Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 28 October (HL39), what estimate they have made of the total area, in hectares, of trackside vegetation cleared by Network Rail during the past five years.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Network Rail (NR) is one of Britain’s largest landowners, responsible for 20,000 km of track and 52,000 hectares of land in its estate. Since 2016, NR has recorded operational vegetation management across 9,749 hectares. Total figures in hectares are not available for before 2016 as some vegetation management was then recorded in track miles. Vegetation management on NR’s estate includes the removal of some trees where necessary, but also periodic trimming of trees or hedges.
As a responsible landowner, NR must effectively manage the natural environment on its estate. It is currently developing a biodiversity strategy that will ensure the protection and enhancement of biodiversity while still ensuring the safety and performance of the railway.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 28 October (HL39), what assessment they have made of the impact of clearance of trackside vegetation by Network Rail on the UK’s carbon budget.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government expects Network Rail to achieve no net loss in biodiversity by 2024, and net gain by 2040 as the primary environmental objective of its lineside vegetation management. Network Rail does not currently calculate the carbon impact of vegetation clearance. As a responsible landowner Network Rail must effectively manage the national environment on its estate, whilst ensuring the safety and performance of the railway,
The Government believes that the railway should make a significant contribution to achieving our objective of net zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Vere of Norbiton on 28 October (HL39), whether Network Rail carries out any habitat and carbon offsetting to compensate for the removal of trackside vegetation.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The Government expects that, where it is not safe or practical to mitigate habitat loss on its lineside estate, Network Rail makes use of opportunities to improve biodiversity elsewhere on its estate or more widely.
Network Rail does not currently carry out carbon offsetting against the removal of trackside vegetation. The Government believes that, system-wide, the railway should make a significant contribution to achieving our objective of net zero greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050.
Following the publication of the Varley Review on 28 November 2018, the Government published a policy statement: Enhancing Biodiversity and Wildlife on the Lineside. This sets an ambitious target for Network Rail to achieve no net loss in biodiversity on its existing lineside estate by 2024, and to achieve biodiversity net gain on each route by 2040. The policy statement sets out the Department’s expectation that Network Rail develop a Biodiversity Action Plan.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Transport:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking (1) with Network Rail to ensure that wildlife habitats on Network Rail land are preserved, and (2) to ensure that habitat value is taken into account by Network Rail when clearing vegetation.
Answered by Baroness Vere of Norbiton
In July this year the Government published a policy statement on enhancing biodiversity and wildlife on the lineside. The statement, which was published in response to John Varley’s 2018 review of lineside vegetation management and is consistent with the Government’s sustainable development goals, sets an ambitious target for Network Rail to achieve no net loss in biodiversity on its existing lineside estate by 2024, and to achieve biodiversity net gain on each route by 2040.
Network Rail is currently drawing up plans to implement the Government’s policy, which will build on its existing practice of accounting for, and where possible, enhancing habitat at the lineside as part of its statutory duty to deliver a safe and reliable railway. Once implemented, these will make Network Rail one of the UK’s most environmentally responsible land-owners.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to establish a shadow environmental watchdog to come into effect on 30 March 2019 in the event of a no-deal Brexit; and if so, (1) how the membership of that shadow watchdog will be determined, (2) what powers the shadow watchdog will have, (3) what the shadow watchdog’s budget will be, and (4) whether they will set a date by which the shadow watchdog will be replaced by a permanent body.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Government has committed to the implementation of a new environment body to hold the Government to account regarding compliance with its environmental legislation.
We will work to ensure that this body is in place as soon as possible after leaving the EU if no deal has been secured with the necessary powers to review and, if necessary, take enforcement action.
Any interim measures that may be necessary under a no deal scenario before the new body is formally established will be set out in due course.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they will take to reduce the poisoning of humans and animals through ingesting lead ammunition deposited by public bodies or third parties acting under contract or licence from public bodies.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Through the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999, the use of lead shot ammunition is restricted to protect waterfowl from lead poisoning. Its use is banned on all foreshores, certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot and moorhen. The supply of lead weights for fishing is also prohibited.
Natural England is fully compliant with these regulations on the land which it manages. The Forestry Commission voluntarily decided to use non-lead alternatives on the public forest estate for the control of deer and wild boar. From November 2016 onwards all the venison processed through Forest Enterprise England (FEE) larders will have been culled with non-lead ammunition.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the Update Report from the Lead Ammunition Group, published in April, into harmful effects of lead shot on humans and animals.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The Government is currently considering the Update Report from the Lead Ammunition Group.
The European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is currently carrying out a review of the potential risks presented by lead ammunition to establish if a case can be made to regulate their use within the EU.
The Government will consider both the Lead Ammunition Group Update Report and the findings of the ECHA review before deciding whether any changes to the current Regulations are required. The EHCA review is expected to be published in the summer.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the withdrawal and archiving of guidance by Defra, as part of its Smarter Guidance Review, on the ability of local authority environmental health officers to deal effectively and appropriately with statutory nuisances.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Issues that could be ‘statutory nuisances’ are local issues best dealt with at a local level. The Government believes that current legislation provides local authorities with the necessary powers to deal with statutory nuisances and does not consider it appropriate to provide ‘best practice’ guidance to local authorities. Local authorities need to be able to take account of local circumstances when determining how best to apply the powers available to them.
Detailed guidance was withdrawn under the 2010-2015 government’s Smarter Guidance review and replaced with user-friendly general guidance setting out the duties of local authorities under the statutory nuisance regime. The Smarter Guidance review was part of the Red Tape Challenge and was launched in response to a detailed review that found a lack of clarity between legal obligation and an accumulation of ‘best practice’ guidance which, in many cases, could be better provided by other bodies.
The Smarter Guidance review therefore consulted on proposals to simplify guidance to focus on legal obligations. This consultation process sought views on user needs, including those of environmental health officers (EHOs). EHOs therefore had an opportunity to express any views about the impact of the guidance changes on their ability to perform their role before a final decision was taken on whether or not to revise or archive specific documents.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether there is a widespread risk of lead poisoning in migratory waterbirds resulting from the use of lead ammunition, for the purpose of interpreting the Guidelines to Resolution 11.15, <i>Preventing Poisoning of Migratory Birds</i>, agreed at the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Migratory Species.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Through the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999, the use of lead shot ammunition is restricted to protect waterfowl from lead poisoning. Its use is banned on all foreshores, certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot and moorhen. The supply of lead weights for fishing is also prohibited. One recent piece of research suggests compliance with the Regulations is relatively low with around 70% of wild duck carcasses bought from game dealers in England having been shot with lead ammunition. We will continue to look at how the Lead Shot Regulations can be better implemented.
Asked by: Lord Krebs (Crossbench - Life peer)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the levels of compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999, as amended, and the effectiveness of those Regulations in reducing lead poisoning of waterbirds.
Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Through the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999, the use of lead shot ammunition is restricted to protect waterfowl from lead poisoning. Its use is banned on all foreshores, certain Sites of Special Scientific Interest and for the shooting of all ducks and geese, coot and moorhen. The supply of lead weights for fishing is also prohibited. One recent piece of research suggests compliance with the Regulations is relatively low with around 70% of wild duck carcasses bought from game dealers in England having been shot with lead ammunition. We will continue to look at how the Lead Shot Regulations can be better implemented.