Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Committee

13:24:00

Clause 1: The environmental recovery objective

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out from “2008” to end of line 11

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for pointing out that I am actually here. I intervened on my noble friend Lady Stowell to make the point that we all support the introduction of AI, but AI is going to be tremendously consumptive of electricity. Electricity prices are actually very high in this country, and I attribute that to the targets we have set for reaching net zero, which I think we should be ignoring. We should not ignore net zero, but we should ignore the targets, which are too short and are damaging the British economy. That is the reason for my amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, suggested my intervention was motivated by some tradition in the other House of intervening very early on in the debate and then catching the next train to the country. So I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for pointing out that I am still here. Things have changed tremendously since I first tabled this amendment. Initially, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was rather hoping that I might withdraw my amendment. I think he hoped the Bill would go through without any debate and on the nod. That should not happen. The whole world of energy is now changing quite substantially, and we have got to be very wary of setting extremely arbitrary targets for reaching net zero, which have been damaging our economy and have led to extraordinarily high energy prices. Since I tabled the amendment, we have had the report from the Tony Blair Institute, which is interesting because one the main things it pointed is that there is absolutely no way we are going to reach these global targets, for the simple reason that a very large number of developing countries are producing their own energy and want to produce it as cheaply as they possibly can. They are going to go on using fossil fuels for the indefinite future. Therefore, is it sensible for us, producing less than 1% of the world’s emissions, to set ourselves a net-zero target, when China, for instance, is producing 60% of its electricity from coal-fired power stations? Not only are the Chinese using probably the most efficient fossil fuel for producing electricity, they are also massively polluting the atmosphere in which their people have to live. At the same time, we have stopped producing any form of electricity through coal. We have no more coal-burning power stations. When this started, the great theory was that somehow we were going to be leaders in the world; we would set an example and others would follow. Quite clearly, the Chinese are not following our example: they are merely taking massive advantage of the fact they can produce manufactures much more cheaply than we can here. The drain of manufacturing industry continues from this country, and that is driven, among other things, by the fact that our electricity prices are so much higher than those in the rest of the world. I admire the Government for having the ambition to reindustrialise this country, but it is not going to happen if our electricity prices are so much higher than everybody else’s in the world. This is one of the problems we are living with today: we are not competitive, and many other countries are taking advantage of us in this way. I know the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has had association with the Drax power station. I have the most enormous reservations about a so-called green power station, which is supposed to be fulfilling all the requirements of net zero but is polluting the atmosphere through every conceivable stage of its process of feeding fuel into that power station. It is supposed to be dealing with wooden pellets that come from North America. There is a suggestion that quite a lot of trees have been cut down in North America as well to produce these wooden pellets. When the wooden pellets are eventually burned, they must be almost as contaminating as a coal-fired power station, if not quite. At the end of the day, we should not be contributing to CO₂ emissions through generating power, even if it is under the auspices that somehow this is a renewable source, because I do not think that it makes any sense at all.

13:30:00

Looking at the whole question of carbon capture and storage, which the Blair institute was very keen on, it is quite interesting that one of the effluents coming out of the north-east was going to be from the Drax power station. So there we are, spending an absolute fortune on carbon capture to take the effluent out of the Drax power station, which is supposed to be a green power station because it is using renewable sources.

We have to look very carefully at renewable sources. We know very well that when it comes to putting up wind turbines or solar panels, a lot of CO₂ is used in manufacturing these things. But at the end of the day, once they are operating, the CO₂ effluents seem to be much less at that point and therefore it is much more justifiable. But to use stuff just because we can grow it again—so that is a reason for burning it and contaminating the atmosphere—seems absolute madness, and I just do not see how we can go on doing that. I would like the Government to announce that they are going to close down the Drax power station in time and replace it with a much cleaner form of generating electricity, because we have to tackle CO₂ at every conceivable level.

There are encouraging signs now—which, funnily enough, was not mentioned in the Blair report: the use of battery storage has grown significantly in the last few years. A friend of mine who I used to consort with in the other place, and who I saw at dinner the other day, said that he now has a number of containers occupying four and a half acres of his land in Wiltshire, and they are just taken up with buying in electricity when it is very cheap and then pressing a button when there is peak demand and the price is very high and letting it out again. This removes the peaks and troughs of electricity supply, which is always very useful and means that you need much less in terms of standby facilities.

Advances are being made, but the targets that we have set ourselves are damaging the economy of this country. Our chances of re-industrialising are absolutely minimal as long as we go on having the highest electricity prices in the G7. We have to look at all this and start taking a much more sensible approach to CO₂ emissions. We need to continue to electrify wherever possible, but if we are paying the highest possible electricity prices in the developed world, we have a very serious problem ahead of us. I beg to move.

My Lords, first, I apologise that I was unable to be present for the Second Reading of this valuable Bill. I am a bit confused by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, because it seems that he leaves intact in the Bill the very targets that he is against. In fact, the amendment appears to focus on something equally important, however, which is that it would remove the requirement for the listed public bodies to contribute to the “delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008”. The Government have a statutory responsibility to deliver the adaptation programme, and the Adaptation Committee of the Climate Change Committee in its successive assessments has reviewed whether we as a nation are doing what is required to make sure that nationally, including with regard to infrastructure, we are more resilient to climate-related floods, droughts, intense weather events, heatwaves and increased storminess, and all the things that we are increasingly seeing. We are seeing households go through horrors of floods and rocketing insurance costs. We are seeing the Government having to pay out £60 million in recovery payments to farmers for the excessive rainfall in summer 2024 having a huge impact on their livelihoods. Farmers, of course, also suffer from not having enough water on occasion, and that again hits their bottom line in irrigation costs or loss of crops. There are more frequent and extreme heatwaves which cause excess deaths, particularly in elderly people. According to the Office for National Statistics, in the 2022 heatwave excess deaths associated with five heat episodes alone were up by 6.2%. Climate change-related insurance claims are steadily rising, and all the impacts that we have just heard about are serious for people and for the economy. If the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, feels we are moving too fast because our electricity prices are high, I say that we are rapidly approaching a point when the real downstream costs of not doing enough to combat climate change are going to start hitting the economy, if they have not already done so. The Adaptation Committee has been clear that we are not making enough progress. Its progress report on the third national adaptation programme was very blunt: “The UK’s preparations for climate change are inadequate ... The Government has yet to change the UK’s inadequate approach to tackling climate risks … The Government must”— among other actions— “Improve coordination across government … Integrate adaptation into all relevant policies … strategies and plans. Implement monitoring, evaluation and learning across all sectors”. Clause 1(1)(c) is fundamental to that to ensure that public assets and critical public services are resilient to climate impacts now, avoiding the costs of coping with emergency events and costly retrofitting. We must not lose this adaptation clause from the Bill. I cannot recall off the top of my head the exact figure calculated for the cost of taking action on the climate targets, but if my memory serves me well, it was less than 1% of GDP lost and certainly less than the impact of the term in office of Liz Truss. I shall briefly take this opportunity to stress the importance of this Bill as whole. The Government have statutory climate change and environmental targets that they urgently need to meet. A range of public bodies needs to act in support of the Government if the Government are to have any hope of meeting the targets. We have experience in this House of laying such requirements on public bodies. During the debates on the Great British Energy Bill and the Crown Estate Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, attempted to get a similar obligation about environmental and climate change targets laid on those bodies to help achieve that government strategy commitment. That took up considerable time of the House, and of Ministers outside the Chamber, and although we did not get agreement at that point to amend the Bills, we got valuable assurances from the Dispatch Box that those bodies would be expected to meet sustainable development objectives and, by analogy, climate and environment objectives as outlined in the two pieces of legislation that laid those requirements on government. We could theoretically carry on trying to insert those obligations into public bodies one by one as suitable legislation comes past that would provide opportunities. Indeed, during 2000s, I proposed a sustainable development duty for every relevant public body as an opportune Bill came through your Lordships’ House, and I won the day on several public bodies that still have their sustainable development duties, but I can tell the Committee one thing: Ministers came to hate me. It would be much more efficient to get the Government to recognise that they will need all the help they can get to deliver the targets and to adopt the approach suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of a single Bill doing all relevant public bodies in a job lot. Can the Minister delight us by telling us that he is seriously considering this or, at the very least, could he tell us how much progress has been made since commitment made at Second Reading by the Minister, the other noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the imminent revision of the environment improvement plan provides the best vehicle to consider the principles that this Bill is promoting and their practical implementation? We are due to get the environment improvement plan revision before the summer—late spring is the technical term, I think. Can the Minister confirm that it will include specific measures to align public bodies’ action with delivery of the statutory climate change and environment targets, including the adaptation programme, despite the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to remove it?

My Lords, I express my concern about this amendment. I completely understand where my noble friend Lord Hamilton is coming from with his wider concerns about some of these policies. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, about adaptation for climate change in particular. Although it was criticised by the sub-committee of the Climate Change Committee—I was actually responsible for publishing it—and there may be disagreement about how far it would go and the connectivity, it was still important to make sure that we got it in place so that government departments knew what they should be doing. We had made that commitment to do so. In particular, Clause 1(2) is a concern, as it says: “The environmental recovery objective is a principal objective for the public bodies”. I say to my noble friend that these bodies, which are by and large but not solely Defra bodies, are either Ministers or bodies that are accountable to Parliament, to Ministers or, indeed, to the electorate more widely when we get into local government. I realise I should have tabled an amendment here to consider mayoral authorities and mayors. It is vital that we recognise that there is already in law an enhanced biodiversity duty on all the public authorities. I am also conscious that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, pointed out to me, I think in a different meeting, that when the Environment Bill went through this House the Government at the time resisted directly linking the local nature recovery strategies into this. I was not a Minister in Defra at that time so I must admit I was not aware of that detail, but I genuinely believe that the local nature recovery strategies are critical to making sure we achieve these targets, which is why I broadly support this Bill. I have tabled a fresh Question for Written Answer, bearing in mind what the Minister, Mary Creagh, said, I think last November in response to somebody in the House of Commons, that she expected all the local nature recovery strategies to be published by the end of the first half of June. Clearly, that has not happened, but incentives are supposed to be given towards that, so I have tabled a Question for Written Answer to see what the progress has been on that. I know that my noble friend adores our countryside, but our country will be very different if we do not protect our natural environment. On the targets referred to in Clauses 1(1)(a) and (b), for too long nature has been the Cinderella in thinking about climate change. The climate adaptation element is also key when it starts to come together in real action and not just saying, “We’re pleading with you to look after nature”. It can be difficult to explain why it matters to keep alive a species of bat in Colombia, but it starts to come together when we think about adaptation. I am conscious that it is important that we continue to do whatever we can to honour our obligations. It was a Conservative Government who did the negotiations for the global biodiversity framework. I believe that it is vital that every sinew of government is working towards achieving that. It matters not just because we led the way in the negotiations and it took a lot of courage—I paid a lot of tribute at the time to our brilliant civil servants who were leading the day-to-day negotiations and working with Ministers to make them happen—but because we matter and nature matters. That is why I encourage my noble friend to consider whether he wants to press this again on Report, because, if he did, I am afraid that I would find myself in a different Lobby from him.

13:45:00

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baronesses said about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. This Bill is incredibly important and it needs to stand in its entirety. I will make two points. First, local authorities are critical if we are to get to net zero. Sectors that are either directly influenced or shaped by decisions from local authorities account for one-third of our emissions. We cannot get to net zero without them. This Bill rightly says that it is fine to have national targets to achieve net zero, but unless we actually will the means, it will not happen. Therefore, we need local authorities to use their planning, transport and housing functions to deliver net-zero policy on the ground. Equally, following up from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the natural environment is incredibly dependent on local authorities. As she rightly mentioned, local nature recovery strategies are a critical tool that local authorities can use to shape and support nature going forward, with their development processes and amenity space. We cannot get to nature recovery, for which we now have government targets, without them. Local authorities are critical. That is why the Bill needs to go ahead in its entirety. I will pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. At every opportunity in this Chamber and in the other place, Members are finding legislative vehicles to give these duties to public bodies to take forward the responsibility for climate and nature. She mentioned some of them, but there are others, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which has just finished in the Commons. My honourable friend Gideon Amos MP attempted to insert into that Bill a new clause setting out that local authorities, in taking forward their planning and development functions, should take account of the climate and nature targets. As the noble Baroness rightly said, because this House and the other House know that local authorities and public bodies are the vehicles to deliver the nature and climate goals that we want, we will just end up with every Bill being bogged down with attempts to amend it accordingly, unless the Government take forward this incredibly well-measured and timely Bill—and I salute the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for introducing it. I hope the Minister will support the Bill, but like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I will ask him one question. She mentioned that the Minister said at Second Reading that the EIP was the proper vehicle for taking this forward. However, that deals with the nature aspect; instead, I want to address the issue of the climate goals. Even if this Government do not take forward this timely Bill, they committed in December to introduce a public participation strategy this year. That would set out how businesses, civic groups and individuals would work on this; the Government would bring them together and show them how we can all, as a nation, move towards a just and fair transition to net zero. Critical to that is the role of local authorities—with their respective functions between housing, development and transport—in helping those businesses and individuals get there. Can the Minister assure the House today that, when the public participation strategy comes out—before the end of this year, I hope—it will make crystal clear the role of local authorities and public bodies in helping businesses and citizens help us get to net zero.

My Lords, I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I have heard so much comment about local authorities that I felt I had to. I declare my interests as a councillor, an ex-leader of a council and chairman of the LGA. I find in those roles that local authorities are constantly emasculated by regulation, red tape, targets and being asked to do more than they could ever possibly achieve. We end up, therefore, always trying to compromise between various targets on which we could not deliver. We were being asked to do too much. I do not know of a council that does not want better biodiversity and to address the issues of climate change, and that does not care about net zero. The problem is that the more targets, red tape and emasculation there is, the harder you make it for councils to do their jobs, whether that is caring for vulnerable children and adults, or hitting net-zero and climate change targets. I ask noble Lords to consider whether this actually makes the job of councils and local authorities easier in delivering the things we all want, or whether it just adds another layer of bureaucracy. I cannot answer that for noble Lords, but I do know, having operated underneath all that red tape, that regulations, red tape and targets made my life more difficult in achieving stuff that every council I know wants to achieve anyway.

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, as I did at Second Reading. I too will oppose the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, because it removes crucial provisions relating to climate adaptation and environmental recovery objectives. The truth is that, despite having really good environmental legislation, the Government are largely off track to meet their legal obligations, particularly on nature recovery, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. The Office for Environmental Protection has concluded that the Government are largely off track to meet their nature goals; the Climate Change Committee has stated that the UK is not on track to meet its 2030 emissions targets; and in the recent report of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, not a single delivery plan for adaptation was rated as good. This is an alarming situation, and this Bill will help to resolve some of those problems. The trouble is that nothing is joined up. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, put it really well at Second Reading when he said that the Government have all the levers, but they are not actually attached to anything. The Government are like a general in a military campaign who fails to tell the troops what the strategy is. Government needs to be interconnected, and these targets and ambitions need to go to the bodies, local authorities and people on the ground who are taking these decisions daily, to help make sure that government policy is joined up from top to bottom and united in its purpose and aims. That is what this Bill seeks to do. As others have said, we sought to amend the Crown Estate Act, and we succeeded; we also succeeded in amending the Water (Special Measures) Act, but it wastes a lot of parliamentary time having to do this. I will be tabling an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to put such a duty on the Forestry Commission as well. The Government need to do these things. On Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, I too was a little bit confused by it; there was a disconnect between the wording of the amendment and the speech he gave. It would remove the requirement for public bodies to deliver the adaptation programme. Just yesterday evening, we had a debate in Grand Committee on the impact of wildfires, and the threat is ever-growing. If we do not adapt, people will suffer and we will face increased costs and damages. We need to prepare: the reality of climate change is here, and it is going to be disastrous for people and our economy. We need to do something about it. Amendment 1 would also remove the nature recovery duty. However, we have to do this. Climate change and biodiversity losses are interconnected and interdependent. Government public bodies own 6% of the land in the UK, so why would we not seek to improve our biodiversity by making use of those bodies and the land under their control? Councils, as we have heard, also have an important role. I will challenge some of the remarks made because, in Scotland, councils do have a duty to make climate-related improvements. In fact, where they do so, they are making real improvements. Lots of councils want a greater ability to do these things. I therefore reject the amendment because, if passed, it would rip the heart out of the Bill. I will however address some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, has made. I do not think it appropriate to talk about our climate targets as being arbitrary. They are set by scientists and are reviewed by the Climate Change Committee; they are real targets with real purpose. I agree with the noble Lord about the cost of energy bills. More must absolutely be done to bring down the cost of energy, but we need to remember that it is the cost of gas that sets the electricity price in the UK 98% of the time. I know that the Government are looking at energy market reform, but more needs to be done on that. The green economy grew by 10.3% last year, according to the CBI. In fact, it is one of the very few parts of the UK economy that is showing real growth. I therefore have to say that I do not think the amendment is useful. I am not able to support it, but we do support the Bill.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his commitment to environmental issues and, as a result, bringing forward this Private Member’s Bill. The noble Lord’s expertise and dedication have long contributed to the strength of debate in your Lordship’s House, and we thank him for his continued leadership on this front. I turn to Amendment 1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and acknowledge the concerns that he has raised in putting forward this amendment. While we recognise the intention behind this Bill—to ensure that public bodies play their part in meeting our ambitious environmental targets—we need to offer some words of caution, particularly on the issue of overreach. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that our most cherished landscapes—our national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, now called national landscapes—must do everything they can to aid in the recovery of wildlife and biodiversity. That ambition is shared across your Lordships’ House and, indeed, the country as a whole. Recognising that, Defra has already put in place the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme. This grant scheme allows farmers to receive support where they actively contribute to climate resilience, nature recovery and the protection of the character and cultural heritage of our landscapes. This is a targeted and thoughtful policy, which encourages both practical and local delivery. We therefore caution against laying on additional statutory duties that might potentially cut across these already established aims. The public bodies listed in the Bill are not environmental regulators, nor are they designed to be. Asking them, for example, to assist in meeting targets for particulate matter or broader air quality may stretch them beyond both their remit and their expertise. Turning to local authorities, I remind your Lordships’ House of the substantial steps already taken through the Environment Act 2021, which amended the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to create a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity. Public authorities must now actively consider what action they can properly take, consistent with the proper exercise of their functions, to further that aim. This is a significant evolution in environmental governance. The key question, we believe, is whether we should be adding yet more duties on these authorities. We must consider not just what is desirable but what is feasible. Many public bodies, particularly the smaller local authorities, lack the resources and technical know-how to contribute meaningfully to the targets set out in the Bill. There is a risk that we distract those authorities from their essential services and dilute the impact of the environmental work already under way, as was so eloquently illustrated by my noble friend Lord Jamieson. To take one example, Great British Nuclear, which I will speak to further in group 2, was established to help deliver nuclear energy projects in support of government policy. Its objectives are clear and technical. Of course, it goes without saying that it must adhere to the rules and regulations already set for environmental safety, but expecting it or other bodies to contribute to these environmental targets risks undermining their principal duties and weakening delivery across the board.

14:00:00

His Majesty’s Official Opposition believe that we must be careful not to impose obligations that exceed the remit and capability of the bodies in question. Our shared commitment to environmental improvement must be matched by pragmatism and clarity of purpose. We must look to build on the frameworks we already have in place and strengthen them where necessary, but avoid burdening public bodies in ways that may hinder rather than help our collective goals.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his Private Member’s Bill, and thank him and all noble Lords who took part in the debate on Amendment 1. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s remarks shortly. He rightly highlights through his Bill, and his contributions so far during its passage through your Lordships’ House, the intertwined issues of environmental decline and climate change, on which this House must continue to engage. As my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock has noted, the intention of the Bill to drive and strengthen public authority action towards meeting national, environmental and climate targets and objectives is important. Of this the Government are in no doubt. Encouraging nature’s recovery is a key priority, fundamental to the Government’s approach to economic growth. However, at the risk of repeating my noble friend’s comments at Second Reading, there are already measures in place seeking to realise this Bill’s ambition. For example, we expect that the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act’s biodiversity duty, strengthened through the Environment Act, will ensure public authorities make conservation and enhancement of biodiversity a core part of the delivery of their functions. Local nature recovery strategies will set the strategic priorities for nature recovery in an area and identify the best locations for land management actions to deliver those priorities. These are progressing well, and we expect most or all to be published this year or shortly after, covering the length and breadth of England. On climate adaptations, England’s third national adaptation programme, NAP3, summarises the collective actions the Government are taking to address risks and opportunities from climate change and to ensure that adaptation is incorporated into government programmes. Recently, through the Water (Special Measures) Act, this Government introduced a requirement on Ofwat to have regard to the need to contribute to achieving targets in the Environment Act 2021 and the Climate Change Act 2008 when carrying out its functions. We intend to strengthen the statutory purposes of protected landscapes, our most iconic and inspiring places, to give them a clear mandate to recover nature and to widen the public’s access to it. This Government are firmly committed to working collaboratively to improve the natural environment. As we have already heard in noble Lords’ contributions this afternoon, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs wasted no time in announcing a rapid review of the statutory environmental improvement plan, and we will publish a revised EIP this year. This revised plan will focus on cleaning up our waterways, reducing waste across the economy, planting millions more trees, improving air quality and halting the decline in species by 2030. To answer the question posed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone on wider alignment, there are already measures in place to realise the Bill’s ambitions through this collection of actions. Further, on net zero, the Government will deliver an updated plan that sets out the policy package to the end of carbon budget 6 in 2037 for all sectors by October 2025. This will outline the policies and proposals needed to deliver carbon budgets 4 to 6 and our nationally determined contribution commitments on a pathway to net zero. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, effectively proposes the removal of climate adaptation from the remit of this Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the noble Lord’s speech seemed more focused on net-zero targets than climate adaptation, which is the focus of his amendment. Climate adaptation is essential for supporting our natural environment and biodiversity, as the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, recognises, as well as protecting our communities and economy. Climate change is now an inevitable part of our present and future, posing many challenges with severe impacts on our lives, health and prosperity. It is therefore essential that we continue to adapt to climate change, not only for the environment’s sake but to reduce its significant economic and growth impacts. As my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock made clear at Second Reading, this Government are fully committed to addressing net zero and the role that climate change plays, as summarised in NAP3. I will briefly address the points the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, made about net zero. The British people deserve lower-cost, clean and secure power—we are all in agreement on that—and the good jobs that will come along with that. Certainly, it is the role of all Governments to protect us from the long-term threats we face in energy security. The economic case, the national security case and the environmental case all point in the same direction, which is our clean green energy mission that will protect the country from exposure to unstable international markets and give greater security and stability to both family and national finances in terms of energy costs. We will achieve this through delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating to net zero. Our mission will bring energy security, protect bill payers, create good jobs and help protect future generations from the costs of climate breakdown. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke with passion and knowledge about the importance of engaging every level of society—local authorities, businesses, individuals and other stakeholder groups—in our mission to tackle climate adaptation and pursue net zero. Defra and DESNZ are working on a public participation strategy. The noble Baroness made some well-observed comments about the importance of engagement at all levels of society and I will take that back to colleagues in both departments. In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for bringing this Bill to the House and enabling this debate, and I look forward to hearing his comments.

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register—in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, has already mentioned, that I chair the independent advisory group on sustainability for the Drax Group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for meeting me to discuss the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for discussing it with me just a couple of days ago. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It was heartening to hear support for the Bill from all sides of the House, although there were some voices of scepticism. It is important to recognise that the environment and climate are not partisan issues; they are things that affect future generations. We are concerned about it for the future of our children, grandchildren and future generations in general. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his kind words about me personally. When I read Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, its purpose was not clear to me. As others have said, including the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Coffey, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the Minister, it removes the adaptation element of the environmental recovery objective by deleting lines seven and eight of Clause 1. It also removes the environmental recovery objective itself by deleting lines nine to 11. As others have pointed out, without this objective, the rest of the Bill would make no sense, as it is all about how the listed public authorities deliver the environmental recovery objective. I was therefore tempted to conclude that the noble Lord intended it as a wrecking amendment. However, I now understand that the amendment is based on scepticism about achieving the targets in the Environment Act and, particularly, the net-zero target of the Climate Change Act. In other words, the amendment is not directed at my Bill, but at these two Acts of Parliament. I could rebut in detail the arguments made about net zero by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but because I believe the amendment is out of scope, I prefer not to engage in the detail. I suggest that if the noble Lord objects to the net-zero target passed by the previous Conservative Government, it would be more appropriate to try to change that Act rather than this Bill. It is therefore perhaps worth restating what this Bill is about, and some of these points have already been made. It introduces an objective for the many public authorities, regulators, land managers, infrastructure providers, planning authorities and so on to contribute to the specific targets in the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, these public authorities are the bodies that make the daily decisions that affect the state of our environment, our resilience to climate change and our greenhouse gas footprint. In fact, the truth is that, without the contributions of these public authorities, there is no hope of meeting the targets—a point made by a number of noble Lords. I will briefly allude to local authorities, since they were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, among others. It is worth noting that, in spite of what has been said, on Wednesday this week the LGA published its position on my Bill, in which it said it is in principle in favour of a statutory climate duty. There you have it: the LGA, which represents local authorities, supports the intention of this Bill. The Minister has said that the Government are not going accept the Bill, although they agree with the principles in it. However, I point out that the Government have recently said that they will “clarify how the environmental improvement plan will be delivered, including the role of government departments and bodies, environmental NGOs, businesses, farmers, landowners/managers, local government and the public”. This Bill should be a godsend. It provides the clarity that the Government is seeking on how to deliver the environmental improvement plan. Furthermore, two recent reports, commissioned by Defra, also point in the same direction as my Bill. The interim Cunliffe report, on the water sector, concludes that “the sector needs a clearer and more consistent long-term direction—one that aligns environmental ambition, the provision of water supply and wastewater removal, and the expectations of customers … We believe the legislative framework that underpins the sector must be revisited”, which is what this Bill is in part doing. The report goes on to mention resilience and adaptation. The Corry review of the regulatory system in Defra states that the system is now “inefficient and difficult for customers to navigate. It needs to work in a fundamentally different way, to become a system focused on delivering positive outcomes for nature and the environment and to be an aid not an impediment to sustainable growth”. So there you have it. The Government’s own plans for the environmental improvement plan and the two reviews that Defra, commissioned by Cunliffe and Corry, all point in the same direction as my Bill: make the regulatory regime simpler, clearer and more effective. At the same time, ensure that public authorities are helping to deliver the specific legally binding targets for nature and climate. During the debate, the Minister and other noble Lords referred to a number of existing initiatives: for example, the biodiversity duty that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned; the local nature recovery strategies that a number of noble Lords referred to; the devolution framework, which has been implicit, although not specifically referred to; and the protected landscapes targets and outcomes framework, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, among others. These initiatives are, without doubt, important, but they could be enhanced by specific guidance on timelines for meeting the targets in the two Acts. The biodiversity duty, for instance, has the rather weak guidance: “Consider what you can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Agree policies and specific objectives based on your consideration. Act to deliver your policies and achieve your objectives”. There is no link to the Environment Act or the Climate Change Act, so we could strengthen the guidance for those duties. To summarise, my three asks of the Government in the future, would be—

14:15:00

I understand what the noble Lord says on that, recognising that this was covering every single bit of government. The guidance that was attached to the production of local nature recovery strategies was actually very much stronger and more specific.

I thank the noble Baroness for pointing that out, and I accept her comment. To summarise, my three asks of the Government are: first, to tighten the guidance where appropriate, following the interjection of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the existing initiatives aimed at protecting nature and tackling climate change; secondly, to ensure that the environmental improvement plan includes the role of public authorities in meeting the specific time-bound targets in the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone; and, thirdly, in line with Corry and Cunliffe, to modernise and simplify the legislation, as proposed by my Bill. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, having had a good debate about his amendment, will agree to withdraw it.

My Lords, I started this debate by saying that my real concern about all these green initiatives is that they are adding to costs and are one of the reasons why our electricity prices are some of the highest in the G7 and make this country very uncompetitive, particularly when it comes to manufacturing industry, which continues to leach from this country to other countries in the world. The chances of restoring our manufacturing sector seem to me to be pretty faint as long as we have these astronomically high prices. I noticed during the debate that a lot of people have gone on about the duties of all the authorities listed here to adapt to green initiatives, but on the other hand, nobody talks about the cost of doing that. That is really my concern, right across the board. The green initiatives that we have under net-zero legislation are actually leading to customers paying more for services. I am surprised that the Local Government Association says that it approves of the Bill, because it will mean that community charge payers will be paying more money to enact all of this stuff. But I think we have had an interesting debate and I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed.

My Lords, it might be helpful if I inform your Lordships’ House that we will be finishing all the business on today’s Order Paper, so Members may want to consider the length of their contributions.

Perhaps I might clarify that that has not been agreed by the usual channels and the convention is that we finish at 3 pm. We have already had two very late sittings this week, if not three.

My Lords, I did just put it in the Teams chat. I did try to talk to the noble Lord about it this afternoon. I am happy to continue such conversations, but having this conversation is also eating into our time. It may be helpful, given that noble Lords are here waiting for their business to commence, that we commence with the business. Clause 2: Duty on public bodies to take steps to achieve environmental targets Amendment 2

Moved by

2: Clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out paragraph (n)

My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the advisory board of Penultimate Power UK Ltd and as a consultant to Japan Bank for International Cooperation. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on obtaining a Committee stage debate for his Bill. I recognise his consistent efforts in raising environmental and climate issues in this House, although I may not always wholly agree with him and sometimes question whether his approach is proportionate. I regret that the obsessive determination of both the last Government and this one to eliminate fossil fuels too quickly, particularly gas, has ensured that the cost of providing electricity to industrial users is now the highest in the world. For example, household electricity in the UK is 42% more expensive than in France and 169% more expensive than in the United States. As for industrial electricity, UK prices are two and a half times as much as the equivalents in both France and the US. The comparisons with France are important because French electricity is generated 70% or more from nuclear and the UK grid depends for around 15% of its supply on imports, much of that from France. I did not speak at Second Reading on 18 October but the contribution to that debate by my noble friend Lord Blencathra is relevant to my amendment. My noble friend said: “Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects ‘to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government’. I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that”.—”.—[Official Report, 18/10/24; col. 397.] My Amendment 2 seeks to exempt Great British Nuclear—weirdly and misleadingly renamed on Tuesday as Great British Energy-Nuclear, or GBE-N—from the duty to adhere to the environmental targets laid out in the Bill. I have argued before that to establish GBE as a separate publicly owned company from what is now GBE-N was a mistake and that it would have been much more sensible to have integrated GBE-N into GBE at the time of GBE’s establishment. I say that the renaming is misleading because it gives the impression that GBE-N is being brought under GBE’s umbrella. Perhaps the Minister can tell your Lordships what corporate or structural changes have taken place in either company as a result of the renaming. Noble Lords will remember that when we debated the GBE Bill many of us lamented the fact that GBE has been given £8 billion to invest in energy projects, principally wind and solar, whereas GBE-N does not have any committed funding to invest in nuclear projects. I move this amendment not out of disregard for the environment but from a desire to see our environmental goals achieved through pragmatic, economically responsible policy. The Bill sets ambitious and admirable goals but, in its current form, it risks entangling Great British Energy-Nuclear, a vital strategic body, in layers of environmental regulation that could unintentionally undermine our path to both net zero and energy independence. Nuclear energy is not merely an option; it is an economic and environmental necessity for this country. However, as many noble Lords will appreciate, the economics of nuclear are finely balanced. The upfront capital costs are at present extraordinarily high. Each new gigawatt-scale power station costs billions of pounds. We acknowledge that investors, both domestic and international, will certainly scrutinise every risk and additional burden before making a decision to invest. I welcome the Government’s decision to invest in Sizewell C, as such huge projects are always going to need public sector support. To subject Great British Energy-Nuclear to further regulatory obligations under the Bill beyond what it already faces from the Office for Nuclear Regulation, the Environment Agency and planning authorities would be to risk unnecessary cost inflation. It would create bureaucratic drag and, worse, it would signal to markets that the UK remains a difficult environment for major infrastructure investment. Let us be clear: nuclear energy is not on a level playing field with other low-carbon technologies. Wind and solar have enjoyed significant subsidy support over the past decade through contracts for difference, feed-in tariffs and other mechanisms. Nuclear, by contrast, is expected to finance itself under far more stringent conditions and is simultaneously capable of delivering baseload power that intermittent renewables cannot. Why is the consumer required to subsidise only intermittent energy sources but not nuclear projects? The result of that is that UK-developed new nuclear schemes suffer a massive disadvantage compared with UK renewable schemes but also compared with nuclear schemes developed overseas, which, fortified with massive subsidies from foreign Governments, particularly the US, are coming over here and driving out UK-originated nuclear schemes which cannot compete financially. Furthermore, nuclear is already held to the highest environmental and safety standards. From construction to decommissioning, the nuclear industry is subject to extensive regulation, scrutinised by multiple agencies and underpinned by rigorous science. It is misleading to suggest that this sector operates without accountability; to the contrary, it is perhaps the most tightly governed of all. I say this not out of a lack of concern for the environment but because we must think strategically. Nuclear energy is, after all, one of the cleanest forms of energy over the long term. Its carbon footprint is negligible and it plays a critical role in achieving a stable low-carbon grid. The Government have rightly committed to ramping up nuclear capacity, both through small modular reactors and new gigawatt-scale stations. But these ambitions must be matched by policy consistency. If Great British Nuclear is to fulfil its remit, it must not be hobbled by duplicative environmental targets that add cost without adding value. Furthermore, I remind the House that GBN is not a typical public body. It is a strategic delivery vehicle. Its success is measured not in reports or audits but in gigawatts connected to the grid. I propose, therefore, that we either exempt Great British nuclear entirely or create a more tailored framework, recognising the unique challenges and contributions of nuclear infrastructure. Our duty is to make Britain cleaner, safer and more secure. We must avoid binding the hands of the very institutions we have created to do precisely that. I urge the House to support this measured, targeted amendment and to ensure that economic realism and environmental ambition go hand in hand. I beg to move.

My Lords, very briefly, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing his amendment, which seeks to remove Great British Nuclear from the Bill. I just remind noble Lords that the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seeks to install an environmental recovery obligation and adaptation for public bodies to help meet our targets under the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. The purpose of this amendment is to remove Great British Nuclear and make an exception for that particular body which does not apply to any of the other 29 listed public bodies that are named in the Bill. For the noble Viscount’s argument to be successful, an argument needs to be put forward that Great British Nuclear is in a particular situation that is separate to all the other bodies named in the Bill, such that it has a specific, cast-iron case to be removed from the provisions in the Private Member’s Bill before us today. I have not heard that argument, so, in short, I do not support this amendment—rather the opposite. I remind noble Lords that only the other week the Public Accounts Committee published a report on Sellafield talking about the intolerable risks there. There is a £136 billion cost and a projected timeframe of 100 years for dealing with the nuclear waste legacy in this country. This Government have no long-term geological store for nuclear waste and are unlikely to have one before the 2050s at the earliest. That is in sharp contrast with the announcement of a nuclear renaissance.

14:30:00

I suggest to this Government that if they wish to invest in nuclear, we must also invest in our ability to deal with, reprocess and store our waste appropriately. I was disappointed with the removal of £2.5 billion from the overall £8.3 billion budget for Great British Energy. That was a bit of a surprise. It was not publicly known or discussed through all the stages and the long conversations we had on the then Great British Energy Bill. I will return to that another day.

My Lords, Amendment 2, tabled by my noble friend Lord Trenchard, seeks to remove Great British Nuclear, now re-named Great British Energy-Nuclear, from the scope of this Bill. In adding this amendment, my noble friend recognises the unique role of nuclear energy in our national energy strategy. He cautions against implementing duplicative regulatory burdens that could hinder the progress of a key part of the nation’s energy infrastructure. Nuclear power is already one of the most tightly regulated industries in the UK, subject to the most stringent environmental and safety standards. The existing framework ensures that nuclear development aligns with our broader environmental goals without the need for additional oversight. Imposing further targets through this Bill may simply add another layer of unnecessary obligations, delaying projects that are critical to our energy security and His Majesty’s Government’s net-zero ambitions. We must confront the reality that nuclear energy is different from other forms of power generation. The upfront costs are substantial, the lead times are long, investors and operators need stability and clarity, not shifting regulatory sands that might deter investment. If we are serious about expanding nuclear capacity, as His Majesty’s Government say they are, we must avoid measures that might make those projects even more challenging to deliver. We do not believe that this amendment weakens our commitment to the environment. On the contrary, it recognises that nuclear energy is already a low-carbon, reliable baseload power source that will be indispensable as we transition from fossil fuels. By exempting Great British Nuclear from the Bill, we are not rolling back environmental safeguards but ensuring that nuclear can fulfil its vital role to society without the risk of being impacted by well-intentioned but ultimately unnecessary additional regulation. We urge your Lordships’ House to carefully consider the amendment. A laser focus on delivering clean, secure and affordable energy, which is already highly regulated by experts, will pay dividends for future generations of this country.

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his amendment. He made some points about the new formation of Great British Energy-Nuclear. I am afraid that some of the detail that he asked for regarding the corporate structure of that body is a little beyond my bailiwick, so I undertake to write to him with more detail. However, let me reassure the noble Viscount that Great British Energy-Nuclear, as it is now called, will continue to drive forward the UK small modular reactor programme as part of this Government’s commitment to net zero and mission to make the UK a clean energy superpower. I agree with the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in relation to the amendment and its contribution to the Bill, and I have already spoken at some length in my comments on the previous amendment about the Government’s commitment to making the UK a clean energy superpower. After the spending review this week and the commitments that we have made not just to the SMR programme but to Sizewell C, we can be in no doubt that this is the biggest nuclear rollout for a generation, and we see nuclear as very much a part of creating that clean energy superpower. For the sake of brevity, I will leave my comments at that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing forward this amendment and all noble Lords who have taken part in this very short debate. I will not speak at length, because I can make my point very briefly. At Second Reading, I pointed out that there are two classic objections to the proposals in my Bill: on the one hand, they are unnecessary; on the other, they are too burdensome. Both cannot be true at the same time. Yet it seemed to me that in the debate we have just had, the point was made that the nuclear industry, of which I am in full support, is very tightly regulated, therefore, this additional layer of regulation is unnecessary. On the other hand, we heard that this additional layer of regulation would be too burdensome and impose duties on the nuclear industry that would discourage investment. Both simply cannot be true. If it is doing it anyway, it cannot be burdensome; if it is not doing it anyway, maybe it needs a bit of extra burden. In truth, when we look at what the Government’s website says about GBE-N, we see that it says that it will deliver the Government’s long-term nuclear energy programme and support the UK’s energy security and contribute to our net-zero targets—so tick the box, job done. It is already contributing to net zero. One of the other tasks that GBE-N will have, alongside the competition to build up to three SMRs, is, along with Rolls-Royce, to choose the sites where the SMRs are to be built. Those choices will have environmental implications. It seems to me perfectly reasonable, when those choices are made, that they should reflect the targets in the Environment Act. If they were clearly going to be detrimental to the target of reversing the decline in species diversity by 2030, it would be reasonable for GBE-N and Rolls-Royce to be asked to think again. So, although I have heard an argument for removing GBE-N from the list of public authorities, I am not convinced by it—although I will take it away and think about it further. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, and I thank the House for the thoughtful and considered attention that it has given to my amendment. Let me conclude by returning to the core principle that underpins this amendment. We simply cannot deliver a cheap, reliable and secure energy future without nuclear power generation. It is therefore essential that we increase Britain’s nuclear capacity. Unlike the intermittent technologies so generously backed by the Secretary of State, nuclear provides what no other low-carbon technology currently can: reliable baseload power. It offers inertia to stabilise our grid and consistency to underpin our economy and long-term energy security that does not depend on the weather or foreign imports. It does all this while requiring substantially less new grid infrastructure than widely dispersed solar and wind installations. The more new nuclear we have, the less we need to erect ugly pylons in our beautiful countryside. Yet we are not on track. As things stand, Britain will not have small modular reactors connected to the grid until the 2030s. That is not a criticism of the technology but a reflection of government hesitation—hesitation that stands in stark contrast to the headlong rush to achieve clean power by 2030, relying almost entirely on intermittent renewables and simultaneously dismantling our domestic oil and gas capacity in the North Sea. We also need to explore the urgent need to accelerate the commercial development of so-called AMR technologies, some of which—such as the Japanese high-temperature gas-cooled reactor technology, whose prototype was developed at Winfrith in Dorset in 1965 as the Dragon reactor—are proven to be inherently safe. Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I regret the reduction in the funds committed to GBE; it makes it all the more unlikely that Great British Energy will have any funding available for nuclear projects. I thank my noble friend Lord Effingham for his strong support and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for agreeing to write to me about changes to the corporate structures of both GBE and GBE-N. It is true that nuclear projects are strictly regulated from a safety point of view. I say that in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who said that it could not be true both that nuclear was overregulated, so it should be easy to comply with these additional regulations, and that it was underregulated, meaning that increasing the regulation would make the UK seem a less attractive destination for investment. I think that both are true. It is true that, from a safety point of view, nuclear projects and nuclear power stations are regulated extremely strictly, but the environmental regulations are a different type of regulation. The environmental and planning-related regulations are an additional burden with which GBE-N is not, at present, expecting to have to comply; they would represent an additional burden to investment in nuclear projects. With my gratitude to the Minister and other noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Amendment 3

Moved by

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert— “(z5) The Canal and River Trust.”

My Lords, this amendment seeks to add the Canal & River Trust to the list of public authorities that are subject to the provisions of the Bill, which would in turn make it subject to the provisions of the Environment Act 2021—a landmark Conservative legislative achievement. Our canal tow-paths, once the proud arteries of industrialised Britain, are now too often strewn with litter, fly-tipped waste and the detritus of neglect. My amendment would place additional duties on the Canal & River Trust, sending a message to the trust that those who use canals regularly demand cleaner canals. When Britain largely deindustrialised and other modes of freight transportation became preferable, we were left with a question mark over the future of canals. If noble Lords who travel on the west coast main line look at the railway line, they will see that it follows the link of the Trent and Mersey Canal—as it weaves its way from the north-west down to London, you can see those former industrial and logistic communities of the past—but, today, millions of people want to use our canals as pleasant urban green spaces. They are a space for leisure and exercise. Many people live on our canals, and they have become an important space for wildlife in city centres. Sadly, the state of many of these routes, particularly in urban areas, has deteriorated to an intolerable point because of increasing quantities of litter on our tow-paths. This is a creeping pattern of degradation, whose harms are civic as much as they are environmental. It was reported in the Islington Tribune on 23 May this year that local campaigners had founded the cleaner canals campaign, bringing renewed attention to this issue and underscoring the impact of litter on residents and wildlife alike. The campaign speaks for many who feel that the trust’s decision to remove garbage bins from the urban tow-paths two years ago was fundamentally wrong. One of the campaign’s leading voices, Oliver Mosley, expressed this plainly. Commenting in the article, he said: “Despite receiving £50 million of taxpayers’ money annually, the Canal and River Trust have decided to remove bins from our canals in Islington, resulting in appalling levels of waste which are an eyesore and a threat to the wildlife”.

14:45:00

We all have a responsibility to do the right thing and, ultimately, those who litter are responsible. But as the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, shows, it is also right that our public authorities should work to protect our environment. The noble Lord is a noted and respected ornithologist. I hope he will agree with me that the vast piles of discarded waste, including plastics, pose a serious threat to the many waterbirds that make their homes on our urban canals. Whether it be a cormorant or a coot, our wildlife and the people who use our canals deserve better.

The central issue is remarkably simple: along miles of urban canal tow-paths in England, there are now no public bins at all. There were bins on our urban tow-paths until two years ago. Their removal was an active choice by the Canal & River Trust.

In a Written Answer published on 11 April, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, confirmed that:

“Under section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, The Canal and River Trust has a duty to keep the land they are responsible for clear of litter and refuse”.

The evidence gathered by the cleaner canals campaigners shows that the trust is failing in that duty. Many corporations in urban areas volunteer their workforce time. This is worth many millions of pounds. They volunteer for litter picks in urban areas, and I believe the Canal & River Trust has missed a real opportunity to engage on such free labour, help and support. I have tabled this amendment to probe whether an additional duty on the Canal & River Trust might spur it into action.

The trust occupies an unusual space: it is a charity, yes, but also the steward of a vast national asset. It receives significant taxpayer funding, and it is bound by statutory duties. An additional statutory duty under the Bill may not be the silver bullet that the cleaner canal campaigners are looking for, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction and it might send an important message to the Canal & River Trust leadership that this serious issue needs to be resolved.

Those who oppose my amendment may argue that the Canal & River Trust is already struggling financially and cannot support an additional statutory duty. I do not dispute that the Canal & River Trust faces serious financial pressures. We can all appreciate the complex demands of managing a vast and ageing infrastructure, but there is an important context to the trust’s financial challenges. The Canal & River Trust was formed in 2012 to take over the previous statutory responsibilities of state control from British Waterways, with responsibility for 2,000 miles of canals in England.

In 2012, as an MP, I welcomed the creation of the trust, which had an office in my constituency. Cheshire has a large number of canals running around it—the Cheshire ring and the River Weaver. I worked with the trust to repair the Sutton Weaver bridge. Through Cheshire we have several iconic black and white lattice bridges; they are swing-bridges, and in previous years allowed boat traffic to travel under road bridges. They were built in the 1920s in the days of steam engines. Working with the trust, we managed to get funding from the local authority and successfully built a new bridge in keeping, on time and within budget. I am not knocking the Canal & River Trust because it does a great job in so many ways, but on this issue it is failing.

When the Canal & River Trust was given responsibility for our canals, it committed to reduce its dependence on government grants, yet more than a decade on, the trust still receives £50 million annually from the taxpayer and is still unable to stand on its own two feet. The trust is taxpayer funded; it should deliver for taxpayers. I note that, although the annual central government funding for the Canal & River Trust is currently £50 million, the trust’s own estimates suggest that it has saved just £250,000 annually by removing bins from towpaths in the London and south-east region. That is just 0.5% of the annual sum it receives from the taxpayer.

In some areas, volunteers have admirably stepped in, hosting litter picks, installing temporary bins and campaigning to restore amenities. I applaud them, but they should not feel compelled to shoulder alone the responsibilities that ultimately fall on the Canal & River Trust under its statutory obligations.

The Government have a role here too. The trust is not wholly disconnected from the Government. As I have said, it is the recipient of public funds and subject to statutory duties. I therefore urge Ministers, and Defra in particular, to reflect on the terms of the trust’s obligations and to examine whether some form of minimum amenity provision should be incorporated into future grant arrangements. I invite them to consider whether expanded statutory duties might now be appropriate—not to inappropriately burden the trust but to ensure that it delivers the basic services the public expect.

Lastly, I address a point that has come up in correspondence between the cleaner canals campaign and the Canal & River Trust: that these problems are somehow the fault of the public and that if people did not litter, bins would not be needed. Personal responsibility is fundamental to a functioning society, but the taxpayer-funded Canal & River Trust has responsibilities too. We need the trust to meet the public halfway.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will take this amendment in the constructive spirit in which it is intended and accept it. I also hope that the Minister will accept this amendment and listen carefully to the concerns I have highlighted today and take them away for consideration. I am not content to see our canals become no-go zones and neglected urban areas. I hope noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree.

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow’s amendment, which is not inconsistent with my previous amendment seeking to exempt a particular public body from the list affected by the Bill brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I also support my noble friend’s desire to include another public body. But the conditions of the two public bodies are inherently different. Great British Energy-Nuclear is in a hugely different and uniquely difficult position, whereas I agree entirely with my noble friend that it is regrettable that the Canal & River Trust has removed bins. Our towpaths, river communities and waterways are an essential part of our community. Think of a family who are out for a walk along a canal with three or four children eating bags of crisps and ice creams. Where can they put all the litter? It is not realistic to expect all of them to carry it all home in huge bags. The removal of the litterbins by the Canal & River Trust is hugely regrettable. For that reason and the others put forward by my noble friend, I support his amendment.

My Lords, I hesitate to speak because I am very conscious that the next debate is waiting to begin. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his amendment, and mainly for the degree of clarity it gave me on the status of the Canal & River Trust. According to the ONS, it is a public non-financial corporation as well as a charity, an interesting status that I have never come across before. There is huge scope for debate about what goes on and comes off the list, although I would prefer it to be mostly about what goes on it. I will give another example to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who rightly pointed out that mayoral authorities should be on the list. I will make the case for one particularly important body, for which I should have tabled an amendment. If the Bill proceeds further, I will table an amendment to bring the newly created National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—on to the list. It has been set up to implement the 10-year national infrastructure strategy. It will have a key influence on land use and development, and their impact on climate and environment targets. Under its memorandum of understanding, I believe that it has inherited—although it is very difficult to track this down—the climate change duties from one of its predecessor bodies, but it is not clear whether it has any duties towards the environmental and biodiversity targets. It is very important that this hugely impactful infrastructure role be brought on to the list. I do not believe that the Government can achieve both the climate change and the biodiversity and other environmental targets if bodies such as NISTA are not tasked with pulling their weight on this when exercising their powers and delivering their primary objectives. I believe that bodies can walk, talk and chew gum and that the future of this planet, this nation and this economy depends on all public bodies learning to do that. It is possible.

My Lords, I apologise; I am very conscious of the time. I support my noble friend’s amendment. In making another suggestion for the list, I declare my interests: I was the chairman of Kew Gardens and I am involved in the Millennium Seed Bank and all it does. The most important sentence in the Bill says, “take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective”. Kew is right in the middle of doing things to recover the environmental objective, and I very strongly believe that it should be added to the list. Indeed, I am quite surprised that it has not been included already.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for his amendment proposing to add the Canal & River Trust to the list of public bodies in Clause 2 of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. While I have every sympathy for his case, the truth is that the Canal & River Trust is a charity that was set up in 2012. My understanding is that, as a charity, it is not a public body, and it is therefore simply not possible to add it to the list of bodies covered by provisions in the Bill.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, on the inclusion of the Canal & River Trust in the list of public bodies subject to duties under the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for his scrutiny and diligence in drawing attention to what is undeniably an important point of principle and practice, as was referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The Canal & River Trust, as the noble Lord rightly noted, is responsible for an extensive and significant network of inland waterways. These assets contribute not only to heritage and recreation but to the health of our natural environment. There is no question but that the trust plays a role in environmental outcomes. Its custodianship of over 2,000 miles of canals and rivers and the biodiversity that supports is of considerable public interest. It is worth emphasising, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has, the persistent and ever-increasing problem of littering in our canals. Litter not only blights these beautiful and historic waterways, diminishing the enjoyment of walkers, boaters and anglers: crucially, it also harms wildlife and contributes to the broader degradation of aquatic ecosystems.

15:00:00

The Canal & River Trust, despite being a charitable trust, carries out statutory functions and receives central government funding to assist with the maintenance of this national infrastructure. In that sense, it is not entirely distinct from other bodies that are already subject to the environmental duties under the Bill. Given the scale of its responsibilities and its public funding, there is a strong case, powerfully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for holding the trust to similar standards of environmental accountability. Indeed, it is precisely because the trust is in receipt of public funds and operates at the interface of public benefit and environmental stewardship that an additional statutory requirement might aid co-ordinated action.

We believe that the issues raised in this amendment merit close and thoughtful consideration about the role of arm’s-length bodies in helping us to meet our legally binding environmental targets. We hope that all Benches in your Lordships’ House will carefully consider whether the trust’s significant environmental responsibilities can be reflected within the broader framework of this Bill.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his amendment to include the Canal & River Trust in the list of authorities in Clause 2(2). I also pay some tribute to his creative way of raising concerns about the stewardship of the Canal & River Trust, such as the removal of litter bins and other associated issues relating to its environmental responsibilities. I will certainly bring his comments to the attention of my colleague, Minister Hardy, who has responsibility for the Canal & River Trust in the department. The Canal & River Trust is an invaluable organisation with which Defra and other government departments work closely. The Government will continue to collaborate with the trust to ensure that its efforts are best directed and realised, to improve and protect the natural environment for the public. For the sake of brevity and the progress of business, I will leave it at that.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, for raising this question and all those who took part in this short debate. I have the good fortune to live in central Oxford, very close to the Oxford Canal. Indeed, when I set off this morning, I did my usual 10-minute walk down the canal towpath from my house to Oxford station. The canal in Oxford, together with its canal banks, forms a wonderful corridor for wildlife, leading right into the city centre. I often see a heron fishing on one of the weirs and occasionally glimpse the iridescent blue of a kingfisher flying past. In the winter, I see groups of goosander that have migrated south for the winter from Scotland or Scandinavia. I am lucky. Unlike in the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, in my neighbourhood the canal towpath is well maintained and litter free. I very much wish that were true of the rest of the canal network. In fact, my only complaint about the canal in Oxford is a rather different one: a number of residential canal boats—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Evans—are allowed to burn dirty solid fuel, which would not be allowed in other residences. I wish the Government would do something about this. After all, one of the six key targets in the Environment Act is to cut exposure to the most harmful air pollutant to human health, PM2.5. The canal boats could be a good starting point for reducing that pollution exposure. In principle, I think it would be very good to add the Canal & River Trust to the list. However, this is now above my pay grade because I do not fully understand the position of the CRT. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, and I looked it up myself, it is a registered charity and therefore governed by the Charity Commission and not subject to the same regulations as public authorities. I assume it would have to change its charitable objects in order to comply with the intention of this Bill, so I would like to take it away and understand it. In the meantime, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, will see fit to withdraw his amendment, recognising that it has had a very sympathetic hearing from all around the House. Before I sit down, I once again thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. I have not mentioned the Wildlife and Countryside Link and Green Alliance, which were very helpful in preparing the material for this Bill. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for agreeing to continue the discussion of how the ideas in the Bill can be taken forward. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Parminter, have already mentioned that there are two routes ahead of us. We all agree with the intention of the Bill, plus or minus some points. I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and we all agree in general with the principle of improving our environment. The two routes that the Government have are either to accept that there will be piecemeal chipping away as Bills come forward and people try to achieve amendments, which is inefficient and time-consuming, or they could do it at one fell swoop very simply by accepting the Bill that I have proposed.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I am quite unfamiliar with being treated sympathetically, but I do accept that in this case, the noble Lord has certainly done so. I thank my noble friends Lord Eccles, Lord Trenchard and Lord Effingham for their support. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, raised a very important point about the ambiguity of this trust because, as the Front-Bench spokesman for the Liberal Democrats said, it is a charity. Well, it is a charity, but it is in receipt of £50 million of hard-working taxpayers’ money. Any organisation that is in receipt of taxpayers’ money from central government is aware that the Government might need to have a wee word with it if it is felt that it is not providing the public service that it should be doing. I am disappointed that, over 13 years, the trust did not work out the business model so that it did not need the £50 million of taxpayers’ money. The whole point was that, over time, it would remove that subsidy. It failed to do that and also failed to supply simple things such as rubbish bins on canals in urban areas. It does a good job in the countryside, but it is urban areas in particular that I am thinking of. I am most grateful to noble Lords and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Clauses 2 and 3 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported without amendment.