Building Safety (Leaseholder Protections) (Information etc.) (England) Regulations 2022
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, the Building Safety Act made provisions for the remediation of certain defects to buildings following the Grenfell tragedy and, in certain circumstances, gave protections to leaseholders from the costs. The regulations before the House make provisions for how leaseholders can secure those protections. Labour welcomes these regulations and, throughout the passage of the Act, called for leaseholders to be better protected from the costs of fixing historic defects to their homes.
I must say to the Minister that just as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the Joint Committee have raised concerns, we are concerned about the rushed nature of these regulations today. It spells chaos, but when you have had 60 Ministers resign, including the Minister for this department, I understand what is going on here.
We want to ask the Minister to be more clear about how the scheme will operate. Given that many leaseholders are still living in buildings with extensive defects, this should include urgent information on when it will be fully operational. There are also still technical questions remaining over how retrospective protections will come into force, especially given that the Cabinet Office guidance makes it clear that you cannot implement retrospective law unless the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General have both approved it.
As leaseholders continue to suffer without any real guidance or information, Ministers must act with great urgency to give people security in their homes and ensure that there are no further delays. We on these Benches support this measure today. However, we have concerns about the rushed nature of bringing it through. What continuing conversations and consultations will the Minister have with the Joint Committee to ensure that its concerns are addressed?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for their contributions and their kindness in suggesting that I might like to write if I find that I cannot or have not answered anything when I have had a look at Hansard tomorrow. However, I shall take this opportunity to provide further detail on some of the points that have been raised.
I go first to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She asked whether non-cladding remediation work would be covered by the provisions. The various apportionment provisions in the regulations will apply to non-cladding remediation works. She also asked what happens when developers might challenge the extent of their liability. We are confident that the provisions will survive any legal challenge, but the department may indeed take forward some court cases itself in order to prove this.
The noble Baroness also asked me what happens with buildings under 11 metres, and I know this is a common concern of many. We remind your Lordships that building owners should ensure that residential buildings of any height are safe, as it is their long-standing legal responsibility to do so. We have no evidence of systemic risk in low-rise buildings, and although we recognise that height should not be the only factor determining the level of risk in buildings, experts generally recognise that height is an important factor. Any mitigation work needs to be appropriate and proportionate to the level of risk. Less expensive mitigating measures, such as fire alarms, are likely to be more appropriate and proportionate for buildings under 11 metres.
My noble friend Lord Young asked a number of questions that I would like to respond to. He asked first how leaseholders will be required to prove that a flat is their sole or primary residence. Leaseholders will be required to provide information in the form of a short deed of certificate in relation to their qualifying lease status, their property’s last sale price and their shared ownership status. As my noble friend said, proving a negative for other properties is a challenge; that is why the certificate itself carries a formal legal status. This one-off process will enable landlords to calculate their liability for historical safety defects under the Act. The certificate is set out in the schedule to these regulations and will be available to download from the GOV.UK website in the next few days. We will also be issuing comprehensive guidance and digital tools for leaseholders that set out this process in further detail.
My noble friend asked about enfranchised buildings. I remind the House that there is a distinction between resident-managed blocks, which are protected, and resident-owned blocks, which are not. As flagged up during debates in this House, it does not help leaseholders in enfranchised buildings if the leaseholder protection provisions in Part 5 of the Building Safety Act apply to leaseholder-owned and commonhold buildings. This is because leaseholders, in their capacity as freeholders, would still have had to pay the remedy for the safety defects in their building.
Following this, my noble friend asked about buildings where only some of the leaseholders own the freehold. This scenario was one of the reasons why we did not include leaseholder-owned buildings in the protections, as doing so would be unfair to those leaseholders, as my noble friend described. I remind the House that the Building Safety Act 2022 provides other routes for redress, which apply equally to leaseholder-owned buildings for buildings with relevant safety defects, enabling them to pursue those directly responsible for defects through the courts. These are now available for longer and in a far greater range of circumstances, including a course of action relating to product manufacturers and the provisions enabling associated companies to be sued. On next steps, I assure the House that the Government will very soon launch a call for evidence to understand better the particular issues facing leaseholder-owned buildings and their residents.
My noble friend also asked about resident-managed buildings and whether we have in some way let developers off the hook. I can categorically say that we have not. Developers will be liable to pick up historic building safety costs in resident-managed buildings, just as in other buildings. We have agreed with over 47 residential property developers that they will fix life-critical fire safety defects, including cladding, in all buildings above 11 metres that they had a role in developing or refurbishing in the past 30 years. The provisions relating to resident management companies and the like ensure that building owners are in the loop when it comes to getting work done. It will be up to them rather than the residents to pursue developers where the pledge does not apply.
My noble friend then asked if regulations 3(3) and 4(3) create some sort of loop. I can reassure your Lordships that they do not. There cannot be a circumstance whereby amounts could be claimed under both regulations. Under regulation 3, if the landlord is or is associated with a developer, they will be required to pay all remediation costs. If that is not the case, regulation 4 will apply to test whether the landlord or building owner meets the contribution condition. If they do, again, they will be required to pay all remediation costs, so a situation simply cannot arise where claims could be made under both regulations, because if a building owner were to meet the requirements of regulation 3 first, there would be no need to make a claim under regulation 4, and the same applies in reverse.
Finally—I am glad to say—in answer to my noble friend’s question about whether the Government will be producing guidance, as the Explanatory Memorandum does indeed suggest, to support the operation of these regulations and the leaseholder protections as a whole, subject to the House approving these regulations, the Government will be publishing on Thursday, to coincide with their coming into force, a comprehensive package of guidance for leaseholders, landlords and building owners. The draft package of guidance, which has been shared with the leaseholder groups to ensure its usability, will be accompanied by an online tool that will use the data from the certificate in the schedule to these regulations to enable qualifying leaseholders to determine the maximum they will have to pay in respect of non-cladding costs.
If I have not answered any questions, I will of course get back to noble Lords in writing, but in conclusion, these regulations are vital to ensure that the leaseholder protection provisions in the Building Safety Act are fully implemented, enabling landlords to apportion historical safety remediation costs and leaseholders to demonstrate their qualifying lease status, so that leaseholders can fully benefit from the protections that the new legislation affords them. I am glad that noble Lords are joining me in supporting these regulations and I beg to move.
Business and Planning Act 2020 (Pavement Licences) (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, over recent years, hospitality businesses across the UK have struggled, but the problems they face did not begin during the pandemic. As the cost of living bites, it is important that the Government support local businesses in any way possible. Even minor steps such as these regulations are welcome. Labour therefore does not oppose these regulations to extend pavement licences, but instead calls on the Government to minimise the unintended consequences. That means monitoring the impact on local residents and pedestrian access, particularly for those with disabilities and mobility issues—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Guide Dogs UK and the RNIB both raised concerns about the shortened timeframe for consultation when the temporary changes on pavement licencing were introduced. The department must work with both groups to resolve concerns. The Government should also work closely with local authorities to enforce safeguards in cases where businesses are blocking pavements and ensure that councils are properly resourced to fulfil their responsibilities.
Aside from the specific provisions of this instrument, Labour wants the Government to bring forward further support to help the hospitality industry, and that includes making sure that people have more disposable income to support local businesses.
Several noble Lords—particularly the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham—mentioned that the hospitality industry has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. I have a few questions to follow up on some excellent contributions made by noble Lords in this debate.
During the two years since this has been in place, how many licences have been rejected and what were the main reasons for those rejections? On hospitality and local councils, has there been any feedback between the department and local authorities on what have been the major impacts? That is a very broad area, but I am sure that the Minister could comment on whether the issues are Brexit or pandemic-induced—a point made earlier. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, made a powerful contribution and added to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham about the complexities and confusion around smoking and non-smoking areas. I hope for some clarification from the Minister.
The Minister also gave many examples of increasing capacity at minimum cost and short notice. In particular, has the department assessed how much value there has been in footfall to different hospitality sectors and has there been an economic measurement of increased revenue for businesses? Has work been done on that area?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I am sure that in forthcoming proceedings on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill there will be many contributions and amendments, but it is a good start to hear the issues raised today.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank noble Lords for all their contributions, which have given us an interesting debate on the draft regulations before us today—a meatier debate than I expected at the outset. We have been discussing an essential extension of the temporary pavement licence provisions in the Business and Planning Act 2020 for 12 months to 30 September 2023. As previously outlined, the regulations continue our support for the hospitality sector’s economic recovery from the coronavirus pandemic, as well as supporting businesses in times of rising costs and expenses. They are vital to provide certainty for the businesses in their planning for al fresco dining for the next year.
I am grateful to noble Lords for raising a number of important points in relation to how this will operate, and I welcome this opportunity to respond. I have heard loud and clear the contributions of both the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and my noble friend Lord Young on the issue of smoking and smoke-free areas and I acknowledge that they are both very well informed on the subject. To be fair, I merely touched on the issue of smoking in my opening remarks—certainly not in any great depth.
As they both know, all licences are subject to the smoke-free seating condition, which requires that the licence holder must make reasonable provision for seating where smoking is not permitted. The pavement licence guidance recommends that a minimum two-metre distance should be provided between non-smoking and smoking areas wherever possible. My noble friend is quite correct that local authorities can also apply their own local conditions to licences, and both Newcastle City Council and Manchester City Council have entirely banned smoking in areas that have been granted pavement licences.
Environment Bill
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to the amendment introduced so eloquently and passionately by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I, too, congratulate him on his work on heritage rail.
Some interesting points have been made across the House today. If I understood right, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others questioned the true pollution levels of steam engines and railways. Perhaps the Minister can give us some facts. Is it true that heritage steam engines may have a negligible impact on the environment? I invite noble Lords across the House to visit my home town, Burnley. We have the Queen Street Mill and, in it, the heritage steam engine that powered the biggest cotton mill in the town. It would be great to see noble Lords there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, heritage steam railways are a huge part of our culture, especially for young children. They are a massive tourist attraction. We must make sure that we get the balance right. I understand that discussions are ongoing—indeed, I have had discussions with experts and researchers —about the true impact of heritage steam engines.
Finally, for my sake and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, please do not kill off Thomas the Tank Engine. It will destroy my childhood memories.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Lord can come and see Thomas the Tank Engine, who lives in Didcot, at any time.
I understand the concerns raised by noble Lords. As I said in Committee, the Government are very much aware of the important contribution that the heritage sector makes to the culture of this country, particularly the rural economy. We engaged with heritage bodies during the inquiries of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, and we listened to their concerns during consultation. As I made clear in Committee—I am pleased to confirm it again today—there will be no direct impact on the heritage steam sector as a result of this Bill and the Government are not looking to introduce policy that would have a direct impact on it. I reiterate that nothing in the Environment Bill covers the heritage steam sector and putting it in scope would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.
Clause 73 of and Schedule 12 to this Bill will make it easier for local authorities to enforce the Clean Air Act 1993, which, among other things, regulates smoke emissions from the chimneys of buildings. The smoke control area provisions in the Act, and the amendments to them in this Bill, do not and will not apply to smoke from steam trains. Indeed, Section 43 of the Act clearly indicates that the smoke control area provisions do not apply to any railway locomotive engine. I reiterate that this will not change. Nothing in the Bill will have an impact on the burning of coal for steam traction. Any powers that exist in other Acts of Parliament would require a vote in both Houses, but I can confirm that the Government do not intend to bring forward any restrictions on these uses. As noble Lords have set out, steam trains are a tiny source of pollution and carbon, and we have much larger sources of pollution to be worrying about. I hope this reassures noble Lords that the Bill will not have an impact on the heritage rail sector and that an exemption from the Bill is therefore not required. We cannot exempt from the Bill a sector that is already exempt.
On historic buildings, I can confirm that local authorities already have the power to exempt specific buildings, or classes of buildings, when declaring a smoke control area under Section 18 of the Clean Air Act. This means that they could exempt specific historic houses, or historic houses in general, from the requirements applying to the smoke control area. That will not change under this Bill. I want to clarify something I said to noble Lords on the fifth day in Committee. To confirm, I am aware that there may be a potential impact on canal boats in the heritage sector, as the Bill will enable local authorities to bring moored inland waterway vessels into the scope of smoke control areas should they have a specific issue in their area. However, we will consider the practicalities of implementation and will set out further detail in statutory guidance, which will be published next year.
Once again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for the discussion on this issue that he and others, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, had with my noble friend the Minister earlier this year. I can reassure noble Lords that we are all very much still here. I, for one, am relieved because, had the Minister been called out during the course of this afternoon, I would have had to deal with all the groups of amendments on day 4 of Report.
I should like also to reiterate that my noble friend the Minister and his officials are happy to continue to engage with noble Lords as guidance is developed, and I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the Government share his views about the importance of the heritage sector and that nothing in the Bill will impact on historic houses or the heritage rail sector. Thomas the Tank Engine is truly safe. I hope that with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Environment Bill
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who has very passionately illustrated the scale of the problem and the urgent need to address it, both in Committee and today. Fly-tipping not only affects the hard work of our farmers in producing food and caring for the environment but takes a huge toll on farming families, both emotionally and financially.
As I have said, any type of fly-tipping is unacceptable, and it is key to prosecute fly-tippers and recover the clearance costs where possible. We also need to ensure that councils provide advice and guidance on measures that can be taken to prevent further fly-tipping. Those who produce pollution should bear the costs of managing it and preventing damage to human health or the environment. The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broader principles to guide sustainable development worldwide. This principle should extend to farming.
We are disappointed that the Government have not taken the initiative to fix this and respond to these amendments in a clear and direct manner. I remind the Minister that new data from the Environment Agency shows that farmers are the group most affected by large-scale, illegally dumped rubbish. The NFU’s recent rural crime survey revealed that fly-tipping was the most prolific crime experienced by its members, with 48% of those surveyed saying that they had experienced it in 2020. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, reminded us of that point in relation to the concerns of the NFU. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also mentioned it.
Nearly 50,000 people have signed an open letter demanding immediate action to tackle fly-tipping in the countryside, following a surge in waste crime during the Covid-19 lockdown. In an Oral Question on fly-tipping in the House of Lords on 23 June this year, I was very reassured to hear the Minister talk about launching the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. How has this worked out in terms of enforcement, specifically in relation to fly-tipping in rural communities? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the amendments. How will she reassure farmers who are calling for urgent action on the fly-tipping crisis in rural communities?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her amendments. I can only apologise that no meeting has taken place between her and the Minister; we have had a lot of meetings over the summer break, and it is a bit of a mystery to us as to why we have not followed up on this. We will investigate and a meeting will be expedited.
I begin by emphasising our commitment to tackling the crime of fly-tipping. We appreciate the difficulty and cost that fly-tipping poses to landowners. We expect all local authorities to exercise their power to investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land, prosecuting the fly-tippers and recovering clearance costs where possible.
Regarding Amendment 39, landowners are already permitted to install CCTV on their land. I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for his contribution. Defra chairs the National Fly-tipping Prevention Group, which has published advice for private landowners on dealing with fly-tipping. To reassure my noble friend, the NFU works very closely with Defra in this endeavour. It actually recommends that landowners consider installing CCTV to protect their property. Subject to data protection laws, landowners may also provide footage to law enforcement authorities to support prosecution cases.
The Environment Bill will give enforcing authorities more powers to tackle fly-tipping and other waste crime, including so-called Facebook fly-tippers operating from their homes. It also grants regulators additional charging powers that will enable them to raise extra funding to tackle waste crime and poor performance in the waste industry.
Turning to Amendments 33 and 37, extended producer responsibility clauses in the Bill already include provisions which could enable asking companies to take full responsibility for their products when they become waste, including when they have been unlawfully discarded. This can include the costs of removing littered or fly-tipped items, including from private land. Measures in the Bill on deposit return schemes will also allow the deposit management organisation to use money received under a scheme for the protection of the environment. This could include costs associated with the removal of littered or fly-tipped items. We have recently consulted on a deposit return scheme for drinks containers to help reduce littering and improve their recycling. While we are not currently considering introducing a deposit return scheme for other items, measures in the Bill will allow us to set up more deposit return schemes for other items, which could include those which are frequently tipped—for example, fridges and mattresses.
On Amendment 41, on compostable plastic, I sympathise with the concern of the noble Baroness. However, the infrastructure to process compostable plastic is not currently widespread enough to include these materials for collection with food waste. We just cannot be certain that compostable plastic can be treated at anaerobic digestion plants or composting facilities in a way that does not increase the plastic contamination in compost. However, I can confirm that the Minister would be delighted to meet representatives of one of these facilities in future. I should also reiterate that we can add compostables as a recycling stream on its own later, when we have the evidence. Evidence suggests that compostable and biodegradable plastics do not fully break down in the open environment and must be treated in industrial composting facilities to be broken down. There is also a lack of strong evidence that compostable plastics provide benefits to soils when successfully composted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is correct that at present there is no reasonable certainty over whether there are benefits to the final digestate—which I understand is a fertilizer—and compost products resulting from the inclusion of biodegradable and compostable plastic materials as feedstock. However, there are provisions in the Environment Bill to add additional waste streams, provided that they meet the conditions set out in the Bill and that we are clear on the environmental impacts. This will involve further necessary work to understand whether compostable packaging can meet the conditions set out in new subsection 45AZC(4). This must be met before further recyclable waste streams can be added for collection. We are currently analysing responses to our recycling consultation on reforms to recycling consistency, which sought views on the use of compostable caddy liners. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness of the Government’s intentions and I ask her to withdraw her amendment.
Environment Bill
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton WaldristMonday 5th July 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-VI(Rev) Sixth marshalled list for Committee - (5 Jul 2021)
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 148A, 148B and 148C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. To reinforce what other noble Lords have said, I agree with all those who have spoken on this important issue. In fact, we have been talking about the scourge of plastic throughout the debates on the Bill. We support these amendments wholeheartedly and we recognise the frustration expressed by a number of speakers. I will not go on for too long; I just want to reinforce some important points.
Some 61% of plastic packaging for recycling was exported in 2019 because of the lack of a domestic processing capacity. That lack of capacity is not a new problem; investment has been needed for many years, and the lack of progress calls into question the Government’s dedication to transitioning the UK to a circular economy. While the UK has continued to export its plastic waste, other countries, as noble Lords, and the noble Baroness in particular, have mentioned before, have become less willing or able to accept and process it. China closed its doors in 2017, Malaysia has tightened up regulation and just last week, as other speakers have said, Turkey—the biggest single recipient of UK waste—ended imports of most forms of plastic waste.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made a very pertinent point about the exposure of illegal dumping. She talked, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about the Greenpeace investigation and our 5.2 million tonnes of plastic waste; we are just shifting our plastic problem. The point she made was very touching: if we do not want our own children to play on these dumping sites and look for plastics, why should we expect people in other countries to allow that? It is a global problem: we cannot just end it by passing it on to other countries.
In recent years, a number of case studies have highlighted how carefully sorted plastics from the UK have ended up being fly-tipped or burned in other countries rather than being turned into new products. This highlights an important ethical case for change, on top of practical arguments about creating new jobs and transforming the economy.
While we may not be able to end our reliance on export overnight, it should be an ambition. The British Plastics Federation estimates that with the right drivers in place, the UK could eliminate low-quality exports entirely and reduce the overall volume of exports to just 9%. Additional investment and an export ban such as that proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, could improve the situation further.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I, like many of your Lordships, find the news reports showing plastic waste from the UK being dumped and burned abroad very disturbing. It is illegal activity and we are working hard with partners abroad to find a resolution. As outlined in our manifesto, the Government are fully committed to banning the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries, using the powers in the Environment Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, brought up the Greenpeace campaign, which claimed that all UK plastic waste is exported to be dumped and burned overseas. That is false. It is illegal to export waste from the UK to be burned or dumped overseas. Any UK operators found to be illegally exporting waste can face a two-year jail term and an unlimited fine.
Waste exports need to be made in accordance with the legislation, which implements our obligations under the Basel convention and the OECD decision on waste, and we have a system of inspections in place to verify compliance. Over the last 12 months, monitoring by the Environment Agency has had a particular focus on preventing illegal plastic waste exports. In 2020, the Environment Agency prevented the illegal export of 46 shipping containers of plastic waste to Turkey, and this year it has already prevented the illegal export of 122 containers of plastic waste to Turkey.
Defra officials and the UK waste shipment regulators have been liaising with the Turkish authorities to forge better working relationships. The Environment Agency has developed a good relationship with the Turkish Ministry of Environment, which has expressed its thanks for the UK’s collaborative approach in preventing illegal exports of waste to Turkey.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned ghost ships. I reiterate that ships which reach the end of their lives must be recycled in accordance with the relevant legislation. As with any waste that is exported from the UK, it is illegal to export waste for disposal except in exceptional cases.
A number of noble Lords mentioned capacity, including my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. Certainly, implementing a ban on exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries will have wide-ranging effects on local authorities, our domestic waste infrastructure and businesses. It is important that delivering the manifesto commitment does not result in unintended consequences such as plastic waste being diverted from recycling operations to landfill or incineration. Defra has commissioned research looking at the available reprocessing capacity in the UK and the OECD, which will inform policy development ahead of a consultation in 2022. However, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for her amendments.
Clause 61 provides full powers to update our existing regulations on waste shipments as necessary, now that we have left the EU, including prohibiting the import and export of waste to any country in the world, so we could, for example, put Turkey on that list. Although the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is welcome, unfortunately it would narrow the available power’s effect so that it could be used only very strictly to make regulations connected with prohibiting waste imports and exports. That could preclude us from making additional reforms that I know the noble Baroness would welcome: for example, to update reporting and monitoring requirements in connection with the regulation of waste imports and exports in future. It is appropriate to provide the Government with flexibility in this case as to when and how such provisions and regulations are made. This will ensure that regulations can be updated and revised as needed to crack down on the harmful export of polluting plastic waste to developing countries.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of the incineration of plastic waste. In particular, my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering mentioned an innovative scheme from, I think, the University of York. A number of small firms are evaluating myriad scientific methods of reusing and recycling all forms of plastic, in particular those that cannot be got rid of in any other way. They include one which breaks down the plastic in question’s relevant chemical components, which then can be made into an oil that can be used to provide power. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, will be reassured that these are not processed for incineration. I do not have enough lines to satisfy the noble Baroness on the question of general incineration, so I commit to write to the House about other ways in which we can prevent plastics ending up being incinerated.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 157 and 159, in the name of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, and Amendment 279, in the name of my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester. As has been outlined, the amendments in this group have different intentions, but, nevertheless, they allow us to reflect on the fact that, when we consider emissions, it is not just cars that we need to worry about.
Amendment 279 focuses on heritage vehicles and buildings, which have already been the subject of some debate. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and other colleagues across the Committee speaking on this very important point. We need to make sure that we recognise the great value of the heritage vehicles sector. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to add on this particular point.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley’s amendment speaks to other transport modes, including aviation, where progress towards cleaner technologies has been slow compared to the car market. Indeed, when the sector asked for dedicated support during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Government missed an opportunity to strike a deal with airlines and airports to improve environmental performance. The Government also have a somewhat questionable record on rail modernisation. While HS2 is going ahead, Ministers have cancelled the electrification of certain rail lines, meaning that older diesel-powered trains will continue to run.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley touched upon aviation and recognised that it is an area that we have to do a lot more about. I ask the Minister specifically about the discussion around the sustainable aviation fuel concept that the Biden Administration in America are looking at. I know that this is not the focus of these amendments, but it has been mentioned by speakers. What discussions are the Government making in this particular area?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his amendments, and I thank other noble Lords who have participated in this debate. Regarding Amendments 157 and 158, I assure the noble Lord that the Government’s intention in Clause 73 is to ensure that polluting vehicles and non-road mobile machinery not meeting environmental standards will be taken off our roads and brought back into compliance. The policy was designed for motor vehicles, their components and non-road mobile machinery, and it was designed in line with the regulatory framework governing their environmental standards.
In response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, this is analogous to an equivalent power in relation to safety standards—so, yes, vehicles can be recalled by manufacturers long after they have been on the road if we find that they are not compliant with the relevant environment regulations. Specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, this power could be used to recall vehicles that do not meet the standard that they should have met when they were originally authorised for sale, not standards that have since come in. However, I shall write on the detail of what we should put in those regulations.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I should say that all recalls will be fully funded by the manufacturer, and there will be provision for the Government to compel the manufacturer to pay compensation to the owner. I am also pleased to confirm that train engines, as outlined in the amendment, could be recalled under the legislation as drafted without these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others mentioned the incentive to cheat. Increasing the scope to include aircraft and ships would add significant complexity to this regime. These would also be outside the remit and expertise of the intended enforcement authority, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency, and would not be within the scope of the Bill nor necessary to achieve the wider policy aims. I reassure noble Lords that there are already robust systems in place to ensure that aircraft and ships comply with environmental standards. Compliance for marine engines already exists through our enforcement of requirements under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Civil aircraft are required to meet the environmental certification standards of the International Civil Aviation Organization before they are allowed to operate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that biomass may not be the way forward to fuelling aircraft but, as the noble Lord, Lord Khan, said, we must encourage research into alternative fuels.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brought up something that is really rather out of scope of the Bill—cement. It is indeed a heavy carbon emitter, but I am aware of really innovative and attractive solutions being worked up in the private sector that could in time transform heavily carbon-emitting cement.
I move on to Amendment 159. The legislation specifically enables the Government to recall the engine of non-road mobile machinery if it is found not to comply with environmental standards. Again, I want to be clear for the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that his amendment would fall within the definition of non-road mobile machinery, termed “machinery that is transportable” in the Bill, and would already be subject to the proposed recall regime. I thank the noble Lord for his contributions, and I agree with him that it is important to ensure that all vehicles are properly regulated, especially in relation to emissions in air quality. I hope that I have provided reassurance that this is the case such that he will not press his amendments.
I turn to Amendment 279 from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. The Government understand the important contribution that the heritage sector makes to our national culture, and I appreciate the concerns raised by the noble Lord and others who have participated in this debate. I can confirm for noble Lords that heritage vehicles are not within the scope of the legislation, and that includes trains and boats. As for historic buildings, I confirm that local authorities, when declaring a smoke control area under Section 18 of the Clean Air Act 1993, have the power to exempt specific buildings or classes of buildings under Section 18(2)(c) of that Act. They could exempt specific historic houses or historic houses in general from the requirements applying to the smoke control area. The Bill will not impinge on that ability. We listened to the concerns raised by the heritage bodies during consultation on the measures, as well as engaging with the inquiries of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail. I can confirm that there will be no direct impact on the heritage steam sector as a result of this Bill. The Government do not intend to bring forward policy that would have a direct impact on it.
I reiterate that I understand the concerns raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for the recent discussion that he and others, including my noble friend Lord Forsyth, had with my noble friend the Minister on this issue. The Minister and his officials are happy to continue to engage with him as guidance is developed. I hope that the assurances that I have set out at the Dispatch Box are persuasive and that I am able to reassure noble Lords about the Government’s view about the importance of the heritage sector and that nothing in this Bill will impact on it. I hope that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 160A, 160B and 160C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. This is the first of a number of debates on water. While they cover different aspects, they are all important and we hope that the Minister will have detailed responses to the questions asked this evening. This set of amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, is relatively straightforward but could have a significant impact on the success of the various plans envisaged under this chapter of the Bill.
Consultation is an area that has been raised repeatedly thus far, with many colleagues feeling that the requirements throughout the Bill—whether on targets, environmental improvement plans, waste or water—are insufficient. The Minister may well say that water companies are already subject to a variety of requirements around consultation and community engagement, but current arrangements clearly are not working. Environmental performance is not good enough, and neither is customer satisfaction.
I totally agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said about tightening the language. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, later agreed, nature-based solutions will play a big part. I totally agree that “opportunity” is vague. We need to have stronger and more definitive language to ensure that the process of consultation and working with stakeholders in relation to this landmark Bill does not end up being a process of post hoc rationalisation of predetermined decisions.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for tabling these amendments. Before I turn to them, the noble Lord made a point about the use of “may” versus “must” in legislation, which I hope is helpful to touch on in a general sense before I go into the specific use of “may” in relation to his amendment. The Environment Bill, as with other primary legislation, provides powers for the Secretary of State to make some regulations by using the word “may” and others using the word “must”. I assure the noble Lord that where we have used “may”, it is because we want to regulate effectively, allowing for effective consultation and proper consideration. The term “must” is used to impose a statutory duty to take a specified action—for example, to make regulations—as soon as it can reasonably be achieved; the term “may” provides a power to take that action while preserving some flexibility to make regulations as and when appropriate.
On Amendment 160A and the specific use of “may” here, the Government understand that water undertakers need certainty about the requirements for fulfilling their duties when preparing water resource management plans, drought plans and joint proposals. However, when exercising these powers, Ministers will need flexibility to be mindful of when to introduce new water planning requirements. This is to avoid causing unnecessary impacts on the preparation of water companies’ plans, which are revised every five years and prepared by water companies at different times within their own five-year cycle.
On Amendments 160B and 160C, the Government recognise that planning for water resources is strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders. It is the Government’s intention that these stakeholders are involved in the preparation and delivery of these plans in England. Clause 77, as drafted, enables Ministers to set out in regulations who should be consulted. Under existing powers, Ministers have set out a long list of relevant consultees in the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005. The clause as drafted will enable the Government to set out in regulations all existing statutory consultees—including, for example, water companies, the Environment Agency and Ofwat—as well as a range of other stakeholders to be consulted. Therefore, I am pleased to confirm that the intent of the noble Lord’s amendment is already delivered by the clause as drafted.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Cameron of Dillington, mentioned reservoirs. These measures will support ongoing work to improve regional water resources planning, as set out in the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources. They will help to improve the assessment and selection of water resources, such as water transfers or shared new reservoirs, which will provide shared benefits.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and hope that I have provided enough reassurance for the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Environment Bill
Debate between Lord Khan of Burnley and Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton WaldristWednesday 30th June 2021
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jun 2021)
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which we support. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There were some very interesting reflections and some very disturbing realities that people have been reflecting on. Those who produce pollution should bear the cost of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broad principles to guide sustainable development worldwide. This principle should extend to farmers and landowners.
I want to talk about some statistics now. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said it costs farmers £47 million a year to clear fly-tipping. I have some more data. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, more than half of the 800-plus respondents to that Environment Agency survey, the national waste crime survey, suggested that large-scale fly-tipping had increased over the last 12 months, with 15% of landowners making an insurance claim to clear dumped waste. Nearly 50,000 people have signed an open letter demanding immediate action to tackle fly-tipping in the countryside, following the surge in waste crime during the Covid-19 lockdown—a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made in relation to the increase in fly-tipping.
Following the theme of easy wins for the Government, this, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, is an easy win. I hope the Government will hear what everyone has said today, support the amendment, go back, and improve their track record on this issue. It is a really important point: landowners and farmers need that support and tougher penalties for fly-tipping. That is the request being heard from the Committee today, and also across the country from the wider public. We have had a theme of dentists, teeth and dentures today: the Government need to show some teeth and bite back at fly-tipping. In wishing the Minister a happy birthday, I just hope I can politely request that she does not let off any balloons tonight.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is quite rare that we have virtual unanimity around the Committee on something being a major problem, so I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate.
On Amendments 123, 136, 137 and 138, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Harlington Mandeville, fly-tipping is a crime that affects all of society, including rural communities—perhaps mostly rural communities—and private landowners. We are committed to tackling this unacceptable behaviour. We appreciate the difficulties and costs that fly-tipping poses to landowners, as outlined by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Ridley. We are working with a wide range of interested parties, through the national fly-tipping prevention group, including with the NFU, to promote and disseminate good practice, including how to prevent fly-tipping on private land. I do appreciate the noble Lord’s suggestion on birthday balloons. I can assure him that I have not received any today—but my noble friend Lord Randall is absolutely right to mention the serious harm that Chinese lanterns can do to livestock.
In essence, we expect all local authorities to exercise their power to investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land, prosecuting the fly-tippers and recovering clearance costs where possible. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, with more people enjoying the outdoors than ever before with Covid, we have recently published an updated version of the Countryside Code in order to educate and help people enjoy the countryside in a safe and respectful way. I know how difficult it was, during Covid, when a number of local authority tips were closed, and I am sure that this increased the incidence of fly-tipping, particularly of large items.
In the Budget of 2020, we allocated up to £2 million to support innovative solutions to tackle fly-tipping. In April 2021, we commissioned a research project considering the drivers, the deterrents and the impacts of fly-tipping. This research project is due to be completed before the end of this year and will support informed policy-making. We are exploring additional funding opportunities and priorities, including considering the role of digital solutions, obviously including CCTV.
The measures in the Bill will grant greater enforcement powers and the ability to increase penalties in the future, which should help to reduce the incidence of both urban and rural fly-tipping. I should say here that Defra chairs the national fly-tipping prevention group, working with the NFU and others to share advice, and this group met in the spring.
My noble friend Lord Randall asked about fines. Local authorities have legal powers to take enforcement action against offenders. Anyone caught fly-tipping may be prosecuted, which can lead to a fine, up to 12 months’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a magistrates’ court. The offence can attract a fine, up to five years’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a Crown Court. I appreciate the difficulties of identifying some of the perpetrators of this crime. Instead of prosecuting, councils may choose to issue a fixed-penalty notice, an on-the-spot fine. Local authorities can issue fixed penalties of up to £400 to both fly-tippers and householders who pass their waste to an unlicensed waste carrier. Vehicles of those who are suspected of committing a waste crime, including fly-tipping, can be searched and seized.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggested, waste transportation is in urgent need of an update. Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record-keeping. This makes it really difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste, leading to fly-tipping. The Bill will tackle this by introducing a new electronic system for tracking waste movements through Clauses 57 and 58 and will provide enforcing authorities, including the regulator, with enhanced powers to enter premises. We will be consulting on the detail this summer.
In addition, powers in the Bill also allow for the “polluter pays” principle to cover costs associated with the unlawful disposal of products or materials, as set out in Schedule 5, Part 2. This includes the cost of removing littered or fly-tipped items, including from private land.
Measures in the Bill on deposit return schemes will also allow the deposit management organisation to use moneys received under a scheme for the protection of the environment, including to cover costs associated with the removal of littered or fly-tipped items currently borne by farmers or private landowners. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the dreaded term “planned obsolescence” and made a very good point. Notable initiatives have recently got into the public vernacular, such as “The Repair Shop” and other ways of recycling, reusing and restoring materials. The “polluter pays” principle in Schedule 5 includes powers to make producers pay for managing products at the very end of their life, and the disposal vernacular should become “recycle and reuse”.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also asked about costs of disposal. Waste disposal authorities may make only reasonable charges for waste disposal. We will review HWRC services and the Controlled Waste Regulations and, subject to consultation, we will amend them to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and that charges are fairly applied.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments. I am afraid that I am unable to answer her point on illegal storage, but I will write to her on that specific issue. In the meantime, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that these amendments are not needed, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.