Plant Health etc. (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for the very useful meeting that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, had with him yesterday, and for his introduction today. [Connection lost.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

We seem to have lost the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

Sorry, my computer took on a life of its own and decided to mute.

Biosecurity has become an increasingly important issue. According to the Royal Horticultural Society, UK imports of live plants have increased by 71% since 1999. But with increasing trade comes increasing risk of pests and diseases being imported inadvertently. It is extremely important that regulatory standards are not compromised following the UK’s departure from the EU, so we are pleased to support this SI. We know that there was previously some surveillance of plants coming in from the EU that sometimes found problems, so improved legislation with additional checks on plant imports from the EU provides an opportunity to detect plant pests and diseases at the border, therefore further reducing future pest and disease problems.

I turn to the detail of the instrument before us today. The Minister has explained that it enables fees to be charged for plant health checks on imports into England from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein, bringing those countries into line with the rest of the world, and that under a phased approach, higher-risk consignments of regulated plants, plant products and other commodities imported from the EU, Switzerland and Liechtenstein have been subject to checks since 1 January this year, with such checks on the remaining regulated goods being phased in later this year and in 2022. As there are a number of different checks and dates of implementation, I would be grateful if the Minister could clearly outline the timetable and provide clarification as to how businesses and industry have been informed about these changes, and what information has been provided to ensure that they are fully ready.

Changing plant health regulations also provides an opportunity to increase public awareness of plant health and biosecurity risks, encourage wider responsibility and drive cultural change. Has the Minister’s department been working with stakeholders such as the RHS to ensure that the UK’s plant health regulatory requirements are presented in a way that is accessible and user-friendly in order to encourage this outcome?

We understand that Scotland and Wales are introducing similar provisions. Can the Minister provide information about what dialogue has been held with the devolved Administrations to ensure a timely and co-ordinated introduction across the whole of Great Britain? Will the fee structures be the same across the devolved Administrations, and is it likely that the fee rates charged could be different? Industry will have to consider how it reacts to the new charges, so if there are different fee rates, has the Minister considered how businesses are likely to react and also how importers will decide to pass on the increased costs?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked the department about the expected additional cost to business arising from these fees and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady McIntosh, have gone into detail around this. But it is important that the SLSC regarded Defra’s approach in this area as “poor legislative practice” by not having

“analysis of the expected financial impact”.

The fact that

“the Department found it necessary to phase in the fees to give businesses time to adjust”

shows that an impact on business has been recognised. As the SLSC points out, there is no real information on the anticipated impact of these changes for those in the trade.

Defra has engaged with stakeholders extensively regarding the planned changes; however, we know from previous experience that the total potential impacts of the UK leaving the single market and customs union have not always been completely clear or understood by those it affects. In earlier SIs we have raised our concerns about the capacity of ports to carry out inspections; I therefore ask the Minister: where will the inspections take place? What assessment has been made of capacity and what additional resources have been provided to ensure effective delivery of the new checks?

As a final point, in its submission to an inquiry by the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee into biosecurity, the Prospect union recommended better training for plant health officers, with the re-establishment of a viable training programme for new and established inspectors, plus joint training ventures with the Horticultural Trades Association and Royal Horticultural Society. Can the Minister inform us as to whether this has taken place and, if not, whether further training of officers is planned?

Fishing Sector and Coastal Communities

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the recent announcements are UK-wide. We want all coastal communities across the United Kingdom to benefit from these schemes and funds. We think that there is a strong future for the communities. They will command a lot of public support in terms of fiscal support, as I have described, and I am far more confident than I think the noble Baroness is portraying. There are difficulties, and we need to overcome them and advance.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, just mentioned the shellfish industry and the devastating impact on it as a result of the ban on British shellfish in the EU. What progress is being made with the European Commission on lifting this ban? Also, the Minister mentioned the Seafood Disruption Support Scheme. The criteria for it are limited in scope and the scheme does not appear to match the ambition initially indicated by government Ministers. Can the Minister assure me that the scheme will be sufficient to support those businesses affected, some of which have had no income at all this year?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, these are important points and we are seeking an urgent resolution to the matter of live bivalve molluscs from class B waters. We have an extremely strong legal case and we are awaiting a meeting with the commissioner. I should say that those businesses impacted by this disruption to trade can apply for support via the seafood response fund, which seeks to ensure that the shellfish sector is supported during this difficult period.

Heritage Organisations: Coal Supplies

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, again, we are working across departments with the heritage sector, because we want to have a long-term future for it. However, we need to find alternative ways of securing the heritage sector while having a cleaner and greener economy and reducing emissions, which are making a significant impact on people’s health.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we have heard concerns about the importation of coal, and I understand that some heritage rail organisations are currently importing coal, including from Germany. Can the Minister clarify how much coal is currently imported for this purpose, whether the amount is expected to increase, and what the impact of new border controls will be now that we have left the European Union?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My understanding is that, of the 26,000 tonnes of coal used for heritage rail, 90% comes from four British open-cast mines, and therefore any requirements will be about negotiating a suitable ongoing domestic supply. As I said, we want to work with the heritage sector on these matters. My understanding is also that coal imports are overwhelmingly not from EU countries.

Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) [V]]

I start by thanking the Minister for introducing the SIs so clearly today and for his very helpful briefing beforehand. First, I will address the animals, feed and food and plant health regulations.

Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum explains that sanitary and phytosanitary checks are to be carried out at “designated border control points”. The Government committed to building more infra- structure at ports and elsewhere to support the increased number of checks. However, we know that not all of these were ready on 1 January. Will the Minister take this opportunity to update colleagues on the status of these facilities, particularly given the fact that Her Majesty’s Government have acknowledged that there have been problems at the borders?

Part 2 refers to the special import conditions that may be imposed in respect of imports from third countries of products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Can the Minister clarify how special import conditions will be communicated, how long they will apply and the processes proposed to review their cumulative impact?

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the issues that were raised by Friends of the Earth. For example, Regulation 4 amends the previous animal feed regulations to omit Regulation 90. This had previously replaced references to the European Union Reference Laboratory for Animal Proteins in Feedingstuffs with the words “reference laboratory”. This was mentioned by both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and we would be interested to know why these references have been reinstated. Does this represent a specific, time-limited transitional arrangement or an agreement on continued UK engagement, or is it that no reference laboratory yet exists within the UK to take on this work?

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to Regulation 17 and model official certificates, so can the Minister clarify the requirements for these certificates and the timescales within which they will be available? The noble Baroness also mentioned that there is an update required on the development of

“the appropriate computerised information management system”

that is referred to in paragraph (6)(b).

We were concerned as to why the regulations in this SI were not included in the previous SI, debated at the beginning of December; this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The Explanatory Memorandum appears to blame the European Commission, and I am aware that the Minister explained in his introduction why the regulations were not dealt with previously. But we agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and her frustrations in having to, once again, go over ground we have already covered.

I turn to the draft plant health amendment regulations. As we have heard from the Minister, this instrument aims to protect biosecurity and support trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by ensuring that plant health controls for qualifying goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain can function after the end of the transition period.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised the question of documentation for products heading in the opposite direction—Great Britain to Northern Ireland—and although I am aware that this is not technically within the scope of this SI, I hope that, given the problems currently being experienced by supermarkets, the Minister will not object to us asking for clarification on whether or how supermarkets have to notify Her Majesty’s Government that the procedures have actually been updated, and for an update on the situation regarding the flow of goods.

Regulation 3 allows the Government to move products that pose a pest risk. This has also been discussed by other Members, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, so I will not go into any further detail on that. But it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify who determines what constitutes an “acceptable level” of risk, and which body would determine whether the decision of measures to adopt was suitable to reduce risk to an acceptable level.

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that, in some circumstances, British operators can replace an existing EU plant passport with a UK equivalent; the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, referenced this. Can we find out exactly what this process entails in practice? Will there be any time delays? What kinds of costs could there be? How has this been communicated to industry in advance? The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, raised questions about support for business, and I do not feel that the Explanatory Memorandum is clear on these points, other than saying that it did not believe that consultation was necessary.

The Explanatory Memorandum also repeatedly states that the instrument

“facilitates the government’s policy of unfettered market access”.

While it may do that on paper, there have been initial teething problems which have amounted to anything but unfettered access. I ask the Minister to encourage the Government to apologise to businesses which have been affected by the lack of lead-in time for these new procedures. I await his response with interest.

Animal Welfare and Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI this afternoon and for organising the very helpful briefing beforehand, which I was able to attend. We have heard some interesting contributions and a number of questions, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. It is clear that the changes in the proposed SI are necessary in the three different areas that it covers— namely, to secure the continuation of an effective regime for animal welfare in transport, slaughter and other areas; to continue the ban on leg-hold traps and the import of pelts obtained by that method; and to ensure that the strict protections placed against invasive non-native species are maintained. It also, importantly, provides continuity to business in these areas after the end of the transition period. I understand that reciprocal arrangements are being discussed with the Republic of Ireland but have not yet been finalised, so I would be grateful if the Minister could keep us informed on progress in this area.

We welcome the overall purpose of these regulations, which is to uphold these high standards in different areas of animal welfare and associated trade policy and apply the rules to EU countries in the same way as to other third countries. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, covered the area of animal welfare in great detail, so I shall not repeat her questions. However, I have a number of questions for the Minister, and I would be grateful for his clarification. A number of noble Lords mentioned the importance of getting the transport arrangements right. The Minister mentioned that one of the main changes is that of transporters having to apply for documentation from a competent authority in Great Britain rather than the EU. How and in what way is that being communicated to interested parties?

It is inevitable, as with any new system when it is introduced, that there will be teething problems. Is there any form of discretion that can be exercised if a transport arrives at a port without the relevant paperwork? If not, have the Government considered what kind of delay this is likely to cause, at what potential cost, and how those teething problems can be resolved?

Looking at the Explanatory Memorandum, I see that paragraph 10.2 talks about the consultation, and consultation outcomes. It states that Her Majesty’s Government have engaged with industry representatives on the recognition of EU journey logs and other certificates and authorisations that are required. Will the Minister outline the nature and timing of this engagement, and can we have an assurance from him that interested parties will be properly consulted ahead of any future policy changes?

On invasive non-native species, I will first say that it was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, talk about the red squirrel population. It is very important to support that. I am fortunate enough to have red squirrels visiting my garden and it is very important that we do not lose this precious species. On the other hand, I am not so fortunate in that I regularly battle with Himalayan balsam, which we also have growing extensively along the riverbanks on our land. I welcome the strengthening of these regulations so that emergency measures can be applied in order to add new species, and also the fact that the regulations have been approached in a co-ordinated manner across Great Britain. It is important that we control these invasive species as much as possible and that there is both contingency planning and the ability for a rapid response when required.

I will draw attention also to a couple of paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum. First, paragraph 2.24 says that changes to enforcement legislation will

“enable enforcement officers to use discretion when transferring seized specimens to appropriate facilities”.

Will the Minister provide further detail on what this discretion is likely to entail? The Minister also drew our attention to the proposal that items seized in Scotland would be allowed to be transported to a Scottish rather than English facility. Is this the full extent of the change, or will it be extended beyond that?

I think I will end there. We have a lot of questions for the Minister to answer, so I would be very grateful for his consideration of these matters and await his response with interest.

Rural Economy

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have provided £220 million of new funding to support a better deal for bus users. This includes £20 million for the rural mobility fund to trial new on-demand services and to improve existing services in rural and suburban areas.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Askham Bryan College has stated its intention to close the Newton Rigg agricultural college in Cumbria, saying that students may wish to explore options at other colleges regionally. However, Cumbria’s young people need to learn how to farm in Cumbria, where its unique landscape brings unique challenges. Can the Minister clarify that the Government support the ongoing needs of agricultural and rural industries in Cumbria through the vital and sustainable future of Newton Rigg College?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

I assure the noble Baroness that that is hugely important. We agree that attracting bright new talent into agricultural and horticultural careers and having a skilled workforce in place are vital for the future of UK food and farming. My understanding on Newton Rigg agricultural college is that the Department for Education is looking at the matter very closely.

Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for organising the very helpful briefing beforehand. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I welcome the informed contributions of your Lordships and will concentrate specifically on the instruments themselves. As we have heard, neither instrument introduces substantive policy change, although I understand that the reassignment of certain functions from the European Commission to UK bodies can occasionally mean a slight difference in how those functions will be carried out.

First, I come to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; I have some areas where I will ask the Minister for clarification. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes:

“Marketing consents granted at the EU level do not require further, national-level authorisations.”


Clearly, this situation will change going forward. Further information is set out in Paragraph 2.12, which states:

“existing processes … will continue as now.”

Can the Minister confirm that this means no change to the criteria being applied on 1 January? Does the department intend to review the criteria going forward? If that is the case, when would that work take place, and would it be carried out alongside the devolved Administrations?

As a de facto member of the EU single market, Northern Ireland will continue to adhere to a portion of the EU’s body of law. These obligations relate to many of these areas, including genetically modified organisms. Divergence has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, so does the Minister envisage any practical difficulties arising from the different regulatory regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland? For example, if the UK were to grant a GMO authorisation to a product that did not enjoy similar accreditation at the EU level, would there be any implications for the UK’s internal market? Will the Government maintain equivalent regulations to the EU on GMOs? If not, how will that affect our ability to export agricultural products to the EU, not to mention any possible effects on the environment?

I now turn to the SI on organic products. On these Benches, we wish to see a smooth transfer into UK law and welcome this SI, which is essential for the continuity of trade in organic products. We particularly welcome the commitment in paragraph 2.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum that:

“The current organic standards will be maintained at the end of the Transition Period.”


The organic sector may still be considered a fairly small one, but it is important, leading the way on sustainability in agriculture—recognising, for example, the value of soils and issues around pesticides. As such, it is good to see that paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 in the Explanatory Memorandum—and the Minister, in his introduction—recognise its value to the UK economy. The continuation of this trade is hugely important.

I also welcome the fact that the 6,000 organic operators are mentioned and that many of these are small and medium-sized businesses, which would be particularly vulnerable if the retained EU organic legislation were not updated.

There is one particular area where I ask the Minister for further clarification. He referenced Part 2 of the regulations and that it extends an existing derogation for porcine and poultry feed into 2021 and 2022. However, there is no mention of what will happen after this date. Could the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions beyond 2022? For example, will the provision just continually roll over, or will the matter be put under review?

Finally, I stress how important it is for the UK to achieve equivalence with the EU. This has been mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Parminter. Can the Minister assure us that future access to the EU market for our UK organic exporters is a priority? If we end up in a no-deal scenario and do not have mutual recognition of one another’s organic standards, the EU market will likely be closed to UK organic-certified produce. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I just say that I am not ignoring the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? I am conscious that she has Question 6, on which another party wishes to come in, so it would perhaps be better for her to wait until then. We look forward to hearing from her in a few minutes.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I wish you all the best for the future, Mr Speaker, and thank you for chairing DEFRA questions with such patience and consideration over the last few years.

We know that there are loopholes in the Hunting Act 2004 which are being exploited. A Labour Government would strengthen the hunting ban, so may I ask what the Conservative Government have been doing to stop foxhunters from breaking the law?

[Zac Goldsmith]

There is no doubt that illegal activities continue. They are well documented and often secure widespread coverage on social media in particular, and they cause outrage among the population. Those activities are already illegal: they are against the law. Digging up setts, bashing fox cubs on the head and breeding foxes to feed to hounds are illegal as well as abhorrent. The challenge relates to enforcement and prosecution. As I mentioned, we are committed to maintaining levels of funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and we are encouraging other Government Departments to play their part as well.

Environment Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State and her civil servants for meeting me last week, and by acknowledging all the work put into the Bill by civil servants, non-governmental organisations and others who have brought it to this stage. We can all acknowledge that it contains improvements on the original draft.

That said, Greener UK, the organisation representing environmental NGOs, has said that the Bill is

“in need of significant amendment before it is capable of guaranteeing that we do not fall below current standards.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that leaving the European Union, or the risk of leaving it, puts many of these environmental protections at risk?

[Sue Hayman]

It is vital that as we leave the EU all the necessary environmental protections are in place and equivalent to what we have now.

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has also raised concerns. He said:

“Despite the Government attempting to establish a robust framework for environmental governance, it appears to have fallen short in its own ambitions.”

It is clear that improvements are still needed. Nature is in a worse state than when the Conservative Government came to power. That is shown in the latest RSPB state of nature report, which found that 41% of UK species studied had declined and that no real improvements had been made since its report in 2016. Greener UK is also concerned about the Government’s commitment to resourcing vital environmental work, saying:

“For the bill to succeed, it will require a step change in resourcing of local government, the Office for Environmental Protection and frontline delivery agencies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency.”

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Ind)]

I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could confirm that she welcomes the ambition in the Bill to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than it inherited, but does she also agree that that means that the Bill should reflect a non-regression principle—in other words, that our environmental standards should not fall below what we currently have?

[Sue Hayman]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I shall come to non-regression later.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. The Secretary of State talked a lot about how the Bill would put in place a long-term vision. Does she share my concern about what it says about biodiversity net gain? It says that the net gain sites are guaranteed for only 30 years. They could be ploughed up after 30 years. Does that reflect a long-term vision?

[Sue Hayman]

What the hon. Lady has said reflects some of my own concerns. I also have concerns about backing everything on to net gain, which has not proved as effective as would have been hoped in other countries, such as Australia.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sue Hayman]

I am going to make some progress. I am aware of the shortage of time.

We will discuss the details of the Bill in Committee, but I want to touch on a few aspects of it now: the principle of non-regression, targets, and the independence and powers of the Office for Environmental Protection. I also want to mention, briefly, some of our concerns about biodiversity net gain, water, nature recovery strategies and recycling.

The Financial Times has reported that an official paper proposed to deviate from green standards set by the European Union, and that the UK was open to significant divergence despite the Prime Minister’s promise that standards would not fall. Can the Secretary of State shed any more light on the content of that official paper? The Government have missed four chances to guarantee equal environmental standards after Brexit. Will the Secretary of State now commit herself to an amendment to legally ensure non-regression on environmental standards? According to Greener UK, the environmental principles constitute

“a significant and unacceptable weakening of the legal effect of the principles.”

May I ask the Secretary of State how that can be justified?

We know that the Government have missed a number of environmental targets, and that the number of serious pollution incidents recorded in 2018-19 rose to the highest level since 2014-15. A leaked document from last year showed that the Government had actually abandoned agreed targets for conserving England’s sites of special scientific interest, and we know that air quality targets have also been consistently flouted.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points. Along with many other residents, I am currently opposing the building of an incinerator in Rumney, Trowbridge and St Mellons, in my constituency. My constituents are worried not only about the air quality implications of what comes out of the incinerator but about traffic particulates from heavy goods vehicles which, potentially, will be bringing waste to the site from all over the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be looked at?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree that we need to look at such issues extremely carefully when making planning decisions.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

If the Government are really serious about air quality, surely it is time for them to adopt a 100% standard, to include carbon capture and storage, in any environment Bill that they may introduce, and to give our industry an opportunity to thrive and survive.

[Sue Hayman]

It is a shame that funding for CCS was stopped some years ago. If that had not happened, we might be quite a bit further ahead.

All the targets in the Bill, including the interim targets, must be legally binding, and must be set to be achieved as soon as possible. It is commendable that the Bill confirms the creation of statutory environmental improvement plans to ensure legally binding environmental targets in areas such as air, water, waste and biodiversity by 2022, but Greenpeace has pointed out that it does not contain any provisions to hold the Government to those legal commitments until 2037. Given the climate and environment emergency that we face, can the Secretary of State explain why she is allowing a delay of nearly two decades before the Bill can have any real bite?

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

This weekend the River Ouse flooded yet again, and, four years after the floods that devastated the city of York, the Government have failed to address the serious need for upper catchment management to improve the diversity of the moorlands. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be centre stage in the Bill?

[Sue Hayman]

As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, flooding is an issue that is close to my heart as well, and we certainly need to ask why it is not included more fundamentally in the Bill.

Although the Bill sets out responsibilities for improving air quality, it does not commit the Government to reaching the World Health Organisation’s goal of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030 at the latest. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) mentioned that earlier, but he is no longer present, so I will ask the same question: will the Secretary of State agree to enshrine that target in the Bill, given the public health emergency caused by illegal air pollution?

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sue Hayman]

I really think that I need to make some progress.

Let me now say something about the independence of the proposed Office for Environmental Protection. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has said, the only reason the Government have made any movement on waste, landfill and air quality is the threat of EU fines, so it is disappointing that the OEP will have no powers to issue such fines. Will the Secretary of State agree to consider enabling it to do so, in order to give it real teeth? I welcome the change enabling it to conduct investigations on its own initiative, but we should like it to be empowered to conduct broader inquiries into systemic issues, to make recommendations, and to issue guidance.

Greener UK has said:

“The bill includes several measures which could seriously undermine the water environment”.

Another hon. Member who has now left the Chamber mentioned abstraction. The proposed new powers for the Environment Agency to revoke abstraction licences would not come into play until 1 January 2028, although England’s water supplies are already under severe pressure. There are also no water efficiency commitments, although British water consumption is the highest in Europe. Can the Secretary of State explain how that omission can be in line with the Government’s pledge in their 25-year environment plan to reduce water use and halve water leakages by 2050?

I am pleased to see that the Bill includes a commitment to nature recovery networks, but it passes more powers and duties to local councils without attaching adequate funding.

[Tracey Crouch]

Like me, the hon. Lady will have seen many plans for housing developments in her constituency featuring lovely pictures of trees and shrubbery, and will know that the reality turns out to be very different. Does she, like me, welcome the commitment in the Bill to requiring developers to ensure that their developments improve biodiversity by at least 10%, either on site or nearby?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree that our planning and development should be much better in terms of environmental impact, and I think it important for us to set targets for that to be achieved.

The Bill does little to ensure that nature recovery strategies properly influence policy and decision making in areas such as planning—we may need to go further in some instances—environmental land management, and biodiversity net gain. In respect of biodiversity net gain, can the Secretary of State give us the rationale, in the context of a climate and environment emergency, for the exemption of national infrastructure projects, although they are often the most environmentally damaging development schemes? Can she also tell us why biodiversity net gain does not apply to private organisations?

Labour will seek further assurances that legally binding targets on waste minimisation will be introduced. Does the Secretary of State agree that the waste and resource efficiency measures are far too focused on end-of-life solutions to waste and recycling issues? The fact that potential single-use charges will apply only to plastic is a significant missed opportunity that could result in unintended consequences.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Labour-run St Helens Council is the leading English local authority investing in new technology, new vehicles and an innovative single-use recycling point. Does my hon. Friend agree that that burden should be shared between national and local government, particularly at a time when local authorities have been so financially constrained? Should the Government not concentrate on supporting authorities that are acting now, rather than waiting to fund those that are not at a later stage?

[Sue Hayman]

My hon. Friend has made an excellent point.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that we could cut out much of our waste through a system like the one that was introduced in Germany 20 years ago, the Grüne Punkt system, under which people leave packaging in supermarkets? That would quickly change the way in which producers supply products to our stores.

[Sue Hayman]

My hon. Friend gives an excellent example, and I thank him for that.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need 100% responsibility from the producers themselves, from the creation of waste right through to the clean-up, and that the recycling must also be looked at so that waste is not just shipped overseas, which is where it is going at present? We need to be conscious of all this. My Back-Bench Bill in the last Session addressed some of these areas, and I am pleased to see that some of it has been taken on board, but not all of it has been; we need to see that from the beginning of the life cycle to the end, so that when people go into the supermarkets they can actually make decisions based on this information.

[Sue Hayman]

That is right. It is important that we look at it right across the piece, from manufacturing down to what happens after we have finished using something.

Tellingly, waste recovery company Biffa has said that it is disappointed in the lack of ambition in the Bill, and it has called for plastics to be recycled domestically in the UK to restore public confidence in recycling and to boost UK jobs and investment. That will require a commitment from Government to further invest in UK recycling infrastructure, which is long overdue.

In conclusion, despite this being a move in the right direction it is clear that the provisions in the Bill are not sufficient when we consider the scale of the environmental and climate crisis we face. We need radical, targeted measures, and I ask the Secretary of State to work with the Opposition in Committee so that we can achieve this goal.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

The Climate Emergency

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

We all know that we face a climate and environment emergency. We know that wildlife populations are collapsing, ecosystems are breaking down and temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. Since world war two, we have lost 97% of our meadows, 80% of our chalk grassland and more than half our ancient woodland. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ “State of Nature” report has also found that 41% of UK species that it studied had declined since 1970. It found that 15% were threatened with extinction and that 133 species were already extinct.

Public support for tackling this crisis is growing, and there are mounting calls for politicians to act now. Whatever anyone thinks about the recent protests, Extinction Rebellion has, alongside the youth climate strikes, dramatically shifted the conversation about climate and environmental breakdown. We must be under no illusion: this is also a matter of social justice. This year, one of the worst tropical storms on record killed over 1,000 people in Mozambique. There have been catastrophic fires right across the globe—in the Amazon rainforest, Siberia, Lebanon and Greenland—and record temperatures are being recorded all over the world.

We also know that, with just one degree of global warming, climate chaos will be a bigger cause of forced migration than poverty or political oppression. Poorer communities right across the world are the least responsible for the climate disaster, but they are the most likely to suffer its impacts. I was pleased that the Secretary of State mentioned international working and funding, because vulnerable communities in the global south are being hit the hardest. It is vital that those countries can receive financial support for any loss and damage. Will she confirm whether the Government will work with other donor countries to mobilise the financial support needed for those communities?

However, this debate is about the Queen’s Speech, and I welcome the inclusion of an Environment Bill. Yet, in the face of this global crisis, it was unfortunate that the Queen’s Speech itself did not contain serious proposals to tackle the threat of climate change. Where was the energy Bill to deliver the transformation to low carbon and renewable energy, which is essential to meet our climate targets? Where was the transport Bill, which would have delivered a transformation to a world-leading, clean transport economy?

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one easy early win would be to do something quickly about engine idling? All of us could turn off our engines when stuck in traffic and at traffic lights. It costs nothing, and we could do it now.

[Sue Hayman]

That is an extremely important point, and we could do that straightaway, but we need a proper, comprehensive transport Bill to tackle things more widely.

My team will be going through the Environment Bill line by line, but there already seems to be evidence of some weaknesses. The proposals are weak on funding commitments, on enforcement, on genuine independence and on cross-departmental, centrally driven leadership. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has talked about the time it takes for things to come in, and Greenpeace has exposed the serious loophole in the Bill which means that no legal action could be taken against Ministers on any potential failings in air and water quality, plastics or nature restoration until 2037 at the earliest. The Secretary of State talked about interim targets, but we need serious action now and targets that come much earlier.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

If we are to reach the World Health Organisation’s targets by 2030, does my hon. Friend agree that is imperative to bring forward the date on which we will stop selling new diesel and fossil-fuel cars from 2042 to 2030? We also need a staged plan of how to get to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030, but there is no such detail in the Environment Bill at the moment.

[Sue Hayman]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The matter was mentioned during Labour’s party conference this year, because we are taking this very seriously.

My concern is that the Conservative Government have a track record of missing environmental targets on air quality, major pollution incidents and biodiversity, and last year a leaked document showed that the Government had abandoned altogether an agreed target to restore 50% of England’s sites of special scientific interest to a favourable condition by 2020. It is therefore disappointing, but unsurprising, that the legally binding targets will not apply for nearly two decades.

Once the Government’s record on climate change and the environment is examined more closely, we find practices and policies that completely undermine and work against efforts to tackle the climate and ecological emergency. The Government continue to use UK export finance to support fossil fuels, but it is totally hypocritical for the UK to limit extraction at home while promoting extraction abroad. The Natural Capital Committee recently concluded that only half of our habitats currently meet minimum quality targets, with bees, butterflies, birds and many plants species continuing to decline.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has already mentioned the fact that we are financing fossil fuels overseas while trying to reduce their usage here, but we also consume 3.3 million tonnes of soya per year, 77% of which comes from high-risk deforestation areas in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. It is one thing to talk about protecting natural habitats here, but if our consumption habits are contributing to deforestation overseas, we are not really solving the problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sue Hayman]

Whatever we do to try to protect the environment and solve the climate and ecological emergency, it is incredibly important that we do that on a global level. If we do not, we will never achieve the results that the planet needs.

The Government had to be dragged through the courts time and again following their refusal to take adequate leadership on illegal levels of air pollution.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have the dubious honour of representing the constituency with the most polluted road outside London. Large trucks go up Hafodyrynys Road spewing out all sorts of noxious fumes from diesel engines. However, the council is hamstrung because it cannot introduce emissions charging zones, as we have in London, and there is a lack of charging points for electric vehicles. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should grasp the nettle, invest in infrastructure and roll out emissions charging zones?

[Sue Hayman]

I agree. Air quality is referred to in the Environment Bill, and we will be pushing hard on those areas in Committee.

I am particularly concerned about Natural England’s budget. For those who do not know, Natural England is the body responsible for protecting and enhancing our natural environment, and its budget has been cut in half. Staff tell me that they barely have the resources to cope with their basic statutory requirements. In addition, unprecedented cuts to local authorities mean that we have seen a boom in fly tipping, and local habitats are being neglected right across our communities.

The Government have effectively banned the cheapest form of renewable energy—new onshore wind—through restrictive planning measures and the removal of subsidies. There has also been a total failure to capitalise on the enormous potential of tidal power with the Severn barrage and now the Swansea Bay project failing to win Government support. Instead, the Government still seem intent on promoting fracking in the face of overwhelming local opposition. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether she personally still supports fracking?

Perhaps the most recent and telling anti-environmental Government decision is the scrapping of the UK’s commitment to respect current EU environmental standards—the so-called “non-regression” provisions of the draft withdrawal agreement and political declaration. In his letter to Donald Tusk announcing the change in policy, the Prime Minister said that the right to diverge was

“the point of our exit and our ability to enable this is central to our future democracy.”

Ditching our current environmental standards is necessary only if the vision for the UK is of a race-to-the-bottom, deregulated country that prioritises free trade over high standards. Furthermore, research has predicted that a hard Brexit could see a rise in the UK’s imported emissions roughly equal to the territorial emissions of the Netherlands in 2017.

Labour tabled a motion calling on this Parliament to declare a climate and environment emergency. The text of the motion, unopposed by Government, clearly stipulated that a fully costed cross-departmental plan to address the climate and environment emergency would need to be brought before this House within six months. The deadline is 1 November—just two weeks away—so will the Secretary of State confirm that her Government will meet that commitment and bring a plan back to the House before the end of the month?

Labour has been calling for cross-departmental co-ordination on the climate and environment emergency for years. The Government have finally listened, as we hear that the Prime Minister will chair a new Cabinet committee on climate change. There is possibly no one more ill-suited to this role than a Prime Minister with a history of climate denial, from a Tory Government who have dismantled the UK’s solar and onshore wind industries, overseen a collapse in household energy savings measures and stalled the UK’s progress on cutting emissions. This new committee must be transparent in the frequency and outcomes of its meetings, and it must focus on species decline and the restoration of our biodiversity, as well as climate change adaptation. However, a committee is not a plan of action. The Government were charged with bringing back a fully costed, cross-departmental plan to the House of Commons, and that is what we need to see. When it comes to tackling the biggest issue of our time, this is simply not good enough. The Government need to act on this, and act urgently.

[Several hon. Members rose—]