Biodiversity Net Gain

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I can confirm that we are planning to consult very shortly on applying biodiversity net gain to nationally significant infrastructure projects—NSIPs—without any broad exceptions.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, in all the planning applications in the biodiversity net gain provisions, are the Government paying attention to the importance of corridors that allow nature to travel between different building sites? Otherwise, it gets too isolated and dies off.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right—corridors for wildlife are incredibly important. Many developments have to give due regard to removing hedgerows, for example, in order that they do not stop routes for wildlife such as dormice. It is extremely important and, on all developments, Defra is working with MHCLG to ensure that the environment is taken into full consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, is the Minister going to ban bottom trawling in marine protected areas?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are looking at bottom trawling at a site-specific level because there are different challenges in different areas. As I said, marine conservation is complex and has to take many things into account. There is quite a lot going on in this area and, if the noble Baroness wants to know the details, I am happy to send them to her or to meet to discuss this further.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I also support Amendment 37, which is, like its proposer, both modest and proportionate. It is obvious that this needs to be taken into account by the Minister. It is about nature-based solutions. If we are declaring our interests, I should say that as a schoolboy I used to work at Slimbridge, I am a farmer at home, I have had a lifelong involvement with environment schemes, and a previous Minister even referred to me rather flatteringly as an environmental warrior.

I will just sound two notes of caution. When we had a committee looking into nature-based solutions, it was very hard to get an idea of the size of the prize. They have a place in the system, as the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has made very clear. However, for a large pollution or sewage outflow from a city, it is hard to envisage nature-based solutions having sufficient impact.

The other note of caution I urge is that, having tried to get a river catchment project together in the past, I learned one thing: how many of the riparian owners up that river had feuds with one another and absolutely refused to co-operate. That was capped off by the Natural England adviser telling me it was all far too complicated and asking if I was sure I wanted to do it.

There is plenty of work to do here, but I support this amendment. It is essential. It is a modest amendment that simply says that nature-based solutions should be considered, and that is completely correct.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a riparian owner and as the chairman of a company which helps businesses, including water businesses, to improve their environment and their safety. Normally I am very questioning of additional requirements for information from companies, because it can be very expensive and divert people’s attention. But in this case I support the general run of these amendments, which ask for the public to know what is happening.

First, a series of them ask the water companies to tell the public only what they have to know, because, if they do not know it, they cannot do what they have by law to do. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is right that the information has to be presented in a way that is easy to find. The comparison with the Modern Slavery Act—again, we debated modern slavery, so I know how it works—is that it is so easy to find it difficult to discover the facts. The whole idea of the Modern Slavery Act was that the public and the campaigners would be able to see how people were behaving, and check against it. This is an extremely important thing.

I also want to refer to a comment by the noble Baroness who spoke on the subject of fat. I do not know whether the Minister has had the pleasure of going down a sewer, but it is one of the most important acts of any Minister. I did it when I was, in some part, doing what she is doing, and you learn a great deal.

My worry about the Bill is that, if we are not careful, we will take away from some of the things that ought to happen—not in this Bill about water companies—to make the way in which we deal with sewage much more sensible. You can go down a sewer and tell exactly where the fast-food restaurants are, and you can tell which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. I would recommend to the Minister that she looks at what happens in Canada, where they insist that you measure the oil that comes in and then show how much oil has been taken away by an approved waste collector. We have to look at a number of things of that sort if we are going to make this legislation work. Do not expect the Minister to add to this legislation, but I think she will find that, unless we do some of these things, we are not going to deliver what is needed.

My last point is about telemetry. One of the things I think government is very poor at—and that is all Governments—is recognising how much they can change costs by insisting on necessary machinery. If this Government said, “We are going to monitor every river and we want the telemetry to do it”, the price would fall very considerably, as the noble Lord rightly said. Unless we do something like that, this Bill is frankly time-limited, because it will not deliver what we need, which is a constant measurement of our rivers and for that information to be provided, where we have suggested, to the public. If we do those things, we can both recover support for what is happening and do what my noble friends have put forward, which is to make it possible for water companies to say honestly that things that have happened were nothing to do with them. That is also important because, otherwise, we are laying a burden on them which, even with their current reputation, is an unfair one, and I would much prefer to be tough but fair.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 87 in this group, and I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Browning, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their support. I agree with all that has been said, in particular what the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Deben, said. We do need a step change here, rather than just trying to fix the system—although I do want to talk about fixing the system.

The water companies are completely uninterested in transparency. It echoes so much of what we talked about: who is winning in this game, nature or money? Rather too often, the money seems to win out. According to the Observer at the weekend, they have been passing pollution tests that were not even carried out. The system is so clearly not working that it seems an obvious one for the Government to reset.

Amendment 87 would require the proactive publication of both regulatory and what the water companies call “non-regulatory” or “operational” data about their sewage works and their associated discharges of sewage effluent. Specifically, it defines water companies as “public authorities” for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations, amends the regulations to make clear that public authorities must make the information they hold on effluent or wastewater monitoring data completely public to anybody. It amends the appeal and enforcement provisions in the 2004 regulations to allow members of the public to complain to the Information Commissioner where such info is not proactively published.

This will cut through all the delaying tactics and refusals by water companies, by ensuring that data is proactively published, so that the public and campaigners will not have to keep asking for information and be endlessly given the runaround. Water companies will be required by law to publish it up front, without anyone having to ask. I support my noble friend’s amendment that this must all be in one place and easy to find. I feel that this is complementary to Clause 3 of the Bill, which requires discharges from emergency overflows to be published accessibly and immediately, so that action can be taken.

It is important to outline a little history of the context. Despite the success of the leading Fish Legal case, which went to the European Court of Justice a few years ago, in securing a decision that water companies are “public authorities” for the purposes of the Environmental Information Regulations, over the last few years the water companies have tried many different tactics, under the Environmental Information Regulations, to try to avoid disclosing data to those requesting access that shows how poorly performing their sewage works or CSOs have been. They have been extremely successful. The ICO has, in the past, supported various water companies in their refusal to provide data to a range of campaigners, due to the long-running investigations into them by the regulators themselves. The ICO’s mind seemed to change on this after the CEO of Ofwat announced that they did not consider the investigation by Ofwat and the Environment Agency as a reason to not publish. So now we are in a weird situation where the water companies, specifically United Utilities, are currently appealing against an ICO decision that went the other way, in which the ICO decided that information, specifically about how poorly a sewage works in Cumbria was operating, should be disclosed to the public. This case is ongoing, but we have an opportunity to send a parliamentary reminder that we are in no doubt that this information should be made publicly accessible.

This has highlighted to me not only the clear lack of transparency but the real lack of willingness. Despite several years of this very public scandal, companies continue to obstruct. This is what the Bill is really about: forcing them to change where they will not. We are well past simply asking them to do this.

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have added my name to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just spoken to, and the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, both of whom have outlined very clearly their concerns.

Amendment 89, in my name, is really about abstraction. I mentioned the over-abstraction in chalk streams, which is genuinely a real problem. It is claimed that the Environment Agency rarely inspects water company abstraction monitoring records.

There is also no requirement for continuous volumetric monitoring and publication of real-time or up-to-date data. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been no effective enforcement where there have been breaches of abstraction licences. Spot-check results indicate neither the duration of the breach nor the seriousness of such breaches, either as against the licence condition or for the rivers or groundwaters from which the abstraction has occurred unlawfully.

Therefore, this amendment proposes that the Water Resources Act 1991 be amended so that all licences for abstraction held by water undertakers should include a condition that real-time abstraction volumetric data is recorded and made publicly available in as close to real time as is practicable. This is very straightforward. The Minister must have a view as to whether she thinks the Environment Agency carries out rigorous checks, and if it does not, I believe my amendment is the answer to it.

Independent Water Commission

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As the noble Baroness is aware, the commission will not do anything that will impact on PR24—the price review that is due to report at the end of this year. I point out that this price review is £88 billion, as Ofwat has proposed. That is the largest investment that we have ever seen going into infrastructure. The Government were very keen that we had a really good infrastructure deal for PR24 so that we can start putting right some of the things that so badly need attention at this very early stage.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, like everybody, I very much welcome this report. However, point 12 says that the Government are specifically ruling out looking at agriculture at the moment. Given that the public really worry about pollution and, particularly in the west of England, that so much pollution in our rivers and reservoirs comes from agriculture, when will the Government look at this? Will any further legislation come through separately from Defra to look at the waste that comes from chicken farms that affects the River Wye?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The situation in the River Wye is the most dreadful example of what can happen when you get too much run-off from agriculture. We are looking at what needs to be done around the River Wye in particular, but we are looking more broadly at how we manage pollution from agriculture. I met my colleague Daniel Zeichner, the Minister for Farming, only earlier today, and we discuss these issues on a regular basis. Although agriculture is in scope only where it interacts with water regulation, that does not mean that we are not serious about tackling the problem. It is a huge part of this; I think that over 40% of pollution in our rivers comes from agriculture. It is very much high on the Government’s agenda.

Waste: Incineration

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I do not consider the Government to be taking a leisurely approach on this aspect. What is really important is that we look at how we decarbonise our energy from waste facilities going forward. We have consulted on expanding the UK Emissions Trading Scheme to waste incineration and energy from waste, and we are taking on board the responses to that and will bring forward detailed final policy in due course. We plan to include energy from waste under decarbonisation readiness requirements.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

Currently, we are incinerating over a million tonnes of food waste a year, as well as 64,000 tonnes of potentially edible food that gets sent to anaerobic digesters; the latter in particular is a clear violation of the WRAP food hierarchy. What will the Government do to re-energise the WRAP campaign around food waste, which, for a while, seemed to work really well but now is very much on the back burner, and food waste is going up. As a redistribution charity, we could really do with that food.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point around food waste: it is a real challenge. I know from talking to my counterparts in the department that, as part of our review of how we manage waste going forward, looking at food waste is critical, because there are so many different complex aspects to it, such as what is included, what is not included, and how we work with supermarkets and with local government. She is absolutely right to raise that issue and I will be discussing it further with my department.

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

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate hugely the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on many things, including his speech; whether it overran seems irrelevant to me because it was a real barnstormer and a fantastic challenge to this Government to step up to the plate. I think that everyone who has made the effort to get here this afternoon probably agreed with every word of it.

I was thrilled to be a part of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. She was a fantastic chair and hers was a wonderful speech; along with the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, it set out the big picture domestically to do with the land, our agenda and our voice. I am going to change the mood here completely and talk about something specific that I think the Government could do right now and do easily: bottom trawling. This was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, but I am going to deep dive into it a little more—in quite short time, I hope.

Bottom trawling is a widespread industrial practice that involves dragging heavy nets, large metal doors and chains across the sea-floor in order to catch fish. It is that simple. It is very efficient for the fishing industry, because it scoops up simply everything in its path. The fishermen then haul it up, decide what they want and chuck the rest back into the ocean. Needless to say, an incredible amount is rejected, but let us try to look at it from another point of view. The ocean floor is not a barren zone. It is home to myriad species of animals, fish, plants, corals, sponges and other living things. If only we, as human beings, were able to imagine that beings other than ourselves have agency, thoughts, lives and rights, on a completely different physical scale from ours, but are also worthy of respect; if only we understood their place within our human planetary existence. Bottom trawling destroys homes. It destroys these beings’ environment. For them, it is like being in London, in the Blitz, every single night.

Leaving aside what might be dismissed as a sentimental point of view about whether the creatures down there have any rights, let us think about this from an environmental point of view. In much the same way as soil, the bottom of the ocean secures our right to be on this planet. When you bottom trawl, sediment is flung into the water in a huge, swirling cloud. Scientists call this rototilling; it is similar to deep ploughing, which tears through the mycorrhizal structures in soil and damages everything as it goes. We all know what that has done to the quality of our soil—it has been well debated and well agreed—and Governments everywhere now recognise that we have to stop this kind of farming; indeed, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, we have to look for nature-friendly farming that protects this hugely vital asset. Quite honestly, the sea-floor is absolutely nothing different.

Tearing it up has consequences that are equally serious to those of tearing up the soil and allowing it to be flushed away. Resuspended sediment—in other words, the stuff that is chucked into the sea and has lain there for many thousands of years—can change the entire chemistry of the water. It changes the nutrient levels and lowers the light levels; inevitably, it therefore reduces the photosynthesis that ocean-dwelling plants can carry out. Such plants form the basis of the entire food system in the ocean, not just for us but for all the fish up the chain. The sediment is then carried away by currents, often far away, which destroys any fish’s food system. All species are inevitably affected. Can you imagine your small town suddenly being annihilated by the equivalent of a 200-foot tank?

What to do? Nationally, we could look to curb this industry, but here, where we are attempting to preserve 30% of the ocean, we must ban bottom trawling in MPAs. I think that we should ban it everywhere, but we could start by saying, “No more”, to this one. I simply do not understand how licences have been given to fishermen to fish in these areas. The only answer that makes any sense is greed and industry pressure on local MPs and government officials to allow these huge fishing companies to twist the rules—and they are not in our favour.

If we stop it, we will get some quick benefits. Marine life acts as a natural defence. It stores blue carbon, and it forms the basic infrastructure of how low-impact fisheries can thrive. In addition, the carbon emissions are offset and restored through natural carbon stores in increased oxygen production. The most astonishing fact is that the total weight of fish found in a fully protected area is on average a staggering 670% greater.

Banning bottom trawling would deliver benefits worth between £2.57 billion and £3.5 billion to the UK economy—according to Oceana, which is about the only figure we have—within 20 years. However, despite how sensible that sounds, 33,000 hours of suspected bottom trawling took place in 2023 in MPAs, where seabed features have hundreds of years of lifespan but were trashed in minutes. It is clear that the by-laws are inadequate. Of 13 sites designated as MPAs, only four are fully protected because many bylaws protect only specific bits, which allows bottom trawling elsewhere. As I said, that kicks up the sediment, which affects everything. Because of the inefficiency of the design and laws, fishermen are encouraged to cut straight through the MPAs because they have to spend more on petrol to get around them.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the currently higher protected marine areas cover only 0.42% of English waters. Quite frankly, that is pathetic. They should cover at least 10%, and even that would be pathetic. When will the Government publish strict criteria setting out clearly what counts towards 30 by 30 at sea, including how that is going to be managed? We might not be able to see under the sea but that does not mean it does not count towards the health and well-being of every single one of us. Like our soil, our planetary health depends on it.