forward. Clearly, these areas will be part of those discussions.
Biodiversity and Conservation
Earl Russell Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, what an interesting debate, from beavers to bracken. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, for bringing this essential debate and for raising the important issues of bottom trawling, biodiversity net gain and forest risk products.
Biodiversity is the heartbeat of the planet, and famously we are one of the most nature-deprived nations in the world, as the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, mentioned. One in six of our species is indeed threatened with extinction. Five years on from our 30 by 2030 commitments, we have not really made progress, as just 2.93% of land and 9.92% of our oceans is protected.
My worry is, despite the strong words in Labour’s manifesto of a “nature emergency”—I welcome progress on some issues—whether we are really seeing the robust action, the legislative requirements and the funds to meet the monumental scale of the challenge. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right to raise the issue of the mixed messages from Labour on growth.
We welcome the UK’s national biodiversity strategy and action plan, but how does it fit with the overall government strategy? The noble Baroness, Lady Willis, is absolutely right to raise the issue of strategy in this debate and ask what works. I understand Labour’s need for a short, sharp review, but this is separate from the environmental improvement plan, and, outside that framework, it is largely powerless and will soon be outdated. Will it be incorporated into the EIP? The Wildlife and Countryside Link says it is not clear whether the actions in this plan will add up to achieving the UK’s global nature commitments. The Office for Environmental Protection is clear that we are largely off-track, and the scale and the pace of the effort is not sufficient. The OEP’s recently published progress report is also very damaging. When will the Government respond to the OEP’s annual report?
We call on the Government to commit to incorporating all international biodiversity targets in the revised environmental improvement plan. This should include allocation of responsibility for delivery, along with evidence-based policies needed to achieve that delivery.
We need rapidly co-ordinated, properly funded, large-scale action. The polluter must pay. The Government must bring stronger legal protections and must provide the resources required for the Environment Agency to do the work it needs to do. We are running out of time. Fly-tipping, plastic pollution, sewage, forever chemicals, habitat loss and overfishing—the list goes on. The rapidly changing climate is compounding these problems. The window is closing fast, and we must do more to meet our biodiversity targets and commitments.
I conclude with some key points. Budgets are essential. I am particularly worried about growing pressures on the Defra budget, particularly for nature-based solutions. We must get nature-friendly farming right. We need our farmers; we must support them. They need certainty and reliability from this Government. The cut to the SFI budget, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, does not improve these relations.
When will we get a chemicals convention? We also need to stand up for climate science. The UK Government need to lead the world on this and stand up to Trump: stand up for truth.
Fly-tipping is an issue I have raised before, but when can we expect some legislation on this issue? It is blighting our countryside and is out of control. We need more on plastic pollution to encourage the circular economy. I welcome Labour’s commitment on woodlands and tree planting, but that has to happen.
I come to my final two points. Access to nature is vital, particularly in our cities. I call on the Government to include people, work with civil society and bring in citizen science; not only is it cost effective, it just makes sense.
Water Companies: Fines
Earl Russell Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lady Grender for bringing it and all who have spoken today. At heart, this debate is about broken promises: broken promises to small and medium-sized charities working to help clean up our polluted rivers, small charities that stand ready to help, that made funding applications in good faith to help undertake the work of beginning to restore our polluted rivers and streams some eight months ago, that have not heard a word back and that have not been treated with the respect that they deserve.
This Government need the good will of the third sector to help meet the challenges coming over the horizon, particularly the 30 by 30 targets. The last election was driven by anger at the wanton pollution of our rivers and streams by water companies that seemed immune to caring and to being held accountable. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, made it clear that these criminal activities have upset everybody, across all sides.
Between 2020 and 2023, England’s water companies used storm overflows more than 1.5 million times for more than 11 million hours. The Labour party’s election manifesto said:
“Labour will put failing water companies under special measures … give regulators new powers to block the payment of bonuses to executives … and bring criminal charges”.
Labour promised automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing, to deliver for nature and, most importantly for this debate, to
“work in partnership with civil society, communities and businesses to restore and protect our natural world”.
Much in the Water (Special Measures) Bill is welcome, but we still have the water commission to come for the longer-term solutions that Labour plans. I thank the Minister for her open and constructive engagement on that Bill. During that debate, I moved an amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bakewell that sought to require all funds from the fining of water companies for environmental offences to be ring-fenced for the water restitution fund and spent on freshwater recovery. I said that,
“the Bill could be used to bolster the water restitution fund—the pot set up by the previous Administration to channel environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment”.—[Official Report, 30/10/24; col. 1199.]
In retrospect, I should have done more to ensure that we moved that amendment on Report, but I am pleased that we pressured our MPs in the other place to raise it, and I thank Tim Farron and other MPs who spoke on those matters.
I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister. Indeed, I sympathise with the position that she finds herself in today. As my noble friend Lady Grender has already said, it really should be the Treasury that is answerable for this debate today, as it is really the Treasury’s failures that are causing these problems. The Chancellor appears to have forgotten that she is supposed to be the greenest one ever.
It is not difficult to imagine how we got here. The Conservatives brought forward the water restitution fund but failed to impose any fines to make it do anything. Labour then won the general election and brought about legislation that raised the number and the values of fines over time. No doubt, the Treasury had concerns. Worries were probably expressed that if the first tranche of the £11 million promised was paid, that would set a precedent, and that the next tranche of £168 million would need to be paid afterwards, with maybe even greater fines after that. No doubt at some point, paralysis set in, and the argument between the Minister’s department and the Treasury was just not capable of being resolved.
The money involved in the first round of the water restitution fund is only £11 million. The Government did not remove the fund when they came into power, and the applications were made in good faith. I believe this Government are under a contractual obligation to meet those payments. I hope that this debate can help to sharpen the elbows, so to speak, of the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury, but what we need today is absolute clarity on the £11 million pending in grant payments. Are they going to be paid? If so, when, and if not, why not?
Further forward, of course I would argue that all future funds should be provided to the charities to help with restitution, but I understand that this may not be possible. If there are further issues going forward, I suggest to the Minister that the commission that this Government have set up is tasked with looking at future fines and how those fines should be used, and that, in the meantime, all fines that are levied are made available for the charities that need this money.
This Labour Government need good co-operation with civil society on nature; it is our ally and partner in getting this stuff done. I strongly encourage this Government to think seriously about those working relations and to make that argument to the Treasury because we need this to be done, whether it is action on fly tipping, the protection of our SSSIs or our watercourses.
Finally, can the Minister please say what is happening to protect our chalk streams? Chalk streams should be getting a share of this money. I understand that the chalk stream protection fund is not happening, so can the Minister please say a word about the Government’s plans for the protection of chalk streams and when we will hear something further?
Storm Bert: National Preparedness
Earl Russell Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the dredging question, the Environment Agency undertakes dredging to manage flood risk where it is technically effective, does not significantly increase flood risk for others down stream and is environmentally acceptable. Some locations will benefit from this and others will not, so it is looked at case by case. On flood warnings, my feeling is that most of the time they work very well. I am signed up for them: we get them by email and text, and we get a phone call. I urge anyone who has not signed up for flood warnings and who lives in a flood area to do so, because they are effective. Regarding having a single place, that is something I can take back to the department to review.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, for every one degree rise in temperature, the air can hold up to 7% more moisture. In the UK, rapid climate change is having an ever more devastating impact on our local citizens and property. We are particularly seeing a rise in very localised extreme weather surface water flooding events. What action are the Government taking to help improve the forecasting models for these hyper-localised devastating flooding events?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The answer is twofold. First, what do we need to do to reduce the likelihood of surface flooding? A lot of the nature-based solutions that we have been bringing in and discussing in the water Bill will help towards that. Climate change is having a serious impact, so we need to review the effectiveness of how we are working and have a long-term model. We have set up the new flood resilience forum, which will look across the board to consider floods that have taken place and how we can react better in future.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Earl Russell ExcerptsWednesday 20th November 2024
(9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 View all Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 45-I(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (19 Nov 2024)
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to this group of two amendments on the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to promote sustainable urban drainage systems, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. Amendment 3 seeks to include the standards issued under that schedule in the guidance produced by Ofwat in relation to performance pay. Amendment 43 requires the Secretary of State to lay a report on the effect of the Bill on the implementation of Schedule 3 to that Act within six months of the passing of the Bill before us. I will speak to both amendments together, as, in the main, they are about the same issue: the implementation of Schedule 3.
We on these Benches are broadly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and we welcome her continued commitment to this particular area of policy. Of course, if we could roll back the clock and start again, we would all ensure that all housing had sustainable drainage designed in and built as standard. That option is obviously not available to us, but these amendments seek to ensure that all housing developments are built with sustainable drainage methods going forward.
We should all use grey water to flush our toilets and water our gardens, and, as a society, we need to make sure that surface water and rainwater are collected, stored and used, so that they do not mix with the foul water from toilets and overflows and overfill our antiquated sewerage systems.
In the face of climate change and even more extreme forms of weather, we need to do more to reduce the use of water and to slow any unessential abstraction of it from our rivers and streams. Planning authorities should not grant new housing planning permission unless proper systems are in place to reuse rainwater, separate it from the foul water and build attenuation ponds to collect surplus rainwater. There are two ends to this problem, and it seems like 99% of what we do is dealing with the bad end rather than with the preventive stuff at the other end. Of course, nature solutions are one option for dealing with these issues. Is anything in the Minister’s Amendment 42 on nature-based solutions helpful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and her amendment? Perhaps there is nothing, but perhaps there are some connections between the two.
Do the Government still intend to push on in the new year on a consultation on how we could revise these regulations, with the aim of increasing water reuse?
As this is the only contribution I will make to this debate, I will take a moment to thank the Minister and her team for the constructive way she has engaged with all of us across the House on the Bill, and for bringing forward many government amendments that have sought to address concerns raised across the Chamber.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I apologise to the House for not having been able to participate in previous stages. I will briefly support the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and these amendments. How come the Government, when in opposition, supported introducing mandatory sustainable drains in major new developments but now seem not to wish to do so? If no drains, soakaways or culverts are constructed to take the excess, flood-water will go into combined sewers, potentially then bubbling up and leaving sewage in housing developments. This causes a health hazard by flooding homes with sewage.
The amendment asks simply for a report on how developers have implemented Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. There was cross-party support for that in this House, and I hope the Minister can reassure us or find a way to meet the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]
Earl Russell ExcerptsMonday 4th November 2024
(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 View all Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 17-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (31 Oct 2024)
Earl Russell
“Power to revoke licencesAfter section 17R of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—“17S Power to revoke licencesThe Authority may revoke a water supply and sewerage licence (WSSL) with six months’ notice.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides Ofwat with the power to remove a water supply and or sewerage licence with six months’ notice.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments is on water company ownership. In preparing for this Bill, my Whips’ Office briefing note said that, in some circumstances, Ofwat could take no fewer than 25 years to revoke a water licence. When I read this, I found it hard to believe that this was the case, so I had to go away and have a look at it myself.
I note that different conditions apply to household water companies and retail or business suppliers, as retail suppliers operate within a different market, and that this is an extremely complex area of legislation. I understand that Ofwat can take up to 25 years to revoke the licence of a water company in some cases where it is in breach of its licence conditions. My amendment is a probing one. I want to be certain that it is possible for licences to be revoked much earlier than 25 years for matters such as sewage spills and failures to invest in infrastructure. I am also interested in looking at whether six months is a feasible timeframe for revoking licences in the cases of the worst sewage spill offenders.
It is unacceptable that, in 2023, for example, water companies dumped 54% more sewage in our lakes, rivers and coastal areas than they did in the previous year. This amounted to some 464,000 incidents and some 3.6 million hours of untreated sewage discharges in England alone, yet few water and sewage discharge licences have been revoked as a direct result of sewage spills.
The Government have given a clear commitment to make improvements, and this Bill contains many measures that we welcome. The framework for these proposed improvements is one where the Government are passing this Bill to bring in more immediate measures in order to hold the water companies to account and to strengthen the powers of the regulators. This is being done now while the water commission undertakes deeper, more fundamental thinking to make further recommendations in due course.
The Government’s argument is based on the belief that Ofwat can be supported, strengthened and remade to be an effective regulator. The arguments I want to discuss relate to the ultimate sanction of revoking water and sewage discharge licences. If Ofwat is to be effective, the ultimate sanction must act as a real deterrent against illegal and improper behaviour. I fully recognise that my suggestion of changing this to six months may not work and may need a rethink; I would be more than happy to discuss this with the Minister if it is of interest. I recognise that there is a need to balance the needs of water companies, their investors and customers, as well as to ensure continuity of supply.
I will be honest: I know that there are many different licences and conditions for revoking them, and that this is a complex area. The conditions for a quick termination, applying to the issues of a special administrator and bankruptcy, are welcome. My concerns relate more to the broader, far from general, form of deterrence for water companies doing what they have been doing up to now with no real comeback, such as siphoning funds off to shareholders while failing to meet the required levels of investments, falsifying self-reporting of sewage discharges and failing to prevent sewage spills.
I want this amendment to lead to a brief discussion on the licence conditions in place now. I seek reassurance from the Government that they will have a look at these powers, look at how they are used in practice and consider whether any changes are required as part of this Bill. I do this as there are no real changes to any of the licence termination conditions; I wondered whether this was a mistake or oversight. The imposition of tougher prison sentences and higher fines are welcome measures, but what happens if these measures alone failed to regulate companies’ behaviour?
For comparison, the revocation of licences in other regulated sectors appears generally to happen on a much quicker timescale. Can the Minister give the rationale behind leaving the 25 years in statute, and can she give examples of Ofwat acting much earlier in relation to lack of investment or pollution incidents? What is the average time for revoking a water and sewage licence?
I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to three amendments in this group: Amendments 97, 98 and 99. This weekend saw tens of thousands of people marching for clean water in London. It was the most amazing event. It was a chance for me to speak to people who agree with me—as opposed to being here in your Lordships’ House, where not many people agree with me.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I completely get the noble Baroness’s point. I would hope that, when we do the review, we look completely across all the issues to do with a water company, including the way it behaves because of the way it is set up, and that that should be part of any consideration. By the time we have reported, I am sure the noble Baroness will be very happy to have another Labour Government.
Earl Russell (LD)
I thank the Minister for her responses on this group. Mine was a probing amendment and I appreciate her response. I fully recognise that there would be issues with six months as a period, but I think it is important that we have a discussion about the power of revoking licences. I appreciate that the Government are keeping that under review. On Amendment 97, I appreciate what she says about the courts and their powers in all this: that was a welcome response. On Amendment 98 on the public ownership of water companies, I think her response to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, giving those figures and calculations, was useful in moving that debate forward. Obviously, there are costs involved in that and in the Government supporting failing water companies as well. I know that these are difficult matters. Of course, on our Benches we want to have public ownership of water companies, and we will continue to support that, but I thank the Minister for her inclusive responses and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.