Draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2023.
The draft order is required to enact a minor change to the legislation that sets out the form and manner by which leave to enter the United Kingdom is granted and refused. It will amend the eligibility criteria for people seeking to enter the UK via an automated e-passport gate or e-gate so that eligible accompanied children as young as 10 may do so. The lower age today is 12. The change is needed to enable a limited trial to take place in February, which will examine whether the lower age limit for entry via e-gate should be 10, rather than 12. To carry out that limited exercise in law, the order is necessary. The proposed proof-of-concept exercise will take place during the school half-term at three airports: Stansted, Heathrow terminal 5 and Gatwick’s north terminal. Once completed, the Home Office will make an assessment of whether the lower age limit of 10 should be adopted more widely.
The Government’s ambition is for our future borders to make the maximum use of automation. The majority of passengers will routinely cross the UK border using automation as their only point of contact. Increasing in a controlled manner the number of passengers eligible to use an e-gate is therefore a logical step. Members of the Committee will be aware that some form of automation is already used by large numbers of people passing through the UK’s border. There has been a significant widening of the pool of nationals eligible for e-gate entry in recent years. A previous amendment to the Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000 in May 2019 extended e-gate eligibility to visitors from Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and the USA.
The continued use of e-gates should be seen in the context of the development of our new global border and immigration system, which makes better use of data, biometrics, analytics and automation to improve security and the fluidity of UK borders. The use of e-gates is an important part of that approach.
For eligible families with young children, there are obvious advantages in being able to use entry via an e-gate, in that they may enter the UK swiftly and effectively without having to queue to be seen by a Border Force officer. That, in turn, benefits others by minimising time in queues and bottlenecks at busy airports, especially at peak times such as the school summer holidays.
We need to answer a number of important questions before a permanent lowering of the lower age limit can be considered. Those include whether children aged 10 or 11 have the ability to use the technology effectively and, indeed, whether the technology is able to process young passengers. For those and other considerations, we will first conduct a short trial, which will be monitored closely by officials. The results will be analysed rigorously.
We at the Home Office take seriously our statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We will use the live trial to consider whether there are any unintended consequences for the welfare of younger passengers, such as any anxiety if separated temporarily from parents at the e-gates. To be clear, no permanent decision on whether to extend e-gate eligibility to younger passengers will be made until we have considered such issues.
The amendment will enable us in law to allow eligible passengers younger than 12 to use an e-gate, but it does not confer a right on those passengers to do so. It does not mean that passengers aged 10 and 11 must be able to use an e-gate at any UK port with that facility. Eligibility will be limited to accompanied 10 and 11-year-olds of eligible nationality at the three participating ports only for a 14-day period. At other ports, the lower age limit will remain, as currently set, at 12.
In summary, the draft order enacts the most modest of changes to its parent legislation, but allows for a significant next step to be taken in developing a secure and smooth border that demonstrates to the rest of the world that the UK is open for business, as well as making the lives of families that little bit easier.
I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Minister give way?
Richard Graham
I am very grateful. On a pedantic point, paragraph 7.7 of the explanatory memorandum answers the question,
“Why is it being changed?”,
with the answer that
“The 2000 order is being amended to lower the minimum age of e-gate eligibility from 12 to 10.”
With respect, that is not why the change is being made; the answer to that is given is paragraph 7.4. Will my right hon. Friend agree to amend paragraph 7.7 to say, “The 2000 order is being amended to improve security, passenger flow and customer experience, especially during half-terms and holidays”? Then we would all be absolutely clear about what is happening and why.
Robert Jenrick
The notes make the point that the reason we are changing the law in this way is to allow younger passengers to pass through the e-gates. However, I would be happy to make those changes to the explanatory memorandum so that everyone is abundantly clear about all the good things that will flow from this faster and more efficient processing at our borders, including a better experience for families of many nationalities entering the UK.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Ms Elliott, to serve under your chairship.
The Home Office has been using e-passport gates to process passengers at UK airports and juxtaposed controls in France and Belgium since 2008. There are 263 e-gates in use at airports in the UK and at juxtaposed controls, according to the explanatory memorandum published with this order. From 2019, the use of e-gates was extended to nationals of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and South Korea.
As explained in a January 2022 report by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, e-gates
“enable Border Force to process large volumes of ‘low risk’ passengers more quickly and with fewer staff than would be possible via manned immigration control desks. This also makes them attractive to airport operators since queueing times are shorter for arriving passengers.”
The purpose of the order is to enable the Home Office to carry out a limited “proof of concept trial” on the potential reduction of the minimum age for using e-gates from 12 to 10, as the Minister has set out.
The explanatory memorandum says that such a change would be
“in keeping with the Government’s wider ambition of increasing the use of automation (that is, entry to the UK facilitated by technology without manual intervention by a Border Force officer).”
The ICIBI carried out an inspection of the use of e-gates between June 2020 and January 2021. The report was sent to the Home Secretary in June 2021, but it was not published until January 2022. As of January 2023, the ICIBI’s list of live inspections includes
“a re-inspection of ePassport gates”,
but this inspection is currently marked as “paused”, for reasons that are unclear. Perhaps the Minister might want to explain why the reinspection has been paused and give us a sense of how long the pause may last for.
One of the key areas highlighted in the previous ICIBI report was safeguarding. To give some background, in 2017 the Home Office extended the use of e-gates to all children from Britain, the European economic area and Switzerland aged between 12 and 17 if they are accompanied by an adult. Following a review of the original trial, the Home Office found that identifying children
“at risk of trafficking, modern slavery, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and domestic servitude”
was a “challenging” issue for Border Force staff.
The January 2022 ICIBI report stated:
“Concerns have been raised by stakeholders about the Home Office’s ability to identify vulnerable passengers at the gates. Stakeholders told inspectors that the gates make it harder to identify vulnerable passengers.”
The Home Office guidance states that e-gates
“must not be opened or allowed to accept passengers”
without the presence of a monitoring officer, or MO for short, and that the MO should not operate the gates
“for more than 30 minutes of continuous, uninterrupted passenger processing”.
However, the ICIBI found that, in practice,
“this guidance is rarely adhered to”.
Ports with more than five gates should also have a roving officer, an RO, deployed at the gates. Their primary role is
“to prevent trafficking and provide safeguarding assurances by heightening security around the gates.”
According to ICIBI inspectors, these officers
“now have a broader border security role, leaving stakeholders to question whether they are sufficiently resourced to identify child safeguarding concerns and other vulnerable passengers.”
Furthermore, inspectors found that Border Force
“only records the identification of potential victims of modern slavery”
and:
“There is no centrally held record of the identification of other categories of vulnerability.”
The Home Office’s response to the ICIBI said:
“Border Force has a training plan in place, once Coronavirus restrictions impacting some face-to-face training are lifted, to provide further specialist training to both operational managers and our cohort of Safeguarding and Modern Slavery (SAMS) specialists during the remainder of FY 2021/22. Further safeguarding training is in development for all frontline officers with delivery due to commence in 2022.”
The Department added that plans were under way to introduce a new system for electronic recording and monitoring of all incidents where passengers were stopped in relation to safeguarding concerns, and that implementation would take place
“over the course of 2022.”
What progress has been made with those plans, and what assessment have the Minister and his colleagues made of their success?
Further, on security issues, the ICIBI found:
“The UK’s departure from the EU has created a potential new cohort of illegal workers who will continue to enjoy visa-free movement to the UK. The UK has also lost access to EU criminality data systems, creating a risk that high-harm individuals could enter the UK via the gates”.
In the light of those findings, what steps have been taken to ensure that officers have access to all sources of information needed to monitor and track movements of individuals who might pose threats of criminal activity?
The Chair
Order. Will the shadow Minister stick to the order, please? He is veering off. This is about lowering the age; be careful.
Stephen Kinnock
Sorry, Ms Elliott. I thought safeguarding issues were connected too, and I also take your point on modern slavery, potentially. I am sorry about that.
According to the ICIBI at the time of its inspection, the roll-out of Border Crossing, the Department’s new system for providing the passenger watch list, was well behind the original timetable for roll-out. Will the Minister confirm whether the new system is fully up and running?
As the purpose of the order is to enable the Home Office to carry out a trial of the potential extension of e-gates to 10 and 11-year-olds, does the Department plan to publish full details of that trial once it has reached its conclusion? Can the Minister provide any timescales for the trial and, if appropriate, for the roll-out of the extension once the results of the trial are known? Will he commit to working with independent, third-party inspectors such as the ICIBI and the new Anti-Slavery Commissioner—if the Government ever actually get round to appointing one—to ensure that the highest possible safeguarding standards are built into the systems for operating e-gates?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I have a short question for the Minister: why move from 12 to 10 years old?
Robert Jenrick
I am pleased to answer the questions raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon, and by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale as swiftly as I can.
I will come to the question from the hon. Member for Weaver Vale first, on why we have chosen to limit the age change to two years. There is no precise science behind that, other than working with our providers of software to look at which ages we think can be robustly detected through facial recognition, and the likely time gap between when an individual has received their passport—and therefore had their photograph taken—and the age at which they would be passing through the e-gate. We have concluded that 10 is an age at which we could safely do that, because it is very likely that the software that we have available to us will be able to accurately detect a child’s identity on the basis of their face, even if that individual or their parents had taken out their passport the maximum period before then.
It may be that, in time, we can lower the age again, but we are taking a cautious, safety-first approach in only doing so by two years at this point. The data suggests that e-gates are extremely robust and can identify an individual’s face, even that of a relatively young child, as well if not better than the human eye. A 10-year-old should therefore be able to pass through the e-gates and the level of recognition will be as high, if not higher, than if they had been processed by a Border Force officer. We may be able to go lower in the years to come, but we have chosen to make a relatively limited improvement at this stage.
The shadow Minister asked about the ICIBI. I meet with the ICIBI periodically, and am open to it conducting reviews of any Home Office activities. Should the ICIBI wish to make further inquiries into Border Force’s presence at ports, I would be happy to support it in doing so and to ensure that Border Force officers provide it with any information that it requires. In my relatively short tenure at the Home Office, I have not, to the best of my knowledge, received any such request; if I do, I would be more than happy to ensure that it is facilitated.
We take our safeguarding responsibilities extremely seriously. We do not envisage safeguarding issues with the limited reduction in age from 12 to 10, but the purpose of the trial is to investigate and to see whether any issues emerge, which is why we are taking it comparatively slowly. Only accompanied children will be able to pass through the e-gates. The measure definitely will not apply to unaccompanied travellers, although I appreciate that safeguarding concerns can still arise where an individual arrives with an adult. Border Force officers will continue to be present and able to assist, and during the trial there will be officers there to support young children if they encounter difficulties. They will ensure that the trial operates effectively and will intervene where it does not. Of course, they will be specifically tasked with keeping an eye out for some of the issues that the shadow Minister raised, such as signs that an individual has been trafficked or that somebody is entering the UK in a difficult situation or under duress. Should they need to intervene, Border Force officers have a wide range of sources of data at their disposal. Despite leaving the European Union, there has been no material deterioration in the data sources available to them. There is no evidence of issues there.
We will support the roll-out as quickly as possible. The evidence is that the measure will be welcomed by families and should be able to be rolled out swiftly. We do not anticipate there being any issues, and we believe that most children of the ages of 10 to 12 will be able to navigate the process. Those of us who are parents will appreciate that 10 and 11-year-olds are as, if not more, tech-savvy than many of their parents, so I expect that they will be as good as, if not better than, many adults at going through the e-gates. If we can learn from the trial in time for wider roll-out before the summer holidays, that would be all the better. I hope that we will be able to do that.
I will not detain the Committee any longer. I am grateful to the shadow Minister and others for what appears to be broad support. To conclude, the draft order will implement a very limited change to the secondary legislation that will allow for a well-managed proof of concept exercise in a safe and controlled environment. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 17) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No.1331).
The instrument before us was laid on 15 December 2022 under powers provided by the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and makes amendments to the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. The instrument has been considered and not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
With these amendments, the UK continues to put immense pressure on Putin and Russia, alongside our international partners. These new trade measures will further extend the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever faced. I will begin by outlining the measures introduced through the instrument.
First, the SI tightens existing regulations on investments, loans, securities and money market instruments to further close off indirect finance and constrain the availability of international capital to Russia. Importantly, the measure now prohibits new investments in Russia through third countries.
Secondly, the legislation introduces new restrictions on the provision of trust services to persons connected with Russia. That will particularly affect high-net-worth individuals who use trust services to manage their assets. Through the instrument, the Government have suspended the Bank of England’s duty to recognise resolution action in respect of persons designated under the UK’s Russia sanctions regime—the process by which the failure of financial institutions is managed—stemming a potential income stream for Putin’s war machine. This amendment also prohibits the export of further goods across a range of sectors, including oil production and mining equipment, electronics and chemicals, and advanced materials and camouflage gear.
Finally, the instrument introduces additional prohibitions on the provision of professional services to persons connected with Russia. That encompasses advertising, architecture, audit, engineering, and IT consultancy and design services.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It has been interesting to read the instrument. Does it affect UK citizens who hold shares in companies that are operating in Russia and their ability to win dividends from those shares?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
If I may, I will come back to the hon. Member’s question in my closing response and give him as full an answer as I can.
The prohibitions set out in the instrument encompass a range of goods and services where Russia is highly reliant on the UK and its allies for expertise. The amendment will severely debilitate the future growth of key Russian industries; we are already beginning to see that take hold in Russia. Prohibitions on services imposed by the UK, the US and the EU account for between 75% and 83% of Russia’s imports in the key sectors that I have outlined. For example, it is estimated that 77% of Russian architecture and engineering imports are from G7 economies.
Taken as a whole, the No.17 regulations cover more than £200 million of exports to Russia, according to 2021 export data. As with all our sanctions, the latest package has been developed in co-ordination with the UK’s international partners, and we will continue to work with our allies to identify any potential gaps or loopholes in our sanctions and address them accordingly.
The legislation further underlines that the UK is committed in its resolve to target those who participate in or facilitate Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Since February 2022, the UK has sanctioned more than 1,200 individuals, over 120 entities, including 20 banks with global assets worth £940 billion, and over 130 oligarchs with a combined net worth of over £140 billion. Crucially, our sanctions package is designed to increase the pressure on Putin in Russia over time and across multiple stress points. We continue to witness the impact that sanctions are having on Russia. The International Monetary Fund forecasts that Russia’s GDP will be 11% smaller in 2028 compared with pre-invasion forecasts and that it will not return to its pre-invasion level until 2027 at the earliest.
Russian imports have already plummeted by more than half, highlighting that even non-sanctioning countries are limiting what they export to Russia. UK sanctions serve as a stark reminder, we hope, of the cost of such a flagrant assault on sovereignty, democracy and freedom. We will continue to support Ukraine until it can secure peace on its terms. I welcome the continued cross-party support for that effort, and I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Caroline. I thank the Minister for setting out to the Committee the details of the latest expansion of our sanctions regime.
Last week, it was a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition in support of Ukraine in the debate on Russian strategy and to hear comments that I am sure will be reflected by all Members in Committee about how we as a Parliament and a country continue to affirm our solidarity with Ukraine, and how we want to ensure that it wins the war and Putin, his cronies and all those who abet his illegal and barbarous war in Ukraine feel the walls closing in. Our sanctions regime is one of the most critical weapons in that arsenal. As with the other sanctions measures that we have debated over many weeks and months, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations or seek to divide the Committee, because we support them.
Before I come to specific questions on the detail set out by the Minister, I will ask a couple of related questions, particularly because she referred to the need to close loopholes in financial and money market instruments, investments and others, and to the potential evasion of sanctions regimes. These first questions are about cryptocurrencies, to which she did not refer. We have raised the matter in previous Committees that have discussed sanctions.
At the most recent such Committee sitting, my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), stood in for me and, afterwards, a letter she received from the Minister said that
“the Government and UK authorities are actively monitoring the use of cryptoassets to detect potential instances of sanctions evasion and stand ready to act.”
I see no new measures on cryptocurrencies in the regulations, nor in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is also going through Parliament.
As I have relayed to other Ministers on many occasions, Tornado Cash and Blender—so-called cryptocurrency mixers—have both been sanctioned by the United States. The former has allegedly been used to launder more than $7 billion-worth of virtual currency since its creation, just in 2019. It has been used by a number of regimes around the world, including North Korea. It is believed that Russia is also using such measures to evade sanctions, particularly on financial transactions. Given that the US Treasury has imposed sanctions, that no new measure is in the statutory instrument today, and that both are still not on our sanctions list as of 17 January, why is that the case? It is really important—as we have heard in many debates on these issues—that the United States, the UK, the European Union and other allies supporting Ukraine make sure that there are no loopholes and gaps for Russian assets to escape the sanctions regime. I hope that the Minister will answer that.
Another issue that I have raised in every single one of these sanctions debates is the repurposing of frozen assets to support Ukraine. Last week, the Minister said in the Chamber that the Government would “look at all options”, and I had a similar comment in a letter that I received. Last week, I heard again and again at the Ukraine conference that I attended in Davos—I will draw attention to my declaration in due course on that visit—“Why are we not repurposing frozen assets?” Countries including the UK have done well at freezing, but we now have to turn that into support for Ukraine, given the huge costs of supporting its economy, of reconstruction and of continuing to defend itself against Russian aggression. Will the Minister set out where conversations on that are in Government and whether we might expect to hear announcements in due course?
The issue of Rosatom has also been raised with me, and whether individuals involved in Rosatom are covered by these regulations or by other existing sanctions. Perhaps the Minister can say a little about that or, if not, write to me, because although that is the Russian Atomic Energy Agency, individuals will, without doubt, have resources and assets in the UK and other countries across Europe.
Turning to the substance of what the Minister set out, Labour fully supports the steps being taken to limit further the access that designated persons have to key financial services. A prohibition on providing services related to trusts for the benefit of designated persons and closing loopholes pertaining to loans and money market instruments are prudent steps to take to sever every tether with which those designated under our regime might seek to exploit gaps to retain their wealth or obscure it.
The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government are closing further loopholes on oil production and mining equipment, as well as establishing further chemical restrictions. However, can the Minister set out the value of that kind of equipment that designated individuals have obtained since the invasion began, but prior to the loopholes being closed? I ask because although we welcome the sealing of any loopholes or gaps—and obviously, our sanctions regime is a work in progress—we are nearly a year into this terrible conflict. If we have identified that loophole, why has it taken until now to close it?
Finally, further limiting designated persons’ access to auditors, advertisers, engineers and architects is critical in inhibiting their capacity to run and manage lucrative businesses, and it is a welcome step to further prohibit access to information technology consultancy. By undermining designated persons’ access to such services, those aligned with Russia will hopefully and indelibly learn that waging war alongside Putin ends only one way: with Russia and them isolated, economically wounded and out in the cold.
As I said, we will not seek to oppose these measures. We broadly welcome all steps to increase and broaden sanctions on Russia for its barbarous war in Ukraine. We have to look only at some of the atrocities of recent weeks to see why those responsible—Putin, Russia and their allies, aiders and abetters—need to face the full force of our sanctions regime.
Kevin Brennan
I associate myself with everything that my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, said about Russia, our support for the Government in their strong and robust response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and what the Minister said on that subject.
The reason for my question—I am prepared to be contradicted on this if I am wrong—is that, the last time I checked, some operations were still being undertaken in Russia by companies such as Infosys. There is nothing personal about that point—in my view, this would apply to anybody who has shares—but it comes close to the Government in one respect. As we know, the Prime Minister’s spouse has a stake of 0.91% in that company—worth £691 million—and derives a very large amount of income from the dividends from the company. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. However, if companies continue to operate in Russia and profits are being generated through those operations, and individuals in the United Kingdom are earning income from dividends in relation to their shareholdings in companies that are operating in Russia, that is a matter of public interest, whoever holds them—let alone if that income benefits the Prime Minister’s family’s resources.
Let me ask the Minister this question: is there anything in the statutory instrument that we are debating—I know that it has already come into force, so our debate is fairly academic, as is often the case on these occasions—that would regulate the ability of UK residents and citizens to earn income through dividends on shares held in companies that continue to operate in Russia, despite our very robust and correct response to Russia’s aggression in Ukraine? If so, should not those individuals divest themselves of any shares that bring them income, because that is income earned off the backs and the suffering of the people of Ukraine? Is there anything in this statutory instrument that has any impact on income being earned from shareholdings held in companies operating in Russia?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank all the Committee members for their contributions, and I will do my best to answer their questions; if I cannot do so now, I will make sure that we write to them.
In response to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, the statutory instrument does affect UK citizens with shares in Russian companies. I hear his point about companies that continue to operate in Russia. Of course, many companies have stepped away or are stepping away, where they are able to do so. Clearly, that brings in another layer of services, particularly, that are no longer viable for export. I will take away the point about the company that he identified and get back to him more formally on that. We see a continuing move across the piece of British companies and others making decisions for themselves.
On the question from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth about cryptocurrencies, the UK’s financial sanctions cover funds and economic resources of every type, including crypto, so they are all-encompassing. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has recently imposed monetary penalties against some fintech firms. I am happy to get more details for him.
Stephen Doughty
That is reassuring. However, the US Treasury took steps in August to sanction mixers, which effectively jumble up different cryptocurrency transactions to avoid transparency, whereas the UK, as yet, has not. Will the Minister write to me about what is happening and why that has still not happened?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I am happy to commit to do that. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do not comment on areas or individuals that we may be looking to sanction for obvious reasons, but I will happily get back to him on those specifics.
In relation to asset seizures, a big piece of work is ongoing. We are considering all the options around seizing Russian-linked assets and how they could be used to support the people of Ukraine, including funding humanitarian efforts and contributing to the reconstruction of the country.
Stephen Doughty
That is reassuring to hear as well. I hope that the Minister will, in discussion with her ministerial colleagues, look at the example of Canada, which has introduced new legislation recently. There is also a historical example: after the first Gulf war, we took a share of the profits of all companies there to help with the reconstruction of Kuwait.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The hon. Member is right: some international partners are looking to test both the freezing and the potential seizure of assets. None of those is fully tested for their lawfulness yet, and we are watching and supporting our allies, who are testing their own legal systems. We want to ensure that we work closely with Government Departments and our law enforcement agencies to identify all possible options and work that through.
On the hon. Member’s point about Kuwait, that decision was taken after the end of the war. We want to continue to work internationally to come up with options that will be viable as and when this terrible war ends, but, for now, we continue to work to see how we can pull together a package that we know would stand up in a court of law.
I hope that these measures give confidence that we are continuing our wave of sanctions, which are having real, damaging consequences to Putin’s regime, and we will commit to going further. We continue to watch where and how we might effectively continue to put on pressure to encourage Putin to end his appalling and aggressive war. We stand firm and resolute with the people of Ukraine. We will continue to support them and the Ukrainian Government until Putin and Russia withdraw from Ukraine. I hope that the Committee will support these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (BIODIVERSITY) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WOODLAND AND TREES OUTSIDE WOODLAND) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WATER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (MARINE PROTECTED AREAS) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (RESIDUAL WASTE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
(1 year, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I would like to make two points before we start the debate. There is a choice about whether all the instruments are debated together or taken separately. If any Member objects to them being taken together, they will be taken separately. Does any Member object?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I am sorry to hold the Committee up; as you know, Mr Stringer, I am only an observer. When you ask, “Does anyone object to taking them together?”, I do not know if I am allowed to object. That is what I am trying to find out.
The Chair
Let me explain. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has notified me that she wishes to speak in the debate. She is not a member of the Committee, but debates on statutory instruments allow contributions from any right hon. or hon. Member, even if they are not a member of the Committee. However, they cannot vote, which takes us to the crux of the matter; the hon. Member would have to be a member of the Committee to object. [Interruption.] I was wrong; I have been corrected. Any Member of Parliament can object to the statutory instruments being taken together. If the hon. Lady objects to them being taken together, we will take them separately.
Caroline Lucas
At the risk of annoying the Committee gravely, I would like to take them separately.
The Chair
We will take them separately then. Let me get to the right point in my notes and we will begin. For the information of the Committee, debate on each instrument can last up to one and a half hours.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Stringer. What are the implications of taking the instruments separately or together in terms of how we structure the Committee and how long the process will be?
The Chair
There are no implications that I am aware of in terms of the debate. The only implication is the amount of time available. If all six statutory instruments are taken together, that debate can last up to one and half hours. If they are taken separately and debated one at a time, if my arithmetic is right, the debate can last up to nine hours. I call the Minister to move the first instrument.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Biodiversity) (England) Regulations 2022.
I am not sure in what order the Chair wishes to take the statutory instruments. Is this the first instrument to be debated?
Trudy Harrison
These regulations form part of an essential tranche of secondary legislation needed to implement the Environment Act 2021, fulfilling the requirements of that Act that at least one target in each of four priority areas is set in air, water, biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction. It also requires targets to be set for fine particulate matter and species abundance. We have included targets over and above the minimum required, with additional proposals on biodiversity, water and marine and tree planting as these are areas of greatest threat and pressure for the natural environment. Our overall suite of 13 targets from the Environment Act 2021 will put nature and the environment at the centre of all Government policymaking for generations to come.
Each of the statutory instruments clearly improves the environment, but breaking that down to look at biodiversity, there is no single way to measure the health of our biodiversity, so we have proposed four targets that address the status of species and habitats. Our target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030 will be our apex target for the coming decade, driving wide-ranging improvements to the state of nature. We will increase species abundance by at least 10% by 2042, while ensuring that abundance is greater than in 2022. To support our most vulnerable and iconic species, we have set a target to reduce the risk of species extinction by 2042. Finally, we will restore or create in excess of 500,000 hectares of a range of wildlife-rich habitats outside of protected sites by 2042. Taken together, those targets will halt and reverse nature’s decline. Achieving them will require widespread action on many fronts. The steps we take to meet the other targets on water and woodland in particular will be vital, as will the changes we are introducing to the way we support farmers by paying them to improve nature.
Mr Sheerman
Some of us are very involved in this area and have been in the House for quite a long time. I am astounded by the far-reaching nature of just this one SI, let alone the range that we have today. It seems that we would need hours to look at each one and, looking at the Chair, I take it that we will not have hours. We are discussing these SIs at a time when nobody knows what has happened to our farming policy, farm payments policy and nature recovery networks. The background to the debate is quite crazy because there is no certainty at all for farmers or people who love the English countryside.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Member is one of the longest serving Members of the House, so he knows full well that interventions should be short and to the point. It will not be difficult for hon. Members to catch my eye in the debate if they want to make more than just a brief intervention.
Trudy Harrison
I would like to reassure the hon. Member for Huddersfield that the SI continues the work of the Environment Act. A wealth of information—800 pages—has been published on the Government website. There have been around 150,000 responses to the consultation on this issue. Taken with the Environment Act and our 25-year environment plan, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have set out over the past couple of months what the environmental land management scheme will provide for farmers, but I am sure all of us here understand that this is a fundamental change as we leave the common agricultural policy and move away from area-based payments towards paying farmers for their environmental stewardship.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Good luck tonight—I think it is going to be a more complicated discussion than we usually have on these occasions. I suspect it will be quite lengthy, so I will give the short version of our response first: weak, late and unambitious. Just like the Prime Minister did a few week ago, the Government set a modest goal, make it a bit easier, set that as a target, hope the public do not notice and then claim they have achieved it. Target setting can be done in a number of ways. Well, what is going on here has been noticed. As we go through the detail—there is plenty of it, as we see on the table in front of us—it will become apparent just how weak these measures are. Let us remember that these are not even actual measures; they are just targets for measures that may or may never happen—weakness on steroids.
Let us start with late. The House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s excellent report says:
“The instruments were laid before Parliament more than a month after the deadline required under the Environment Act 2021, putting the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs…in breach of its statutory obligation.”
So law breakers as well—keep your seatbelts on.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also stated:
“Public consultation generated significant interest, with a clear majority of respondents (in most cases over 90%) calling for more ambitious targets. We note, however, that despite this feedback, the Department has decided against greater ambition and, with regard to the target for trees and woodland cover, has opted for a target that is less ambitious than that originally proposed during consultation, on the ground that the more ambitious target would be unrealistic.”
That is a pretty damning assessment, particularly on issues of such importance.
I am afraid the Government are continuing to fail our environment in England. The targets set by this SI do much less than is needed to reverse the damage done. As the Government’s own environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, said in its review of progress last week:
“Of 23 environmental targets assessed, none were found where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track.”
The Office for Environmental Protection chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said:
“Progress on delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan has fallen far short of what is needed…There have been recent improvements in air quality and people’s engagement with nature, as Covid lockdowns changed the way we live our lives. But many extremely worrying environmental trends remain unchecked, including a chronic decline in species abundance.
Our assessment shows that the current pace and scale of action will not deliver the changes necessary to significantly improve the environment in England.”
That is pretty damning from her too.
Recent figures show that more than 60% of people in England now breathe illegally poor air. Our wildlife numbers are in freefall, and more communities are exposed to catastrophic flooding. That is not to mention the toxic waste infecting our rivers, canals and waterways.
Let me turn to the detail of this biodiversity SI. There is much to be done, because the UK has the lowest remaining levels of biodiversity among the world’s richer nations. Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee lambasted the Government’s approach to nature—specifically, the failure to stem huge losses of plant and animal species. Globally, we have seen a massive decline in the number of plant and animal species—up to 1 million species are currently under threat of extinction. Closer to home, we are at risk of losing many beloved species. Puffins are projected to decline across Britain and Ireland by nine in 10 within 30 years, 14 seabird species are regarded as being at risk of negative climate change impact, and there has been a two thirds decline in flying insect numbers in England in just 16 years.
Mr Sheerman
Many of my constituents are very fond of water voles, which figure in much children’s literature—misdescribed as “Ratty”—and hedgehogs. If we are slow in doing this—it seems that these regulations will initiate a very slow procedure—it will be too late to save those species, so we need urgent action.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I find myself in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. We do not believe that the ambitions to halt the decline of species abundance in the UK are good enough. The measures in this SI are too weak. We must be nature positive. We should be aiming for a dramatic incline in species abundance.
The agreement signed by the UK Government at the biodiversity COP15 to protect 30% for nature and restore 30% of the planet’s degraded ecosystems was welcome news, but we judge the Government’s commitment to their new international obligations against their actions. It is the environmental targets in these SIs that will drive nature’s recovery on the ground. We agree that the aim to halt the decline of wildlife by the end of 2030 is in keeping with the promises made at the biodiversity COP15 in Montreal last month, but I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm if the refreshed environmental improvement plan due next week will set out the practical steps needed, including in particular—as has been mentioned—how the new environmental land management schemes will contribute to meeting the targets in the statutory instrument.
I am afraid that the statutory instrument contains a serious omission. I am grateful to Green Alliance for pointing that out and providing detailed briefings on this SI and the others. The SI fails to include a target for the condition of sites of special scientific interests, or SSSIs, which are supposed to protect ancient woodland, hay meadows, peat bogs, grasslands, moorland, marshes, flood plains, chalk streams, estuaries and stretches of coast. In England, fewer than 40% of SSSIs are in a healthy condition. Others are plagued by pollution, mismanagement and neglect, apart from being under increased threat from extreme weather, wildfires and rising sea levels. These sites are the key to driving nature’s recovery, and improving their condition is essential in meeting the environmental targets that we are discussing.
At Geltsdale in Cumbria, for example, improvement in SSSI condition has increased the abundance of a diverse range of bird species, including the black grouse, whinchat and grasshopper warbler, while sphagnum mosses and plants have also responded well. There is little point in designating more land for protection on paper when, after 13 years, so many existing sites that should receive the highest levels of protection instead languish in a poor state.
The statutory instrument is so important for the future of our cherished wildlife and biodiversity. It is clear, though, that the lack of ambition in the targets means that they will ultimately fail to measure up to the commitments made by the Secretary of State in Montreal in December. We will accordingly vote against the instrument.
Mr Sheerman
I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate: I want to speak about the timescale. I am appealing because I sometimes think, as a parliamentarian, it would be so nice if the only people who could vote when we are in the Chamber or in Committee were the people who actually listened to the Minister and the shadow Minister, rather than just playing with their screens. That is how Parliament has been changed by people’s use of individual communications.
This is an important debate, and I am sure that we all recognise how fundamental it is. Tonight, I will have the pleasure and honour of having dinner—if we ever get to it—with the professor from University College London who wrote “Here Comes the Sun”. The lesson from Professor Steve Jones is that there is not a lot of time. Slight things will happen in biodiversity or to nature, but he believes that we are rapidly making this planet unable to support human life. That is the really serious nature of where we are today.
Because of that, I totally support the Opposition spokesman. He is an old and respected campaigner—
Mr Sheerman
He is not as old as me, of course, but he is very respected in this area. He shares my view that all this is too little, too late, and it is too weak. Tomorrow, I have a debate in Westminster Hall on how we can cut the poisonous fumes that are emitted from vehicles, which are causing that dreadful plague whereby people in our constituencies are not able to breathe clean air. We all know the level of the challenge, but we do not have a Government or Department that see how important and rapid progress must be if we are to stop this dreadful move towards a climate change disaster.
Thank you for accepting my request to speak, Mr Stringer. You are always a kind and generous person when those of us from Yorkshire seek to get your attention.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to make three small points. The first overriding point, which has already been made, is about the urgency we need to move much faster towards targets. The Office of Environmental Protections has already said how far off we are on halting the decline in species abundance by 2030. This debate really does matter.
In particular, I point out the proposed target of a 10% increase in species abundance by 2042 relative to 2030 levels. DEFRA describes that as highly ambitious, but it has been pointed out that it could result in lower levels of abundance than we have today since there is no incentive to address the current rate of decline between now and the proposed 2030 baseline. That is a massive hole in the legislation and the target, particularly since the UK is one of the most nature and wildlife-depleted countries in the world.
There is also no proposed target on habitat quality and connectivity. That really matters if the coverage-based targets, such as the proposed 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats, are not sufficient or if the habitat that is created or restored is not of high enough quality to benefit biodiversity. In other words, it is not simply a question of designating a certain coverage of hectares—it has to be about the quality of that land, and, crucially, the connectivity between that land and other areas of corridors so that wildlife can thrive. The targets included should be based on the 25-year environment plan, on indicator D1, which is precisely about habitat quantity and connectivity, to be able to quantify changes in habitat quality and to improve that all-important connectivity.
Finally, as we have heard, there is also no target to improve the condition of protected nature sites, despite calls for 75% of those protected wildlife sites to be in favourable condition by 2042. There is a huge hole in the targets in this area and I urge the Government to look again.
Trudy Harrison
The 2030 species abundance target really is world leading and will drive wide-ranging actions to deliver nature recovery. It is very disappointing to hear Opposition Members say that they will vote against improving biodiversity on land. As I have said, the target follows on from the groundbreaking, world-leading Environment Act 2021 and from the 25-year environment plan.
In the last 20 years, the England priority species abundance index has been declining by 2% a year. That is exactly why we have set the target to halt the decline of nature by 2030, and to improve it by 10% beyond that. Since 2010, we have created or restored plant and wildlife habitats equivalent to the size of Dorset. The red kite is the biggest recent conservation success in the UK, with a population increase of 21.7% between 2008 and 2018. Many other species are making a significant improvement, but we know we need to do more.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield had questions in relation to the Office for Environmental Protection. As I have said, we accept that nature has declined in recent decades, and that previous action has been insufficient to halt the decline. That is exactly why we are setting the ambitious targets now to ensure that sustained action is taken to tackle the challenge across a number of fronts. On 31 January, the environmental improvement plan will set out in more detail how we will deliver on those targets—I reassure the hon. Member on that. Our targets will work together to improve water, soil and air quality—all the aspects needed to improve biodiversity.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is very generous to give way, but my point was that we are not voting against the measures; we are voting against the fact that they are not going to be brought in fast enough or effectively enough. It would be wrong to suggest that we are not in favour; we want these objectives, but we want them quicker.
The red kite is a great success story, but it was nothing to do with the Government. It was the dedicated people in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other charities who got the red kite victory. They should be applauded for their work, not the Government.
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point about the work of volunteers across the country to help with the recovery of species. He mentioned hedgehogs and I will mention red squirrels. The UK Squirrel Accord supports those voluntary groups right across the country to control grey squirrels and feed red squirrels, and we are seeing significant improvements.
However, without the targets that Conservative Members will vote for today, we will not be able to carry out the improvements required in air, water and soil quality in the way we need to. The environmental land management schemes—the sustainable farming incentive, landscape recovery and countryside stewardship—will enable 70% of the land that is farmed in this country to be awarded for environmental stewardship. That is what we are supporting tonight: targets that support biodiversity.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked about protected sites. The environment plan goal to restore 75% of our 1 million hectares of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to favourable conditions by 2042 is fundamental. Natural England is increasing proactive work on sites of special scientific interest, over 1 million hectares across the country, to gain a better understanding of the action that farmers and the rest of society can take, because this is an incredible team game that we must play.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister is being very kind. Mr Stringer, you know my patch better than many members of the Committee. People say, “You have lots of farmers in Huddersfield”, and we do. The fact is that farmers in my constituency are as astounded as farmers up and down the country who do not know what the future holds. They do not know how they will be rewarded for what was going to be nature recovery networks—for what was going to be Government policy. At the moment, I do not know a farmer in the land who knows what the Government’s intentions are on biodiversity.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid, Chair, the hon. Gentleman is stretching the tight nature of the debate. The environmental land management plan has been set out, and my colleagues across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have explained what it will achieve. He knows that farmers were keen to get out of the common agricultural policy and have incentives in the UK targeted towards UK farmers. I am afraid that I must make progress with the remaining five statutory instruments. I thank Committee members for their time on this first one on biodiversity.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022.
The regulations set a target for the combined canopy cover of woodlands and trees outside woodlands in England to increase to 16.5% by 31 December 2050. Achieving that target would see annual tree planting rates and total tree cover exceed historic highs. The action we are taking now through the England trees action plan, with the support of £750 million from the Nature for Climate fund, will set us on the right path to achieving the tree planting rates needed. We want to create a diverse treescape to draw on all of the unique benefits that different kinds of tree planting can provide. Almost all trees and woodlands will contribute to meeting the target, as will trees in hedgerows, orchards and fields and in villages, towns and cities.
That concludes my short remarks on this statutory instrument, which I am happy to discuss in more detail.
Daniel Zeichner
Biodiversity is inextricably linked to trees, so we move on very nicely. Tree planting is an important natural solution to the nature and climate emergency, helping to decrease CO2 emissions by storing carbon in the soil and to mitigate the effects of the climate emergency that we are already seeing by preventing flooding. It is disappointing, therefore, that DEFRA is proposing a tree canopy cover expansion target one third lower than the one it consulted on. The draft 17.5% target was proposed by DEFRA and agreed by the Department’s own expert group. Will the Minister explain why the Department lost confidence in its own consultation proposals and its expert panel’s recommendations for a higher target, as well as overlooking the responses to its consultation?
The target in the SI also fails to prioritise native trees. I find myself in agreement with the Woodland Trust, which has described that as “hugely disappointing”. That is against a background of failure, because in recent years the Government have failed dismally to deliver the existing tree planting target. There are concerns about the current rate of planting, which means that even their weak target will not be met until 2091—over 40 years too late. Will the Minister give us an up-to-date assessment of how many hectares of trees were planted in England last year? How many will be planted this year and next? That matters in the context of this SI and its watered down target.
As well as creating and maintaining new woodland, the management of existing woodland needs to be improved. The fact that that is not included in the SI suggests the Government will fail to do that, and that will cause further environmental damage and offset the benefits of the new woodland being created. Sustainable management of our woodland is essential not just for precarious and dangerously fragile habitats such as our own temperate rainforests, but for the effective protection of woodland and urban trees.
I will conclude on that note. I think I had my pages in the wrong order, which was bound to happen at some point, but I do not think that will trouble the Minister—the essential points have been made.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make one point. The worry about the target is that it proposes a metric that would see all trees and woodland cover being counted equally, and that is a problem because not all trees are equal in terms of the contribution they make to biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Not only should we see a more ambitious target overall, but the focus should be on expanding priority habitat woodlands specifically as that is what is needed to contribute to biodiversity targets, which non-priority habitat woodland might not, as well as towards net zero through carbon sequestration and providing climate adaptation benefits.
The proposed metric, which sees all trees and woodland cover being counted equally, would not value the different benefits provided by different types of trees and woodland. It is those benefits that are highly variable. Increased conifer planting, for example, may well not help natural habitat and wildlife at all, especially if the conifers are also chopped down and burnt as biofuel, so that they do not even help us with carbon sequestration either. We needed a more nuanced approach to woodland, and I am disappointed that the Government did not take that approach.
Mr Sheerman
Members of the Committee may not know that I chair the John Clare Trust, which owns the English poet’s early home. It is a centre that educates children about nature and arranges for them to visit his birthplace in Helpston, which is near Peterborough. We arrange for children to plant trees and walk the walks that John Clare walked.
My question, which I hope the Minister can answer, is what is the real evaluation—the proper audit—of how many trees are planted in each local authority area each year? At the last election, hon. Members will remember that, by the time the political parties’ manifestos were finished, there were promises that tens of millions of trees would be planted over the next years. We do not have an evaluation of how many trees are being planted, how many are planned to be planted, and what kind of trees they are. We do not need spruce; we need diverse trees.
I agree with my friend the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion that we need diversity and real plans. A lot of the trees that have been planted—many of them planted after the creation of the new railway line that you and I sometimes disagree about, Mr Stringer—have died already. They were not planted properly and not watered during the heatwave. I am calling for an annual audit from the Minister, so that we know what is being planted and how many trees are being planted and successfully reared.
Trudy Harrison
The target to have 16.5% tree cover across England requires us to plant around 7,500 hectares of trees annually. The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked me a very direct question about how many have been planted recently. I believe that last year some 2,700 hectares of trees were planted, so we need to make a significant improvement in the rate and, significantly, the speed at which we plant trees. As the lead Minister for Natural England, I am working with that organisation to ensure that we speed up tree planting.
There were questions about coniferous trees and broadleaf trees. I want colleagues to know that we considered the inclusion of statutory sub-targets but decided not to move forward with those proposals. We intend to give a transparent picture of the contribution from each planting type towards the target through the Forestry Commission’s statistics. We will use policy and incentives to encourage the planting of woodland types that we want to see. The actions that we are taking through the England trees action plan, the suite of targets being released, our biodiversity targets in particular, and the UK forestry standard will act as a real driver for native woodland planting, and ensure that the woodlands we create are mixed.
Daniel Zeichner
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s explanation of the ratio between broadleaf and conifer, and I could not understand it at all. Will she explain why it was decided not to set a proper target, particularly given that the head of Natural England, my constituent Tony Juniper, has expressed his disappointment about that?
Trudy Harrison
It would be unfortunate to get into a form of tree snobbery. Different species require different trees. I look out on the beech tree in my garden, which is the preference of the tawny owl, but I also see the mistle thrush taking its position at the top of the Sitka spruce. We still expect to see significantly more broadleaf woodland planted than conifer.
Trudy Harrison
No, I am afraid I will not.
Our approach to tree planting has already sought to recognise the multiple benefits that different tree species can provide across carbon, nature and broader goals, improving water quality and supporting a thriving domestic timber industry. That is critical, because I am afraid to say that only 19% of the timber used in the UK is grown in this country. This is being delivered by the UK forestry standard, which prevents the planting of monoculture forests and maximises the multiple benefits of forests by incentivising the right mix of trees.
With that, Mr Stringer, I will conclude my remarks, because I am aware that there is a lot to get through this evening.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022.
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017 already set an outcome-based, long-term target to improve the water environment. Under those regulations, we are committed to restoring 75% of water bodies to good ecological status. We do not want simply to replicate that; we are setting four water targets to address specific pressures that are preventing us from reaching the overarching target for good ecological status. Those targets will reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agricultural land by 40%; reduce phosphorous from treated wastewater by 80%; seek to halve the length of rivers polluted by abandoned metal mines; and reduce water demand by 20%.
The agriculture target is needed as agriculture and wastewater are the biggest sources of nutrient pollution in the water environment, accounting for an estimated 70% of nitrate inputs into our rivers, lakes and groundwater, and for 25% of the phosphorous load in our rivers and lakes. To deliver the target, we will work with the agricultural sector to improve farming practices. We will reward farmers for incorporating sustainable methods and wildlife habitats into their farms as part of a profitable business, with access to free face-to-face advice from catchment-sensitive farming partnerships. We will also help farmers benefit from technologies that could transform how our food is grown, including closed systems that capture excess nutrients for reuse, and reduced tillage systems that preserve the soil structure or reduce the need for fertilisers.
The wastewater target will ensure that the water industry continues to take action to significantly reduce phosphorous loadings in wastewater, tackling one of the biggest pressures on water quality.
Mr Sheerman
Some of what the Minister says is very welcome indeed. What worries me is something we all know. When I was complaining about the water quality of a river near my constituency a couple of years ago, Yorkshire Water said to me, “Mr Sheerman, there is not one river in England that is fit for humans to swim in.” I do not know whether the Minister is a wild swimmer, but I was really alarmed by that fact, and I started a charity called Greenstreams. There are two main things that affect our water in this country: cattle sewage and human sewage, which get into our watercourses. I do not believe—
The Chair
Order. I do not want to repeat the point that interventions need to be short and to the point. The hon. Gentleman knows that he will catch my eye if he stands to speak.
Trudy Harrison
I will address the hon. Gentleman’s points when I move on to my summary remarks. I will not discuss whether I am a wild swimmer—that would be well and truly straying from the tight scope of the debate.
The abandoned metal mines target will address six polluting substances from abandoned metal mines.
Nick Smith
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is very generous of her. I was interested in what she said about free face-to-face advice on improving water quality. Can she tell us more about exactly who will be able to provide that advice and how many advisers there will be across the country? We would like some understanding of the important public service support for this initiative.
Trudy Harrison
It is important that farmers get the advice that they need as they transition away from the common agricultural policy, which was an area-based scheme, towards our ELM schemes, and it is therefore essential that we provide information in a variety of ways, not least through the Rural Payments Agency and Natural England, as well as through many other organisations, such as the National Farmers Union and the Country Land and Business Association. We will work with all those stakeholders to ensure that farmers have the information they need to make the transition that they—and society, and certainly the environment—need.
Trudy Harrison
No, not at this point.
The abandoned metal mines target will address six polluting substances from abandoned metal mines: cadmium, nickel, lead, copper, zinc and arsenic. Those mines are one of the biggest sources of metal pollution in rivers, resulting in one of the top 10 pressures impacting the water environment.
The water demand target will bring about a reduction in water demand to ensure a resilient supply of water in the face of climate change and an increasing population, leaving more water in the environment to support biodiversity.
Daniel Zeichner
From watered-down tree targets to water targets. It will not be news to anyone here that rivers in England are in big trouble. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield pointed out, not one river is in a healthy condition—not one meets good chemical standards, and only 14% meet good ecological standards. It is fair to say that our waterways are suffering from a toxic cocktail of agricultural and sewage pollution.
Just last month at COP15, global leaders promised to clean up our rivers and committed to protecting 30% of nature by 2030. That was good, but unfortunately it was short lived, because during the summit, the Government confirmed that there would be no target indicator on river health—the only measure for water companies and the public to know whether their water is clean. Will the Minister confirm whether the existing 2027 target under the water framework directive will be carried forward—or will it fall victim to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill?
The Government’s decision on that target means that the statutory instrument we are scrutinising completely undermines the UK’s 30 by 30 commitment. The existing target, set under water framework directive regulations, requires water bodies to achieve good ecological status by 22 December 2027 at the latest. However, when that target expires, we will be left with no long-term target for the overall ecological improvement of rivers and streams in England. The absence of an overarching water quality target leaves uncertainty for businesses and uncertainty about environmental outcomes. Put simply, a target that expires in four years is not sufficient to drive a meaningful improvement in water quality.
Mr Sheerman
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we are going to have water quality targets but we do not have a Government that can be strong enough with the water companies that are pouring sewage into our rivers, streams and oceans, there is no hope? Looking across the room, I see that there is a Member present with a name that resonates with sea creatures—I am talking about crabs. Around our country, crabs are disappearing because of the sewage that has been pumped into our seas. I want the crabs to be able to live and thrive in our country.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—and, as ever, he pre-empted what I was about to say. Labour absolutely understands that. That is why we will introduce a legally binding target to end 90% of sewage discharges.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I think I was referred to by the hon. Member for Huddersfield a few moments ago, but I remind the Opposition spokesman that in Wales—under the Welsh Labour Government—we have major problems with sewage going into our watercourses. He talks about Labour’s commitment; where is the practical evidence of that when it comes to how it governs in Wales?
Daniel Zeichner
Obviously, we want crabs to flourish wherever they may be found, but I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the legislation in England.
Let me return to the Minister and ask her a simple question. Will she tell us how she plans to safeguard the health of our rivers without committing to an overall target for water quality?
Nick Smith
I asked the Minister for an idea of the number of face-to-face staff who would be able to help our farmers across the country produce good-quality water, but she was not able to answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to have an assessment from the Department of the number of people who would be needed to support our farmers across the country to prevent poor-quality run-off and ensure that we have better water for the future?
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The issuing of advice to farmers is very important. It is one of the welcome things that has come through the environmental land management schemes. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: we need to know exactly how much advice will be available, to whom it will go, and whether it is likely to achieve a change in behaviour.
Last year, 2022, was a very dry year of high temperatures. Water shortages were a reality, with hosepipe bans across the country. The former Environment Agency chief says that lack of water presents an “existential” threat. Treating wastewater and delivering clean water to households is also a big emitter of carbon dioxide. A target to reduce water demand is therefore vital, but the one in the SI is framed as a relative target based on population. With a rising population, that means that overall water abstraction—the process of taking water from a natural source, often for industrial use—can continue to increase unchecked.
We cannot reduce shortages without addressing one of the key causes: over-stressed infrastructure in need of repair. The system is creaking at the seams, and plugging those leaks will require an investment of perhaps £20 billion. Does the Minister not agree that private sector investment is likely to fall without a legal target for scrutiny and accountability?
Finally, let me touch on enforcement and regulation. In the consultation, the Government promised to allow for objective scrutiny and accountability of their progress, but the statutory instrument fails to achieve that goal. The Environment Agency is unable to properly inspect the practices of water companies. Let me therefore use this opportunity to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to giving the Environment Agency the power to properly enforce the rules. We will deliver mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets. We will introduce automatic fines for discharges, and a standing charge penalty for discharge points without monitoring in place. Water bosses who routinely and systematically break the rules will be held professionally and personally accountable, and illegal activity will be punished.
We see nothing of that strength in this SI. That is why we will be opposing it—because it falls short. It does not guarantee an improvement in the freshwater environment in England and it does nothing to hold water bosses accountable.
Trudy Harrison
Again, it is disappointing to hear that the Opposition are not going to support these targets, which will enable us to tackle most, if not all, of the challenges that the hon. Member for Cambridge has set out. The most fundamental thing to point out is that in 2010 just 5% of storm overflows were monitored, but today that figure is 95%. We will not stop until they are all monitored. We are already subject to legally binding targets under the water framework directive to achieve good ecological status in our water bodies. Our new targets under the Environment Act 2021 seek to supplement this by focusing on the greatest pressures on the water environment.
Mr Sheerman
On a point of order, Mr Stringer, I do not think the Minister meant to mislead the Committee, but to my knowledge, the Environment Agency has actually stopped checking the quality of river water.
Trudy Harrison
As the Secretary of State mentioned to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the water framework directive is a possible opportunity for reform under the retained EU law Bill. Our Environment Act targets are highly stretching and ambitious, so any reform would align with this work to deliver our commitments to clean and plentiful water, as set out in the 25-year environment plan.
On “good” chemical status, the chemical status results reflect a change to a more rigorous methodology for classifying the chemical status of English water bodies. To give an example, in 2016, 97% achieved good chemical status, but more recent results showed that no water bodies met the criteria for good chemical status, so there has been a change in the way we consider that.
On our long-term investment, the water companies will invest £56 billion over the coming decades as a result of this Government’s encouragement, and we will increase the fines that those companies are subject to. An additional 4,000 megalitres of water a day will be needed in England by 2050 to meet future pressures. That is why we have set the target to reduce consumption demand by 20%. That will be essential to protect our environment, including the watercourses that are vital for our nature and marine systems.
The 25-year environment plan commits us to restoring 75% of our waters to close to their natural state as soon as practical. We have also doubled the annual budget for catchment-sensitive farming to £30 million, meaning that 100% of farmers in England can access the advice that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about.
With that, Mr Stringer, I will conclude my remarks so that we can move on to the next SI.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Marine Protected Areas) Regulations 2022.
These regulations set a target for the recovery of features in marine protected areas. MPAs are one of the most important tools that we have for protecting the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats and species in our waters. In England, we have established a comprehensive MPA network, covering 40% or 130,000 square miles of English waters. Establishing this network is an important step in achieving our goal of conserving our protected species and habitats. Now that they have been designated, we need to increase the protections for these valuable marine environments to help them to recover, which is why we are setting this target. That concludes my remarks for the moment.
Daniel Zeichner
We go from water to marine, Mr Stringer. The seas and oceans around us support diverse marine ecosystems; they provide rich biodiversity and act as carbon stores. But our marine environment and the creatures that call it home face innumerable threats from human activity, including the damage from waste and toxins and from dredging and dragging the seabed, and the destruction of corals, maerls and sandbanks. Marine protected areas are an important tool in safeguarding our ocean’s future, so I am pleased that there is a commitment to extend the network. However, I share the concerns held by many stakeholders that the plans are not ambitious enough, and fail to align with the 30x30 targets. In particular, the representation of marine species in the 2030 species abundance target remains poor. Therefore I ask the Minister this. Will she agree to consider—
Daniel Zeichner
Yes, at the end of the sentence. Will the Minister agree to consider the addition of species to the indicator over time, to make it more representative of England’s marine biodiversity?
Mr Sheerman
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for letting me intervene yet again. Is he not worried? He, like me, is a devotee of fish— together we have consumed a lot of fish. I go round the usual places where people buy fresh fish on the coast, and they are not selling any. They are not selling; people cannot buy fish in most of our ports and harbours as they used to, and the excuse given is that the sea is heating up or that there is pollution. What are we going to do to find out what is going wrong around our coast, with crabs dying and crustaceans having to be imported? When are we going to get some action?
Daniel Zeichner
I thank my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. Certainly there are parts of the country around the coast where fishers complain that their basic problem is a lack of fish, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is not possible to buy fish anywhere around our coast. There are places where the fish continue to be fished and fishers continue to thrive. What we want, of course, is to ensure that that continues to be the case.
Healthy seabeds are home to many species and drive richer marine ecosystems, but sadly, marine protected areas currently fail to protect them adequately. We need to see a broader programme of ocean renewal. Globally, saltmarsh and seagrass beds alone can store up to 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That is almost half the emissions of the entire global transport industry. Restoring these key marine ecosystems could lock up billions of tonnes of carbon each year; that is 5% of the savings needed globally. A sustained programme of ocean renewal must be part of any plan to tackle the climate emergency.
Caroline Lucas
I want to make a few comments on this statutory instrument—essentially, to point to the gap between targets and the actual behaviour that is necessary to meet them. I want to underline some of the comments already made about overfishing. The Government have already made numerous commitments to ending overfishing, including through the Fisheries Act 2020 and the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement of 2021, and yet during COP15 they reached an agreement with the EU to continue overfishing a substantial proportion of UK fish stocks. The Government’s intention to reopen a UK fishery for spurdog shark—a species listed as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature red list because of its significant vulnerability to fishing pressures—is inconsistent with serious efforts to halt species decline. Rather than the specific target on designated features put forward in the regulations, we need targets to improve marine protected areas in their entirety, particularly from the most destructive forms of fishing, such as bottom trawling.
If we are serious about MPAs meaning anything, they have to be protected from bottom trawling. However, although the UK’s MPA network covers 38% of our waters on paper, destructive bottom trawling is banned from just 5% of them, and that is extraordinary. Continued bottom trawling in MPAs is devastating marine life and linked to substantial carbon emissions, and it has to stop if we are serious about meeting our targets.
My final point is that to date, biological monitoring has been under-resourced, particularly in marine environments, and that has resulted in poorly thought-out site designations. We need much more resource to be put into that type of monitoring so that Government agencies can properly and effectively manage an expanded network of MPAs that mean something in fact, not just on paper.
Trudy Harrison
The modelling undertaken by our statutory nature conservation bodies Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has informed the 2042 target of 70%. Members will know that there are 178 marine protected areas covering 35,000 square miles, of which 60% already have byelaws in place to protect them from damage caused by trawling on the sea bed.
Hon. Members have asked when we will go further. On 16 January, the Marine Management Organisation started a consultation about the next set of byelaws covering 13 offshore MPAs. We aim to have all sites protected from damaging fishing by the end of 2024. The MPA target will be important for climate change as the recovery of features such as seagrass and salt marsh should make an important contribution. Maerl beds can take 50 years to recover, while other species will begin their recovery much sooner, which is the reason for the later target date.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Fine Particulate Matter) (England) Regulations 2022.
In line with our clean air strategy, we are setting two new targets for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, under the Environment Act 2021: a maximum annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2024 and a population exposure reduction target of 35% by 2040 compared with 2018.
Our dual target approach will improve public health by tackling the highest concentrations while ensuring all areas benefit from continuous improvement. Our innovative population exposure reduction target will drive action in continuous improvement even where concentration targets have already been achieved. That is important as there is no safe level for PM2.5, the pollutant that causes most harm to human health.
The Government have followed an evidence-based process to set air quality targets that are stretching, achievable and specific to our national circumstances. We want to seize the opportunity to set air quality targets that focus interventions to improve public health.
In terms of our economic figures, the cost-benefit analysis conducted on scenarios for achieving Environment Act 2021 targets indicate that action to reduce PM2.5 concentrations could save £38 billion a year from 2023 to 2040 in social costs associated with damage from air pollution to human health, productivity and ecosystems. This reduction in social costs could rise to £135 billion when the co-benefits of these actions on greenhouse gas emissions are considered.
Our modelling indicates that over 18 years, achieving these targets would result in up to 214,000 fewer cases of cardiovascular disease, 56,000 fewer strokes, 70,000 fewer cases of asthma and 23,000 fewer cases of lung cancer.
Mr Sheerman
As I hope the Minister knows, I chair the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality and I have campaigned on this issue for a very long time; in fact, I have a Bill going through the House at the moment that would increase the checks on vehicle emissions. Is she not aware that at this moment, people in Copeland and Huddersfield face serious health issues and people in this very room face poisonous air?
Trudy Harrison
Of course I am aware, which is why we are setting these targets to reduce air pollution. As part of our work to assess the progress towards these targets, we invested around £1 million to expand the PM2.5 monitoring network in 2021, which is a darn sight further forward than it was when we took it on in 2010. By the end of 2025, we will have invested a further £10 million to at least double the size of the original PM2.5 network, adding well over 100 additional monitors across England from December 2021.
We are investing £1.5 million during 2022-23 to establish two new multi-instrument particulate matter composition measurement sites to monitor PM2.5 mass, particle specification, particle counting, black carbon and ammonia. We have over 500 sites across the UK, and we spend approximately £9 million running and maintaining 14 national networks.
Under our NO2 programme, we have allocated £883 million to support local authorities to develop and implement measures to address local nitrogen dioxide exceedances in the shortest possible time. We have pledged £284 million through the clean air fund to support a range of other positive local actions, such as the retrofitting and upgrading of buses, HGVs and taxis. That is why we are taking this measure forward, and why I support this target and this SI ahead of our environmental improvement plan.
Daniel Zeichner
We are getting there, aren’t we, Mr Stringer? It is probably time to come up for air, and this measure is about air.
A key element of preserving our environment is clean air. It is vital that we remember that our ecosystems are damaged by toxic air and air pollution, as are our waterways and the natural habitats of our wildlife. Of course there is an impact on human life—indeed, toxic air contributes to the deaths of many people who we represent in this House—so it is a matter of deep regret that the Minister has missed this golden opportunity to show leadership to clean our air and get things done.
Air pollution has been recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health, and we agree. An increasing body of evidence has linked air pollution to the causation and worsening of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as a likely link to cognitive decline and dementia risk. This is a major public health crisis.
Despite limited action to reduce pollution levels, there is still so much more that must be done at a national level to reduce the impact on our health and on our economy. The proposed targets for 2040 that we are considering can hardly be considered world-leading or ambitious. The proposed target for the annual mean concentration of air pollution—10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040—is based on the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines, which were published as long ago as 2005 and surpassed in 2021 by a new guideline level of 5 micrograms per cubic metre.
I am afraid that we are falling behind internationally. The USA’s legal target for PM2.5 has been stronger than the UK’s since 2012, having been set at 12 micrograms per cubic metre, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering that further to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre. In Europe, the EU Commission proposed last October a target reduction of PM2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030.
A study by Imperial College London shows that an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre can be achieved across 99% of the country by 2030 using policies already proposed by the Government, coupled with those set out in the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget, and a similar conclusion was reached in DEFRA’s clean air strategy in 2019. It is therefore a matter of regret that the Government, thorough this SI, have essentially ignored the wishes of the people and the businesses that responded to the consultation. Will the Minister explain why the target is less ambitious than that sought by 90% of the responses to the Government’s consultation?
The Government’s proposals to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country or ensure that we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028 the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance with the targets. That really is not enough.
We are deeply concerned that the SI will fail to deliver any meaningful reductions in pollution for those who live near the sources of pollution, such as main roads in our cities across England, because the Government will assess compliance with the population exposure reduction target by using only urban or suburban background sites where PM2.5
“is not significantly influenced by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site”.
Communities living near sources of pollution tend to be more deprived, from minority ethnic backgrounds, and less able to mitigate the health impacts of air pollution. This SI will therefore fail to protect the most vulnerable. We will oppose it because it does not grasp the seriousness of the situation facing us.
Mr Sheerman
Mr Stringer, you know that I always feel that my job as an Opposition Member is to be an awkward devil, and I tend to do that, but I take this very seriously. I chair the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, and I profoundly believe that clean air is an inalienable right of every citizen, whether they live in the Minister’s constituency, yours, Mr Stringer, or mine. The fact of the matter is that we are poisoning our population. This pollution is a silent killer; we do not see it. It is not like the old smog of the 1950s, which people could see they were inhaling. Their clothes were filthy—they knew. This is silent. It is small. It affects people’s bloodstream. It kills elderly people, hastens the ageing process, and really gets to vulnerable children and pregnant women. It is a national disaster, and we have to do something about it.
The proposals in the SI do not achieve the Government’s original objectives of setting ambitious air quality targets. The world has moved on in terms of targets. The World Health Organisation has moved on.
The Government also ignored the wishes of the people and businesses that responded to the consultation. Ninety per cent. of the 13,048 responses to the Government’s consultation disagreed with the level of ambition in the targets.
The Government’s proposal to improve monitoring capacity is not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country, or to ensure we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028, the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said.
I have been wearing a mobile air quality detector for the past two or three months. It is a £400 device. If you, Mr Stringer, the Minister or any other MP would like to have one, I can arrange it. What we discovered is that the air that we and our staff work in is highly, dangerously polluted. There is a £4,000 monitor in my office on the fifth floor of Portcullis House, and it has never recorded a WHO standard that is acceptable for people to work in. This is about not just Westminster, but everyone in the country. When parents take their child to school they think, “It’s a bit dirty out here from the pollution, but they’ll be all right once they get inside”, but our commission has received evidence of professional audits of the schools’ internal environment showing that the air inside is not cleaner. The filthy, polluting air goes in, and the children and teachers are in a more polluted atmosphere than outside. This is a national emergency. It is killing people, and we will vote against the SI because we need more and faster action from not just the Minister’s Department —I feel a bit sorry for her today; we have had a bit of a go at her—but all Departments across Government. They all need to take this silent killer seriously.
Caroline Lucas
I just want to add my voice to this particular debate because it feels tragic that we have wasted the opportunity to put in place targets that would protect far more people from the evils associated with bad air quality. I know we go through the motions of the Minister speaking in favour and the Opposition voting against the SI, but I beg the Minister to, if nothing else, look again at this directive. We have all seen the mountain of evidence showing the dangers that fine particulate matter in the air poses to our health.
I have just come from a briefing by the chief medical officer talking about his annual report on air pollution. The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants estimates that up to 36,000 deaths each year are linked to air pollution. It causes and aggravates respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and there is a likely link to dementia. If that number of deaths was happening from anything else, there would be all kinds of inquiries set up and all kinds of urgency. However, because air pollution is invisible, we somehow think that it does not matter as much. Well, it does and if anyone is going to tell us that, it would be the mother of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Next month is the 10th anniversary of the tragic death of Ella, the first person to have air pollution recorded as the cause of death on her death certificate, and I pay tribute to Ella’s mother for all she has done to put air pollution higher up the political agenda. The truth is that the Government’s disappointing target of 10 micrograms of particulate matter per cubic metre by 2040 is nowhere near enough to prevent more people dying from air pollution.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to tackle toxic air and protect people’s health right across England. That demands a target consistent with, as we have heard, the updated WHO standard guideline level of five micrograms per cubic metre. The CBI has estimated that bringing air quality within the old WHO guideline level of 10 micrograms per cubic metre could deliver an economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum, so the economic case for a much more ambitious Government target is clear. “Ambitious” should be the watchword. The Government claim the targets they are putting forward are stretching and ambitious. Frankly, that is stretching the English language to breaking point. There is nothing ambitious about a target of 10 micrograms by 2040.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for repeating what has already been said, but it is important. The US has had a stronger legal target than the UK since 2012 and, as we have heard, it is considering making it even more ambitious. The EU Commission has proposed a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That is 10 years earlier than the UK is aiming for. It beggars belief that the Minister can stand there and pretend that the target she is putting forward is an ambitious one. It quite simply is not. As the hon. Member for Cambridge made clear, research by Imperial College London has found that the UK’s proposed target is already achievable by 2030 in 99% of the country based on existing Government commitments and recommendations from the Climate Change Committee. Scotland reached 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2020. There is a huge ambition-shaped hole in the Government’s plans. Ministers love to stand up and tell us how the UK is being world-beating. How about actually living up to that rhetoric rather than just using words that are frankly meaningless? We have heard that the public wants more. Some 90% of those who responded to the consultation disagreed with this—I cannot even say “ambition”—particular target.
There is an even broader case for more ambition, given that the policies needed to accelerate the reduction of PM2.5, particularly cutting the use of fossil fuels for transport, have the additional benefit of supporting the delivery of net zero.
Set against all of that, the Government’s plans to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to give a full picture of air pollution across the country. We have already heard that, by 2028, the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance against the targets, and the SI will clearly not deliver reductions in pollution for those who live near sources of pollution, such as main roads in cities, because compliance with the population exposure reduction target will be assessed only by using urban or suburban background sites where PM2.5 is, as we have heard, not influenced significantly by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site.
If we want to make a real difference to people’s health and reduce the burden on the NHS, we need to do so much better. I urge an urgent rethink and new legal targets that are commensurate with the scale of the problem, and I beg the Minister not to stand up and try to pretend that the targets are ambitious, when they quite clearly are not.
Trudy Harrison
A multitude of aspects have been discovered on this particular issue, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Huddersfield for his work to improve the quality of air in areas around schools. When I was a Minister in the Department for Transport, we set up Active Travel England. One of the primary reasons for doing that was to reduce car commuter journeys and improve air quality, and an awful lot of work has gone into improving the air quality in streets around schools. We appointed Chris Boardman as the national commissioner for walking and cycling, and an awful lot of good work has been done.
Our evidence suggests that it is not practically possible to set 5 micrograms per cubic metre as a nationwide target. A study of the level being experienced by people in parts of south-east England in 2018, indicated that 6 to 8 micrograms per cubic metre came from a combination of natural sources, emissions from other countries—such as the air blown across the English channel from Europe—and shipping. The World Health Organisation guidelines are not ready-made targets for adoption. The WHO does not expect any country to adopt its guidelines without first understanding what would be required to meet the targets. While we expect that the majority of the country will meet the target of 2.5 micrograms by 2030, not all parts of the country will be able to do that.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I was only going to point out that, given that the European Commission’s target is a heck of a lot more ambitious than ours, it is a bit rich to stand there and say that the reason we cannot meet our target is because we will have dirty air coming over from people in Europe. They are cleaning up their air much quicker than we are, so that argument simply does not hold.
Trudy Harrison
I would like to make it absolutely clear that the EU Commission’s proposed target has yet to be accepted or, indeed, implemented. We are going further than ever before to adopt the targets, and the environmental improvement plan will set out, with even more detail and in the next few days, how we will go about that.
Trudy Harrison
I am afraid I will not. We have a further statutory instrument to get through tonight, so I will take my seat ahead of the next debate.
Question put.
Trudy Harrison
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Targets (Residual Waste) (England) Regulations 2022.
We want to make more of our precious resources. As it is, we produce far too much waste. The target to halve residual waste is a crucial legal mechanism to drive materials up the waste hierarchy, so that we make the best and most productive use of them.
The target will dramatically reduce the amount of valuable materials we bury or burn. There are several ways to achieve this. We want to reduce the waste being produced in the first place. We can do that by making products last longer, by making them designed for repair, and, in the case of foods, simply by being less wasteful as a society. We must also redouble our efforts to maximise what we recycle, so that materials can be used again and again in the productive economy.
We will embark on our target pathway by delivering on our commitments to implement the collection and packaging reforms, including our deposit return scheme, which we announced the next steps for last Friday.
Daniel Zeichner
So we get to waste, and the Opposition have three main areas of concern on this SI. First, the waste reduction target omits the majority of waste in England. The 50% reduction target excludes major mineral waste created from construction, demolition and excavation activities. That is a significant oversight, as that type of waste, while easier to handle than other waste streams, accounts for the majority of waste produced in England and carries environmental costs. The construction industry uses more resources than any other sector in the UK, the extraction of which results in high carbon and environmental impacts—and yet we have heard little about that from the Minister today.
Secondly, the lack of ambition is an area of concern. Government modelling shows a rapid reduction in residual waste of 25% expected between 2024 and 2028. That means that half of the targeted fall in residual waste is estimated to have been achieved by 2028, with the next 14 years seeing the remaining 25% fall from 2019 levels. That moderate fall over more than a decade can be achieved with minimal measures, a licence for low- ambition waste reduction policies throughout the 2030s. This should be set against the Office for Environmental Protection’s recent assessment of the Government’s progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan, which reports that waste headline indicators have actually deteriorated since 2018.
The need for a high-ambition approach to drive meaningful progress towards waste reduction has never been greater. With Government modelling suggesting that 91.9% of waste is either readily or potentially recyclable—or potentially substitutable to a material that can be recycled—the 50% target falls short of both what is necessary and achievable.
Finally, we agree with many stakeholders, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, who want to see a target to reduce resource consumption. A target for residual waste alone does not account for the extractive effects of economic activity on the natural environment, and will not prevent them increasing. The Government had been expected to introduce a resource productivity target as part of the Environment Act target-setting process. They have stated that more time is needed to develop the evidence base and assess policies.
The Office for Environmental Protection and environmental NGOs have recommended the Government develop a target in that area that addresses resource use and the associated environmental impacts of consumption, including embodied carbon. Not setting a target for resource use, or for reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, means we will just carry on exploiting natural resources and exporting waste abroad, such as plastic for recycling, which can be an environmentally damaging substitute for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she is going to do about it?
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), the shadow Minister for waste, attended the Foodservice Packaging Association environment seminar last Thursday. It was clear from the response to her remarks that the industry is crying out for change and action in equal measure. This statutory instrument, like all the others—we go right back to where we started—I am afraid suffers from the crucial lack of ambition that makes the targets too easily achievable, frankly. That is a fault not just of the SIs we are debating, but of the Government’s targets in general.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister may not know that I have a long history in waste. I started Urban Mines 20 years ago and SERA—Socialist Environment and Resources Association—25 years ago, and a number of other organisations such as Policy Connect that focus on the challenge for so many of our towns, cities and communities. We make waste, and then we do not want to take responsibility for what happens to it. I have always believed that we should not only have a sense of responsibility for the waste that we create through a profligate lifestyle, but ensure that we use the waste—use it again, rather than drilling holes in the earth’s crust to take virgin material.
Will the Minister express some indication of support for my Bill that is before the House of Commons? It would ensure that, for every local authority, we have an annual assessment of their performance on waste. There are a number of criteria, but every year there would be a formal report to the Department and then a debate, so that we could see which local authorities are lagging and which are meeting targets. We could really make some progress.
I am absolutely fed up with people who live in a rural or semi-rural environment, produce a great deal of waste and then expect it all to end up in your constituency, Mr Stringer, in mine, buried in some hole in the ground somewhere, or exported to a struggling country many miles away. Does the Minister agree that we must make it a responsibility to minimise waste? We should recycle and reuse—all things we know how to do. More ambitious targets should surely be a top priority for the Government and for all of us in politics today.
Trudy Harrison
I really disagree with Opposition Members when they say that the target is not sufficiently ambitious. Our target to halve residual waste is very ambitious. I also remind Members that the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the targets can be met. Our analysis is therefore based on a credible policy pathway that is feasible to model, and it concludes that a 50% reduction target is at the upper limit of achievability.
Meeting the target requires progress beyond the existing commitment to achieve a 65% municipal recycling rate by 2035, as well as focused action to prevent waste arriving in the first place. We are focused on much of what has been heard today, but the improvements so far, since 2010, are significant. Waste in scope of the target of being sent to landfill has decreased substantially from 24.3 million tonnes in 2010 to 13.3 million tonnes in 2018. In 2019, residual waste excluding major mineral waste was 574 kg per person in England, which equates to 32.3 million tonnes of waste sent to residual waste treatment; the target will reduce residual waste per person to 287 kg by 2042. In consultation, the majority of non-campaign respondents—49%—agreed with the scope. At public consultation, the majority of respondents —44%—agreed with the method for measuring against the target.
The hon. Member for asked me to look into his Bill. I am happy to suggest to my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), that she should meet the hon. Gentleman to learn more about his proposal.
In conclusion, together, the six SIs that we have debated this evening contain 13 stretching targets to tackle some of the biggest pressures facing our environment, as we have heard this evening. The targets are the result of significant scientific evidence collection and development over preceding years. There has been input from evidence partners and independent experts. The targets are supported by over 800 pages of published evidence. I can only suggest to Members present with a keen interest—that interest has been demonstrated by the multiple interventions —that they check out gov.uk and peruse those 800 pages of published evidence.
Daniel Zeichner
To return to the beginning, the Minister extols the Government’s progress, but how does she square that with the Office for Environmental Protection’s statement:
“We assessed 23 environmental targets and found none where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track”?
Trudy Harrison
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that targets are easy to set, which is why the Environment Act 2021 requires the Secretary of State to make meaningful and achievable targets. Further details of how we will achieve those targets are not far away. They will be set out in our environmental improvement plan. I look forward to sharing it with colleagues when it is published on 31 January. These targets are stretching. They are challenging. They require Government to work with the whole of society to achieve, but the results are worth fighting for: an improved environment, left in a better state than we found it. That is the intention of this Government. These targets support exactly that.
Question put.