Environment Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]]

My Lords, only a few days ago, I was delighted to hear a speech given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on restoring nature. In it, he lamented the failures of the past 50 years and promised a new approach, announcing plans for

“creative public policy thinking that can deliver results”

and moving

“the emphasis away from processes that simply moderated the pace of nature’s decline”.

Of particular note is this comment from my right honourable friend:

“In Natural England, we have exceptional technical expertise on habitats and our protected sites but this precious expertise is often distracted by highly prescriptive legal processes. I would like to get to a position where our talented staff in Natural England have fewer distractions and are able to prioritise the interventions that will make a big difference. I want them to have more freedom to exercise judgment rather than being stewards for a process.”


I was also fascinated to listen to the words of my noble friend Lord Ridley earlier. I propose to continue his theme. Biodiversity net gain is a particularly interesting concept to enable achievement of the Secretary of State’s ambition, as set out in a Written Ministerial Statement of 18 May,

“to deliver a regulatory framework that is fit for purpose in driving forward our domestic ambitions … We need a revised approach to deliver this new species abundance target and better support iconic and much-loved native species”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/21; col. 45WS.]

I propose to focus my remarks on Clauses 92 to 94 and Schedule 14—the part dealing with biodiversity net gain, which I warmly welcome.

Noble Lords may be interested in a case study. As set out in the register of interests, I have an interest in a commercially operated lake in the Cotswold Water Park, as well as other land nearby. Land managers were notified on 7 January that an old 1994 SSSI of 135 hectares was being enlarged to 15 times its size to include all the Cotswold Water Park’s 177 lakes—a total of 2,074 hectares.

I have no doubt that all those managing land there agree that it is a special place for nature and are willing to work with Natural England to preserve and enhance nature and biodiversity. Indeed, for many years, many of us have welcomed the BTO’s volunteers, who have counted the birds there and contributed in many other ways. However, what is relevant to the provisions of the Bill on biodiversity net gain is that there is no doubt that active management will be needed to preserve and enhance the habitat.

Indeed, that is acknowledged by Natural England in its “views on management”, which accompanied the notification. For example, it says:

“For the more sensitive pioneer species suitable habitat conditions require regular management of the early successional stage … These habitats may require some active management … Exposed areas of bare ground on islands should be maintained to provide nesting sites”.


Those are just examples. Much more can and should be done if we are to improve matters for nature. These things will not happen on their own; they will cost money.

Habitat banks for the purposes of biodiversity net gain credits under the Bill offer much promise in that regard. However—I would be grateful if the Minister could check this and write to me—we are advised that Natural England, as a matter of policy, specifically denies land managers the ability to take advantage of the opportunities presented by biodiversity net gain and, I think, ELMS, in respect of land subject to an SSSI notification.

One can understand that, perhaps for pristine wilderness, that may be appropriate, but for a habitat created by human intervention and under active management to preserve its otherwise transient state, it does not sound very sensible. It rather sounds as if, on the one hand, Natural England is telling us that active management is necessary while, on the other hand, it is removing the very tool that the Government are even now fashioning to enable us to fund that necessary active management.

Rather shockingly, it transpires that of the lakes designated in 1994, every one is, in Natural England’s own assessment, at “unfavourable declining” status. However, the large areas of the Cotswold Water Park that had not until now been so designated are, again at Natural England’s own assessment, in favourable conservation condition. This is in spite of—or, it might be argued, because of—activities that have gone on for years, for which Natural England now insists its consent is obtained.

Unless there is a clear and coherent plan to overcome the historic failures, it is unreasonable to repeat the mistakes of the past on a much larger scale, especially when there are now better options available that provide for conservation and enhancement. I do not have time to talk about a number of other controversial matters about the process that has been followed by Natural England here. Suffice it to say, there are several, and they include serious legal errors.

The Bill contemplates innovative mechanisms for true, sustainable development, such as the opportunities emerging from biodiversity net gain as part of development and habitat banks for offsetting. In his speech, the Secretary of State said that if we are to

“reverse the downward trend we have seen in recent decades, we need to change our approach,”

and we need to change it right now.

I particularly welcome the biodiversity net gain provisions of the Environment Bill. I hope that sense will prevail and my right honourable friend’s ambition that Natural England has fewer distractions, is able to prioritise the interventions that will make a big difference and has more freedom to exercise judgment—rather than be a steward for a process—will come to pass.

[The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)]

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has withdrawn, and I call the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank.

UK Industry: International Competitiveness

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, in his introduction to this debate. He brings to the subject much ministerial and business expertise, and it is greatly to his credit that he has shown a sustained interest in these questions throughout his public life. He said a lot about export promotion with which I agree. We probably share an analysis of the British competitiveness problem, which is that it is a complete myth that we are a post-industrial nation. We have many highly competitive businesses; the challenge we face is that we do not have enough of them. We need far more and the question is how we get far more. I shall focus my remarks on how the public policy framework can help, and also talk briefly about the questions of the exchange rate and our commitment to Europe and the single market, which is of central importance to this area.

On the kind of supply-side policies needed, again, I suspect that there is a wide measure of consensus in this House. I picked up on some remarks of my great and noble friend Lord Mandelson, based on his ministerial experience in the previous Government. Speaking to one of the excellent meetings of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rebalancing the British Economy, interestingly, he praised some of the record of Conservative Governments in the 1980s in promoting aerospace, biotech, pharma and Japanese inward investment in the car industry, which we often forget. He then talked about our increasing love affair, as a nation, with financial services. He said nothing against financial services, but noted that this love affair became a mindless infatuation, since when all we have seen are what he described as “peashooter initiatives” to deal with the need for rebalancing our economy back to production. The question is how we can transform this succession of peashooter initiatives into what the Prime Minister would doubtless describe as a big bazooka.

There is a range of things that the Government could do, building on what the Labour Government tried to do towards the end of their term, particularly in 2010. There is the expansion of technology transfer institutions, the Hauser report, and the need to improve our record in Britain in transforming our excellent, world-class research into commercially successful innovation, which we are not nearly so good at. There is a need for public intervention to provide finance for growing small and medium-sized firms. This is an imperative in today’s environment, in which the banking system is not able to fulfil its proper function: we need a British investment bank. We need a proper infrastructure plan. The Government have made nods in this direction, but they are having difficulty in mobilising the pension funds and private finance that they had hoped for. The truth is that, unless the Government offer guarantees that limit the risks for such investors, we are not likely to get private money into public infrastructure in a big way.

We need to do more on skills. We know that employers, of their own initiative, will not raise skill levels: there is a market failure here. The Government are trying to expand apprenticeships, but their record is very mixed and there is great debate about whether the expansion is a genuine expansion of real apprenticeships that lead to opportunities for technician training going right up the skill ladder. That is what we need and I wonder whether we are getting it. We need action to improve the quality of management. Here is a tremendous role for the post-1992 universities—of one of which, the University of Cumbria, I am director. We need the universities to engage with businesses in raising the quality of management and their workforces. We need to build on our public strengths, which have important competition advantages and where the public role is absolutely crucial, such as the universities in attracting students from overseas, our medicine and our culture.

I am not arguing for big government in order to address these questions, but you must have active government. You particularly have to have an active Government with a strategic sense of how they will develop the sectors where we have the best chance of being competitive. This is particularly important in public procurement. You cannot just have centralised government. You must have effective machinery for action at regional and local level. This is where the decision to abolish the regional development agencies was destructive. In my own area, Cumbria, there is now no effective machinery for promoting regional economic development.

I, for one, look forward to the review by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, of the growth agenda. At the moment, for all the talk, I see little sign of the Government upgrading their efforts beyond what my noble friend Lord Mandelson described as these “pea-shooter initiatives”. Indeed, to make a slightly political point, I am bemused about the debate in the other place on growth, which all seems to be about deregulation and tax cuts. No one wants regulation for its own sake. No one believes in taxes for their own sake. But the problems of the British economy do not lie in a lack of flexibility in the labour markets, or in taxation being too high. We have a more flexible labour market, in many respects, than the United States. I find all this talk about the Beecroft report totally bemusing. It is a sub-Thatcherite agenda of deregulation, which is the wrong strategy for the British economy. We have to compete on the basis of skill. We cannot compete on the basis of deregulation. We need a national consensus on the kind of industrial policy we are going to need. It is depressing that we are still a long way from that.

I have just a few remarks to make on the exchange rate and Europe. On the exchange rate, the Government should be thinking about why the devaluation that we saw in 2008 has done so little to improve our trade balance and industrial performance. What conclusions do we draw from this? One conclusion is that the exchange rate does not matter very much in the modern world, with the integration of global supply chains and all the rest. That would be an error. One of the mistakes that we made over the past 20 years was treating the exchange rate as a residual. The exchange rate went up a great deal at the end of the 1990s. The pressure of a high exchange rate was one of the reasons why our manufacturing had problems over the past decade. Although this was good for productivity—the productivity numbers went up a lot—it squeezed the size of the sector more than it should have been squeezed. So the post-1992 framework of our economic policy will have to be rethought anyway in the light of the crisis. We should be thinking about whether we can give a more central role to exchange rate stability in the management of the economy, and how we would go about that. Are the Government thinking on these lines?

On Europe, all this chatter about an in/out referendum might well have serious economic consequences, which no one seems to take into account in the rather heated political debate. How would British business feel, including the people who have invested in Britain, if we were no longer part of the EU, or if we remained in the European Economic Area with no say in shaping the rules of EU governance? Do we seriously think that if there was a prospect of Britain coming out of an active and central role in the European Union that inward investors would continue to look at investment in the UK?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords—

[Lord Liddle]

I have 12 minutes.

I am not trying to make a political point. However, the question of Britain’s role in Europe cannot be decided on the basis of party-political positioning, or of populism and ignorance. We need business to take an active role in this debate. What I would like to hear from the Government is what they are doing to consult business about its view about Britain’s role in the European Union in future, and what the real costs of playing around with our economic future might be. This raises very serious issues for the future of growth and jobs in Britain.