The Government needs to show real commitment to dealing with the impact that HS2 will have on our countryside and wildlife. It is imperative that an infrastructure project on such a large scale implements proper environmental safeguards and ensures that impacts are minimised. That won't happen if HS2 Ltd can avoid implementing safeguards if they consider them to be 'impracticable' or 'unreasonable'. There needs to be a separate ring-fenced budget for these safeguards and for compensation, separate from the rest of the HS2 budget, to prevent the environment being squeezed if HS2 costs grow. The Government's aim of 'no net biodiversity loss' on HS2 is not good enough - it should aim for environmental gains that the Government promised in its white paper on the Natural Environment. In any case, the Government can't demonstrate it will cause no net harm because it has still not surveyed 40% of the land to be used. Ancient woodland should be treated with particular care. HS2 will damage some woodlands, and where that happens, compensation measures should be much higher than the level indicated in the calculation that HS2 Ltd will use. The HS2 Hybrid Bill will be given its second reading on 28 April, after which it will be referred to a dedicated select committee to examine 'petitions' against it. The Committee criticises the procedure's failure to fully address the requirements of EU and national directives on environmental assessments, which it wants to be at least partly rectified in the forthcoming Parliamentary proceedings

Emissions of a number of airborne pollutants increased in 2013, after being steady between 2010 and 2012 and in a longer term decline before that. The UK failed to meet targets for nitrogen dioxide pollution in 34 of the 43 zones specified in the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive in 2012, resulting in the European Commission launching infraction proceedings against the UK in February 2014 in regard to 16 zones that would not be compliant by 2015. The Committee's report recommends an overarching Environmental Strategy be implemented, to set out strategic principles and good practices; facilitate discussion between central and local government and identify how they can work together and with the wider community; encompass clear environmental assessments; identify work required to fill data gaps in assessments; map appropriate policy levers to environmental areas; and set out how environmental and equality considerations will be addressed in policy areas across Government. The report concludes that the Government should set up an independent body-an 'Office for Environmental Responsibility'-to (i) review the Environment Strategy we advocate; (ii) advise Government on appropriate targets; (iii) advise Government on policies, both those in Government programmes and new ones that could be brought forward to support the environment; (iv) advise Government about the adequacy of the resources (in both central and local government) made available for delivering the Strategy; and (v) monitor and publish performance against the Strategy and its targets.

Invasive species, such as Japanese Knotweed, the Oak Processionary Moth, the Ruddy Duck and Zebra Mussels, can have detrimental effects on the native species they supplant, as well as on human health and business. The Environmental Audit Committee is calling on the Government to revamp the system for controlling invasive species in England and Wales. Current Wildlife legislation has never been used to prosecute anyone and is unlikely to provide the level of protection now needed. Better prevention, surveillance, monitoring, eradication and long-term control measures are all needed in the fight against invasive species. The Government currently has no formal surveillance system in place to trigger action to ensure early eradication. Defra needs to develop a surveillance system that integrates voluntary wildlife recording with professional monitoring and identification. The current system of "listing" species to be monitored and controlled is too slow. The Government must implement legal changes recommended by the Law Commission and replicate the Scottish system of species control orders to provide a mechanism for eradicating invasive species before they become established. Species on the existing national lists that are already well established here should be reviewed, according to the Committee. Where habitats cannot be restored or biodiversity protected, the invasive species should be removed from the list and control measures re-evaluated.

The Government's ’Natural Capital Committee', set up to check how far the Government bases its policies on the cost the benefits the UK derives from its natural environment - such as clean air, water, food and recreation - should be put on a permanent statutory footing, the Environmental Audit Committee recommends. The NCC was set up in May 2012 with a three-year remit that ends just before the General Election. It has produced 2 progress reports so far, highlighting gaps in the available data on these factors and calling for a 25-year plan to plug the gaps and start using the information in Government decisions. But the Government has yet to respond in detail to those NCC reports. The environment is just one strand of a wider view of people's well-being, which also addresses people's economic and social circumstances, as well as their view of the satisfaction they get from their lives. In November 2010, the Prime Minister launched a programme to measure well-being to complement economic statistics like ’GDP' in - "measuring our progress as a country". However, more than three years since then, the Committee note, our quality of life is not yet receiving the same attention as those economic metrics. The Committee highlight the links being uncovered in the statistics between people's view of their well-being and their background and circumstances - for example the link between well-being and people's health, marital status or religion. But the MPs warn that the data are not yet sufficiently robust to support a single metric that could encompass well-being and which could be set alongside GDP.

Marine Conservation Zones can protect our seas from over-fishing and give species and habitats space to recover, ultimately benefiting people whose livelihoods depend on healthy seas. But the Government has been too slow in creating these Zones, and it has failed to get coastal communities and fishermen on board. It is now well over four years since the launch of the programme, yet only 27 of the 127 sites recommended by independent project groups have been designated. Budget reductions at DEFRA mean the Government is currently unable to demonstrate that the Marine Management Organisation - the public body charged with managing the zones - will have the resources needed to manage and enforce the MCZs. The Government must set out a strategy for the management of the 27 MCZs and management plans for individual Zones to demonstrate that they can be enforced. MPs are calling on the Government to bring forward the MCZ programme, so that more Zones are designated in the next phase, due in 2015. Ministers should follow a precautionary principle approach to designating new Zones, according to the Committee, and use the 'best available' data rather than applying the more stringent evidence standards recently introduced by the Government - which require data that is much harder and more expensive to obtain