Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

A host of things have changed the landscape and become part of it. If anyone decided that they should not be protected as part of the landscape, there would be quite an outcry. The wording of the Bill skews our approach towards these structures and monuments, which the British public hold dear as part of the natural landscape. I think the British public would be surprised to hear that we are effectively legislating not to protect them and keep them part of that natural landscape.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is important to recognise that people may not even know of such places. There is a mountain called Twmbarlwm just outside my constituency. On the top, it has a twmp, or pimple, which is an iron age burial mound. People do not even know that that pimple is manmade. They would be affronted if anyone tried to deal with it. They assume it is natural, but it is not, though it has been there for hundreds of centuries. It is important that we make every effort to cover all eventualities. If this Bill is to be groundbreaking for generations to come, we must cover all bases.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That underlines what we know is right in our hearts. If we reduced this to a few lines on a piece of paper, we might have to start making them distinctive in order to define what we are talking about. This amendment tries to ensure that such structures are regarded as part of the natural landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, that is quite right. Perhaps I should have thought of that; it is difficult to do mid-flight.

It was also remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her place this morning. I think she knows that when she was absent last week, we sent her our good wishes for a speedy recovery. Indeed, our wishes have come true as she is with us today. I am pleased to see her in her place and I hope that she has indeed had a speedy recovery and is fully back with us, as I am sure she is. I am sorry that I did not place that on the record earlier, but I was rather preoccupied with Maiden castle and various other things.

The amendment seeks to include a better definition, effectively through a few simple words, in the same clause that we were talking about previously concerning the meaning of “natural environment”. It would mean that subsection 41(c), which begins

“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water”,

had at the end a clarification that that includes the marine environment.

It seems pretty obvious that that ought to be in the Bill. We are a country with a length of coastline that is almost uniquely extensive in Europe, and we are an island. Obviously, in the UK, we also have extensive inland waterways, such as lakes, rivers and, indeed, man-made inland waterways that have effectively become part of the natural environment, as I am sure hon. Members agree, such that they merit the sort of protection suggested by the definition in this clause. When the Minister replies, will she assure us that man-made inland waterways are included in the definition of “water” in the clause?

At no point does the Bill mention the marine environment. To the credit of Members across the House, we have developed sites of special scientific interest and conservation zones in the marine environment and around the coastline, sometimes quite a way offshore. It is not a question of having the land and the foreshore, and then simply the deep blue yonder. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in those zones.

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. During the passage of the Fisheries Bill, we spent a long time considering how to avoid dredgers damaging the marine environment. That should be included in this Bill, so that our legislation is joined up and cohesive, and ensures that the marine environment is as protected as the land.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend’s important point underlines the purpose of our amendment and impels me to highlight that this is not just a theoretical question about the protection of the marine environment, but a practical question about how we approach that. For example, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay has the very practical effect of—among other things—preserving the environment for cold-water corals and various other things in that very fragile ecosystem that require our protection to survive and thrive. Those considerations of the marine environment are absolutely and indistinguishably conjoined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 43, page 26, line 6, leave out “mainly”.

This amendment ensures that any legislative provision that concerns environmental protection is included in the definition of “environmental law”.

Clause 43 concerns itself with one word, but, as I think hon. Members will appreciate, it provides, as is the case with many Bills, the crucial underpinning of a particular part—namely, those clauses up to clause 43. In other words, it defines the words we have discussed this morning and on other occasions. Although it may appear that a great deal of debate is focused on very small parts of the Bill—on one or two words—it is important to pay attention to them and to get this right. I appreciate that we may appear not to be making the progress we would otherwise want to make, but this is essential for the overall progress of the Bill. I can reveal to the Committee that I have discussed with the Government Whip exactly how much progress we can make today, and we need to ensure that it is commensurate with getting the Bill through in good order overall. I assure hon. Members—and, indeed, you, Mr Gray—that we want to make good progress and get the Bill through in good order and in good time. I hope that what we do this morning will aid rather than impede that progress.

Clause 43 concerns itself with the meaning of environmental law. Subsection (1) states that it

“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and…is not concerned with an excluded matter”.

Subsection (2) defines excluded matters. We are concerned about the word “mainly”. We think that legislation that defines the meaning of environmental law should be “concerned with” environmental protection, not “concerned mainly with” with environmental protection. The use of that word implies that a number of other things could be construed as not being concerned with environmental protection. Logic suggests that the inclusion of the word “mainly” admits the possibility and, indeed, the likelihood that there are things outwith that particular definition.

Subsection (2) refers to excluded matters and I think we will discuss some of those in a future debate. Nevertheless, assuming it stands, it defines what is outwith the concerns of environmental protection. The Bill itself puts forward the things that are excluded from consideration, while subsection (1) uses the word “mainly”, which adds another area of uncertainty regarding what is and what is not excluded.

[Ruth Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the term “mainly concerned” is ambiguous, with no clear legal meaning? Indeed, Dr David Wolfe QC drew attention to this issue in his written evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is a mine of carefully culled information from previous sittings of the Committee, including the evidence sessions, which underline the points we are making this morning. She has set out that this is not just our concern; it is widely shared outside this Committee Room, and for that reason it deserves additional consideration.

Our case is that the word “mainly” should be removed and that the definition of environmental law should be that it is “concerned with environmental protection”. Subject to concerns that we may have about some of the areas listed under excluded matters, the fact that subsections (1) and (2) sit together should provide a very clear line of discussion about the meaning of environmental law as far as legislative provision is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Elevated indeed, to higher and more august posts in the Opposition ranks. They are therefore no longer on the Committee, but that does not mean that what they put forward should have less consideration by the Committee.

The fact that additional consideration should be given is underlined by the information that we received just before the Committee met, which was that the Government proposed to table amendments that will come up later in the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestation in supply chains and the due diligence to be carried out in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Members will see from the latest marshalled list of amendments that those amendments—a new clause, which we will debate later, and a defining amendment that will be debated a little earlier than that—have now indeed been tabled.

The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial parts of another amendment that was tabled by some hon. Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we will debate much later. This concerns the question of due diligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, for example, and various other elements such as that. I suggest that my amendment was an essential defining part of new clause 5, which has in effect been run with by the Government in the proposals they have just tabled. There is a complete chain of connection between all those.

In that context, what is missing from the Bill is a definition not just of environmental harm, whether direct or indirect, but of what is meant in that context by the global footprint of environmental harm or environmental activity. By tabling their amendments, the Government are strongly indicating that the global footprint of environmental harm is a key element of the Bill.

I am delighted that the Government have tabled their amendments, because they cover an area that a lot of people have been concerned about for a long time. We will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, but the fact that the Government have considered the issue, listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—

[Ruth Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see the Government using the important proposal tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) as a stepping stone to improve the Bill? We should welcome the Government doing that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the constituencies of our hon. Friends who tabled new clause 5, so I may now refer to them.



The amendments that the Government have tabled are important and we welcome them. We would like to add to our welcome the idea that the definition in the clause––which is, after all, as I have emphasised, an interpretation clause to ensure that we know the content, detail and background––should be placed so that it links not only to what we have already discussed in the Bill but to what is in the Government amendments. This will be our only opportunity to discuss this because, by the time we get to the Government amendments, we will have gone past this section of the Bill, so it is important that we decide this one way or the other today.

Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 13th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Absolutely, and that is what we want to do as well. That is why we want to ensure that it works as well as it should. It appears, I hope, that this formulation, strange as it looks, is capable of being operated in a sound way, as far as the Assembly is concerned for the future, and that people will not be running around corridors asking a building to think, but running around corridors asking the Minister to think, which is what I thought should have been in the Bill. If it works that way round, that is fine. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I have no intention of opposing the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Producer responsibility obligations

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 151, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, even though we are not mentioning that. It is lovely to have the Minister back in her rightful place. The Environment Bill is very important and long overdue, as we have heard. I want to touch on the reason we are here, what we are dealing with, and how we can honour the pledges and promises made to the people of the United Kingdom, primarily in England.

The Bill, according to the Government’s published paper, comprises two thematic halves. The first provides a legal framework for environmental governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test so knowledgably touched on this morning and last week. The second half of the Bill makes provision for specific improvement of the environment, including measures on waste and resource efficiency, which we are discussing today. In the coming days, we will cover air quality and environmental recall; water; nature and biodiversity; and conservation covenants. They will all be discussed. We need to get the Bill right to ensure that we honour the promise to provide a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation—a promise that the Minister and many Government Members heralded at every opportunity, at least until the Bill disappeared back in March. It is so good to have it back.

That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled this amendment. We must not have a Bill that is made up of passive “mays” or “coulds”; we need “wills” and “musts”. Many in this House and across England, and those in the sector, have waited hundreds of days for the missing-in-action Bill. Now that it is back and we are here in Committee, we must not waste—I apologise for the pun—the opportunity to have the strongest possible legislation, so we have tabled the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for proposing the amendment. I also welcome her taking up the cudgels—perhaps I should say something less aggressive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes, taking up the baton on behalf of the Opposition. May I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 4? The Bill creates producer responsibility obligations in respect of specified products or materials. That is one of a number of provisions that will enable us to take action significantly to improve the environmental performance of products across their entire life cycle—from the raw material used, to end-of-life management. Other powers in the Bill include our ability in schedule 5 to require producers to pay disposal costs for their products; our powers in schedule 6 to introduce deposit return schemes; and the powers in schedule 7 to set resource efficiency standards in relation to the design and lifetime of products.

The Government need the flexibility to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes that we want. Imposing producer responsibility obligations in all cases may not be appropriate. The power is drafted in a way that gives us the flexibility to choose the appropriate measure or combination of measures for any product, and to decide which producers are obligated, the obligations on them, and the steps that they need to take to demonstrate that they have met their obligations.

In this instance, we will use these powers to introduce new regulations for producer packaging responsibility. That will increase the reuse and recycling of packaging and reduce the use of unnecessary and avoidable packaging. In 2019, we consulted with the devolved Administrations on proposals to reform the regulations, and we will consult again in 2021, so it is a lengthy process, but a lot of discussion has informed this. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we made commitments relating to updating our already up-and-running producer responsibility schemes on waste electricals, waste batteries and end-of-life vehicles; these powers are needed to implement those commitments. We also committed to taking action to address food waste.

Products vary. They have different supply chains, use different materials and have different impacts on the environment. That is why we need to be able to introduce product-specific regulations, using the appropriate powers. This power provides the flexibility to impose producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so, and that flexibility would be removed by the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw it.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I take the point about flexibility; in my previous job as a physiotherapist, however, we had both flexibility and control. Splints and corsets were very useful in ensuring flexibility in confined areas. That is why the “mays” should be turned into “musts”. The grammar is important to us. But I take the point, and this is a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 4, page 151, line 16, after “waste” insert

“, reducing the consumption of virgin materials,”.

This amendment is about taking strengthened measures on tackling waste. It refers to virgin materials, which the Minister mentioned previously. For the benefit of those outside these walls who are maybe not as knowledgeable as the Committee, these are materials like new paper or plastic.

This amendment, although specific and focused in its approach, seeks to ensure the Bill includes the strongest possible measures to tackle waste. The wider focus on the obligations and responsibilities of producers is important—not because the Bill will directly impact those parts of the world outside the UK, but because of the need to get our own house in order in the UK, and in England specifically. We need to do this because it is important to set an example to others, and the Minister alluded to this in discussions about COP26 next year.

We want a strong Bill. If colleagues support this amendment, we will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened schedule 4. It would make clear to the producers of materials used in everyday life that they have responsibilities and we are going to hold them to account.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I welcome the intention behind the schedule, which is to shift the burden of disposal costs from local authorities and the taxpayer to producers; the burden on them has historically been too low. I also welcome the shift in this Bill towards tackling food waste. I have been campaigning on this in Wandsworth borough for many years, and to see that it will be in the legislation and has to be addressed by the council is very welcome. However, in some ways, the drafting is too loose; as often in this Bill, it needs some tightening up, and I hope that these Labour amendments will be useful in doing that.

In terms of virgin materials, it is not good enough to focus on the end-of-life solutions for materials. The schemes introduced under this schedule need to incentivise producers to make the right decisions at the start of the process, as well as ensuring that they fulfil environmental responsibilities at the end. As the UK Environmental Law Association recommends, the Government need to clearly signal that extended producer responsibility covers the full life cycle, not only waste disposal. Reducing virgin material use is key to this, and to the Bill being as ambitious as we want it to be. Amendment 158 adds some words to ensure this.

Virgin materials include timber, plastic resin derived from the petroleum refining process and mined materials. This amendment would ensure that the producer responsibility scheme considers upstream measures that tackle consumption and production as well as waste minimisation. Although waste minimisation is important, it is not sufficient by itself to guarantee a reduction in virgin material use. Without adding this amendment, we cannot be sure the outcome will be the reduction that we need to see.

Manufacturing products with virgin materials usually requires much more energy and depletes more natural resources than using recycled materials, so when we reduce their use, there is also an offset for other processes. Action to reduce usage of virgin materials is essential to tackle overall depletion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I was, and I thought the Chairman was going to interrupt me when I mentioned all the food.

Finally, schedule 4 allows us to set obligations on producers in relation to reuse, redistribution, recovery and recycling. All that will contribute to a more resource-efficient economy. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, in which she stressed the importance of the cyclical nature of the production of goods. We must break the cycle of new, new, new. I am risking the wrath of the Chair, but when I sat on the Environmental Audit Committee, we had an investigation and report into the throwaway nature of the fashion industry; that is very relevant to the Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for mentioning the importance of recycling centres. There is no point in everyone sorting their recycling at home if there is nowhere to recycle things. That is an important part of the process, which is why we will press after the legislation is enacted to ensure that happens. Having received the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 159, in schedule 4, page 151, line 32, after “be” insert “prevented, reduced,”.

As you might notice, the amendment is very similar to others put before the Committee today. It focuses on the strength of the language that Ministers have chosen to use in the Bill. In recent days, my hon. Friends the Member for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge and I have said that we will hold Ministers to their promise to deliver a once-in-a-generation Bill. “Once in a generation” means it has to be big, bold and comprehensive. That is why we are calling on the Minister to use the strongest language in the Bill. I implore the Minister to be ambitious and bold in the text that is used.

I want to be helpful. I want the Minister to be able to sing from the rooftops about the Bill. I hope she will acknowledge the Opposition’s willingness to make it an even better Bill that really delivers for people across the whole UK. Let us not limit ourselves to moving things around, or shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Let us use this Bill to deliver real, long-term change.

The amendment would add “prevented” and “reduced” to the Bill, so that it does not just say “reused” and “redistributed”. We want the country to cut its reliance on plastics and paper, and to tackle waste in a meaningful way. Once again, the amendment will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strong schedule 4.

[Fleur Anderson]

As my hon. Friend has described so well, the amendment would widen the powers, so that producer responsibility regulations allowed targets for waste prevention and reduction, not just reusing and recycling. That is absolutely vital to achieving real carbon reduction and real waste reduction.

Waste prevention focuses on reducing the amount of waste generated from the source. It involves looking at manufacturing, processing, packaging, storage, recycling and disposal processes, to identify opportunities to manage waste and minimise the impact on the environment.

Although this looks like a minor amendment, the two words to be added would create another dimension to the powers of the Bill and the impacts it covers. activities would include mapping packaging and production waste to inform and develop good practice, and developing recommendations and strategies for prevention, recovery and reuse. The words “prevention” and “reduction” are essential for doing that. An example from real life is utensils. The measures would look not just at plastic utensils and how to deal with them when they are thrown away, but reusing utensils from the start, so there is no re-packaging to look at. I have been campaigning about nappies, which form a huge part of our landfill. Preventing the use of disposable nappies would incentivise producers. “Prevention” could be a game-changing additional word in the Bill. A home composting scheme run by my neighbouring borough of Lambeth looks at the prevention of waste right from the beginning, in the home.

This provision would enhance the Bill. I endorse the addition of the words “prevented” and “reduced” .

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Did he?

The hon. Member for Putney also raised an important point about garden waste. We have now legislated for garden waste to be collected: that is in clause 54.

I also wanted to give a quick résumé about the life cycle issue that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on. He mentioned the waste hierarchy, which is basically driving towards a circular economy. That is the driving force of the resources and waste strategy, and it is the intention behind the Bill. I will whizz through the related measures in the Bill, which are about raw material, extraction and manufacturing.

The resource efficiency requirement power enables standards to be set that relate to the materials and techniques used by manufacturers, such as specifying the minimum amount of recycled fibre in clothing, as we mentioned earlier. The resource efficiency information power will drive the market by providing consumers and businesses with the information they need to make sustainable choices. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester looking at me; in order for him to be able to make the right choices, he wants to know how sustainable a product is, so that he can buy that one as opposed to another one. There will be more information and more labelling.

On end of life, the resource efficiency powers can be used to specify that products are designed so that when they reach end of life, they can easily be dismantled—exactly as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has outlined—and the materials can be recovered and recycled. Our powers for deposit return, extended producer responsibility and recycling collections would enable better management of products and materials at the end of life. That will increase reuse and recycling, and it will reduce the amount of material that is incinerated or landfilled.

Preventing waste from being created in the first place and reducing the amount of waste that is produced is a priority for the Government. That is why we have stated our ambition to achieve zero avoidable waste by 2050. We will do this though the measures set out in the resources and waste strategy—we seek the powers for some of those in this Bill—and through other initiatives such as the new waste prevention programme, which we hope to publish and consult on in the near future. On all those grounds, I ask the hon. Member for Newport West if she might withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

What an enlightening debate we have had. In terms of one-upmanship, dare I say it, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has managed reusable nappies for four children. This debate has been useful, and it is good to have all the ideas, because only by putting all our heads together can we make this Environment Bill ground-breaking. We want it to work, and that is why our amendments are designed to help, not to hinder.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made the important point that as well as recycling, the reusing of goods, parts and components is crucial. People want to do the right thing. Since programmes such as “Blue Planet” have come along, people are much more aware of pollution and how they can play their part. They want to do the right thing, and this Bill must make it easy for them to do so.

The Minister mentioned garden waste. At the risk of blowing Wales’s trumpet, Wales already has a successful garden waste scheme—in fact, recycling rates in Wales are very high—so perhaps she can look across the border. She also mentioned targets. If we do not have targets, how do we know if we are getting to the end of the road? How will we know if we are improving unless we set targets in the first place? We should set targets not to be punitive, but to help us to assess our progress; that is why they are important. We believe that the amendment is also important, so we will press it to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 21

Ayes: 4

---

Labour: 4

Noes: 9

---

Conservative: 9

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 160, in schedule 4, page 154, line 38, leave out “any” and insert “specified”.

This amendment is very similar to others that have been tabled. It focuses not on the strength of language, but rather on the choice of language that Ministers have opted for in this Bill. By leaving out “any” and inserting the word “specified”, we are looking to ensure that we deliver results, rather than a scattergun or “we hope” approach. The amendment is relatively straightforward, so the Chair will be pleased to know that I will not go on when I do not need to. I hope that Ministers will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, because we want the Bill to have teeth and to be effective. Above all, we want it to be useful and to deliver, so this amendment seeks to ensure we are focused on results, not just on good intentions and misplaced hope. As I have said, “once in a generation” means that the Bill has to be bold, big and comprehensive, so we call on the Minister to use the right language. We believe that the amendment will help to deliver a stronger Environment Bill, with a strengthened schedule 4.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Having heard the Minister’s words, I am somewhat reassured, but not entirely. We will therefore not press for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5

Producer responsibility for disposal costs

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 157, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Earlier this afternoon, I noted how important the Bill is and how we need to ensure that it receives thorough scrutiny, so that it is as strong and coherent as it can be. With that in mind, we need to do what I urged the Committee to do earlier: get the Bill right, so that we honour and meet the promise of a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. I remind the Minister that she and her colleagues heralded that promise at every opportunity, until the Bill disappeared in March, only to return now.

That is why we are proposing the amendment. As I noted with amendment 16 to schedule 4, we must not rest on our laurels. We cannot have a Bill that is simply made up of passive and weak “mays” and “coulds”; we need the “wills” and “musts”. The fact that we have waited so long, listening to campaigners and those active in the sector, means that we cannot waste the opportunity to deliver a strong, wide-ranging and competent piece of legislation.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment, but I reassure her that we feel it is not needed. The Government need the flexibility—I have mentioned this before—to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes we want to see achieved. Requiring producers to pay disposal costs in all cases might not be the appropriate option.

The power is drafted to give flexibility to choose the appropriate measure, or combination of measures, for any product. It also gives us the flexibility to decide for which products or materials producers must pay disposal costs, the producers who must pay the disposal costs, the costs that they must pay and what those costs should be.

At this point, I will take a step back to reflect on what the measures will actually mean. The powers will allow us to create a strong financial incentive for businesses to do the right thing. I have spoken with businesses, and of course they want strong signals, because without them they will not be inclined to invest, innovate or go in the direction that we want them to go. That is so important.

The measures will encourage producers such as supermarkets to reduce the packaging they use in their products, so that less waste is produced. Everybody will start thinking about their products and their packaging, because they have to be responsible for what happens to it at the end of the day. It would be in the best interests of manufacturers to make products that are more reusable and recyclable. Thinking back to nappies, if they are to be reusable or rewashable, they could contain recycled fabric—in fact, that is a jolly good idea, and someone is probably already doing it. That is just an example. Such decisions should all have sustainability in mind, and the customers will see that—with the new labelling and all the information—in the products that they buy.

I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 5. The resources and waste strategy also commits us to reviewing and consulting on measures, including extended producer responsibility for five other waste streams by the end of 2025. Those five include textiles, construction materials and fishing gear. Along with the other products in that list, they have all been highlighted as urgent areas that could do with this kind of focus.

We need to retain the flexibility to introduce product-specific regulations using the appropriate powers, and as drafted, this power provides the flexibility to impose extended producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so. I hope that is helpful, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her words, and respectfully say that strong signals sometimes need to be backed up with strong words, which is why we wanted to amend the wording of the schedule to “must”, not “may”. However, that point having been made again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 161, in schedule 5, page 157, line 13, leave out from first “the” to end of sub-paragraph (2) and insert

“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials.”

As the Committee will know, schedule 5 allows the relevant authority to make regulations that require

“those involved in manufacturing, processing, distributing or supplying products or materials”

to

“meet, or contribute to, the disposal costs”

of those products. This is all about the journey, from start to finish, of the materials that we all rely on every day, even when we do not think about it. We have already had ample examples of the kinds of recyclable things we need to consider. I have to say to the Minister and her colleagues that the issues covered by this amendment will be mentioned both now and in coming days, because the Bill lacks foresight in a number of areas, but particularly when it comes to assessing the whole life cycle. That is particularly important, and it should be part of this Bill.

Thinking through this amendment and the background to it reminded me of recent events in Sri Lanka. That reminder was further reinforced when I received the answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—for those who may be interested, it was question 109651. I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

“what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart on the 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that country in September 2020.”

The answer I received from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane was as follows:

“The Environment Agency (EA), as the competent authority for waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with the authorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading the response on this matter.

The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday 28 October. The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegal materials described as mattresses and carpets which had been exported for recycling. With the shipment now back on English soil, EA”—

that is, the Environment Agency—

“enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of waste shipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Those responsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, an unlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gained through the course of their criminal activity.”

That was the answer I received from the Minister, and the issues it covers show why this amendment is so necessary. There are some parts that I will be following up on outside this Committee, but its arrival in my inbox was timely for today’s debate.

The Minister’s answer to the question demonstrates that waste and the issues that go with it simply do not disappear. Containers that left the United Kingdom in 2017 and travelled across the world are now coming back to cause trouble. This Bill can design out some of those issues if Ministers want it to, and this amendment would help to ensure that it does. We need to ensure that the life journey of the materials used is followed through by their producers from start to finish, focusing not just on the waste element but on the production and useful lifetime element of these issues. I urge the Minister to think about the social costs of the issues we are discussing, not just the environmental costs. Many of these issues require a cohesive and coherent approach that deals with a number of different factors, and I hope the Minister will give proper consideration to this.

As the Committee will know from the papers, this amendment is relatively self-explanatory, but it is important, and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration. Once again, our amendment will help to deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened and more comprehensive schedule 5.

[Fleur Anderson]

We moved this amendment to urge the Government to go that bit further in their ambition for this Bill. We have gone this far—we have set up the office, and have put in place all of these schedules and provisions—and by going just a little bit further, we could achieve so much more. Including

“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials”

in schedule 5 would make a great difference.

The Local Government Association also believes that this schedule does not go quite far enough. It is concerned that litter and fly-tipping of discarded packaging is not included in the schedule, and that greater clarity on what producer responsibility will cover is needed. It also questions why the Bill does not currently include the term “full net cost”. There is a commitment to pay local authorities, but it should set out clearly that producers will be required to pay the full net cost to councils. To achieve that, the schemes should seek to reduce consumption of materials in the first instance, reducing the full life cycle impacts arising from sectors and product groups.

That is why I urge the Minister and her Government colleagues to consider supporting amendment 161, which would address this omission by factoring social costs into the fees, alongside environmental effects. It would also ensure that fees are implemented across the full life cycle of products and packaging, rather than just, as we have said in previous amendments, the end of life impact. Such a change would incentivise responsible and sustainable design to minimise these costs in the first place and enhance the environment for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning his constituency and for raising that important point about how we need to get business on board, and how we need to give the right signals and get the right things to happen to move us to the circular economy. At the end of the day, we want less waste landfilled or incinerated, less litter and a decrease in the use of virgin raw materials. These outcomes bring wider social benefits —touching on amendment 17—as they improve the environment for the public and for wildlife. They also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For all of these reasons, the measures in the Environment Bill are strong enough as they stand, and it follows that social issues such as poor conditions for workers are considered outside the scope of extended producer responsibility. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her explanation and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for highlighting the issues of litter and fly-tipping, which really vex people. My inbox is full of complaints about such issues as are, I am sure, those of most Members here if their constituency is anything like mine. It is important that the quality of people’s environment is enhanced and made as good as possible. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test: as he points out, the wording is important. People outside these walls do not fully understand what the Bill is trying to say: the word “disposal”—as he says—is in the dictionary and it means getting rid of something, but we want to make sure that we have a cyclical economy. We come back to making sure that words matter.

I was pleased to hear the Minister highlight the manifesto pledge not to dump rubbish in non-OECD countries. It raises the issue of whether it will go to OECD countries, but that is obviously important. I was also pleased to hear COP26 raised. It is important that the UK sets a shining example to the rest of the world on that, and that is why we are pushing amendment 17: it is so important that we make sure we get it right at this stage so that, as has been mentioned, future generations look back on the Environment Bill with pride. We will be seeking to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

DRAFT PESTICIDES (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020 DRAFT PERSISTENT ORGANIC POLLUTANTS (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is good to have you in the Chair, Mr McCabe, and it is a pleasure to speak for Her Majesty’s official Opposition this afternoon. It is good also to see the Minister in her place; I think that this is the first time I have faced her since my appointment to this role—

[Victoria Prentis]

Sorry.

[Ruth Jones]

No, it’s okay. And it is a pleasure to do so, of course.

With another week, however, come another two statutory instruments from this Government. Minsters have dithered and delayed, essentially since July 2016. As we now approach the end of the transition period, we are forced to rush through important safeguards and protections, and vital standards and basic legislation, to ensure that any disruption on 1 January 2021 and beyond is mitigated as best as possible.

It is simply not good enough, and I urge the Minister to think about how this looks, not necessarily just to Opposition Members, but to the people of the United Kingdom, who want and expect legislation considered in this House to be given the necessary time to be scrutinised, evaluated and amended where and when necessary. Although we will not seek to divide the Committee, I remind the Minister that we will hold the Government to account.

We are here to discuss two statutory instruments. I will deal with them separately, but in one speech. The draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 will make a number of amendments to earlier EU exit SIs that convert EU legislation into British law, to reflect EU law ceasing to apply and retained EU law coming into force at the end of the implementation period, thereby ensuring that the national regime will operate effectively. It also makes amendments as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, under which the EU regimes will continue to apply. We understand that legislative changes are therefore required to remove Northern Ireland from retained EU legislation so that the new regime will apply in Great Britain only, rather than UK-wide. For the studious among us, paragraph 2 of the explanatory memorandum outlines in further detail the reasons for the draft regulations, which the Minister has outlined this afternoon.

Many in the Opposition will find it interesting and not a little puzzling that Ministers have not sought to consolidate all the relevant changes into a single instrument, as with the Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were recently debated in the other place. It would be helpful if the Minister explained in as much detail as possible why a consistent approach has not been taken. The House is at risk of being swamped with delegated legislation, and the Government have a duty to ensure that appropriate scrutiny is carried out. Colleagues in the Opposition and, I know, in the other place are increasingly concerned at the risk of our having two sorts of environmental regulation—some that are tidied up, accessible and coherent, and others that are tangled like a bowl of spaghetti, unintelligible to normal human beings and capable of being understood only by specialist lawyers. That is simply not good enough. I urge the Minister to take that on board as constructive criticism.

People deserve good government, and good government needs good legislation, not rushed-through SIs that are inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of people out in the real world. Paragraph 7.9 of the explanatory memorandum sets out the United Kingdom’s national strategy on control programmes and how sampling will run alongside the 2020-to-2022 period that our friends in the EU use. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined when Her Majesty’s Government will begin planning beyond 2022. When will Ministers engage with stakeholders, and in what way? For Opposition Members, the most fascinating point about the draft regulations is whether Conservative Ministers may choose to continue to align on this issue with our friends, neighbours and allies in Europe even after the period up to 2022 concludes.

This is important stuff and we need to get it right. Many stakeholders out in the community are following our business and want to make sure we do. I pay tribute to Greener UK and all the associated groups that are working to ensure that we are prepared for the end of the transition period. Like many of those groups, the Opposition are concerned that there is no longer a requirement for detailed criteria on the uniform application of conditions on by-products to

“ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health and facilitate the prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources.”

Can the Minister confirm that the pesticides and persistent organic pollutants regimes will not be weaker from an environmental perspective post Brexit? What precise steps are the Government taking to ensure that?

A provision that has already been passed means that Great Britain will allow substances to continue to be approved for three years longer than the EU. I would be grateful for some reassurance that that provision has been fully appraised and explored. This is part of the whole transition process, so can the Minister explain what risks there might be of substances continuing to be approved for three years longer than they normally would? How will the Government assess those risks and what measures will they take to handle them?

The draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 will create a new power to take measures to control and trace waste contaminated by persistent organic pollutants in relation to Great Britain. This is a recent requirement under EU law and, as we have heard, the measures have not yet been developed, either here or in Europe. We have been told that any legislative changes will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will have to be made by 31 October 2023. When the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was asked about that deadline by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it explained that it was thinking about timescales that are not determined by the EU. Rather worryingly for the Opposition, it went on to indicate that the powers to create the control and tracing system would be used “only if needed”. Can the Minister indicate the circumstances in which a control and tracing system would not be needed?

As ClientEarth has already pointed out to the Minister, the draft regulations omit a current requirement under European law that when it is decided whether a specific substance is a by-product rather than waste, detailed criteria on the application of conditions on by-products shall

“ensure a high level of protection of the environment and human health”.

When that was raised with the Department, it indicated to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that further regulations would be needed next year, and that would be the appropriate place to set out any such conditions and to consider whether to make the exercise of the power subject to the condition that ClientEarth identified. Once again, we are worried about language, particularly the word “whether”. It implies that an existing provision in the EU safeguards might not continue, so will the Minister assure us that there will be no watering down of that provision in the regulations that come forward next year? It is an important point that deserves clarity.

On regulatory and advisory expertise, Opposition Members are concerned that oversight of standards on pesticides and persistent organic pollutants will be less effective post Brexit. For example, the role of the European Chemicals Agency has been replaced by the Environment Agency and it is not clear whether the Environment Agency has equivalent expertise in the field. Will the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency will provide at least the same level of expertise as the European Chemicals Agency? Will she confirm any plans for additional funding, including in the forthcoming spending review, for the Environment Agency to carry out the role?

As I said, we will not divide the Committee by opposing the regulations, but we will hold Ministers to account for their promises and their answers today and in the coming days and weeks. Our departure from the European Union will see major change for all the people in Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, and it will be a break-away from how things have been done for almost half a century. Of course, that means things will be challenging. We understand that, but there is no excuse for government by SI, or for the Government to pack the parliamentary calendar in such a way that they hope to shield themselves from scrutiny. I simply say to the Minister: be warned, we are watching.

Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are important in the wider context of the Bill. They explain why we are finding it difficult to easily track what the various parts of the Bill are against each other. As my hon. Friend says, we will return to that in the next amendment. It is beholden on the Minister to explain a bit better how these things fit together—or indeed do not—than she has this morning. We legislate today not just for those who might be well-disposed towards the Bill and have its architecture well-embedded in their heads, and would therefore hopefully be able to move about within the Bill to put its bits together in terms of future directions. I refer to Ministers and those who are well-disposed towards its ideas—in this instance biodiversity reports. We are legislating for future circumstances where those required to carry out the terms of the Bill might not have the same enthusiasm, dedication and support for the issues as the Minister does. I am sure she will have a long reign as Minister, but she is nevertheless the present Minister.

It is important that we ensure as best we can that the legislation is malevolence-proof and that what we decide in respect of future Governments’ duties, both in this Committee and when the Bill goes through the House, really happens. The amendment is an example of something that could be included in the Bill. I accept what the Minister said about there being some measures that, with some good will, can ensure that those things happen, but they are far from the sort of long-term assurances we want. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, I am afraid that what the Minister has said laid out this morning is very much dependent on her good will towards the Bill.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister is making a powerful point—we are future-proofing for generations to come. To my mind, it is important that legislation is easy to read and understand, and it must be secure and tight. Future generations will be looking to us to set an example, which is why that is so important. A year ago, nobody knew about covid, so we cannot always read the future, but we must set things down tightly in legislation. That is why amendment 201, which was withdrawn, focused on the use of “may” and “must”—wording is so important. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make the legislation as future-proof as possible.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is precisely my view of what we should be doing in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether the clause is really tight enough to ensure that the provisions work, not just for her purposes but for the purposes of people in the future, and that she will look over the legislation at her leisure—there is plenty of time on Report—to see whether anything more needs to be done to ensure that that point is properly taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 9th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Rebecca Pow]

I will keep my comments to what the amendment refers to, which is the involvement of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament should have a role in the process of making significant public appointments. To scrutinise key appointments made by Ministers is a proper role for Parliament. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee—I am proud to have been a member of both, and many hon. Members here are members of those Committees—will jointly carry out a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the OEP chair.

As the shadow Minister knows, there has already been a lot of discussion about this. This is a commitment. The Secretary of State will duly consider any recommendation made by the Committees.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the preferred candidate can be scrutinised. Is that not a bit of a Hobson’s choice?

[Rebecca Pow]

This is an open and fair process, and other appointments are duly scrutinised in that way. The considerations and views of both Committees will be taken extremely seriously because the work they do is very pertinent to the work in this sphere of Government. The OEP chair is then consulted by the Secretary of State on the appointments of the non-executive members. We do not believe it necessary or desirable for Parliament to scrutinise all those individual appointments in the way that has been suggested.

Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments, and they should therefore retain the ability to make the final determinations. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the public for the overall performance of the public body and of public money. The OEP will be added to the schedule of the Public Appointments Order in Council and so will be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with the governance code, including with the principles of public appointments, which would ensure that members are appointed through a fair and open process.

The chair of the OEP will be classed as a significant appointment, requiring a senior independent panel member, approved by the commissioner, to sit on the advisory assessment panel, which can report back to the commissioner on any breaches of process. We have also introduced, in paragraph 17, a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to the need to protect the OEP’s independence in exercising functions in respect of the OEP, including on public appointments.

Those arrangements, and the requirements in the Bill, provide the appropriate balance between parliamentary oversight and ministerial accountability, while ensuring that appointments to the OEP are made fairly and on merit. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test withdraw his amendment.

Local Clean Air Targets

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Charles. It is lovely to be back in Westminster Hall this afternoon and to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a pleasure to be able to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition in this important debate. It is good to see the Minister in her place. I am sure that we will see a lot more of each other in the coming weeks.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) for securing the debate and for raising the issue of clean air on behalf of his constituents in south Manchester, the Greater Manchester region and all the people we in the House represent. I know that many other Labour Members would have liked to have been able to contribute to the debate but were in the main Chamber for the Black History Month debate.

This is a timely debate, coming in the wake of Clean Air Day on 8 October. It gives us the opportunity to highlight the importance of clean air, but more importantly to repeat the demand for sustainable, long-term and comprehensive action. Colleagues across the House will know that there are many responsibilities on the Government and on us as parliamentarians, and one of the most important, if not the most important, is our responsibility to protect our environment and preserve our world. A key element of preserving our environment is clean air. It is vital that we remember that our ecosystems are damaged by toxic air and air pollution, as are our waterways and the natural habitats of our wildlife. Of course, there is also the impact on human life, which has been ably mentioned already.

Toxic air contributes to the equivalent of 1,200 deaths a year in Greater Manchester alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) highlighted the premature deaths in her constituency, too. During oral questions last month, I raised the fact that almost 60% of people in England now live in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. We cannot go on as we are.

The covid-19 pandemic has devastated families, communities and, of course, our economy. The lockdown that started in March 2020 led to an improvement in air quality across the Manchester city region, like it did in other parts of the country, as a result of the reduction in road traffic and the significant increase in active travel journeys. That showed that better air quality is achievable, and that vehicle emissions are key to reducing nitrogen dioxide exposure. However, the relaxation of travel restrictions since June has led to increasing vehicle flows.

Following a number of legal challenges by ClientEarth in the High Court, the Government have to date directed 61 local authorities to bring nitrogen dioxide levels on local roads within legal limits as soon as possible. Ministers have delegated the responsibility to address nitrogen dioxide compliance to local authorities and have set out the process and timescale for doing so, with local authorities now responsible for local road networks and their own fleets. However, responsibility for the strategic road network lies with Highways England, which has not been directed to reduce nitrogen dioxide on strategic road networks under the same timescale or process. That is mixed messaging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) highlighted, and needs sorting, so I hope the Minister will issue a clear instruction to Highways England with regard to air pollution caused by the strategic road network.

We want action, but we want the right action in the right way, weighing up all the factors. That means taking steps to discourage drivers and to charge where necessary on the one hand, and financial support for local authorities and businesses on the other, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) highlighted. That is vital, because Greater Manchester, for example, is proposing the largest clean air zone outside London, but that ambition is not being met by Tory Ministers in Whitehall. Indeed, the funding provided by Government to date has not matched the scale or ambition of these plans. When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope she will commit the necessary funding to achieve that.

Active travel has an important role to play in developing solutions to this crisis. During the lockdown, walking and cycling played an increasingly important role in essential journeys and exercise, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West. The hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) highlighted the need to reverse the Beeching cuts, in order to increase train travel in a bid to decrease car use. I know it is a priority for my colleague Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, who has been standing up for his region so well, to secure more walking and cycling as a positive legacy of lockdown and to mitigate against the bounce back to greater reliance on car travel.

The Environment Bill, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington and which I prefer to call the “missing in action Bill”, should be used to tackle toxic air in England. Disappointingly for many in the sector and out in the country, nothing in the Bill will stop the UK falling behind the EU when it comes to the green agenda and our environment. Indeed, the Government’s air quality plans have been ruled unlawful multiple times. Green Alliance does brilliant work on these issues and I pay tribute to Ruth Chambers of Greener UK and all her colleagues for everything they do. In a recent blog, she noted that

“existing air pollution targets expire in 2030, so it is vital to seize the opportunity now to set new limits, exposure reduction targets and emissions targets for all harmful pollutants.”

In the Chamber last week, the Minister announced that there is now an end date for the Committee stage, which is great. It is good to know the end date, but we need to know the start date, and we need to know it now. The Bill has been missing in action for over 200 days and it is simply not good enough to be told it will return soon. Can the Minister give us a date, once and for all?

We all know that air pollution is a public health crisis. This summer the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation Partnership surveyed about 14,000 people with a lung condition and found that the vast majority noticed an improvement in their symptoms, likely due to better air quality during lockdown.

Welsh Ministers in the Welsh Government recognise that we must learn from changes in behaviour and design those changes into tackling toxic air pollution levels going forward. Their plan has a big focus on tackling air pollutants from many sources, including reducing emissions from industry, agriculture and the heating of our homes. I want UK Ministers to reach out and engage with ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations, because we need a coherent focus across all four nations if we are going to clean our air in the way we need to. It is good to see the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) here to demonstrate that clean or dirty air knows no boundaries. It goes across the whole UK.

Before I was elected to Parliament, I spent more than 30 years working in the NHS as a physiotherapist, in common with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Every day I saw the damage that toxic air can cause to the lungs, health and mobility of people of all ages and from all communities, including those whose lungs are damaged while still in the womb and those suffering from asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other serious lung conditions. The task of making air cleaner starts with each of us.

It is important that we are all aware of the air pollution levels in the communities we live in, so we know the local challenges facing us all. That is why the Greater Manchester city region, under the leadership of Andy Burnham and my noble Friend Lady Hughes, is right to be ambitious for the area in the fight to tackle toxic air. I hope the debate, the comments we have heard and the determination of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington shows Ministers that we need more than warm words: we need action too.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Minister, if you require nearly 15 minutes, you can sit down at 3.58 pm and allow the proposer of the debate two minutes at the end. You do not have to speak for 15 minutes if you do not want to, but I thought I would say that to be generous.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to highlight that, through our landmark Environment Bill, we will be delivering on parts of our clean air strategy, which will introduce a target for concentration levels of PM_2.5. We will be setting an additional long-term target on air quality, which actually goes beyond the EU requirement. We will also have in the Bill measures that will improve local air quality management frameworks used by local authorities to make them much simpler and easier to use, and all of those measures will tackle the issues that the hon. Lady so rightly raises.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Campaigners, activists and our constituents are all waiting with bated breath for the return of the Environment Bill, which has dropped off the Order Paper for more than 200 days now and counting. When the Bill finally returns to the House, will the Minister commit to including the World Health Organisation’s guideline air pollution limits in it? She has already said today that she wants the evidence base to be in it, but the WHO has done the work, so can we not have a commitment to accept these guidelines?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for asking about the Environment Bill. As we say constantly, it will be returning very soon, but we do have an out-date for it, which is 1 December, so she can just work backwards from that, and I look forward to seeing her in the Chamber. On the point about the World Health Organisation, she should remember that these are guidelines. We have been praised for our outstanding clean air strategy, which is considered world-leading, and there is an absolute commitment to this. I think she came to one of the evidence sessions where we heard how complicated it is to set the actual target. There are many contributors to this particulate matter, and we have to look at them all before we set the target.

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

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. It is also a pleasure to speak on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition and to say a few words about the draft Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020.

As the Minister has said, these draft regulations are designed to restrict the sale of some types of solid fuels used for domestic purposes. The ultimate purpose, so we hear from Ministers, is to improve air quality and prevent the release of harmful air pollutants. Those are noble aims, but the Opposition are very clear: we need real action, not more hot air.

This instrument contains lots of language along the lines of “We are looking”, “We are considering” or “We are working towards”. We do not want Ministers to be “looking”, “considering” or “working towards”; we want, and our planet desperately needs, Ministers to be doing. As colleagues on both sides of the Committee will know, and as the Minister indicated in her comments, the instrument introduces restrictions on the sale of wet wood for domestic burning, limits the emissions of sulphur and smoke from manufactured solid fuels and phases out the sale of bituminous coal. We note further that Ministers have no plans to ban stoves or open fireplaces, but are instead shifting people from more polluting to less polluting fuels. That is a noble aim, but I ask the Minister: what does this mean and how will it work?

I begin by making it clear that we do not oppose the draft regulations. The Opposition recognise that there is a devastating climate emergency, and we want to do something about it. Our major concern is that the Government appear to have neither any real ambition nor the energy required to deliver the bold, history-making, planet-saving agenda that we need to make progress.

This instrument does recognise the importance of clean air and the desperate need to act to tackle England’s toxic levels of air pollution. In oral questions in the Chamber last week, I raised the fact that almost 60% of people in England are now living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. We cannot go on as we are, but we do need to take the correct course that delivers real change and we want actions, not fine words.

In preparing for this morning’s debate, Mr Chairman, I had a look through the Government’s summary of responses to the 2018 consultation on air quality. I congratulate the Government on the 500 responses to the consultation but, while the Minister claims it was “intensive”, I am not sure that is the word I would have used. It is not always easy to secure responses to Government consultations, so I must say, it is no surprise that there were more responders from stakeholders in the fuel industry than from the people who will be targeted by the changes to domestic usage in the instrument.

Opposition Members have outlined and discussed a number of concerns, which I will touch on briefly. First, as the Minister knows, there are real-time and long-term costs associated with enforcement. Local authorities in England have had more than a decade of Tory and Lib Dem cuts, which have had a huge impact on their ability to provide basic services. I ask the Minister to set out clearly how, when and what scale of resources will be provided for local councils across England for the enforcement of the proposals. If local authorities do not have the resources they need, they cannot enforce the regulations, and that would be another missed opportunity.

Another major concern is the impact of the changes on people living on low incomes in rural areas right across England. The Minister has touched on that already. Opposition Members are standing up for people across England in small towns and rural communities. We urge the Government to be conscious of what their actions mean for people who may not respond to consultations, but will be forced to respond to the effects.

It will be helpful to know where fossil fuels come into this. This cannot simply be about targeting working people and domestic usage to take the burden of cleaning our air; it is vital that big business plays its part too. It would also be helpful if the Minister explained some of the background to the approach to the exemptions. She mentioned the heritage sector, and the statutory instrument’s associated papers state:

“We intend to grant an exemption to freeminers in the Forest of Dean, given the importance of this activity to local heritage and identity.”

Can the Minister clarify and explain that?

As you can tell by my voice, Mr Davies, it is no secret that I am Welsh, and my constituency of Newport West reinforces that point. I am proud of the fact that this is a United Kingdom and I was interested to read the papers for the statutory instrument. They say that Ministers kept the devolved Administrations informed. I ask Ministers to go a bit further and think about what best practice they can learn, what lessons they can pick up and what decisions they need to heed from devolved Governments in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh.

We cannot continue down the line of government by statutory instrument. Yet again, I ask the Minister: when is the Environment Bill coming back to the House? We have had day one of the Committee and many Opposition Members are raring to go. In fact, they are resting up today and getting ready for it, so that is fine. I know that many of the stakeholders I have spoken to in recent days and weeks are also raring to go. It is an important Bill and we should use that once-in-a-generation legislation to tackle many of these changes. I call on the Government to bring the Bill back to the House.

As I indicated earlier, the Opposition will not oppose the regulations, but that said, we urge the Government to think bold, think big and get to work. We are in desperate need of real action, not empty words.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The Environment Bill has a big section on tackling air quality, with two targets to be set. Many other air pollutants—five in total—are also tackled, and we already have targets in place for them as part of the clean air strategy. We have a comprehensive strategy, because we appreciate just how serious the issue of air quality is. We as a Government will be tackling that, including with clean air zones across the country, many of which are coming forward in the near future.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her responses to my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), but may I press her further? According to Labour research, almost 60% of people in England are living in areas where levels of toxic air pollution exceeded legal limits last year. That shocking statistic should jolt the Government into action. Will the Minister commit to incorporating World Health Organisation air-quality standards into the Environment Bill?

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the shadow Minister to her place. As I have said, the Bill contains two targets, and PM2.5 is one of them. We understand that that is the most significant and impactful pollutant of our health, but we must consult on this issue. I have met many experts and specialists in this area, and we must wait for the actual data before we can finally bring those measures into the Bill and ensure that we get this right. As I said, clean air zones are being introduced across the country to tackle this issue through our clean air strategy.

Draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2020 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hosie for calling me to speak. It is good to be with you this morning to discuss the draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition for the first time as the new shadow Minister for the natural environment and air quality. Of course, I should briefly pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who took a passionate interest in these important issues and who no doubt would have relished the opportunity to be here in Committee Room 14 at 9.25 am on a Wednesday.

As the Minister will know, this is not the first time this legislation has been laid for debate in the House. The first version was laid last year, but fell due to the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of the December 2019 general election, which meant we lost important time to consider the myriad decisions and regulations required ahead of the end of the transition period on 31 December this year.

We then had a second iteration of this legislation, which was tabled and then pulled earlier this year. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why it was pulled, so that the House is aware of the smooth operation of this Government’s business. The people of the UK deserve competence and good government, and if the Conservative party does not want to provide those things, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will.

I suspect that all hon. Members saw the media reports this past weekend that Ministers seek to undermine their own legislation by overriding the withdrawal agreement. I have to say that many Labour Members hope that this SI and many others like it do not suffer the same fate.

The Minister and, I suspect, Government Back Benchers present will be pleased to know that Her Majesty’s Opposition have no intention of opposing this SI, but I want to speak briefly to it and to share a word of caution with the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, noted when this business was last considered, those on our Benches welcome the fact that legislation has been passed to ensure that the UK stays in line with the INSPIRE regulations and that we are still committed to sharing our spatial information once the UK leaves the EU. Furthermore, we recognise the important need to create our data in a way that makes it accessible to, and able to be shared with, our friends and allies across the EU and, indeed, further afield.

The Opposition are proud of having internationalist values, and our collective commitment to solidarity, which bind us together as a party and form the basis of our vision for the country and the future of our planet and natural environment. We believe in working together and sharing information. We believe in being good neighbours and taking whatever steps are necessary for a sustainable future for all of us.

Members will know that sharing information has its benefits, whether it is information about energy, water, transport networks and accessibility or—and this is of course important to me as the shadow Minister for air quality—air quality and pollution. There have been many examples over the years where sharing information and data has saved lives, informed responses, and tackled problems. It is of some small comfort to me, and, I suspect, to the Minister, that the biggest cheerleaders of a hard Brexit have yet to move their focus to the sharing of spatial data. I hope that their lack of attention is a recognition of the vital nature of that important area.

Like many who pay attention to such issues, the Opposition are clear that as we move forward it is vital that the country should keep pace with the EU in various areas, including the one we are considering. It is vital that Ministers indicate properly and clearly how we will do that. When the UK had a seat at the table, with a voice, vote and veto, it could improve and influence the standards that we rely on and ensure that important data were shared effectively. Ministers need to ensure that we progress only forward, and that we improve. There can be no slippage and no going back. That goes for science and industry, farming and agriculture, access to water and air quality, and how the House does its job. The Opposition reiterate their commitment to the INSPIRE set-up and the framework and guidance around it, and we encourage Ministers to make all efforts to ensure that there will not be a slip in our approach and standards with our departure from the EU.

Lastly, I restate our concern at the Government’s approach to taking legislation through the House, and their wider approach to our departure from the EU. Government by statutory instrument cannot be the default, and neither can Ministers leave major pieces of legislation until the last minute. We stand ready as a proactive and objective Opposition to work with Ministers where we need to, and I hope that our approach to the SI today demonstrates that, but I caution the Minister that we will continue to hold her and her colleagues to account every step of the way.