Environment Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
“(c) nature;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to change the word ‘biodiversity’ to ‘nature’ and is designed to have a debate in principle on changing the term throughout the bill.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as on the register. This afternoon I will, if I may, speak from a seated position—I had a long train journey and the old legs are a bit ropier than normal.

My amendments in this group all seek to change the word “biodiversity” in the Bill to the word “nature”. The only two amendments in the group for proper consideration in this debate are Amendment 5, which changes the wording in Clause 1, and Amendment 261, which attempts to give a definition of nature, so that my noble friend the Minister cannot say that nature is a completely different concept from biodiversity and that it would totally destabilise the Bill if we made this change. In this Bill we can define nature any way we like, just as we can define biodiversity, and it need not create any legal lacuna or new obligation.

The other amendments numbered in the 200s are merely examples in the Bill of where “nature” could be used instead of “biodiversity”. I counted over 140 uses of the word “biodiversity”, most of them—more than 100—in Schedule 14, but I have picked just a few examples so that we can have this debate in principle. Therefore, I do not want my noble friend the Minister to waste his time in the wind-up going through all those other examples and explaining why they are technically wrong.

Why change “nature” to “biodiversity”? What am I getting at? It really is quite simple: everyone talks about nature and not about biodiversity. All recent polls and studies show that the vast majority of people want to get closer to nature, to relate to it, and to get out and about and into it more. If you asked them if they wanted to relate to biodiversity, they would think that you were talking about zoo animals. “Biodiversity” has the flavour of a technical, scientific term, more applicable to wild animals than flowers, trees, butterflies and the landscape—at least in the minds of the majority of ordinary people.

The authoritative People and Nature Survey undertaken each month by Natural England found that 61% of people said that they felt that they were part of nature and 87% said that being in nature made them happy. A recent survey quoted by the BBC reveals that most people think that biodiversity is something to do with washing powder. We might scoff at that, and of course colleagues in Parliament, Defra, Natural England, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and all wildlife organisations know what biodiversity is—but we do not count. We need to appeal to the tens of millions of people who are not officials, scientists or policymakers and who have a much more vague idea of what nature is—but know it when they see it, and want more of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his amendments. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful speech on them by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Like my noble friend, we want people to understand and engage in nature, but it is also important to increase recognition of and engagement with the term “biodiversity”. It is an internationally recognised term that is gaining popularity with the public, parliamentarians and beyond, not least as a consequence of the extraordinary work of Sir David Attenborough, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out. It confers a direction of travel toward greater diversity, which we want everyone to fully support and engage with.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, pointed out, and this point was echoed extremely interestingly and thoughtfully by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Ritchie, “nature” is a more expansive term than biodiversity, often taken to include non-living elements, and is potentially more open to interpretation. It is perfectly possible to enhance nature with limited or no value for biodiversity. Many monocultures—for example, a green grass valley; I am using a different example from the one that I used last time—are considered beautiful examples of a natural landscape, and “nature” can have a high amenity value. If we are to boost biodiversity, sometimes it will mean moving away from simplistic ideas of what nature should be, and thinking scientifically about how to improve the diversity of living things.

In response to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, I confirm on my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s behalf—if I may—that he is not proposing to renegotiate or replace the international conventions, as I understand it from his introductory speech. However, I want to provide a more detailed interpretation of what we mean by “biodiversity” and why it is important. I do this in response to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lord Caithness and Lord Trenchard, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Hayman. The Convention on Biological Diversity, which is being hosted in China at the end of this year and is a massively important moment for biodiversity, defines biodiversity as

“the variability amongst living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems.”

It is important that variability and diversity should be conserved and the benefits for people secured. The UK is playing a leading role in negotiating an ambitious global framework for biodiversity under that convention, and setting targets and policies for biodiversity helps to demonstrate and further that alignment.

From a more technical perspective, the Bill applies the terms “nature” and “biodiversity” for specific purposes. Associated guidance and regulations will make that clear. We certainly want these measures to benefit all aspects of nature for wildlife and other environmental objectives. Substituting “nature” for “biodiversity” in the Bill would risk creating confusion about the purposes of the measures, especially where “biodiversity” is already a well-established term. Measures such as the biodiversity duty or biodiversity net gain are already established and understood policies, being strengthened through the Bill, and our aim should be to improve their functioning, not create confusion with new terminology.

I hope this does not sound facetious but there is an implied assumption within the amendment that people en masse are going to devour the Bill and base their understanding on the Act that we hope it will become. It feels to me that what really matters is delivering the measures in the Bill and the wider communications that will support it. I say to my noble friend Lord Caithness that I am not convinced it is the Act itself that will take people with us; rather, it will be the delivery of good policy, good solutions and the wider comms that we all—not just the Government—are going to have to engage in to advance this agenda.

I reassure my local friend Lord Blencathra that I share and understand his vision and the motivation behind his amendment, as I think does every noble Lord, but nevertheless I ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has indicated that he wishes to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I am not sure it is necessary to add the definition to the Bill itself, but I will certainly consider my noble friend’s comment carefully as we move through the Bill’s various stages.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My apologies, Lord Deputy Chairman; I did not realise you would be calling the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken—those who have supported me, those who are sitting on the fence and those who are opposed. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that if he goes further and looks at the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel guidelines in detail, he will find that there is an instruction there to government departments to write in simple language, and what I am suggesting here follows that OPC instruction.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, made an important contribution that swayed a number of noble Lords. I looked at changing the word “nature” at the start of Clause 1 but then opted to change it in Clause 1(3). I was in two minds about that but then I thought that I wanted the debate on principle, so we should have it early on in the Bill. I accept what he said about the list in Clause 1(3) containing more specific examples of nature. He said that “biodiversity” was the right word to be used in the Bill but I am suggesting, and I have said so all along, that we can define “nature” to be the right word in the Bill and we can make it as specific or general as we wish.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cormack for his attempt at a definition, “nature in all its diversity”. I am not sure it is right but he is simply making the point that it is possible to define this.

My noble friend Lord Caithness said that he was back to sitting on the fence. I am too; I have a leg on either side of it. I am not suggesting that we have “nature” only or “biodiversity” only; I am suggesting that in some parts of the Bill, where it is safe and sensible to do so, we have “nature” and in other bits we have “biodiversity”.

My noble friend the Minister has already pointed out to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering that I was not proposing to change our international conventions, not even the one that I negotiated myself. As a new Minister I was sent to Rio in 1992 with strict instructions: “You’ll be there for 16 days, Mr Maclean MP. You will not agree to anything until John Major comes out and signs up for everything that you’ve got to resist.” I had to sign, or was party to negotiating, the first Convention on Biological Diversity.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, that there is no need for confusion. It depends on how we define this, and I say to her that the word “nature” would strengthen the Bill.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his strong support. If Dasgupta sees the terms as interchangeable, we should change “biodiversity” in the Bill wherever possible.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. He also said that we should make things simple. The next group of amendments but one is about connecting people with nature. The word “nature” does that but “biodiversity” does not.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, says that the Government need to define biodiversity. If the Government cannot define biodiversity in the Bill, how are the public to understand or relate to it? The Government are capable of defining “natural environment” in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted dictionary definitions. What does that dictionary say about “natural environment”? The phrase “natural environment” is not defined in the Bill according to the Oxford English Dictionary; it is defined in a way that the Government have decided. If the Government can define “natural environment”, they can define “nature”.

My noble friend the Minister said that “nature” can be a more expansive term. It can, and if it is not defined it will be much more expansive. The phrase “natural environment” could be a highly expansive term—indeed, some of us have suggestions to expand it a bit more—but the Government have defined it in the Bill and, if you can define “natural environment”, you can define “nature”.

As far as “biodiversity net gain” is concerned, my noble friend picked one example which might confuse business and industry, and developers may worry that “nature net gain” is not the same as “biodiversity net gain”. If that is the case and we cannot explain it, let us not change that bit. I have resiled from my initial position when I wrote to my noble friend two weeks ago that we can change every word. I know that we cannot; it would not be sensible. It could cause legal problems and confusion. Let us not try to change the word where it is not sensible to do so but change it everywhere else.

My noble friend seemed to conclude by saying, “Let’s use biodiversity in the Bill, but out there we will be talking about nature; it’s how we relate to it and how we deliver it”. It seems a bit odd to say, “Well, let’s just keep this among ourselves. We experts who know all about it and we boffins will use biodiversity in the Bill, but we won’t use it out there among the public. For that, we will use ‘nature’”.

I think there is still some merit in what I say, although it has not commanded the majority support of the noble Lords who have spoken today. I would like my noble friend to consider with me whether we can change the word in some instances where it is safe to do so. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I start with a short explanation of the reason for Amendment 58. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 protected footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways from use and damage by recreational motor vehicles. However, the same Act left unprotected a further 3,000 miles of countryside tracks. These are the nation’s green lanes. They are being used and damaged by 4x4s, motorbikes and quad bikes, which are being driven entirely for recreational purposes. This amendment is the first step in closing the loophole in the NERC Act which allows non-essential motors to inflict environmental damage and nuisance to green lanes. The amendment does not affect the rights of landowners, occupiers or residents, drivers of essential motor vehicles, or people with disabilities who use powered mobility scooters.

The context for this amendment is twofold. First, the stated purpose of the Environment Bill is to improve the natural environment. Secondly, the 2019 Glover review of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty called for radical change in the way we protect our landscapes and stressed the need to take urgent steps to recover and enhance nature. One of the things that is causing damage to the natural environment, and to fragile and precious landscapes, is that, at present, 4x4 vehicles, motorbikes and quad bikes are allowed to be driven for purely recreational purposes on unsealed tracks all over the countryside, including in national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty.

This is allowed to happen only because the law currently says that if an unsealed track, whatever it may be, was used in the past by the public with horse-drawn carts, that it is now a right of way for any kind of modern motor vehicle. Parliament attempted to deal with this in 2006 by passing the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act: other vehicles could use footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways, but it left unprotected over 3,000 miles of other track in the countryside that have no public right of way classification. These amount to over half of the country’s green lanes. They are open to use and abuse by recreational motor vehicles and, as a result, great damage is being done, even on the high fells.

There are similar problems on many of the other 3,000 miles of the country’s green lanes—those classified as byways, open to all traffic. In reality, many of them are effectively no longer open to walkers, cyclists, horse-riders, horse-drawn vehicles and the disabled for peaceful enjoyment of the countryside because of a loss of amenity caused by recreational motor vehicles—many riders of which are based abroad.

The amendment does not seek an immediate change in the law. If passed it requires the Secretary of State to return to the business left unfinished by the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act and to carry out a public consultation on whether the loophole left by that Act, should now be closed.

The Minister may say that there is another way of dealing with the problem: the use of traffic regulations orders. The highway authorities have had TRO-making powers since 1984, the national parks since 2007, but such orders are costly to make, rarely used and almost invariably are fiercely resisted by the recreational motor vehicle groups—often with threats of legal action. TROs must be made one track at a time. If they could put a stop to the environmental damage being made by motor vehicles, the problem would have been solved long ago. A new approach and ultimately a change in the law is needed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it was an absolute delight to listen to the excellent speech from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and his call for better-quality access. There is considerable merit in Amendment 8 and especially in Amendment 9, and it probably should be a priority target. I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept them in principle. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas is very important. Could Amendments 8 and 9 be amalgamated into one target?

Of course, this is a very difficult area for the Government to set targets in and that is possibly why the Government have not added it to the clause. If you cannot measure it then you cannot manage it, and as for measuring people’s enjoyment of something, I should love to see how one can make a target for people to enjoy something. However, with time and work, I believe that we can figure out some targets in this area, especially on connecting people with nature.

Every month Natural England publishes its people and nature survey. Despite Covid, there are still very much the same patterns emerging. When one looks at March 2020, before lockdown—an idiotic term which I hate—and compares it with April 2021, one gets roughly the same statistics: 30% had not visited a green space or nature in a 14-day period, and of those who did, the vast majority numerically were older people. The justification in April this year by the 34% of people who had not visited was to stop Covid spreading. That is a noble reason not to go. However, I looked at our previous studies, in what was then called the monitor of engagement with the natural environment, and in 2017 more than 30%, the same figure, had not visited a green space. Exactly 34% said that they had not visited because they were too busy, 23% said health reasons and 18% had no interest whatsoever. The justification or excuse may vary but the numbers stay the same.

However, the other statistic that the survey highlights is that of earnings. Of those earning more than £50,000 per annum, 75% reported a visit to a green and natural space. This is compared to 50% of those earning less than £15,000 per annum. Adults earning more than £50,000 also took three times as many visits as those earning less than £15,000. That confirms the anecdotal evidence of our own eyes. You do not see many black and ethnic-community people in their Range Rovers visiting the Lake District National Park, stately homes, or National Trust properties.

There is of course a big cost element for those who cannot afford the time or money to go far visiting green space, but there is also a cultural problem. I was told in a briefing from the creators of the brilliant London National Park City scheme that they found that children walking to school would prefer to take the slightly longer route round by the shops and the high street rather than the shorter route through the local park or green space. There is thus a problem that even when green space is on their doorstep, many people are not connecting with it. That is why Amendment 9 is so important. I believe that Natural England is in discussions with Defra on what more we can do to connect people with nature, and that could lead to a target.

The briefing we have all received from the Ramblers, Open Spaces Society, and others, cannot identify targets, but suggests three areas where it might be possible to set them. I am glad that they acknowledge that this is not easy. Their first suggested area is proximity. Are there access opportunities close to where people live and work? The second is accessibility. Are different types of users, including disabled people, able to connect with and make use of access to green spaces and good quality paths, and do they feel welcome? The third is quality. Are green spaces of sufficient standard to ensure that people want to use them?