Waste Prevention Programme

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish their revised Waste Prevention Programme for England.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we published our review of the waste prevention programme 2013 this summer and hope to publish our revised draft waste prevention programme for consultation in the next few months. It will build on our resources and waste strategy, published in 2018, which sets out our plans to move away from the inefficient linear economic model of “take, make, use, throw” to a more circular economy.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the climate crisis demands urgent action to reduce carbon emissions from waste and to keep resources in use for as long as possible. In their delayed waste prevention programme, will the Government introduce an explicit target for waste prevention by 2050, as the Welsh Government already have?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

The International Resource Panel estimates that resource extraction and processing of materials contributes to about 30% of global particulate matter emissions, 50% of total global greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress. Industrial emissions from manufacturing are responsible for approximately 21% of UK domestic emissions. The Environment Bill will include a target relating to resources and waste. As I speak, that target is being assessed with a view to being introduced .

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers over 2,000 times last year. The chair of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Philip Dunne, has a Private Member’s Bill and an amendment to the Environment Bill seeking to place a duty on water companies to end that filthy practice. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not supporting his efforts and whether he believes this should be included in the revised waste prevention programme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the water companies need to take full responsibility for their contribution to pollution in our water systems. Those duties are there, and it is a matter for the water companies to adhere to and honour them. My colleagues at Defra have established a new working group between officials and business representatives to understand better what more the Government can do to ensure that the water companies step up. That work will be concluding shortly and the Government will take action on the back of its results.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, if all the new incinerators that have planning permission are built in the next few years, incinerator capacity will double just when we are trying to reduce our waste. So what are the Government going to do? Are they going to encourage us to actually increase our waste, or will they import waste from abroad so that we can burn it?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are very committed to minimising waste across all sectors. We have seen significant progress. We have consulted on major reforms to the way that waste is managed, including deposit return schemes, extended producer responsibility and consistent recycling collections. We have set up pilot schemes to reduce food waste. We have published proposals for targets in the Environment Bill. We have announced that the carrier bag charge will be extended to all retailers and increased to a minimum of 10p from April next year. We have introduced a ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds. We have provided funding for the development of recycling facilities for hard-to-recycle products, particularly plastics. We have published a call for evidence on the development of standards for biodegradable and compostable plastics. Of course there is more to do but I do not think there is any doubting the Government’s commitment to minimising our environmental impact by reducing waste.

[Lord Sarfraz (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister advise the House if our strategy will include playing a leading role in cleaning up the global waste trade, perhaps by introducing mandatory standards, traceability and certifications for the ultimate recipients of waste originating from the UK?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

On one level, of course, waste is a commodity. There is a legitimate global market in secondary materials and there is a system of international rules on shipments that must be followed when exporting waste for recycling, which of course we always encourage importing nations to enforce. In addition, those involved in the shipments of waste from the UK are required to take all necessary steps to ensure that it is managed in an environmentally sound manner. Recognising the problem highlighted by my noble friend—the problem of waste mountains in some countries that cannot or do not manage their waste properly—we have committed to banning the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the OECD and therefore are likely not capable of managing the waste that we send them.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, a waste prevention programme needs to be a dynamic document, moving with advances in science and technology. At the other end of the process, the public need to play their part in minimising waste. To prevent the nation from being subsumed in unnecessary waste, will the revised waste prevention programme have measures that tackle both ends of the spectrum?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

I can absolutely provide that assurance. The Government are seeking powers through the Environment Bill that will enable us to set standards across the board. That means resource efficiency requirements, including spare-part provision, recycled content, durability or the potential to disassemble and repair. We are addressing the waste stream—it is not so much a spectrum but all the way round the circle—of the waste ecosystem in which we live. The first product group that we will be looking at and regulating will be textiles, furniture or construction products, but we plan to expand far beyond that in the near future.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]]

My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for his encouraging Answer, what plans does he have to raise awareness among the general public about the problems of food waste, given the enormous impact that it has on climate change, ahead of COP 26 next year?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

My noble friend makes an important point. The UK is absolutely committed to meeting UN sustainable development goal target 12.3, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. Our resource and waste strategy included policies such as better redistributing food to those in need before it goes to waste, for which we have provided £15 million of new funding; a consultation on the annual reporting of food surplus and waste by food businesses; and publishing a food surplus and waste hierarchy to support businesses in preventing waste. In response to the Covid-19 emergency we announced £3.25 million of additional funding to enable redistributors, big and small, to get more food to those in need, and that has been supplemented by further funding from DCMS. This is a priority issue and we have seen progress, but of course there is more to do.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I would like to follow up on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about food waste. Food waste has been the low-hanging fruit because everyone agrees that it is a terrible thing. The retailers have cleverly managed to reduce their own food waste, which is now down to 3%, whereas household food waste is now up to 70%. One of the main reasons for this is that supermarkets do not want to be left with old food, so they package large units of things such as mushrooms and fruit in a lot of plastic for lower-income people and, as a result, some of it goes to waste. Which part of the Government’s strategy will start to encourage supermarkets—which unnecessarily use a fifth of all plastics to wrap up fruit and vegetables—to offer loose selections so that people can go into the store and buy exactly what they need and not what the supermarket wants to give them? That will help to save money and cut down on waste and stop the situation where the poorest households throw away more food.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

There is no doubt that what we often refer to as consumer waste is nothing of the sort: it is producer waste. Very few people go into a supermarket wanting to buy a sprig of parsley encased in a brick of plastic. We are very keen to reduce the amount of packaging used and to ensure that the packaging that is used is properly and meaningfully recyclable. One of the measures that we will be using, and which I believe will deliver the most change to packaging, is extended producer responsibility, which is at the heart of our Environment Bill. That is a shift in emphasis from consumer to producer responsibility, requiring producers to take responsibility for the full lifetime costs of the products subjected to the regime of extended producer responsibility—of which packaging will, of course, be one.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My noble friend may not be aware of it but I have been pressing his predecessor on reducing plastic waste since before the Attenborough revelations, and I welcome some of the changes that my noble friend has described. However, how will sustainability initiatives be ramped up to deal with other negatives from Covid? We have seen a resurgence of disposable cups, discarded masks everywhere, and, in Wandsworth—which is one of my favourite councils—very long delays in the delivery of the special bags that households need to recycle their waste. These small things matter a lot.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

Undoubtedly, there has been a huge increase in the amount of plastic waste generated as a consequence of the pandemic. I think that probably, to be fair, that was both unavoidable and inevitable. However, on the litter component, laws are in place to address littering. Whether it is a face mask or a packet of chewing gum, the law is the same. We of course strongly encourage local authorities to use the powers they have to ensure that those who engage in littering are penalised. On plastic waste generally, we have a whole suite of measures in relation to reducing the use of plastic, reconciling different types of plastic so that the recycling stream is not undermined, and ensuring, as I said, that the responsibility for the full lifetime cost of dealing with plastic rests with the producer and not the consumer. I think that that will shift the market.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.

Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 12 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 31st and 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the three Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.

Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to lead this debate today to discuss these regulations. The instrument makes operability changes to retained EU law and implements the Northern Ireland protocol in the context of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, CITES. This will be done by making changes to the UK’s existing CITES regime, comprised primarily of retained EU law, in so far as it will operate in Great Britain, to ensure that the relevant EU regulations can continue to be properly implemented in Northern Ireland as required by the protocol.

Additionally, these regulations will consolidate previous instruments, making operability fixes to retained EU law so that the changes appear in one place. The regulations also make both further operability fixes in respect of more recent EU legislation that will become retained EU law and minor corrections to regulations that were not dealt with in earlier instruments.

CITES provides protection to more than 35,000 different species of endangered animals and plants. With its 183 parties, it is one of the conservation agreements with the largest global membership. The range of species covered by CITES is incredibly diverse, from zoo animals such as lions and giraffes, and household pets such as parrots and turtles, to corals, orchids and rosewood, commonly found in guitars. By regulating international trade in animals and plants and in their parts—such as fur, feathers and seeds—CITES aims to reduce the threat to these species in the wild.

CITES is implemented throughout the EU via the EU wildlife trade regulations, which are currently applicable in the UK. The EUWTR set out the controls for trade in specimens of endangered species of wild animals and plants to and from the EU, the UK and the rest of the world. Many UK businesses currently trade in CITES specimens. The relevant sectors are varied, including musical instrument makers and musicians, fashion, antiques, pharmaceuticals, floristry and businesses that trade in live animals for aquariums, zoos and pets. The UK is party to CITES in its own right and will continue to be bound by its obligations after the end of the transition period, regardless of the outcome of negotiations with the EU on the future relationship.

The UK is committed to supporting the work of CITES now and in future. At the CITES conference of parties in August 2019, the UK used its world-leading scientific and technical expertise to play a pivotal role in proceedings. As a result, 93 new species, including mako sharks, the spider-tailed horned viper, star and pancake tortoises, two species of swallowtail butterfly and several species of gecko and newt, will now benefit from enhanced protection under the convention. This is only one part of the Government’s continued commitment to tackling the catastrophic loss of biodiversity that we are now facing.

The primary purposes of this instrument are to make operability fixes to retained EU law and to implement the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to CITES. In doing so, we are consolidating amendments made by previous CITES exit SIs, which have not yet come into force, into one instrument.

In implementing the protocol, CITES documents and relevant checks will be required for CITES specimens travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain in both directions. This will affect traders in Northern Ireland and traders in Great Britain who regularly move specimens in and out of Northern Ireland. This is to implement our convention obligations and the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol.

In addition to consolidating operability fixes made in previous instruments, this instrument will make operability fixes in respect of more recent EU legislation that will become retained EU law and minor corrections not included in those previous instruments. For example the instrument deals with a new suspensions regulation, which came into force in October 2019. That regulation provides for bans on imports of certain species needing additional protection. By consolidating changes made in previous instruments that have not yet come into force, this instrument will also serve to make the legislation clearer and more easily accessible to end users.

The instrument makes a number of amendments. The regulations make no changes to policy other than those necessitated by the Northern Ireland protocol. Part 2 of the instrument amends domestic regulations which provide for, among other things, enforcement powers with regards to CITES. Part 3 amends retained EU regulations on CITES to ensure that the regime is operable in Great Britain after the end of the transition period. The instrument was sent to the JCSI for pre-scrutiny and was returned with minor comments relating primarily to minor drafting issues.

This SI does not change policy other than as required by the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, so no consultation was undertaken. However, drafts of the instrument have been shared with the devolved Administrations during its development and drafting. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for the instrument because there is no or no significant impact on the public, private or voluntary sectors.

The territorial extent of the instrument is the United Kingdom. The changes made by it, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol, will affect Defra and the Animal and Plant Health Agency as documentation which was previously required at the EU border will now be required at the UK border—Great Britain or Northern Ireland, as the case may be. APHA has increased staff numbers in anticipation of this increased workload.

The regulations will also result in new documentary requirements at checks at the border for certain traders, which will affect Border Force. Defra has been in communication with Border Force throughout the transition period, and Border Force has trained new staff to address this additional requirement.

As a result of the protocol, as mentioned previously, documentation will be required for movement of CITES specimens between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This will require additional enforcement by Border Force at ports of entry and exit between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Border Force has increased staff numbers in order to address this increase and is well prepared for these additional checks from the end of the transition period. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I want to highlight that a few noble Lords have withdrawn so that those online can be ready. The noble Lords, Lord Clark of Windermere, Lord Bowness and Lord Bhatia, have withdrawn and the noble Lord, Lord Mann, is not in the Room, so after the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Loomba.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. In order to prepare for the end of the transition period, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to protect endangered species, in accordance with our international obligations, and ensure that trade does not threaten the survival of these species in the wild.

A wide range of questions and suggestions was put forward in this debate and I will do my best to address them all. I will start with the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who acknowledged that this was not a major piece of legislation but raised concerns more generally about the future of government policy in relation to biodiversity and broader environmental issues. I would simply say to him that if you judge this Government on the basis of what has happened even in just the last year, it is very clear which direction we are heading in. The Prime Minister at last year’s UNGA, about a year ago, committed to doubling our international climate finance but also made the commitment, just as importantly in my view, that a big chunk of the uplift would be spent on nature-based solutions—which would of course have huge ramifications for reversing biodiversity loss. If you invest in nature to tackle climate change—which in fact is a prerequisite of tackling climate change—you are dealing with many other problems at the same time, not least biodiversity loss: 80% of the world’s terrestrial biodiversity, for example, lives in the world’s forests, which are being cut down at a rate of 30 football pitches per minute.

Looking at the decisions that have flowed since that announcement, we see that we have committed to greatly increasing funding for the world-renowned Darwin Initiative, which was set up in 1992 and has already backed 1,220 projects in 159 countries, spanning the continents of Africa, Asia and central and South America. We have greatly increased the Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund. The Prime Minister announced a major uplift and already it has spent £26 million on 85 projects since 2014, covering a wide range of issues, with campaigns from ranger training in vulnerable countries to supporting demand-reduction campaigns in those countries and areas where the demand for the illegal wildlife trade is acute, in particular in the Far East.

The Prime Minister has also announced a new International Biodiversity Fund of £220 million. Partly from that—although it comes from other sources as well—we have created and are due to launch a new £100 million Biodiverse Landscapes Fund, which I think is a world first and is designed to create links between existing protected or threatened areas on a trans-boundary basis, providing safe travel for threatened species and also jobs for those people living in and around them. I recognise that we do not have that long, but there are many other examples of what we do. So the direction of travel is clear and, much as I appreciate his kind words about my involvement in government, I am absolutely not a lone voice on our appetite to do whatever we can, because much heavy lifting is necessary to try to reverse the catastrophic trends we have seen in relation to biodiversity loss.

The last two points I will make relate to comments by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Just a few weeks ago the United Kingdom, through the Prime Minister, announced that 32 countries have signed up to the Global Ocean Alliance that we have set up. It is an alliance of countries committed to protecting 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030. On the back of our record on biodiversity, we have now been invited to join the high-ambition coalition of countries, led by Costa Rica, which probably does more on these issues than any other country, and France, which also has a good track record on biodiversity. We are very happy to have joined. As part of the coalition we are pushing for the 30% target for the oceans to apply equally to land.

We also had probably the most important role to play in crafting the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which has been signed by 75 countries and is undoubtedly the strongest such declaration that exists. That is a direct consequence of extremely hard work by my colleagues in both the FCDO and Defra. We really transformed that document from platitudes to something that is very much more concrete, radical and ambitious.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, asked about consultations and impact assessments. In fact, he answered his own question. The reason these were not undertaken was that the SI does not lead to any kind of substantive change. It really is a tidying-up exercise, tailoring a piece of legislation to accommodate the Northern Ireland protocol and also changes in the European Union, in relation, for example, to species which have since been suspended, that have happened since we introduced the last CITES SIs.

The position that the Government have taken is right and I would also say that it is not really a choice. We have to do this SI. Not proceeding with this would prevent proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol in so far as it relates to CITES and it would be confusing to both traders and regulators, because we would have a conflict in the legislation between EU provisions and UK provisions. It would also likely render the CITES regime inoperable in the UK, which could, and probably would, disrupt a number of industries, undermining the UK’s record on biodiversity, which I have already covered, and potentially increasing the risk of the illegal wildlife trade. So it is necessary that we are doing what we are doing, and it is appropriate that there was no consultation or impact assessment in the manner in which the noble Lord suggested.

The last point that the noble Lord raised was to ask whether our approach would be reviewed in a timely manner. CITES is a continuously evolving process. As a full and very enthusiastic member of CITES—and not just enthusiastic but very active—our approach will necessarily evolve, along with decisions made by scientists. I have seen myself things that I would not have seen had I not been a Minister: behind the scenes, our officials, round the clock, over 24 hours in some cases, negotiating for important changes—and delivering them.

One example of that is the recent ruling against the trade in live elephants, away from countries where they naturally have a home to countries where elephants do not exist. This is something that I think is supported by most people in this country. We pushed for such a ban, against huge resistance across the board. It was a long shot, but my colleagues in Defra decided that it was worth expending particular energy and effort in that regard—and they succeeded. As a consequence, a law was passed which I can absolutely guarantee would not have been passed had it not been for the intervention of the UK. So we are not a reluctant member of CITES; we are a very active and enthusiastic member and that will continue, regardless of who occupies my post.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the Aichi targets. This is a hugely important issue. The Aichi targets are pretty good. If every country did what countries were supposed to do, having signed up to the Aichi targets, we would probably be having a very different discussion today and the world would be in better shape than it is. But, as we have seen, the trends have continued, and in some cases accelerated, in the wrong direction. Every country failed to meet its Aichi targets, including the United Kingdom. On the whole they were ignored.

One reason for that is that there is no national pegging of those targets. There is no NDC equivalent for nature that countries can put together to show how they are going to meet the targets, and against which they can be measured and judged. That is one of the things that the UK is bringing to the table in the CBD. We are not hosting the CBD—it is being hosted by China in Kunming next year—but one of the things that we are absolutely committed to doing, and in which I sincerely hope we will succeed, although obviously it is not entirely up to us, is to do everything we can to ensure not only that we will we have agreed ambitious, meaningful targets but that there will be mechanisms within the agreement to allow countries to be held properly to account and make it harder for countries to ignore their obligations, in the same way that we have seen in relation to carbon. There is lots more to do on reducing carbon emissions, but there is no doubt that we are now on the right trajectory politically. We have seen in the last few weeks some really big interventions by China, Korea, Japan and so on. I very much take the noble Baroness’s point on that.

The noble Baroness mentioned an article in Nature Communications. I have not read the article. It is about the lack of regulations in relation to reptiles. She mentioned that 35% of the reptiles are sold online and that three-quarters of the reptiles sold are not covered by regulations. She mentioned that a very large proportion of them—she gave a number, but I am afraid that I did not have time to write it down—are taken from the wild. What she conveyed to me was extremely worrying. I will read the article and make sure that my colleagues in Defra do as well. If we need to act on the back of it and change our position in any respect, or add our voice to a particular call, I will give the noble Baroness my commitment that that is what we will do—and I will be very happy to take that conversation offline as well if she thinks that that would be useful.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was very kind to describe me as a nature champion. He has long been a champion of the natural world, and I wish that there were more of his sort in politics today—he has shown massive commitment. He mentioned a number of different issues, including our willingness to be led by the science. He talked about the Scientific Review Group and the Enforcement Group. The answer is that, as we have left the EU, we will no longer participate directly and be bound by those EU structures, including the Scientific Review Group, under our CITES regulations. The scientific authorities that we have here at our disposal—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned, for fauna, and the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew for flora, will continue to provide advice on a wide range of CITES matters and we will continue to collaborate internationally, as you would expect us to, with other CITES scientific authorities, as appropriate. I do not believe that there will be a knowledge gap there. We do not live in a bubble—we have plenty of friends in the context of CITES; information is often shared on a regular basis, and that informs good policy and helps us to develop the positions that we eventually take.

Implied in the question was a concern that we might end up moving to a position of weakening our approach through CITES; that concern was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. As a party to CITES in our own right, we will continue to meet our obligations and commitments under the convention. We are committed to ensuring that no species becomes extinct as the result of unsustainable trade; that is where we need to get to. As I hope I conveyed to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, at the beginning of this debate, we are absolutely committed to playing the biggest possible role that we can internationally in trying to reverse the trends that we are unfortunately seeing. We are retaining EU protections in UK law, which in some instances go further than CITES requires. For example, birds of prey are given the highest level of protection despite the fact that they are not all listed in appendix 1, and in other areas, we will always be willing to go further than the CITES rules require of us. As I hope I have conveyed, the appetite is very much there.

I will move around a bit, but I want to comment on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who implied that we have an opportunity in this SI to go further than we are currently going. I agree with her completely that we need to go further in every regard regarding biodiversity, that we could be doing much more in relation to the illegal wildlife trade, that our ambitions in relation to the CBD need to be fulfilled and realised, and that we need to be able to make our voices heard in lots of different fora.

However, this is just a technical SI that amends the relevant CITES EU law to make sure that it operates properly at the end of the transition period. That is all it exists to do, and to make the regulations stricter would go beyond the scope of the powers in the Act. Having said that, just like the European Union, we will always be able to go further than the convention minimums based on the scientific advice that we receive; in many cases, we have done just that. I will return to some of the points raised by the noble Baroness but I want to try to make sure that I answer as many of these questions as possible.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in relation to the movement of goods. The answer is that there will be no checks between them. There will be checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and vice versa but not between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. She also raised a concern about having two separate regimes after the transition period. Criminal offences for the breach of regulations are fairly substantial; I can confirm that those offences are under review and will be kept under review permanently, as is appropriate.

In response to my noble friend’s question about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—I think she said that we were a bit dismissive—nothing is black and white; it is neither entirely good nor entirely bad that we are leaving the European Union. In my view, there is a significant net benefit, but that does not mean that there are not areas where co-operation would be beneficial. Having left the EU, we will no longer be part of the SRG; we will have to work particularly hard to ensure that we benefit from some of the work that is done in the European Union on CITES to ensure that we are as close as possible. There is no real difference except on certain areas in certain countries in Europe; there is a common commitment to tackling these issues.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned pet passports. I am afraid that we do not have the answer to that yet. I will update her on the latest answer that we have but I do not think that it will satisfy her questions, so I will have to come back to her in due course with the best I can. She may have to be patient; I apologise for that. She also asked about the border in the North Sea after the transition period; I am grateful to her for saying that she supports the SI. Northern Ireland imports hardly any CITES specimens but we do not yet know what will happen with trade patterns; obviously, the future is hard to predict. However, our ports have received additional investment and we will have 29 ports of entry and exit for the movement of CITES goods designated by the end of this year. The full list of designations is listed on GOV.UK, and Belfast is to be designated—that question was asked by the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones.

I keep confusing my Baroness Joneses, but I turn now to the Green one—I cannot remember her geographical location. She is a wonderful, inspiring figure and a champion of nature. She made the point that the Government require an element of humility and should always be willing to improve and take advice. She is of course right. I enjoy being lobbied by those who lobby with good faith and who genuinely want better outcomes. Where I can improve our approach, that is what I exist to do in both Defra and the FCDO.

As I mentioned in response to a question from the other noble Baroness, Lady Jones, this is a narrow statutory instrument that has a particular job to do: ensure that the laws work post transition period. There is plenty more that we can do. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, pointed out, CITES is just one of the tools that we have at our disposal; there are many others and our job is to try to make use of all the tools available to us.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, from the Green Party—I am so sorry for breaking all the protocols. Where is she from? Oh, Moulsecoomb. I apologise to her if she is listening; I am sure that she is. She asked about the National Wildlife Crime Unit. Defra and the Home Office play a part in this. Defra has committed to continuing to provide the funding needed—as has the Home Office, I believe, although I do not want to say this as a matter of fact in case I am wrong. I commit to the noble Baroness that if that is not the case and what I have just said is wrong, I will do all I can in my capacity as a Minister to ensure that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has the resources and funding that it needs. It is an extraordinarily important piece of the puzzle. If it is not properly resourced, it makes honouring our commitments under CITES, and others relating to the illegal wildlife trade, much harder. I will get back to her with, I hope, proper reassurance. If not, I assure her that I will do all that I can to ensure that the NWCU has the resources it needs.

My opposite number, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the Scientific Review Group. As I mentioned earlier, as we have left the EU, we will no longer participate in or be bound by those structures. However, our own authorities are world renowned and provide good advice on a regular basis. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Royal Botanical Gardens at Kew, which I had the honour of representing for 10 years as its local MP, will continue to provide whatever advice and information we need.

I am confident that we will have the information, knowledge, tools and capacity not just to maintain our existing commitments and activities in this area but to improve them. That is the Government’s ambition and my ambition as a Minister; I will certainly do all that I can to ensure that that is the case. I hope that I have answered all the key questions.

Motion agreed.

Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, I will be covering two instruments in this group, both relating to the effective regulation of chemicals, one that relates to pesticides and one that relates to persistent organic pollutants. The first of these, the Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, makes further updates to retained EU legislation for plant protection products and maximum residue levels. Plant protection products, or pesticides, as most people refer to them, are regulated within the EU by two main EU regulations. They are Regulation EC 1107/2009 concerning the authorisation of active substances and the placing of pesticides on the market, and Regulation EC 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides permitted on food and feed. They are also regulated by means of EU directive 2009/128/EC which established a framework for Community action to achieve the sustainable use of pesticides.

In preparation for leaving the EU, we have already put in place a series of pesticides EU exit SIs to ensure that the regulatory regime can operate sensibly in future and provide continued protection for human health and the environment, primarily through the Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which I will refer to throughout this debate as the PPP EU Exit SI, the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, otherwise known as the MRL EU Exit SI, and finally the Pesticides and Fertilisers (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/306, known as the SUD EU Exit SI.

These earlier EU exit statutory instruments were put in place in readiness for the original exit day in March 2019 and have dealt with the majority of changes required. The instrument we are considering today makes a number of additional but relatively minor amendments to deal with developments since the original EU exit SIs were produced. They have no, or no significant, impact on business. We have worked closely with the devolved Administrations to develop this further instrument and they have consented to it being made on a UK-wide basis.

Amendments are required for four main reasons. First, new EU legislation has come into force since the earlier EU exit SIs were finalised, either shortly prior to or during the transition period. This needs to be corrected in the same way as in the earlier EU exit SIs so that it works correctly in a national context, including where the new EU legislation interacts with corrections already made in the earlier SIs. Secondly, to make necessary changes as a consequence of the Northern Ireland protocol by amending the earlier UK-wide EU exit SIs so that redundant references related to Northern Ireland are removed and legislative cross-references work correctly. Thirdly, to make updates to some transitional provisions within the earlier EU exit SIs, so that they apply from the end of the transition period when the retained law comes into force, rather than from exit day, and so work as intended. Finally, to make minor technical corrections to secondary domestic legislation as regards the establishment of harmonised risk indicators in order to correct new deficiencies in the retained EU law. In short, without this instrument various highly technical provisions will not be retained in national law in a way that will work correctly.

The second of the two instruments is the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. It makes technical amendments to the POPs regulation to maintain continuity in retained EU law in order to ensure that legislation which manages persistent organic pollutants, which I will hereafter refer to as POPs, is operable following the end of the transition period. In addition, it reflects the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol. The EU POPs regulation was put in place to fulfil commitments under both the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. The UK is a party to both these conventions. This new instrument ensures that we preserve the current regime for managing POPs, which are substances that are recognised as being particularly dangerous to humans and the environment, and this instrument is needed for two reasons.

First, EU Regulation 850/2004 was recast in July 2019 as EU Regulation 2019/1021 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Persistent Organic Pollutants. An earlier EU exit instrument that was put in place in readiness for the original exit day in March 2019 now needs to be replaced to reflect the revision to the EU regulation. Many of the amendments to correct deficiencies in that earlier EU exit instrument are replicated in this new instrument. Secondly, this instrument will make the changes required as a consequence of the Northern Ireland protocol. References related to Northern Ireland are removed and legislative cross-references work correctly. This will ensure that the retained EU law on POPs has practical application only in Great Britain, where appropriate. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters, they have given consent.

The following provisions were included in the 2019 exit SI and are now included in the current SI. The first is the repatriation of all decision-making functions and powers from the EU to the Secretary of State, the Welsh Minister and the Scottish Minister to exercise in their respective areas. The Secretary of State may exercise these functions on behalf of a devolved Administration, with their consent. The Secretary of State will publish reports on the management of POPs, which are currently submitted to the European Commission for publication, and the following provisions relate to the new provisions in the EU recast of the original legislation.

The Environment Agency will assume the role given to the European Chemicals Agency to provide technical and scientific support. This role will be fulfilled with the consent of the devolved Administrations. Additionally, the EU regulation places a duty on the UK to take necessary measures to trace and control POPs once they enter the waste stream. Ordinarily, these measures would be implemented in the UK under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. However, as work on delivering these measures will continue beyond the end of the transition period, this instrument creates a new power for GB to make regulations to implement that specific duty. The exercise of this new power will be subject to parliamentary approval and is time limited, with a requirement to make any regulations before 31 October 2023.

Finally, the requirement to amend this regulation has also provided an opportunity to include the Northern Ireland protocol provisions applicable to this regulation. Northern Ireland will continue to apply EU regulation 2019/1021 to manage POPs in the environment but, where regulations apply to the UK as a party to the conventions I mentioned earlier, they remain applicable to Northern Ireland. Neither the JCSI nor the SLHC had any comments on these instruments and I can confirm that they will be able to function with or without a deal with the European Union.

As I have previously said, the Government are committed to ensuring continued levels of protection for human health and the environment, as well as providing stability and continuity for business. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. In order to prepare for the end of the transition period after leaving the EU, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place to continue to regulate both pesticides and persistent organic pollutants effectively so as to protect human health and the environment. A wide range of issues was raised by noble Lords; I will do my best to address them as fully as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked about divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland protocol, the EU pesticides regime will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period in the same way as during it. It is inevitable that divergence in pesticides decisions between the EU and GB regimes will eventually occur, but the Health and Safety Executive will endeavour to assess and determine pesticide authorisations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland through a single process wherever we possibly can.

The noble Lord asked about the application of pesticides near to people’s homes—an issue which came up during debates on the Agriculture Bill. The use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no harmful effect on people, including residents and bystanders. The assessment of risk is rigorous and authorisation is frequently refused. Pesticide users are required by law to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment and to apply the product only to the area that they intend to treat. This issue was raised by a number of noble Lords, and the question of how rigorous the protections are is a valid point to make. Clearly, the ambition has to be that we move as far as we can away from the use of pesticides at all. That is reflected in government policy, and I will come to that in slightly more detail as I answer questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Randall.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also asked how decisions can be tested or challenged in court. The answer is that enforcement is a matter for the designated enforcement bodies. Usually, in the case of pesticides and POPs, that is the Health and Safety Executive. He cited the work of the ClientEarth organisation and asked what assurance I can give that our standards of protection will not be weakened in any way. The answer is that the Government will continue to ensure that current standards of environmental and health protection will be maintained after the end of the transition period. We have made that commitment many times, and it has not been diluted in any way. We will be taking our own independent decisions in Great Britain under retained law, but the statutory requirements on standards of protection and the considerable body of EU technical guidance are carried across unchanged.

The noble Lord also asked about principle of the “polluter pays” and whether it is in any sense undermined either through this instrument or generally speaking in our approach to regulating chemicals. It was not exactly clear which he was referring to, but the answer is the same. This statutory instrument has no bearing on the “polluter pays” principle, but that principle is at the heart of our approach in the upcoming Environment Bill, whether we are talking about pollution, waste or any other negative environmental impact, where the onus will be on the polluter or producer of waste.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a powerful case for a shift away from pesticides towards cleaner systems, and he is right. That clearly has to be the ambition of any responsible Government. We want to minimise and eventually phase out the use of pesticides, and that means adopting different forms of food production over time. The only thing I would say to him, because this is not directly relevant to the effects of this SI, is that we are on the cusp of shifting our entire land use subsidy system away from the common agricultural policy—which, as he knows, incentivised landowners to convert whatever land they have, no matter how ecologically valuable, to make it farmable. No single piece of legislation anywhere in Europe has done more harm to our biodiversity and landscape than the common agricultural policy. That system is being changed wholesale and replaced with a system where payments will be conditional on good environmental stewardship. That can mean any number of different things, depending on where the land happens to be and how it is used, but it is inconceivable that the new environmental land management system will not catapult us in the direction in which we need to go of reversing biodiversity loss and promoting the kind of farming to which the noble Lord referred.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made the point that the chemicals industry is extraordinarily powerful and has enjoyed the position of being able to lobby very effectively, particularly across the European Union, where a single decision can have an impact on a vast area. That was certainly the case in the creation of the REACH programme. While many noble Lords look to REACH as the gold standard in chemicals regulation, the reality is that early proposals for REACH were much stronger than what eventually emerged. That was a consequence of probably the largest lobbying exercise by any sector at any time on the continent. I remember at the time writing and publishing articles about it in The Ecologist magazine, which I edited.

We saw an extraordinary weakening of rules on, for example, endocrine-disrupting chemicals—a point raised later in the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who talked about the effect of polluted water on breast milk and the consequent development of children. I remember that, 15 years ago, a study was conducted into the issue of precocious puberty, or early onset puberty, in the United States. The figures were extraordinary, pointing to 1% of three year-old girls showing some signs of puberty, as compared with 1% of eight year-olds just 20 or 25 years before. There is no doubt that chemical contamination which finds its way into the food supply—into the food chain and through our water—has dramatic impacts on the health of children. It affects their development in all kinds of unpredictable and damaging ways, so I very much agree with her.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, asked specifically why the SI delays introduction of changes to the format of the renewal dossiers until 2026, rather than 2023, as in the EU. This measure is to provide a smooth transition between EU and retained law. It has the effect that the relevant requirements which apply to active substances under retained law will be the same as for those same substances when they are considered under the EU regime. The change in date reflects that active substance approvals which expire in the first three years after the end of the transition period will be extended to allow the necessary time for evaluation under the national regime. This avoids the same substance having different requirements when it is addressed under the Great Britain regime than when it was considered under the EU regime. I hope that addresses his concern.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the same issue of pesticides being applied near homes, and I refer her to the answer I provided earlier. She also talked more broadly about the need to shift our food production away from the use of pesticides. Again, I strongly agree with her and refer her to my answer earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I remind her that the introduction of the ELM system will be the single biggest lever we have at our disposal to change the way land is managed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked more specifically about pesticide reduction policies. A lot of work is under way to research, develop and promote means to move away from chemical pesticides, including plant breeding for pesticide-resistant varieties, the use of natural predators, the development of biopesticides and the use of a variety of cultural methods to reduce pest pressures. The Government are funding much of that work through their support for the research councils.

The noble Baroness also asked a general question about whether our standards will be maintained. The Government have committed to continue to ensure that our existing standards are maintained after the transition period, and that will be true across all our chemical regulations policies.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about staff and training—about capacity. I reassure her that we are working closely with the Health and Safety Executive to ensure the transition is as smooth as possible, and we have been carefully planning the expected programme of work. Without a doubt, some additional capacity will be required, and we will ramp it up as need be and over time. Clearly, we place great importance on protecting human health and the environment, so it will be necessary to resource the regime so that it can operate. We are well aware of that, and we will resolve those issues through the current spending review. However, the commitment is clearly there, as is the shared belief that this is a priority concern and we need to ensure that we have the capacity, the expertise and the resources that we need.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked whether we will duplicate EU decisions. Great Britain authorities will take decisions that are in the best interests of the UK independently of EU decisions; there is no duplication of efforts. It has always been necessary to consider the evidence to inform the UK position on EU decisions, and our GB decision-making will be underpinned by that robust evidence base and impact assessment. The opportunity for UK stakeholders to input will not only remain but be enhanced.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a number of questions. She asked about the MRL monitoring programme obligations and whether they will be carried forward into the national regime. They will, and they look ahead three years. She asked if we could explain the paragraph in the Explanatory Memorandum about the free issue procedure. This procedure is used to issue SIs where we have to correct mistakes. On PCBs, new legislation was passed this year to remove PCBs from use in electrical equipment by 2025. Legacy land contamination is managed under the contaminated land regime in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned a number of issues that I hope I have already addressed. She also talked about POPs waste. Measures concerning the traceability control of POPs waste are clearly complex and will take some time to fully implement. However, it would not be appropriate to have that power indefinitely, and it may not be needed if it is dealt with under the Environment Bill. The noble Baroness also asked about control programmes and sampling. We will develop our plans for national maximum residue level monitoring programmes, including stakeholder engagement, in due course, so I will get back to her with information about that.

I hope and believe that I have answered the questions raised—I am looking through my notes to see if there are any that I missed out. My apologies—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, also asked about capacity and resources to deliver the national regime. The competent authorities across the UK will continue to manage and enforce the POPs regime as they do now, and, as I said, the Environment Agency has been working closely with Defra and the HSE to get the right resources in place to deliver its role. It has already increased its resource and it has an additional recruitment plan for early 2021 to ensure that it has the right capability and capacity for anticipated peaks and workload over the coming years.

I hope that I have answered all the questions that have been raised. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and look forward to such debates in the months to come.

Motion agreed.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations.

Relevant document: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Terrestrial and Freshwater Protected Sites

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, in declaring my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, I ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Environment Bill requires us to set at least one target in each of the four priority areas, including biodiversity. We will bring these targets forward by 31 October 2022. Our recent policy paper, Environment Bill—Environmental Targets, outlines our initial thinking on objectives for targets, which we will develop over the coming months, including on the condition of protected sites. Before committing to specific targets, we will gather further evidence, including by carrying out a public consultation.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, and I recognise his great work on environmental concerns. But does he not agree with me that it is almost inexplicable that the appetite in an environment plan is so little as to have only three-quarters of sites of scientific interest ready and up to standard within 22 years? Is that not utterly lamentable, given the current biodiversity crisis, not just globally but in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord asks whether we will bring the target forward. The Environment Bill framework requires us to set targets by October 2022 for a minimum of 15 years, so a target set in 2022 would run until at least 2037. One of the targets we propose is on the condition of protected sites. Any targets, when agreed, would be set out in law through an SI by October. A goal of 75% is ambitious. Some cases, such as peat bog restoration, can take many years of hard conservation work before sites even come close to reaching a favourable condition.

[Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recently said that nature-based solutions will be central to the negotiations at COP 26. What progress can the Minister report? What emphasis will there be on a global response in which other nations also restore soils and grasslands to act as carbon sinks?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

Our nature strategy, which transcends the climate COP and has direct implications on the biodiversity COP being hosted in Kunming shortly before, is three things. The first is that we want more finance for nature. We are taking a lead in this country, having doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion. We have committed to spending a big proportion of that new money on nature-based solutions. We want other countries to do similarly and to mobilise private finance. A second area is targets. The Aichi targets are impressive, but they are ignored by pretty much every country. We want to include a means to hold individual countries to account on those targets. Thirdly, we want to tackle the drivers of environmental destruction, such as dodgy land-use subsidies that incentivise environmental destruction and by cleaning up our supply chains. The UK is showing real leadership in both those areas.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm whether the Government have co-ordinated their efforts with the devolved Administrations on the strong protection of our land and freshwater environment?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

Many issues relating to biodiversity and nature are devolved. However, my department, Defra, is in routine negotiations and discussions with the DAs. In certain areas, we work particularly closely together. For instance, we have a target to plant 30,000 hectares of land a year by 2025. A great deal of that burden will be taken up by our friends in Scotland, so we are liaising closely on that and all issues relating to biodiversity and nature.

[Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the environmental performance report of 2 October shows that more action and investment is needed by several water companies, which are failing to protect. The Environment Agency has requested that all water companies develop, publish and implement specific plans to reduce the incidence of pollution by the end of this year. Will the Government request that additional monitoring or modelling is put in place if they find any data gaps?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

Where water companies do not meet our expectations, we will toughen our regulation and push them to improve their performance. This will include the Environment Agency conducting in-depth audits and reviews of water company management systems and new technologies, such as continuous flow monitoring and event duration monitoring. The results of the Environment Agency’s audits and review will help it and us to target enforcement action appropriately.

[Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]]

My Lords, water pollution is a key cause of the decline in conditions of protected sites. All English rivers are currently failing to meet quality tests for pollution. Given that 40% of water pollution comes from agricultural run-offs, what specifically are the Government doing to get farmers to use fewer chemical inputs?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

The principal tool we will use in the coming years is the transfer from the common agricultural policy subsidy system to the environmental land management system. Whereas farmers and landowners have, for decades, been incentivised to convert their land to make it farmable—in many respects grubbing out ecosystems and undermining nature—the new system will make those payments completely conditional on good environmental stewardship. It is probably the biggest bonus that nature and our environment more broadly will have experienced in the last century. Although that is not the only funding mechanism or tool at our disposal, it is undoubtedly the most powerful.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is all very well talking about new targets, but we cannot meet our existing targets? Surely enforcement of our existing targets is the thing that matters. As has already been mentioned, the water companies and some bad farmers are not meeting standards and are not being fined. Clearly, the Environment Agency is not up to the standard required to issue fines. Does he further agree that fines on big companies, such as water companies, are a waste of time, as the ultimate payer is us—the user? The directors should get fined.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

I certainly agree that the department, the Government and the Environment Agency should be using every tool at their disposal to ensure that the water companies behave responsibly and with environmental care. My colleague in Defra, Rebecca Pow, has established a new working group with the water companies to better understand, in the quickest possible timeframe, what more government can do and what the water companies should do to improve the quality of our water. I just make the point that bringing sites, whether water or land, into favourable conditions is a big challenge and takes time. Many sites were in poor condition when they were designated as protected sites. Some, such as peat bogs, can take decades to be restored to a favourable condition. The same is true for our river systems, which have had years of interference.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for returning once again to the question of polluted Welsh water running into English rivers. The farming rules for water in England have no counterpart in Wales. In his Written Answer to my Question on 27 October, the noble Lord said that his department had not been in touch with Wales and he cited devolution as the reason. I put it to him, respectfully, that we should cut through bureaucracy in the cause of common sense.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. I am afraid I am not in a position to update him on the letter I provided most recently. However, I will take his message back to the department with a view to making progress and, as he said, cutting through the red tape and bureaucracy.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, what hope do we have of being able to deliver what is an unacceptably distant and unambitious target, when we do not yet have a comprehensive baseline of natural capital assets against which we can measure progress? When can we expect to see those baselines, so that we know that progress is happening?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

A number of pieces of work will help us to better understand the economics of biodiversity. One, as the noble Baroness knows, is the Dasgupta review, which we commissioned some time ago and is due to be produced very soon. She is right that we also need a more comprehensive audit or inventory of our natural capital in order to understand best how to introduce policies tailored to improving biodiversity. That work is ongoing. It is an enormous undertaking, and my department has been in discussions with the Treasury about working together to ensure that we are able and resourced to fill the gaps.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]]

My Lords, by any measure, biodiversity in this country is now falling, at least in part because protected nature areas tend to be in small pockets that lack the necessary food webs and resilience for proper biodiversity. Can the Minister assure us that the zoning proposals in the planning White Paper will not make this situation worse?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

I can give that assurance. Our planning reforms are intended to speed up decisions that can and should be sped up. We are determined to maintain and improve on the high standards we have set for our environment. We recognise that our biodiversity has been in sharp decline for decades; this transcends any one Government. We have put the levers and funding in place to begin the painful but necessary process of reversing those trends.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.

Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 October be approved.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument amends the Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—SI 2018/1025—on the trade in timber and timber products, also known as the 2018 exit regulations.

This instrument is for purposes relating to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and to address deficiencies that have arisen since the 2018 exit regulations were made. This is considered a reserved policy. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument. The technical amendments in this instrument address deficiencies that have arisen since the 2018 exit regulations were made and, in addition, relate to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The minor amendments contained in this instrument will ensure that the regulations for the trade in legally harvested timber will operate effectively in the United Kingdom. I make it clear that all the amendments introduced by this instrument are technical operability amendments and do not introduce any policy changes.

The timber regulation and FLEGT licensing regulations address the issue of illegally harvested timber through two measures. On the supply side, the FLEGT regulations provide for a licensing regime with countries which have entered into a partnership agreement, allowing them to issue licences that prove legality of harvest. On the demand side, the timber regulation prohibits the placing on the market of illegally harvested timber and requires businesses to exercise due diligence on timber to ensure its legality.

Illegal logging is a significant driver of deforestation, leading to a dramatic decline in biodiversity and the loss of critical ecosystems services. Deforestation is also a major contributor to climate change. It directly affects rural communities that rely on forests for livelihoods and results in revenue loss to Governments and legitimate businesses. The timber regulation and FLEGT licensing system are therefore vital tools in preventing the trade in this timber.

The instrument’s main purpose is to make amendments to the 2018 exit regulations to facilitate operability within the context of the Northern Ireland protocol. This is achieved by substituting, in several instances, “the Community” and “the United Kingdom”, with “Great Britain”. There are several instances in which reference to “the United Kingdom” is retained from the 2018 regulations. This is to do three things.

First, as a FLEGT voluntary partnership agreement is defined as being constituted between two states or regional organisations, the reference must be to the United Kingdom for this to be correct. Secondly, for the purposes of the UK timber regulation, it defines the market on which timber is placed as the United Kingdom. If this market were to be defined as Great Britain it would have the effect of imposing the obligation to exercise due diligence on businesses importing timber from Northern Ireland to England, Scotland or Wales. This would represent a new check on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain and so the definition of the United Kingdom is retained. The third retention of United Kingdom is in relation to monitoring organisations. These are approved businesses which are able to offer access to their due diligence systems to those placing timber on the market. The regulations set out requirements in relation to where businesses must be legally established in order to be able to apply to be a monitoring organisation. If this area were to be defined as Great Britain it would preclude businesses in Northern Ireland from being able to apply to be a monitoring organisation under the UK regulations. As such, the definition of the United Kingdom has been retained.

The instrument also amends the dates when the first reports on the UK timber and FLEGT regulations are required. This is to ensure that there is an appropriate amount of time between the implementation of the regulations and the first report being produced. If this were not amended, the first report would be due just three months after the regulation comes into force. It also corrects a typographical error in the 2018 exit regulations by changing “in” to “by” in relation to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom on timber imports or exports. It also amends the reporting period for the FLEGT regulation to a calendar rather than a financial year to bring it in line with other reporting schedules. This amendment was necessary to deal with an amendment to the EU regulations made after our 2018 exit SI. Finally, this instrument substitutes “IP completion”—the implementation period—for “exit” in the context of the date at which existing monitoring organisations established in the United Kingdom will retain recognition. This change is simply to correct a deficiency that has arisen since the 2018 exit regulations.

The instrument has always been intended for the affirmative procedure. It went through the JCSI without comment. This instrument was not subject to consultation, as it does not alter existing policy. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for this instrument. This is because no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen as this instrument relates to maintenance of existing regulatory standards and the cost of any direct impact from this instrument falls under £5 million. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. This is considered a reserved policy. The devolved Administrations were engaged in the development of the instrument and are content.

The Office for Product Safety & Standards, part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is the delivery body for the regulations and will continue in this role for both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It has been involved in the development of this instrument and has no concerns in relation to implementation or resources. Its expertise in the enforcement of the regulations and its history of working with businesses to understand and meet their obligations will ensure a consistent and transparent transition.

The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area and the Government’s 25-year environment plan has made clear our commitment to support and protect international forests. This regulation will ensure that we can continue to protect valuable global resources, safeguard the livelihoods of some of the world’s most vulnerable people and contribute to tackling climate change. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have contributed—or tried to contribute—to this debate today. The Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make no change to the existing policy to tackle the trade in illegally harvested timber. The Government’s 25-year environment plan sets out our continued commitment to protecting and restoring the world’s forests and to supporting sustainable agriculture. This instrument will ensure that we have the operable regulations we need to address this.

I begin by acknowledging the attempts by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, to contribute to the debate. I am afraid that I was not able to pick up on any of the questions or comments that he raised. I invite him to write to me after this sitting and I shall do my best to provide a written response to him on whatever issues he was planning on raising.

I appreciate very much the kind sentiments and support which the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, expressed for this measure and for other measures that the Government are introducing against illegal forestry. This clearly is an important issue. The UK is a significant importer of timber and other forest products. As we know, deforestation contributes approximately 25% or 26%—although some put the figure at 30%—of the emissions that are contributing to climate change, as well as undermining the world’s biodiversity, contributing to the extraordinary levels of biodiversity loss that we have seen in recent years. It is also undermining those who depend most directly on forests; up to 1 billion people depend on forests for their livelihood. Deforestation is a global issue and a high priority.

I also thank the noble Baroness for acknowledging the work being conducted to extend the due diligence on timber and timber products to commodities. As she said, the Government have just finished consulting on measures that will introduce due diligence requirements on bigger businesses to ensure that, as they import commodities, they are not also importing illegal deforestation. The Government will respond to the consultation soon, but we are keen to avoid overlapping this regime with the timber regulations that we are discussing today. Timber and timber products are not in the scope of our current due diligence on proposals for forest-risk commodities. Our intention is to build an alliance of countries around the world—north, south, east, west; producer, consumer, rich and poor—committed to doing similar on commodities, with the view that we can theoretically flip the market in favour of forests being worth more alive than dead. It matters.

The noble Baroness asked whether we would, in any sense, end up in a weaker position on illegally harvested timber following the introduction of this SI. The answer is no. The UK timber regulation FLEGT replicates the EU regulations, so there is no reduction in any sense—of scope, application or enforcement. It makes no change to policy whatsoever. Our 25-year environment plan sets out our ambition to support and protect the world’s forests, not just to expand our own, as well as to support sustainable agriculture and work towards zero-deforestation supply chains. Our commitment in this area remains absolutely undimmed.

The noble Baroness raised questions on the situation in Northern Ireland following the passage of this instrument. As she said, officials are not yet able to provide a forensic answer to the question she raised. However, we will clearly have to, and will. We are in the process of resolving a number of operational issues with the European Commission and will clarify whether Northern Ireland companies importing timber can use only monitoring organisations on the approved and published EU list, and if Northern Ireland businesses will have to find other monitoring organisations from elsewhere in the EU. A monitoring organisation based in Northern Ireland would be able to operate in both Great Britain, under our regulations, and Northern Ireland, based on the technical notice.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the OPSS would be sufficiently resourced and whether I can provide that reassurance. I am happy to provide it: the regulatory body for Northern Ireland is the same organisation, the OPSS, and will be sufficiently resourced to undertake its duties in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

I move on to questions from and comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I also thank her for her remarks, as this is important. She celebrated the stand the European Union has taken on this issue, and I join her in doing so. This is important legislation; I add only that the UK took a leading role in helping to craft it from the outset. A lot of the work that we are funding through what was the Department for International Development, and is now part of the FCDO, is enabling and helping producer countries to comply with those regulations. The UK Department for International Development, as it then was, worked closely with Indonesia, which is the first country to achieve recognised status, with considerable investment on our part. This investment is now being mirrored in other countries. I fully agree that this is a pioneering move by the European Union, and the UK can take credit for having driven this process through and ensuring that it is sufficient and, indeed, radical.

The noble Baroness asked whether our ambition for VPAs is sufficiently widespread. I think that was her question. It is worth saying that the countries that have signed VPAs with the EU so far include Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Vietnam. As I said, Indonesia was the first to reach the milestone of FLEGT licensing. VPAs with Guyana and Honduras have been initiated, and the countries currently negotiating VPAs are Côte d’Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand.

As I said, the function of this instrument is to make minor amendments to the Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations. As such, the replication of VPAs is not within its scope. We will be laying a separate instrument in January 2021 related to the FLEGT licensing scheme in Indonesia. This will list Indonesia as a partner country, which will allow Indonesian licences to be accepted under FLEGT regulations. Needless to say, our ambition is to ensure that, in due course, the global timber trade is covered by these or similar regulatory protections.

The noble Baroness asked me how many EU exit SIs have had to return as a consequence of errors. She will probably not be surprised to hear that I do not know or have the answer to that question. However, I will write to her and provide an answer. I will let her know exactly how many there are and include, in my response, the steps taken by the department to minimise the risk of such errors being repeated over the next few months. I hope I covered all the questions that were raised. If I did not, I apologise.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

There was one question I was not clear on, which is what will happen if, post January, the EU and UK diverge on voluntary agreements. I was thinking of the impact on Northern Ireland if the UK and EU were to have separate voluntary agreements with different countries. Was that envisaged or did we always intend to follow the EU’s lead on this?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the question. Our ambition on this issue is no less than that of the European Union. We will clearly have to work together and fully intend to. This instrument does not change the 2018 exit regulations on which VPA applies in Northern Ireland, so the effect is that the UK VPA would apply. We are working on ensuring the operability of the agreement in Northern Ireland, alongside the protocols. There are questions that remain unanswered, but those discussions are happily with our European Union colleagues. There do not seem to be issues there that we will struggle to resolve, but discussions will need to continue for the foreseeable future.

Motion agreed.

Burning of Peat Moorlands

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Committee on Climate Change Land use: Policies for a Net Zero UK, published on 23 January, what plans they have to end rotational burning of peat moorlands.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have always been clear on the need to phase out the rotational burning of protected blanket bog to conserve these vulnerable habitats, and we are looking at how legislation could achieve that. However, real progress is being made in promoting sustainable alternatives. We have urged landowners to adopt those alternatives and to continue to work with us constructively.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer and draw attention to my environmental entries in the register. I recognise that there is no consensus about this issue, so can my noble friend tell us what the scientific advice from his department is about this matter?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My noble friend is right that there is much debate around the issue. That debate has prompted a great deal of research, particularly over the last decade. The Government have kept abreast of all the latest scientific evidence to inform our policy approach. However, overall, the evidence shows that the burning on blanket bog is detrimental as it moves the bog away from its original wet state and risks vulnerable peat bogs being converted to drier heathland habitat. Defra’s view is therefore that ending burning on protected deep peat is the best approach for achieving habitat restoration and maximising the full suite of ecosystem benefits that would arise.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

I draw attention to my interests in the register. The Government hoped for a voluntary surrender of burning consents but no one volunteered and burning has increased. The heather and moorland burning regulations are 13 years out of date and do not meet the Government’s commitments to net zero, to biodiversity or to air and water quality. I understand that a draft of proposed new legislation has been prepared, so what conceivable legitimate excuse can the Minister give us for delaying any further the legislation that the Government promised to end the rotational burning of blanket bog by October 2019?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

We are currently engaging with stakeholders on the content of the England peat strategy and we expect it to be published later this year, but, as I said earlier, the Government are committed to phasing out rotational burning. We are considering all the evidence to ensure that any legislation actually works. It is undoubtedly a complex issue and it is important that we take the right steps to restore and protect this valuable habitat.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I refer the Minister to page 95 of the report, where the independent committee says:

“Burning … is highly damaging to the peat, and to the range of environmental benefits that well-functioning peat can deliver”.


It goes on to say:

“A voluntary cessation of this activity … has not produced the desired outcome so the practice should be banned across the UK with immediate effect.”


Does the Minister fully accept and endorse those words? If so, why in his initial Answer did he use the words “phase out” and refer to “real progress” from voluntary efforts, which contradicts what the report says?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

As I have said, the Government are committed to ending this practice. We are looking actively at what the best legislative solution would be. We recognise, as does the noble Baroness, that the voluntary approach has not worked, so in that regard, yes, I agree with the statement that she made.

[Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we have debated our tree-planting strategy in reducing our carbon footprint many times in the House. Today’s Question brings to the fore just how important our peatlands are. Does my noble friend the Minister have the latest figures on how many managed estates have agreed to give up their consent to burn and, in turn, are managing alternatives?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The answer is that a significant number have made that decision voluntarily. I am afraid I cannot provide the precise number so I will have to write to my noble friend after this session.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is an issue that polarises opinion. Considerable damage was caused by the peat fires on Saddleworth Moor, the result of arson, and the wildfire on Scotland’s Flow Country. These fires were not the result of rotational heather burning, which has many benefits. Before we throw the metaphorical baby out with the bathwater, it is important to note that, despite what the Minister says about the scientific evidence, that evidence is out of date. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to update the scientific evidence before we decide about rotational heather burning on peat moorlands?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The science continues to evolve; it is not a matter of it being out of date. The Government are well aware of the wildfire risk presented by dry conditions on moorlands. Natural England has carried out a review of the causes, the severity and the management practices best placed to mitigate that risk, and we are considering that alongside other evidence. Some of the clearest evidence that we have is that ensuring that peatlands are wet and in a natural state is the best way to minimise wildfire risk. It also tells us that managed burning results in an increase in vegetation types, such as heather, which have a higher fuel load as compared with natural blanket bog vegetation.

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]]

My Lords, what are the implications for air quality in habitations following burning of nearby moorlands, and what has been the effect of such burning on the bird population?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. There is no doubt that burning has an impact. If the department has precise data as to the extent of that effect, I am afraid I have not seen it. Again, I will have to get back to the noble Lord with that answer.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]]

Does the Minister think it wise to allow heather to grow tall and become an unbroken fire hazard in dry summers? Summer hill fires can burn for months and destroy millions of tonnes of our peat. Does he also think it wise to curtail the rotational management of heather, which provides seeds and green shoots for our highly threatened curlews, lapwings, merlin, plover and dunlin et cetera? While burning heather in March, when the peat is sodden from winter rains and therefore completely safe from harm, may not be perfect, would it not be wise to find an alternative form of heather management before doing away with the tried-and-tested system we have?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I refer the noble Lord to an earlier answer I gave on wildfire risk, which he has raised again. I do not think anyone is proposing simply allowing the heather to continue growing uncontrolled. The alternative to burning is obviously cutting. The department has been looking closely at what the additional burden would be on business were cutting to be generalised. The total figure that the department has come up with is £500,000 per year for the sector. That is based on information provided to us by landowners and managers.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

If the Government have not found a way to table their own legislation to ban the burning of peat by the end of the year, will the Minister agree to work with us on a cross-party basis to deliver a ban in the Environment Bill, which comes to the Lords in the new year?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I would be very happy to commit to discussing and sharing the evidence we have with the noble Baroness, and to hear whatever ideas she has on this issue, but we are determined as a Government to achieve a solution through legislation and other means. I would be very happy to have those discussions with her at any time.

[Lord Teverson (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as the Minister will know, peatlands are one of the most important terrestrial carbon sinks that we have. Apart from burning, peat extraction is a major issue for the health of those peatlands. Will the Government, in their consideration of future peat management, also ban the use of peat for horticultural purposes and its import, as the climate change committee has recommended?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

It is an extremely important point and an issue I have followed closely for some time. The noble Lord makes a compelling case. I shall take his remarks back to the department and share them with the Secretary of State.

On a related note, the main argument of the upland partnership, which does not favour a burning ban, is that burning sequesters carbon in the form of charcoal. That is an area of disputed science and there are strong opinions on both sides, but it does not alter our opinion that burning damages the blanket bog habitat. We think that the best way to meet our nature recovery and climate targets is through healthy habitats and well-functioning ecosystems.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, blanket bog, to which the Minister has referred on a number of occasions, is of course a great method of storing water and holding it back so that it does not go down into the valleys and flood towns and villages below. One consequence of draining sphagnum bog and turning it into heather moor or short grass is that people in the valleys suffer increased flood risk. Does the Minister have any figures to hand on the cost to this country of flood damage in the valleys to people and properties, as compared with the financial benefit of managing moorland by draining and having it as heather moor and short grass?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

It is extremely difficult to attach a particular flooding event to a particular cause, because there are so many causes, but the noble Lord is absolutely right that damage to the natural environment exacerbates flood risk. That is why as part of our flood strategy, which is being developed, there is a significantly increased emphasis on nature-based solutions to flooding. Part of that is planting trees in the appropriate areas; part of it also is restoring peatlands.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question. Calling him in time today, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.

INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 9 September.

Motion agreed.

Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 July be approved.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the instrument before you includes the measures to phase out the supply of the most polluting fuels used in the home. These fuels are traditional house coal and wet wood, or wood with a moisture content of more than 20% when sold in units under two cubic metres. It also introduces sulphur and smoke emission limits for manufactured solid fuels. These measures will come into force in a staged process from 1 May 2021 to 2023.

As noble Lords will know, the Government have made a commitment in the clean air strategy to tackle harmful emissions from domestic burning and to improve air quality. In February, the Government published national statistics on emissions of air pollutants in the UK. It is clear from these statistics that domestic burning is a major source of fine particulate matter emissions. These emissions can have a considerable impact on human health. The tiny particles can enter the bloodstream and internal organs, leading to long-term illness and reduced life expectancy, mainly due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and lung cancer. Indeed, the World Health Organization has identified fine particulate matter as the most damaging pollutant in its impact on human health. Given this, the Government consider it vital to take action to protect the health of householders and their neighbours.

We know, of course, that domestic burning is not the only source of fine particulate matter emissions. However, while we have secured a reduction in the amount of emissions from transport and industry, emissions from domestic burning are increasing. The clean air strategy states that we should be looking beyond transport and industry and we should now take steps to deal with pollution from other sources including the pollution caused by heating our homes. The instrument before us will make a substantial contribution towards the reduction of fine particulate matter emissions, which are causing considerable harm.

The Government also recognise that better management and restoration of our peat-lands is needed. We have always been clear of the need to phase out the rotational burning of protected blanket bog to conserve these vulnerable habitats; we are now looking at how legislation could achieve this.

I want to set out in broad terms what the instrument before us will do and make clear what it will not do. The regulations introduce measures which will apply to domestic burning only. The measures will not apply to businesses or the heritage sector. The regulations do not ban domestic burning. We are fully aware that many people enjoy using open fires and wood- burning stoves; we are not looking to stop them. Instead, we are looking for people to move from using more polluting fuels to less polluting fuels. That is why we are phasing out the sale of traditional house coal and wet wood sold in smaller volumes, and requiring that all manufactured solid fuels meet sulphur and smoke emission limits. These regulations will enable people to make informed choices and source cleaner fuels, thereby protecting the health of their families and neighbours.

I will now set out in more detail why it is necessary to regulate the supply of each of the fuels regulated through this legislation—that is, traditional house coal, wet wood and manufactured solid fuels. The amount of fine particulate matter emitted from the domestic burning of coal is less than that emitted by burning wood. However, the Government have taken into account evidence indicating the level of harm that the emissions from coal can cause. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has advised that the smoke from burning coal is carcinogenic. The agency has also highlighted the harmful elements and compounds which are released when coal is burned. These include arsenic, mercury, lead, fluorine and selenium. It is government policy to reduce people’s exposure to these more harmful pollutants, as set out in the clean air strategy. That is why we need to regulate the supply of coal used in the domestic setting. These regulations will encourage people to switch from traditional house coal to smokeless coal and low-sulphur manufactured solid fuels.

The regulations also tackle the domestic burning of wet wood. Burning this type of wood releases significantly more fine particulate matter, smoke and soot than burning wood which has been seasoned. Our estimates indicate that 24%—or nearly a quarter—of all the wood burned domestically is burned at least partly wet. We understand that wood burned in smaller units is more likely to be bought for immediate use. Under these regulations, wood sold in smaller units must have a moisture content of 20% or less. It will be easy to tell whether wood meets the new requirements. To be sold in these smaller units, the wood will need to be certified and bear a logo indicating that this is the case.

The regulations encourage people to switch from traditional house coal to manufactured solid fuels. We want to avoid unintended consequences arising from this switch in fuels, and we want industry to manufacture these solid fuels to the cleanest specifications. Unlike coal, the amount of sulphur and smoke emitted by these fuels can be controlled. That is why these regulations extend the sulphur and smoke emission limits which currently apply in smoke control areas across England. This will mean that manufactured solid fuels sold throughout England will need to meet a 2% sulphur limit and emit less than 5 grams of smoke per hour. Again, it will be easy to tell whether a fuel meets these requirements, as all fuels of this type will need to bear a logo showing that they have been tested and certified.

The Government are aware of concerns that these regulations could have a negative impact on people who are reliant on coal and are in fuel poverty. We have taken these concerns very seriously, and we want people in fuel poverty to share in the benefits of this legislation. We consider that they should be protected from the harmful effects of more polluting fuels just as much as anyone else. We have commissioned research which indicates that they may also be better off financially, as manufactured solid fuels have been shown to be cheaper than coal when energy efficiency is taken into account.

We recognise that vulnerable people who are used to burning coal will need some time to adjust and make the switch to appropriate alternative fuels. That is why these regulations include a transitional period when approved coal merchants will be able to sell loose coal direct to their customers. This will run until 1 May 2023. During the transition period, these coal merchants will work with their customers to inform them and help them find appropriate, cost-effective fuels which are far better for their health.

We have engaged with colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on the measures they are taking forward to tackle fuel poverty such as the updated fuel poverty strategy, which will be published later this year. BEIS also runs the national concessionary fuel scheme. Under these regulations, everyone receiving fuel as part of the scheme will continue to be entitled to it. Over 90% of recipients will not need to make any adjustment as they are already receiving fuel which complies with the new requirements. We will work through approved coal merchants so that others can move to compliant fuels which meet their needs. These will be available at no extra cost.

These regulations give small wood producers an extra year to comply with the new requirements. The suppliers qualifying for this transitional period are those who produce less than 600 cubic metres a year. We understand that these suppliers may struggle to meet the 20% moisture requirement immediately; this period gives them time to season their wood to the required level or to consider changes to their business model.

I am aware that there has been some concern about the impact these regulations may have on the heritage rail sector. As I said earlier, this legislation applies to domestic burning only. It will not apply to heritage rail. It may have some indirect impact on how this sector sources its coal, but the regulations give time for the sector to make any necessary adjustments. We will make guidance available to the manufacturers, distributors and suppliers of fuels affected by this legislation so that they are aware of the new requirements. We will also provide guidance for local authorities so that their enforcement officers understand their role in enforcing this legislation.

In summary, the instrument before us takes forward a key component of the clean air strategy, helping us to meet our national and international obligations to reduce polluting emissions, and dovetails with measures which the Environment Bill will deliver. The regulations will make sure that householders are able to make informed choices and can protect themselves and their families from the effects of the most polluting fuels. The measures in these regulations will deliver benefits to the environment and to the health of our citizens. They will also reduce the burden that illness caused by air pollution places on the National Health Service. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The instrument takes forward a key component of the clean air strategy, to help us meet our national and international obligations to reduce pollution, and it demonstrates this Government’s commitment to delivering environmental benefits. The measures it contains will improve air quality and deliver benefits that improve the health of this country’s citizens and the quality of their lives. I will attempt to address in order the questions and comments put to me by noble Lords.

The noble Lord, Lord Mann, raised the prospect of unforeseen consequences, citing the example of the potential criminalisation of householders. More pertinently, he asked whether householders could find themselves being criminalised. This SI does not result in householders being criminalised; this is about the trade. The noble Lord’s logical next question was about the consequence for entrepreneurial individuals opting for a less formal, or even non-market, route to providing fuels to householders, who would not then get caught up in this legislation. He is, of course, right up to a point. Legislation rarely answers all the questions that are put to it; no legislation is perfect. We cannot stop people burning foraged wood and waste, but we are clear that burning these materials is highly damaging to their health and to that of others in the community. In addition, it is worth noting and remembering that people burning coal and switching to manufactured solid fuels could—and likely would—save money, because they would be burning a more efficient fuel than coal.

The noble Lord also asked about incentives around the uptake of clean energy and to encourage greater levels of energy efficiency. He is absolutely right; incentives are central. The payback on energy efficiency is already there. We know that money invested in energy efficiency has a faster payback than that invested in any form of new energy. The best power plant is the one that is not needed as a consequence of strategic investment in energy efficiency. That has always been, and remains, the case. My colleagues in BEIS are looking hard at the kinds of incentives that are going to be needed to see a step change in the volume and speed of energy efficiency that needs to happen around the country. I very much take the noble Lord’s point that such incentives should be targeted at fuel-poor, low-income and elderly householders.

On a broader point, the market is changing rapidly. Even in the last few years, the costs of renewable energy across the board have come down far faster than anyone anticipated. No one anticipated that, in the very early 2020s, we would be on the cusp of offshore wind being able to exist without subsidy. Most people put their assessments and predictions at around 2030-plus, but we are now right on the cusp of offshore wind being viable without subsidy. The cost of solar has come down by around 90% in the 12 years since the credit crunch. Last year, more money by far was invested in new renewable technology than in fossil fuels.

A final, interesting point on that is that coal use in the United States has declined far faster under President Trump, despite his being wildly in favour of coal, than was the case under President Obama, who was more interested in tackling climate change. This just shows that the market is racing ahead of politics, and the cost ratio is changing so dramatically that the Government’s job is to do what they can to accelerate those trends. The solution is easily within our grasp now, in terms of both energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, began by painting a vivid picture of the smogs that she was used to in an earlier part of her life. Although it is very hard to capture precise numbers of how many people’s lives were brought to a premature end as a consequence of air pollution, it is worth noting that the figures we have today are not dissimilar to those that existed at the time of the great smogs. The difference is that the pollution that damages people today is largely invisible and does not therefore have the same stark effect as the smogs which she described so well.

The noble Baroness also mentioned the importance of wood-burners to many people, including herself. I add myself to that list; I too use a wood-burner. However, in doing so she reinforced the need for this legislation. She made the case very well for a shift towards a cleaner fuel for those wood-burners. She raised the broader issue of air quality and zoned in on PM2.5, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. This is just one measure—one tool—that the Government are using to tackle air quality. We certainly would not pretend that this SI is going to crack the problem of environmental air pollution. I will come to the specific point of PM2.5 in a moment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about the free-mining tradition and welcomed the fact that an exemption exists for those living in the Forest of Dean. Nothing in this SI changes the arrangements they have. Their rights remain protected. There is no difference; it has no impact. So they can, I hope, rest easy. She also asked about households being fined. Householders are not going to be fined. The target of this SI is the trader. She also asked about enforcement. Local authority enforcement of this SI is meant to be light-touch. It will involve checks at retail outlets that fuels being sold comply with the legislation, such as by carrying the correct certification number and logo and being correctly stored. We are looking closely at how we can best support local authorities in their enforcement of the regulations and will be issuing guidance on that very soon. This is alongside measures in the Environment Bill, which I will come to in a moment, which will also make it easier for local authorities to tackle air pollution in their areas.

The noble Baroness’s last point related to the logo. Wood and manufactured solid fuels that meet the legislative requirements will be identifiable by the same logo and certification number on the product packaging. Details about the logo will be made public as soon as the legislation and certification body are in place, so will come back to the House when appropriate. We intend that the same logo will be used for both manufactured solid fuels and wood, to provide clarity for consumers. We do not want to overcomplicate what should be a fairly simple measure.

Finally, I would like to come to some of the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The failure to implement this legislation is most likely to result, as she says, in the UK failing to meet its legally binding targets for 2020, and possibly 2030, on fine particulate matter—PM2.5s, raised earlier by the other noble Baroness. Therefore, there is a consequence of this legislation not going through, and I am therefore very grateful to her and other noble Lords for supporting this legislation.

But she is also right to say that there is a big gap in terms of meeting our legal obligations. To that I say, yes, that is correct; there is much that the Government need to be doing, working with business and local authorities and other departments of government—not least the Department for Transport—to tackle the issues of air quality that are damaging the health, in some respects, of people in this country. This is just one of those measures; we are not pretending this a catch-all solution. But we are at the forefront of reducing industrial pollution in this country. We are currently consulting on bringing forward the end of the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles to 2035, or even earlier if a faster transition is feasible. We are looking closely at that now and working closely with the industry. The Environment Bill delivers key parts of the clean air strategy and is the first environment Bill in over 20 years.

The noble Baroness asked when it is going to continue its passage through Parliament. I am extremely sorry; I wish I could provide a detailed answer, but I am not able to. But I am absolutely aware that timing is an issue and that this extraordinarily important piece of legislation needs to find its way through both Houses as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible. I make this case at every opportunity, as do my colleagues in the Department for Environment.

The “Air quality” chapter in the Environment Bill makes a clear commitment to a certain ambitious air quality target that goes beyond EU requirements and delivers significant health benefits. The Environment Bill will also enable the Government to recall the engines of non-road mobile machinery and related emission components that are non-compliant with the environmental standards they were approved to meet, and more besides. The Environment Bill really does help us deliver on and achieve the ambitions within the clean air strategy.

The final—I think—question I was asked related again to the issue of fuel poverty. I reiterate that a number of concerns were raised during the consultation process that led to this situation today: to us being able to present the SI. We took those concerns, and we continue to take those concerns, extremely seriously. We want people in fuel poverty to be able to benefit from this legislation, just as anyone else can. There is no reason why those living in fuel poverty should be exposed to more dangerous, more polluting fuels than anyone else. Indeed, were that to be the outcome of this legislation, I would say that the legislation had failed. It is very important the benefits are spread evenly and equally.

We have commissioned research that, as I said in my opening remarks, tells us that once they have made the transition to cleaner fuels, they should be better off financially because of the efficiency with which these fuels burn. It is worth taking that into account. At every step of the way, we are determined to ensure that people are not left worse off, particularly those people who are living in fuel poverty today. We are absolutely determined that this legislation will help, rather than hinder or harm, people in vulnerable households, and we will continue to work with stakeholders to ensure that that is the case.

As I have outlined, the regulations phase out the supply of the most polluting fuels used for domestic burning. The measures they contain will enable people to enjoy their wood-burning stoves and open fires, safe in the knowledge that they are using cleaner fuels which will protect the health of their families and neighbours, as well as the wider environment. I will close my remarks at this point and thank noble Lords for their contributions and their support today.

Motion agreed.