Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her clarification. That is a bit of a relief, to be frank, because most MHCLG Secretaries of State are not appointed for their depth of ecological knowledge, nor indeed are the civil servants in that department.

However, that does not overcome the principal problem that the way it is drafted rather implies that it is based on the Secretary of State’s judgment and consideration, rather than the evidence. Existing environmental law is effective because it requires that, if an adverse effect on the integrity of an internationally important site cannot be avoided, then changes that would impact it would be consented to only where there are imperative reasons of “overriding public interest”. That is a technical term which is well-based in case law, and there is long-standing case law as to the evidence base required to demonstrate overriding public interest.

Clause 63 seems to make the new overall improvement test a much more subjective decision of the Secretary of State for Defra, in that it is about his or her consideration, and the test is passed solely on the basis of whether or not the Secretary of State considers that it is passed. Therefore, it is not a requirement in the Bill for the opinion to be underpinned by evidence. We understand that, frankly, it would be crazy for the Secretary of State to make some wild, unevidenced decision, but the way the Bill is currently framed means that the decision is unlikely to be legally challengeable if they did.

My amendment proposes deleting

“the Secretary of State considers that”,

which would remove the subjective element and, I hope, establish that the Secretary of State’s decision on the overall improvement test would be more about objectivity and evidence. It would give scope for the Secretary of State’s decision to be challenged in court if it is clearly flawed or runs contrary to the scientific evidence, whereas, at present, the drafting of the Bill places the Secretary of State’s judgment in primacy over the evidence.

I repeat that this is, thank goodness, going to be done by a Secretary of State who may have a sporting chance of knowing what they are talking about, but it would be good to hear reassurance from the Minister as to the basis of the evidence on which the Secretary of State will make the decision about the overall improvement test in subsections (3), (4) and (5) of Clause 60.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 286 and 300, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, who, alas, gives her apologies that she is unable to speak today. I have signed the amendments, alongside other noble Lords, and hope I do them some justice.

As noble Lords will see, these two amendments—and pretty much this whole group—seek to improve the overall improvement test and ensure that EDPs deliver significant improvements. I echo the opening the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and welcome the letter this morning and the amendments put forward previously. That demonstrates movement.

I am afraid I will deviate a little. I do not think it has been incredible or extraordinary. I am glad that the Ministers—as I always say, my two favourite Ministers —have their doors open for us, though they may regret making that promise, as I have some concerns still with this. It is not just what has been expressed in this Chamber; it goes beyond this Chamber, on all sides of the debate, from ecologists and conservationists to developers, lawyers and so-called yimbys.

To turn to the specific amendments, Amendment 286 intends to strengthen the overall improvement test, and I welcome Amendment 286A from the Government, which seeks to do this. However, there are still questions. We hear that it is up to the Secretary of State for Defra and their judgment, ahead of any evidence to the contrary. Amendment 300 is related, and seeks to ensure that significant, measurable improvements to nature are achieved by the EDP. While I recognise and welcome what the Government have sought to do by putting in place back-up measures, what is the baseline evidence that the Secretary of State for Defra is looking at when making that judgment? It sounds like this is a recent development, but what are the so-called good reasons that it may fall outside the remit of the Secretary of State for Defra? If, hypothetically, it is just the Secretary of State for Defra—to park the “good reasons” wording—is it envisaged that that would be done in consultation with other departments, such as MHCLG or even HMT?

Overall, it is important that we put in checks and balances, and these amendments seek to do that. They would not wreck the Bill but seek to ensure the improvements that we all, including the Government, want. They would, I hope, ensure that development continues.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 289. Before I do so, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, as he came to what I think is the nub of this group and what the question really is. In my mind, it is this: are we content with the Government’s amendment, which changes the overall improvement test so that the wording is “materially outweigh”, or do we want it to be, as in the amendment from my noble friend and others, significant and measurable? As it happens, I agree with my noble friend and others that “measurably” and “materially” probably have meanings that are alike, but “significantly” should tell us something about the nature of the guidance.

However, we need to think very carefully about putting in “significantly”, because there will be material improvements that are not regarded as significant. Would that mean that there would be environmental delivery plans that could not be made because they would not pass the overall improvement test, even where they would lead to a material improvement? We need to think about this carefully. There is no simple way to use particular words in legislation. They have their plain meaning, and if we were to say “significantly and measurably”, we mean that there is something beyond measurable that is significant. The guidance would need to say that. I raise this point because, if I were looking for the plain meaning, “materially” helps us a lot because it shows that there must be something where you can literally distinguish between the present situation and the future situation.

On Secretaries of State, I am confused. I always thought that, conventionally, we just put “the Secretary of State” into legislation. As a former civil servant, I remember people who sat in the same office, behind the same desk, working for Secretaries of State whose titles and departmental boundaries regularly changed. Therefore, trying to specify the Secretary of State for anything in legislation is a mistake—you just put in “the Secretary of State” and work out which one it is subsequently.

My Amendment 289 is about the conservation measures that are identified but not expected to be needed. This is quite interesting because, if they have been identified but are not needed to secure the overall improvement test, they wait there, as it were, until we reach the point at which the Secretary of State is making the decision.

If the Secretary of State determines that the overall improvement test has been met but in doing so has had to take into account conservation measures that were not expected to be needed, as referred to in Clause 55(5), my amendment would require that determination to make it clear that those conservation measures have been added, just so there is transparency and clarity. Of course, that flows into what is required in terms of the levy and the obligations that have to be met out of the nature restoration fund.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Gascoigne]

245: Clause 55, page 92, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) comply with the principles of the mitigation hierarchy.”

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to kick-start this group, not least after the great discussion we just had on the previous group. Equally, I am delighted and honoured to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, for my amendment.

Amendment 245, which is in my name, seeks to specifically set out the importance of the mitigation hierarchy, which has reared its head on various occasions throughout the entire passage of the Bill. Most should already know what that means but, in short, it is the well-established common principle in development that there are a series of steps to go through on a site when it comes to the environment. These are: first, to avoid, then to minimise, then to restore, and then to offset.

As we just touched on, the problem with EDPs in this Bill is that we simply fast-track to compensation. In effect, developers can ignore the first three stages and pay into some pot to offset whatever it is they are doing. Here, the only obligation is the payment; your role is then done. I am not normally like this, but that is a pretty dystopian view. I know that, with many, that will not happen, and some will seek to follow those steps when working on development, even if the law does not stipulate it, but that would not be enforced and would be down to good will.

Amendment 245 would fix that and insert the mitigation hierarchy as part of the EDP’s conservation measures. Indeed, my amendment would be inserted into the subsection that explicitly states:

“An EDP must set out the measures (‘conservation measures’) that are to be taken by, or on behalf of, Natural England, under the EDP”.


It may be argued that it is not needed because of the mitigation hierarchy. The Minister is not in her place, but she was just saying at the Dispatch Box that the mitigation hierarchy is already implicit and that it is common practice. I have the highest regard for the Minister, who I assume will be responding, and I am sure she will say at the end of this debate that, while the Government support the principle and the arguments behind what I am seeking to do, it is not needed because it is in the NPPF. However, if it is not explicit in the Bill, it leaves the door open to regression legally.

I know that some see the NPPF more as planning guidance than law, and that the NPPF is general rather than specific. An EDP is entirely novel, hence why we are rightly having this huge debate; it creates a new regime and, as a result, it is not in the NPPF yet. Despite what the Minister just said, as it is new, it is right that it should feature in the Bill because it is creating a whole new aspect of planning law. It would ensure that the Bill and the NPPF align coherently. That should be explicit in the Bill.

It is not just me who thinks that the mitigation hierarchy should feature; in the previous group, the Government set out some amendments themselves. If you look at the guidance when these amendments were set out, the Government said:

“These changes underline the continued role for the mitigation hierarchy in the design of EDPs, ensuring that local conservation measures are preferred unless there is a clearly articulated environmental basis to look further afield”.


I think that is pretty much what the Minister said in concluding the previous group so, when those amendments came down, I was relieved. As I said on the previous group, I am grateful that the Government have put some amendments down. When I kept hearing that the mitigation hierarchy is going to be maintained, I thought that that was great; it is a good step. However, when I look at the list of amendments that we are debating in this group, I am afraid that I cannot find exactly where the Government say that the mitigation hierarchy will take place. This amendment seeks to fix that and to put in what the Government say they support.

It feels like we were debating this only yesterday. It was literally yesterday, at 1 am, when we were talking specifically about species. It may well be that, even if there are no species to be protected on a site, we can all agree that it is right that any development seeks to minimise and avoid as much damage as possible. That in itself is conservation.

There are a number of similar amendments in this group from other noble Lords, all of which seek to address the same issue of putting specific references in, and I support them, especially Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, to which I have added my name. It seeks to ensure that the mitigation hierarchy applies, while allowing flexibility for Natural England. If we take the group as a whole, these amendments do not stop the EDP process and they are not political games, certainly not from me. It does what the Government say they support. I hope that it will feature at some stage as the result of these conversations, because it is not in the Bill at the minute. I hope that the Minister recognises that this improves what the Government seek and makes the EDP a win-win for nature and development. I beg to move.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Willis, for supporting Amendment 256ZA which I have tabled. I support Amendment 245 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne. His eloquent promotion of it means that I do not need to explain what the mitigation hierarchy is all about. However, it is an important principle in conservation, and it has come to the fore in the biodiversity net gain policy. In the case of this Bill, it would require a developer or Natural England preparing an EDP to look first at how to avoid damage to natural features, or, if avoidance of damage is not possible, to mitigate—that is, reduce—the impact, or, as a last resort only, to provide compensation habitat for the damage.

Under the draft Bill, Natural England could be, subtly or otherwise, pressurised into writing an EDP that jumps straight to damage and compensation. That might be the lowest-cost option and therefore to be desired by developers and also perhaps by the Government in pursuit of growth, even where it would have been feasible for Natural England or a developer to implement measures to safeguard the original protected habitat. I know that the Minister does not like the Bill’s nickname of “cash to trash” but, if it is not to be portrayed in that way, I believe that it will need to be amended to encourage developers and Natural England to comply with the mitigation hierarchy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for taking part in this debate on the mitigation hierarchy. I have listened carefully and very much recognise the concerns that are being raised. These amendments seek to add provisions that require Natural England and the Secretary of State to apply the mitigation hierarchy when considering whether to produce an EDP, and in its production and implementation. By introducing a more strategic approach to addressing the impact of development, the Bill deliberately provides an appropriate degree of flexibility to Natural England to design conservation measures to deliver improved outcomes for the environmental features that are subject to an EDP. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, when he introduced his amendment, noted that the NPPF includes consideration of the mitigation hierarchy in respect of individual planning applications. I was not going to mention it, but because he did, I thought I had to.

As we have set out, the NRF is a strategic model. While I want to reassure noble Lords that the mitigation hierarchy lives in this model and is integral to the model we are trying to get across, it cannot be considered in the same way as an individual planning application. Again, I stress that the NPPF is a statutory model. You cannot just ignore it. It is part of the application process. So, we would expect Natural England to consider this throughout the process and use tools such as the ability to request planning conditions to avoid and reduce impact as key elements of an EDP. In preparing an EDP, Natural England will always be mindful of the benefits of avoiding impacts before they occur. Taking action locally which benefits the same protected feature that is being impacted by development will be the default under an EDP. This places a kind of ecological lock on the use of network measures, which can be used only in cases where it is clear that taking action elsewhere would be more beneficial to the environmental feature.

In addition, when making the EDP, the Secretary of State will have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, in line with the Environment Act 2021. This will ensure that important principles, such as the precautionary principle and the rectification at source principle, are considered. Ultimately, the overall improvement test will require that each EDP demonstrates how the conservation measures will secure an environmental uplift that goes beyond the offsetting that is achieved under the current system.

Returning to Amendment 245, as I said, the principles are already incorporated into the existing provisions and further reinforced by the amendments we have tabled. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, Natural England can request that planning conditions be imposed on development, ensuring that impacts are minimised. As I have explained, network measures can be implemented only when doing so would lead to greater improvement. The noble Baroness asked for future information. Let us get together before Report; I will get that information for her and share it with noble Lords.

Natural England will always consider the environmental principles when preparing an EDP, and the Secretary of State may make one only if it meets the overall improvement test. Therefore, the additional flexibility provided for by the nature restoration fund can be used only to deliver better outcomes for the environment.

I turn to Amendment 251 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and Amendment 301 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, who is not in her place. These amendments would require a developer to demonstrate that they have applied the mitigation hierarchy before Natural England can accept their request to use an EDP. The clear aim of the nature restoration fund is to deliver a win-win for both development and the environment. A fundamental element of delivering this is to reduce the amount of time and money spent on individual environmental assessments and refocus these efforts on strategic action to improve environmental outcomes at scale.

The EDP itself is required to consider the impact of relevant development on the environmental feature and propose appropriate measures to address and materially outweigh this impact. The plans will be underpinned by the best scientific evidence and will include actions to avoid impact, as well conservation measures to address and outweigh impact. As such, requiring developers to undertake individual assessments risks eroding the value of the EDP, adding costs to individual development, which we think would reduce the utility of relying on EDPs. Where an EDP is in place, the overall improvement test ensures that outcomes for the environment will be better than the existing system, so it is vital that we embrace the opportunity to streamline the process in order to deliver this win-win.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, tabled Amendment 275, which seeks to require that Natural England may decide to prepare an EDP for a protected feature only if two conditions are met: first, that Natural England has followed the mitigation hierarchy; and secondly, that the EDP would contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale. I have just addressed the first condition, so I will focus on the second.

The existing provisions in the Bill already require the Secretary of State to consider whether the overall improvement test is met once a draft EDP has been prepared and presented. Requiring Natural England to consider that same test at an earlier stage would not be possible because neither the detail of the proposed conservation measures nor the environmental impact of the development it is intended to address would be known at that stage. We think that the correct point to apply the overall improvement test will be after the EDP is drafted, not before.

The amendment also proposes a modification to the overall improvement test to require that conservation measures significantly and measurably outweigh the environmental impact of development. This was addressed previously, so I will not repeat it here, except to say that the Bill requires that conservation measures must address the environmental impact of development and, additionally, contribute to an overall improvement in the conservation status. We have clarified that with the amendments we have tabled.

Turning to Amendment 256ZA, tabled by my noble friend Lady Young, the Government’s amendments to Part 3 make it clear that network measures may be taken forward only when Natural England can set out how the approach will make a greater contribution to the improvement of the conservation status of the feature than an on-site measure. We are clear that the flexibilities will not come at the expense of action to avoid impact, and the Bill provides powers to address such actions and secure that they are taken through the use of planning conditions. There is also the opportunity to scrutinise the proposed conservation measures, including actions proposed to avoid impact, during the consultation on each EDP. The Secretary of State will also have due regard to the environmental principles policy statement, and see that other important principles are considered.

Turning to Amendment 340, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, the overall improvement test is central to the nature restoration fund. I have gone into some detail about how that is supposed to work, but the proposed requirement to apply the mitigation hierarchy rigidly would restrict an EDP’s ability to meet the overall improvement test strategically. As I said, an EDP cannot be made unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that it will meet this test. Any flexibility in applying the mitigation hierarchy should be seen through this lens. The nature restoration fund does in limited circumstances allow Natural England to propose conservation measures which benefit the environmental feature in a different location.

Turning to irreplaceable habitats, the Bill does not amend or disapply the NPPF. Therefore, the existing policies remain unchanged. An EDP could be applied to an irreplaceable habitat only where it was also a feature of a protected site. Even then, an EDP could not allow for the loss of irreplaceable habitats, as it would simply not be possible to satisfy the overall improvements test in these circumstances. Finally, it is not clear what the proposed requirement to consider enhancing biodiversity would add, as the Bill is clear that an overall improvement must be achieved in relation to the protected feature to which the EDP relates.

Finally, on Amendment 346DF, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, we have recently concluded a consultation on improving the implementation of BNG for minor, medium and brownfield development. Among the options is a proposal to streamline the BNG metric process. We might be interested to pick this up and discuss it further, because the Government are currently considering their response, and we will be publishing our outcomes in due course. New legislation requiring government to lay a report on this matter is therefore not necessary at this stage, so I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.

This has been a really important debate. It has raised a number of issues which I am aware that noble Lords would like to discuss further, and this is something we should specifically pick up in discussions ahead of Report. With these explanations, I kindly ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to that group, not least the Minister. I apologise for incorrectly prejudging what I thought she would say—I obviously got it completely wrong, and I apologise.

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, got it right when he said that this group and the previous one are the nub of the problems with the EDP Part 3. I am not saying there are other things, but this goes to the heart of how we try and make the Bill a win-win for both development and nature. I do not want to dwell too long. I am grateful that the Minister said that we will come back to that. It is worth our coalescing and having another shot at it, if we may, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 245 withdrawn.

Biodiversity and Conservation

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow and hear from my noble friend. I declare that I am a long-time supporter of and campaigner for the Conservative Environment Network. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Grayling on securing this debate and giving his cracking rallying cry at the start; it has been a fantastic debate thus far.

I want to start on a positive, as I always try to do when it is this Minister. I congratulate her because, finally, someone has delivered beavers. They have been released and, what is more, they were released on my birthday. I am very grateful for that present.

In a Question the other day, another of our furry friends was referred to. It is a heartfelt joy to see my noble friend Lady Helic speaking in this debate. I do not wish to steal her thunder—I could not do so even if I tried—but, as has been noted, she has a Private Member’s Bill on a close season for hares. Having suffered significant population decline where their wider habitats are threatened, they are a crucial part of the ecosystem. As has been said, the period is to reflect the breeding season when leverets—the baby hares—are dependent on their mothers and will not survive if the mother is killed for fun. Other parts of the country have this measure in place, as do vast swathes of the EU. I appreciate that it is for the Whips to decide when that Bill will appear for Second Reading but I would like—as we heard in the Chamber the other day, I am not alone in wanting to see something happen—to put in a plug: for those who have concerns, let us have that debate.

As has already been said, there is, as ever, concern about the future of British farming, not least with the recent announcements on SFI. I want to sense check something, because the Government, when they announced the ending of the scheme, said that it was successful—more so than ever before, they said—yet it appears to be too successful and was immediately scrapped. I do not quite understand that and I want to just check if the Government still believe in nature, not to mention farmers who are already feeling immense pressure.

Another issue, which has already been covered by other speakers, is bottom trawling. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grayling, I find it bizarre that we allow this practice in marine protected areas and still call them that. We seem to be in a position in which we say these areas are protected because we are able to monitor their activity, even when the majority of the MPAs see the activity take place. If the notion of bulldozing does not make Governments move—and I use the word “Governments” because it happened under us, I am afraid to say—then what about the economics? One report said there could be a benefit of between £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion over 20 years if the sites were protected from all damaging activity. Can the Minister say whether there has been any assessment of the benefits to sustainable fishers from the UK banning bottom trawling? Can the Minister give reassurances that we will not cave to the ramblings from nos amis français, will not retreat in the so-called EU reset and will learn from the Greeks, who are seen to be much more ahead and stopping it completely?

I will make a broader final point about nature and, crucially, rewilding. In a few days, it will be World Rewilding Day. We can make a difference on nature and biodiversity, but it is not only because we should feel better about ourselves—it is real. It is jobs and growth, health and food, it can educate and inform, and everyone can play their part, because nature is our ally. It is why beavers, rewiggling rivers and putting in nature help tackle the effects of weather, but also what we do to our country. It is about finding a way for man and nature to work together. I know we will study this when the planning Bill is discussed, but I am frustrated to hear endlessly some Ministers say that nature is blocking the building of homes—that, in effect, we cannot have both. The two are totally compatible and can prosper together.

Global Warming

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—someone, I confess, I greatly admire. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on securing this debate and his fantastic rallying cry at the beginning. Sadly—I am sure that I am not alone in this—he has stolen much of my thunder. It was a good speech. I thank all the organisations which I am sure have been in touch with all noble Lords ahead of this debate. I declare that I am a member and supporter of the Conservative Environment Network.

There are three things I would like to raise today. First, everyone knows the importance and beauty of our oceans and, sadly, the many challenges they face. Under the last Government the United Kingdom played a leading role in negotiating the High Seas Treaty and it now needs us—this country—to take it forward and to play our part. I ask the Minister: what steps this Government are taking to ratify the treaty?

There is one linked—utterly crazy, frankly—manmade thing we are allowing that is having a huge effect on biodiversity in the ocean, not to mention carbon, and which we could bring to a swift end. That is, of course, bottom trawling. Just before Christmas I met Oceana, the international organisation doing incredible work to promote ocean conservation. I asked for the meeting because I was struggling to understand why—this is not a political dig at all; obviously, this has gone on for far too long—we continue to allow bottom trawling to happen. I was blown away in that conversation to discover that it is also allowed in marine protected areas.

Let us be clear: this activity is unbelievably destructive. It is practically bulldozing entire habitats with extraordinary, ridiculously high bycatch, and it is disturbing blue carbon. As I say, this is actively happening now and in what are deemed protected areas. So urgent action is needed. What steps are the Government taking to ban this destructive form of fishing across our so-called protected areas?

The second issue, as has already been mentioned, is around forestry and rewilding. Trees play a massive role in society, in nature, in economic terms, in health and in carbon storage. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking beyond the task force to unleash planting by the private sector to create new woodland habitats, thereby sequestering lots of carbon in the process?

More broadly, I have argued for—I am sure noble Lords have heard me bore for England on—rewilding. To me, nature is our ally on so much. It is not just about some green and pleasant land. It is not just about health. It is not the emotional attachment and the enjoyment it gives. It is not about the jobs it creates or the communities it pulls together; nor is it about the importance of restoring habitats or stopping them being lost. Nature does all this and more, especially when it comes our climate and weather.

The reason I pushed hard for nature-based solutions during our debates on the Water Bill is because those help us tackle water pollution. Often, they are far better and more efficient than manmade infrastructure. Flood plains, hedgerows and letting rivers meander, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, help tackle floods —as does our great and trusty friend the beaver. Trees, heaths and peatlands also cut gases. I say to those sceptics who say this is all nice to have but is impractical: it is not. Echoing the beautiful and moving words from the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, yesterday in her incredible maiden speech in this Chamber, nature does not stop things, including food production.

That leads me to my third area: farming. I want to raise it because the only people who can improve nature and biodiversity en masse are land managers. I am afraid it does feel as though this Government are knowingly making it more difficult for land managers to do their job. So I ask, respectfully: what assessment was done by the Government of the impact of the tax changes on farmers and, crucially, on nature restoration? If farmers leave and sell up, what will replace them?

In closing, I have a general point that again slightly echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said at the beginning. Nature and the environment are not the same as net zero. They are entirely separate, albeit complementary, and I cannot help but feel that the wider Government—I respectfully exclude the two Front Benchers from this—see debates on the environment purely through the lens of net zero. I am not at all doing down the importance of green jobs or having energy diversification, and of course energy security is crucial, but so are food security and economic security. The Government, with the exception of the Minister, are broadly absent on nature. It is forced on them through the water Bill, or it is always under review, or, as we read the other day in the papers, policies are even killed off as options because they are seen as Tory policy.

By focusing solely on wind turbines and solar panels we miss a huge swathe of opportunities. You cannot tackle and mitigate the effects of climate change without recognising the limitless benefits and opportunities of nature. If we become the go-to place to lock up carbon, restore biodiversity and deliver green finance, those are the jobs of the square mile and the countryside as well as the solution to so much, not armies of civil servants or reams of legislation. Can I seek a firm commitment that the Government understand nature and the private sector’s ability to drive change? As I said, nature is a solution for so much.

Rural Economy

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

I declare that I am a member of the Conservative Environment Network, the new Climate Tech APPG and Peers for the Planet.

First, I pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, for whom I have great admiration. Alongside the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, he adds immense value to discussion of the crucial issues of rural communities and the environment. Like their namesakes on a chessboard, when they are combined, they are formidable, and they bring important views to this Chamber.

I am a proud Lancastrian, born in the constituency of Pendle. The area has two former mill towns and three smaller towns surrounded by stunning fields, hills, reservoirs, forests and scattered villages, with Pendle Hill majestically looking on. Until recently, I was adamant that I am from a rural constituency. My friends and sister agreed with me. However, my good friend the temporary former MP informed me that Pendle is actually classed as urban. I was amazed. I swiftly discovered the rural/urban classification which defines areas. It is based on the census and purely on population.

I understand that funding has previously been available to those areas specifically classified as rural. While I am sure that that is well-intentioned, it can disqualify rural parts of urban-classified locations. For instance, in Pendle, a quarter of the population is still classified as rural. My plea to the Minister, if I may, is to be cautious about using that formula in future.

Obviously, farming is a key part of this debate. I will not repeat the many powerful arguments that have been made already concerning the Budget, but have any departments assessed the effects of these changes on nature, rural economies, food security, economic security and the appeal to young people to become farmers? Are there any steps that the Government will take domestically to promote locally produced food, and what more is being done on better trade deals? Farmers farm land; they know the land; they nurture it; us greenies need to bang the drum for them now more than ever.

I turn to the future and, first, the need for diverse job opportunities in rural areas, which I think has already been raised. Research has found that over a third of rural residents are likely to consider moving to a town or city within 12 months, with 30% citing a lack of jobs. How can we undo that? There is more to the countryside than farming, and rewilding can play its part. There are direct economic benefits of nature, such as through tourism, but also indirect ones, such as tackling flooding and pollution, as we discussed with the Water Bill.

Increasingly, companies and projects such as Nattergal are facilitating these efforts, not only through nature restoration and improving biodiversity, but by maintaining traditional jobs such as drystone walling, hedge growing and coppicing. Yet there is more. A fantastic study by Rewilding Britain found that rewilding projects created over 50% more jobs, with new roles in ecology and forestry and increased revenue from sources such as tourism, weddings and education; and they continue to produce food and support livestock. Yes, farming does not need to stop in the interests of nature. One in three mouthfuls of the food we eat is dependent on pollination. Nature’s benefits are numerous, including economic, and it is essential for life.

Secondly, we need to promote rural life and local agricultural shows. While there are many large events such as the Royal Lancashire Agricultural Show—which I am sure my noble friend Lady McIntosh will agree is arguably the best—there are other smaller, local ones. In Pendle, some have not survived, but others have, such as the Trawden show, which started its life in 1925. My dad used to judge and show, and I remember being dragged along as a kid. Those packed tents would eventually be emptied, the entrances sealed shut. Then, like some strange ritual, my dad and others would meticulously study, cut into, sniff or even taste an assortment of produce that had been neatly laid out on tables, be it flowers, onions, or carrots. After a few mutters, they agreed the best, certificates and rosettes would be left behind, and I would be whisked off to sit in a tractor or see cows being paraded or dogs performing tricks. Not only are shows great family fun, but there you saw pride, love and a sense of community. People had spent all year preparing for that moment, lovingly nurturing whatever was on show. What more can be done to promote these events and rural life? They help tourism, unite communities, support local industry and educate.

This is my final point: my dad showed me much, so my education was not just at school. Across our land, we have amazing farms, and I visited loads when I was younger. I grew to love my surroundings—the countryside, fields, valleys and hills—and I came to respect them but only when they were gone, when I had moved to London; hence I bring up my daughters to do everything to love wildlife, nature and the countryside. This year’s Children’s People and Nature Survey for England showed that, in one week, 62% of children and young people visited a park or playing field and 27% visited woods, yet 15% visited fields and farmland in the countryside and 4% recorded no visits at all. What more can be done to encourage farm visits and outdoor learning, helping farms but also helping children understand where food comes from and the importance of nutritional quality?

In conclusion, as the Rural Coalition says, there are enormous challenges but also opportunities. To me, this is not nostalgia. It is a way of life, now. It is real. It is the food we eat, the walks we take and the breaks we make. Like all things, it needs nurturing and a chance to help it grow, not just for rural communities but for us all.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendment 49 puts a clear and unambiguous environmental duty on Ofwat. It gives the authority a primary duty to protect the environment. I am well aware that the Government probably will come round to the Greens’ way of thinking in 10 or 15 years and that perhaps this side of the Chamber might come round to our way of thinking in 25 or 30 years, but we have to care now about our environment and our planet. What we have passed so far, although very welcome, is just not enough.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, said, natural flood management is proving to be a cost-effective way of reducing flood risk, far cheaper than traditional construction involving lots of concrete. Water companies should be investing in these nature-based solutions to reduce the infrastructure cost of handling service water run-off, because every litre of water that soaks into the ground is a litre of water that does not flood into the water treatment system.

I have two requests of the Minister. Will the government amendments now provide a baseline so the Minister can take forward a piece of work to expand the use of natural flood management, especially where it is significantly cheaper than other methods? Secondly, will the Government please put these climate and nature amendments on the face of their Bills at drafting stage, rather than having to amend them down the line?

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, it is always an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I was going to call her “my noble friend”—but not quite yet. I am delighted to speak to my Amendment 55. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough, who has also signed the amendment, and I thank all noble Lords who spoke to this in Committee.

Like so many other noble Lords today, I join in the great “love-in” for the Minister. All I will say, speaking from experience, is “Enjoy it while it lasts”. I pay tribute to the Minister and the officials who have engaged with me over the last few days since we last met. Echoing words that have already been said, looking back to where we were in Committee on this amendment, and on nature and the environment as a whole, the Government have listened and moved quite a lot. Collectively, we pushed, and the Government have listened. I think a lot of this comes down to the Minister, who cares about it and gets it.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Amendment 90 seeks to tighten up the reporting, so there is no way in which these things can just pass by without anybody looking at them in any detail for years or any end date being assessed. How is it progressing, and are any modifications that need to be made being reported? I hope the Minister will look at this as what I would call a tidying-up amendment to make what is on the statute book actually mean something.

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a member of Peers for the Planet and have been a long-time supporter and member of the Conservative Environment Network. It is a great pleasure to speak on this set of amendments, led by the phenomenal noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and to speak to Amendment 104, which is in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lord Roborough and the noble Baroness. I thank them both for their support, especially my noble friend on the Front Bench who has, both in government and opposition, been on the receiving end of my incessant and often incoherent rants about all things nature and the environment, as well as much else besides. I thank Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Rivers Trust, CEN and others who have provided helpful information for this debate.

The Committee will be pleased to know that I am not going to spend too long on why we are looking at the Bill. We all know that, collectively, the industry needs to improve and, truth be told, that it is not the water companies alone which are at fault here. We know the sad circumstances we are fighting to fix in wildlife, nature, biodiversity and water quality, because when a report this year from the Rivers Trust notes that not a single stretch of river in England is in good overall health, something has to change.

There are many great amendments in this group, all of which seek to ensure that water companies give more care to delivering a better environment in using their resources. My amendment builds on Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—which, it goes without saying, I support—to focus on nature. If we look across the entirety of the Committee, many amendments seek to place greater emphasis on the importance of the environment. Some amendments ensure the inclusion of nature-based solutions when drawing up a pollution incident reduction plan; some address the industry, as well as regulators; some seek to ensure the delivery of existing pollution reduction plans. Amendment 104 seeks to build on them all by starting at the beginning: to deliver change by putting nature recovery front and centre, inserting nature at the outset and ensuring that licences cannot be granted or proceed unless companies look first at nature-based solutions targeted at reducing flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration.

The second part of the amendment—if I may so, it chimes with what was so eloquently articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on Monday and today by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter—looks to the regulators to ensure that they too give regard to nature-based solutions and do not penalise or discourage companies that seek to invest in them if they so wish and feel that is right for them. From a purely nature point of view, we cannot achieve our goals without private support and investment.

Turning to the rationale, some may say that this is all pie in the sky—we have heard similar voices in this House—that nice-to-have yet not essential schemes would cost the company itself, and that bills would have to go up just for some nice cuddly green notion. What evidence is there that it works and why do we care? We just want lower bills and clean water.

We have covered the importance of nature so much in this stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, fired the starting gun in Committee with a superb rallying cry for her amendment on nature and biodiversity. I will not repeat what has been said by others far better qualified than me about why nature matters. I will focus more on why there are wider benefits to both the consumer and the company, beyond helping nature alone. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said at Second Reading, nature-based solutions do not just help with things such as overflows; there are wider benefits to society too.

Turning to the costs, a few years ago research from across the pond suggested that nature-based solutions could be up to 50% cheaper yet provide around 30% better value for money. While we still have a low uptake to prove that, there are some successes. I was reading the other day about a scheme a water company funded using wetlands to filter water in a natural way. They do not require as much infrastructure and energy but also reduce costs. As good as all that is, it is now a new habitat for native trees, plants and wildlife.

Another company, as noted at Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, who is not in his place, does incredible work restoring peatlands, which help to filter and hold water, as well as planting trees and building ponds. Another uses wetlands for wastewater treatment and has shown that to cost 35% less than building a conventional treatment solution; its operational costs are 40% lower too.

In giving these examples—there are others—I am not saying that it is now all perfect. It clearly is not, but they show that some are trying and, crucially, some show that it works, but much more needs to be done. My amendment does not state that nature is the only solution. It insists that it should be considered and be part of the solution, working alongside modern infrastructure, not just to tackle water quality and purification but to help tackle floods and restore nature. We can get there; we just need to give it a kick start.

Before I conclude, I want to make one general point. It has been noted that the Bill is focused on punishments for bad behaviour and past digressions. I respect the revolutionary zeal of some in this House—I really do —and often have to pull myself back from the barricades whenever I think about this issue. As right as it is to punish when things go wrong, we must also bring about regime change from the outset by ensuring, first, that the water companies come up with plans to mitigate and to improve nature and the environment; and, secondly, that the regulators give them the ability to pursue those plans. Even today, the Chancellor talked of pollution in rivers in her Budget Statement. This amendment seeks to tackle that.

As we have said, this country’s population is going only one way. We need to build more homes and put in the infrastructure, and to work with the industry and the private sector to make changes to ensure that the environment is improved. This amendment does not wreck the Bill; it works with the spirit of it. It is not about when something goes wrong but how to prevent it in the first place. With respect, we do not need to wait for the commission to report, either. I know that the Minister cares deeply about nature and we are told that the Government do, too. They have the power, so let us make it happen. I hope that the Government will support this amendment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on the use of nature-based solutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned a river in Somerset. I am quite connected with a group which is changing the path of the River Exe as it goes into Tiverton, where it floods every year. They became a group because of a scheme Defra ran about three years ago offering money. The point about these schemes is that they absolutely depend on communities; they have to start from the ground up. My friends have had to liaise with all the farmers in the valley and have finally got them all to agree to give one or two fields so that the river can meander—and there are plenty of beavers involved. The result will be to help the school their kids go to in Tiverton, which floods every year. They have spent a lot of their own money working out what it will actually do. It will reduce the flooding in Tiverton by around 50% to 60%. At the same time, the farmers will get money from biodiversity net gain, and it will help them fill in the forms.

My plea to the Government is: wherever the money comes from—from Defra or the water companies—make sure there are channels for it to get back to the communities that make these schemes happen. They cannot just be legislated for; they have to happen from a group of people who really care.

Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030

Lord Gascoigne Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Gascoigne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a member of the Conservative Environment Network and Peers for the Planet. I pay tribute to the committee for its thorough report and for holding the feet of government to the fire in delivering this vital mission, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, the chair, for a frank and moving rallying cry, kick-starting what has been a fantastic debate so far.

This country has long played a leading role around the world in tackling biodiversity loss and improving the environment. A lot comes down to the many fantastic organisations and campaigners in our arsenal, but working hand in glove you need a Government to lead. I pay tribute to my former colleagues and friends who worked tirelessly to achieve successful COPs in both Glasgow and Montreal; this goes especially to my very good and noble friends Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Sharma, who is newly ennobled, both of whom I worked with especially closely on this whole agenda while I was privileged to be in the Foreign Office and Downing Street.

Will the Minister set out what the Government will push at the upcoming biodiversity COP? More broadly, is there any indication of what the Government’s review of the environmental improvement plan means in practice? I hope that it means that we can expect not just more deliverables but more funding.

There are three specific areas that I would like to address. The first relates to access to nature. The report notes the importance of nature corridors and connectivity between sites. The previous Government set out the nature recovery network. To what extent will this Government commit to that as part of their review, and perhaps even commit to go much further by strengthening this network?

A study from Wildlife and Countryside Link has shown that the most deprived communities in England are more than twice as likely to live in areas with a low amount of natural space per person. I know that the Government have scrapped the levelling up department, but the concept of levelling up should still be delivered. This dovetails with the whole debate on the green belt—and I know that not all the green belt is the Chilterns, but there is now an open tension between building on the green belt and the need to protect and enhance it and create habitats that are publicly accessible.

We have to build more homes, but we can also improve green spaces. Many cities and urban centres have potential locations nearby, where disused and ugly sites can become accessible woodlands, wetland and other green spaces. That all takes me back to when Labour was last in power and I was a little bit younger, when from memory I think there was a similar push. I remember Lord Prescott saying, “The green belt is Labour’s achievement, and we intend to build on it”.

To what extent is Defra working with MHCLG on the revised NPPF? What specific action is Defra taking to improve nature and biodiversity provision on the green belt? Do the Government believe in the target of living within 15 minutes’ walk to a green space or water, as set by the previous Government?

On the second area which I wish to discuss, the report and then Government talked about data and citizen science, ensuring that the public have better understanding of sites. I think that we can go much further and really focus on what more we can do for young people, in echoing what I thought was a beautiful speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich.

I shall give a personal reflection. I am lucky to be the father of two very young daughters. Sophia is three and Helena is seven months. Out on walks with the dog or in the garden, my eldest often fills my pockets with snail shells, feathers, leaves and acorns; to her, these are the most precious things at that time. She does not think twice about putting her bare hands in the soil or jumping around in muddy puddles. We are lucky enough to have a reasonably sized back garden where Sophia and I have planted plants since the day she could walk, made ponds from old washing-up tubs and sown flower seeds and grass in areas and let them go wild—and we probably now have more bird feeders than there are in London Zoo. She and I often sit to watch the birds in the garden, sniff flowers, see dragonflies zoom around, enjoy the bats at night and watch the cameras to see the foxes and hedgehogs—and we both have, just in the last few days, seen not just frogs but our first toad.

Yes, of course I would like to take credit for that— I love it; my dad did the same for me, and it did stick eventually—but why is it that, when we grow a little bit, we lose interest in the outdoors? A few years ago, a study showed that there is a sharp dip in people’s connection with nature from the age of 11 onwards, with a slow recovery around the age of 30; the average age for nature-connectedness was 61. What can we do to maintain that fascination and longing throughout young people’s lives?

When I was in government, I often sat in debates on education with my noble friend Lady Barran; she would frequently talk about the incredible work that some schools were doing to inspire children and bring nature into the curriculum. One fantastic initiative caught my eye. Last year, the National Education Nature Park was launched to inspire young people not just to learn about biodiversity but to take action locally, to improve their school and to bring nature closer. I am sure that the Minister is aware of that scheme; I hope that the department will work with the DfE to continue to encourage more schools, nurseries and colleges to take it on so that we not only engage young people but inspire them, educate them and give them an understanding of our own environment, of nature, of what food is and of where food comes from.

That brings me to my third point, which concerns farming. Noble Lords—especially those on the two Front Benches, particularly on this side—will, I am sure, have come across James Rebanks and one of his incredible books, English Pastoral. The opening chapter is one of the most beautiful things I have ever read. He talks about his journey with farming and nature, starting as a young kid, as something that is passed down through generations yet represents the bond between man, nature and the countryside. It reminded me of my own youth with my dad up in Lancashire, rocking up to farms to see his pals, being dragged through fields and hills and wading through mud. In truth, at the time, as he drove round the country lanes and roads in a mudded-up Land Rover, I never really understood nor appreciated the beauty of the land around me. I also never appreciated how there is a world beyond the towns and cities; how the bond, perhaps better called a contract, between man and the land and seas around us works; or why all this matters.

Other noble Lords have mentioned farming. It goes without saying that we need farmers for their knowledge and understanding—not to mention what they produce. The previous Government introduced the environmental land management schemes. As the report acknowledges, they will make a contribution to nature recovery; some sites could be included in the 30 by 30 target. However, as has already been noted, just as the uptake is rising after yet another stressful year, the Government have taken £100 million out of the budget. Yes, this scheme is new, and all new things can be improved and take time to embed, but what does that say about this Government’s faith in farming, never mind nature? Can the Government assure farmers that they remain committed to farming and agriculture, and that ELMS and their funds will remain in place? Is there any broader reassurance against any future cuts to Defra as a whole? Surely, if it is the right thing, the Government should support the scheme wholeheartedly—not just because it is right to give support to farmers but because it is right for nature. After a period of change and challenges, certainty for farmers matters.

We need to go much further, as we have all said. We need not just to build on the green belt but to improve it. We need not to take money away from farmers but to help them produce food and increase biodiversity. We need not to treat nature and wildlife as a “nice to have” but to put natural capital at the heart of policy across government.