Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Rosindell]

The hon. Member should examine how Mauritius behaves in reality, which I will come to later. If we want a nation that will actually take these issues seriously, it is the United Kingdom. It is easy to sign a treaty, it is not so easy to follow it through in practice.

In what I believe to be an act of historic folly, this Government are to hand that amazing territory over to Mauritius. That nation does not have the record, the capability or the will to protect such a fragile environment. Its own waters have suffered from overfishing and poor enforcement. Its close alignment with China, and indeed India, should concern anyone who cares about the Indian ocean’s future. Indeed, the evidence speaks for itself. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, Mauritius ranked 109th for marine key biodiversity area protection, with a score of just 0.8 out of 100; 83rd for marine habitat protection; and 131st for marine protection stringency, down nearly 78%. Are these the credentials of a nation ready to steward one of the world’s most delicate ecosystems? The Government appear to think so. I disagree.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I am just wondering whether the hon. Member finds himself in the wrong debate?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am overseeing the debate. If the hon. Member had been in the wrong debate, I would have pointed it out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Less than 1% of the high seas are fully protected; there could not be a more important time for this treaty. It is the world’s only viable pathway to meet the global biodiversity goal of protecting at least 30% of the world’s ocean before 2030. Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I welcome the fact that the Government are finally bringing forward this legislation. It is disappointing that the UK was not among the first 60 countries to reach the threshold to get the treaty ratified, especially given the long cross-party support for the subject in this House, but I hope ratification will be swift to allow the UK a seat at the table at Ocean COP. We Liberal Democrats have long been pushing for the strongest possible marine environmental targets, both internationally and domestically, including through the ratification of the global oceans treaty.

The Bill is welcome, but we must not be complacent. Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years, and more than 12 million tonnes of plastic are dumped into the ocean every single year, putting countless species at risk of extinction. In 2023, the BBC reported that there were more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is simply shocking and totally unacceptable.

Biodiversity relies on healthy oceans, but plastic pollution, climate change and unsustainable fishing practices are destroying our marine biodiversity. With 10% of marine species at risk, we must act now. Communities across the world rely on the oceans for their livelihoods, jobs and food security—indeed, we all rely on the oceans for our livelihoods—but we are taking more from the ocean than can be replenished, with 90% of big fish populations depleted and 50% of coral reefs already destroyed.

The first Ocean COP is on the horizon for next year, which will give the UK an important seat at the table if we ratify the treaty in time. While there, the UK should champion further measures to protect our oceans, including a ban on bottom trawling in marine protected areas. Bottom trawling is a most terrifying practice that damages the seabed, kills animals and plants indiscriminately, and releases carbon from the sea floor in very large proportions, which drives climate change.

If Members have not watched the documentary “Ocean with David Attenborough”, please do—it is terrifying. Once I watched it, I made a pledge that I would not eat fish until we had at least signed the ocean treaty, so there is a personal reason why I push the Government for early ratification. I love fish, and this should not be a call not to eat fish; this is about protecting the oceans. If Members watch the David Attenborough film, they will see that a good and positive thing is that the oceans can recover very quickly if we give them the option to recover. That is why today is such an important day.

The British public are with us; some 81% of British adults say that they would like to see bottom trawling banned in MPAs, according to polling from Oceana. The Environmental Audit Committee backs the call to ban bottom trawling. In September, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told the Environmental Audit Committee that it would not roll out an outright ban. I implore the Government to reconsider.

We must manage our territorial waters effectively, and we could start by implementing the Fisheries Act 2020 in full. Through that, we could reform the fishing quota distribution to phase out the fixed quota allocation system, which largely rewards those with the deepest pockets. It could be replaced with a system that rewards and incentivises lower impacts from fishing that deliver environmental, social and economic benefits to communities around our coast.

We must also look more closely at illegal and unregulated fishing. Hidden overfishing—when illegal discards are unaccounted for in fishing quotas—is driving stocks into severe decline. Marine groups are urging the Government to introduce a strategy to tackle overfishing by the end of 2026, including catch limits and a fair deal for fishers adjusting to lower catch limits.

The transparency around enforcement and monitoring of fishing activities in UK seas is not adequate. The Marine Management Organisation is not even required to publish data on the enforcement of fishing regulations. We were told that post Brexit, the UK would establish best-in-class fisheries management as an independent coastal state, but we have not taken advantage of that freedom to strengthen our regulations.

I welcome the Bill as an important starting point, but if we are serious about protecting the blue heart of our planet, this must be just the beginning of real action to restore the health of oceans across the world and here at home. I repeat the Liberal Democrats’ call for a coherent oceans policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks and for the attention that the FCDO has paid to the importance of marine conservation. The biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction treaty represents a transformation in the way that we protect nature in the high seas. I commend the Government for being an early proponent of the agreement, and I am so pleased—in fact, I am thrilled—to see that we are finally going to ratify it.

I feel that I have been witnessing the Chamber at its best this afternoon. To hear such passion and such well-informed expertise on both sides has been a real honour. It reminds one what an honour we all have in being Members of this place and sitting in a room to listen to such speeches, which has been wonderful. Let me confess that I am one of those people—I remember that when I came back from seeing sperm whales I was still weeping, and I apologised to the organiser of the trip that I seemed to just not be able to stop weeping, but she said, “Don’t worry, dear. We see lots of people like you on these trips.” I feel as though I have found my people, given the passion that has been expressed today for the high seas and for biodiversity.

Today, I want my speech to have a particular focus—please forgive me for this—because I believe that our commitment to this treaty can be tested by how we treat our current responsibilities. I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), in using the Chagos islands as a test. I apologise for not recognising that the Opposition have been talking about the biodiversity of the Chagos islands. Perhaps I was only focused on the considerable amount of time they have spent on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands. I have since spent the time available looking up their references to biodiversity, and there have been three of them, so I apologise for saying that there had not been any.

I have had a number of exchanges in this House with the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has responsibility for Europe, North America and the overseas territories, about the vital importance of safeguarding marine protected areas around the Chagos islands. I am grateful for the assurances he has given me that the Government are committed to the continued protection of the unique and unparalleled environment of the Chagos archipelago.

However, the FCDO’s assurances, although welcome, really do not go far enough, but before I say why, I want to explain why these waters matter so much—not least because of their role in replenishing the high seas—and the extraordinary obligation that the UK owes the world to ensure that they remain protected. As has been said, these 640,000 sq km of near pristine ocean are among the most pristine in the world. They are home to the largest living coral atoll and to 58 islands. They are the breeding site for more than a quarter of a million pairs of seabirds, as well as the vital and unexplored deep-sea ecosystems that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) talked about with such passion.

The vast no-take zone that the UK established in 2010 provides a vital sanctuary for numerous endangered species. If this marine environment were damaged, it would do huge damage to the seas generally and to species already on the brink of extinction, such as the endangered hawksbill turtle, which forages in the waters of the Chagos islands and nests on their beaches, or the unique population of reef manta rays, which use the protected waters as a refuge and which would soon disappear if those waters became unprotected. This is exactly the kind of marine life that the BBNJ agreement seeks to protect through the establishment, among other measures, of marine protected areas in the high seas.

The vast marine protected area around the Chagos islands provides a safe corridor and foraging ground for vital migratory species and apex predators such as tuna, sharks and whales, and without it we would see their numbers crash much more widely across the world. In a warming world in which coral is dying at a terrifying rate, the coral in the Chagos archipelago is relatively healthy and acts as a reseeding bank for other reefs in the Indian ocean through larval dispersal. The reefs and marine life of the Chagos archipelago help to replenish degraded reefs and depleted fish stocks from east Africa to Indonesia. The coral in the Chagos archipelago has shown an extraordinary degree of resilience and an ability to recover even from bleaching events, and it is not known why. This resilience and the undisturbed nature of the Chagos ocean make it a really important site for scientific study. It could give us an important insight into what we can do next to save our coral reefs, and a proper insight into how healthy marine ecosystems function and the impact of climate change.

For the last 15 years, the UK has protected those waters and taken seriously its duties as the steward of those ecosystems, just as the BBNJ agreement invites the entire international community to do as stewards of the high seas. As the UK now hands them over to Mauritius, we have an equally serious duty to ensure that they remain protected. That brings me to the terms of the Chagos deal and the Minister of State’s evidence to my Foreign Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful to him.

The Minister noted that the UK and Mauritian Governments are committed to promoting the conservation of the environment of the archipelago. I obviously welcome that, and I pay tribute to the Government of Mauritius for their clear determination to protect nature. Nothing I am about to say is intended to cast any doubt on that commitment. The problem, however, is that Mauritius is a democracy—a vibrant democracy—in which Governments have historically had different attitudes to protecting the ocean. It is therefore not good enough for the Minister just to point to the commitment of the current Mauritian Government to marine protection; we need a basis for lasting confidence and mechanisms to ensure that these ecosystems remain protected for future generations. My principal concern is that there is no funding mechanism in place to ensure that Mauritius will properly resource marine protection in the Chagos archipelago and to incentivise it to do so. That stands in contrast to the treaty we are discussing.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to say sorry to the shadow Minister for misunderstanding, when I intervened earlier, why he thought it was so important to mention the Chagos islands. I hope he will accept my apology.

[Emily Thornberry]

I must say that we are all behaving so well this afternoon.

I was saying that there is no incentive or funding mechanism in the Chagos archipelago deal, yet the treaty we are talking about—the subject of the Bill we are giving a Second Reading today—does have that very funding mechanism. Why does it? Because we know that that is needed for it to work. Without a dedicated funding mechanism for Chagos marine protection, in which a transfer of funds is contingent on the continuing protection of the marine environment, there is nothing to ensure that this protection will continue. The Mauritian Government want to allocate resources for doing so, but they operate in a resource-constrained environment. It is therefore deeply regrettable that both parties did not reach an agreement on future arrangements for environmental protection across the Chagos archipelago before signing the treaty. They should have allocated dedicated funds to it, or agreed a funding mechanism that would have been a proper basis for confidence. In short, the Chagos agreement should have followed the lead of the BBNJ agreement.

I remain concerned that there is a lack of concrete action on the future conservation of the Chagos archipelago’s unique marine environment and biodiversity. I appreciate the commitments that the Minister has given to the House and my Committee, but now actions need to be taken, drawing on the example presented by the BBNJ agreement. The ratification of the high seas treaty is testament to Britain’s renewed global leadership on climate and nature. That reputation risks being undermined by a failure to invest in the protection of the unique and extraordinary marine environment that is the Chagos islands.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we should all be proud of high-quality British producers like Longley farm. That is why, back in July, I announced our food strategy, which will build pride in British food by ensuring we have a food system that backs British food, grows the economy, feeds the nation, nourishes individuals and protects the planet—now and in the future.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

T3. Brits chew 4 billion pieces of plastic chewing gum each year. A single piece releases thousands of microplastics into the body that are linked to cancer, diabetes and strokes. Will the Government consider commissioning independent research into the environmental and health implications of plastic chewing gum?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important question, and I share her concern about the risks that microplastics may pose to the environment and human health. That is why we are looking at all sources of pollution that enter our rivers, lakes and seas, but there is obviously more work to be done to improve our understanding. The Environment Agency is collaborating with different sectors, including the water industry and National Highways, to increase our evidence base and knowledge of these materials.

May I also express my disappointment about the global plastics treaty? We were unable to reach an international agreement, but I reassure all Members of the House that the Government remain committed to seeking a global solution to the problem of plastic pollution that we all face.

Global Plastics Treaty

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate, and I thank all Members who have contributed. Rarely do I have the privilege of being part of a debate in which there is such consensus, though we have not heard from the Conservative Front Benchers yet. I assume that there is broad consensus. That should give the Government a strong hand, allowing it to be a tough negotiator in the global plastics treaty talks.

Global plastic production and waste have doubled in the last 20 years—most of what I am saying has already been said; that is the beauty of winding-up speeches. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), the figure stands at 12 million tonnes of plastic. I have another statistic for him: in 2023, the BBC reported that there are more than 170 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the world’s oceans. That is no way to treat our precious planet. Indeed, it puts countless species at risk of extinction.

The global plastics treaty offers a unique opportunity for a global, United Nations-led treaty, through which all countries are held to a high common standard on plastic consumption. The treaty would create a level playing field, incentivise and support international action, and forge a clear path toward a future free from plastic pollution. We Liberal Democrats have been instrumental in the campaign to finalise the treaty, and are looking towards next month’s negotiations in Geneva, in which we will, I hope, reach a breakthrough.

It is not just in this Chamber that there is great consensus on this issue. The majority of the UK public, the majority of member state Governments, the business community and civil society are all pushing in the same direction. More than 100 countries support a legally binding global target to cut plastic production. The UK must retain its ambition on this key issue.

I am one of 90 MPs who have signed Greenpeace’s pledge, which states:

“I support a strong global target to cut plastic production”.

Last year, a quarter of a million people took part in the big plastic count, an initiative run by Greenpeace and Everyday Plastic to count each piece of plastic and show the scale of the crisis in the UK. We have heard from many Members about how concerned the public are about this issue, and about their constituents taking part in clean-up actions.

Greenpeace is rightly concerned that, in each further round of talks, more fossil fuel lobbyists seek to derail negotiations and prevent any limits to plastic production from being agreed. The Government should look closely at precedents for how to prevent the influence of lobbyists over international agreements. The framework convention on tobacco control, for example, recognised the lobbying tactics of the tobacco industry and required parties to

“act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests”.

Governments across the globe must address the influence of fossil fuels in politics, and put the interests of people before polluters.

We must also address funding. A sustainable treaty that is built to last for generations must include a strong, dedicated, multilateral fund. Without a substantial financial package, the treaty will impose obligations on countries, particularly those in the global south, with which they will struggle to comply. The reality of the climate crisis globally means that countries will have to find money to clean up the mess that polluters have created. The Government should look for ways to place that financial burden mainly on the plastics industry, which has made billions in profits. I recognise that it is important to work with industries, but this is ultimately about the “polluter pays” principle—though, of course, we need to bring industry with us, to create practical and workable solutions that do not flop.

I will touch on one issue that has not been mentioned, but which a constituent has raised with me: plastic pollution from chewing gum. I was alerted to it by Keir Carnie, one of my Bath constituents, the founder of plant-based chewing gum company Nuud Gum. Many of us are completely unaware that chewing gum is, in fact, a single-use plastic. It commonly contains synthetic polymers—plastic materials derived from fossil fuels, and found in products such as carrier bags, glue and car tyres. In the UK, over 4 billion pieces of plastic gum are consumed annually, the majority of which end up as non- biodegradable plastic pollution. That gum breaks down into microplastics, contaminating soil, waterways and wildlife. Gum pollution is also one of the UK’s most pervasive types of litter, and costs local councils over £60 million per year in removal efforts. I am sure that every one of us remembers an annoying moment when we had to pick off a piece of gum from under our shoe.

Despite its similarities to other banned single-use plastics such as straws and cotton buds, chewing gum has evaded regulation. As with single-use vapes, the UK has a great opportunity to lead again in environmental and public health protection. I urge the Government to look into this issue, and I am happy to put them in contact with my constituent, who could provide evidence and support on what can be done.

We are at a pivotal moment. The scale and urgency of the plastic pollution crisis demands bold, co-ordinated global action. The treaty must be not only ambitious but fair, with proper funding and protections against vested interests. The UK must show leadership in the upcoming talks, championing a strong new global treaty that tackles plastic pollution at every stage of its lifecycle, so that future generations can enjoy the beautiful planet that we still enjoy—just about—today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[George Freeman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my constituency neighbour and good friend. Yes, my Bill absolutely does address that issue; I will take his steer and get to the guts of it. He is absolutely right; IDBs are crucial in our part of the world. When I first looked into this issue, I thought, “How come Norfolk is top of the league table for flooding?” I soon discovered—even more shockingly—that we are not; I think we are county No. 6 or 7 out of 10, which is why many hon. Members from other counties are here.

The problem is fourfold, and there are four provisions in my draft Bill—I am keen to use this debate as an opportunity to polish it. First, we need a much clearer and sharper set of responsibilities. At the top, the Environment Agency obviously has overall responsibility for flooding in the country, but this is a local problem, so we have to properly empower the strategic flood authorities locally and re-empower the IDBs. At the moment, many of them find that in dealing with flooding they come up against all sorts of environmental green tape produced by the very agencies that are there to stop flooding—as though the Environment Agency is more interested in filling our ditches and drains with mud and wild flowers than encouraging them to drain the water. People feel frustrated by well-intended green bureaucracy that is getting in the way of local solutions, so responsibilities should be put back locally.

Secondly, on funding, I strongly believe that we should be top-slicing and ringfencing some of the Environment Agency’s funding and giving it to IDBs and strategic flood authorities. It would be a rounding error for the Environment Agency—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. Could I encourage the hon. Gentleman to come to an end, because it is a very short debate and many Members want to come in?

[George Freeman]

Certainly. Do we have 90 minutes?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

We have 60 minutes.

[George Freeman]

I am sorry; I thought we had 90.

We have to put funding in the hands of people who have responsibility. Thirdly, I want to create planning liabilities for development companies so that they have a proper incentive—not just a vague instruction—to upgrade the drainage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should be bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I wish to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson at 5.8 pm, so I am imposing an immediate time limit of two and a half minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I will have to reduce the speaking time to two minutes. I remind hon. Members that if they take interventions, it eats into the time of those who are on the call list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I must contest my hon. Friend’s suggestion that he represents the wettest part of the country. Somerset is always at the forefront of flooding. Part of my constituency lies in the levels and moors site of special scientific interest. The area is increasingly threatened by inappropriate planning applications. Locally elected officials are crucial to good decision making for local communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that they play an important role in making sure that the right decisions are made for local communities and our environment?

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his time is limited?

[Tim Farron]

I shall take no more interventions. I appear to have opened a very soggy can of worms, but my hon. Friend the Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is absolutely correct.

Looking at the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and at the attitude of this Government and the previous Government towards planning, they seem to be seeking to centralise control of planning at a national level, yet to relax planning rules at a local level to give local planners, local councillors and national parks less power than they currently have. That is very dangerous. In the last Parliament, I served on the Bill Committee considering the very lengthy Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. Among the amendments proposed was one that we referred to as the infrastructure-first amendment. It would have given local authorities and national parks the power to say no to developments unless the infrastructure —including drainage, correct sewage provision and sufficient capacity—was there in advance. That power is so important, and it is missing today.

Many hon. Members, on both sides of the Chamber, have talked about the severe housing crisis. Some 7,000 people in my district are on the council house waiting list. We need to build, yet we know that there are a million properties in this country with planning permission, so it is not that the rules are too tough; it is that the developers are not building. We need to make sure that we point the finger of responsibility in the right direction.

New clause 7 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), would bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Shamefully, I must admit that I was the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for environment, food and rural affairs on the Bill that became that Act, 15 flippin’ years ago; I have been our EFRA spokesperson under every leader since Nick Clegg, including under myself, because there were only eight of us and someone had to do it. I remember the Bill very well. What a tragedy, and what an outrage, that schedule 3 to the Act has still not been brought into force, 15 years on. We aim to ensure that it is.

I am mindful of time, but this is a timely debate. Last week, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about the deeply concerning issue of flood defence spending. At the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would be a review after the 2025-26 financial year. We are into that financial year now, so we are getting close. It is deeply troubling. My communities in Cumbria were massively affected by Storm Desmond nearly 10 years ago. The cost of that flooding incident was £500 million.

I am watching the clock, so I will simply say this: cutting flood defence spending and taking shortcuts in development that allow flooding to happen are catastrophic false economies—

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I call the shadow Minister.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Hobhouse.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) on securing a really important debate. There is no better champion on this issue in Parliament. He is bringing together many all-party parliamentary groups to specifically tackle and bring to the Minister’s attention the important issue of flooding and is setting up his own flood caucus, not only among parliamentary colleagues, but prominently within the county of Norfolk—which is invaluable. My hon. Friend mentioned the 22 villages that have been flooded in his constituency, and all of us have referenced our own impacted communities, so I know just how important this issue is.

I want to address some of my remarks by echoing some of the concerns that have been raised in this debate, because flooding devastates communities, families and the health and wellbeing of individuals who experience the trauma of flooding. It devastates our farmers and our economy at all levels and it represents a threat to life. What is worse, for some it is not a one-off event but a frequent occurrence. Far too many people are impacted. I am proud to say that the previous Government took robust action on flooding. Since 2010, more than 600,000 properties and 900,000 acres of farmland have been better protected by Government-backed schemes. In 2020, the Government announced a doubling of the flood defences budget, including £100 million for the frequently flooded allowance.

While those statistics represent vital progress, we must recognise, as has been indicated, that there is always much more to do. I will just canter through some of the points that have been made, because it is quite right that when dealing with water and with flooding, a catchment approach is always the focus. That deals with not only our farmers, but with our housing developers and our infrastructure providers. It starts right at the top, upstream, dealing with our moorland restoration projects and ensuring that our farmers have the funding to deal with environmental mitigation. That is why it is deeply frustrating that the Government have stopped sustainable farming incentive applications. While there is an acknowledgment that they have opened it up to an additional 303,000 applications on the back of our calls, it is nevertheless worrying to many of our farming community. That is exacerbated by issues such as the family farm tax, which is creating uncertainty in our agricultural sector.

The role of developers has been mentioned by all in this room and I agree that water companies need to be statutory consultees as part of that process. I also agree that planning considerations such as SuDS ponds and the design of houses—as has been illustrated by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Julie Minns)—need to be taken into account when new developments are built. Financial contributions must be considered too, because far too often flood alleviation schemes are not established at speed to deal with the amount of development that is coming down the line. That impacts not only settlements further downstream, but agricultural businesses. Therefore, when looking at flood alleviation schemes, it is right that those schemes are attractive enough for a landowner to enter into such an arrangement, and therefore the remuneration that is associated with those flood alleviation schemes needs to be properly addressed.

The Environment Agency, internal drainage boards and land managers were also discussed. We very strongly advocate a loosening up of the relationship between the Environment Agency, our IDBs, who do a fantastic job recognised by many in this room, and the land managers—who sometimes just want to get on and clean the ditches, but are unfortunately penalised for doing so at the moment. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the advice from officials in the Environment Agency is “do not dredge” and “do not remove that vegetation from those EA-managed assets”. I would encourage the Minister to push back on that advice and say that dredging is an option further downstream and that removing vegetation from EA assets should be a consideration.

I also address the issue of insurance, because that is vitally important, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan). Flood Re is incredibly important if we are able to provide reassurance for those developments that have been built after the kick-in date. We would advocate the Government going stronger and faster with the recommendations that have been made in this debate.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Could I remind the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge of the debate to wind up?

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Wera Hobhouse, who I know is now anxious.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Like people in Hartlepool, we in Bath recognise that the Conservative Government left our flood defences in a poor state, and we welcome the extra funding that the Bath flood defence scheme has received. However, we worry that it has come too late in a lot of cases. Is there a timeline for when my Bath constituents will actually see improvements?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. As I said, we are delivering a record £2.65 billon investment in building, maintaining and upgrading flood defences, and that money will be spent over the next two years. We will shortly announce some of the projects that are going ahead in the next financial year, and next year we will announce even more. There will be an announcement this year for the next financial year, and an announcement next year for the second half of the two-year record investment. That shows out commitment to building, maintaining and improving flood defences up and down our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I can confirm that this Government and the CPS take seriously prosecuting all crimes, including the most serious ones. Equality before the law is a fundamental principle that underpins the rule of law and is foundational to this country.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Many victims are so traumatised after an assault that it takes them some time to come forward. That causes delays and allows perpetrators to erase their traces. What more can we do to encourage any victim of assault to come forward as quickly as possible, knowing that they will have support as soon as they report something?

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises an important point. The CPS is working right across the country to ensure that victims feel more able to come forward and that its service to victims improves. She will understand that the court backlog is key; unfortunately, we inherited a record court backlog from the previous Government, and we have to tackle it. The Lord Chancellor is taking a range of measures to get it down, so that victims will have the confidence that when they come forward they will have their day in court and justice will be done.

Climate and Nature Bill

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member; in fact, it is quite nice to hear the Liberal Democrats acknowledge that they were actually part of the Government over the last 14 years—they do not always choose to do so. As to the point about national security and energy security, that is why I am so concerned about the Labour Government’s plans for our offshore oil and gas industry. Why would we want to rely more on imports, as the Government will, should they go ahead and accelerate the decline in the North sea? However, I am sure we will continue to have that debate as we move forward.

If this private Member’s Bill contained measures to ensure a pragmatic and proportionate response to climate change, with households and bill payers at its core, and defended our British wildlife, nature and countryside, I am sure we would all support its aims and ambitions. Indeed, colleagues and friends who support it do so with the admirable, and indeed laudable, intention of seeing the United Kingdom protect the environment, and it is not that ambition with which we take umbrage. However, it is clear that we should not support the damaging measures the Bill would require. If it became law, it would damage our country, our prosperity, the lives of individuals and industries across the United Kingdom.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I wonder where the shadow Minister was when the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, just 15 minutes ago, that this is not an either/or between prosperity and protecting nature and the climate.

[Andrew Bowie]

I was actually right here on the Front Bench listening to my hon. Friend, and I agreed with a lot of what he said. However, we are here to debate the contents of the Bill and to decide whether they are something we should support, and I am afraid—to break with the consensus that has been expressed across the House this morning—that we cannot.

The Bill would undermine the power of this Parliament and its democratically elected Members and would bind their hands. As the Bill suggests, the Secretary of State would be duty-bound to act as directed by an unelected body. A world with a cleaner climate and with thriving nature and wildlife is one we all aspire to; it is the core belief of Conservativism that we should seek to leave the country and the world in a better place than that in which we found them, for both our children and our grandchildren. But I am afraid that this Bill would not do that.

In government, we aspired to be a world leader in the energy sector and to embrace a new energy mix that would reduce our carbon footprint, and that is what we did. We should want to pave the way for other nations, but it should be a path that they would actually want to follow. If the Bill means green levies, soaring bills, the highest electricity prices in the world, boiler taxes, job losses, and rejecting our ability to produce fuel domestically, while increasing imports from abroad and generating lower tax revenues as a result, nobody will follow this path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am going to speak at great length on flooding and water and the measures we have already taken—I have several pages on that.

Let me say what this mission-driven Government are all about. We know one of our missions is to make the UK a clean energy superpower, including accelerating to net zero emissions while seizing the economic opportunities that come with that. We are back in the business of climate leadership and will restore the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action, delivering at home and working abroad with our international partners.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I can confirm, having been a Member of the previous Parliament, that I see a transformative difference in what this Government are doing compared with the previous Government. I also absolutely believe in cross-party working. A crucial aspect of the Bill is that it ensures we in the UK account for overseas emissions and ecological damage driven by our imports. Can she confirm that the Government will also look at emissions from our imports?

Environmental Protection

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We Liberal Democrats welcome this initiative from the Government, although in our manifesto we went further and committed ourselves to introducing a deposit return scheme for food and drink bottles and containers.

We agree with the Government that a scheme of this kind will foster a nature-positive economy, tackle plastic pollution, and boost recycling efforts across Britain. Such schemes are a proven strategy worldwide to increase recycling while minimising waste and littering: they support our environmental goals while also providing an income stream that will protect our public funds. However, I have some concerns about the scheme’s implementation.

The Environment Agency is currently underfunded and struggling to meet its regulatory obligations, particularly in respect of water quality, so we must ensure that this statutory instrument comes with appropriate support and additional funding for the agency to handle this new responsibility effectively. The scheme should also be as convenient as possible for people, whether they are “on the go” or at home, and—as has already been mentioned—small businesses need support in order to transition smoothly into the new system. We must ensure that the introduction of a deposit return scheme does not add to their financial burden. We should be seeking to work with small grocery businesses and convenience retailers to help them to introduce the scheme in an affordable way.

I urge the Government to operate a joint scheme throughout the United Kingdom. The Food & Drink Federation has called for a joined-up scheme across the UK, and only this morning I attended a roundtable event on the future of recycling where it was agreed that different schemes in different parts of the UK would make it extremely difficult for those in the industry. They operate throughout the UK, and it would not be viable for them to sell different products in the devolved nations; moreover, they have no control over which parts of the UK their products would be sold or deposited in. A can of soft drink purchased in Bristol should be deposited in the same way as one purchased in Cardiff. A single UK scheme, aligned in scope, fees, processes and labelling, is essential to minimise costs and prevent confusion—and, in that context, it is important that we learn the lessons of the Scottish deposit return scheme.

We must also consider the important role that local authorities will play in making the scheme work successfully, and ensure that they are properly supported. That too has been mentioned during the debate.

Many local authorities collect from the kerbside in bins or boxes, where recycling is co-mingled and then sent on to another company, which sorts and separates the recycled materials. The cost to local authorities for this service depends on whether items can be recycled for a profit by such companies: if they can make a profit from the items that people recycle, councils will be charged less. Some councils now worry that dry and mixed recycling will become less valuable if cans are included in the deposit return scheme, which will lead to higher costs for local authorities, whose resources are already stretched. So far, DEFRA has committed to work to understand the impact of the DRS on local authorities, and I hope that it will be fully considered.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the introduction of the deposit return scheme. We have some reservations about its implementation, but it is a positive step towards a more sustainable and green future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

As I have mentioned, this is an important issue, and I look forward to discussing it in more detail. Work to assess the risks of PFAS, and to inform policy and regulatory approaches—including banning or highly restricting certain chemicals and addressing issues caused by their historical use—is continuing. The nature of PFAS chemicals and their persistence once in the environment means that there are no quick fixes, but this is a global challenge. Innovation in suitable PFAS alternatives is needed, and we are working to harness industry leadership in the transition away from PFAS. I assure the hon. Lady that work on this issue is ongoing.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

6. What his planned timetable is for the introduction of legislation to ban imports of hunting trophies.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)]

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, all the staff of the House, and all those in our public services who will be working over the weekend a very merry Christmas and a safe and successful new year?

The UK has a long history of championing the global conservation of endangered species. We are in the process of extending the Ivory Act 2018 to include four further species—hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale—in addition to elephants. The Government have also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies. We are considering the most effective way to do so.

[Wera Hobhouse]

It has been 10 years since the senseless killing of Cecil the lion. It is still legal to import hunting trophies into this country. There has for a long time been cross-party support for banning trophy hunting. In 2023, the Labour party asked the then Conservative Government, “What is stopping you bringing in legislation? Stop the dither and delay.” Why are this Government still dithering and delaying?

[Mary Creagh]

With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.

I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.

Biodiversity Loss

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on introducing this important debate.

Across the globe, nature is collapsing. The UK has lost nearly half its biodiversity since the industrial revolution. We are ranked in the bottom 10% for nature loss and the worst among G7 nations. One in six UK species is at risk of extinction. The Government should be leading the way for nature, for planet and for people, but far too little is done. How can we tell others at COP16 what to do if we are falling so far behind?

This Conservative Government have missed their 2020 targets for sites of special scientific interest; they missed their targets for UK seas to meet “good” environmental status; and they missed their target for 75% of rivers and streams to be in good condition by 2027—just 14% of surface waters in England are in good ecological condition, and 0% are in good overall condition.

We Liberal Democrats would do a lot more. One of our priorities is to introduce a nature Act to restore the natural environment through setting legally binding near and long-term targets for improving air, water, soil and biodiversity, supported by funding of at least £18 billion over the next five years. We will reverse the decline of nature by 2030 and double nature by 2050 by increasing the protected area network from 8% of land to at least 16%. This will double the area of the most important wildlife habitats across England and double the abundance of species in the UK from the current bassline. We will also fund local government to increase the network of local nature reserves to move to a more nature-friendly management policy for council land. Local government has a huge rule to play but can be effective only if resourced properly. I am proud that my council in Bath was the first in the west of England to adopt a policy of biodiversity net gain.

Another of our Liberal Democrat policies is to introduce a right to nature, which would include a new environment rights Act that would recognise everyone’s human right to a healthy environment and guarantee access to environmental justice. Crucially, it would also introduce a duty of care for businesses to protect the environment. Particularly in our urban environments, such as Bath, there is so much opportunity to unlock the potential for nature growth. Bath Organic Group’s gardens exemplify the benefit of community farming for wellbeing and biodiversity.

Liberal Democrat councils have been leading the way on reducing pesticides. In July 2021, my local council in Bath approved a ban on the use of glyphosate, and in the same year Guildford Borough Council passed a motion to become a pesticide-free town, with cross-party support. The overuse of pesticides is destroying many areas used for food by wildlife. We need national standards for limiting pesticides, rather than relying on the work of local authorities.

I recently had the pleasure of attending the St Luke’s church community fair in Bath, and I met many community nature groups such as Friends of the Bloomfield Tumps and Friends of Sandpits Park. They both undertake conservation work to help to improve nature in their local areas. Everyone should also be behind No Mow May. In the UK, since the 1930s we have lost 97% of British wild flower meadows, which are a vital source of food for pollinators such as bees and butterflies. May is the perfect time of the year to leave certain green areas to develop their natural wild flowers and wildlife. It is not too late to reverse the decline in nature, but we must act now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for securing the debate and for mentioning and supporting my Climate and Nature Bill, which gets its Second Reading on Friday. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for bringing forward the Climate and Ecology (No. 2) Bill, of which the Climate and Nature Bill is an iteration. If I am not successful on Friday, I am sure that we will see future iterations of the Bill as the matter has so much support across the House.

The covid-19 pandemic laid bare the interdependence of people and nature. It is no longer possible to deny the fact that human health is linked to our use and abuse of the environment. The biodiversity crisis is a cultural, social and economic one. As humans, we are not simply observers of nature but an integral part of it. We need an approach that collaborates across Departments, sectors and nations to even begin to save our natural environment.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people understand a lot more about the concept of net zero, and therefore combining net zero with nature loss is so important for bringing people emotionally on side?

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the hon. Lady, who serves alongside me on the net zero all-party parliamentary group. She has foreshadowed what I was going to say next: nature is essential to the future of all, and yet environmental degradation occurs disproportionately in, or around, low-income areas where a high percentage of people of colour live. Our approach must ensure a thriving natural environment for all.

The House probably knows that I have a long history of raising the subject of insects. In fact, I introduced the first insect population loss debate in 2019, in this Chamber. I think it was the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) who provided the ministerial response to that debate, and she will be responding to this one as well. I wanted to call it insectageddon; unfortunately, the House authorities would not allow such a title. Sadly, we remain in the same position on insect loss. The decline in insect populations is one of the lesser-known tragedies of the human effect on the environment. Where insects go, all other species follow.

Let’s not mince our words: the rise in the human population and the loss of pollinating insects sets us on a road of cyclical starvation. We will lose the production of some crops, particularly those best for health and wellbeing. The role that insects play in food security is pivotal. Dung beetles, for example, save the cattle industry an estimated £367 million a year. The national pollinator strategy is set to be updated this year. There has been a successful educational piece on the role of bees in food security, but we need to go further and highlight the impact that invertebrates have, too. I hope the Minister can address that point.

Education will also be central to mending the heartbreaking lack of care that humans have for the natural environment. There are countless young people in particular who have shown outstanding leadership in this area, and I thank them for their bravery. Lots of organisations, as well as the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I used to sit, have noted that changes could be made to the school curriculum. For example, a new GCSE in natural history would teach children and young people skills in observing, naming and recording nature. There is a significant skills gap in ecology, which means that devolved and local authorities are simply unable to prevent further losses, let alone increase biodiversity. Adding this GCSE to the curriculum, which is to be done by 2025, will create a skilled workforce that can go into jobs in the natural world.

The practical skills that curriculum and skills initiatives provide are just one side of nature education. The second is encouraging people, not just young people but the whole population, to experience, celebrate and learn about nature in a holistic way. People are spending less and less time outdoors, and we know that this lack of connection results in a lack of appreciation of, and value placed on, nature. We can change that by improving access to nature in both urban and rural areas through, for example, expanding initiatives such as forest education schools—particularly to areas of high deprivation, where we know that children virtually never visit the environment. To build on that, we could create a national nature service so that young people can experience nature jobs and think about working in ecology in the broadest sense.

I spoke briefly about tackling green skills shortages through nature education, but the UK must set out how it will fund these skills. No matter how many well-intentioned speeches we hear about the need to create green jobs, if there are no proper financial incentives, then devolved and local authorities will simply be unable to help us to reach the 2030 goals that we signed up to at Kunming-Montreal.

We cannot decouple the crisis that the natural world faces from the economic crisis and the climate crisis. Economies are embedded in, rather than external to, nature. When we recognise that, it becomes blatantly obvious that depleting nature risks the health and wellbeing of everyone. What this demands, then, is a fundamental and transformational change of how we measure economic success. GDP does not take into account the depreciation of natural assets, despite the natural environment being the key decider of our future success. If we do not move into inclusive wealth measurement, we will continue running ourselves into the ground, destroying more and more of the natural environment. At their core, economies do not value the natural world and therefore cannot address biodiversity loss.

People should have the right to experience the benefits of nature and a healthy environment, and the right to play a meaningful role in restoring and protecting that environment. The crises we face—of poor mental health, food shortages, conflicts and socioeconomic inequality—are all connected, and nature is the key intersection. We must tackle the nature crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing this much-needed debate, and on the recent publication of her book on this issue. I am not sure whether this will be the last time I get an opportunity to respond to her, so I congratulate her on the contribution that she has made over the 14 years that she has been in Parliament and wish her well for all that she does in the future.

It has been an incredibly important and valuable debate, and I am really grateful to everyone who has contributed to it. The fact that we have had to limit people’s speaking time shows that this subject enjoys a great deal of interest in this place. Indeed, we could have had a debate that was twice as long and still had much more to say. It has been incredibly valuable.

I will reflect on a few of the contributions to the debate, both at the start of my speech and as I go through my remarks. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made the crucial point that we are inextricably linked to nature, and that the success of the human race and the success of our natural environment go absolutely hand in hand: we should not see them as being in conflict. The approach that the Labour party will take, and that we must all take as a society, is to recognise the need for us to work together. She also talked about the reintroduction of species such as beavers, which I feel very strongly about. We need to see a greater focus on that. We had a very interesting debate yesterday on species decline, and that is just one area.

The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was undaunted by making the only substantive Conservative Back-Bench contribution, made a number of important points, one of which was to reflect on the importance of the Environment Act. One point that has come across strongly in this debate is that it is all very well to have targets, but if we have legally binding targets that we do not achieve, they simply become a fig leaf to cover the Government’s lack of performance and activity. She also highlighted the importance of the British overseas territories. I do not think that other Members made that point, but it was certainly made strongly yesterday and needs to be taken seriously.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I have just been at an infrastructure committee meeting, where the point was made that the Government can break the law. Would the Prime Minister go to court? No, he would not, so we need a Government who are seriously committed to the targets that we set ourselves and put into law, and who are not just paying lip service to that commitment.

[Mr Perkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point. I will say more on COP shortly, but it is incredibly important. It would be hugely damaging if, as a result of the Prime Minister’s endless delaying of the general election, Britain’s contribution to COP16 became lost amidst the election, which could take place at a similar time. I will press the Minister on what the Government’s approach to that will be.

As many colleagues have rightly noted, our country is now one of the most nature-depleted in the world, which has devastating consequences for us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern) reflected on the fact that not a single river in Britain is in good condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) spoke about the positive work that is being done in the Rivelin valley in her area, as well as about the challenges faced by those who are passionate about maintaining the high quality of that river.

I am sure that when the Minister responds she will point, as she did yesterday, to the binding targets of the Environment Act. We are constantly told how ground- breaking they are—but setting legally binding targets that the Government then fail to meet is not cause for a lap of honour. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked some important questions on that. We have legally binding targets. What is the response of the Government and what are the opportunities for people to hold the Government to account if they fail to make those targets by 2030 and if, as currently, they are not on track to achieve those targets? What is the purpose of a legally binding target that a Government then go on to miss?

One in six species in the United Kingdom are at risk of extinction. Other people have referred to the Office for Environmental Protection’s report. The Government are off-track to meet all of their commitments on nature and the environment, including their goals to halt biodiversity loss. The biodiversity targets agreed at COP10 were missed by a country mile, and we are yet to see the Government’s plan for meeting the Montreal framework targets agreed at COP15. Just 3% of our land and 8% of our seas is currently protected for nature. It is crucial that the Government’s plans live up to the size of this moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) has set out Labour’s commitment to the targets in the Environment Act. We will look to deliver where the Conservatives have failed, including halting the decline of British species by 2030, and will be committed to honouring the international agreement to protect 30% of the UK’s land and seas for nature by 2030. We must be clear that our country cannot achieve the targets that have been set by continuing on the course that it is currently charting. Labour will review the environmental improvement plan and take steps to get Britain back on track.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the importance of habitats, such as wetlands, peat bogs and forests, both for families to explore and for wildlife to thrive. Keeping those nature-rich environments at the forefront of our mind is very much within Labour’s approach.

The Government have a target to bring 70,000 hectares of ancient woodland in timber plantations into restoration by 2030. That is an ambitious target. We support it. Last year, they brought just one hectare of these irreplaceable habitats into restoration. It is simply not good enough. As a country, we are not on target for what we have already committed to.

Farmers are the custodians of habitats in all four corners of the United Kingdom. They know and cherish the land they work like nobody else, and in many cases they plough the same furrow for generations. The Labour party respects the crucial role played by farmers and farming communities. Government must do much more to support farmers moving to different practices that carve out a role for nature alongside their crucial role in food production.

Several Members mentioned the failure of the environmental land management scheme. Some suggested more money is needed. The truth is that the Government are not even spending the money that they have currently allocated. As for going to the Treasury and demanding more money for ELMs, the first response will be, “Spend the money that you have currently got.” That will be the No. 1 priority for a future Labour Government.

The number of farmland birds has reduced by 50% since 1970, while more than a third of nutrient pollution in rivers is caused by agricultural run-off, making it all the more insane that we have all this unspent money in the ELMs budget. Farmers want to make these changes. They value the natural environments in which they live and work, but they often face impossible choices. This year, we have seen crops washed away and farmhouses become islands in torrential downpours. A staggering 82% of respondents to the National Farmers Union survey said that their farm business had suffered negatively owing to the weather, and yet the Government’s response has been far too pedestrian, given the size of the crisis facing farmers.

Ensuring that ELMs delivers for farmers is a crucial priority, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke) said, so will the Minister explain why so much money allocated for farming transition is being sent back to the Treasury unspent? Will she confirm whether the Government will publish the land use framework before the general election?

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire, I am proud to represent the party that created national parks 75 years ago. That achievement shows the progressive changes that only a Labour Government can deliver. However, a recent report by the Campaign for National Parks found that just 6% of land in national parks is being managed effectively for nature. At the same time, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said, only a third of sites of special scientific interest are currently in good condition. Those sites are actually in worse condition than national parks. That is utterly perverse, and reflects a failure of policy and a betrayal of the intentions set out by the post-war Labour Administration. Protected sites ought to be where nature particularly thrives, and must be the cornerstone of any strategy to restore biodiversity in the UK.

The nature crisis is global, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so we must be clear about the need to collaborate with international partners. The UK played a positive role in ensuring that the crucial commitment to nature recovery enshrined in the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework becomes reality. The UK should be a leader on the global stage when it comes to the environment and nature. I have to say that under the current Prime Minister, there has been far less of a commitment than there was under Boris Johnson. Since Montreal, the Government have shown very little interest in making good on that momentum. They have failed to deliver their targets domestically or on the international stage. A Labour Government will take on that mantle and drive international agreement and collaboration.

Will the Government treat the forthcoming COP16 with the urgency and seriousness it warrants? Does the Minister agree that it would be a tragedy if one of the impacts of the delayed general election was that Britain failed to focus on its contribution to Colombia because COP16 coincided with a general election campaign?

The need to tackle this crisis is urgent. Under Labour, we will have a Government who recommit to the environmental improvement plan targets, tackle the failure in our water industry and support farmers to play their crucial role in a way that boosts, rather than depletes nature. We will grow nature-rich habitats, get the environmental land management scheme working and end the failure that has resulted in too much being unspent. Finally, we will bring forward the land use framework and support farmers and communities by creating a flood resilience taskforce. Change is coming, Ms Rees. It cannot come a moment too soon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Commons Chamber

The Attorney General was asked—

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

1. What steps she is taking to help increase prosecution rates for violence against women and girls.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to increase prosecution rates for cases relating to violence against women and girls.

[The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)]

Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the Government. I recently visited CPS Thames and Chiltern to hear specifically about the work it is doing to combat stalking. I also heard how the domestic abuse joint justice plan will transform how we investigate this all-too-frequent crime.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that despite an increase in the number of referrals from the police for domestic abuse, both charging rates and prosecutions have decreased in the last quarter. In Bath, the Southside project, Voices, and Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support all support those affected by domestic abuse and sexual violence, but we cannot rely on charities to do the heavy lifting. Does the Attorney General agree that if we want the public to have confidence in the system, increased reporting should lead to increased numbers of prosecutions?

[The Attorney General]

Yes. It is always difficult to talk with pleasure about increased numbers of prosecutions, because all the survivors of those acts have gone through a horrible event for a prosecution to take place, but I agree with the hon. Lady that it is generally a good sign that prosecution numbers are going up. I am pleased to say that they are going up in her area for adult rape cases. There is more to do on domestic abuse cases, which is why we are focusing specifically on the domestic abuse joint justice plan. The work of the charities in her region, which I should say are funded by but independent of Government—that is what survivors prefer—will really help us to ensure that those survivors get justice.