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

We took “long term” to mean more than 30 years. Taking that definition, we listened to the advice from the Government’s own nature advisory body, the JNCC, and the other environmental groups, as well as from other stakeholders. We concluded that, at that time, the amount of land in England that could count towards 30 by 30 was 6.5%. That means that, by 2030, there remains 23.5% of land required to meet the target, which is a massive amount of land. To give it some context, that is more than 3 million hectares of land, or an area of land more than 1.5 times the size of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Harlech, might want to challenge me on that—I do not know. Those were the figures that we identified.

In December, the Government—as was—argued that, in their delivering 30 by 30 on land and at sea, that figure was not 6.5% but 8.5%. However, they included in their definition land that is not compliant with what we take to be suitable for inclusion in 30 by 30 as compliant with the international guidance. Irrespective of arguing over those amounts, what is absolutely clear is the scale of the challenge. But we all know that it is not just size that matters; it is also about the quality and condition of the land, as is articulated in the COP 15 statement that it should be effectively conserved and managed.

When we asked Natural England for an update on the quality of those SSSIs, it indicated that only 37% were in favourable condition and that there had been no improvement in the past 13 years in improving the remaining SSSIs. When it came to monitoring, it said that less than a quarter of our SSSIs had been assessed in the past six years. Although I acknowledge that Natural England has made some extremely welcome changes since December in how it assesses and monitors SSSIs, this does not get away from the fact that we are not looking at and assessing our protected sites anywhere near enough for land managers and others to make appropriate management decisions—let alone the fact that, in February 2026, we as a country will have to report internationally on how we are doing against the 30 by 30 target. We as a committee were clear that, despite the financial implications, a proper management assessment needs to be done for every piece of land that constitutes 30 by 30, and that it should be assessed every six years.

That is the state of our best-protected land in England. What about at sea? When we asked the JNCC, we found the deeply worrying situation that only two out of our 76 MPAs—most protected areas—receive any form of monitoring, despite the threats that they face from overfishing, bottom trawling near the seabed and energy infrastructure. We think that this is insufficient. We argued very strongly for there to be more monitoring of our MPAs, both inshore and offshore. We also argued for better regulation of bottom trawling—that is, I think, an issue that several Members may wish to return to later. Like the EFRA Committee, we argued that there needs to be speedy resolution in designating more HPMAs—highly protected marine areas—because the pace of change has been glacial, to say the least.

Let me explain what I mean by “glacial”. One of the things we asked the Government to do was produce a map of how they saw themselves bringing together all the land needed for the 30 by 30 target, along with an action plan. We said—I remember it clearly—that one thing that would be invaluable in helping the Government draw up that map would be the “forthcoming” land use framework. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, may wish to say something more about the forthcoming nature of the land use framework, which we still need to see in its entirety. It is good to see that the new Government have committed to produce one of those.

However, what the Government did do in December was produce a map, along with some indications of how they saw themselves delivering the 30 by 30 target on land, but with no indication of how they saw themselves doing it at sea. In no sense could this be called an action plan because, as the Government themselves said, the map was only indicative as they had not yet agreed the criteria for what would constitute 30 by 30. There was glacial progress too by the last Government on getting any OECMs—other effective area-based conservation measures—up and running, which would have been a really important way of helping farmers, woodland managers and others voluntarily contribute towards the 30 by 30 target.

I am pleased that the Government have now committed to produce a plan for nature protection and recovery, which is to be informed by this rapid review of the environmental improvement plan. That is to be welcomed. It should be a starting point for driving nature recovery right across government departments. I suspect that if I ask the Minister now, she might say that it is probably too early for her to say how the Government see themselves securing this huge extra amount of land that we are going to need if we are going to meet 30 by 30. But it is not unfair for us to ask her today whether the Government will commit to abide by the internationally agreed guidance in drawing up the criteria for determining what will be part of those areas contributing towards 30 by 30.

I have one further question. Will the Government’s laudable plans for new homes for people be accompanied by new streams of funding to provide more homes for nature to thrive and survive?

I am sure that other colleagues will have many more questions; I do not want to go on for too long. I just want to say a particular thanks to those Members here today with whom I shared the privilege of being on the committee—it was a real honour to serve alongside them. I also thank the ever-diligent staff, who deal with us with professionalism, kindness and decency.

In conclusion, our report made it very clear that there is a long way to go if we are going to make a reality of 30 by 30. We need to do it. If our recommendations fall on stony ground, it is quite clear that 30 by 30 will be no more than a catchy slogan for international political summits, and meanwhile our precious nature will be lost.

Perhaps more worrying is the whole condition argument. To hark back again—I am so old that I can remember the 1990s, for goodness sake—we at English Nature used to agonise that only about 60% of SSSIs were in favourable condition in those days. That was a key English Nature performance indicator; it had to report on that every year in its annual report, and it was a big issue for us. We are now at the point where we have less than 35% in favourable condition, and that is down from last year’s number of 37%. There is a pressing need for management plans to improve these SSSIs, for those management plans to be resourced and for there to be a system of monitoring conditions that is better than the one at the moment. In reality, if the two issues of the extent and condition of our SSSIs were tackled effectively, those two simple remedies would take us half way to 30 by 30.

One of the two other big contributions to the 30 by 30 issue is our national parks and our protected national landscapes. The Climate Change Committee was keen on giving an additional statutory duty to protect nature to what were in those days AONBs and national parks, but that was rejected, rather fulsomely if I may say so, by the Government during the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill—I break out into hives when I utter the words “Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill”. There was a compromise amendment on protected landscape plans and the contribution to environmental improvement targets, but the regulations to make that happen in practice were delayed by the fall of the Government. We now need to revisit that. To be honest, I do not think the compromise amendment should be pursued any further; we should just go straight to an action that declares a new nature purpose for protected landscapes and national parks.

There has been some progress on delineating the draft criteria for what should count towards 30 by 30. In the early days of 30 by 30 it was felt that, if we lumped in the national parks and the AONBs, we would hit it in one go, but most of the land in the national parks and AONBs is not managed for nature conservation as its primary purpose, or indeed its secondary purpose, so we have to be pretty clear about what should count and what should not. In common with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I think we should simply fall in line with the IUCN guidance and the international definitions, and then include other effective area-based conservation measures if they can be demonstrated to be well managed.

The last chunk of land that we need to focus on—a very big chunk—is agricultural land, which makes up a huge proportion of the land under management in this country. Nature-friendly farming is going to be crucial in this. We need to ensure that more farmers are encouraged, advised and supported to move into the higher tiers of nature-friendly farming schemes, and particularly that the guidance for that is made more specific and simpler, and is clarified. It is only at those higher tiers that we will get the right sort of outcomes that will produce genuinely high-quality land that is in favourable condition for nature conservation.

The current Government, of whom I greatly approve, have made some commitments already. They have said they will halt the decline of species by 2030, which is quite a big ask, and have honoured their international commitment to 30 by 30. Most importantly, there will be a new statutory plan to protect and restore our natural environment, with delivery plans for each of the targets therein, and a rapid review of the environmental improvement programme. That is crucial, and all our work on 30 by 30 needs to clearly link to that.

We also need to make sure that all of this work on the 30 by 30 agenda relates to other strands of work that are under way. We have local authorities beavering away on local nature recovery strategies, so we have to ensure that we understand the relationship between those and site protection. We now need to see what the land use framework—the broader framework that the Government say they support—will actually comprise; it will put nature conservation, food production and trees and all sorts of other non-environmental issues into one framework that allows us to make the best of our land, a scarce resource in this country.

The land use framework will, I hope, provide an overarching way to look at the need for land in this country. It will allow actors at national, regional and local authority level, and individual land owners, to have a basis of sound and well-analysed data, and a set of principles under which they can begin to think about how land that they have any influence on can do the best it can not only for private landowners but for the nation as a whole. It need not be something we are scared of. It is not going to be obligatory. It will, I hope, be a help. I hope that it will also be a help in some of the rather nasty local disputes we might see coming up around the use of land for development, infrastructure and housing.

I want to make one last point that your Lordships will not be surprised by from a former chairman of the Woodland Trust—about ancient woodland, my favourite topic. The time has come for proper protection for ancient woodlands. Ancient woodlands would be a key part of 30 by 30, but they have absolutely no statutory protection beyond some very finely crafted words in the National Planning Policy Framework. We had to work pretty hard to get those words in, and we are working pretty hard to make sure they do not fall out in the review of the NPPF.

In this country, we still have over 1,000 sites containing ancient woodland that are being threatened by development or inappropriate land use. That is unacceptable. They are irreplaceable habitats, they are hugely environmentally and biodiversity rich, and they have historic heritage, as well a very modern purpose of combating climate change and giving the public a lot of pleasure. Let us grasp the nettle and have a new designation of equivalent protection for ancient woodland as currently exists for SSSIs. We are due to report to COP 16. Unless we do some of these things, we are going to look a bit cheesy.

The reason for that is that, far too often, when we hear debates about the environment, or when the environment is discussed as a political issue, we are not actually talking about the environment; we have reduced the whole thing to a very narrow focus on carbon and climate change. It is an extraordinarily one-dimensional discussion that we are having most of the time. The reality is that we could put all the solar panels in the world on all the rooftops around the planet, and invest 10 times more in energy efficiency, but if we do not massively ramp up our efforts to protect and restore nature then it is all pointless. There is no pathway to net zero and there is no solution to climate change without forests, and I think it is really important that we keep our conversation as broad as possible. Climate change is an overwhelming threat, but it is a symptom—just one symptom—of the underlying and abusive relationship we have with the natural world.

I do not want in any way to sound like I am discouraging efforts to accelerate the much-needed clean energy transition. It is crucial, I think, that we ramp up our focus on preventing nature loss. By the way, we know that we can do it; there are examples all around the world. I had the privilege of being a Minister for the international environment, and I saw with my own eyes initiatives on a tiny scale and a huge scale—and sometimes on a national scale, where countries have managed to break the link between productivity, prosperity and environmental destruction.

I have just come back from Indonesia a couple of days ago. I hate flying—I have to be drunk to get on an aeroplane, so I am probably not making as much sense now as I would like to be. I can tell you that Indonesia, a country that has taken a lot of flak over many years for high rates, historically, of deforestation, has got its deforestation under control. It does not get the credit for it but it has—the data does not lie. It has broken the link between palm oil production and deforestation. There is still some deforestation, of course, but it is nothing compared to what it was. If all the great forest countries behaved in the way that Indonesia has, we would be having a very different discussion. We know that it can be done.

Noble Lords will remember that, a few years ago, we had the privilege of hosting COP 26 in Glasgow, which we made an effort to turn into a nature COP. We wanted a broader focus, and we delivered the Glasgow leaders’ declaration on forests. We got 145 countries, representing 90% of the world’s forests, to commit to end deforestation this decade, and secured $20 billion to support those countries to do it. We persuaded the multilateral development agencies to align their policies and portfolios with that aim. It represented—in theory, at least—an unprecedented package of support for forests. I put on record my thanks to the extraordinarily talented people in the invisible part of government—the people who do not normally take part in these debates but who do the real work. Without any doubt, that was a consequence of an extraordinarily effective diplomatic effort.

Since then, we attempted to take that same energy, approach and momentum to Montreal, which was about a year later. In order to have an impact and to be able to influence the debate, we protected those diplomatic networks that we had created. We remained co-leaders of the High Ambition Coalition and the Global Ocean Alliance—organisations designed to extract maximum ambition from countries with which we get on well. We spearheaded, with Ecuador, the Maldives and Gabon, a programme that suggested how countries might club together in order to fund what is needed for nature restoration. It was a programme that was, more or less, adopted at Montreal, in the Kunming-Montreal protocol.

There is no doubt that the UK played a very important role. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said earlier, but the truth is that I had the honour of being the front of much of this work; the real work was done by hundreds and hundreds of people in government who were up all night, four or five days in a row. I thought some of them might be knocking on the door of madness by the end of it, relying only on coffee, but they did an extraordinary job and went way beyond what I, certainly, was expecting at the time. I am very grateful to them.

What was agreed at Montreal was seismic. It was an action plan that will put the world on a path to recovery. We are here to talk about the 30 by 30 target, and obviously that was the headline achievement that was secured at Montreal. But it was also agreed—and this is hugely important—that the wealthier countries will provide at least $20 billion a year by 2025 to help countries rich in nature but economically poorer to deliver their part of the bargain.

A lot has undoubtedly been achieved since Montreal. We have targets, agreements and treaties. In basic terms, we have the tools that we need, if we are serious about it, to turn the tide on nature destruction, but if we do not use those tools and properly do our part then the targets are academic. They would just be targets on paper.

The truth is that, globally—I include the UK in this—we are not living up to the commitments we made. We are less than one year from that $20 billion a year target. By the end of next year, the rich countries are supposed to be contributing $20 billion between them. A report produced by the ODI and commissioned by the brilliant Campaign for Nature, based entirely on OECD figures, shows that just two countries are contributing what they regard as their fair share of that finance. The UK is not one of them. I am certainly not blaming the new Government, who have only just taken their seats, but the UK is not one of them. The UK has a hugely important role to play in turning those grandiose commitments into something approaching reality.

We have been at the heart of this debate for some years now. It was a colossal error of judgment on the part of the most recent iteration of the Conservative Government just to walk off the stage. We were not there at the big events; we were fiddling the figures to make it look like we were spending more money than we were, and we were letting down allies. I think we did the UK’s reputation an enormous amount of damage. This Government have the awesome responsibility of turning things around, rebuilding our reputation and showing that, when we make a promise on these issues, we stick to it and keep our word.

That matters financially, for the reasons I have just explained, but it goes far beyond finance. It is also about politics. We have a history of being able to agitate in negative ways, but also in very positive ways internationally, persuading the world to do what we think it ought to be doing. When it comes to nature, our voice has counted for something. There have been many events and times in the last few years when regional groupings have gathered to talk—for example, about the Amazon. You would have all the Amazon countries there and the UK. We have had similar events in Asia, when leaders from Asian countries have gathered to talk about their biodiversity, and the UK has been the only non-regional member there. We have a voice, and it is essential that we use it.

We have to get our rich-country friends to step up and pay their fair share. We have to mobilise the private finance that we need, because there is nothing like enough public finance to do the job. We have to make sure that the forums that we are part of, such as the G7, honour the commitments that they made. If your Lordships remember, at the last G7 there was a commitment that all international aid—not just climate or nature, but all international aid—would be aligned with the global biodiversity framework. That has not happened—it has not happened in the UK or elsewhere.

I am running out of time, so will make one final point. The biggest challenge that people talk about when it comes to restoring our relationship with nature is finance. We are told that there is a $500 billion black hole annually; that is needed every year to turn things around. By coincidence, that is also how much the top 50 food-producing countries spend each year in subsidising often highly destructive land use. The UK is one of the few countries, possibly the only country, that has really got to grips with this challenge of reforming our subsidies, such that we are paying public money in return for public goods like the environment. I know others will be talking about this in due course, but it is really important that the new Government seize that agenda, recognise the opportunity and do not in any way yield to the vested interests that undoubtedly will be trying to pressure them to water down our commitments on land use subsidy reform. It is too important internationally and for the UK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, I wonder whether two areas of this report could have been stronger. First, there is the international dimension. Areas of the UK’s land and sea are important for migratory birds and marine mammals. These species do not recognise international borders, but different national commitments can have a profound impact on their populations and their conservation. We also have globally rare habitats, such as heather moorland and sphagnum blanket bog, and there are other outstanding examples of unique species and habitats in the UK’s overseas territories and Crown dependencies, although this report does not cover those places in detail. These internationally important species and habitats are protected by commitments, conventions and directives which UK Governments were instrumental in creating. We have led the way in nature conservation. Ramsar sites, the Berne convention and the EU birds and habitats directive—all of them have our fingerprints on them. So can the Minister say whether His Majesty’s Government will undertake to be absolutely committed to our international obligations for nature?

Secondly, there is only a passing mention in the report to the benefit of nature on human health, development and well-being. I am sure we have all experienced the benefits of spending time in nature, and I am struck that when I read the Gospels, I note how often Jesus withdraws to the natural environment of the Galilee to recharge and reconnect. Studies have shown that we thrive when out in nature, and there are many positive health benefits in terms of reducing stress and enhancing our mental well-being, as well as the enjoyment of physical exercise. In nature, children develop inquiring minds, learn to assess risk, and experience awe and wonder through taking a closer look at the flora and fauna. Yet all the evidence points to children being out in nature far less. However, when I visit schools in the diocese of Norwich, I am always struck by the passion of children for the environment. I would love it if every child could plant a tree in their formative years. There is nothing like getting your hands in the soil—“humus” and “humanity” sharing the same root.

When we pay attention to something, we are far more likely to treasure it. When we treasure something, we want to protect it. When we protect something, we want to see it thrive. Protecting land and sea for nature benefits everything and everyone. Will His Majesty’s Government undertake an assessment of the benefit of forest schools and similar nature-focused learning for child development, so that we can have a generation of children even more passionate about protecting our natural environment?

As I said, this is an extraordinary challenge, but one I believe we must meet, for our sake, for our children’s sake, and for the sake of the planet. When things are good for nature, they are generally good for humans, and generally good for business as well. The Book of Revelation speaks of the leaves of the trees being

“for the healing of the nations”.

To plant is to hope, to restore is to heal, to protect is to love, ultimately. We must do all that we can to protect species, habitats and landscapes, and I hope that His Majesty’s Government will not only take note of this report but act on it.

However, farmers face great difficulties at present. In paragraph 114, the committee states that:

“We heard that farmers in protected areas could struggle to find the time and resources to develop an understanding of what natural capital options are available on their land and that this may lead many to disengage with the process.”

How sad that would be. Does the Minister agree that using organisations such as the Peakland Environmental Farmers, co-ordinated by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, is an example of where such a collaboration could help farmers achieve these outcomes? Will the Government follow recently produced guidelines by the IUCN on human-wildlife conflict and co-existence, to help formulate strategies where different valid views are held?

I turn to what I consider an important omission from the report. How does 30 by 30 sit alongside the importance of food security, which is one of Defra’s five strategic priorities? This could be enhanced, and a lot of land could be made available for benefitting nature, if the Government would give their full support to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. The Minister of State for Food Security and Rural Affairs, in a recent letter wrote:

“We are now considering how to take forward the regulatory framework outlined in the Act and will share our plans with key interested parties soon”.

Can the Minister give us a more definitive timescale, as this has so much potential to help food security and biodiversity?

On the marine side, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in asking why the Government do not stop fishing vessels from damaging our marine environment and wildlife. Free of the EU common fisheries policy, we have the power to prevent damaging fishing activity taking place in offshore marine protected areas. This power has already been deployed in a number of MPAs around England, but harmful practices, such as bottom trawling, are still allowed to take place in most of them.

Last year, fishing vessels equipped with bottom-towed gear were active in the UK’s offshore marine protected areas for over 33,000 hours, adding up to nearly four years. Oceana tells us that just 10 vessels, none of which were UK vessels, were responsible for over one-quarter of this damaging activity. EU legal challenges over the existing bottom trawling restrictions and the closure of the sand eel fisheries should be faced down. There is a genuine risk that the Government, as they seek a closer relationship with the EU, will use the sand eel win as a concession. Furthermore, the ban on mostly EU-registered bottom trawlers operating in all protected waters should be completed, and vessels of all sizes restricted from fishing forage species that local wildlife depend on.

This will also have significant benefits for climate action, with evidence showing that, globally, bottom trawling contributes roughly the same amount of emissions as the aviation sector. My view of the marine designations is similar to my critique of the terrestrial ones: protection is offered to a specific species or characteristic, rather than management of the whole water column. This can lead to a situation in which, for example, an animal is protected but its habitat is not, so the latter is able to be bottom-trawled, ruining the habitat for the animal being protected. Our current approach might explain why we are not getting the recovery outcomes that we want or expect to see in the marine environment.

At this morning’s National Farmers’ Union breakfast for “Back British Farming Day”, the Secretary of State had warm and encouraging words for farming and the environment. We will soon find out whether he can transform these into action. It is unsurprising, given the transition to a new farming scheme, with initially poor communication around its rollout and apprehension among farmers, that there is an underspend of over £350 million in Defra’s budget. Can the Minister confirm that HMT is trying to claw back at least £100 million of this? Research by the RSPB has estimated that this would mean 239,000 fewer hectares of nature-friendly farmland funded in England.

The ELMS budget has already experienced real-term cuts because it was not tied to inflation. The NFU and environmental NGOs have been calling for it to be almost doubled. Can the Minister confirm that Defra is also being asked to plan for cuts of up to 25% to meet the new Chancellor’s spending cuts? The opposition to the Secretary of State’s promises will not be from farmers but from his own Chancellor. Without sufficient resources at this critical time, there will be no chance of meeting the ambitions not only of 30 by 30 but of the legally binding targets set up by the Climate Change and Environment Acts. That is a much more serious problem for farming, the environment and food security.

Obviously, the Green Party offers big solutions to these big challenges. First, we need an independent commission for nature, which would protect nature and ensure the restoration of wildlife habitats. This new watchdog should be created as part of a new rights of nature Act that would enshrine the intrinsic value of nature in law. I am so sorry if I am stumbling; I can write with only my left hand at the moment, which I am not very good at, and I am having trouble reading my writing.

This independent commission for nature would set up targets for nature protection and restoration, and would enforce them through the courts; that is a very important issue. This would give individuals, communities and conservation groups the opportunity to take legal action on behalf of nature. We need legislation that sets standards for soil quality and phases out the most harmful pesticides immediately as we move towards regenerative farming methods. Only pesticides that pass this test and demonstrably do not harm bees, butterflies and other wildlife should be approved for use in the UK.

Of course, one quick win would be to stop the use of peat for horticulture. Let us ban imports of peat. Let us stop using it and understand that the damage we do to peat bogs—including peat bogs in other countries where imported peat comes from—is unrecoverable.

I hope that the Minister will do everything that she can to prevent any rollback of the existing protections for the green belt, national landscapes and sites of special scientific interest; I am sure that she will because I know that she cares. Those protections should be strengthened, not weakened. Having clean water in national parks should be obvious but it is not there. Will the Government change the rules to make it compulsory and tell the water company bosses that they will be given community service orders if they dump sewage in Windermere and every other precious waterway? I would love to see some water company bosses on their hands and knees restoring the rivers that they have absolutely trashed, and I know that my friend Feargal Sharkey would love some help with the chalk streams that run through England.

While the Government consult on that, can the Minister urgently publish the regulation and guidance needed to enforce the recent legislation that Peers helped to pass on water companies having duties to further national park purposes? Further, can the Minister promise legislation to make it absolutely clear that national parks are nature designations as well as landscape designations? There is something cold and disconnected about knowing that a beautiful landscape is a poisonous, no-go area for wildlife.

Now we come on to money. The Government will have got off to a bad start if they cut £100 million from their annual budget for nature-friendly farming in England. This cut will mean at least 239,000 fewer hectares of nature-friendly farmland, according to research from the RSPB. The Green Party argues not only that we can afford to promote nature-friendly farming but that—here, we agree with the National Farmers’ Union—a big increase in the budget is an essential step towards promoting havens for wildlife, as well as cleaning up our water supply. The Government want to protect our coastlines and oceans but there is no money to monitor progress or even establish a baseline to work from.

Of course, a ban on bottom trawling is another essential; I really do not understand the delay in making that happen, but the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, covered this issue absolutely fantastically. Could the Minister perhaps make a statement on the appointment of a Minister with a portfolio of responsibility for the international marine environment?

Finally, can we please ratify the Global Ocean Treaty agreement, which seeks to conserve marine biology? I realise that this would be a huge task for a new Government but, if the Government do not come up with the right policies, it will be to all our disbenefit.

So what role is there for farming? The government response to the report has rightly recognised the need to work in partnership with farmers as custodians of the countryside, in order to ensure that we balance farming and food production with nature recovery. The response also welcomed the committee’s recognition of the role of the environmental land management schemes to contribute towards 30 by 30, where that works effectively for farmers and farm businesses. However, only parts of some of those schemes will count towards the target, and exactly which schemes has yet to be determined. Furthermore, the committee reported that it had received considerable evidence regarding the challenges of accessing environmental land management schemes in protected areas.

The committee mentions the Farming in Protected Landscapes programme, which delivers improvements for nature in line with local priorities. However, that funding comes to an end in March 2025. Are this Government planning on extending the programme?

We must make sure that tenanted farms are included in achieving long-term nature conservation. That means we need longer tenancy agreements, as recommended in the Rock review. That is important, because length of tenure will allow a tenant farmer to make a more meaningful and effective environmental contribution. It was therefore extremely disappointing to note that tenant farmers are not mentioned at all in the report. That is a glaring omission, given their importance in managing, wholly or partly, 64% of total farmable land in England, including protected sites. Many of their landlords are institutions such as the National Trust, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Cornwall and, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, the Church Commissioners. I am extremely grateful to him for bringing up the importance of the Church Commissioners’ tenant farmers, many of whom I have met.

Most landowners have clear environmental goals, but those will not be delivered without those vital tenant farmers who actually manage the land. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm the Prime Minister’s commitment to quickly implement a fair deal for tenant farmers, building on the work of the Rock review.

This Government have announced a new deal for farmers that will include optimising environmental land management schemes to produce the right outcome for all farmers, particularly small, grassland, upland and tenanted farms, while delivering food security and nature recovery in a just and equitable way. They have also announced a rapid review of the environmental improvement plan to be completed by the end of this year. That is to be commended, but I want to inject a note of caution. The National Audit Office expresses concern that the removal of the basic payment and the introduction of the sustainable farming incentive, which is part of ELMS, could see 40% of farms close unless they are able to implement productivity improvements—40% of farmers who could lose their livelihoods. There is concern that 30 by 30 could become yet another danger to farming, alongside all the other targets for housebuilding, tree planting, energy production, accessible nature areas and other infrastructure.

I confine my final remarks to solar energy. The Tenant Farmers Association has told me that it is seeing an increasing number of proposals coming forward for solar farms, many of which are impacting tenanted farmland. Some of these are small-scale and others will be considered as nationally significant infrastructure projects and will end up on the desk of the Secretary of State for final decision. As part of the planning process on land which is subject to an agricultural tenancy, consideration must be given to the impact of the development on the personal circumstances of the tenant farmer where they are not party to the development. Where it is considered that the negative impact will be significant and the tenant farmer’s livelihood is at risk, there would be sufficient evidence to turn down an application for development.

However, a recent decision of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been a cause of concern. His decision to give consent to a 2,500-acre solar farm being developed on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk border has sent shock waves through the local community and further afield. The fact that he made his decision against the advice of the Planning Inspectorate is doubly concerning. Contrast that with a more recent decision, albeit on a smaller scale, by Broadland District Council in South Norfolk, which rejected an application for a solar farm on 90 acres of land in part because of the impact on the tenant farmer, who would have lost a significant area of their farming land.

In defence of his decision, the Secretary of State said that he had to make

“tough decisions with ambition and urgency”

as part of a plan to make

“the UK a clean energy superpower”.

However, surely the concerns of local communities and the impact on the viability of a tenant farmer’s business are also relevant when looking at what projects should be considered for approval. What safeguards do tenant farmers have if the Secretary of State simply decides to override those considerations? Yes, a tenant farmer could bring a judicial review against the Secretary of State, but I confess that I have not met a single tenant farmer with deep enough pockets to do that.

Here, it is critical that we go back to the commitment made by the Prime Minister, when he was leader of the Opposition, when he addressed the NFU conference in February 2023:

“Tenant farmers need a fair deal. They need to know their futures are secure ... I want to see more solar farms across the countryside … But we can’t do it by taking advantage of tenant farmers, farmers producing good British food on carefully maintained, fertile land. They can’t plan properly if the soil beneath their feet isn’t secure. It’s a huge barrier to planning sustainable food production, so we’ve got to give them a fair deal, and we’ve got to use our land well”.

The drive towards net zero cannot be the only consideration when deliberating over solar farms. Food security, local community impact, landscape impact, heritage impact and the impact on tenant farmers, who of course do not own the land they farm, all have to be taken into consideration.

Let me put it as simply as I possibly can. Tenant farmers are being evicted right now from their best and most versatile farming land by landlords in favour of solar panels. While I am certainly in favour of solar energy as we seek to rapidly decarbonise energy generation, it cannot and must not come at the cost of the livelihoods of tenant farmers.

I conclude by offering a simple solution to the Minister. We could start with ensuring that the case law, which provides the vital protections to tenant farmers, is fully referenced in the redrafted National Planning Policy Framework, which is currently under consultation. I ask that the Minister brings this to the urgent attention of the Secretaries of State for both Defra and DESNZ.