Draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 April and amend UK REACH, the UK regulation on the regulation, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, which is one of the main pieces of legislation that manages chemicals in Great Britain.

In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, UK REACH retains both the fundamental approach and key principles of the EU REACH regulation, with its aims of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The statutory instrument introduces two changes. I can assure the Committee from the outset that those changes do not affect the key principles and that UK REACH will continue to provide the highest levels for protection of human health and the environment.

First, the SI amends the deadlines in article 127P(4B) of UK REACH for the submission of information to the Health and Safety Executive, extending them by three years. That applies to grandfathered registrations and chemicals being imported from the EU under the transitional arrangements. Industry will have to submit technical information—that is, the full data package—on the hazards and risks of substances by 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030, depending on the tonnage and toxicity of the chemical. Those dates are changed from 27 October 2023, 27 October 2025 and 27 October 2027 respectively. The most toxic and hazardous chemicals will be in the first tranche that will be required to be registered.

The changes are needed as part of my Department’s work to address the significant potential cost of obtaining or accessing the full hazard information required to meet UK REACH registration requirements. Those costs are estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion, which represents a major concern for the industry as it will be a significant financial undertaking for businesses in Great Britain transitioning to UK REACH. We recognise business concerns, which is why we are working really closely with business and engaging with all stakeholders to develop an alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH.

We are working with the industry and non-governmental organisation stakeholders to find a solution that will reduce the costs associated with obtaining hazard information while still ensuring that they are responsible for the safe use of chemicals throughout the supply chain. The model we are developing aims to reduce the need for businesses to access or obtain expensive EU REACH data packages and will place more emphasis on improving our understanding of the uses and exposures of chemicals in the Great Britain context—that is, on making it much more specific to our market and our needs. Extending the deadlines will provide certainty to industry so that it can avoid making unnecessary investments in obtaining data while the Government continue to develop and implement an alternative approach.

The second change is that the SI will move the timelines for the HSE to complete its compliance checks to ensure that the information submitted by industry is of sufficient quality. The changes will now align with the extended deadlines for submitting data to the HSE. That is necessary because the deadlines for compliance checking, as set down in article 41(5) of UK REACH, would otherwise fall before the amended dates for submitting the relevant information. Basically, it just links everything together.

The HSE will now have to complete its compliance checks by 27 October 2027, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2035, corresponding to the three extended submission deadlines. This is the first time we have prepared an SI using the powers to amend REACH that are set out in schedule 21 to the Environment Act 2021. Some colleagues present served on the Bill Committee for that Act and will I am sure remember that.

We have followed all the safeguards that we attached to the powers. In doing so, we sought and obtained consent from the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland; consulted widely with our stakeholders and interested parties on our plans to extend the submission deadlines; and published a consistency statement, as required by the 2021 Act. Our aim was to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that the redesign of the registration process that my hon. Friend is currently considering, which the three-year extension will allow her to bring into play, will not diminish the levels of care for the environment or, indeed, for human health, but rather enhance them, and that the whole purpose of the redesign is to do that?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is very astute. In no way will we reduce any of the protections—we have to make a statement to say that we will not do that—and this change does give us an opportunity to work with the industry to look at the kind of data it provides and its knowledge of the chemicals, as well as to focus on how we use those chemicals and the actual exposure for our own population, because it is different in different countries. It should provide us with a really focused understanding and knowledge of the chemicals that we place on the market—of course, each company is responsible for the chemicals it places on the market.

As I said, we laid the statement, as required by the Act, to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

As we outlined in the consistency statement that accompanied the public consultation, our assessment demonstrates that overall the UK REACH regime will still be able to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment because of the information on and knowledge of chemicals registered under EU REACH that is available to HSE and Great Britain registrants; because importers from the EU will continue to receive EU REACH-compliant safety data sheets from their EU suppliers, which will enable them to identify and apply appropriate risk-management measures; and because of the HSE’s ability to seek risk management data from other sources—there are sources other than the EU system—if necessary, as it did when acting as a competent authority under EU REACH. That seeking could include things such as calls for evidence and using data from EU REACH and other relevant sources that can provide Great Britain with specific hazard and exposure information.

Alongside the public consultation, we also published a full impact assessment on extending the deadlines, which I am pleased to say was awarded a green fit-for-purpose rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered this SI without comment. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, and the devolved Administrations were engaged in its development and are content. I am confident that the provisions in the regulations mean that we will continue to ensure the highest levels of protection for human health and the environment.

UK Canals and Waterways

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fabricant]

That is a fantastic example from my hon. Friend. Those of us familiar with canals know that type of art, with beautifully, vividly painted flowers on coal scuttles and buckets. An ugly bucket can be transformed into a thing of beauty. I have friends who live some distance from canals who have examples of that work in their own homes. That is a first-rate example of how the canals generate income for others and generate business in the economy as a whole.

I hope that I have left all my colleagues here in no doubt about the importance of and value created by our waterways and those who manage them. They are undoubtedly a national treasure and a critical part of our national infrastructure. At the heart of the trust’s success has been the connections it has forged with so many communities along the length of its waterways. We have just heard a first-rate example of that from my hon. Friend. The trust has inspired many to volunteer, and we have heard about that, too. In the past year, the trust’s volunteers gave 700,000 hours, as well as hundreds of partner groups and canal adoptions. Those amazing individuals contribute so much to making the waterways network safe, clean and attractive places for us all to enjoy.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Fabricant]

In a moment. I will just carry on a little bit, if he will forgive me.

On behalf of everyone here, I want to thank the volunteers. But they can only be a small part of the answer. The sustainable future of our canals depends on a substantial continuing investment in the core infrastructure that underpins our historical waterways network. Caring for waterways is costly.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray]

I am a huge supporter of canals, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have the Kennet and Avon to the south of my constituency and the Thames and Severn to the north, linked soon, I hope, by the Wilts and Berks canal, so we are right in the middle of the southern canal network. What my hon. Friend says about volunteers is absolutely right. Does he agree that the greatest thing about the canal network is that all the work that has been done across the country is largely funded not by the Government, but by volunteers and the National Lottery Heritage Fund, which makes a huge and important financial contribution. The network is not Government funded; it is volunteer funded.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that valuable point. Something like 75% of the Canal & River Trust’s funding is from sources other than the Government.

The problem is that our canal system is ageing and is made up of more than 10,000 individual assets, many of which date back 250 years. Many have a high consequence of failure; they are deteriorating and need regular maintenance and repair. That is exacerbated by the impact of more extreme weather events, which make them even more vulnerable. However, it is their age that gives them their beauty and attraction for so many people. Given the serious potential risks posed to neighbouring homes and businesses by the deterioration of reservoirs, high embankments, aqueducts and culverts—imagine what would happen if any of them burst—it is vital that there is stable and sufficient investment in the network to make these assets more resilient and to reduce the possible threat to lives, homes and businesses.

Here is the important bit. The Canal & River Trust receives about a quarter of its funding from the Government, under an agreement secured when it was formed in 2012, and that has been vital in underpinning its progress. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is undertaking a review of its grant for the period beyond March 2027, when the agreement comes to an end. A decision was due in July, but there have inevitably been delays, owing partly to covid and partly to a little turbulence in the Conservative party.

Although it is right that sufficient time be taken to judge the importance of the waterways properly, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the revised timetables for the review decision, as the uncertainty is causing great concern to users of the waterways and will soon start to hinder the trust’s ability to plan for the future. It has many important long-term projects to deliver, which could affect the safety of so many people. When will a funding announcement be made?

It should also be noted that the trust’s grant is declining in real terms and is now worth only a little over half of what British Waterways received prior to 2008. It is also fixed for the six years from 2021 to 2027, so the trust is suffering a significant shortfall at a time when many of its costs are rising by significantly more than the 10% headline inflation rate. Roughly £50 million a year is a very small amount for the Government to contribute for such a huge range of benefits.

At the same time, the trust’s wide range of risks, obligations and legal liabilities is growing, in part due to the impact of climate change. The network is subject to more extreme weather events, to which it is acutely vulnerable. That poses a potential threat to the many neighbouring homes and businesses. The risk has dramatically changed, even in the past 10 years. The level of spend now required was not anticipated when the trust was first established, but it must nevertheless be addressed.

Nature and Climate Declaration

James Gray Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for a nature and climate declaration.

Sir James, I am not sure—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order. This is the second week in which people keep addressing me as “Sir James”; unfortunately, Her Majesty did not knight me, so I am just Mr Gray, if that is all right.

[Derek Thomas]

Sorry, Mr Gray; I exceeded my area of responsibility.

I am not sure that I have brought any subject to the House without having been petitioned by a constituent. In this instance, I have been petitioned by many of my constituents and by many town and parish councils. They have urged me to raise the issue of nature and climate, and they have been particularly keen to secure my backing for the nature and climate declaration.

I do know for sure what my fellow parliamentarians got up to over the weekend, but I suspect that many of us attended church services in our constituencies to mark the beginning of COP27. I was pleased to join members of the congregation at Madron church on Saturday afternoon as the church bells were rung out to welcome COP27. The service began with a reading of an old and simple psalm:

“The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them.”

It seems to me that those words are a helpful reminder that we are simply caretakers and guardians of the planet we are so fortunate to live on.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate at a time when the United Nations are meeting in Egypt for COP27. I am pleased to contribute, in some small way, to the effort to get back on track on the road to net zero following the severe disruption of the covid pandemic, the race to build back after it, and the current devastating impact of Russia’s evil war against Ukraine and the resulting global crisis in energy and food security.

This debate and the declaration itself support efforts to deliver on a commitment that we made in the Paris agreement, which was ratified in 2016. We committed to affirm

“the importance of education, training, public awareness, public participation, public access to information and co-operation at all levels on the matters addressed in this Agreement.”

I thank the Zero Hour team, who have built up support for the nature and climate declaration over the past month. I particularly thank Ron, who cannot be here today due to traffic and transport difficulties, but I also thank Amy and Oliver, who are here; it has been such a pleasure to work with them. Their hard graft prepared the ground for the launch of the nature and climate declaration in this place last week.

This is democracy at its best, because the nature and climate declaration has been signed by nearly 2,000 UK politicians from all parties, including more than 1,500 councillors. The first of its kind, the all-party declaration has been signed by councillors, elected mayors, peers, MPs and Members of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. It recognises and supports the UK Government’s efforts on climate change and biodiversity, and recommends that the UK Government deal with what it calls the critical environmental risks to Britain’s heritage, communities and future prosperity by doing three things: fulfilling our fair share of emissions reductions to meet the 1.5°C target; reversing nature loss by 2030; and delivering an integrated environmental protection and decarbonisation plan. I take this issue and the declaration seriously for a number of reasons, not least because all three recommendations are in line with UK Government policy and should therefore be welcomed and accepted by the Minister.

British citizens understand that there needs to be a shift towards a healthier and greener way of life—in fact, when I stood for election in 2019, that was the idea I stood on: to work for a healthier and greener west Cornwall—but they also recognise that this aim needs to be achieved both at home and abroad. We all recognise that we have a part to play; the problem is that net zero and 2050 are not expressions that particularly resonate with the average human being, although most people want us to treat the planet better than we do now and few would deny the sizeable benefits for everyone if we focused a little more on what nature recovery actually looks like and how efforts to decarbonise will improve day-to-day living.

In recent years the Government and Parliament have made great strides in getting to grips with the sheer challenge and opportunity of delivering on environmental protection and decarbonisation, but we have failed to clearly articulate what this means for our constituents. We get too hung up on what we mean by net zero by 2050 and do not talk nearly enough about the positive benefits of improving our homes, or about the creation of the skills to do that and of skills in farming and clean energy. We do not talk nearly enough about how important farms are for food production that enhances nature and captures carbon. We do not talk nearly enough about how energy can be secure and affordable if we use a natural resource such as underground heat, the sun, the wind and tide-generated energy.

That is why I want to briefly concentrate my thoughts on how delivering on the declaration’s three recommendations is not about inflicting hardship, or placing a straitjacket on our constituencies and communities, but rather about delivering levelling up in real terms—levelling up in skills, health equality, food and energy security, mental wellbeing, and knowledge and educational attainment. I will set out how the integration of environmental protections and decarbonisation will deliver those public benefits.

When we have debated net zero previously, we have tended to alienate farmers by somehow blaming them for our carbon footprint and loss of biodiversity. I agree that over recent decades we have hungered for cheap food at the expense of the natural environment. From visiting farms in west Cornwall, however, I know that it is not just possible to do food production, enhancing the natural environment and decarbonisation in harmony; they are mutually dependent. There is not time to go into the full detail now, but the use of herbal leys, tree planting and cattle grazing has led to enriched biodiversity, improved soil health and reduced run-off.

Farms that work with nature have an immense potential for productivity and high-quality food while securing resilience in the landscape and creating a robust environment that will cope better with climate change. Farming with nature can reduce reliance on imported inputs and rebuild biodiversity by creating habitats and space for nature at scale. Farming with nature builds complexity and diversity in denuded farmland, which can sequester vast amounts of carbon and create opportunities for education, community and social recovery.

There has been considerable debate recently about food security and the Government’s intention in relation to the environmental land management scheme. For what it is worth, I would fully support the Government if they decided to channel a far greater share of ELM towards our farms to support food production, environmental health, environmental protection, decarbonisation and food security, but there are other ways to rapidly increase environmental protection and decarbonisation hand in hand. For example, there is an ambition to ramp up clean energy and clean heating, as we heard earlier from the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions.

Cornwall is fast becoming known for geothermal, which has the potential to generate energy for Britain’s homes. Sadly, because of the way the Government organise their contracts for difference auction, emerging renewable energy technologies such as geothermal, and to an extent floating offshore wind, are not getting a fighting chance. I am aware that those developing the geothermal potential have submitted written evidence to the Government’s recent call for evidence. They suggest avenues for supporting geothermal that include a new deep geothermal renewable heat incentive, a ringfenced pot for geothermal in the fifth CfD auction round, and significant reform to the current planning process. I am hopeful that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will look carefully at the case being made for emerging renewable technologies.

Cornwall is also leading the way on community ground-source heating. Kensa, a world-leading Cornish company, has now completed ground array installations for the first private retrofit street. Residents’ properties will benefit from low-cost ground-source heating, which does not require gas or oil.

In my job I am privileged, as many of us are, to see all sorts of examples of how we can integrate environmental protection with decarbonisation. I focus particularly on food and energy, which is where the pressure on households is today. I cannot tell Members how keen farmers and businesses in my constituency are to access support to clad their barns, warehouses and workshops with solar panels and to install battery storage. Penzance dry dock, which is also represented in the Public Gallery, is the UK’s oldest working dry dock and builds and retrofits ships and boats for maritime demands. That is an energy-intensive industry that looks to the Government to enable clean energy solutions in buildings and workshops.

The Government have nothing to fear from the declaration. Our communities are ahead in many ways. For example, Penzance Town Council recently committed to the future generations pledge, ensuring that every decision made, at every level, passes the good ancestor test that asks how each decision benefits our children’s children and makes their lives at least as good as our own.

There is so much more I would like to include in my speech, but I do not get any impression that the Government lack ambition or commitment in this policy area. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said as much on Monday at COP27, and reiterated it in the Chamber this afternoon. He said:

“The world came together in Glasgow with one last chance to create a plan that would limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees…By honouring the pledges we made in Glasgow, we can turn our struggle against climate change into a global mission for new jobs and clean growth. And we can bequeath our children a greener planet and a more prosperous future. That’s a legacy we could be proud of.”

The UK Government are, though, rightly under pressure to deliver on their commitment and assurances. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the fact that the Government missed their own deadline for publishing the legally binding targets required by the Environment Act 2021. Will the Minister give an indication of when we can expect those targets to be published?

Another frustration for Members in this place is that Government Departments do not necessarily work together towards the same goals. The Climate Change Committee has been instrumental in highlighting the issue and setting targets for each Department; however, we recognise that inconsistency across Government is a risk to achieving environment protection and decarbonisation.

Landfill Sites: Odour

James Gray Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Aaron Bell]

I am sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend is having similar issues in her constituency. I agree that we should not be relying on World Health Organisation standards of danger to health as our minimum standard. We should take residents’ concerns much more seriously. I believe odour can cause significant mental health concerns for residents.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My constituents in Royal Wootton Bassett suffer badly from the Crapper & Sons Landfill Ltd site—the name, incidentally, is indicative—next to that great town. When I visited them last week, they told me that the rain has made the odour much worse. The site operators admit to the odour and are taking steps to put it right. The real way to put it right is by capping it off, which they are starting to do, and by reducing the amount we put into landfill. They are now bringing in innovative ways of recycling, reducing landfill, so that soon the people of Wootton Bassett will no longer suffer from the appalling smell, as they have for the past year or so.

[Aaron Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know of that case, as my father-in-law lives nearby in the village of Purton. Capping the sites off, as will eventually happen at Walley’s Quarry, offers residents some hope in the end. I recognise that operators are employing better technology all the time, but that is no consolation to people enduring the smell now.

I asked my constituents to contribute their thoughts and I will quote from some of their emails. Some constituents report “retching” and feeling sick from the odour, with others describing feeling as though they can taste the smell and it is catching the back of their throat. One described the smell as

“a blight on our community.”

Many residents report that they can identify the smell further away, sometimes in the centre of Newcastle, which is bad for its nightlife and day activities, or further north in Wolstanston and Bradwell. Other constituents highlight that they feel unable to use their garden, to open their windows or to hang washing outside. Most worrying are the cases of those for whom the smell is persistent inside their homes. The odour is also worrying for those with existing breathing difficulties and conditions such as asthma. They believe it is making their health worse.

I myself smelt the tell-tale “rotten egg” odour at times during my canvassing and campaigning for the general election, though it was notable that residents on the same estate had vastly differing responses to the smell on the same day.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher; I do not think I have had the pleasure of doing so before. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) on bringing this debate to our attention. I know that his predecessor worked hard locally with the Environment Agency and other partners to try to identify a solution for the problems that he raises, and I commend him for standing up vociferously for his constituency. It is absolutely the right thing to do.

I appreciate concerns about material entering landfill, and I have stressed in many other recent debates on landfill and incineration—it seems to be flavour of the month—that the Government’s attention remains very firmly on reduce, reuse and recycle so that we can level up the country and move towards a much more circular economy with greater resource efficiency. My hon. Friend referred to that and acknowledged that we are moving in that direction. The measures set out in our ambitious resources and waste strategy and in our landmark Environment Bill, which will receive its Second Reading tomorrow in the Chamber, will minimise the amount of waste that reaches the lower levels of the waste hierarchy. That of course includes landfill, because that is right at the end of the chain.

[James Gray]

Does the Minister agree that Crapper & Sons Landfill is a classic example of what she is talking about? Of the 280,000 tonnes that arrives on its site every year, only 95,000 tonnes goes into landfill. In other words, 185,000 tonnes is recycled onsite.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point; I thought he was going to make a negative intervention, but it was positive. The example he raises is the direction we are going in, and I commend the company on that figure. By reducing the quantity of waste through using it in other ways—recycling and all those things—we will end up with less going into landfill, and that is the intention.

The Environment Bill contains a whole range of measures, including a deposit return scheme and an extended producer responsibility scheme, and it will stipulate the much more consistent collection of waste, including food waste, by all our local authorities from the doorstep and from businesses. All those things will reduce waste.