Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

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

My Lords, the instrument before you is a simple amendment to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove their sunsetting provision. This would allow the 2013 regulations to continue in force and be available as part of the regulatory framework of the water industry. Without this SI, the 2013 regulations would expire on 27 June 2020. As such, before I talk a little further about the Government’s reasons for bringing forward this amending SI, I will outline the purpose of the 2013 regulations.

As noble Lords will know, water and sewerage services in England are provided by companies also known as undertakers. The 2013 regulations were designed to help contain and minimise the risks associated with large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects, therefore helping to protect undertakers, their customers and UK taxpayers. Containing and minimising risks is likely to reduce the overall cost of borrowing for a given water undertaker and so ensure better value for money for that undertaker’s customers. It also makes sure that delivery of such infrastructure projects will not adversely impact on the existing water or sewerage services provided by undertakers.

The 2013 regulations enable the Secretary of State or Ofwat to specify by notice an infrastructure project where either is satisfied that two conditions have been met: first, that the infrastructure project is of a size or complexity that threatens an undertaker’s ability to provide services to its customers; and secondly, that specifying the project would likely result in better value for money than if the project was not so specified, taking into account charges to customers and any government financial assistance.

Once specified, an undertaker is required to put the infrastructure project out to tender and a separate Ofwat-regulated infrastructure provider is then designated to finance and deliver the project. Such infrastructure projects raise many complex issues, particularly around determining the cost of their financing, coupled with a construction risk that is far greater than that normally associated with an undertaker’s typical capital investment. Requiring an undertaker to tender competitively for an infrastructure provider for a large or complex project provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of such a project are appropriate and reasonable. Without that tendering process, competitively determining the cost of capital for this type of infrastructure project would not be possible. The ability to create Ofwat-regulated infrastructure providers also helps to ringfence their associated higher risks and should result in more effective risk management for these projects. Creating designated infrastructure providers in this way ensures that a large or complex infrastructure project will not affect the ability of an undertaker to provide its day-to-day services for customers and avoids any resultant extra costs that would ultimately be borne by those customers.

The amending SI was laid in Parliament following a post-implementation review of the 2013 regulations carried out in 2018. Eight key stakeholders were consulted, five of which—Ofwat, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd investors and the Consumer Council for Water—submitted responses. The review found that the 2013 regulations had successfully fulfilled their policy objectives. Accordingly, the review recommended that the 2013 regulations’ sunsetting provision be removed.

In March 2020 we undertook a further, targeted consultation on our proposal to remove the sunsetting provision. Views were sought from Ofwat, Water UK, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, the Environment Agency, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Consumer Council for Water. Water companies were consulted via Water UK, and Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd was given the option to consult its investors. Four written responses were received from Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and Affinity Water. All indicated that they were in favour of the amendment.

Currently the only project regulated under the 2013 regulations is the Thames tideway tunnel. However, Ofwat has identified four large or complex water infrastructure projects currently in development that may benefit from being specified in accordance with the 2013 regulations over the next 10 years. These are the south-east strategic reservoir at Abingdon, a joint project proposed by Thames Water and Affinity Water; the London effluent reuse scheme, a project proposed by Thames Water; south Lincolnshire reservoir, a joint project proposed by Anglian Water and Affinity Water; and the River Severn to River Thames transfer, a joint project proposed by Thames Water, Severn Trent Water and United Utilities. A decision would be made on a case-by-case basis at an appropriate time when schemes are brought forward as to whether the infrastructure projects could come within scope of the 2013 regulations.

The Government are committed to improving water supply resilience, as set out in our strategic policy statement to Ofwat and our 25-year environment plan. This ambition is made more challenging because of a growing population, increased water demand from agriculture and industry, and climate change. We also want to ensure that there is sufficient water left for the natural environment. Without any action, many areas of England will face water shortages by 2050.

The starting point for action is to reduce water use by reducing leakage from the water distribution networks and reducing our personal consumption. However, even if leaks and personal consumption are reduced, we will continue to need new water resource infrastructure. In our Water Conservation Report, published in December 2018, we set out our progress to promote water conservation from 2015 onwards. We endorsed the industry’s existing commitment to a 50% reduction in leakage by 2050 and announced a consultation to enable us to set an ambitious target for personal water consumption. We consulted on measures to reduce personal water consumption, including supporting measures on amending building regulations, water efficiency labelling and smart metering. Most of these measures can be taken forward without the need for new primary legislation. We will publish a government position in late 2020. As I have said, alongside reducing leakage and reducing personal water consumption, new water resources infrastructure, including reservoirs and water transfers, is needed to provide a secure supply of water for future generations. In the current price review period, Ofwat has made £469 million available to nine water companies, to investigate and develop integrated strategic regional water resource solutions in order to be construction-ready by 2025. This work will be supported by the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, which was published in March 2020.

In summary, the instrument before noble Lords enables the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to continue in force so that they can continue to be used in the future delivery of large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. Such projects play an essential role in strengthening the future resilience of water resources in England. Retaining the 2013 regulations will help to reduce the associated financial risks of such projects and ensure that water undertakers can continue to deliver their existing water or sewerage services to customers and provide greater value for money. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]]

I thank noble Lords for their points. They made a lot of them; I will try my hardest to answer all the key questions. I apologise in advance if I am not able to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a number of points. He asked for an update on the Thames tideway tunnel. It is on track. It is currently in construction and will be operational in 2023, and the project as a whole is due for completion in 2024. He also asked about a number of other issues, which were echoed by other noble Lords, including the impact of Covid-19 on the tunnel. I am afraid that the only answer I can provide at the moment is that we are still assessing any possible impact; I cannot go further at this point.

The noble Lord asked about the reservoir at Abingdon. The Government recognise the need for more water resources in the south-east, but at this stage we are not able and it would not be appropriate for us to support a specific recommendation. We are waiting for further evidence on the most appropriate and best solution to be drawn together by Thames Water, Affinity Water and the wider water resources in the south-east group. We will come to that shortly.

The noble Lord also asked why reference was not made to the National Infrastructure Commission’s 2018 report, Preparing for a Drier Future. I apologise if I did not mention it. The report outlined clearly the need for new water supply infrastructure. It estimates that a combination of changing rainfall patterns, brought about by climate change, and an increased population—while leaving enough water to protect and sustain the environment—will require an additional 4,000 megalitres a day for longer-term drought resilience. It says that, without action, many parts of England will face water shortages by 2050, especially in the drier south and east. We as a Government are committed to a dual approach of reducing demand and increasing supply. However, even if we are successful in reducing demand significantly, some new infrastructure will still be needed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, asked why the sunset clause was introduced, and the same question was asked by my noble friend Lord Naseby. The answer is simply that it coincided with a moment of government where there was a renewed effort to cut unnecessary regulations and try to prevent the pile-up of future unnecessary regulations. A number of sunset clauses was used at the time for that reason.

The noble Baroness also asked what happens to water quality standards once EU legislation no longer applies. We are committed to future environmental standards that either equal or improve on those of the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ensures that the body of existing EU law, including the water framework directive regulations, continue to take effect in English law after the transition period.

A number of noble Lords put questions to me about timescales. The evidence in the case of the four projects that I mentioned in my introductory remarks is still being worked up by the water companies in the RAPID framework established by Ofwat and decisions on details will be taken over the next few years, so I am not in a position to set out a complete timetable. However, further details can be found in water companies’ water resource management plans.

The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the issue of smart metering, which was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Smart metering has the advantage of being able to detect leaks, which is hugely important, as a number of noble Lords said. It also has the advantages of energy reduction, demand forecasting, enhanced awareness campaigns, the promotion of efficient appliances and performance indicators. Thames Water announced last week that smart metering helped to achieve a 15% reduction in leaks last year.

My noble friend Lord Caithness also raised the issue of leaks, as did a number of other noble Lords. The Government are completely committed to reducing demand for water; we know that we have to do that. We have challenged the water companies to halve leaks from distribution systems by 2015. He asked whether that is ambitious enough, and I can only say that I hope we will be able to go much further.

There is no doubt that we need to use less water, in addition to dealing with leaks. We undertook a consultation on measures to reduce personal water consumption, including measures such as amended building regulations, water efficiency labelling and metering. As part of the latest price review, PR19, Ofwat is incentivising all water companies to help customers to reduce their personal consumption.

A number of noble Lords raised the issue of nature-based solutions to the problems that we are discussing. That is high up in the Government’s and my own agenda. We already expect water companies to consider them when evaluating a range of solutions to meet their water resource needs. Nature-based solutions can be enormously effective in reducing run-off and increasing infiltration. They can slow the flow of surface water in the wet season and help to prevent flooding, and can help to reduce the impacts of flooding. They can also improve the ability of land to hold on to water for use during the drier seasons. That is why the Government are keen to support tree planting along watercourses where appropriate. Tree planting helps to regulate water flow and reduce flood risk as well as stabilising river banks and reducing pollutants that might otherwise drain into watercourses. This is a big part of the Government’s flood strategy, and noble Lords will be hearing more about that as the Government publish it in due course.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra raised a number of issues. He asked whether, given that only one project has been ascribed to this regulation, that means the evidence is limited. He is of course right: on the basis of one project, the evidence is limited. However, we sought the views of those already operating under the regulations, including the regulator, who are best placed to advise whether, and the extent to which, the 2013 regulations have achieved their aims. The view across the board was that there are many tangible benefits, including contributing to lower water bills for customers.

My noble friend claimed that Thames Water is now owned by a holding group called Kemble Water Holdings, consisting of mainly Macquarie Bank and eight other private equity holders. I want to put on the record that Macquarie sold its stake in 2017. The largest shareholder owner now is OMERS, a pension fund for local government employees in Canada.

My noble friend also raised the hugely important point about building regulations, particularly around new buildings and car parks, and the issue of rainwater rushing off into sewerage systems. I strongly agree with him about the importance of sustainable drainage systems; as well as reducing the risk of surface water flooding, such systems can deliver water quality, biodiversity and amenity benefits. So we have plenty of benefits from such a scheme, and planning policy makes sure that they are provided in all new major developments unless there is very clear evidence that that would be inappropriate.

I am conscious that I may run out of time so I shall try to speed up a bit—apologies. My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to the devolved Administrations. Water is a devolved matter and these regulations will not change that. It is possible that some of the water projects that I have described and which will be specified under these regulations might impact on Wales, but we are told that any impact is likely to be very limited and obviously the Welsh Government will be consulted as appropriate. There is a very good relationship between the UK and Welsh Governments on this issue, and that is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between Ministers.

Briefly, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Mann, the Thames Tideway Tunnel has not been referred to the CMA. However, in the current price review four companies have appealed to the CMA, showing Ofwat’s push to ensure value for money.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised a number of issues. The first related to rewarding farmers for public good. That is the very heart and essence of the Government’s environmental land management scheme, which will replace the common agricultural policy. It will specifically pay farmers, foresters and other land managers public money for providing public goods through the management of land and water.

A number of other issues were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to privatisation. The Government’s view, although no doubt she and I will disagree, continues to be that we believe that the privatisation model, so long as it is underpinned by strong independent economic regulation, provides multiple benefits. Today privatisation has unlocked around £150 billion of investment, the equivalent to around £5 billion annually—investment that is almost double the pre-privatisation level. Privatisation has delivered a range of benefits to customers and the environment, including the fact that the UK now has world-class drinking water and consumers are five times less likely to suffer from interruptions to their supply, eight times less likely to suffer from sewer flooding and 100 times less likely to have low pressure. Two-thirds of our beaches are classed as excellent compared to just one-third pre-privatisation. Customer satisfaction levels have risen to around 90%.

There is of course much more to be done, of course, and this Government remain absolutely committed to doing so. I apologise to noble Lords if I have not answered all their questions but I will do so in follow-up letters as appropriate.

Motion agreed.

Air Quality and Emissions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

The Question was considered in a Virtual Proceeding via video call.

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

My Lords, nitrogen dioxide pollution at the roadside has almost halved during the lockdown period as a result of reduced emissions from traffic, with much smaller reductions observed for particulate matters in urban areas. Emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollutants from energy use and transport are likely to be much lower than in normal times, on account of reduced energy demand and much lower road traffic estimates.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that, and of course these are positive benefits to the environment. Does the Minister agree that as we move into economic recovery from the pandemic we cannot go back to business as usual? Does he agree that we must seek to benefit from the gains to the environment, in particular with regards to air pollution and climate change, and that we should not support industries unless they make a commitment to meet the higher standards in respect of the environment? What is the Government’s policy as we move forward?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

While the world is rightly focused on tackling the immediate threat of coronavirus, the global challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss, which in many respects overshadow and dwarf the threat of coronavirus, have not gone away. As we rebuild our economy in response to the pandemic and make decisions about reconstruction, it is vital that we make decisions which provide long-term resilience and sustainability, and that we avoid decisions that will end up imposing big costs on future generations.

The Government are absolutely committed to being world leaders in tackling the environmental crisis we face. We are going to continue our ambitious legislative agenda through our landmark Environment Bill, Fisheries Bill and Agriculture Bill, all of which combined will help us deliver on our 25-year environmental plan. The noble Lord will have heard remarks and commitments by the Secretary of State for Transport just a couple of days ago, in which he announced a record level of funding for active travel—alternatives to car use and even public transport use.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

As short as possible, please.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, given the Minister’s interest in Heathrow, does he agree that the aviation sector has contributed more than 26% to greenhouse gas emissions in the last five years? Yet Heathrow is going ahead with an appeal to the Supreme Court for its third runway. Does he accept that this highly polluting business model is now defunct, and can he tell us what the Government’s position is on that Supreme Court appeal?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The aviation sector has taken a pounding, not surprisingly, as a consequence of the coronavirus and travel bans around the world. It is not clear to anyone yet what the sector will look like as it emerges.

In relation to Heathrow expansion specifically, the test has always been that it would need to be reconciled with air quality targets that this country must abide by. Given that this Government are introducing an Environment Bill which includes a duty on the Secretary of State to set very high standards in relation to our air quality, that hurdle—in my view and in the Government’s view—is extremely high.

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)]

What measures does my noble friend envisage can be introduced now so that we do not return to the bad old days of high levels of pollution of the air we breathe?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

This is a huge question and one not just for the Department for the Environment but across the whole of government. We have to ensure that in many respects we are able bank some of the improvements that we have seen in air pollution. To support the expansion of alternatives to public transport, particularly for the 40% or so of commuters whose journey is less than three miles, we have announced a wide package of measures, including £2 billion for cycling and walking, accelerated work on the introduction of e-scooters—which is very good news—and the deployment of tech expertise to help people avoid congested travel routes. We will provide £2 billion of funding for active travel, which I believe is the largest-ever commitment by any Government to help transform the manner in which we travel.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, these improvements in air quality have come at a terrible cost. Does the Minister agree that, post-Covid, it is possible both to embed environmental gains and to provide the essential economic stimulus the country will need through the sorts of measures that he has just been talking about—such as investment in sustainable infrastructure, in transport and in training for the green economy—so that we really do build back better?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

It is essential that decisions we make today have at their heart a commitment to long-term sustainability and resilience, both in our domestic actions and in our global outreach—through, for example, the Department for International Development. That thread should run through all government decisions in all departments. That is why we are so pleased to hear the commitments by the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State for BEIS—who is also the president of COP—and other departments of government. There is no doubt in my mind that this Government recognise that out of the ashes of this appalling disaster we have an opportunity to make decisions which will pass the test of the time. The Prime Minister himself—[inaudible.]

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, better air quality is the only benefit of this lockdown. Figures for the spread of the disease and deaths from it here and in other countries indicate that the areas most hit are those which are highly polluted or have heavy congestion. Will the Government consider producing guidance, requests and eventually powers to get local authorities to introduce congestion charging, parking restrictions and pure banning of bad vehicles from such areas in future? Most of the powers for local authorities exist in the 1999 Act, but they require reinforcing. Will such reinforcement be in the forthcoming Environment Bill? I declare an interest as the honorary president of Environmental Protection UK.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The actions the Government are already taking are entirely consistent with the need to tackle air pollution, which is the most serious environmental health threat to humans. The clean air strategy which we published in January last year was praised by the World Health Organization as an example for the rest of the world to follow. One of its key commitments was that the Government would produce primary legislation on air quality. That request has been answered in the Environment Bill, which includes measures to improve air quality at its heart. It is the first Environment Bill for 20 years. It commits us to setting very ambitious targets for fine particulate matter, which is the pollutant of most concern to human health; it will give local authorities a clear framework and simple-to-use powers to address air quality in their areas; and it provides government with new powers to enforce environmental standards for vehicles. Of course, the Environment Bill goes far beyond issues such as air pollution. At its heart is a commitment that we should leave the environment in a significantly better shape than when we inherited it.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, as other speakers have said, we have seen that people who suffer from asthma and other respiratory conditions are having a holiday from their symptoms as a result of there being fewer cars and less traffic on the road and fewer planes in the air. The Minister said that he wants to the UK to be a world leader. It should be. It must be on climate change, and tackling climate change has to take precedence over economic recovery. Can the Minister assure us that he will press the Government to follow this route?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That is a commitment that not only am I happy to make but that the Government as a whole can make. We do not believe that there is a choice between economic recovery and tackling climate change. Indeed, if we are to resolve the issue of climate change and broader environmental damage, it will be because we have reconciled economic growth with the reality that we live in a finite world where our impacts on the planet have direct implications for future generations. In my view, the choice between economic recovery and environmental action is a false one.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, while it is welcome to see more electric buses replacing diesel buses in London and other big cities, can my noble friend explain what sustainable source of energy will drive these buses and all the electric cars that are envisaged for the future?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The Statement made by the Department for Transport a few days ago included increased investment in charging networks throughout our cities, which has direct implications for private car use. Equally, we are ramping up investment in transforming our buses from being in many cases very highly polluting to being as close to zero-emission as possible. On the whole, the dominant thrust in technologies is in the direction of electric travel, but it will be for the market to determine ultimately what is the best value for money in delivering clean transport for the future.

[The Lord Speaker]

My Lords, as we have made comparatively little progress on this Question, I will allow a couple more minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

We have done a great deal of real-time monitoring in recent months, particularly during this coronavirus period. We have determined that road traffic has reduced by more than half since lockdown started, public transport use is at less than 20% of usual levels, electricity demand is down 18% since lockdown began, and so on. Unfortunately, data on domestic emissions—air quality within the home —is much harder to come by. We continue to process the data we are gathering, but I cannot give a clearer answer at this stage.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Given the preliminary evidence of a link between polluting air and higher death rates from Covid-19, can the Minister explain the decision of the Joint Air Quality Unit to delay the rollout of clean air zones across the country at the very time, as colleagues have said, when action on dirty air is most needed?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The request to delay the clean air zones came directly from Leeds and Birmingham. It follows the reality that has I think affected every local authority and department of government: numerous personnel have been sidetracked by their need to address this immediate crisis. The Government responded to that request positively, but it does not in any way diminish our recognition that clean air zones are an essential, necessary part of our efforts to bring us in line with the air quality targets we have set ourselves.

[The Lord Speaker]

My Lords, the time allowed for that Question has more than elapsed. We come to the next Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon.

Chemicals Regulation

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their economic assessment of the impact of the introduction of a new system for the regulation of chemicals.

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

My Lords, leaving the EU provides a unique opportunity to set up our own system for chemicals that will deliver high standards and be flexible to the current and future needs of the UK. It will give us the freedom to do things differently, where that is in our best interest. There will be transition costs, but by keeping changes as straightforward as possible, we will minimise the burdens and costs for business.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and for speaking to me earlier today, but, as he is aware, the costs are unlikely to be minimal. If we take the statutory instrument currently laid as our model, the costs will be at least £1 billion simply to reregister chemicals that are currently legal under the EU system. This is a tax on British business, and even if it is spent over two years, it still constitutes a large number. Will the Minister undertake to work in close co-operation not just with his colleagues in BEIS but with the industry, which is extremely concerned throughout the sector, from manufacturing through basic chemicals industries down to cosmetics? Will they work with the industry to look at stretching the implementation period, cutting registration costs, finding ways to reuse data and all ways to make this a costless transition?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

We absolutely recognise that the costs may be substantial. That is why we are aiming to keep the transition to UK REACH as simple and straightforward as possible. We are considering a wide range of measures to minimise the burden and costs for businesses and will continue to work with BEIS, which we of course already work closely with, and the wider industry sector to keep these measures under review. We have developed grace period provisions, grandfathering and downstream user import notifications to minimise disruption to businesses and supply chains at the end of the transition period, while ensuring that UK regulators know which chemicals can legitimately be placed on the market. These measures give businesses two years, starting from the end of 2020, to provide the information required to be compliant with UK REACH

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend commit to the UK remaining a partner of the European Environment Agency? As he will be aware, a leading figure of the Johnson household —no less a figure than Stanley Johnson—was responsible for setting up this agency and is very wedded to remaining. It plays a leading role in terms of chemicals and all sorts of environmental protections. Will the Minister commit to our remaining a member of the EEA?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I have discussed the issue many times with the Johnson in question. We will take decisions based on science and on the best available evidence, including looking at approaches taken by other chemicals regimes right across the world, well beyond the European Union. We will not seek ongoing alignment with the EU regulatory system but we will not diverge simply for the sake of it. There may be good reasons for taking a different approach on a particular substance to reflect UK circumstances, but that does not mean reducing standards or levels of protection. For example, for many years the UK has been at the forefront in opposing animal tests where alternative approaches can be used—the last-resort principle. We could be more rigorous in applying this principle in the future and there are many other examples where we might want to diverge.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

The Government’s decision to withdraw from REACH contradicts what the Minister has just said. Experience has shown that shared research enhances that research. Leaving the European research organisations will diminish our research work. Therefore, will the Minister reconsider that decision? Surely it would be another way of reducing the costs that he has just told us about.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Lord is right that we will reduce the costs that have been mentioned if we can facilitate the sharing of data between the UK and the European Union, and that is something that we are pursuing. It is not something that I can describe in any great detail now because much of it depends on the ongoing negotiations. However, he is absolutely right, and it is certainly our intention that data sharing should be used wherever possible to bring down the costs for businesses both here and in the EU.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the outcome of the UK/EU trade negotiations will be vital for the chemicals industry and indeed for the economy as a whole? In view of that and the fact that both the UK and the EU will, rightly, be distracted from those negotiations by the current public health crisis, will the Government consider amending the withdrawal Act in the forthcoming emergency legislation so that they have the power to extend the deadline of 31 December should that prove necessary?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

Were it the case that the British Government felt the need to do such a thing, they would take the step that the noble Lord has outlined, but that is not the view of the British Government today. There is no need for any additional delays.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

Will my noble friend give an undertaking to consult closely with the horticultural industry, which so often is the poor cousin of the broader agricultural and chemical world?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I am very happy to give that undertaking. As my noble friend will know, we are on the cusp of developing a new chemicals strategy. We will be putting out a call for evidence this spring and will consult on a draft strategy before its eventual publication, which currently is proposed to be in 2021-22. It will cover the full range of the UK’s approach to tackling chemicals and pesticides as used in horticulture.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, can I take the Minister back to the answer he gave about REACH? My understanding of paragraphs 16 and 17 of the recent White Paper is that the Government want a dedicated annexe on chemicals regulation, but in his answer he said, “We don’t want to deregulate for the sake of it; we don’t want to have lower standards”. Therefore, how similar to REACH does he think the EU/UK memorandum of understanding will look?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

That is a difficult question to answer. I cannot tell the noble Baroness exactly where we will choose to diverge. I gave one example earlier but there are plenty of others. Poland, for instance, has made a proposal to the EU about banning the use of methanol in windscreen-washing fluids. It has done so because it is affected by abuse of that substance by alcoholics. That might be very sensible for Poland to do but our view is that it is best addressed at the national level. Therefore, there will be areas where it is in our interests to diverge but there will be other areas where, in the interests of both efficiency and saving money, and in the interest of maintaining high standards, we will choose not to diverge. The core principle is that it will be our choice.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify something for me? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned a figure of £1 billion to reregister chemicals that are already acceptable within Europe. Is that figure accurate? Is that what it will cost us?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

Again, I am afraid I am not able to give a precise figure—I do not think anyone is capable of doing so—but we have had these discussions with industry and, as I say, with BEIS. It is the case that industry estimates are not a million miles away from our own but we cannot put a precise figure on them at this stage.

Environmental Programme: COP 26

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that they will have “the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on Earth”, as stated in the 2019 Conservative Party Manifesto, in time for COP 26.

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

My Lords, we are determined to cement our position as global leaders on the environment. That is why we have brought forward our Environment Bill, Fisheries Bill and Agriculture Bill. They will transform how we manage our natural resources and set a gold standard on environmental protection. Our policy and legislative programme for this environmental super-year will culminate in the UK hosting the COP 26 climate change conference in November.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I am sure he is aware that this Government, if they are to achieve this grandiose promise to the British people, need to think more about stopping things such as airport expansion, new road building, building houses that are not zero-carbon, and building new waste incinerators. Can he reassure me that the Government are thinking along those lines?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

This Government are introducing genuinely ground-breaking legislation this year. The Environment Bill introduces world-leading environmental commitments based on environmental principles and with a new organisation for environmental protection to hold the Government to account. The Fisheries Bill puts sustainable fishing at the heart of government policy and the Agriculture Bill scraps the old land-use subsidy system, which many people believe was entirely destructive—I am sure the noble Baroness agrees—and replaces it with a system conditional on land managers delivering some kind of public good, not least environmental protection. That is just the start of what this Government are doing this year. In hosting COP, they have enabled the Prime Minister, whose commitment to tackling climate change is in my view unquestionable, to convene the Government to ensure that we have a whole-government approach to honouring the commitment that this country made to achieve net zero by 2050.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that action on the environment is not just an issue internal to the UK? We also have to tackle our global environmental footprint. For example, we continue to import food and other goods that are causing the loss of the Amazon and other forests. Will our COP 26 commitment include legislation to control UK commodity supply chains, which often go across the globe, causing environmental damage?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Baroness is right that it is not just about what we do domestically. There is a big question about what the UK brings to the world in this super-year for nature. We have already brought a great deal. We are world leaders in marine protection; our blue-belt scheme is on track to protect an area of ocean the size of India. We have doubled our climate funding to £11.6 billion, and much of that uplift will be invested in protecting and restoring nature on an unprecedented scale. She is right also to talk about supply chains. In a few weeks’ time we will hear back from the GRI—the Global Resource Initiative—which was established by a former Secretary of State. It will report back at the end of this month, and I imagine one of its headline commitments will be to clean deforestation out of our supply chain. We will respond as soon as we hear that report.

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, while I congratulate my noble friend on the environmental land management scheme, the nature recovery networks and the policy of net gain that he mentioned, could he ensure that environmental policies do not end up harming the environment? Examples of this include the burning of wood to produce electricity, which is causing forest destruction, and the siting of wind farms where trees have to be cut down and where they damage bird and bat populations.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Viscount raises an important point: there is such a thing as good environmental policy and such a thing as bad environmental policy. Unfortunately, the last few decades are littered with examples of the latter. We disagree in relation to the value and contribution that can be made by onshore wind. It is telling that this year we expect a new wind farm to come online that will be the first to require no public subsidies of any sort at all, which is testament to that technology. It has proven itself, just as we have seen with solar power. However, I absolutely take his point about the burning of wood on a very large scale to produce electricity. This has all kinds of consequences—I would say unforeseen, but they were not entirely unforeseen.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, if the Government’s environmental ambitions are to mean anything, they have to be matched by action. In that context, does the Minister agree that a good start would be for the Government to back the Domestic Premises (Energy Performance) Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Foster of Bath with cross-party support? Does the Minister understand that if the Government are unwilling even to support such a modest but very important measure such as this, their talk of environmental ambitions will ring very hollow indeed?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

To be able to meet our commitment of net-zero emissions by 2050, every single department of government has to deliver a plan showing how they intend to do their part. One of the most difficult areas—perhaps the least avoidable—that we will have to tackle is ensuring that existing homes are made more efficient. Money invested in that is not just money spent; it is an investment because you can expect, through normal means, to receive payback and make savings within four to seven years, depending on the work conducted. I am not familiar with the Bill that the noble Lord cites, but energy efficiency is certainly a major priority for the Government.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the refusal to expand Heathrow not just mean that expansion will take place in another part of the world? It will not reduce pollution at all.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Lord is right that it does not matter where an airport or a new runway is built, in terms of carbon emissions. The Government are probably enormously relieved to know that I am not the Minister in charge of airport policy. I afforded myself a quiet cheer when the court made its ruling a few weeks ago.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on introducing environmental measures in the Pension Schemes Bill. I wonder if my noble friend agrees that the potential for using pension assets to improve mitigation against climate change and measures to adapt to climate change is really important? In the context of International Women’s Day, does he agree that closing the gender pensions gap, which is more than twice as big as the gender pay gap, would be of assistance in that regard?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

As I rose to answer my noble friend’s question, I was told that her second point is being considered by the Government as we speak. On her first point, she is right that investment in energy efficiency and so on lends itself absolutely to pension funds, not least because it offers the kind of long-term, low-risk, medium-return investment that is exactly what they tend to favour. I do not believe that the mechanism for deploying huge amounts of private finance of the sort that we will need if we are to solve these problems exists to channel enough money into environmental solutions, but there are enough examples of what that mechanism might look like so that, by the end of this year, we as a country will be able to demonstrate real leadership in deploying the levels of private finance that we will need.

Single-use Plastics

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to reduce substantially the use of single-use plastics.

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

My Lords, we have reduced annual sales of single-use plastic carrier bags by over 7 billion with the 5p charge. We launched the ground-breaking Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance alongside it. From April, there will be a ban on the supply of plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers, while our landmark Environment Bill will shift the emphasis towards producer responsibility. It includes powers to charge for single-use plastic items, introduce deposit return schemes and manage the export of plastic waste.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer. He will be aware that dealing with litter and fly-tipping costs councils £660 per person per year, and that local councils spend 32% of their council tax revenue on dealing with waste. Does he agree that this cost should be borne not by people in communities but by the people benefiting from it? He may be aware that in the United States, the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act has just been tabled in the Congress, which calls for industry to meet those costs. Even better, since this plastic is choking our planet, should we not ban it altogether?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The plastic bag tax itself has not put any additional costs on to local authorities; on the contrary, it has raised substantial funds, which have been deployed through local charities in the areas where it has been collected. On the broader point about the cost of tackling unnecessary or avoidable waste, that is central to what we are trying to achieve in the Environment Bill. Taking the Bill in its totality, it is about shifting the emphasis away from consumer responsibility towards producer responsibility, on the understanding that most consumers do not welcome unnecessary waste from the products that they buy.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, further to the noble Baroness’s question about banning plastics altogether, at the moment the supermarkets seem to be having their cake and eating it. They are charging us for our plastic bags but not all of that money is going to charity. Some of it is being kept by the supermarkets. Furthermore, they have developed a very tidy line in bags for life. I gather from a recent report that, on average, every family in England has 54 of these bags, which are made of much tougher plastics. On top of that, can the Government not use this year to come up with some systematic, countrywide system to tell people what to do with their plastics—which is which and how to dispose of them? It is a total muddle.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

There is no doubt that there has been an upsurge in the use of so-called bags for life, but the net impact of the plastic bag tax has unquestionably been superb for those interested in reducing unnecessary plastic waste. The noble Baroness’s second point, about the ease of recycling, is absolutely right. In the Environment Bill, which has been introduced in the other place and will be here later in the year, we commit to making recycling easier and ensuring a more consistent, comprehensive service right across the country to avoid exactly that confusion, which exists from local authority to local authority. The Bill introduces legislation requiring all local authorities to collect a core set of recyclable materials—plastic bottles, plastic pots, tubs and trays, glass, metal, paper and card, food and garden waste—from households and businesses in England from 2023.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we concentrate on single-use plastics, there is a danger that manufacturers will just switch to other materials that are not much better in terms of their impact on the environment? Should we not be challenging the whole concept of “single use” and tackling the throwaway society? This requires a much bigger change in mentality than simply, item by item, banning the use of particular materials.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Baroness is right. I make one point about the plastic bag tax. It is often argued that the paper bag alternative is, from a carbon point of view, not necessarily an improvement, but if you look at its environmental impact, there is no doubt that the paper bag is vastly superior to the plastic bag, which can last in the environment, breaking up slowly over anything up to 1,000 years. Paper, of course, decomposes very quickly. If you judge things only through the lens of carbon, perhaps single-use plastic bags might be better than paper bags, but that would be fundamentally the wrong approach to take. I agree with the noble Baroness on the broader point; the Environment Bill is designed to take us to a place where we reduce unnecessary single-use plastic bags consistent with the 25-year plan launched a couple of years ago by the former Prime Minister. Our emphasis on extended producer responsibility is essential and, in effect, means that producers will have to take financial responsibility for the lifetime costs of dealing with whatever they create.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

Further to my noble friend’s comments welcoming the success of the plastic bag charge where it has been imposed on large retailers, can he indicate when that same charge will finally be imposed on small and medium-sized retailers, which even the Government’s figures indicate would result in a massive drop in the unnecessary use of plastic bags?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

My noble friend makes a very good point. At the risk of triggering a groan in the House, I am afraid that I can tell him only that, having consulted on extending the charge to all retailers and upping it to 10p—something the Government are very serious about—we will be taking the next step as soon as possible.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, in 2018, the Government promised to review the waste prevention programme. If, as the Minister says, the Government are so serious about prioritising waste reduction, why has that not yet happened?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I think the Government’s record on tackling plastic is pretty robust. We have, for example, world-leading legislation on tackling microbeads. The many billions of microbeads that would have ended up in the environment, particularly the marine environment, will not, as a consequence of the steps we have taken. I have already mentioned the plastic bag tax, and there are numerous other bans on the way in relation to plastic stirrers and spoons and so on. It is unfair to describe the Government’s progress as slow. However, when it comes to things such as extended producer responsibility, they cannot just be invented overnight. It is much more complex and requires us to look at the whole life cycle of individual products. We are working hard to develop the right answers but it is important that, when we introduce them, they are the right answers.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

There has been a significant, if perhaps small, increase in the use of compostable substitutes for plastic packaging. What assessment has been made of the genuine efficacy of these materials as far as composting is concerned? What percentage of packaging do we now think is being provided from these materials?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. The problem here is that, quite often, when plastic is sold or marketed as biodegradable, it is not; it simply breaks down into smaller bits of plastic and causes problems further down the food chain and, like much of it, ends up in the oceans. The second problem is that, even where it is biodegradable, if it ends up the recycling stream it can have a very damaging impact on the quality of the recyclate. We believe, however, that biodegradable plastics have an increasingly important role. We published a call for evidence last year to help us consider the development of standards or certification criteria for genuine bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics. We are looking at the responses at the moment and will publish a response very soon.

Flooding Update

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the other place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, with permission, I will make a Statement to the House on recent flooding caused by Storm Dennis, which followed Storm Ciara and affected many parts of the country. I would like to begin by extending my condolences to the families and friends of the five individuals who sadly lost their lives through the storms. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with those grieving families today. Our thoughts are also with all those who have suffered damage to their properties as a result of the storms. To have one’s home flooded is an incredibly traumatic experience, and I am conscious that some have been flooded repeatedly over recent years.

Storm Dennis cleared the UK during the course of Monday 17 February. However, this remains a live incident and I urge people in at-risk areas to remain vigilant. We are monitoring the situation closely and most areas are moving into recovery phase. However, rainfall over the last few days is still leading to higher water levels, so we will continue to see the effects this week.

Communities have been affected across our union. We have had an incredibly wet winter. Some areas have already received almost double their average rainfall for February, with others experiencing a month’s worth of rain in just 24 hours. Records have been broken. Some 18 river gauges across 15 rivers recorded their highest levels on record during, or triggered by, Storms Ciara and Dennis, including the Colne, Ribble, Calder, Aire, Trent, Severn, Wye, Lugg, and Derwent. Storm Ciara flooded more than 1,340 properties. The latest number of properties flooded by Storm Dennis stands at more than 1,400. Wales has also seen significant impacts and we are in close contact with the Welsh Government.

The scale of the response has been huge, from setting up temporary defences to knocking on doors and issuing residents with warnings. In anticipation of the storm, we stood up the national flood response centre on Friday 14 February. The Environment Agency issued 348 flood warnings for Storm Ciara and 514 flood warnings for Storm Dennis. On 17 February we saw a record concurrent total of 632 flood warnings and alerts issued in a day; two severe flood warnings, 107 flood warnings and 207 flood alerts remain in place in England. There are an additional 13 flood warnings and 39 flood alerts in place in Wales, and one flood warning in Scotland.

We have been sharing information with the public, so people can prepare for flooding wherever they live. We have deployed over three miles of temporary flood barriers and 90 mobile pumps, and we have been keeping structures and rivers clear of debris. Over 1,000 Environment Agency staff per day have been deployed, with the assistance of around 80 military personnel. In Yorkshire, the military helped deploy temporary defences in Ilkley, and kept the road open between Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge in Calderdale. I would like to record my thanks to all the response teams, including the Environment Agency, local authorities, our emergency services and the military. They are still working hard—over 20 government bodies, local authorities and volunteers, all over the country. The Government acted swiftly to activate the Bellwin scheme to help local authorities cope with the cost of response in the immediate aftermath. On Tuesday 18 February we also triggered the flood recovery framework to help communities get back on their feet.

I am working alongside the Secretary of State for Housing to help households and businesses recover. This includes making available hardship payments, and council tax and business rate relief. Households and businesses will also be able to access grants of up to £5,000 to help make them more resilient to future flooding; a ministerial recovery group is co-ordinating efforts across government. Storms Ciara and Dennis affected thousands of acres of farmland, so we will consider the need to extend the farming recovery fund, once we have all the data.

Investments made in recent years have significantly improved our resilience, but there is much more to do. We are investing £2.6 billion in flood defences, with over 1,000 flood defence schemes to better protect 300,000 homes by 2021. To put this in context, in the floods of 2007 55,000 properties were flooded, but with similar volumes of water in places this year, thankfully far fewer properties have been flooded, and flood defence schemes have protected over 90,000 properties in England this winter. Our manifesto commits us to a further £4 billion in new funding for flood defences over the next five years. Since the incidents of 2015, we have strengthened and improved our system of flood warnings. In 2016 we introduced the Flood Re scheme so insurance cover for floods is accessible for at-risk properties. An independent review of the data on insurance cover will help us ensure that it is working as effectively as possible.

Of course, none of these steps will take away from the anguish of those who have suffered flooding in these storms. Climate change is making the UK warmer and wetter, with more frequent extreme weather events. We need to make nature’s power part of our solution, alongside traditional engineered defences. We are already investing £10 million to restore our peatland habitats, planting enough trees to cover an area the size of East Anglia, with a new £640 million nature for climate fund, and supporting farmers to be part of preventing flooding through our new environmental land management scheme, to reduce and delay peak flows in our landscapes. Later this year, we will set out our policies to tackle flooding in the long term, and the Environment Agency will publish its updated flood and coasts strategy. This country will also lead global ambition as the host of COP 26, urging the world to achieve net zero in a way that helps nature recover, reduces global warming and addresses the causes of these extreme weather events. I therefore commend this Statement to the House.”

With your Lordships’ permission, I would like further to update the House about the situation since this Statement was made yesterday. The number of properties impacted by Storm Dennis now stands at more than 1,500 and there are 106 flood warnings and 156 flood alerts in place in England, with an additional six flood warnings and nine flood alerts in Wales. There are no flood warnings currently in force in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and draw the attention of the House to my register of interests, which include being a councillor in Kirklees, which is in West Yorkshire, where there has been significant flooding.

On behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I wish to record my admiration and gratitude for the amazing dedication and sheer hard work of the staff from local councils, the Environment Agency, the emergency services and, of course, the many volunteers.

When the flooding is no longer news and when the water has receded, local people will still be picking up the pieces of what is left of their lives. A resident in my town whose home was flooded is living in a local hotel, where she will be for months. A profitable manufacturing business in the next-door town is to close permanently, with inevitable job losses, because it can no longer afford recovery costs. It is simply not worth its while. My understanding is that due to escalating costs, businesses are not eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme. Are the Government content to see businesses close by not extending this scheme? If not, will the Minister commit to providing the House with a definitive and—I trust—positive answer to this problem?

The flooding experience has been intensive and devastating. We have heard what steps the Government are planning, but anyone living in a flood-prone place will probably not feel reassured if other places are being protected while they are not. The Government must make flood-water retention a key element of their approach, which currently appears to be more about physical barriers. Does the Minister agree that it is simply not possible to build ourselves out of this regular flooding crisis?

There are alternative approaches which, to coin a phrase, go with the flow. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is not in her place, has recounted the success of the Slowing the Flow at Pickering scheme. The peat moors of the Pennine uplands will act like a massive sponge where landowners allow that to happen, and the University of Exeter has reported that beavers on the River Otter have successfully contributed to flood alleviation. Beavers everywhere: what fun that would be. What is so thoroughly disappointing is the Government’s commitment to building defences when natural approaches may well be more effective and enable natural improvements to our environment. Will the Government’s flood alleviation policies include many of these ideas?

I have referred previously to the issue of the number of organisations responsible for different parts of the drainage system. Every part is under considerable stress, which inevitably contributes to flooding. Local authorities are under extreme financial pressure. As part of the flood prevention approach, will the Minister consider government funding for flood-prone councils, so that highway drainage systems can be properly cleared and, if necessary, upgraded?

Finally, there is the thorny issue of development on land at risk of flooding, which the head of the Environment Agency has spoken about today. It is not as simple as that, of course. Local authorities avoid allocating land that is set aside for flood plains, but developers are not required to take responsibility for building on land that will cause flooding elsewhere, and are not required to construct homes that include flood prevention as an essential element. Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to instruct all local authorities to review land allocation to ensure that no such land is in an area with a high risk of flooding? Further, will he request that the necessary regulation are introduced to include responsibility for buildings to be part of the Hackitt recommendations, which the Government have accepted in full? The Environment Bill provides the opportunity to set out a long-term approach. Meanwhile, thousands of people, communities and businesses need the assurance that the Government will provide a significantly more generous financial offer than currently exists, and that the Government have recognised the fact that, once the media headlines have long gone, their needs will not disappear with them.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their questions and statements. I join them in acknowledging the heroic efforts of our emergency response teams and volunteers. That has been an extraordinary endeavour and, in many respects, a success story in terms of the sheer number of people who have stepped up. I of course agree that recent events are yet another wake-up call in relation to climate change. We are seeing records broken, not just in this country but around the world. I sometimes wonder how many wake-up calls we need before we globally agree and accept the responsibility that falls on this generation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to the Government’s target to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. I would love us to achieve net zero sooner; I do not think anyone would disagree. But we must be realistic when we set policy and even the Committee on Climate Change has been clear that there is no path to net zero that does not involve a major commitment on tree planting. However, trees do not tend to be able to absorb significant amounts of carbon until they are about 15 years old. If nature-based solutions are to form part of our endeavour to meet net zero, there is no way we can meet that target by 2030. When we legislated, we were the only serious industrialised country to make such a commitment in law and I am proud of that. We are in many respects world leaders in tackling climate change at home and contributing against it abroad.

The question of building on flood plains has been raised numerous times in the debate and will no doubt continue to be raised. It is a legitimate point: we should not build in areas where homes are at risk of floods if there are alternatives. As was pointed out by my noble friend Lady Bloomfield in her answer to an earlier question, I am standing at a Dispatch Box on a flood plain right now—London is largely constructed on a flood plain. It is not possible or realistic simply to have a blanket ban. Equally, we should absolutely ensure that homes are not built in areas that put residents at risk and, where there are no alternatives, that such homes are built to be resilient—with raised floor levels and so on.

We have been asked about the review of the insurance scheme, Flood Re. It is correct that it does not currently extend to businesses. However, there is a review, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, knows, and part of that will look at what answers will need to be provided by government in relation to businesses. I should say that a number of specific mechanisms have been available to local authorities to help businesses following the 2015 floods, such as business rate relief and a broader package, none of which would leave a local authority out of pocket. It is not enough, and there is no taking away from the fact that the lives of people, as well as homes and businesses, affected by floods are turned upside down. There is nothing that any Government can do to make that not the case. However, the Government are reviewing the issue and Flood Re may well be extended beyond its current scope, depending on the evidence that is returned.

I hope that I have covered all the points raised but one final issue relates to working with nature as a means of trying to prevent an increase in this problem in the years to come. That is very much part of our strategy and there is no doubt that if we want to prevent the ever-increasing ferocity of floods, we will need somehow to increase the absorbability of land and slow the flow of water across its surface. We know that planting trees massively increases that absorbability and that, when we restore peat lands, the same effect is true. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned beavers. I am a huge fan of the beaver experiment that is unfolding across this country. There is no doubt that where beavers form colonies their activities, not least building dams, enable that particular catchment to hold much more water than it otherwise would. There is some quite strong evidence that where beavers form a colony it reduces the impact of flooding.

As a Government, we are doing a number of things that will ensure that we increasingly put the emphasis on nature-based solutions, not least the new land use subsidy system that we will introduce to replace the common agricultural policy. Instead of paying landowners more or less simply for owning farmable land, we will ensure that those payments are entirely conditional upon the provision of some kind of public good, whether that is flood prevention, biodiversity support or access for people in cities. Equally, we have committed to establish a nature for climate fund worth £640 million. Much of that will be spent to ensure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to plant trees on 30,000 hectares per year, but it also includes money for restoring our valuable peat lands across the country, among other things.

There is an enormous amount of work to do but, from the commitments that this Government have already made, which I hope we will continue to build on over the coming months in this hugely important year—the super year for nature—it is clear that the Government have taken these issues extraordinarily seriously and are responding to the challenge as they should.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Before this Minister sits down, I have asked this question several times, but so far I have not had a reply, so I will press him on it. It is about funding for the Environment Agency. It has said it needs at least £1 billion a year to provide an effective response to flood risk. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, about this and did not get a reply and the Minister has similarly not replied. I will be grateful for a response.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I believe that when that question was put to my noble friend Lord Gardiner on the previous Statement he promised to write to noble Lords, and he did so today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

It was not in the letter.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I have not seen that letter so I cannot argue with the noble Baroness. It is not an answer that I am able to provide, so I will ensure that we follow this up and that the information she has requested is provided.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned the situation in Wales. He was in the Chamber when the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, referred to initiatives being taken by the Welsh Government in relation to the dangers to households and businesses, and to the danger of coal tips sliding down mountain sides. Can the Minister give an assurance, which the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, was not in a position to give, that there will be additional money for the Welsh Government in order to fund this work?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not in a position to pledge any additional funding from this Dispatch Box, but I can tell the noble Lord that my colleague the Secretary of State is looking closely at this issue and is working closely with his colleagues in all the devolved Administrations.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend listed a number of rivers that have been affected in the recent bad weather. I do not think he mentioned the River Wey, in Surrey, which flows through Guildford. Does he have any information about it, and will Guildford be eligible for any of the support to which he referred?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank my noble friend for his question. I cannot provide him with specific information in relation to that river, but I will gladly do so following this exchange. Government support will go where it is needed. There are a number of different supports available centrally and locally for those areas most badly affected.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am from Herefordshire, my wife is from Herefordshire and most of our family lives in Herefordshire. It is a county under an unprecedented amount of water. The short-term clean-up measures announced in the Statement are very welcome, but it goes much deeper than that. The already appalling state of the roads has been made much worse now that they are rivers. They are frankly little more than rubble in some cases. The flooding in people’s homes has been exacerbated by the raw sewage that is coming out of poorly maintained sewers and drains. A big reconstruction job is needed. Will the Minister undertake to recognise the scale of reconstruction required if a place such as Herefordshire is to recover? Will he take the county’s case—my county’s case—to the Chancellor so that when the Budget is announced, there is money not just to clean up but to rebuild places such as Herefordshire? Herefordians need to see that their lives are valued by this Parliament.

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I absolutely make the commitment to take the case of Herefordshire initially to my colleague, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As I said earlier, there is no exaggerating the impact of what happened to the people affected. I can stand here and provide figures showing that the areas affected this time were affected even more so a few years ago. I can provide all kinds of examples of our intervening with conventional flood defences having yielded very impressive results. However, none of that is going to improve the situation for people who have sewage in their homes or whose businesses risk going bust as a consequence of this natural disaster. Yes, I will emphasise the Hereford case when I talk to the Secretary of State later today.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, absent from the discussion has been farming and the crops lost due to the flooding—not just winter planting but spring as well. What are the Government going to do to provide for our farmers and to counteract any rise in food costs resulting from this natural catastrophe, which has not yet come to an end?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The farming recovery fund is specifically designed to provide compensation for loss that is currently uninsurable; it particularly relates to agricultural land that has been damaged. I may be wrong but I believe that it does not apply to livestock, which, on the whole, can be insured. We are not yet in a position to determine how big that fund should be or how it should be deployed, because we do not yet have the data on the damage to farmland. The noble Baroness makes a very important point—this is going to be a priority for the Secretary of State when the data comes in.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, climate change is a challenge facing all the regions of the United Kingdom. Flooding has occurred right across the United Kingdom, and the Minister referred to the issue throughout the devolved regions. Will he have immediate discussions with the Defra Secretary of State and consider using the vehicle of the British-Irish Council for an emergency summit with ministerial colleagues throughout the devolved regions, in order to address the impact of climate change and to look at new solutions to flooding?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The various parties in this House and those who do not belong to any particular party agree that we face a climate emergency; there is already consensus on that. A number of commitments have been made relating to England, and a number relating to the UK. Combined, these are designed to take us towards net zero by 2050. They all involve a major uplift of our focus on nature-based solutions, which have been largely ignored in the climate debate for many years. We should not forget that at the end of this year, Scotland will host COP 26 on behalf of the United Kingdom. We should set ourselves the ambition that that will be the moment when the world finally comes together to move the dial on its collective approach to tackling climate change. There are an enormous number of moments this year where we will be required to work together, both within the United Kingdom and globally, in order to solve this problem.

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister invite a review of the planning system in relation to the issue of flooding?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his comment. I and the Government are clear that we should not build homes in areas at risk of flooding. That is not to say that there cannot be any building on flood plains. The point was made earlier—I think by my colleague—that a number of important places, not least London, are built on flood plains, so we cannot have a blanket ban. What we can do is have a default position that says, “No building in areas at risk, where there is an alternative”. Where homes are built in areas that are at risk, they should not be built in such a way that makes it hard for their owners to secure insurance. If the new owner of a new home built in an at-risk area is unable to secure insurance through an ordinary route, that, I suggest, is a symptom of planning failure.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

Storm Ciara had a devastating impact on Llanrwst in the Conwy valley in north Wales. Homes were flooded, businesses were devasted and our historic Gwydir Castle fell victim to the deluge. I know that residents will find some comfort in the announcement about financial support made today by the Welsh First Minister. However, heavy rainfall is no respecter of devolution. Rain falling on Welsh hills eventually finds its way to English rivers, contributing to the floods that we have seen recently in Shropshire and Herefordshire. To alleviate problems in the Conwy valley and other areas, even in England, what discussions have the Government had with the Welsh Government about guidance on updating catchment management plans in the light of these more frequent and serious events? What guidance will they give to local authorities and other landowners regarding the identification of land to enable them to meet their manifesto pledge of planting at least 30 million more trees every year and to reinstate woodlands, particularly in the uplands?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. On her first point, there has been continuous dialogue between Defra officials, Environment Agency officials and their counterparts in Wales and Scotland. We have seen an extraordinary coming together of the various agencies—the fire service, the police, the Environment Agency, local authorities and volunteers—and that collaboration and co-operation will clearly need to continue. On her broader point about tree-planting targets, we will be publishing a tree strategy in the coming months and a flood strategy will be published around springtime. We are very keen to ensure that those two strategies are not developed entirely in isolation. Inevitably, part of the answer to the flood strategy will be found in the tree strategy, and it is very important that when we honour that 30,000-hectare commitment, we do so in a way that solves as many problems as possible. We should not aim only for carbon absorption, which is merely one of the benefits of planting trees in the way that we have committed to do.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, in response to the Oral Question that I asked, in relation to the flood recovery fund for local businesses and households, the Minister said that responsibility for the first 25 houses and an unspecified number of local businesses falls on the local authority. However, will the Government have another look at that? I understand that this new rule has only just come in, but local authorities really cannot be expected to budget for something that has just happened. Furthermore, who is responsible if, as a result of the recent storms and downpours, flooding comes from an active building site because of disturbance to the land? I remind the House that I am a local councillor in Lancashire and I refer to a site in the ward that I represent. Persimmon is developing a site on a steep hillside there and some pre-existing properties, as well as some of the new properties that are occupied on the site, have been flooded. Persimmon is telling the occupiers of those properties that the damage is not its responsibility because it is an act of God. Whose responsibility is it?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. His first point related to the property level flood resilience, or PFR, scheme. He is right to say that this scheme is deployed locally. The view is that local authorities are much better placed and know more about their local areas than central government when it comes to providing the support that is needed. I do not believe that the policy is new, but I am happy to be corrected or to provide a correction if that is wrong. I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Lord’s question about building sites, so I will have to get back to him about who is responsible in the grey area between development and keys being handed over.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister prepared to publish a comparative table to indicate what funding was available to communities hit by flooding pre-Brexit and what is now available, with precise detail of both so that we can make that comparison public?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am not entirely sure of the relevance of Brexit to this. The Government made a commitment to provide £2.6 billion up to the end of 2021 in every region across the country. The commitment in the manifesto on which the Government were elected was to increase that to £4 billion. That figure is obviously subject to negotiations in the run-up to the Chancellor’s Budget in a few weeks’ time. I do not think that Brexit has had any real impact on this at all, other than allowing us to change the land use subsidy system so that, instead of encouraging flooding, we can introduce measures to reduce the flow of water and invest in nature. In my view, this is an enormous Brexit bonus for nature. Other than that, the record and the commitments made show that funding is increasing, not decreasing. Brexit is just a thing that happened in the middle.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

4. What recent meetings he had with his international counterparts on climate justice at the UN General Assembly.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Zac Goldsmith)]

Climate change and biodiversity were top priorities for the Government at the recent UN General Assembly. The UK played a leading role, with the Prime Minister announcing a doubling of our international climate finance to £11.6 billion and a major focus on backing nature-based solutions to climate change.

[Angela Crawley]

The International Development Committee has specifically recommended that the UK Government should adopt the concept of climate justice to guide their climate spending, but this Government seem scared to even utter the words: not a single International Development Minister has ever said the words “climate justice” in this Chamber. Why are this Government so intent on ignoring this recommendation?

[Zac Goldsmith]

Given what we know about the science in relation to climate change and what we know about what is happening to biodiversity, habitat and species loss, it is absolutely right that this Government’s focus should be on tackling and preventing climate change, both through technology and by doing everything we can to protect and restore the natural world. If we do not do that, no amount of money from this or any other aid Department will properly compensate poorer countries for the devastation that will follow.

[Deidre Brock]

I am afraid that the Minister failed entirely to answer my hon. Friend’s question. Will he tell the House when he will follow Scotland’s lead and the recommendation of the International Development Committee and explicitly adopt the concept of climate justice to help to guide climate mitigation spending?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not agree that I did not answer the previous one. We provide £5.8 billion for climate finance at the moment, and that will double to at least £11.6 billion. The whole basis of that programme is, in a sense, climate justice. It is about helping developing countries to prepare for climate change, to adapt to the inevitable changes and to fight the causes of climate change to minimise the impact.

[Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

By 2030, the destruction of the world’s important habitats and the threat of climate change could force more than 100 million people into poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent action is needed to tackle deforestation throughout the world?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I commend my hon. Friend for all her work on this issue. She is absolutely right, and that is why, when the Prime Minister spoke at the UN, he emphasised the importance of investing in nature as a means of tackling climate change. She mentions forests, and they are an obvious example. About 1 billion people depend on forests for their survival, and protecting and restoring forests alleviates poverty, tackles climate change and helps to reverse the biodiversity loss that we have seen over recent years.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to his well-deserved place at the Dispatch Box? The environmental world rejoices that he is there, and I know he will do an outstandingly good job. Does he agree that it is a perfectly legitimate use of aid funds to spend money on climate change reduction and climate change battling as well as on the mitigation of the worst effects of climate change? That helps in a global sense, and it also helps to mitigate the worst effects for the poorest people in the world.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. He is exactly right to say that we will have no hope at all of tackling poverty globally if we do not take a bigger interest in preventing climate change and the annihilation of the natural world that we have seen in recent decades. The people on the frontline in relation to nature destruction are the world’s poorest people. They are the people who depend most directly on the natural world, so he is absolutely right.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

10. I welcome the Minister to his post. I am sure he will agree that the food and farming system has a major impact on climate change in developing countries, from deforestation to water use and mountains of food waste, but that is not really talked about in DFID terms except for some small livestock programmes. Can he assure me that it will be at the top of his agenda as a Minister in this Department?

[Zac Goldsmith]

As we heard from the Secretary of State in his first answer, we have committed serious sums of money to enabling smallholders around the world to adapt to climate change. We have also launched an initiative at the UN called the Just Rural Transition, which is about shifting the way subsidies are spent around the world on land use, away from unsustainable use towards sustainable use, just as we are doing in this country. The OECD tells us that the 50 top food-producing nations spend €700 billion a year subsidising land use, on the whole very badly. If we can shift even a fraction of that, it will have a much bigger impact than all the world’s aid departments put together.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Ind)]

5. What steps his Department is taking to support women in developing countries in (a) business and (b) further education after they have finished school.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

Currently, approximately 97% of the UK’s export financial support for energy in developing countries goes to fossil fuels and only 1% to renewable energy. That is a ridiculous and untenable position, given the Government’s avowed aims. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that his work in supporting developing countries to tackle climate change is not undermined by his colleagues in the Department for International Trade?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Zac Goldsmith)]

I am pleased that the CDC has made no new investments at all in coal-fired power stations since 2012, and that increasingly UK ODA supports renewable energy. I am assured that as a result of its adoption of the recommendations of the taskforce on climate-related financial disclosures, UK Export Finance is looking very carefully at the risks, which the hon. Gentleman has just highlighted, of its support for oil and gas.

Jewish Refugees from the Middle East and North Africa

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Westminster Hall

[Theresa Villiers]

That United Nations record is a matter of grave concern. As I will go on to acknowledge, it is of course important to recognise the suffering experienced by the Palestinians displaced by the 1948 war, but that should not blind us to the suffering experienced by the Jewish communities about whom we are reflecting today.

Jewish people lived in what is now the Arab world for a millennium before Islam was founded, and centuries before the Arab conquest of many of those territories. Until the 17th century, there were more Jewish people in the Arab and wider Muslim world than in Europe. In 1939, 33% of the population of Baghdad was Jewish, making it proportionately more Jewish than Warsaw. Until their 20th-century expulsion, Jewish people had lived in the area covered by present-day Iraq since the Babylonians exiled them from Judea to Mesopotamia in 586BC. The Bible tells us that, taken into captivity in Babylon, they wept on the banks of the Tigris and the Euphrates. A sizeable minority chose to stay after the Persian king Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and declared that the Jews were free to return to Jerusalem to rebuild their temple. Jewish people living under Muslim rule shaped Judaism as we know it today. The Talmud—or the Babylonian Talmud, as it is often called—was written in the pre-Islamic academies of present-day Iraq. For centuries, Babylon was the spiritual and religious hub of Judaism.

According to the powerful book “Uprooted” by Lyn Julius—I warmly recommend it to everyone here and welcome that Lyn is with us in the Gallery—Jewish people in the Arab world faced two types of oppression. Countries such as Yemen, Syria and post-Suez Egypt drove out their Jewish populations mainly in a single mass expulsion. In other places, such as Lebanon and Morocco, Jews were pushed out gradually over a more protracted period, steadily being made to feel less and less welcome in their home countries. Several countries criminalised Zionism, exposing their Jewish minorities to the allegation that they were somehow enemies of the state.

In Iraq, the situation deteriorated over time. Having served their country proudly over centuries, the vast majority of the Jewish community in Iraq had their nationality taken from them in 1951. A crisis point was reached in 1969 with the execution of nine Jewish Iraqis on trumped-up charges of spying. Their bodies were left hanging for days on public display. Following that brutal episode, many of Iraq’s remaining Jewish population escaped through Kurdish areas, including the vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, my constituent Edwin Shuker.

Last year, Edwin visited Parliament to talk to MPs about the injustice we are reflecting on today and to share with us the story of his escape from Baghdad over the Kurdistan mountains. He told me:

“For years, we were pleading to be allowed to leave…We were happy to leave behind everything, but were denied this request. Instead, we were practically kept as hostages from 1963 until we finally managed to escape with our lives in 1971…and were mercifully granted asylum upon arrival to the UK.”

I pay tribute to the tireless work Edwin and others have done on this issue, and I am pleased he is here with us today. I welcome all those here today who have been personally affected by the events that we are considering or whose families were driven out of those ancient communities in the middle east.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Theresa Villiers]

In a moment. I thank those people for their courage in speaking out on this important issue. We owe them all a great debt of gratitude.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend while she was mid flow. I congratulate her on securing this historic and hugely important debate. The US and Canadian Governments have both passed resolutions formally recognising the plight of Jewish refugees. Would she support a similar measure here in the UK, so that the British Government, the British people and Britain as a whole finally recognise, officially and formally, the plight of those Jewish refugees, which she is describing?

[Theresa Villiers]

I agree that we need much clearer recognition. One good way to do that would be a resolution in Parliament. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will consider that as a next step from this debate.

I pay tribute to Harif, which provides a powerful voice for Jewish people originally from the middle east and north Africa, ventilating many of the concerns about which we will no doubt hear in this debate. I also thank the Board of Deputies, Conservative Friends of Israel and Dr Stan Urman for the information they provided me with in advance of the debate.

Many people were given just days to leave, and most lost everything they owned. A Jewish Egyptian refugee, Joseph Abdul Wahed, wrote:

“We left. And we lost everything. We lost the business, the manufacturing shop, a very beautiful villa with a garden full of orange blossoms and lemon blossoms that I can still remember. But I did take with me a Star of David. It was made by my grandfather. Luckily I was able to get it out.”

The ethnic cleansing of Jewish people from the Arab world has far too often been overlooked, as we have already heard in interventions. This is largely an untold story, and it is an unresolved injustice.

Huge amounts of airtime, debate and resources are focused on the Palestinians who were displaced by the 1948 conflict, and it is right to acknowledge their suffering and the importance of safeguarding their interests in a future peace settlement. But the plight of the 850,000 Jewish refugees and the scale of their suffering have never had the recognition they deserve. Indeed, I was shocked to learn that some countries’ embassies in Cairo are apparently located in homes stolen from Jewish Egyptian refugees. Concentrating only on the Palestinian refugees gives the international community a distorted view of the middle east dispute. A fair settlement needs to take into account the injustice suffered by Jewish refugees as well as the plight of displaced Palestinians.

The historic UN resolution 242 states that a comprehensive peace agreement should include

“a just settlement of the refugee problem”—

language that is inclusive of both Palestinian and Jewish refugees. The status of Jewish refugees has been recognised by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and by world leaders such as President Bill Clinton.

Jammu and Kashmir

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Field]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who always speaks with such calmness about such matters. I have had strong dealings with him on a number of issues, at both ministerial and constituency levels. I entirely endorse what he said. I think we all want to see a regularisation of the situation, with as much access as possible for those who are currently living in India, or currently in Pakistan to be able to go to homelands that their forefathers lived in.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a friend, admirer and former relative of the new Prime Minister of Pakistan. Does my right hon. Friend share my view that everything we have seen so far from the new Prime Minister demonstrates an absolute commitment to tackling extremism and terrorism? Does he agree with the new Prime Minister’s words, shortly after he was elected, that the surest route to peace between India and Pakistan in the long term is to increase and expand the trade movements between the two countries?

[Mark Field]

I could not agree more. I had a chance to meet Imran Khan, at a time when he was regarded as a potential kingmaker, when I visited KP—Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—the region where his party was the strongest, back in 2017. Obviously, he has arrived at a pivotal time in India-Pakistan relations, with an imminent Indian election, and with all the financial issues concerning Pakistan, which have inevitably taken up quite a lot of his time in his first few months as Prime Minister. Yes, his rhetoric has always been in favour of peace, but he has also shown recognition that having the broadest range of friends across the world is the surest way of seeing prosperity and normalcy in all parts of Pakistan.

Blue Belt Programme: South Sandwich Islands

Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Government’s blue belt programme and the South Sandwich islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. Oceans cover about 71% of the earth’s surface, and around 90% of the earth’s biosphere. They contain about a quarter of a million different known species—and likely vastly more, given that so little of our oceans has been properly explored or understood. Today, I will speak about the tragedy of what is happening to our oceans and about what we need to do to protect them.

There was a time when our oceans were absolutely brimming with life. In 1497, the explorer John Cabot complained that his ship’s progress had been hampered by the sheer volume of cod off the coast of Newfoundland. He wrote a message to his sponsor, King Henry VII, in which he said that his men

“took so many fish that this kingdom will no longer have need of Iceland, from which country there is an immense trade in the fish”.

As we now know, industrial fishing quickly put an end to that. In 1968, the registered catch was 800,000 tonnes; by 1994, the catch was just 1,700 tonnes. In Victorian England, one could have seen large pods of orcas and blue whales off the coast of Cornwall. Professor Callum Roberts has reminded us that in 1836, a shoal of sardines extended, in a single compact body, from Fowey to Land’s End—a distance of around 100 miles. He notes that today, people pay serious money to travel thousands of miles to witness such scenes.

Today, we face an unprecedented loss of species in our oceans, comparable to the mass extinctions of past millennia. A year ago, the Zoological Society of London and the World Wide Fund for Nature issued a report stating that there is only half the amount of wildlife in the sea today as there was in 1970, just a few years before I was born. Between 70% and 80% of the world’s marine fish stocks have either been fully exploited, overexploited, depleted or are recovering from depletion. Of the 17 largest fisheries in the world, 15 are now so heavily depleted that future catches cannot be guaranteed.

A scientific paper published in Nature reports that we have lost 90% of the world’s big predatory fish, such as tunas and sharks. Only 5% of coral reefs are considered pristine. Despite serving as breeding grounds for 85% of commercial fish, a third of the world’s mangroves have been destroyed since 1990. That annihilation is happening across the world, and is not only an unforgivable biodiversity tragedy, but a human tragedy.

About 200 million people depend directly on the fishing industry for their livelihoods. For more than 1 billion people, fish is the primary source of protein. If the fishing industry collapses, the effects will be disastrous, especially for the world’s poorest people. One has only to look at what happened in Somalia a couple of decades ago: years of overfishing—mostly by vast foreign fleets—decimated the coastal economy when fish stocks ran out. Legal fishing gave way to piracy, and millions were plunged into poverty, with criminality taking over.

There are numerous causes of this loss and numerous things that we need to do to put things right, but the biggest—and the focus of the debate—is simply protection. Marine protected areas represent a broad spectrum, with everything from absolute no-take zones to areas open only to sustainable fishing. We know that they work because we can literally measure the results of protection.

When commercial fishing in the Atlantic ocean and North sea had to be stopped during world war two, there was an immediate spike in fish populations. In New Zealand’s Leigh marine reserve, common predatory fish are now six times more abundant in the reserve than outside, while in its Tāwharanui marine reserve, there are 60% more species in the reserve than out. Spain has suffered massively from overfishing, but catches close to the Tabarca marine reserve were 85% higher than elsewhere after just six years of protection. The list goes on, all around the world.

There is a level of agreement about the scale of the problem, but the response—an international commitment to protect 10% of the world’s oceans by 2020—is far below what is needed. To make matters much worse, we are nowhere near achieving that. The British Government get it: we have committed to pushing for the protection of 30% of the world’s oceans by 2030, and despite being a relatively small nation we are in a good position to take the lead. We are, after all, custodians of the fifth largest marine estate in the world, thanks to our extensive overseas territories, which contain, incidentally, over 94% of the UK’s unique biodiversity. They are scattered across the world and home to countless rare and threatened species.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

In the context of our overseas territories, Blue Belt is an incredibly ambitious policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will be judged on its success only in terms of how we support different marine protections around different archipelagos and islands? Ascension Island is a key one: people are waiting to see whether the Government are willing to pledge the means to ensure that the marine protection area there is a success, so that we can have confidence in what we are doing globally.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his intervention, and I agree with him 100%. I put on the record my thanks to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who led the campaign in Parliament and can take a lot of credit for the Government’s current position.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Zac Goldsmith]

May I ask my hon. Friend to hold off for a second? I know what he is going to ask me.

The overseas territories are enormously important breeding grounds for endangered turtles, a third of the world’s albatrosses, a quarter of the world’s penguins, and the world’s largest coral atoll. In what remains to this day, I think, the biggest conservation commitment ever made by any Government ever, our Government pledged to protect over 4 million square kilometres across those overseas territories by 2020. Altogether, that is an area bigger than India. That commitment makes us world leaders in ocean protection, and it is hard to think of a better illustration of global Britain.

[James Gray]

I remind the House that, as set out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I visited South Georgia at the expense of the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands last year.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s announcement this morning that, partly as a result of his pressure, they are to extend the no-take boundaries around South Georgia from 12 to 31 miles; that they will extend the marine protected area around the whole of the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands maritime zone, meaning that 173,000 square kilometres will now be entirely protected from commercial fishing; and that they intend to close the South Sandwich Islands trench region—the most important bit—to all commercial fisheries? I hope he welcomes that announcement.

[Zac Goldsmith]

Of course, I hugely welcome that announcement. I will come to that in a few moments, but my speech will first canter through some of the overseas territories and some of the work that we are doing and need to do. The move that my hon. Friend referred to puts to rest a lot of the arguments against full protection, but I will come to that, and we will no doubt have an argument in due course.

I have described a great commitment of which we can be proud, but alone it is not enough. We need to make good on it, properly, and we need go further. Before I go into detail on the Blue Belt, I hope that the Minister will confirm that funding for the Blue Belt will be assured beyond 2020. It stands at £4.8 million per year and given what we get for that, it is spectacularly good value for money.

I want to look more broadly at the actual Blue Belt commitments. In some areas where we have made promises, we have delivered spectacularly. The Pitcairn islands in the Pacific ocean, for example, are surrounded by the most pristine marine environment anywhere on earth. It is just magnificent that the Government have permanently closed those waters, which cover around 840,000 square kilometres, to commercial fishing. It is one of the largest protected areas in the world.

Tristan da Cunha, a tiny island in the south Atlantic, has waters with vast populations of seals, southern right whales and blue sharks, as well as being home to great numbers of seabirds and rockhopper penguins. The Government have committed to protecting the full 750,000 sq km of Tristan’s waters by 2020. I hope that the Minister will confirm that we will make good on that commitment and that we will help the tiny local population by protecting the area from illegal fishing.

In 2016, the Government committed to a marine protected area of 450,000 sq km around St Helena in the south Atlantic ocean. It is an area bigger than Germany and has more than 40 endemic species, including whale sharks, turtles and humpback whales. The aspiration is to develop a sustainable one-by-one—one hook to catch one fish at a time—tuna fishery in its own marine protected area. At this stage, however, St Helena has yet to ban industrial long-lining from its waters. The Government clearly need to work with the local population to put that right, as a matter of urgency.

Ascension Island, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) mentioned, has 450,000 sq km of ocean and the second-largest green turtle breeding population in the Atlantic. It is a hotspot for sharks, tuna and swordfish. The Government are committed to protecting at least 50% of the area by 2019, but nothing stops them from going further and protecting the whole area. I understand that the island’s Council is itself minded to back 100% protection, but they are looking for assurances from the Government that they will not then be saddled with the costs of satellite monitoring for effective enforcement. They calculate, incidentally, that it would be cheaper to protect the whole area, rather than half, so that should not be a barrier. I hope that the Minister will address that point.

Viewers of the extraordinary “Blue Planet II” series will know that the greatest gift that the Government can give the oceans lies further south in, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) has just referenced, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. That is why the title of this debate names the area specifically. Those tiny, uninhabited islands are a near-pristine global biodiversity hotspot. A full quarter of the global population of penguins live here, alongside recovering populations of whales and seals, and unique marine habitats.

The local Government designated the whole 1 million sq km around the islands as an MPA in 2012. However, although the fisheries around South Georgia are without doubt managed to a high standard, until this morning only 2% of the total waters were fully protected. I understand from the news today that that area has been increased from 2% to 23%, which is fantastic news, but the remaining 77% is still technically open to fishing, and that could easily change. There is a huge groundswell of opinion among scientists, non-governmental organisations and colleagues in this House behind the campaign fully to protect the waters around the South Sandwich Islands in particular, which is about 500,000 sq km, roughly half of the whole MPA.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. The designation of those waters is an important step, but does he agree that we should not confuse designation with protection, and that we should encourage the Government to be bolder in protecting more of our fragile ocean environment, especially where the UK has involvement?

[Zac Goldsmith]

I very much take the hon. Gentleman’s point; in fact, he takes the words out of my mouth.

The remaining half of the waters—not the 500,000 sq km that need full protection—would still be open to well-managed fisheries. Colleagues will have seen the case for protection powerfully made by a broad coalition in an open letter to the Foreign Secretary. It was published, I think, in the Telegraph last week, and went wild on social media. That is a genuine win-win proposal. The South Sandwich Islands have not been fished commercially in 25 years, so no fishing at all would be displaced. Upgrading the existing MPA to give full protection can be achieved within existing budgets and existing legislation. Politically, it would demonstrate the UK’s willingness to lead by example.

[James Gray]

My hon. Friend is most generous in giving way. The point he makes is that there has been no commercial fishing in this area for 25 years. However, there is no prospect that there will be in the next 25 years, so what he is proposing and campaigning for is tokenistic in the extreme. Will he not simply take this opportunity to welcome the fact that the Government have now protected the krill fisheries for an extra two months, banned HFO—heavy fuel oil—vessels from the area and taken a variety of other environmental steps to protect it in the way that he wants? Merely calling for more and more protection in a tokenistic and campaigning way achieves nothing but the alienation of local people.

[Zac Goldsmith]

To suggest that we should not protect an area because it has not yet been destroyed is madness; the same argument could equally have been used against pretty much any one of the world’s nature reserves, including the national parks that are a source of pride in this country. The fact that the area has not been exploited and that an industry has not yet been able to develop there is precisely why it needs protection. Were a fishing industry to emerge and develop in that area, the prospect of removing it would become inconceivable—vastly expensive, hugely disruptive and politically difficult —and so not happen. Because the area has not been fished and is pretty much pristine, it requires the protection for which the campaigners are rightly asking.

Politically, as I said, such a move would demonstrate the UK’s willingness to lead by example, but I would go further than that. If we are not willing to protect that pristine, unfished, global biodiversity gem, how could anyone take seriously our commitment to support the protection of 30% of the world’s oceans? One cannot be achieved without committing to the other. Despite great leadership on that issue, the Foreign Office seems to have hit the buffers somewhat. Those involved, on the inside and on the outside, are, frankly, scratching their heads. Whatever the block, I strongly urge Ministers to be decisive, to be bold and just to get on with it.

[The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)]

I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) for securing this debate. As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and a well-regarded champion of the recent illegal wildlife trade conference, he takes a close interest in conservation and the environment.

The UK has long understood that, as custodians of the world’s fifth largest marine estate, we and our overseas territories have a responsibility—indeed, a duty—to manage and protect our marine environment. The general public are increasingly aware of the importance of caring for our oceans, in many cases thanks to last year’s excellent “Blue Planet II” series, and understandably they are demanding action. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to update the House on developments in respect of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands marine protected area and on wider progress on the Blue Belt initiative.

This morning, I was delighted to welcome the announcement by the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands of a suite of environmental enhancements, including additional marine protected area measures. The announced protections are based on the recommendations of the first five-year review of the territory’s MPA, which has recently concluded. That review was conducted by a panel which included scientists, as well as representatives from the fishing and tourism industries, and environmental groups. The panel’s conclusions were made public on 7 November. It found that the current MPA is achieving its objectives, while also making a series of recommendations further to strengthen protection of the territory’s waters.

Based on those recommendations and other recent scientific work, the Commissioner today announced an expansion of the MPA to cover the territory’s entire maritime zone; an extension of the seasonal closure of the krill fishery, to provide further protection for breeding wildlife; an increase of the marine areas fully closed to commercial fishing activities, to up to 23% of the maritime zone; and the banning of all commercial mineral resource extraction activities, along with prohibitions on the transport of heavy fuel oil, in line with the restrictions that apply in Antarctic waters. The measures are based on precautionary scientific advice and take into account the UK’s rights and responsibilities under the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, known as CCAMLR. Taken together, the measures will help to ensure that the UK’s stewardship of the islands remains exemplary.

We welcome the engagement that we have had over the past year with many who have an interest in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, in particular those environmental organisations, including WWF—the World Wide Fund for Nature—and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which have supported scientific work in the territory. We do, however, recognise that some may continue to press us to go further.

As I explained to the House in a similar debate at about this time last year, although on the face of it a simple proposal to close much of that area to all commercial fishing might seem to be a complete no-brainer—not least because there has been no intensive commercial fishing around the South Sandwich Islands for more than 25 years—a variety of scientific and diplomatic factors are in play, all of which need to be considered carefully. Furthermore, the recent MPA review did not reach consensus on whether a full no-take marine reserve around the South Sandwich Islands would deliver any conservation benefits.

Of course, the commissioner’s announcement today is not the end of the story. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands continue to change dramatically as a result of regional climate change. In partnership with the commissioner’s team and the Government’s Blue Belt programme, scientists will undertake further studies in the new year.

[Zac Goldsmith]

The Minister mentioned the diplomatic barriers that still exist. I wonder whether he will elaborate on that. In the light of today’s news about the protection of up to 23% of the area, it seems that the arguments against full protection—displacement activity, dealing with neighbouring states and so on—are exactly the same as those against protecting 23%. Will he elaborate on what those barriers are?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

No, I think they become more complicated. I ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that we genuinely would do absolutely everything we could, but we have to look at the diplomatic consequences of sovereignty claims, or whatever one calls them, which complicate doing straightforward things unilaterally. I will say a little more about that in the context of CCAMLR in a second.

To continue what I was saying about the Blue Belt programme, that work will further inform the management of what is a unique and precious territory, as well as contributing to an international krill survey project to gather data to inform international discussions about the future distribution of the krill fishery at CCAMLR.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I think I am known in the Foreign Office for challenging officials very robustly, and on the issue of science I undertake to do exactly that. There is no point in using old science if there is newer, better-informed science available. We really want to set the highest possible scientific standards. In return, I hope that my right hon. Friend accepts that where there is a scientific conclusion, that is what should guide us.

I would like to take this opportunity briefly to update the House on other recent progress through the wider Blue Belt programme. As many colleagues who take a close interest in the programme will be aware, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park said, the UK has to date declared marine protected areas across around 3 million sq km—more than 40%—of British waters. I am pleased to confirm that we remain on course to increase that to 4 million sq km, or around 60% of our waters, by 2020. I hope the House agrees that that will be a remarkable achievement.

As for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, designation of protected areas is not the end of the story. Our overseas territories are working closely with our two main Blue Belt delivery partners—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science and the Marine Management Organisation—to ensure that each marine protection regime is well designed, well managed, monitored and enforced.

Members may have seen the Blue Belt programme annual update for 2017-18, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses in July. I will highlight a couple of examples of work that demonstrate the UK’s commitment to the marine protection of our overseas territories. First, the Government’s National Maritime Information Centre provides technical support to monitor and enforce protected areas around our territories, which in turn supports the global fight against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing. Secondly, a number of scientific expeditions have been undertaken around the overseas territories to assess biodiversity. That is crucial to ensure that we protect the right areas and the most vulnerable species or habitats.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) asked about Ascension. A commitment was made in 2016 to designate a no-take MPA across half of Ascension’s waters, and considerable work has been undertaken in the territory to identify the best location for the MPA based on robust scientific understanding of those waters. It is for the Ascension Island Government to consider the options for an MPA based on the evidence available, and they are currently undertaking a consultation on a range of options, one of which may include designating Ascension as an entire maritime area. In respect of Tristan da Cunha, I can confirm that it is committed to designating marine measures across its maritime zone by 2020. We should all be pleased that so many parliamentary colleagues have recognised and engaged with the ambitious policy direction we have set through the Blue Belt programme.

[Zac Goldsmith]

I am trying to resist intervening too much, but before we move on from Ascension, my understanding is that the Island Council is willing to go for 100% protection but is looking for some kind of assurance from the British Government that it will not be lumbered with the costs. Has my right hon. Friend looked at that, and is he willing to give that assurance?

[Sir Alan Duncan]

I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolutely clear answer, because I have not engaged with Ascension on the issue of costs nor, as a Foreign Office Minister, can I make the sort of funding promises he asked for a moment ago. However, I undertake to look into that and to consult him personally to see whether the issue of costs can be properly addressed and understood in order to introduce the maximum possible certainty to reach the objectives we all share.

The announcement today by the Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is further testament to our commitment to ensuring that the UK remains a world leader on marine protection. Simply banning all fishing activity might seem a simple and obvious conservation solution, but I ask the House to appreciate that the reality is a bit more complicated. The Government will continue to work on the basis of science and evidence to deliver tangible marine protection to contribute to the health of the global ocean, while also taking into account the specific circumstances and needs of each of our overseas territories. I hope that all of us in the House from all parties can work together to do our best for the marine environment.

Question put and agreed to.