Environment Test From Patch Testing (First sitting)
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Smoking related waste
“(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste.
(2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.
(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care.
(4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030.
(5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives.
(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”—(Ruth Jones.)
The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste. No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is really quite clear, and I suspect that colleagues on both sides of the Committee know what is coming, but I want to speak to it for a moment. It is designed to ensure that the Government create a producer responsibility scheme for smoking-related waste. No such scheme exists at present, and the clear-up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other directives.
I remind colleagues that it was this Government who clarified, back in February 2020, that tobacco packaging is covered by the current producer responsibility regulations, which require companies to recycle a proportion of the packaging waste that they place on the market. In their resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to look into and consult on the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, for five new waste streams by 2025, as well as to consult on two of them by 2022. The five priority waste streams are: textiles, fishing gear, certain products in construction and demolition, bulky waste, and vehicle tyres—the Minister has already alluded to that several times during our debates. They are important areas for the challenges facing us as we look to tackle the climate emergency.
The producer responsibility powers in the Bill enable the Government to set up an EPR scheme for cigarette litter. I urge the Minister to do so, and I look forward to a positive response from her on that specific point. I am concerned that, up until now, Ministers have not identified cigarette litter as a priority area for EPR, so I would like some further clarity on the detail and the likely timescale for any progress. I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—I will do so anyway—that cigarette butts are estimated to account for 5% of ocean plastic, which is a big deal. We need to act, and we need to act now.
I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out a clear action plan and timetable when addressing the issues raised by the new clause. There is a crossover with the other responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and lawmakers, because it is clear that smoking has a public health impact. Having been an NHS physiotherapist for more than 30 years before being elected to this place, I know a fair bit about the lungs and the danger that smoking causes. New clause 30 will help the wider battle against smoking and help promote a healthier world for all of us. As such, and with the determination needed to tackle the climate emergency, I wish to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her contribution. It is always good to hear about people’s backgrounds, and her medical knowledge is obviously very useful.
Smoking-related litter is a particularly persistent and widespread problem. In the 2017 litter strategy, we explained that the most effective way to tackle smoking-related litter is obviously by reducing the prevalence of smoking in the first place. Given the hon. Member’s background in health, I am sure she would agree with that. Smoking rates in England are currently at their lowest recorded level, and our ambition is for a smoke-free Britain by 2030. In the meantime, I have made it clear that the lack of serious investment by the industry to clear up the mess caused by its products cannot continue.
In September, I held a roundtable with the tobacco industry and other stakeholders. I got a key group together, and I was pleased that we were able to get them to come to the table. We understand that Keep Britain Tidy is working with the tobacco industry to develop a non-regulatory producer responsibility scheme, and we are watching very closely, because it could provide a rapid means of securing significant investment from the industry to tackle the litter created by its products, rather than having to take legislative action.
Cigarette and tobacco product packaging will be covered by the reforms to the packaging producer responsibility scheme, so that will be a big element of tackling smoking-related litter. We also have powers in the Bill to place a target on producers to reduce smoking-related waste, so there is also that target option. I assure the Committee that I will not hesitate to intervene on this if required, because it is something I take extremely seriously. Perhaps I have convinced the hon. Lady that she does not need to divide the Committee.
Ruth Jones
In a cyclical system, if we have less going in at the beginning, we have less waste coming out at the end, which is what we all want. As such, it is good to note that smoking is decreasing. That is a really important public health initiative, and it must continue. I am pleased to hear that the Minister held a roundtable with the tobacco companies and that she found it useful, but we want to put the onus on the manufacturers by introducing this producer responsibility scheme, which is why we think it is important to include it in the Bill. It is good to hear that the Minister is keen to do this in future, and that future options would be open, but why not have it in the Bill now? That is why we will divide the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
New Clause 32
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gray, we consider that the aims of new clause 33 have already been aired in new clause 29—we know the result of that—so we do not wish to move it.
New Clause 34
Reducing Water Demand
“(1) The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the commencement of this Act amend the Building Regulations 2010 Part G to—
(a) require all fittings to meet specified water efficiency requirements; and
(b) introduce mandatory minimum standards on water efficiency.
(2) Standards as introduced under subsection (1)(b) shall be reviewed every 5 years to assess their contribution to meeting government objectives for reducing water demand.”—(Ruth Jones.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 34 was tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge, for Putney, and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. We are seeking to ensure that we build on the Minister’s words and give real effect to the long-term sustainable change that the climate emergency demands.
The new clause is clear in tone and intent. Although we are an island, safe and secure water supplies have eluded us in the past, and with a rising population and increased demand, the existing infrastructure, on which we have relied for many years, needs to be supported. It needs the pressure taken off, which is what the new clause would do.
In preparing to speak to new clause 34, I read Ofwat’s recent report exploring the decisions that can be taken, the options available, and the action required to reduce demand for water in coming years. The report notes that
“on average we currently use about 140 litres of water per person per day in England and Wales, up from 85 litres per person in the 1960s.”
The report’s findings also reveal that
“tackling household leaks and using innovative technologies could help to decrease water use by two thirds—or over one bath per person per day—over the next 50 years.”
The new clause therefore goes some way to giving parliamentary and legal effect to addressing many concerns related to tackling water waste up and down England.
The preservation of our environment is ultimately in our hands and those of the people we represent: working people in all parts of the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the law in shaped in such a way that we motivate and encourage people to change their behaviour and to adapt to the changing and evolving demands of the climate emergency. The Bill will go some way towards ensuring that we reach out and give the people of England the necessary direction, whether that is through the introduction of mandatory minimum standards subject to a five-yearly review or a set of fittings requirements. If we do not act now—there is no reason for us not to seize this initiative—we cannot expect people in the country to act.
This is a once-in-a-generation Bill, as the Minister said on Second Reading and previously in Committee. Let us ensure that those words mean something. Let us deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose, and that will stand the test of time and the scrutiny of future generations. With the future of our planet in mind, I move the new clause.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I have met a range of bodies to talk about water efficiency, including the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, and there is no end of things to learn about loos, flushes and showers—it is genuinely very interesting. I now read the riot act to my kids when they have showers that are far too long.
I understand the hon. Member’s intention of improving water efficiency in our homes. We agree that more needs to be done to improve the management of our water resources, but I can reassure her that, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we are already investigating how the building regulations could best promote water efficiency through the introduction of mandatory water efficiency labelling for water-using products. We consulted on those measures in 2019, and we will be able to use clause 49 of and schedule 6 to the Bill, and existing powers under the Building Act 1984, to make the changes required. We expect to publish a Government response to the consultation in spring 2021, which is fast approaching, and that will set out our policy on water efficiency and, specifically, whether changes to the building regulations are required.
The new clause would introduce mandatory minimum standards for water efficiency in the building regulations. However, I hope that the hon. Member notes that the regulations already set minimum water efficiency standards for new homes. She is right about the amounts: we use 145 litres a day. We actually aim to get that down to 110 litres a day. Improving labelling and consumer information about the amount of water that gadgets use will be part and parcel of the new water efficiency world.
Let me add that under section 81 of the Water Act 2003, there is already a duty on the Secretary of State to report every three years on the steps that he has taken to encourage water conservation. That report must be laid before Parliament. The last report was published in December 2018, so I suggest that there is no need for a similar review requirement.
I hope that I have covered all the points that will reassure the hon. Member that she does not need to press the new clause, and that she might kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
It is good to hear about the Minister’s new knowledge of bathroom fittings; I must admit that we have all learned a lot about them. I remember, even as a student, putting a brick in our cistern to save water, which was a great thing—and obviously a good use of household bricks. I think we all agree that more absolutely needs to be done, and while I take her point about new homes being covered by regulations, we need to deal with existing homes. Let us be honest: there are far more existing homes that need encouragement and help to do the right thing. We also need to ensure that people are aware of their water usage, because if they do not know how much water they are using, they cannot do anything to conserve it. It would be good to marry up the various sound water conservation measures in other legislation by incorporating them all in the new clause. It is a shame that she has not accepted—
Rebecca Pow
I just want to make a quick correction. I mentioned a figure of 110 litres. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the efficiency requirement for a new build will be 125 litres per person per day, it could be the 110 litre figure that I mentioned if that is imposed by a local authority when granting planning permission? Does she welcome that?
Ruth Jones
I do welcome it, but I am a bit lukewarm. I would sooner it was down to the original rate in the 1960s of 85 litres per person, which would be far more helpful in moving forward on the climate change emergency. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the new clause on board, but I will not seek to divide the Committee on it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 35
Clean Air Duty
‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—
(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and
(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Fleur Anderson.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Fleur Anderson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the final new clause. It is only right and proper that, as we come towards the end of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Bill, after considering more than 230 amendments and 35 new clauses, we end with something that we can all agree on.
This new clause is all about working together. It has been tabled by the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. It asks Government Departments to work together and for reports on how the Government are working with local authorities to achieve something very ambitious—tackling our air quality. It has cross-party support from hon. Members including the chair of the APPG, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and 23 other MPs.
The new clause is intended to help the Minister to get to that holy grail of action—cross-departmental working—and to achieve cross-government support for action to tackle air pollution, specifically indoor air pollution. Given that the public health crisis results in 40,000 deaths a year and costs £20 billion, urgent action is needed by the Department for Transport and many others across Government. The new clause would help with that.
The new clause is an important addition to the parts of the Bill on air quality, in particular schedule 11. The Minister may say that that is sufficient, but I would argue that it is not. Schedule 11 amends the Environment Act 1995 and gives the Secretary of State the duty to report on the
“assessment of the progress made in meeting air quality objectives, and air quality standards, in relation to England, and…the steps the Secretary of State has taken in that year in support of the meeting of those objectives and standards.”
Those reports and that action are very welcome, but the new clause takes them further. It would be in the Bill itself, rather than an amendment to another Act, and has additional reporting requirements that would do more to ensure that there was more focus on achieving our air quality targets and more joined-up working in Government.
Hon. Members will have read an email sent to us all in which Professor Sir Stephen Holgate, the Royal College of Physicians’ adviser on air quality and the UK Research and Innovation clean air champion, supports the new clause. I know that it is important to the Minister to be science-led. He said:
“I strongly support the need for placing greater transparent responsibility on public bodies, both central and local, to say what steps they are taking to improve air quality, both outside and inside buildings including houses, workplaces and schools. Since most people spend over 80% of their time indoors, the indoor air is a particular concern especially since all the emphasis is on conserving energy by “sealing” buildings with little regard to ensuring that ventilation is adequate. …unless attention is focused on the ever-increasing chemical contaminants that will accumulate, without adequate ventilation, the public will suffer adverse health effects. This is especially so in periods of “lock-down” during the coronavirus pandemic and the attention needed to be given to this is in the building of new homes. Special attention must be given to vulnerable groups such as pregnant women, children, older people and those with chronic disease.”
Many other scientists back up those findings.
We all know that air pollution is a public health crisis, as acknowledged by the joint report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health and Social Care Committee and the Transport Committee last year. There was joint working there, which we can encourage with the joint working on the reports that the new clause would make a legislative commitment.
A report by King’s College Hospital last year showed that cutting air pollution by a fifth would reduce the number of lung cancer cases by 7.6% in London, 6.4% in Birmingham, 5.9% in Bristol, 5.3% in Liverpool, 5.6% in Manchester, 6.7% in Nottingham, 6% in Oxford and 5.9% in Southampton. I read those figures out to show the local impact that air pollution is having on a considerable number of people’s lives; we know that it needs local action. The new clause would ensure that we find out what that local action is and whether it is good enough.
Living near a busy road can trigger bronchitic symptoms among children with asthma. If pollution were to be reduced by one fifth, there would be 3,865 fewer cases of children with bronchitic symptoms every year in London. In my own constituency, I would see the difference that that would make. The Government have made considerable funding available to local authorities, so local authorities should report back on what the funding has achieved.
We now know that there is a more urgent reason for the new clause, which would strengthen the Bill. There is a direct link between coronavirus deaths and air pollution. Harvard says there is an 8% risk, whereas the Max Planck Institute says it is 14%, for each additional microgram per cubic metre of PM2.5, the smaller particulates. There is a direct link between air quality and coronavirus deaths, and the new clause would make taking urgent action compulsory. It is no surprise that there is a link, because air pollution weakens lungs, hearts and brains, which covid also affects. We need a joined-up approach, with cleaner transport and ventilated schools. It is about education, health, better building regulations from MHCLG, better planning and knowing the effects of more home working with digital infrastructure.
The new clause would encourage a fiscal strategy that helps to drive a holistic vision of a cleaner, healthier and more productive future for all. Put simply, we need to have a joined-up approach to have the best effect, and the new clause would help to ensure that is done by asking for joined-up reporting. No matter what is already in the Bill, it just does not go far enough. The new clause is needed.
The new clause does not have specific targets and action plans that can be rejected by the Conservative party. In fact, they are for the Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned in many earlier debates, to decide. However, this would be a wonderful model for the UK to showcase at COP26 next year, and for other Governments to adopt. There is no doubt that there might be a silo mentality in DEFRA that says, “We can’t ask other Departments to do things,” but air pollution is an NHS public health issue of massive proportions, and it cannot be left to DEFRA or to the Secretary of State for one Department.
No one Department has the tools to combat air pollution. The Minister will say that she will work with the Department for Transport, the Department of Health and Social Care and many other Departments, but the new clause would ensure that others could learn from best practice—we would be able to see when things were not going well and put them right as quickly as possible. We need such a collective, joined-up approach. The Minister should raise her ambition to embrace other Departments that, in their hearts, want to work together for the common good.
As we have seen again and again with previous debates, the Government have a big majority and can vote against the new clause, but this is the opportunity—this last new clause—for us to come together and agree. The biggest test for the Government is not how many votes there are, but whether they are big enough to accept in good grace an idea from an all-party parliamentary group that they know is in the best interest and is supported in principle by all parties, and to take it forward for the common good. I think we would have cheers from people outside this place, who would hear that we are working together to tackle a concern that is so important to so many people.
This is an important opportunity to work together across government and public bodies to improve public health by improving air quality outside and inside, which would save lives. All our constituents would want us to do all that we can to protect them and their children, and the new clause would help us deliver on our duty to do so. I ask the Minister and members of the Committee to put their constituents and country first by supporting the new clause.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some of the challenges we have are typically with houses built in the Victorian era where, as she says, the street drainage system goes into the foul water sewage system. That can lead to it being overwhelmed at times. Most developments that have taken place since the 1960s do have surface water drainage separated from foul water sewage systems. We have set up a taskforce to look at how we can address this problem and, in particular, reduce the use of combined sewage overflows.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I had a good trip up to Newcastle-under-Lyme recently to meet residents and the pressure group Stop the Stink and to see and smell for myself the horrific emissions from Walleys Quarry, the local landfill site that has the dubious honour of being the smelliest tip in England. What engagement has the Secretary of State had with the owner of the site, Red Industries, to restore residents’ physical health and mental wellbeing and stop the stink? Where is the plan?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) has been raising this issue with me, the Prime Minister and others consistently. There is a challenge. I have met him twice to discuss it. I have also met the local team in the Environment Agency dealing with this, and I have discussed it with the chief exec of the Environment Agency. One of the problems is that it is thought that some plasterboard was illegally dumped at the site. That is what is causing the current problem with hydrogen sulphide. The Environment Agency is working on a plan to flare those gases off, and we are doing all that we can to support them in that endeavour.
Environment Bill
Ruth Jones ExcerptsWednesday 26th May 2021
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 May 2021 - large print - (26 May 2021)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 19—Labelling scheme for the environmental sustainability of food—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.
(2) That scheme must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.
(3) The kitemark may be applied to:—
(a) raw food commodities,
(b) processed food products, and
(c) the ingredients of processed food products.
(4) The definition of ‘environmentally sustainable origins’ under the scheme must incorporate an assessment of whether the agricultural or manufacturing processes involved in the production of a food—
(a) protect the habitats of species listed internationally as endangered,
(b) avoid biodiversity loss,
(c) avoid deforestation, and
(d) avoid significant increases in net carbon emissions.
(5) The scheme may make provision for—
(a) enforcement, and
(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.
(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(7) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers, and
(c) the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 24—Prohibition on burning of peat in upland areas—
“(1) A person must not burn specified vegetation on land in England which is within an upland area on peat.
(2) In this section—
‘specified vegetation’ means heather, rough grass, bracken, gorse or vaccinium, and
‘upland area’ means all the land shown coloured pink on the map marked as ‘Map of Upland Area in England’ held by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs but does not include the land coloured pink in the Isles of Scilly(a).”
The new clause extends the coverage of the peat burning ban from the 142,000 ha of upland peat currently covered to the full 355,000 ha of upland peat in England.
New clause 28—Labelling scheme for the informed purchase of environmentally sustainable food—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a scheme requiring food manufacturers to label foods offered for sale in the United Kingdom to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins.
(2) The scheme in subsection (1) must make provision for a kitemark indicating the environmentally sustainable origins of a food.
(3) The kitemark may be applied to—
(a) raw food commodities,
(b) processed food products, and
(c) the ingredients of processed food products.
(4) Food labelling under the scheme must include a declaration about food miles, which is defined as the distance travelled from the country, or in the case of domestically produced food the region, of origin.
(5) The declaration in subsection (4) must be given in words and numbers, but may also be presented using graphical forms or symbols provided that the graphical forms or symbols meet the following requirements—
(a) they are based on scientifically valid consumer research and do not mislead the consumer as referred to in Article 7 of the retained Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council as amended in the Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019;
(b) their development is the result of consultation with a wide range of stakeholder groups;
(c) they aim to facilitate consumer understanding of the contribution or importance of the environmental impact of the food;
(d) they are supported by scientifically valid evidence showing that such forms of presentation are understood by the average consumer;
(e) they are objective and non-discriminatory; and
(f) their application does not create obstacles to the free movement of goods.
(6) The scheme may recommend to food business operators the use of one or more additional forms of presentation of the environmental indications that they consider as best fulfilling the requirements laid down in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (5).
(7) The scheme may make provision for—
(a) enforcement, and
(b) civil sanctions in relation to labelling and use of the kitemark.
(8) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing the proposed scheme before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day this Act receives Royal Assent.”
New clause 29—Review of public health effects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must review the public health effects of the provisions of this Act and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions of this Act on air pollutant levels across the UK,
(b) the effects of the provisions of this Act on different socioeconomic groups and population groups with protected characteristics as defined by the 2010 Equality Act,
(c) the effects of the provisions of this Act on life expectancy and healthy life expectancy in the UK, and
(d) the implications for the public finances of the public health effects of the provisions of this Act.”
Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that there will be a four-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions.
Ruth Jones
New clauses 12 and 24 were tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)—all members of the shadow DEFRA team—and with the support of colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West); my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), for Neath (Christina Rees), for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield); and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). That is to name but a few.
I give a massive vote of thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) for his work on the early stages of the Bill and for all his work to challenge the outdated and unambitious approach of this Government to the future of our planet.
Here we are, back in the House and back discussing the Environment Bill and, I hope, setting out a clear plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. We are in the middle of a climate and ecological emergency. I know that the Minister knows it, and so do the people of this country, but this climate emergency is no surprise to any of us and did not start yesterday. That is why I remain disappointed that the Tories have voted against every single Labour amendment in Committee and on day 1 on Report. I fear they will do the same today—although, of course, I am happy for the Minister to prove me wrong.
Today has been a long time coming, and I know that many stakeholders, campaigners and people up and down England will be pleased that we are finally here discussing the Environment Bill and looking to make it fit for purpose. Many stakeholders and campaigners will want to see less party politics and more environmental politics in this debate and throughout the Bill’s remaining stages before it moves into the capable hands of our colleagues in the other place.
A person does not need to be a green-fingered disciple of Alan Titchmarsh or an animal-loving admirer of Sir David Attenborough to know that wildlife in Britain is on a downward spiral. We are in a period of crisis that demands real action, not empty words.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she and her team do on these issues. Does she agree that the Minister would do well to look to Wales to see what a bold, ambitious and committed Labour Government can do to protect the environment and preserve our planet?
Ruth Jones
I do agree with my hon. Friend: Wales is leading the way and I urge the Minister to seek meetings with the First Minister of Wales and his Environment Minister Lesley Griffiths as soon as possible, so that lessons can be learned and rolled over to England.
As we heard in the previous debate, we have seen 44% of species decline over the past 10 years—and that was on the Minister’s and her party’s watch. Now that we have left the European Union, it is vital that we seek to maintain the highest of environmental standards. That is the approach that the shadow Secretary of State—my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—and my colleagues and I in the shadow DEFRA team have taken to this Bill, from Second Reading through to Committee and to today’s Report and remaining stages. We have proposed fair, balanced and necessary amendments, all of which were defeated by this Government. Not one of them was partisan, and not one of them was done to play games. All were done to make this Bill fit for purpose, and our new clauses 12 and 24 do just that. They are balanced and they are fair, and they reflect the will out there of those in communities across England who want an Environment Bill that will preserve our planet and protect our environment.
That brings me on to another opportunity the Government have missed with this Bill. This Bill, this debate today and this moment were the Government’s chance to tell the fracking companies, “Your time is up”, but given the choice between doing something bold and doing nothing at all, we know what DEFRA under this Secretary of State always goes for.
My position and that of the shadow Secretary of State and the Opposition is clear: fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. This is doubly true when we take into account just how damaging fracking is for our environment. When a third of England’s drinking supply is in the groundwater, do we really want to engage in a risky industry that could poison it for good? Even more disturbingly, fracking is causing earthquakes of up to 2.9 on the Richter scale.
In our recovery from covid, we need to focus on creating good green jobs for the future. Fracking is not green and it does not create jobs. According to the fracking company Cuadrilla’s licence application in Lancashire, for example, just 11 jobs will be created across two sites—just 11. Labour MPs up and down the country are standing up for their areas in opposing this. I want to give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who has done so much work in this area, and I commend her for all she does. Now is the time to join France, Germany, Ireland, Bulgaria, the Netherlands, Scotland and, of course, Wales, and put this destructive industry to bed once and for all.
Chris Grayling
I would be grateful if the hon. Lady clarified that. Clearly, I support the principle of our leaving fossil fuels in the ground and not using them for the future, but we are going to need natural gas for the time being, albeit I hope that in time we can phase it out. The Germans are planning to bring it in by pipeline from Russia. We are currently bringing it in by tanker from the middle east. What does she think is the best source of natural gas for the coming years, while we still need it?
Ruth Jones
We are in a transition phase, and we need not just to look at natural gas, but to look forward to renewables because that is where the future lies. Renewables are the future. We know already, in this country, that there are certain days when no coal is being burned and some days when just renewables are being used. That is the future for the whole of the UK, not just England, and that is where the Opposition would want to be seeing our future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I encourage colleagues across the House to get behind Labour’s new clause 12, which would ban fracking and show we really are serious about tackling the environmental crisis that our country and our planet faces—a crisis this Government want to tackle with a 25-year environment plan. Talking about the Government’s 25-year environment plan, it feels as though the last few months have given us less of a plan for the next 25 years and more of an impression that it will take 25 years to develop a plan to preserve our planet and protect our environment. This just is not good enough. While I do not doubt the Minister’s personal commitment, I do wonder if Government Back Benchers really understand what is at stake here and what they need to do.
I now want to move on to the issue of peat burning and to speak to Labour’s new clause 24. I fully accept that soil does not always grab the headlines—it is not particularly sexy—but the impact that peat burning has on our environment is profound, and that is why Labour has tabled this new clause. I want to thank stakeholders, such as Matt Browne at Wildlife and Countryside Link, for all the passionate campaigning on these important issues.
The Government’s peat action plan came three years late. In the meantime, our peatlands have been continuously burned and degraded, releasing approximately 10 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. The Government have committed to restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland by 2025, which is great, but that is only one tenth of the 355,000 hectares that need to be restored in England, and we have no clear targets for peatland restoration after 2025. What is going to happen then?
The Government have committed to ban some peat burning, but, again, it is not enough. All we get from this Government are words and hot air, and we need cool, focused and comprehensive action. Labour’s amendment would prohibit the burning of peat of any depth in upland areas. We cannot wait for action any longer. We need a foolproof strategy to restore and protect this vital carbon sink. I hope the Minister will do the right thing and get her colleagues to do what so many out in the real world want us to do, which is to provide action to stop burning peat. It is as simple as that.
Today, we have the chance to improve a weak Bill—a Bill that is lacking in ambition, in focus and in delivering a real and tangible plan to preserve our environment and protect our planet. I encourage the Minister to send a message to the Secretary of State—I wonder where he is today, because this is supposed to be his landmark Bill— and to the Government Whips and tell them that the time has come to get real, to act and to deliver by supporting Labour’s new clauses 12 and 24. There is no better way than by supporting us in the Lobby tonight to show that this Government are finally willing to act, to get real, and to deliver on their rhetoric. The future of our environment and the preservation of our planet demand no less.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
There is much to welcome in the Government’s aims. Like most MPs, I look forward to cleaner water and cleaner air. It is right that we take more care of the other species that we share our islands with, and I look forward to those greener and pleasanter lands having more protection and more support. I also welcome the idea that we should plant many more trees. However, at this point in our deliberations, we should ask the Minister to give us a bit more background and information about the costs of this transformation so that we can know that it is realistic and that it will be properly shared.
When we look at the legislation itself and at the impact assessments, we see that there is very little by way of hard information about how much cost may be entailed and who should primarily bear that. There are wide-ranging powers to introduce more waste charges, for example, but the statements in the impact materials say that an impact cannot be assessed and that it will depend, in due course, on what actual charges are brought in. When we look at the very expensive rules on producer responsibility—taking more responsibility for packaging, batteries, waste, electrical equipment and end-of-life vehicles—we are told that a partial cost of the first item is about £1 billion a year, but there is no information on the full cost and there is no information on the others. There is a bit of information on the cost on housebuilders for the habitat provisions, and there is not a lot of worked-through financial information on the deposit return scheme.
I think that there are ways forward where we can make sure both that we have a better environment and that we are earning more revenue from suitable and sustainable exploitation of nature’s abundance. I hope that the Government will work hard on finding ways that enable livelihoods to be increased and improved, just as we are also doing the right things by the environment.
Let us take the case of trees, for example. I do hope that, as we plant many more trees, there will be more sustainable forestry. I always thought it quite wrong that we import so much wood from across the Atlantic to burn in the Drax power station, when surely we should be looking for sustainable sources at home. It is also quite wrong that we import so much of the timber that we need for our big house building projects, when, again, this is a good climate for growing softwood. Surely we can go about our task of finding sustainable ways. We need to cut the wood miles and to have that sustainable forestry here, as well as having the beautiful and diverse trees in our landscape in suitable places where the Government will offer their own taxpayer-based financial support.
Let us hear a little more about the livelihoods and the opportunities. Let us show how we can have both a beautiful countryside and a working countryside, so that we can cut the wood miles and the food miles, ensure more buy-in from business and individuals to these great aims of having a better natural environment because of the opportunities to do more at home, and have that happy conjunction of success in business, harnessing nature’s abundance and the beauty of nature’s abundance, while respecting all the other species that share our islands with us.
Ruth Jones
This has been an important debate, and I am grateful to all colleagues who have shared their thoughts on how we can make this Bill the strong and comprehensive piece of legislation that our environment is crying out for. As I indicated in my opening remarks, at every stage of this Bill Labour has proposed fair amendments. Disappointingly, all of them were defeated by this Minister and her Back-Bench colleagues. Not one of the amendments was partisan and not one was done to play games, but all were tabled to make this Bill fit for purpose. Today, new clauses 12 and 24 would do just that. I am also grateful to the many colleagues who put their names to our new clauses, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her passionate speech and for her new clause 29, which has the support of those on these Benches. I support her call on the Government to put the WHO guidelines into the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and give a big, non-partisan thank you to the indefatigable hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). At this point, I wish gently to respond to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who claimed that the UK was not first to declare a climate emergency. I respectfully remind her that this Parliament was the first to declare a climate emergency, in May 2019. I should remember that, as I made my maiden speech during that debate, and let us not forget that that debate was led by Labour Members.
In moving new clauses 24 and 12, Labour has attempted to give effect to the promises made by Conservative Ministers, who are pretty good at talk, which is great, but we on the Labour Benches prefer to see action rather than words. I have heard what the Minister said—I listened to her very carefully—and I thank her for her comments, but, once again, I am disappointed. Sadly, normal service has been maintained. We have a Secretary of State who did not want to reach out and work with us to make this Bill fit for purpose.
New clause 12 is actually helpful to the Government. I know that fracking was a glaring omission, but we are trying to make sure that their forgetfulness does not result in bad policy. I especially wish to mention the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) for his passionate audition for ministerial office, but I remind him that the definition of “moratorium” is a temporary ban. If he wants to ban fracking for ever more, he should vote with us on our amendment.
I hope that the Minister will take new clause 12 in the spirit in which it was intended and accept it as an easy way of making this Bill better. I will be pushing both new clause 12 and new clause 24 to a vote. They are important issues and will fill glaring holes in this Bill.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ruth Jones
Well, here we are: the Environment Bill has finally reached Third Reading, and we all know that it has taken some time. Talking about timings, I want to wish the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a very happy 65th birthday, although he is not in his place, because he is a tenacious campaigner, and I have enjoyed working with him on this Bill in recent months.
The last year and a half or thereabouts since this Bill received its Second Reading in this House has been one like no other. With that in mind, I want to start by acknowledging the brilliant hard work of the staff of this House, notably the Clerks, Sarah and Joanna, and of course the staff in the parliamentary offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard)—thank you, Kieran and Rob; of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner)—thank you, Rafi; of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—thank you, Minesh and Sam; and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead)—thanks to Holly and Bryn. Obviously, I also thank those of my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), and of course I must not forget my own team in Newport West—thank you very much, Adam. It has not been easy taking a major piece of legislation through the House while working from home, and our staff have been brilliant. It is important to say thank you to them because, let us be honest, where would we be without them?
This Bill creates the Office for Environmental Protection, but fails to give it the powers it needs. It creates an improvement plan, but does not go far enough. It fails, among other things, to tackle fracking, deliver a proper tree strategy and deliver proper structured chemical regulation. Labour’s amendments in Committee and on Report sought to build on the limited foundation set by the Conservative party and make this Bill properly fit for purpose. It is all very well and good to set out the problem, but if we do not match that with strong and comprehensive plans, what is the point?
I remain saddened that Conservative Members voted against Labour’s amendments at every opportunity they had in Committee and on Report, but all is not yet lost—we should not worry. I feel sure, as the Bill moves to the other place, that my noble Friends Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Hayman of Ullock will take it by the horns and make it the strong and purposeful Bill the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), could have made it here in this House.
This is not about politics. I should say to the House that the Government’s approach to this Bill sits at the door of the Secretary of State. I used to say that the Environment Bill was missing in action, but the Secretary of State was missing in action, so I am very glad he has turned up safe and sound, and I am very grateful to him for turning up. However, I thank the Minister for her personal commitment and hard work. She takes these issues very seriously, and I have enjoyed working with her. I just feel sorry that her colleagues will not let her work with us in the way I suspect she would like to.
I am grateful to the many stakeholders such as Ruth Chambers from the Green Alliance, Matt Browne from the Wildlife and Countryside Link, Jo Blackman from Global Witness, Chloe Alexander from the CHEM Trust and Andrea Lee from ClientEarth, to name just a few, for their hard work and tenacity over the last year and a bit.
The pandemic, our departure from the European Union and a general election were just some of the hurdles we have had to get over in recent months, and we have done our bit. Many in this House have raised important arguments in recent weeks and months, and will continue to do so as this Bill works its way through the other place before coming back to us. I urge the Secretary of State to do whatever he can to make sure we get the Bill back sooner rather than later. We do not have time to waste. The climate crisis worsens each day, and real action is necessary now. I urge the Secretary of State to work with us and all the Members in this House when the Bill comes back and to do whatever is required to tackle the climate and ecological emergency once and for all.
Air Pollution: London
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Murray. It is also very good to see the Minister for the third time today as we discuss issues of real importance to our planet and the environment. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for securing this important and timely debate. Indeed, I thank all those who contributed and provided such thought-provoking contributions to today’s excellent debate.
Air quality is one of the most important policy areas in the Minister’s inbox and one of the most important issues facing all our constituents the nation over. The facts are there for us all to see and they show just how damaging toxic air is to our communities and its disproportionate impact on the health and wellbeing of our people. Covid-19 has highlighted these inequalities and has again disproportionately impacted those living in areas with the worst air pollution. I have said it before and I will say it again: the Government are weak on tackling toxic air and weak on the causes of toxic air.
Air pollution is bad for everyone, but for the 12 million people in the UK who live with a lung condition such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, it poses a real and immediate threat to health. A spike in air pollution levels can lead to symptoms getting worse, flare-ups and even the risk of hospitalisation. We now know from the coroner last week that it leads to death, too. There is robust evidence of a clear link between the high levels of air pollution and increased numbers of patients with breathing problems presenting at hospitals and GP surgeries.
As I said, air pollution can worsen existing health inequalities and people living in the poorest areas are often the most exposed, reinforcing unequal health outcomes for deprived communities. It can also contribute to health inequalities later in life. Children living in highly polluted areas are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood and my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Putney (Fleur Anderson) have highlighted this eloquently today.
If you do not mind people marking their own homework, you will be satisfied with the UK currently meeting the legal limit for PM2.5. However, this is only because our legal limit is more lenient than a limit recommended by the international health community. The UK legal limit for PM2.5 is more than twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommendation. Scientists have not been able to identify a level of PM2.5 that is harmless to breathe, so we need the strongest possible action, much of which was reflected in our amendments to the Environment Bill—amendments that were voted down.
It will be no surprise to you, Mrs Murray, or to the Minister that Labour takes air quality matters seriously. We can see that in the leadership shown by the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, who has worked so hard to deliver real results since he was elected in 2016. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for giving him that credit. Indeed, air pollution in London has plunged since he became mayor in 2016, with a 94% reduction in the number of people living in areas with illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. The number of schools in such areas has fallen by 97% from 455 in 2016 to 14 in 2019. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) and for Putney for highlighting that fact.
Last month, the Labour party held a clean air summit—the first of its kind to be hosted by a major party—and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and I set out our demands for a clean air Act. Labour’s clean air Act would establish a legal right to breathe clean air by ensuring the law on air quality was at least as strict as the WHO guidelines, with tough new duties on Ministers to enforce them and grant new powers to local authorities to take urgent action on air quality—powers that councils across London need, and need now.
It is not just me expressing concern at the Government’s inaction as that concern is felt by members of the Minister’s party. I welcome the recent report produced by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The Committee said that the Government need to increase their urgency and ambition on objectives for air quality, and the Chairman said:
“The problem will only get worse if the Government ignores the extent and urgency of this health crisis. Its disappointing response ignores the most important recommendations set out in our report, but we hope that the Environment Bill will still be amended to set more stringent targets for tackling pollutants.”
I could not agree more, and I encourage the Minister to join the Chair of the Select Committee in getting behind Labour’s demand to write the WHO guidelines into law.
All colleagues will know of the devastating way in which toxic air played a part in the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013. Once again, we send our thoughts and prayers to her family, particularly her mum, Rosamund, and all those close to her. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for her animated speech highlighting the plight of Ella.
In December 2020, the coroner ruled that Ella had died as a direct result of air pollution. Indeed, he said that he believed air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. We can do something about this if we want to, so may I invite the Minister to work with me and Labour colleagues and with Members across the House to make the Environment Bill fit for purpose by writing the WHO guidelines into law? I look forward to working with the hon. Member for Twickenham and others across the House to deliver Labour’s clean air Act, and the Minister is more than welcome to join us. The future of our planet and the lives of Londoners depend on it.
Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are marked. Our colleagues from Hansard would appreciate it if Members could send their speaking notes to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 (S.I. 2021, No. 158)
It is a pleasure to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition on the first of two Statutory Instruments that I will speak to today. I must put on record that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North would have liked to attend the Committee but cannot do so on account of current restrictions. He is passionate about peatland burning issues, and he wanted that to be on the record.
The regulations seek to prohibit a person burning any specified vegetation on areas of peat more than 40 cm deep in a site of special scientific interest—that is also a European site—unless an exception applies, or the burning is carried out under and in accordance with a licence issued by the Secretary of State.
A burning notice may be issued under regulation 6 if Natural England believes that specified vegetation is being burned in contravention of those regulations. Regulation 7 makes provision for a right to make representations to a person appointed by the Secretary of State if Natural England serves a burning notice on any person. That sounds very good on the face of it, but, as ever, it is about the detail with this Government, or should I say, the lack of detail.
I note that no impact assessment has been produced for the SI because Ministers have deemed that
“There is no, or no significant, impact”
on the private, voluntary or public sector foreseen. We shall see what happens in the time ahead.
I feel sure that the Minister will know that England contains around 355,000 hectares of upland deep peatland habitat, with a particular concentration of the habitat being found in the Pennines. Those high-value upland peat habitats are subject to rotational burning. That practice sees vegetation on the top of peat set alight at regular intervals to create better conditions for grouse rearing for the shooting industry.
Upland peat habitats are a significant carbon store and burning heather and grass within them releases carbon. Natural England has calculated—I pay tribute to all the staff of Natural England for their work in these difficult times, done without much direction and support from the Government—that around 260,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide are released every year from rotational burning on peat in England alone. Rotational burning also reduces the biodiversity value of upland peat habitats and affects water quality.
In January 2021, the Government announced the introduction of a partial ban on burning heather and grass on peatland, in recognition of the
“consensus that burning of vegetation on blanket bog is damaging to peatland formation and habitat condition”.
So the Government also say that it is an issue.
The Heather and Grass etc. Burning (England) Regulations 2021 were introduced as an SI to put that partial ban into law, but, as ever with the Government, we need to go further and do more. I know that this matter has been before the other place, and I know that many of the points raised then will be similar to the concerns that I am highlighting, but they are important, absolutely relevant, and need to restated. That is necessary mainly because the Government have made little progress, have not listened and do not seem to want to engage.
On the substance of the SI, my first concern relates to its limited scope. It only partially prohibits burning on designated sites. The regulations state that only sites that are in a SSSI, a special area of conservation or a special protection area can be considered as designated sites for the purposes of the regulations. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, in an example of its wonderful work, has estimated that 109,000 hectares of English upland peat meet those specifications out of a total of 355,000. In response to Link, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has suggested coverage is slightly higher at 142,000 hectares. Even so, significantly less than half of upland peat is covered by the regulations. In the same response, DEFRA also suggests that the amount of upland peat in England stands only at 230,000 hectares. However, that figure only covers upland peat that is on the biodiversity action plan, BAP, priority habitat list. Upland peat that is not on the BAP list is still precious and should not be burned. Natural England has confirmed that there are total of 355,000 hectares of upland peat in England. That is the figure that should be used.
In drawing the attention of the House to the SI, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticised DEFRA’s use of figures on upland peat and commented:
“The Department should have been clearer about the actual size of the areas covered by the ban and the peatlands currently subject to rotational burning as well as those areas where consent to burn has already been removed: the mix of percentages, hectares and other metrics and the use of different reference points, such as ‘protected blanket bog habitat’, ‘peatlands’ or ‘upland deep peat’ are a source of confusion and make it difficult to assess the extent and impact of the ban on unlicensed rotational burning.”
In fact, only a minority of upland peat in England will be covered by the regulations—60% of upland peat is excluded from the regulations as it is outside the specification for a designated site. That limited scope will hinder the effectiveness of the regulations. For the best climate and ecological result, all upland peat should be included in the ban. I could not be clearer than that. At the very least, a simple improvement would be to change the specification for designation to a site being in an SSSI, an SAC or SPI to widen the scope and increase the proportion of upland peatland protected by the ban. The SI does not go far enough and the world is watching what happens next.
I am deeply concerned by the language used in the SI. The Minister will recall that throughout the Committee stage of the Environment Bill, or the ‘Missing in Action’ Bill that we like to call it, my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) regularly called the Government out on their weak language, loose interpretations and essentially disappointing lack of ambition. As I said then, and repeat now, language is very important. I am afraid that the terms of the SI are undermined by loosely worded exemptions and it has virtually nothing to say about enforcement.
As well as direct exemptions from the rules, regulation 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to grant a licence to permit burning in a designated site covered by the ban on any of the following grounds:
“for the purposes of conservation, enhancement or management of the natural environment for the benefit of present and future generations;
for the safety of any person;
to reduce the risk of wildfire; or
because the specified vegetation is inaccessible to mechanical cutting equipment and any other method of management is impracticable. ”
Those wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State mean that even in 40% of upland peat habitats covered by the regulations, the protection offered can be revoked by a licence.
The SI contains very little detail on the licensing processes and does not specify a standard of evidence that a licence application must meet to be successful. The absence of such detail risks leaving extensive loopholes that will enable continued burning in protected areas. I therefore join with many campaigners in calling for the swift provision of tightly worded further detail on how the licensing will be administered. Such detail should include requirements to meet a tight definition of inaccessibility, to provide evidenced support from the local fire authority for wildfire prevention burning, and to provide evidence support from Natural England for conservation burning in any licence application made on such grounds.
The SI, and its very evident weaknesses, undermine the Government’s advocacy for nature-based solutions to climate change. Indeed, the rotational burning season this year coincides with the UK’s hosting of the global climate conference COP26, which will see the Government championing nature-based solutions to climate change. In the words of the Minister’s departmental colleague, Lord Goldsmith,
“the UK will use our Presidency of COP26 to persuade other countries to put nature at the heart of their climate response”.
Warm words, but as things appear to be moving, they are empty words.
I am grateful to Link for the polling that it commissioned to gauge the views of people on rotational burning and upland peat. The results speak for themselves. They reveal that 60% of the British public want to see the Government’s peat burning ban extended to cover all peatland at risk of being burned, and only 3% oppose that. Some 56% of those polled also want a ban on the burning of all at-risk peatland in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Two thirds of people also want promises to protect peatland included in the UK pledges for COP26, and 67% want the Government to ensure our natural carbon stores, like peatlands, are healthy and capture as much carbon as possible.
Those results show that the public recognise the importance of upland peat and that they wish to see its potential as a nature-based solution to climate change realised, and they very clearly support a comprehensive burning ban. Why will the Minister and Department not listen to the people and act once and for all?
We are in the middle of a climate emergency and our people are crying out for real leadership. Labour stands ready to provide that leadership, as we have demonstrated every step of the way during our consideration of the Environment Bill, the Agriculture Bill and the Fisheries Bill. That stands in stark contrast to the Government, who speak but do not do. The regulations reflect their lazy and unimaginative approach, and it is simply not good enough. At the conclusion of the debate, I intend to test the will of the Committee.
Ruth Jones
It was remiss of me not to say earlier that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq.
I thank the Minister for her contribution. She made some interesting points and is quite right that we can all agree that all peat is very important, and we need to take care of it. She mentioned that she wants the SI to strike the right balance, but I fear that the balance is still skewed. In common with many campaigners in communities across England, I remain unimpressed by the inadequate attempt to tackle the issue.
A shorter and neater way to describe where we are is as follows: the Government promised the House, stakeholders and the country an overarching strategy but they have yet to deliver it. Yes, the Minister spoke about the guidance to come, and we will hold the Government to account on that, but my job and that of campaigners, experts and stakeholders is to hold the Government accountable on every step of the way.
Two major weaknesses prevent the regulations from achieving their stated policy aims and objectives. To remind the Committee and those listening, the objective is to protect upland peat habitats from the impact of burning. As I said in my opening remarks, the limited scope of the SI renders it fundamentally flawed, which is compounded by the dangerously loosely worded exemptions. Like many stakeholders and experts who will have listened with dismay to the Minister’s response, I am unable to support a weak and ineffective set of regulations. The Opposition will oppose the SI.
Question put,
Draft Air Quality (Legislative Functions) (Amendment) Regulations 2021
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and thank you for leading our deliberations. It is also a pleasure to be with the Minister, yet again, and with other colleagues.
The SI makes amendments to retained direct EU legislation relating to air quality under section 8(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to ensure that it continues to operate effectively, as the Minister has outlined. The PRTR regulation has a nice ring to it.
It is important to note that the corrections that are being made through restatement are necessary to clarify the retained direct EU law covered by the SI. The instrument will ensure that the legislation operates properly, and please be assured that the Opposition will make sure of that.
As the Minister outlined, the SI will allow UK authorities to operate specific legislative functions in the UK to ensure that the regime of the retained direct EU law continues to function smoothly without the need for primary legislation every time a change is required. As the Minister said, the SI does not make changes to substantive policy content, but the Opposition will continue to identify ways to make substantive changes to the policy content of the Government’s environmental agenda in general.
Air quality is one of the most important policy areas in the Minister’s inbox, and one of the most important issues to all our constituents the nation over. The facts are there for all of us to see; they show just how damaging toxic air is to our communities and its disproportionate impact on the health and wellbeing of our people.
The covid-19 virus has highlighted those inequalities, and the virus has disproportionately had an impact on those living in areas with the worst air pollution. As I have said before, the Government are weak on tackling toxic air, and weak on the causes of that air. At each stage of the Environment Bill, or the “Missing in Action” Bill, as we like to call it, Ministers and their Whips have forced Tory Back Benchers to oppose Labour amendments, which were focused on tackling toxic air and showing the leadership demanded of the Government—action proposed by Labour, but voted down by the Tories.
Air pollution is bad for everyone, but for the 12 million people in the UK who live with a lung condition such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD, it poses a real and immediate threat to their health. A spike in air pollution levels can lead to symptoms getting worse, flare-ups, or even the risk of hospitalisation. As of last week, we now know from the coroner that it can lead to death. There is robust evidence of a clear link between high levels of air pollution and increased numbers of patients with breathing problems presenting at hospitals and GP surgeries.
Air pollution can worsen existing health inequalities; people in the poorest areas are often the most exposed to air pollutions, which reinforces inequal health outcomes for deprived communities. It can also contribute to health inequalities later in life. Children living in highly polluted areas are four times more likely to have reduced lung function in adulthood.
If you do not mind people marking their own homework, Sir Christopher, you will be satisfied that the UK is currently meeting legal limits for particulate matter 2.5, but that is only because our legal limit is more lenient than that recommended by the international health community. The UK legal limit for particulate matter 2.5 is more than twice as high as the World Health Organisation recommendation.
The Chair
Order. I am listening with interest to what the hon. Lady is saying, and I would be grateful if she could explain how her comments link with this specific statutory instrument. I have indulged her with a bit party political fun, as often happens in these Committees, but I hope that she will now confine her remarks to what is contained within the SI.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir Christopher; I am grateful for your advice. I was setting out the context behind why it is vital that we acknowledge the devastating way in which toxic air has played a part in people’s deaths, such as that of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013. The Opposition believe that it is Government inaction that has allowed catastrophic levels of air pollution to build up across the country, especially in the most deprived areas of our big cities.
The coroner ruled that Ella Kissi-Debrah died as a direct result of air pollution and said that it made a “material contribution” to Ella’s death. Like so many, Ella was exposed to illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide and levels of particulate matter in excess of WHO guidelines.
We can do something about this if we want to. I invite the Minister to work with me and Labour’s environment team to ensure that the Environment Bill is made fit for purpose and the WHO guidelines are written into law.
The SI is specific and focused, but it is linked to a wider set of issues and the bigger, more important fight for clean air. I urge the Minister to return to the Secretary of State and ask him to be bold, to go further and to start listening.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow
There is another doughty spokesman for his constituency. My hon. Friend has spoken to me about this matter before. It is vital that we tackle plastic waste by taking a holistic approach, which includes increasing reuse and recycling, in line with our ambition to transition to a more circular economy. More work is required to understand where chemical recycling represents the best outcome for waste and to assess any unintended consequences, but I welcome the invitation and the chance to visit the ReNew ELP site. He should contact my office, and, when time permits, I would be delighted to visit.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is good to be here in the Chamber and see you face to face today, Mr Speaker.
The Joint Unit for Waste Crime is an important component of the fight against waste, fly-tipping and littering. The Peterstone Wentlooge area of Newport West is a good example of an area in dire need of action from this unit, as the “road to nowhere” there, as it is known, is blighted by fly-tipping, including of noxious substances and chemicals. Clean-up costs for more than 1 million fly-tips cost the taxpayer £58 million in 2017-18, the last time the Department published details of clean-up costs. This Government have pushed councils to the brink and removed the funding needed to tackle fly-tipping, so will the Minister tell the House when this Government will finally take the action needed to protect this green and pleasant land?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and I am sorry to hear about that road to nowhere. I would hate my constituency to be described as the “road to nowhere”. I understand what she is getting at, but this Government are tackling litter. We have a whole policy on tackling litter and I have been meeting Keep Britain Tidy regularly to discuss what more we can do. We have had a lot of campaigns, including “Keep it, Bin it”, which has been extremely effective, and we will be working further on measures. We relaunched the countryside code and added to it during lockdown to cut down on the amount of litter that is dumped, and this has had a significant effect. Local authorities have all of their measures that they can put in place—they can take people to court and people can get hefty fines—but they need to take action with the measures at hand.
Rebecca Pow
We are of course taking this issue extremely seriously, and all our sympathies go out to Ella’s family. In fact, the Secretary of State and I were pleased to meet Ella’s mother—for which we thank her—and we listened closely to what she said. The coroner’s report was published yesterday and we will respond in due course. The points made are being taken extremely seriously.
Through our landmark Environment Bill, we will introduce a duty to set a long-term air-quality target and an exposure target. To do that, we are meeting all the scientists and academics and all those who can inform us as to exactly the right level to set. We understand that air pollution is a killer and we need to take it very seriously. A £3.8 million air clean-up programme is under way and we are working hard to ensure that that money is targeted at the places where it is needed.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
In the Committee on the missing-in-action and elusive Environment Bill, Labour tried to write the World Health Organisation air-quality guidelines into the Bill. Unsurprisingly, the Tories voted us down. Yesterday, in response to the devastating death of Ella Kissi-Debrah in 2013, the coroner published a prevention of future deaths report that recommended that the Government should view the World Health Organisation guidelines for air pollution “as minimum requirements”, because all particulate matter is harmful. The coroner has given a clear recommendation and clearly stated that it would save lives, so when will the Minister commit to setting a PM2.5 target that is at least in line with the World Health Organisation guidelines?
Rebecca Pow
The report highlights that there is no safe limit of PM2.5, which is why it is so important that we get it right. That is why we are taking so much advice on it. The WHO has acclaimed our clean air strategy as world leading and
“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.
It sets out the steps that we are starting to take to improve air quality. The Environment Bill will introduce a duty to set a long-term target on air quality and an exposure target, which nobody has done before. We will give the issue all the attention it deserves.
Draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
It is good to be back in the House today, and I thank all the members of the House authorities who are working hard to keep us safe as we carry out our duties in this place. May I take this opportunity to wish Her Majesty a happy 95th birthday for yesterday, on behalf of my shadow ministerial colleagues? This is a good week for birthdays, because it is mine tomorrow. Before you ask, Sir Charles, I am not 95.
On a sadder note, I extend my deepest condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) on the death of her husband, Councillor Ray Glindon. My hon. Friend is the shadow Whip for environment, food and rural affairs, and we send her family our love and solidarity at this very sad time.
The draft Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) (Amendment) Order 2021 is an important piece of legislation, and I am pleased that we have the opportunity to discuss it. As set out in schedule 2 of the Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015, a single-use carrier bag
“means an unused bag made of lightweight plastic material with handles, other than an excluded bag.”
The order that we are debating will increase the minimum amount that sellers must charge for a single-use carrier bag from 5p to 10p. In other words, this is an important step in the fight against waste and the battle to preserve our planet and protect our environment.
The order will extend the obligation to charge to all retailers and will remove from airport retailers the exemption from charging for single-use carrier bags. That will reduce the usage of such bags, and the litter associated with them, while allowing for their continued use where necessary. Her Majesty’s Opposition have no issue with the substance behind the order; frankly, we only wish that it could have been brought to the House sooner.
As highlighted in the very helpful briefing produced by the Green Alliance, the order sadly continues with the short-sighted approach of addressing only single-use plastic carrier bags. This means that retailers remain free to give out, without charge, bags made from other materials, such as paper. That is an oversight that requires addressing, because paper bags are often just as unnecessary as their plastic counterparts and can have higher carbon impacts, depending on material sources and product specification. A 2011 study for the Northern Ireland Assembly found that paper bags generally require four times as much energy to manufacture as plastic bags. I join others in reminding the Minister that applying charges only to plastic items—an approach that the Government are continuing in the Environment Bill—is a mistake and risks merely shifting the environmental burden, as alternative materials may be used with equal environmental recklessness.
It will be no surprise to the Minister that I am very proud of the Welsh Labour Government and all that they have done to tackle waste, littering and fly-tipping over the years. Indeed, the Welsh Government introduced a fully comprehensive charge on single-use bags back in 2010. Since Wales has had its own Government from 1999, we have become a global leader in recycling. We are now first in the UK, second in Europe and third in the world for household waste recycling. Put simply, recycling is what we do in Wales. This achievement has taken a clear long-term vision, strong partnership working, significant investment and clear milestones along the way. That is important, because it shows that culture and behaviour can change and we can deliver real results.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Newport, a city that we represent, has a good record with Wastesavers, a community project that sorts at source and is particularly effective?
Ruth Jones
That is an excellent point. Wastesavers is a brilliant project and I will try to make provisions for such projects in the Environment Bill when we come back to it. It is an example of great, integrated waste collection with high recycling rates.
Culture and behaviour can change and we can deliver real results. This instrument speaks to one element of the fight and I urge the Minister to go further, be bolder and do it faster. Wales acted in 2010 but voters across England, from west midlands to Hartlepool and from the west of England to West Yorkshire, had to wait a further five years before a half-measure ban on single-use bags was introduced in England, and that was applied to larger retailers only.
Now in 2021, this Government are now finally catching up with the good practice that Labour-led Wales has had in place for years. That is despite the fact that three years ago the 25-year environment plan committed to extending the application of the 5p plastic bag charge to small retailers and despite the fact that the public consultation on this proposal ended two years ago, in February 2019. That consultation showed enormous support from consumers and considerable support from businesses for the proposal. Again, all we can do is ask what were Ministers waiting for.
Like many, I have a number of questions that come from reading the legislation. First, while Labour supports the increase in the price of single-use carrier bags from 5p to 10p, will the Minister clarify the impact that that is likely to have on the sale of the more substantial bags for life that are currently sold for between 10p and 30p? As has been said, there is an added incentive for supermarkets to prioritise the sale of these bags because they can keep all the income without making a donation to good causes. The Minister has already said that there is evidence that the 95% reduction in single-use plastics has seen a corresponding increase in the sale of bags for life, with the average householder buying 57 bags for life per year, according to the research from Greenpeace. Has any consideration been given to a substantial increase in the price of bags for life? It has been suggested that a price of 70p would prevent the perverse consequences of this policy change. It follows the example of Ireland, which priced the bags at 70 cents and thereby cut their sale by 90%. Otherwise, is there not a danger that more bags for life will be purchased for single use with the consequent increased damage to the environment?
Secondly, why have the Government exempted small and medium-sized enterprises from using a proportion of the money raised from the sale of the bags to donate to good causes? This provision has worked well for larger supermarkets, so I am not sure of the Minister’s argument that that would be too complex. I do not think that that holds water. Most small shops have a charity box, and many are part of larger franchise arrangements, so it seems wrong in principle that they should benefit from a new revenue stream by selling goods that pollute the environment. Will there be a requirement on the supermarkets that already administer the 5p charge to donate all the additional five pences to good causes, given that the additional administration in increasing the price would be negligible? Does the Minister agree with Lord Khan, who made the point in the other place that donations should be made to charities specifically involved in protecting the environment or clearing up the litter that plastic bags cause?
My third point is that back in 2019, the resources and waste strategy set out a plan for resource efficiency and a circular economy that included an ambition that all plastics be biodegradable. It is clear that the environmental damage caused by single-use bags would be somewhat mitigated if there were a requirement for them to be biodegradable. What steps are the Government taking to prevent plastics, including plastic bags that are not biodegradable, from being in circulation?
Fourthly, why are the enforcement mechanisms restricted to being
“light touch, pragmatic and complaints led”?
I share the concern of many trading standards and local authorities that they simply will not have the resources to ensure that enforcement is truly effective. It would be helpful if the Minister took a moment to comment on that.
Finally, what further plans does the Minister have to make the manufacturers of single-use plastic bags more responsible for the environmental damage that they cause? Both the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill talk about the extended producer responsibility, based on the principle that the polluter pays. When are we going to start charging the manufacturers for producing these bags rather than putting the onus on the consumer to change their habits? That is much talked about as a policy, but we are yet to see any real action. Perhaps the Minister could reassure us today that the comprehensive extended producer responsibility package will be introduced into the Environment Bill when it finally comes back to the House.
The Environment Bill deserves a mention. Like so many communities across England, experts in the field and stakeholders campaigning on green issues, I am desperate to welcome the Environment Bill back to the House. The Bill received its Second Reading in February 2020, and we are almost in May 2021. During all those lost months, we have lost ground in our fight to save and protect the natural environment. The Opposition are ready to consider the Bill, to try to improve it and to work with anyone who is willing to work with us at the earliest opportunity. I urge a speedy resumption of our deliberations.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister, as always, for her comments. I join her in offering Her Majesty belated birthday wishes, although I am not sure it will exactly be a happy birthday this year. I send our genuine sympathies to the shadow Whip, the hon. Member for North Tyneside, on the death of her husband. This happened to me two years ago, and I can honestly say that I know how she will be feeling. Will the shadow Minister please pass that on to her from us all?
Rebecca Pow
In order for us to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for the next generation, it is essential that we get the right legislation in place to limit the impact on the natural world of our use of resources. Plastics are an incontrovertible cause of harm to our environment, both terrestrial and marine. These measures are an important part of our wider strategy to tackle plastic pollution. In addition, we are getting under way a raft of measures, not least the Treasury’s plastic tax and the ban on stirrers and straws. All the measures in the Environment Bill will help us to tackle plastics in the waste stream and their negative impact on the environment.
Perhaps I should touch first on the all-important Environment Bill. I think the shadow Minister is being slightly disingenuous, because work on it has not stopped. Indeed, this pause—it is only a pause—has enabled work to carry on with all speed on the targets, and on further strengthening the Bill and what it will trigger. That includes water quality targets. I know you are really keen on our water quality, Sir Charles, and those targets will help to drive improvement in chalk streams and all our rivers. We are also working hard on the air targets, and all the other important things that the Bill will trigger.
The Bill will put in place the measure to set up extended producer responsibility. That will put the onus on the manufacturers of plastic packaging to be responsible throughout its entire life cycle, and that includes where it ends up. Manufacturers will not want plastic packaging to end up as waste, so they will think hard and long about things such as its design and labelling. That will have a big impact on any plastic bags that are left in use, as I think the shadow Minister alluded to. We launched the second consultation on the matter on 24 March—the consultation ends on 4 June—so we are moving very quickly towards its introduction. A huge amount of work is going on to ensure that we get that absolutely right.
The shadow Minister touched on something that a lot of people question, namely why these bags are not biodegradable or compostable. I asked the same questions myself when I arrived in the Department, because it seemed straightforward. However, we have to consider what they biodegrade into. What chemicals, which then go into our soil and water, do they break down into? Biodegradable plastics are, by their nature, at odds with the principle of reuse and recycling; they are not reused or recycled, because they break down. Strong concerns have been raised about how biodegradable they are, and what they break down into. They might have a vital role to play in some very niche areas, but we are carrying out an awful lot of research into this, and at the moment there is a lot of concern about them. They will certainly not step in and replace plastic carrier bags.
I think the shadow Minister asked about the consultation on the order that we are considering. It was consulted on between December 2018 and February 2019, and the summary of responses was published on 31 March 2020. We received a lot of responses to the consultation right across the supply chain, from the waste industry, from non-governmental organisations and from members of the public, with pretty overwhelming support for the proposals. That was very positive.
The shadow Minister touched on the question of bags for life. They should be reused. They are not single-use bags; they are bags for life, as their name suggests. They will last longer than single-use plastic bags. If they are reused sufficiently, their overall environmental impact in comparison to single-use plastic bags is likely to be positive. Interestingly—I am not sure that a lot of people are aware of this, but let us make them aware—retailers are required to take back worn-out bags for life and replace them like for like, free of charge. The impact assessment that accompanies the legislation estimates an increase of 40% in the number of bags of life used over 10 years. However, the policy change will lead to an overall reduction of 21% in the number of bags supplied across all bag types—single-use carrier bags. bags for life, paper bags, cotton bags and so on—over that period, which will lead to an overall reduction in plastic usage. Do not forget my idea of wicker baskets, either.
The shadow Minister may be interested to hear that, as I mentioned in my speech, we will review how the whole system works once it is up and running for single-use carrier bags, and then we will consider extending to retailers those reporting requirements on bags for life. That is not included at the moment, but if it looks as though it would be helpful, it will certainly be looked at.
The shadow Minister touched on paper bags, and she expressed the concern that we were charging only for plastic bags when we ought to be charging for paper ones as well. For her information, paper bags need to be reused three to four times to have an impact equivalent to that of plastic. For cotton bags, the figure rises to 130 times. Paper bags may be littered or escape into the environment, but they are much less damaging than plastic, because they break down. Of course, cotton bags are rarely littered. The point is that the environmental impact of all bag types will be reduced by reuse. If we all reuse our bags, we will really reduce their impact.
Ruth Jones
The point I was trying to make about paper bags is that it takes four times as much energy to produce them as it does to produce plastic bags. It is not about what happens during their lifetime; it is about their production, which is so energy-inefficient.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ruth Jones Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although the timetable for the Environment Bill has slipped by a few months, we are working at pace to implement the policies and measures behind it. We have announced Dame Glenys Stacey as the chair of the OEP and Worcester as its HQ, and it will launch on an interim basis in July. We are also progressing work on developing targets. We have already published a policy paper and set up working groups, and we are developing proposals for a consultation. We will launch further consultations on a raft of measures to be brought forward under the Environment Bill, including relating to packaging and waste collection reforms.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) [V]
Now that we are no longer a member of the European Union, it is vital that all steps are taken to ensure that the UK has the strongest possible protections for our environment. That is why so many of us are confused that the Tories weakened their own Environment Bill in Committee by voting down cross-party amendments that would have strengthened the OEP and made the Bill fit for purpose. Can the Secretary of State finally confirm that, when the Environment Bill eventually comes back to the House, he will support all steps to make the OEP—which was promised to Bristol and the south-west but is now headed for Worcester—fit for purpose and fit for the 21st century?
Environment Bill
Ruth Jones ExcerptsTuesday 26th January 2021
(3 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 January 2021 - (26 Jan 2021)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 10—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“(1) Schedule [Environmental impact of nappy waste] confers powers on the relevant national authority to make regulations about environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The relevant national authority means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State.
(3) Regulations are subjective to the negative procedure.”
The new clause enables the addition of NS1 which is intended to reduce the impact on the environment of disposable nappies, and has been adapted from a Private Member’s Bill (Bill 299) on this matter.
New schedule 1—Environmental impact of nappy waste—
“Nappy waste impact reduction schemes
1 The relevant national authority must by regulations establish schemes to reduce the impact of nappies on the environment by—
(a) defining the characteristics required for a nappy to meet environmental standards;
(b) promoting nappies which meet environmental standards; and
(c) reporting on the steps taken to encourage local authorities to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Environmental standards
2 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish environmental standards for nappies.
(2) The standards must define the characteristics required for a nappy to be traded, advertised or promoted as—
(a) “reusable”;
(b) “biodegradable”;
(c) “eco-friendly”;
(d) “environmentally friendly”; and
(e) other such similar terms as may be defined in the standards.
(3) The regulations may provide for nappies or the packaging in which they are contained to bear a mark signifying that they meet the environmental standards.
(4) The trading, advertising or promotion of a nappy is an unfair commercial practice for the purposes of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1277) if—
(a) that nappy is described using a term used in sub-sub-paragraphs (2)(a) to (d) or a similar term defined in regulations under sub-paragraph (1) but does not meet the relevant standards, or
(b) that nappy or its packaging bears the mark in sub-paragraph (3) but does not meet the relevant standards.
Promotion of nappies that meet environmental standards
3 (1) The relevant national authority must by regulations establish a scheme to promote nappies that meet the environmental standards in paragraph 2.
(2) The scheme must be a collaboration between public bodies and the nappy industry.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a levy to be paid by persons who manufacture or trade in nappies for the purpose of meeting the operating expenses of the scheme.
(4) The scheme must provide public information on—
(a) the effects of disposable nappies on the environment;
(b) the financial advantages of reusable nappies for families and local authorities; and
(c) other advantages of nappies that meet the standards in paragraph 2.
Local authority reusable nappy schemes
4 (1) The relevant national authority must prepare a report on steps that will be taken to encourage local authorities to operate schemes to—
(a) promote the use of reusable nappies, and
(b) reduce nappy waste.
(2) In preparing that report, the relevant national authority must consult—
(a) operators of existing reusable nappy schemes,
(b) local authorities involved in those schemes,
(c) parents who have participated in such schemes,
(d) manufacturers of reusable nappies.
(3) The report must be laid—
(a) in relation to England, before Parliament;
(b) in relation to Wales, in Senedd Cymru;
(c) in relation to Scotland, in the Scottish Parliament; and
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, in the Northern Ireland Assembly; or in Parliament;
within six months of this section coming into force.”
This new schedule brings into the Bill the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill on Nappies (Environmental Standards) Bill (Bill 299) in order to define environmental standards for nappies, promote nappies that meet the standards, and report on local authority schemes to promote reuseable nappies and reduce nappy waste.
Government amendments 32 to 35.
New clause 6—Clean Air Duty—
“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—
(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and
(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.
(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, table a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality, which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.
New clause 13—Air quality in rural areas: application of pesticides—
“(1) For the purposes of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—
(a) buildings used for human habitation; and
(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—
(i) schools and childcare nurseries;
(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1)(a) and (b) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.
(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).
(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application and pollution of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by residents and members of the public, with the aim of improving air quality and protecting human health and the environment in rural areas.
Government amendment 7.
New clause 3—Phosphates Levels—
“In making decisions on planning decisions, the competent authority can disregard any impact of the potential build and its long-term consequences on the level of phosphates in the water.”
Amendment 42, in clause 78, page 71, line 16, after “licensee”, insert—
“or risk management authority, where risk management authority has the same meaning as in Part 1 Section 6 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010,”.
The amendment seeks to deliver the National Infrastructure Commission’s recommendation that water companies and local authorities should publish plans to manage surface water flood risk (e.g. from roads).
Amendment 3, in clause 82, page 79, line 22, after “damage” insert—
“, including damage from low flows”.
Amendment 30, in clause 82, page 80, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must prepare an annual report on water abstraction management.
(5) The annual report must—
(a) include data for the period covered on the volume of water in England—
(i) licensed for abstraction, and
(ii) abstracted.
(b) state whether the natural environment of these water sources has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period based on the data, and
(c) assess the impact of water abstraction in that period on the natural environment of chalk streams.
(6) The first annual report on water abstraction may relate to any 12 month period that includes the day on which this section comes into force.
(7) The annual report must be published and laid before Parliament within 4 months of the last day of the period to which the report relates.”
The purpose of this amendment is to monitor more closely the environmental impact of water abstraction on chalk streams with annual reporting.
Government amendment 8.
New clause 18—REACH Regulation and animal testing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets for—
(a) the replacement of types of tests on animals conducted to protect human health and the environment within the scope of the REACH Regulation, and
(b) the reduction pending replacement of the numbers of animals used and the suffering they endure.
(2) A target under this section to reduce the suffering of animals must specify—
(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively measured, and
(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.
(3) Regulations under this section may make provision about how a target that has been set is to be measured.
(4) A target under this section is initially set when the regulations setting it come into force.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets for the reduction and replacement of animal testing for the purposes of chemicals regulation.
Amendment 24, in schedule 20, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.”
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Ruth Jones
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said in his remarks on the first group of amendments, this Bill has been a long time coming. I am delighted that the Bill is back before the House, but—and there is a “but”—the Minister and her colleagues have lengthened its passage even further by throwing day two of the Report stage into the long, long grass. Considering that the Bill became known as the missing in action Bill after it disappeared for more than 200 days before the Committee stage, that is not a good sign.
New clause 8 holds a key role in the priorities of Her Majesty’s Opposition with regard to this Bill and the important task of taking whatever steps are necessary in the fight to preserve our planet and protect our environment. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to take account of the waste hierarchy, starting with the priority action of prevention. A few weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) filled in for me as shadow Minister at a Westminster Hall debate called by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). In his remarks, my hon. Friend was very clear that the collective task of tackling waste, improving recycling rates and taking the steps needed to protect our environment and preserve our planet is one that we need to do together—all of us. In his conclusion, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington pressed the point about the need to look further at the waste hierarchy in dealing with waste. I agree with him. I look forward to him supporting new clause 8 in the Lobby tonight, and I hope he will bring some of his hon. Friends with him.
This Bill does not go far enough, and it did not have to be this way. Over the past two decades, the household waste recycling rate in England has increased significantly from just 11.2% to almost 50%. I am pleased that for half of that time a Labour Government ambitiously pushed for a change of behaviour and real action on the green agenda. However, England still falls far short of the EU target of recycling a minimum of 50% of household waste by 2020. Our departure from the EU does not mean that we should shift gear or slow down. We need to go further and faster.
As of 2018, Wales is the only nation in the UK to reach the target. In 2017, it recorded a recycling rate of 64%. Wales is recognised as third in Europe and fourth in the world in the recycling league championship. As the Member for Newport West in this House, I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government, particularly my right hon. Friend the First Minister and the Environment Minister, Lesley Griffiths.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I shall slow down a tiny bit, then.
I did just want to say a little more in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I talked about the sewerage management plans, which are now going to be requirements, and said that I would use the powers of direction in the Bill if water companies were not using those properly. Section 13(1) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 already requires risk management authorities to co-operate with one another when exercising prescribed functions, but I intend to expand those functions to include the preparation of a drainage and sewerage management plan.
I hope that demonstrates that I and this Government, and DEFRA in particular, are putting this whole issue of dealing with our water right up there, centre stage. It is so important to all of us that we sort our water out, and it is thanks to so many colleagues—my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne and others who have spoken—that we are taking this really seriously. I hope that everyone will be supportive of that, including my Labour shadow colleagues.
Let me go back to REACH very quickly. I said that we had included safeguards to protect the fundamental principles of REACH, which is schedule 20. That includes ensuring a high level of protection for human health and the environment, and replacing substances of very high concern, such as cancer-causing chromium compounds, through the REACH authorisation process. As I said, we cannot agree to proposed new sub-paragraph (1B), which would force us to follow what the EU does instead of having ownership of our own laws. We would have to make decisions and regulations with no regard to our own scientific evidence. We have no plans at all to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it. I hope the shadow Minister was listening to that, because she particularly raised it. Protecting the environment and human health is paramount, and the UK will retain the fundamental approaches and key principles of EU REACH.
I really will wind up now, Madam Deputy Speaker, and thank you for your time. It has been an honour to preside over the passage of this Bill. It has been long, and it still continues, but all the better. It charts a new and much-needed exciting and ambitious course for us all on the environment, and it will leave it in a better state than we found it. I want to thank all colleagues on both sides of the House who have taken part in this, helping to drive us all towards a fairer, greener future. I want to thank my Bill team. I probably do not have time to name them all, but I named them in Committee. I thank my private office, all Members who sat on the Public Bill Committee, my long-suffering family and my husband Charles, who I hope is watching me from up there.
As Members of the House are aware, the immense pressure put on the parliamentary timetable by the covid pandemic means that the Bill will sadly need to be carried over to the second Session. As I stated at the start, we will be back. I give an assurance that this carry-over will in no way reduce our commitment on the environment. Intensive work relating to measures in the Bill is already under way and will continue. One of the reasons I came to Parliament was to work to put the environment centre stage, helping to steer us to an essential sustainable trajectory for the planet. It is the right thing to do, and we are doing it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her wide-ranging thanks and comments, but I have to say that we will be doing it all again in May, because this is only day one, and we have day two to go. Hopefully, the Bill will eventually become law, which will be really good, because that is the whole point of this.
Our amendments would make an average Bill better, but as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, we want the Bill to go further. Labour wants to seize the opportunity before us to develop a genuinely once-in-a-generation Bill, in the words of the Minister. Changing explanatory notes about the Bill is all very well, but it does not change the legislation. If it is that important, we should put it in the Bill.
The Minister touched on the deposit scheme, as requested, but we do not want to focus on consultation; we want a proper scheme delivered at the earliest opportunity. On air quality, it is vital that we act and act now. One Government Back Bencher noted that the World Health Organisation knows best, and I urge the Minister to take heed of that piece of advice. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for sharing the experiences of his constituents who live in, as he put it, a “pollution blizzard”. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) for their moving and important speeches on new clause 6, on air quality. They both mentioned the lost life of Ella Kissi-Debrah—a name we must never forget.
The Minister is right: we all want strong, effective management of our water; we want clean water; and we want to mitigate the impact of hazardous waste in our waters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), spoke earlier in the debate. He knows from the shadow Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), that Her Majesty’s Opposition support his private Member’s Bill. Water quality is so important. That is why, when preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find that in Camborne and Redruth—the Secretary of State’s seat—all 10 rivers that pass through the constituency have failed to meet the standards of chemical pollution set by the Environment Agency. Simply put, the Government’s inaction has seen contaminated water not just across the country but in the Secretary of State’s own backyard. I hope that that will focus the Minister’s mind.
I join my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), in praising Friends of the Earth Pontypridd for its campaigning work on water, and I praise her work on nappies too. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Putney (Fleur Anderson) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) for their enthusiastic contributions. The vital nature of science and its purpose was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who spoke about his many decades of fighting to protect our environment and preserve our planet; he is right. The Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made an important contribution in which he spoke to both his amendment and ours, and I thank him for the cross-party approach he has taken to these issues.
On waste, the Minister heard the message loud and clear from colleagues, and a special mention goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for her years of campaigning. The Minister could quite easily accept new clause 8 and show that a cross-party approach is welcomed by Tory Ministers.
Amendment 24, which we will push to a vote, would ensure that Britain does not become a dumping ground for hazardous waste. It would prevent damaging deregulation and help to maintain regulatory parity with EU REACH and chemical-related laws that would prevent the dumping of products on the UK market that fail to meet the EU regulations and avoid the cost and complexity of regulatory divergence on the industry. Our objective is clear, and I hope that the Minister will support our amendment tonight. The need to do whatever we can to preserve our environment and protect our planet is obvious, so I hope that she will join us in doing just that.
We wish to push amendment 24 to a vote, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59
Hazardous waste: England and Wales
Amendments made: 32, page 46, line 39, leave out “Before section 62A” and insert “After section 62”.
This amendment changes the way in which the location of new section 62ZA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is identified. It is currently inserted before section 62A of the 1990 Act, which is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 33, page 48, line 45, leave out from beginning to first “the” in line 13 on page 49 and insert—
‘(8A) In the application of this Part to England, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to England, or
(ii) regulations made by the Secretary of State under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/894).
(8B) In the application of this Part to Wales, “hazardous waste” means—
(a) any waste identified as hazardous waste in—
(i) the waste list as it applies in relation to Wales, or
(ii) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under regulation 3 of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/1540), and
(b) any other waste that is treated as hazardous waste for the purposes of—
(i) regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under section 62ZA, or
(ii) the Hazardous Waste (Wales) Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1806).
(8C) In subsections (8A) and (8B),’.
This amendment updates the definitions of hazardous waste being inserted into Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to take account of the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Amendment 34, page 49, line 18, leave out from “(2000/532/EC)” to end of line 19.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Clause 62
Regulations under the Environmental Protection Act 1990
Amendment made: 35, page 55, line 33, leave out subsection (4).—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment omits an amendment to section 62A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is no longer needed because section 62A is repealed by the Waste and Environmental Permitting etc. (Legislative Functions and Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Clause 73
Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Amendment made: 7, page 63, line 18, at end insert—
“and the regulations may provide that a reference in the regulations to a standard is to be construed as a reference to that standard as it has effect from time to time.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment provides that regulations under Clause 73 specifying relevant environmental standards may specify standards as they have effect from time to time. This power to make ambulatory references will avoid the need to amend the regulations each time standards are updated.
Clause 91
Disclosure of Revenue and Customs information
Amendment made: 8, page 91, line 31, leave out
“section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”
and insert
“paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 has been replaced by paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020. This amendment updates the cross-reference in consequence.
Schedule 20
Amendment of REACH legislation
Amendment proposed: 24, page 244, line 19, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed
parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.’ —(Ruth Jones.)
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.