Environment Bill

Viscount Trenchard Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, with a degree of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve. We all want to make legislation more simple and able to be understood by members of the public, but in this instance, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. To change the name in the legislation at this stage would cause a level of disruption, because we already have international agreements that refer to “biodiversity”. The Dasgupta report also referred to it.

There is a simple difference between nature and biodiversity. According to my dictionary definition, nature covers all existing systems created at the same time as the earth, whereas biodiversity is the part of nature that is alive, born on a mineral substrate in an earlier geodiversity. Biodiversity provides numerous ecosystem services that are crucial to human well-being at present and in the future. Longer-term changes in climate affect the viability and health of ecosystems, influencing shifts in the distribution of plants, pathogens, animals and even human settlements. Biodiversity loss has negative effects on several aspects of human well-being, such as food security, vulnerability to natural disasters, energy security and access to clean water and raw materials. It also affects human health, social relations and freedom of choice.

Quite simply, through this legislation, we need to protect our living biodiversity. The inclusion of a target-setting framework is a welcome part of the Bill, and something that has already been referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. The long-term nature of environmental matters makes this all particularly important. Environmental improvement cannot be achieved over the short timeframe of a political cycle. We need to ensure that this Environment Bill provides an opportunity for the UK to become a world leader in the fight against all forms of pollution and biodiversity loss and in mitigating the impact of the climate emergency. The litmus test for all of us in the Lords is does changing “biodiversity” to “nature” in this Bill strengthen and toughen its provisions, does it weaken existing legal protections or does it make any difference?

I believe this Bill must turn the tide on nature’s decline, biodiversity decline and the climate emergency. It must transform the way we manage waste, protect our precious water resources and all the other aspects. So, I think at this late stage, it is best to keep to the term “biodiversity”, while I fully understand and appreciate the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I was much elated to read my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendments. I completely agree with him that “biodiversity” is one of the worst examples of a pseudointellectual word that most people do not understand and would never use in speech. I think my noble friend is right that, in the main, it would be much better if we used the easily comprehensible word “nature”, on which there is universal agreement on its meaning. I completely agree that it is highly desirable that the Bill should use language with which the public identifies.

It is interesting that, in their response to The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review the Government refer to

“nature, and the biodiversity that underpins it”.

This suggests that biodiversity and nature are not quite the same thing because one underpins the other, but even in a note to the preface to the review, Professor Dasgupta writes that

“the terms Nature, natural capital, the natural environment, the biosphere, and the natural world are used interchangeably.”

The Cambridge Dictionary website informs me that biodiversity means:

“the number and types of plants and animals that exist in a particular area or in the world generally, or the problem of protecting this”.

The first part of this definition sounds to me to be the same as nature, but then I am confused by the notion of protecting it. The “bio” of biodiversity is derived from the Greek bios, meaning life, and all the varieties of animal and plant life on the planet are indeed diverse.

So, although academics may disagree that the simple word “nature” is inadequate, I am not convinced that there is any material difference in meaning. I agree with my noble friend that we should change the word “biodiversity” to “nature” wherever possible. My noble friend’s Amendment 203 changes the “general biodiversity objective” of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to the “general nature objective”. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether that Act was the first in which the term “biodiversity” was used and whether he agrees that it would be much better if our law was written in language that people can understand.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, suggested that “biodiversity” is the correct word because it is broader, but I am not sure that the noble and learned Lord persuaded me that “nature” is narrower than the whole diversity of life. I also worry for the future of the word “diversity” which increasingly carries connotations of gender and race. For all these reasons I support what my noble friend Lord Blencathra is trying to do.

--- Later in debate ---

If there is another way of doing it—if the Government can look at their planning guidance and give local authorities some targets or action, or facilitate the ease with which they can cause the abandonment of certain sources of light pollution in favour of things that are not so polluting—so much the better. We need some action on light pollution. Nobody has ever done it systematically or strategically, and this amendment is an opportunity to push the Government that way. My main caveat for the Minister is: look at why the Bills have got too complex. I want some action, and therefore I want the Bill.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness want to give the Secretary of State powers to set targets separately in respect of “terrestrial biodiversity” and “marine biodiversity”. Actually, the definition of “natural environment”, as contained in Clause 43, makes clear that it includes the marine environment as well as the terrestrial and water environments. I do not support this amendment because it is unnecessary. Furthermore, it appears to exclude the crucially important area of the water environment.

I also do not support Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It may well be that efficiency is improved by the increased use of some resources and reduced use of others. This depends on the availability and cost of various resources. The noble Baroness’s amendment is too prescriptive and would constrain the Secretary of State unreasonably in the exercise of his powers.

I welcome Amendment 10, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. It is regrettable that the Bill does not cover light pollution. As new road schemes are progressively introduced across the country, many of them are connected with existing roads by new roundabouts, often on high ground above the towns and villages to which they provide relief. They can be seen for miles. Highways regulations require that roundabouts be lit, unlike gradual road junctions. This is an increasing source of light pollution and has a significant effect on the urbanisation of the countryside. Although I am not sure how to measure the “people’s enjoyment” of the countryside, light pollution has a negative effect.

If my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s amendment were accepted, at least in some places, could the meaning of “nature” not be extended to include the soil and the organisms that live in it? In that case, Amendment 11 would be redundant.

Amendments 12 and 31, in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, require the Secretary of State to set targets for the planting of new trees. He spoke with conviction in support of his amendments, but I believe that the Secretary of State already has the necessary power to set targets for tree planting, and I wonder whether this needs to be made a separate priority area.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to add “nitrogen management” as a priority area, over which the Secretary of State must set a long-term target. Nitrogen is essential for both plant and animal life, but I am not sure that it is necessary to add another priority area because this is surely already included in Clause 1(3)(c), whether we call this “nature” or “biodiversity”. Furthermore, excessive use of nitrogen in fertilisers has already been reduced by more than a third since the mid-1980s.

Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is terrifying, and I hope that my noble friend does not accept it. It seeks to reduce the amount of meat and dairy products that we consume by 20%. I know that the Committee on Climate Change has recommended that we reduce our livestock production, but I am very sceptical that this would have the slightest impact on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Certainly, growing more trees will help, but 65% of British land is suitable only for livestock grazing, and I believe British farmers will find that the growing middle classes in Asia will steadily recognise the quality of our meat products, opening up new and profitable markets for them.

We have grazed cattle and sheep in this country for thousands of years, and the state should not be in the business of telling us to eat less meat, whether through new draconian measures or the application of taxes that would reduce the profitability of our farms, driving farmers off the land and reducing the proportion of our food that is home-produced.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on his amendment, which I support. The marine environment, onshore and offshore, is vitally important, as we on the environmental sub-committee found on many occasions when we were discussing fisheries. Perhaps this is another case of not knowing what we have got until it is gone. There is a danger of over-fishing the environment, and acting in ways that damage the seabed, and that can have profound effects. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is right to stress the importance of this issue.

Before I go on to the light pollution amendment, which I have put my name to, I want to emphasise something that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said. I am puzzled why the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wants to worry about people eating meat: if ever there was a cause that young people seem to embrace, it is vegetarianism—and indeed veganism. You do not need a government diktat to tell them to do that. Last night, we ate steak at our local pub; today, we had one of Lady Young’s delicious vegetable bakes. You do not need the state to interfere in this—there is a balance to be struck.

I am at one with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about meat and dairy farming. Farming is changing fundamentally. As the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, reminded us, the use of fertiliser has dropped dramatically, and the way it is applied is much more scientific.

I noticed that there was a sort of aside by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, when she referred to mining. Yes, there will be mining, because we want lithium for batteries for electric cars—unless she is proposing that that is not a way forward. There are those who say that we should not be using cars at all, but you would have a job to convince the British public of that. Even there, science and technology are likely to come to our aid: a different type of battery, possibly using sulphur, may well be available in the future.

I think the advice of my noble friend Lord Rooker and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, was right: we want an Environment Bill, and there is no such thing as a perfect Bill. I remember trying to deal with a Bill on the digital economy—a small Bill that was swamped by about 700 amendments. We have to strike a balance on this Bill.

On the effect of light pollution, I am at one with the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Taylor, and others. There are so many benefits that we can achieve through controlling light pollution. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, lighting has come along in leaps and bounds, and local authorities are quite capable of doing a lot more to control the use of lighting. Although we are now using LEDs, I notice that they still shine just as brightly right through the night, when they clearly do not need to.

I remember driving along a country lane just outside Swanage, with my two young children. It was completely dark. We looked up at the sky and there, before their amazed eyes, was the Milky Way, stretched out before them in a way they had never seen in town. When I said, “Look, there is a shooting star”, I was met first with derision but was eventually proved right. We are probably never going to be able to return to seeing the Milky Way in London, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and others have brought to the Committee’s attention, we could make a profound difference on pollinators, on the kind of environment that we live in, and on energy saving. I am keen on both those amendments, and look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

As a Sheffield Green Party member, I have at this point to refer to the Kinder mass trespass that helped to create some of the basic rights that we have today. People were not granted those rights; they had to win them. I stress to your Lordships’ House that there is now a strong and growing campaign to get more rights. I suggest to the Minister that acknowledging that desire needs to be written into the Bill as a statutory responsibility of government. Then we can start negotiating how much is allowed. I am not expecting him to say, “Yes, I entirely accept everything that was just proposed”, but let us start the conversation.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I think that farmers and landowners welcome the public’s enjoyment of and responsible access to the countryside. Of course, one of the joys of the countryside is that few people are there. If the whole of our urban population walked in the countryside for all their free time, it would be wrecked. There has been an enormous increase in recent years in public access to the countryside. Unfortunately, public understanding of and respect for nature and the countryside environment have not developed commensurately.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, in Amendments 8 and 56, seeks to add targets in respect of public access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. I am not quite sure how public enjoyment of the countryside can be measured. It depends in part on the weather. Ironically, the increased, and in many cases unauthorised, public access which has occurred during the past year or more has been the single greatest cause of damage to the land and to nature. There has been a massive increase in fly-tipping, littering and trespassing. All this has produced unexpected costs for farmers and landowners in the very year in which they suffer the first big cut in the direct payments scheme, and this before they are able to compensate their loss of earnings through enrolment in the new ELM schemes.

Natural England has launched a new countryside code, which should be taught in schools, as the CLA has recommended. Farmers and landowners welcome responsible visitors, but it is vital that the increased numbers enjoying the countryside stick to footpaths. They must also understand the risks around livestock. There are many areas where wildlife habitats need protection and should be left undisturbed. So I would not support an unfettered right to roam, and any measures that the Government take to encourage increased public access must be balanced by measures to improve public understanding of, and respect for, the countryside.

Some people believe that agriculture is the enemy of environmentalism, but surely the opposite is true: sustainable agriculture and the recovery of nature can and must coexist. I very much hope that the ELM schemes under development will encourage that. For these reasons I prefer Amendments 9 and 57 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lucas: they presuppose improved public understanding of the countryside. I am not convinced, however, that the countryside needs, or can easily cope with, any accelerated increase in public access beyond that which increased prosperity and improved work/life balance is in any case already enabling.

Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is interesting. Illegal use of motor vehicles on private roads and tracks, whether sealed or unsealed, should be prevented by better enforcement, but I do not think that the state should distinguish between driving on sealed and unsealed tracks. Furthermore, many tracks which were sealed years ago are now indistinguishable from unsealed tracks.

The last amendment in this group is Amendment 284, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. It is probably otiose, in that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the powers to set targets for the people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. There are already 140,000 miles of public footpaths and other rights of way in England and Wales, and landowners are busy considering what additional paths they might open to the public. Can the Minister confirm whether ELMS will provide the opportunity for land managers to receive grants for allowing permissive access, similar to those which were offered under countryside stewardship schemes?

The noble Baroness suggested that a review should compare public access rights in England with those in other parts of the United Kingdom. Is she not aware how great the differences are? The population density of England is 279 people per square kilometre, more than four times that of Scotland at 67 people per square kilometre, and nearly twice that of Wales at 151 people per square kilometre. The vast difference between England and Scotland in typical terrain and density suggests that a comparison of access rights would be irrelevant, even if interesting. I regret therefore that I cannot support this amendment either.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. She is not here, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.