Grand Committee
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which I think is likely, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Public Charge Point Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Charge Point Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the transition to zero-emission vehicles is vital to realising our net-zero ambitions. Cars and vans are the source of 68% of the UK’s domestic transport emissions. That is why this Government have committed to ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030.
We have already made significant progress towards this target. There are more than 1.2 million plug-in vehicles licensed in the UK, 58% of which are battery electric. We will shortly confirm details of our world-leading zero-emission vehicle mandate, which will continue to drive the uptake of these vehicles. However, the successful transition to zero-emission vehicles also requires a reliable, accessible and affordable charging network to be in place across the country.
There are already 45,500 public charge points installed across the country. The Government and industry are continuing to work together to drive these numbers up. The Government expect there to be at least 300,000 public charge points by 2030, largely led by the private sector. ChargeUK, the industry body for the electric vehicle charging industry, has committed to doubling the number of public charge points over the next 12 months.
These regulations were laid before Parliament on 11 July, under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018. The regulations will ensure that drivers of electric vehicles will be able to travel confidently, knowing that they can find a fully operational charge point suitable for their needs and can easily pay. Electric vehicle drivers can currently face challenges when trying to charge their vehicles. Concerns are often raised about locating a suitable charge point or the charge point not working on arrival. Paying for charging can also be confusing, with multiple apps and websites to navigate, and prices are displayed in different ways, making it hard to compare and find value for money. Left unchecked, these issues run the risk of eroding consumer confidence in the public charge point network, discouraging those looking to own an electric vehicle and slowing the electrification of fleets.
These regulations take bold steps to remove these obstacles. They are essential to accelerating electric vehicle ownership and reaching our net-zero ambitions. To develop these regulations, my department engaged with consumer groups, vehicle manufacturers, technical experts and the charge point industry, to fully understand the barriers and potential mitigations.
I turn to the content of the SI. To make payments easier across the charging network, these regulations introduce contactless payment at many new and existing charge points. Within one year, all new public charge points with a power rating of 8 kilowatts and above must provide contactless payment and all existing rapid charge points of 50 kilowatts and above must be retrofitted. These regulations also require that within two years, all charge point operators must offer payment roaming at all their charge points through at least one third-party roaming provider. Consumers will be able to pay for a charge across multiple charge point networks through one app or radio frequency identity card, RFID card, which is similar to a fuel card often used by drivers of petrol or diesel cars. This last element is crucial for fleet electrification, as it enables fleet operators to centralise the billing for charging their electric vehicles.
Pricing transparency will be mandated by these regulations. This means that drivers will be able to understand how much they are paying to charge their vehicle; it will empower them to find the best value for their needs. The total price of a charge must be displayed in pence per kilowatt hour and should be clearly displayed either on the charge point or through a separate device, to make price comparison across different networks much easier. Once the charging session has started, the price must not increase. Offers such as combining parking and charging fees will remain permissible if the charging component is also displayed in pence per kilowatt hour.
Charge point operators must also open their charge point data to the public. This will include live data on whether a charge point is operational and available. Data must be accurate and conform to a data standard—the open charge point interface—within one year of these regulations coming into force. Opening up charge point data will drive innovation in the development of consumer-friendly apps. This will put more detailed and reliable data at the fingertips of consumers, making it easier to locate available charge points.
The regulations will also require world-leading reliability across the public rapid charge point network. Charge point operators will be required to ensure that their network of rapid public charge points is working 99% of the time. This will be measured as an annual average and will apply one year from the date these regulations come into effect. Such a measure will give the public far greater confidence in the public charge point network.
Finally, the regulations will mandate that charge point operators must run a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, free-to-use telephone helpline for consumers. This should be set up within one year.
The regulations are essential to improving the consumer experience of driving and charging electric vehicles in the UK. They will deliver a public charge point network that the public can rely on. Charge points will be easy to find, with prices that are easy to understand and a service that is easy to pay for. The regulations will be vital in accelerating electric vehicle uptake and driving forward the Government’s commitment to end the sale of petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030. This step is crucial in the fight against climate change and shows the UK public that we are committed to enhancing the way in which they use the road network. I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, as an electric car owner of six years, I welcome the attention being paid to our usage. The regulations represent a first step forward in the right direction, but it is too little and there is a long way to go.
The incidence of range anxiety is well known. Celebrities have written about how they will never drive electric again, having been thwarted in their attempts to charge up as they go on long journeys. The lack of charging points is almost a national joke. It has taken about five years of pleading for Parliament to install two chargers; after some postponements, they are finally expected after the Conference Recess. These are the rules for payment—or at least one of them:
“Via the QR code, scan the QR Code using your mobile device and follow the on-screen instructions on your mobile device, add a payment card, and pay as you go for the energy charge”.
I can see what will happen. Even that is relatively simple compared with some others—I will come to that point.
I solved my own charging issues by exchanging, at considerable expense, my low-range electric car for a much longer-range one, but many cannot afford that and many more live in terraced houses and blocks of flats with no access to a charging point in their garage or driveway, at work or in the road. Even in the road, there is no guarantee that a charger will be free and working or that a non-electric vehicle will not have taken the space reserved for an electric one. I have known banks of six chargers where you find that two of them are Tesla only, two are broken, one does not fit your car and one is in use. I gather that Tesla is now making its dedicated charge points available to other makes, but one will need a special adapter to connect the car. That needs to be widely known. How can we persuade the public to take up electric vehicles when charging and infrastructure are so lacking and complicated?
The regulations require contactless. To the public, that means tapping one’s everyday credit or debit card. Thankfully, it seems that is what the regulations mandate, instead of the current need to carry a wallet full of payment cards issued by many different charging providers. But this requirement applies only to new public charge points—we have to wait another year for the old ones—and those with a power of 8 kilowatts or above.
Moreover, public charge points are defined in the regulations not to include workplace charge points, points for a specific car make—Tesla, for example—or those for use by a visitor to residential premises. They do not apply to micro-businesses or to blocks of flats, and they exclude slow charge points. Why? Within two years, users will be able to use a payment card provided by one provider for another’s charge point, but it seems as if a provider need link up with only one other. We need one card to be used at every charge point nationally.
We need lighting requirements. Too often, the charge point, its tiny print about how to use it and the socket are shrouded in dark, at night and in the rain. Currently, the need to have wifi and an app may be a major obstacle. Imagine if you were a petrol car driver who gets to a petrol filling station late at night, only to find that your car is not allowed to be filled from that brand of pump and that you have to drive on and find another, or that the wifi is not working but is required.
The 99% liability is spread too thinly because it applies to the entire network, not the individual charging points. All in all, these regulations go too far in avoiding excessive regulatory burdens on industry, as they put it. I prefer to express it as too weak a requirement on industry to make the charge points that it provides, and from which it profits, all work all the time. Charging points should be uniform and there needs to be an end to the multiple, confusing charging membership packages.
The provision of data mandated in the regulations is good. One needs to know in advance whether the charging point that one wants to rely on is actually free and in working order. I fear that the mandated 24-hour telephone helpline may turn out to be one more where one is left holding on in the dark—and the rain—while music plays and a recording says, “Your call is important to us”.
Although these regulations herald an improvement on the current situation, it is only seven years until 2030 and the phasing out of petrol cars. There is not enough here to persuade the worried consumer to trust electric vehicle charging, because there are too many exemptions and providers are being given too long to adjust, given that electric cars have been mass produced and used since at least 2010. The regulations need to apply to every charge point, wherever it is, whatever its strength and very soon.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on echoing my personal experiences time after time as the driver of an electric vehicle, which I used to be.
I understand that, as we speak, the EV charge points are finally being installed in the Royal Court of the House of Lords. I suspect there are not enough, but at least there will be a charge point or two, so it seems that we can finally speak about these issues in this House without a sense of hypocrisy—demanding of others that they make a provision that we would not even make for ourselves. My thanks to the House for making that decision but, if there are only two charge points, I hope it realises that it will need to add many more very quickly to service the number of people driving electric cars who belong to this House.
As I just implied, I no longer have my electric car, or any car, because a few weeks ago my Nissan Leaf suddenly lost power in the fast lane of the M25. This is apparently not an unexpected feature of the Nissan Leaf reduction box; I cannot tell you how casual the company was about this failure. The car is scrap, and I am alive and uninjured thanks only to some sort of hand of fate, frankly, having tried to manoeuvre on momentum across four lanes of traffic on the M25.
However, I owned an EV for long enough to understand all the trials and challenges of public charging, so well laid out by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. I realise that this SI is supposed to redress those. As I read the details, I became more and more disappointed and frustrated.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying that I do not have an electric vehicle, which is probably why I am more content than the present company and the noble Baronesses who have experienced them.
The transition to electric vehicles is essential for the UK to meet its climate targets. It also represents an opportunity for economic growth and the future of our automotive industry. I therefore welcome the Government’s attempts to better regulate public charge points to make their use a more attractive prospect for motorists.
If electric vehicles are to become the norm, they must be as reliable and convenient as their petrol or diesel equivalents. Unfortunately, I fear that these regulations alone will not achieve this. The Minister will be aware that, at the current rate, we will have fewer than half the public electric vehicle charging points that the Government predict will be needed by 2030 and there is huge regional inequality in access to these points.
The borough in which we are today has a greater number of public charging points than the 14 biggest northern cities combined. For those people living in charging deserts, improved reliability does not change the fact that they do not have access to charging points. Has the Minister considered new binding targets for electric vehicle charge points to boost their rollout?
I have three questions on the regulations, on which I hope the Minister can provide assurances. The impact assessment estimates a £109 million net cost to business per year. How have the Government sought to minimise this?
Secondly, can the Minister explain why the regulations represent 99% reliability per rapid network rather than per individual rapid charge point? Having said that, I am amazed by the 99% figure. I know of no system that has unsupervised public access and works at that level of availability. It is a very rough world—a world where you are exposed to the unsupervised British citizen. Perhaps the reason, as I read the SI, is that failing this test leads to a £10,000 fine and nothing more. I suspect that that will be seen as just part of taxation.
Finally, given that micro-businesses are excluded, how many charging points will not be impacted by these regulations?
I welcome this SI because it is a first step, as the Minister will accept, but the overwhelming problem is availability. I was given the figure of 300,000 as the target so I researched it; I found a reference by the Minister of State, Jesse Norman, from 7 March this year, to a White Paper, Taking Charge: The Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Strategy. Unfortunately, this is not uniquely a document that is undated and unsigned. On page 38, there is a reference to the 300,000 figure:
“However, if we assume that on a national basis there is a high proportion of charging at workplaces and that consumers adopt efficient charging behaviour, as well as lower mileage, around 300,000 public chargepoints would be required”.
So this figure assumes that useful behavioural changes will occur. The document goes on to say:
“This number would increase up to around 700,000 if there is a higher proportion of on-street chargers across the country, and consumers drive more and adopt relatively inefficient charging behaviours, staying longer parked at chargepoints while not actually charging. Our estimates are in line with the latest industry findings”.
It seems to me that 300,000 is a pretty adventurous figure but 700,000 is surely impossible.
This is a crisis area. As the decade plays out, we must create an atmosphere that means that, if you buy an electric car, it will be as convenient to drive as the petrol car you give up. I do not see how we are going to get there. I hope that the Minister can give us some comfort that this aspiration is practical. It is certainly not practical simply on the basis of this SI.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate on these regulations, which relate to electric vehicle charge points. I take seriously many of the issues raised by noble Lords.
My overarching observation is that the consultation for these regulations took place in the first half of 2021 and, since then, we have had to reach a balance and work hard with an industry that is, in some cases, quite nascent and, in others, made up of fast-growing businesses. We need to balance the burden that we put on business, its cost and the maximum reasonable utility to EV drivers. That balance is quite difficult, which, to a certain extent, is why there are delays in introducing some of these things. One needs to give the industry some time—for example, the two years to sign up to a third-party payment roaming provider. Of course, other interventions are within one year.
In positive news, we are already seeing a significant movement from the charge point providers because they know that this is coming now. These regulations have not yet been through the House of Commons but they will, and the providers know that they are coming. We are seeing movement and we have had to reach that difficult balance. A number of noble Lords have highlighted particular issues where they feel that further changes might be made, for example in certain circumstances where a charger is 7 kilowatts and the new requirement is 8 kilowatts, for contactless; that was brought up by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. We will do a consultation later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me to recognise that this is the start of a journey. It is very much so—I expect us to develop the requirements over time—but we absolutely do not want to stop the industry in its tracks by getting these charge points out there when it is very much helping the Government and the country.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
On the reliability issue, why does that not apply to the AC network, which is the one that most people use? It applies only to rapid charging, which is, I think, the DC network.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Again, it goes back to what we feel able to bring in at this time in terms of reliability. It will be something that we keep under review because we should be in a situation where we can require reliability. To my mind, the most important element of all this is open data because that will provide real-time information about whether a charge point is working and whether somebody is currently plugged into it. I accept that there will be circumstances where people are parked in a charging spot, as experienced by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech —that is very unhelpful—but many of the big concerns will be met by the open data. The other thing that will happen is that the roaming providers will start competing on the accessibility of that data and their ability to analyse it and provide it to drivers in an easy-to-use form.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, mentioned micro-businesses. As noble Lords will know, it is current standard practice to exclude micro-businesses. Most of them are not excluded from the requirement to do price transparency, which we think will be helpful. There are 28 micro-businesses that will be excluded from the requirements set out in these regulations. They operate around 5,000 devices so they are less than 10% of the market. One anticipates that those micro-businesses will not be micro-businesses for much longer because they will grow or there will be some consolidation in the market. However, that is the way that regulations often work; I hope it is helpful to have that explained.
There has been some focus on the helpline and the fact that calls may be held waiting despite being very valuable to the company. We agree that there is always a risk of that. The operators of 24/7 helplines will have to report to the Secretary of State every month on the total number of calls and the time it takes to resolve those issues, which I believe will be helpful.
I did not receive any questions about enforcement but I think it is worth noting that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be the enforcement body for these regulations. It is very experienced at this. It will take a targeted approach to enforcement, so operators that we know are potentially not quite as good as others will get far more inspections than those we know are meeting not only the letter of the regulations but the spirit too. It is all about working with industry on this. We will take a pragmatic approach to enforcement but there will be financial penalties that can be used if required.
Turning to matters slightly beyond the statutory instrument, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in the number of charge points. A number of figures have been bandied around. The Government stick to their estimate that we will need around 300,000 charge points at a minimum; we recognise that it is a minimum. In the past year, we have seen an increase of 38%. In May and June alone, we saw an extra 1,000 charge points going in, so there is momentum in installations coming down the track.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was a little sceptical about whether we will even reach 300,000. Not everybody is sceptical. The independent National Infrastructure Commission has stated that it expects us to reach the figure if we can increase the number of charge points by around 30% per year, which has happened in recent years. Sometimes this needs a little financial help from government, and financial help is available. We have the rapid charging fund, which is good for less viable grid connection but also focuses very much on the strategic road network and motorway service stations. Then we have the local electric vehicle infrastructure fund. This comes to the point about how there are fewer charging points in certain areas. I encourage local authorities in those areas to ensure that they have made themselves aware of this fund and applied for it. Last time I looked, a number of local authorities had not. It is a way to improve areas. National government cannot do it but local authorities can pick up the baton and work with that.
I seem to have come to the end of my notes. I therefore hope that I have come to the end of your Lordships’ questions. However, as ever, my officials will read through Hansard. I am fairly sure that a letter will be forthcoming anyway because there will be other things that we would like to explain about these regulations.
Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved. In doing so, I hope that it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2023.
The purpose of the instruments before the Committee is to strengthen environmental civil sanctions and provide environmental regulators with the tools that they need to hold operators to account. The instruments have been grouped as they form a package of amendments to the civil sanctions available to Natural England and the Environment Agency.
A public consultation on these proposed changes was held earlier this year, first trailed in the plan for water, and received majority support from the public and a range of operators under the legislation in question. Strengthening regulations that hold polluters to account, from water companies to waste operators, is part of the Government’s wider plan to reduce pollution and protect the biodiversity and ecology of our natural environment. Earlier this year, we published our environmental improvement plan. It provides an ambitious five-year road map for a cleaner, greener country, with a delivery plan for restoring nature and improving environmental quality across the board. We have since gone further with our comprehensive integrated plan for water, which will deliver clean and plentiful water.
To deliver on our ambitions, we must ensure that regulators have all the tools they need to take action on unacceptable breaches of environmental regulations. The current provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 is capped at £250,000. This means that some operators may think that they can price in the penalty rather than follow the law. Therefore, current penalties do not act as a strong deterrent, particularly for large operators with significant turnover.
The limitation can be resolved by the amendments before the Committee today, which will entirely remove the cap. This will future-proof penalties to ensure that Natural England and the Environment Agency can determine the amount of the penalty in line with their enforcement policy. Penalties will be based on the degree of environmental harm and culpability as well as the size of the operator, ensuring that penalties are calibrated to act as a proportionate deterrent and punishment.
Currently, there is no provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The majority of Environmental Agency investigations are conducted under the environmental permitting regulations but the agency is limited in its enforcement options to warnings, advice, guidance or criminal prosecutions. A “justice gap” exists for moderate to severe offences. This limitation can be resolved by the instruments, which will introduce variable monetary penalties to the environmental permitting regulations.
Strong safeguards for determining the penalty, including a requirement on the Environment Agency to take into account an operator’s ability to pay, remain in place. The Environment Agency will also continue to use the guidelines for environmental offences published by the independent Sentencing Council as the basis to determine the amounts of all variable monetary penalties. The guidelines include a number of safeguards to ensure that penalties are proportionate and take into account the size of an operator, its ability to pay, its degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the incident. The instruments require the environmental regulators to update and publish guidance that sets out their methodology for determining the amounts of these penalties. A consultation on updating the guidance has been launched and will ensure a fair, proportionate and consistent approach.
The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area. The Government’s environmental improvement plan and integrated plan for water make our commitment to protect the environment clear. These instruments will ensure that the regulators are able to act swiftly against those who would threaten to harm it. They build on announcements earlier this year, with the proceeds of fines going into water improvement schemes through a new water restoration fund, and on water company dividends being linked to environmental performance. Together, this is a strong package designed to target those companies most egregiously harming our environment.
I commend this draft instrument to the House.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on these two statutory instruments. It is regrettable but not entirely surprising that businesses find it cheaper to pay the current fine of up to £250,000 than to fix the problem causing the breach of environmental law. There have been numerous debates in the House on storm overflows and the resultant sewage spills into waterways. It is time that this was resolved in a way that effectively deters the polluters from their anti-social activities. I fully support the removal of the cap of £250,000 for a larger fine and hope that the threat of a more substantial fine will be a sufficient deterrent.
I have looked at the consultation questions and responses on changing the cap. There was enormous support, with 88% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals to change the cap. I smiled to myself when I saw that the lowest support for this change came from the waste and resource management and energy sectors. Some 27 organisations ranging across a wide variety of interests are listed as having taken part in the consultation, from the Clean Rivers Trust and the River Otter Fisheries Association to Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water. There was a good cross-section of responses.
I noted that there was some concern that removing the cap might result in disproportionately high penalties. This would obviously depend on how someone had been affected by the breach of legal protection; the Minister set out the process for assessing fines. A minor breach is unlikely to receive a high penalty whereas a major incident that results in contamination over a large area and on a scale that takes huge resources to clean up should, quite rightly, deserve a substantial penalty.
Only by implementing the “polluter pays” principle in full will our environment eventually be cleared up. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also supports closing the gaps in the enforcement regime. I fully support this SI.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a delight to be back in the Moses Room. I hope noble Lords all had a rewarding and relaxing recess—if they can remember it after eight days. We come together again after a summer of yet more horrendous headlines about illegal discharges into our waterways, amateur athletes being taken ill after swimming in our rivers and, apparently—according to the Office for Environmental Protection—the Government and our regulators may have broken the law with regard to the 852 sewage discharges that are now occurring daily. This is a sorry state of affairs.
It is only right and proper that we review the current regulatory and enforcement framework so that we ensure that criminals are punished for breaking the law. I just worry that the proposals in the legislation before us are more of a political stunt rather than a plan to deal with the current crisis affecting our waterways, given that uncapped fines are already available to the financial regulator.
I know from personal experience that the Minister is truly committed to protecting our environment. His record is clear and not to be questioned. However, we are seeing such mixed messages from the Government regarding their commitment to environmental regulation: they promised not to reduce regulation yet, even as we speak, their proposals in the Chamber regarding nutrient neutrality in the levelling up Bill are seemingly a broken promise related to this issue. So I am sure that the Minister understands why some of us have some concerns about the current state of environmental regulation and enforcement.
I turn to the substance of this SI. We will of course support these changes but, as was made clear during the debate in the other place, His Majesty’s Opposition are not convinced that these actions alone will make any real impact on the sewage crisis currently before us. Given the urgency of the situation and the facts that your Lordships’ House sat for longer than the other place prior to the Summer Recess, that MPs agreed the legislation on 18 July and that it was laid before us on 12 July, can the Minister confirm why this SI was not brought forward for approval sooner?
There is a long history of regulators having the power to issue fines or pursue legal action but there are relatively few cases of these steps reaching a conclusion. What, if anything, makes the Minister believe that this time will be different? Can she provide the Committee with more detail about how these fines will be set aside and spent? The Secretary of State has previously said that they will go into a dedicated fund, which will, where possible, invest in local improvements. Can the Minister provide a definition of “local”? I do not aim to be difficult but is this an aim or a requirement? What will happen if it is thought that infrastructure improvement elsewhere would have a greater impact on future discharge levels in a locality?
While I have the Minister’s attention, can he update us on when the sewage task force established by Defra last met? I believe that it has met only once in the past 12 months. If the Government are truly serious about tackling this crisis, the task force may wish to meet more regularly than once a year. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their response to this instrument and their qualified support for what the Government are doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, rightly pointed out that the consultation produced a clear level of support, which is why we are taking this through.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked why this is being brought forward now. It has been through a process, including the consultation and the response to it, and SIs cannot be done overnight. They need to be drafted and brought forward properly; I think that we brought this one forward in as timely a way as possible. I hope that she does not think that this a stunt or any form of window dressing because it is a very serious attempt to tackle the justice gap that I referred to in my earlier remarks. The SI was brought in to address precisely the justice gap that exists within the environmental civil sanctions regime. Expectations of the Government and the public on protections for the environment are higher than ever. We need to address this gap and ensure that regulators have the right tools to take action against environmental offences.
The noble Baroness asked whether this will make a difference. Deterrent is the best form of avoiding pollution in the first place. If the level of fines was no deterrent and was being priced in by some bad actors, that will no longer be the case and they will face very severe financial penalties indeed. It should be added that, since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 criminal prosecutions against water companies and secured £150 million in fines. The regulators—the Environment Agency and Ofwat—have recently launched the largest-ever criminal and civil investigation into water companies’ sewage discharges, at more than 2,200 treatment works. The Environment Agency will act against non-compliance. This will include criminal prosecution, for which there can be unlimited fines. On 12 July we began legislation to introduce unlimited civil penalties, which is before the Committee today.
This needs to be seen in the context of more activity than there has ever been to try to address the quality of our waters. The storm overflow actions start from the basis of knowing where the storm overflows are, which we did not when we came into government. The coalition Government set about requiring water companies to tell us where their overflows were. We are now at the point of knowing every single one, and that is part of the reason why a light has been shone on the activities of some water and sewerage companies. Transparency is the best form of sanction because people can see what is going on—and so can the enforcement authorities. We have increased monitoring and will have 100% monitored by the end of this year.
Other continuous efforts will be part of this. In 2022, 93% of our bathing waters in England met the highest standards of “good” or “excellent”, up from 76% in 2010, but that statistic will not see us rest on our laurels. We want to make sure that all bathing waters are of good or excellent standard. We are eliminating all storm overflows and seeing investment levels never seen before.
The noble Baroness asked about the sewage task force. I do not know when it last met, but I am happy to find out and share that. There are a whole lot of engagement activities, including talking to water and sewerage companies and working with the Environment Agency. Just because one body has not met, that does not mean there is not a resolve to deal with this problem; this is part of it. I hope that, with those remarks, I have addressed this statutory instrument.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid in draft before the House on 28 June, be approved. They amend part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The Government committed to amending these regulations in the response to the 2021 consultation on the extended producer responsibility for packaging—EPR—scheme to obtain enhanced packaging waste data from materials facilities. The EPR scheme will move the cost of dealing with waste generated by households from local taxpayers and councils to businesses that handle and use packaging, making producers responsible for the packaging that they place on the market.
In 2020, Defra undertook a post-implementation review of part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The review included a recommendation to explore the connections between materials facilities’ data reporting and the EPR scheme, and concluded that Defra would consider amending the regulations. These amendments will improve the quality and quantity of packaging waste data that materials facilities are required to collect, record and report. In turn, this will support fair and accurate cost assessments and payments through the EPR scheme.
I now turn to the details of this instrument. These amendments to the regulations will introduce enhanced sampling, recording and reporting requirements for materials facilities and increase the type of facilities in scope of the regulations. Materials facilities will be in scope of the amended regulations if they receive and manage at least 1,000 tonnes of household or household-type material a year for the primary purpose of reuse and recycling. The sampling requirements will include a higher input sampling frequency and more material categories for facilities to sample and report against. Materials facilities will also need to separately measure, record and report against packaging and deposit return scheme material proportions. This data will support packaging composition calculations or exemptions under EPR. The enhanced recording and reporting requirements will require materials facilities to provide more information on waste suppliers and samples taken, as well as to report all raw data to regulators to support improved analysis.
To give an example of this in practice, my local council, West Berkshire, contracts Veolia, a waste management company, to perform household waste collections. When a Veolia truck picks up household waste and delivers it to a materials facility for reuse and recycling, that facility will sample the waste so that we know how much of it is EPR packaging material and how much is newspapers and magazines, deposit return containers, contamination or other non-packaging materials. The waste collected by Veolia from neighbouring councils or from its own commercial contracts with businesses would be sampled separately. This will help ensure that the EPR payments to my local council reflect the quality and quantity of packaging materials collected from households. This will provide valuable new information to help my local council optimise waste collection operations and, through EPR payments, provide a new means to incentivise councils to improve performance and ensure that producers get good value for money.
We consulted industry through the 2021 EPR consultation and continue to engage with the waste sector on these new legislative requirements and the implementation of the wider collection and packaging waste reforms. We have also published guidance on these requirements and will work closely with the Environment Agency to support facilities in preparing to meet the new requirements over the next year.
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 detail the regulatory functions available in monitoring and enforcing these regulations. These amending regulations apply to England and Wales only; Scotland and Northern Ireland are aligned in our policy intent regarding bringing in enhanced materials facility sampling requirements and waste data reporting to support EPR. My officials have worked closely at an official level with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.
These measures will be crucial for providing a mechanism to obtain the enhanced data on packaging and waste management services needed to achieve the effective implementation of EPR and realise the associated environmental benefits. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has, as always, introduced this SI with clarity. This SI relates to extended producer responsibility for packaging, whereby the producer pays a levy or tax for the waste that it produces, which is then collected by the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has in the past accused me of being “nerdy” over certain issues. I fear that waste is one of those issues.
The public consultation took place on this scheme from March to June 2021. As a result of the responses to the consultation, Defra has made changes to the scheme and the implementation date has been extended to 2024. The postponement of the implementation date, along with the possibility of changes to the scheme itself, has caused concern in the plastics and glass industries. On Monday evening, I attended a dinner hosted by the Industry and Parliamentary Trust entitled “Unpacking Waste Regulation: Extended Producer Responsibility”. The discussion around the table was fascinating with many raising concerns about the lack of clear and transparent goals.
I am also perturbed about the scope of the material facilities, referred to in the EM as “MFs”. There is nothing giving further information on what form these material facilities will take. Can the Minister give information on the distinct types of material facilities? Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that waste will arrive at the MFs unsorted. However, in many areas of the country, consumers are already separating their waste into glass, paper, card, plastic bottles, aluminium, steel et cetera. Consumers are up for helping with the problem of waste and separating it out themselves and should be encouraged to do so. What is needed is consistent kerbside recycling collections. What are the plans for this? There needs to be a complete plan for a circular waste economy. Can the Minister please give a timetable for the introduction of this?
Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a list of the responses to the consultation on the part of the Government. There is clarity over the collection of data on weighing and measuring the waste received and the collection of data will give a reasonably accurate picture of what is being produced, but what then happens to the waste? This is equally important. What it does not tell us is what happens to the waste. Does it go to incineration or chemical recycling or is it shipped offshore to be dealt with by other countries, such as Turkey? Currently, 60% of our waste is sent to Turkey. Can the Minister say what will happen with glass?
Paragraph 11 indicates that guidance will be issued for materials facilities in advance of October 2024 when the regulation comes into force. I am not sure whether the Minister said that that guidance had been issued. If not, he will understand that businesses need a long time to adapt to new regulations, in some cases as long as 18 months. However, it is already too late for that deadline to be met. Has the guidance been produced? If not, when is it likely to be produced?
The original proposals were for 60 kilograms of every 125 tonnes of mixed waste from each supplier to be tested. This has now been increased to 60 kilograms for every 75 tonnes of waste. Are suppliers likely to have mixed waste? Will it not already be separated? Some MFs deal with single waste streams or already separated waste while others do not. Can the Minister say what percentage of MFs receive separated waste and what percentage receive mixed waste?
Although this SI is an excellent step forward, there has been a lot of delay and uncertainty. Are the Government confident that the infrastructure is there to deal with the implementation?
I turn to the impacts set out in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid it is simply not true that there is
“no significant impact on business”,
as stated in paragraph 12.1. The DRS itself is likely to add 10p per bottle, which is unlikely to be absorbed by businesses. In paragraph 12.4, the number of MFs in scope is reduced from 739 to 159. This is a dramatic reduction; can the Minister please explain it?
Paragraph 12.6 refers to
“a larger proportion of privately operated facilities”,
thus reducing the cost to local authorities. However, some local authorities may not have their own facilities. How many local authorities use privately run facilities? There will undoubtedly be additional costs to local authorities, despite the offset to be received from the EPR levy.
Who, or which organisation, will the EPR scheme administrator be, and when is the appointment likely to be? It will be important for local authorities and businesses to know this in sufficient time before the implementation.
I apologise for the number of questions, but I am keenly interested in this subject and ensuring that the scheme operates effectively. I support the SI but am concerned that its implementation should operate efficiently and effectively.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.
Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?
A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?
Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must
“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.
Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?
During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?
Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their interest in this. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is a waste nerd. Her social life is fascinating—having dinners discussing this—and I will seek to answer in a way that respects her genuine expertise. She is absolutely right that consumers will play a key role. In a way, this also responds to what consumers are demanding. When I was a councillor, my local authority recycled and diverted away from landfill approximately 17% of waste. I am glad to say that the administration who took it over raised the rate of diversion away from landfill to 90%. Householders are determined that the circular economy described by the noble Baroness should be relevant to their lives. They object dramatically to the idea that waste diverted from landfill goes to other countries, so we want to make sure that we are creating a circular economy in this country and that there are markets for the amount of waste produced.
The noble Baroness is right that we are increasing the amount we require to be checked to 60 kilograms per 75 tonnes. After close consultation and discussions with experts and local authorities and working with materials facilities operators, we think that is realistic and will give us the data we require to have a really clear view of what is being provided by these facilities. I cannot tell her what percentage will be separated waste and what will be mixed waste because different local authorities have different contracts and arrangements, but I assure her that we are involved in a detailed level of engagement and that issues such as the EPR administrator are fundamental to making sure that this progresses.
Both noble Baronesses raised the question of deposit return schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we want to try to align our deposit return scheme across the United Kingdom, if possible. That has required us to talk closely to Scotland—which has, frankly, messed it up—and we now seem to be in a position to take forward, by some point in 2025, an effective and meaningful deposit return scheme that will deliver a massive environmental benefit. I am reminded that the plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of plastic bags of more than 95%. We think that a properly structured deposit return scheme should have only a marginal inflationary effect and should incentivise people to be part of a scheme that will see a dramatic reduction in waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, touched on the timescale of the deferral. The deferral does not apply to all obligations and requirements under EPR. The start of producer payments under EPR will be deferred by 12 months. This addresses another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Producers obligated under EPR are still required to collect and report data as per existing regulations. We need this data to develop and then share estimated EPR fees. Gathering and sharing this information will help businesses prepare for these changes, and it is something that businesses have asked for. EPR payments deferral will also impact on some specific timelines, including the introduction of modulated fees and binned packaging waste fees and payments.
We are concerned about cost, and our response to the consultation on the EPR scheme included an impact assessment, which has been referred to and which covered the expected costs to materials facilities. As we developed the amending legislation, the definition and types of materials facilities that would be in scope were clarified. As a result, we updated our assumptions regarding the number of facilities that would be in scope from 739 to 159, reducing the sampling burden where possible. Using these updated numbers, we have estimated a lower cost associated with this legislation.
This is really important: the costs associated with the new requirements within this SI were found to be lower than previously estimated in the impact assessment produced for the EPR scheme. Although the scope has reduced, the methodology to estimate the impact on the materials facilities of enhanced sampling remains unchanged from the previously published EPR impact assessment.