High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report stage
Monday 30th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

5: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Biodiversity net gain
The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as in the register as the deputy chair of Natural England. Amendment 5 stands in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will also speak to Amendments 6, 7 and 11 in this group. I give notice to the House that I will seek votes on Amendments 5, 6 and 7 unless the Government see light on the road to Damascus or even on the line to Crewe.

First, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the numerous meetings she has held with Peers proposing amendments. If we have not been persuaded, it is no reflection on my noble friend—it is just that some of us are difficult blighters at the best of times. However, on this occasion we think we might have some merit on our side. Noble Lords may consider this an unusual grouping of Peers, but we are all united in our desire to protect and enhance UK biodiversity, which has declined drastically over the last 50 years. We are not seeking to stop or slow down HS2a, but we suggest that a flagship construction project should be a flagship regeneration project for our flora and fauna too, and it can be done at little cost.

Amendment 5 would insert a new clause stating:

“The scheduled works must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain.”


The Government’s policy is that all new developments must achieve 10% biodiversity net gain. This has been welcomed by developers who see it as a selling point for their properties. However, the policy does not apply to national infrastructure projects, which in my view should be leading by example. Indeed, even Network Rail and Highways England have committed to net gain in the future.

Clause 92 and Schedule 14 to the Environment Bill, currently in another place and which this House will get next year, lays down a requirement for 10% net gain, but the HS2 policy is just no net loss. Leaving aside the point that when one destroys an ancient woodland there is an irrecoverable loss, that policy is now way out of date. In 2015, no net loss might have satisfied the public and the then Government, but it is out of step with what the Prime Minister has announced in the last few months and out of step with the mood of the times on to our environment.

Just last week, the Prime Minister said in the national infrastructure strategy that we must build back better and greener. He made the 30x30 pledge and recently launched a massive programme of nature recovery networks. Therefore, the old HS2 policy on the destruction of habitats and wildlife is way out of tune with the Government’s new thinking on nature recovery.

I pay tribute to the Government and to my honourable friend Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister in charge in another place, for pushing HS2 to do more than just achieve no net loss. This amendment is designed to help my noble friend the Government by putting HS2a under an obligation to achieve 10% overall biodiversity improvement when the project is complete. HS2’s green corridor ambition can contribute to the project’s environmental legacy, but it is unlikely to deliver net gain on its own.

The main misconception about net gain, and this has been said in Committee, is that it would involve more compulsory purchase of land adjacent to the line. That is absolutely not the case. Achieving net gain in this project is similar to the environmental land management schemes being designed for farmers, launched this morning. That would mean HS2 offering incentives for landowners and others to develop biodiversity projects. These may be adjacent to the route or even many miles away. HS2 could fund new woodlands, peat restoration or wetlands improvements and these do not have to be tied to the route. It could fund landowners or organisations such as the RSPB, the Woodland Trust and local wildlife trusts to carry out nature recovery work elsewhere, so long as by the end of the project all the works had achieved a 10% net gain overall.

Natural England calculates that the cost of net gain over the whole HS2 route would be 0.01%, or £100 million. Here we are dealing with a section one-third of that length and a guestimate of costs would therefore be about £35 million. That would be a one-off cost. The wage bill for the 1,389 HS2 staff last year was £109 million, and that will be a recurring cost for 15 years or so. Thus, achieving net gain is a very small cost but a huge environmental gain. We should expect HS2 as the Government’s flagship infrastructure project to lead the way and go above and beyond the minimum and achieve what we will legislate for next year in the Environment Bill.

HS2 is unnecessarily antagonising organisations which would love to weigh in behind it if it would do a little bit more for biodiversity. There will be some who will always be opposed to the project, but many highly respected NGOs would publicly support HS2 if it achieved net gain and saved ancient woodlands.

That brings me on to Amendment 6, and my proposed new clause:

“The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”


A number of ancient woodlands would be damaged or destroyed by the current proposed route. No matter how many new trees we plant, we cannot replace the biodiversity lost when an ancient woodland is destroyed. These are not just old trees. When habitats have been left to develop for 500 years or so they become complex ecosystems holding a wide range of flora. Ancient woodlands have declined dramatically over the years and now cover only 2.4% of the UK. That is far too small a size to sacrifice even more.

I quote from the Government’s own National Planning Policy Framework, which instructs councils that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

Of course, the Government then list as “wholly exceptional” any old national infrastructure projects where they exempt themselves from the rules they apply to everyone else. In this day and age, I do not think Governments will get away with a policy of “Everyone must obey the rules, except us.” That mood is changing.

If ancient woodlands have to be destroyed, Natural England proposes a replanting ratio of 30:1. That seems high but it is a recognition that you have to plant a lot more new trees if you are going to try to ameliorate the damage done by the loss of ancient woods. I shall say no more on this subject, on this amendment, because I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who is an absolute expert on this matter, will talk about ancient woodlands. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about this amendment and her Amendment 13.

My last amendment, Amendment 7, seeks to insert a new clause stating that:

“All plants and trees planted on any of the land on which the scheduled works take place, or in mitigation of the effects of those works, must be … British native species, and … sourced in the United Kingdom.”


This is not a little Englander new clause, suggesting that I do not want nasty foreign trees when we have left the EU, but a recognition that our native wildlife needs native plants and habitat to survive. For tens of thousands of years our native fauna has survived and developed in a habitat of native British flora. Putting it simply, we cannot have native red squirrels unless we have the native trees producing the nuts, fruits and seeds on which they survive. The Back from the Brink project, to recover 20 species from near extinction, depends on native habitats.

This new clause is necessary because HS2 plans to plant one-third of the plants and trees from latitudes of up to two degrees south of the midpoint of the route. Planting trees from further south may make sense for commercial forestry, guarding against climate change, but does nothing to help our native fauna survive. Eucalyptus trees from France may be very good for timber but I understand their leaves are toxic and that only koala bears and possums thrive on them and we do not want those species running around our woods. Thus, we need UK native trees and plants to support our native wildlife. However, I mention that as an extreme example and I do not expect to see these exotic species from France, but it is highly likely that the one-third will be sourced from the largest supplier of trees and plants in Europe: the Netherlands. Last year, we imported £1 billion of trees and plants from Holland.

As colleagues will know, we face an increasing threat from diseases unwittingly imported along with plants sourced from abroad. Even if we step up biosecurity when we leave the EU, there will still be an enormous risk of bringing in destructive bugs and diseases. For any imported seed stock, HS2 must follow the relevant hygiene regulations as set out in the Plant Health (England) Order 2005 and it must comply with the latest biosecurity certification standards on planting and importation. But that is what is supposed to happen at the moment for all imported seeds and plants and yet we have ash dieback, oak processionary moth and spittlebugs, and God help us if Xylella fastidiosa gets here because it can destroy 500 different tree species. Of course, many bugs and diseases are hidden in the soil.

No doubt noble Lords with more expertise than I will correct me if I am wrong, but is it not the case that every single bug and disease which has devastated our trees and plants has come in from abroad despite the best efforts at port control with phytosanitary measures? Do not take my word for it on the risk. In July 2019, the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture issued a warning to all its members saying that they had to take special care that they did not export the oak processionary moth to England along with all the English oaks they exported to us. If even the Dutch exporters are warning about the dangers of their products, should we not exercise a bit more caution? The one-third foreign planting advice satisfies the technical advice from the Forestry Commission and Natural England, but I am suggesting that we should be more cautious than the technical advice. The danger is not foreign eucalyptus but foreign English oaks.

At this precise moment—or he may have finished now—my noble friend Lord Gardiner is upstairs in the Grand Committee taking through a large SI on protecting us from invasive non-native species. A week today, he is taking through a massive SI with 13 annexes on plant phytosanitary conditions. Defra is well aware of the threat but it seems that the Department for Transport is not. That is why a requirement on acquiring plants from UK sources is so important. It will also be good business for UK nurseries that can easily supply all that would be required. We have a huge range of UK native trees and there is no excuse not to use them. One has just to look at the Woodland Trust website to see the full range and all animals, birds, butterflies and other species that depend on our native flora for survival.

I have just read, this weekend, the Woodland Trust publication, published this month, called Tree Provenance Choice in a Changing Climate, which addresses this biodiversity argument. The Woodland Trust says:

“For woodland conservation, resilience, and enhanced biosecurity, evidence suggests that tree seed sourced from local UK provenances will be best adapted for UK sites in the long term … Wherever possible, trees should be sourced from within the UK in order to prevent further introductions of damaging pests and diseases.”


Again, I say simply: do not take my word for it but listen to the experts on this occasion.

I want to say a few words on Amendment 11. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has drafted—in my opinion—a more detailed and better amendment than mine. I look forward to her speaking on it, but I will seek a vote on Amendment 7 if the noble Baroness does not seek one on Amendment 11.

I cannot see any downside to the Government accepting Amendments 7 or 11. They carry no extra cost, give a big boost to UK plant growers, provide native trees and plants for our native wildlife, and are a 100% cast-iron guarantee that we will not bring in another devastating plant disease. It is a win-win-win-win for all of us but especially our tress and wildlife.

I apologise that I have spoken at length on these amendments, so I will not try the patience of the House by speaking to any other amendments today, but I do support Amendments 10 and 13 in another group, when they are reached.

In conclusion, the cost of what we propose here for this short part of the route is infinitesimally small in comparison with the overall cost of the project. Our amendments would not slow down construction. If we are to have a world-class new railway, we should preserve our existing world-class woods and wildlife—what remain of them. HS2 should guarantee a substantial environmental legacy that is commensurate with the status of a flagship government infrastructure project. I hope that the Government might accept these simple amendments of mine or that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I beg to move.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is an extremely great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Blencathra. He has made a very eloquent case for all the amendments in his name and those that I have signed with him. First, I draw attention to my environmental entries in the register of interests.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my intervention has provided some clarity to the House, and that my noble friend Lord Blencathra is feeling satisfied and will therefore withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, naturally I am grateful to all noble Lords, both here in the Chamber and online, who have spoken both for and against my amendments. Since I spoke at length in moving them, I shall be as brief as possible now.

On Amendment 5 on net gain and Amendment 7 on native-sourced trees, I feel that the Government have not really won the argument. I have seen a note from the Government today—and my noble friend the Minister repeated the point—saying that Amendment 5 would be disproportionately expensive, could entail redesign of the scheme and would turn valuable farmland into biodiversity sites. That really is a bit desperate. Disproportionately expensive? We estimate £35 million out of a total HS2 cost of £106 billion; £35 million is just a four-month wage bill for HS2 staff.

The suggestion of redesign of the scheme is just nonsense. There is no redesign of the scheme involved in offering incentives to farmers and NGOs to voluntarily do some biodiversity schemes, either near the route or elsewhere. What redesign is involved in giving the Woodland Trust, say, £2 million to restore some ancient woodlands—or in giving the RSPB £2 billion to develop wetlands somewhere else? There is no redesign involved at all. God help us if that is what the Department for Transport officials think “net gain” means. At this stage, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson: HS2 boasts that it is trying to achieve no net loss. I have never seen anything that says that HS2 will achieve net gain. If it were achieving net gain, none of us would be speaking in favour of these amendments; they would not be necessary.

The other argument against Amendment 5 is that we would lose valuable farmland to biodiversity. Does the Department for Transport never talk to Defra? Today, Defra has launched the most massive scheme in our history to incentivise farmers to use land for biodiversity purposes. The Secretary of State, my right honourable friend George Eustice, said that it is the most significant change to farming and land management in 50 years. All my Amendment 5 on achieving 10% biodiversity net gain seeks to do is to replicate that voluntary scheme for HS2 phase 2a, and get other volunteers near the route or somewhere else to do some biodiversity net gain.

With regard to Amendment 6 on ancient woodlands, I accept that if every ancient woodland were to be avoided, that would result in route changes. That is unlikely to happen, and I accept that; I accept that this was my weakest amendment. However, I want to vote on it to signal to HS2 that we do not want this to happen with further legs. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and maybe the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, we will be here in a couple of years’ time—or six months’ time, according to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—looking at the next leg, another leg that will bulldoze through more ancient woodlands, and when we complain about it the department will say “Oh, it’s too late to change it now, it would mean route redesign and greatly increased costs.” I would like Peers to vote for Amendment 6 as a signal to HS2 that we do not want more ancient woodlands destroyed, up with which we will not put.

On Amendment 7, I just do not understand where the Government are coming from. We are talking about woodland to support native wildlife, not simply planting commercial forestry for timber. I accept that the advice of the Forestry Commission, on one-third of seeds from warmer climates to guard against climate change in future when you are looking at a crop lasting 50 or 70 years, may be perfectly valid to support commercial timber growing, but in the woodlands we are looking at a lot of trees that will be short and stumpy things, since Network Rail hacks down anything above 20 feet in any case if it gets too tall and interferes with the lines, which is fair enough. Is it seriously suggested that we need trees from warmer climates since one-third of our species will not survive the next 20 or 30 years? In this sort of planting for native wildlife, we are looking at the natural regeneration of rowan, holly, birch, wild cherry, hawthorn, blackthorn, alder, crab-apple and things like that. I have seen no evidence that climate change—which I agree will happen—will be so drastic that the species I have mentioned will not survive the next 20 to 30 years or so.

I listened with great care to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Lucas. I am happy, if we can guarantee that no plants come in from abroad, that we are going to get biosecure seeds that will be grown in this country. That is an improvement. I simply do not trust HS2 to go for that option. If some big supplier in the Netherlands does a deal for plants that are a fraction of the price—I have bought plants from the Netherlands for my gardens over the years at dirt cheap prices; unfortunately, half of them died but that was probably my fault—then HS2 will go for that. So I would like to push that amendment to a vote too.

My noble friend Lord Caithness was right: I should not have said that by taking nothing from abroad we are 100% guaranteed not to get new diseases, but we will have severely diminished the risk. I accept that some may come in airborne or in timber, but if we do not import plants or trees from abroad, at least we will 100% guarantee that we will not get soil-based or plant-based bugs or diseases, although the risk of airborne ones is still there. We cannot catch every disease that we may import but we can severely reduce the chances.

It is with regret that, for the first time in nine years in this House, I wish to push my Amendment 5 to a vote—against the Government’s advice—as well as, I am afraid, the two amendments afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

6: After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
“Preservation of ancient woodlands
The scheduled works must not destroy any ancient woodlands, either directly or indirectly.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)]

We now come to Amendment 7. Does the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, wish to move it?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

In view of the fact that we are running very late, and there is an important Covid Statement coming up, I do not wish to try the patience of the House—or of the Chief Whip, for that matter, so I shall not move Amendment 7.

Amendments 7 and 8 not moved.