Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. At first glance, this seems like a very minor matter, a mistake having been made in the date of implementation of the regulations, 2021 having been substituted for 2015. That technical error does not appear to have been picked up quickly, despite annual quotas for HFCs being set and their importance to a range of essential products, including refrigeration, air conditioning, medical inhalers and fire extinguishers.

HFCs are regulated by quota, which, had the original date of 2021 been adhered to, would have resulted in businesses receiving too little quota. However, levels of HFCs have been reducing since 2015 by 55%, as the Minister has said, so progress is being made towards the 79% reduction required by 2030. I assume that the error was picked up only when the phase-down and three-year recalculation took place. The next recalculation is due in January 2024, and the deadline for its submission is 31 October, so it is a very tight timeline to correct the calculation error.

Although the recalculation does not affect technical operability, not having a consultation is interesting. The businesses that would have been adversely affected had this error not been identified and corrected would, presumably, have suffered at least a disadvantage to their operation, and I would have expected them to have a view on this and to have been consulted. There is also no impact assessment; it has been deemed unnecessary as the instrument corrects a technical error, but that error relates directly to the level of HFCs that can be used in the various products dependent on them.

Should the other place and this Committee refuse to endorse these regulations, there would be an impact on a number of particularly important businesses. However, I understand completely that, at the time of Brexit, the sheer number of SIs passing through Defra was enormous and some errors were unfortunately made. My only surprise was that this one took a while to surface. Nevertheless, I accept the importance of this SI and am content to support it as it stands.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the regulations before us. As has been stated, this is an unusually straightforward statutory instrument as it seeks solely to correct a date error in a piece of retained EU law relating to fluorinated greenhouse gases. Therefore, I plan to keep my contribution short.

However, to reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it is clear that the technical error, as outlined in Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which changed the baseline date for the annual quota system from 2015 to 2021, would have a detrimental impact on the businesses affected and make compliance challenging. It is also contrary to the policy intent. However, it is concerning that the SI is before us only today, when the deadline for recalculating the underlying reference values is 31 October. In other words, the dataset needs to be calculated next week, yet His Majesty’s Government have put this before us only seven days before the deadline. When was the error identified? Could the department have brought forward the instrument earlier to give assurance and clarity to business? Can the Minister also confirm that this is the last example of this error, and that we should not expect to see any more SIs of a similar nature in the coming weeks?

While I have the Minister’s attention, Paragraph 14.1 of the EM notes that a wider review of the F-gas regulation is under way. Can he update your Lordships’ House on the timelines for the review? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their interest in this matter and their contributions to the debate. I reiterate that the amendment made by this instrument relates to the correction of a technical error in the F-gas regulation. The amendment will meet the original intended objective of retaining the substance and phasedown set out in the EU regulation when that regulation was domesticated following our EU exit. This correction will ensure that the Environment Agency recalculates the reference values correctly by the statutory deadline date of 31 October, as noble Lords have pointed out.

On why this has been laid so close to the 31 October deadline, the instrument uses the power in Section 14(2) of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023. The Act received Royal Assent only on 29 June, meaning that there was no time to lay the instrument until now.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how this technical issue arose. The error occurred when we implemented the amending legislation to retain the EU regulation in UK law during the EU exit. Consequently, the error was identified after that period had passed. We did not consult, although we have consulted industry informally and we are responding to what is demanded by these companies. Devolved Administrations were also engaged throughout the development of this instrument and agreement between officials on this provision has been reached. Ministerial consent has been provided by Wales and Scotland. Wider consultation was not deemed necessary, as the amendments introduced by this instrument relate to technical operability and there is no change in related existing policy.

A full impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no impact as a result of its implementation. The instrument corrects a technical error that occurred when direct EU legislation was retained and amended as part of EU exit. The changes that it makes will meet the objective of retaining the substance and phasedown pace of the EU F-gas regulation and there is no change in the related existing policy. I think that noble Lords’ points have been covered and I commend the instrument.

Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 18th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank your Lordships’ House for a truly comprehensive debate. Given the detail of the contributions and that these issues have been considered in depth during this debate and during the consideration of an associated statutory instrument prior to the Conference Recess, I will keep my contribution short.

We consider this legislation to be vital to the implementation of the Windsor Framework and, as we have consistently stated, we support a negotiated outcome with the EU. While the Labour Party does not believe that the Windsor Framework is perfect, it is a substantial improvement on what came before. Although it may be to the disappointment of some, the core tenets of the Windsor Framework are now in operation. While this regret Motion would not undermine it in legislative terms, supporting it—whether at this Dispatch Box or in the Division Lobbies should the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, decide to test the opinion of the House—would suggest that we believe that there is a viable alternative. We are unable to say that and therefore cannot support him.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a wholehearted endorsement of what the Government have achieved because important gaps remain, as we have heard. However, it reflects our belief that a negotiated outcome is preferable to threats or unilateral action and that once a deal is translated into an instrument of international law, it must be respected and upheld. Successive Conservative Governments have, at times, fallen short in this regard. We welcome that, on this occasion, Ministers are doing things by the book.

As I have said, the Windsor Framework is not a comprehensive framework and not every issue with the protocol has been fully resolved. There are several important changes to GB-Northern Ireland trade which strengthen the internal market, but there is still work to do. The Motion tabled by the noble Lord cites concerns around the speed of implementation and lack of public consultation. While we accept the public interest in, and general business support for, moving swiftly, I hope that he remembers my previous comments in relation to the consultation: stakeholders may have been able to make submissions to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but that is no substitute for a more formal process.

I have a few questions for the Minister. He will know that in recent days his noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe provided a written update on the switch-on of the Windsor Framework arrangements. Can the noble Lord the Minister elaborate on the recent changes and confirm how businesses can provide feedback on their operation? We have just returned from the Conference Recess. Many of us in your Lordships’ House would have welcomed the comments from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the leader of the DUP, which suggested that progress was being made in discussions around the Windsor Framework and the all-important restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive—a sentiment he also alluded to in the other place today. On that note, can the Minister provide any update to the House on the DUP’s proposal for the establishment of an east-west council to deal with issues relating to GB-Northern Ireland trade?

It is imperative for all of us to make this work. While we support the negotiated settlement reached earlier this year and hope that it will lead to a marked improvement in the experiences of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, I sincerely hope that moving forward, whether on the Windsor Framework or other issues, His Majesty’s Government make a renewed effort to work with and listen to parties and communities in Northern Ireland, rather than imposing policy and legislation on them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for tabling this Motion, and all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate today. I pay great tribute to him and his colleagues. I entirely understand the passion that underlies their concerns about this. All of us who have had knowledge and understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland over a great many decades appreciate the underlying emotions that exist on issues relating to this. Trade is so important to every person in Northern Ireland for all of us who care about the union.

We have before us two key pieces of legislation, the Windsor Framework (Retail Movement Scheme) Regulations 2023 and the Windsor Framework (Plant Health) Regulations 2023. Both play a pivotal role in the implementation of the Windsor Framework. I am pleased to announce that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has said, the schemes are now live and trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is once again on a more stable and long-term footing. It is our fervent wish to successfully restore the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market and safeguard Northern Ireland’s place in the union.

First, I would like to provide some background on the retail movement scheme regulations. The scheme establishes a robust and sustainable legal framework for the movement of pre-packaged retail agri-food goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. This framework offers traders a unique set of arrangements, reducing barriers to trade by facilitating the movement of consignments based on a single certificate, compared with hundreds of vet-signed certificates for individual products needed under the old protocol. One of the key benefits secured by this scheme is the disapplication of over 60 pieces of EU legislation for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, ensuring a consistent approach across the entire United Kingdom. This means that goods which meet British public health, marketing and organics standards will be able to move to Northern Ireland.

We have a long-standing commitment to ensure that Northern Ireland’s businesses have unfettered access to their most important market, Great Britain. The Northern Ireland protocol guaranteed unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the GB market. This was legislated for in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and is reflected in the border target operating model. Furthermore, it has been raised in this debate that the instruments are contrary to the objectives of the Northern Ireland protocol listed in Article 1(2) of the Windsor Framework. In response to that assertion, I assure noble Lords that the Windsor Framework restores the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the unnecessary burdens that have disrupted east-west trade. We are now able to achieve the long-standing UK government objective of restoring the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. We are confident that the Windsor Framework upholds our objectives to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place in the union is protected. Specifically, the framework allows for goods which meet British standards to be available in all parts of the UK, ensuring that consumers in Northern Ireland have access to the same goods as those elsewhere in the UK.

The plant health regulations pave the way for the smooth movement of plants and seeds for planting, seed potatoes and used agricultural and forestry machinery and vehicles between Great Britain and Northern Ireland when applying a Northern Ireland plant health label. The Northern Ireland plant health label scheme aligns closely with the current UK plant passport regime, making it familiar and accessible to all businesses engaged in the commercial movement of plants within Great Britain. This label will replace the need for plants and seeds for planting to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, significantly reducing costs. Instead of paying £150 per movement into Northern Ireland, growers and businesses can now pay approximately £120 annually to be part of this scheme, which is the same as the cost for the UK plant passport regime.

Importantly, these regulations will also allow previously banned seed potatoes to be once again available in Northern Ireland from other parts of the UK while remaining prohibited in the Republic of Ireland. This will have a significant impact on trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland, with an estimated 2,500 tonnes of seed potatoes expected to move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The EU’s risk assessment process for the movement of so-called high-risk trees, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, is being expedited. Once approved, they will move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland with the Northern Ireland plant health label. We prioritised removing bans on the movement of plants and trees of greatest importance to industry—seed potatoes and the 11 most important British native and other commonly grown trees. I assure my noble friend that hawthorn is under that definition.

The Windsor Framework has also removed the Irish Sea border for goods remaining in the UK, providing a firm legal foundation for trade and allowing everyday goods to move efficiently between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It does so while protecting biosecurity on the island of Ireland, which has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It also safeguards Northern Ireland’s privileged access to the EU single market, which has been a clear demand from businesses to protect livelihoods. These regulations play a critical role in facilitating the seamless movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reducing trade barriers, and promoting a more efficient and cost-effective trading environment. They are essential components of the Windsor Framework; I hope therefore I can convince all noble Lords to support their implementation, as we debated before the Summer Recess.

Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

The Windsor Framework improves trade in Northern Ireland and, on that basis, it should be welcomed. Despite everything that has been said, I welcome this statutory instrument, but, given the grave concerns of DUP Members, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a genuinely fascinating debate and, as ever, shows the complex nature of every issue when we look to our post-Brexit environment. I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument and for the correspondence I received from his fellow Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

This legislation is vital to the implementation of the Windsor Framework and, as His Majesty’s Opposition made clear in the other place, we support a negotiated outcome with the European Union. For the avoidance of doubt, while the Labour Party does not believe that the Windsor Framework is perfect, we do believe it is a substantial improvement on what came before.

His Majesty’s Opposition supported this instrument when a vote was called in the Commons. Again, this was not a wholehearted endorsement of what the Government have achieved—as we have heard today, important gaps remain—but a reflection of our belief that these issues must be resolved through negotiation rather than threats or unilateral action.

This is why I am so grateful to members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, including my noble friend Lady Ritchie, for their reflections on the recent set of Windsor Framework SIs, and for consistently considering the views of colleagues with divergent opinions. As well as key stakeholders, different organisations and political parties may reach varying conclusions on the Windsor Framework, but we should all be able to feed these into the process and have our views heard.

The Windsor Framework was announced in February and many of the changes within it will be operational in just a couple of weeks, so it is concerning that these instruments have been brought forward for consideration only in this short September sitting. I fear that this is something of a pattern, not just in relation to the Windsor Framework but more generally in the tabling of SIs. Can the Minister advise on why this process has been so delayed in both Houses?

In the debate in another place, my right honourable friend and colleague Hilary Benn asked a number of questions and Minister Spencer committed to following up on a number of points in writing. Does the Minister have a copy of this correspondence, and does he wish to read any of its contents into the record? If it has not yet been sent, can participants in this debate be included in the correspondence?

Northern Irish consumers will soon enjoy access to a greater number of goods than was possible under the old protocol. The lifting of restrictions on seed potatoes and certain pre-packed meat products is especially welcome as that is important for farmers and producers on both sides of the Irish Sea. But it is important to note that restrictions remain on some items, including a number of shrubs and trees, many of which are still under review, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. Can the Minister update us on the timing of the review and when we can expect additional trees and shrubs to be added to the green lane?

This instrument deals with enforcement powers, aiming to provide what paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum describes as

“the pragmatic and proportionate enforcement of GB public health, marketing and organics standards in NI for goods moved”

under the new schemes. His Majesty’s Government insist that there will be

“no impact on traders who abide by the terms and conditions and regulations that govern the scheme”.

Does the Minister really endorse that statement? There may be no enforcement impact, but there is a practical impact on businesses, which have to adjust to new procedures as well as covering new and different costs.

Also, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes and as my noble friend Lady Ritchie raised, there has been no formal consultation on these measures, although there has been informal engagement with a range of stakeholders. Given the lack of formal consultation prior to the changes, can the Minister confirm whether there will be any post-implementation review? If so, when? How will that process work?

It is imperative for us all to make this work. While we support the negotiated settlement reached earlier this year and hope it will lead to a marked improvement in the experiences of Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, I sincerely hope that, moving forward, whether on the Windsor Framework or other issues, His Majesty’s Government will make a renewed effort to work with parties and communities in Northern Ireland, rather than imposing policy on them. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. A number of questions have been asked; I will endeavour to answer them all. I will start by answering the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, just raised. We want power-sharing to restart and decisions about the lives of people and businesses in Northern Ireland to be taken by people in Northern Ireland. We really do want to see that happen as soon as possible, of course.

I will tackle the points more or less as they were raised, but I apologise if I mix them all up. The Windsor Framework achieves a long-standing UK government objective to restore the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by pursuing a green lane for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland, supporting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. It restores the smooth flow of trade within the UK internal market by removing the unnecessary burdens that have disrupted east-west trade. At the same time, the Windsor Framework recognises the need to protect the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out, has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. It is the case that some checks, such as those on live animals, were required from GB to Northern Ireland prior to EU exit and before the old Northern Ireland protocol was implemented to protect the integrity of this single epidemiological unit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, that this is about achieving unfettered access for Northern Ireland to Great Britain in trade terms, but this SI is about Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

A number of noble Lords asked about the practical consequences, so let us discuss what would happen if this SI were not taking place or if it were not approved by Parliament. The consequences would be the UK failing to comply with its legal duties and international obligations under the Windsor Framework. This statutory instrument forms part of the Defra Windsor Framework legislation that must be in force by 1 October 2023. It is therefore also required to establish, maintain and support the arrangements agreed under the Windsor Framework.

Specifically, this SI in Defra’s legislative package is required to enable the necessary enforcement of GB standards for goods moving under the Northern Ireland retail movement scheme when placed on the market in Northern Ireland. To protect public health and ensure food safety in Northern Ireland, authorities in Northern Ireland will be able to check and remove non-compliant goods from sale. That will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland are protected by the same high standards as those in Great Britain. The risk of not proceeding would be insufficient public health and food safety protections for consumers in Northern Ireland, meaning that Northern Ireland consumers were less well protected than those elsewhere in the United Kingdom, severely undermining consumer confidence in the Northern Ireland food system. That risk is significant, and any non-legislative alternatives fall short of addressing it.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has, as always, introduced this SI with clarity. This SI relates to extended producer responsibility for packaging, whereby the producer pays a levy or tax for the waste that it produces, which is then collected by the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has in the past accused me of being “nerdy” over certain issues. I fear that waste is one of those issues.

The public consultation took place on this scheme from March to June 2021. As a result of the responses to the consultation, Defra has made changes to the scheme and the implementation date has been extended to 2024. The postponement of the implementation date, along with the possibility of changes to the scheme itself, has caused concern in the plastics and glass industries. On Monday evening, I attended a dinner hosted by the Industry and Parliamentary Trust entitled “Unpacking Waste Regulation: Extended Producer Responsibility”. The discussion around the table was fascinating with many raising concerns about the lack of clear and transparent goals.

I am also perturbed about the scope of the material facilities, referred to in the EM as “MFs”. There is nothing giving further information on what form these material facilities will take. Can the Minister give information on the distinct types of material facilities? Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that waste will arrive at the MFs unsorted. However, in many areas of the country, consumers are already separating their waste into glass, paper, card, plastic bottles, aluminium, steel et cetera. Consumers are up for helping with the problem of waste and separating it out themselves and should be encouraged to do so. What is needed is consistent kerbside recycling collections. What are the plans for this? There needs to be a complete plan for a circular waste economy. Can the Minister please give a timetable for the introduction of this?

Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a list of the responses to the consultation on the part of the Government. There is clarity over the collection of data on weighing and measuring the waste received and the collection of data will give a reasonably accurate picture of what is being produced, but what then happens to the waste? This is equally important. What it does not tell us is what happens to the waste. Does it go to incineration or chemical recycling or is it shipped offshore to be dealt with by other countries, such as Turkey? Currently, 60% of our waste is sent to Turkey. Can the Minister say what will happen with glass?

Paragraph 11 indicates that guidance will be issued for materials facilities in advance of October 2024 when the regulation comes into force. I am not sure whether the Minister said that that guidance had been issued. If not, he will understand that businesses need a long time to adapt to new regulations, in some cases as long as 18 months. However, it is already too late for that deadline to be met. Has the guidance been produced? If not, when is it likely to be produced?

The original proposals were for 60 kilograms of every 125 tonnes of mixed waste from each supplier to be tested. This has now been increased to 60 kilograms for every 75 tonnes of waste. Are suppliers likely to have mixed waste? Will it not already be separated? Some MFs deal with single waste streams or already separated waste while others do not. Can the Minister say what percentage of MFs receive separated waste and what percentage receive mixed waste?

Although this SI is an excellent step forward, there has been a lot of delay and uncertainty. Are the Government confident that the infrastructure is there to deal with the implementation?

I turn to the impacts set out in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid it is simply not true that there is

“no significant impact on business”,

as stated in paragraph 12.1. The DRS itself is likely to add 10p per bottle, which is unlikely to be absorbed by businesses. In paragraph 12.4, the number of MFs in scope is reduced from 739 to 159. This is a dramatic reduction; can the Minister please explain it?

Paragraph 12.6 refers to

“a larger proportion of privately operated facilities”,

thus reducing the cost to local authorities. However, some local authorities may not have their own facilities. How many local authorities use privately run facilities? There will undoubtedly be additional costs to local authorities, despite the offset to be received from the EPR levy.

Who, or which organisation, will the EPR scheme administrator be, and when is the appointment likely to be? It will be important for local authorities and businesses to know this in sufficient time before the implementation.

I apologise for the number of questions, but I am keenly interested in this subject and ensuring that the scheme operates effectively. I support the SI but am concerned that its implementation should operate efficiently and effectively.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?

A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?

Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must

“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.

Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?

During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their interest in this. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is a waste nerd. Her social life is fascinating—having dinners discussing this—and I will seek to answer in a way that respects her genuine expertise. She is absolutely right that consumers will play a key role. In a way, this also responds to what consumers are demanding. When I was a councillor, my local authority recycled and diverted away from landfill approximately 17% of waste. I am glad to say that the administration who took it over raised the rate of diversion away from landfill to 90%. Householders are determined that the circular economy described by the noble Baroness should be relevant to their lives. They object dramatically to the idea that waste diverted from landfill goes to other countries, so we want to make sure that we are creating a circular economy in this country and that there are markets for the amount of waste produced.

The noble Baroness is right that we are increasing the amount we require to be checked to 60 kilograms per 75 tonnes. After close consultation and discussions with experts and local authorities and working with materials facilities operators, we think that is realistic and will give us the data we require to have a really clear view of what is being provided by these facilities. I cannot tell her what percentage will be separated waste and what will be mixed waste because different local authorities have different contracts and arrangements, but I assure her that we are involved in a detailed level of engagement and that issues such as the EPR administrator are fundamental to making sure that this progresses.

Both noble Baronesses raised the question of deposit return schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we want to try to align our deposit return scheme across the United Kingdom, if possible. That has required us to talk closely to Scotland—which has, frankly, messed it up—and we now seem to be in a position to take forward, by some point in 2025, an effective and meaningful deposit return scheme that will deliver a massive environmental benefit. I am reminded that the plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of plastic bags of more than 95%. We think that a properly structured deposit return scheme should have only a marginal inflationary effect and should incentivise people to be part of a scheme that will see a dramatic reduction in waste.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, touched on the timescale of the deferral. The deferral does not apply to all obligations and requirements under EPR. The start of producer payments under EPR will be deferred by 12 months. This addresses another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Producers obligated under EPR are still required to collect and report data as per existing regulations. We need this data to develop and then share estimated EPR fees. Gathering and sharing this information will help businesses prepare for these changes, and it is something that businesses have asked for. EPR payments deferral will also impact on some specific timelines, including the introduction of modulated fees and binned packaging waste fees and payments.

We are concerned about cost, and our response to the consultation on the EPR scheme included an impact assessment, which has been referred to and which covered the expected costs to materials facilities. As we developed the amending legislation, the definition and types of materials facilities that would be in scope were clarified. As a result, we updated our assumptions regarding the number of facilities that would be in scope from 739 to 159, reducing the sampling burden where possible. Using these updated numbers, we have estimated a lower cost associated with this legislation.

This is really important: the costs associated with the new requirements within this SI were found to be lower than previously estimated in the impact assessment produced for the EPR scheme. Although the scope has reduced, the methodology to estimate the impact on the materials facilities of enhanced sampling remains unchanged from the previously published EPR impact assessment.

Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a delight to be back in the Moses Room. I hope noble Lords all had a rewarding and relaxing recess—if they can remember it after eight days. We come together again after a summer of yet more horrendous headlines about illegal discharges into our waterways, amateur athletes being taken ill after swimming in our rivers and, apparently—according to the Office for Environmental Protection—the Government and our regulators may have broken the law with regard to the 852 sewage discharges that are now occurring daily. This is a sorry state of affairs.

It is only right and proper that we review the current regulatory and enforcement framework so that we ensure that criminals are punished for breaking the law. I just worry that the proposals in the legislation before us are more of a political stunt rather than a plan to deal with the current crisis affecting our waterways, given that uncapped fines are already available to the financial regulator.

I know from personal experience that the Minister is truly committed to protecting our environment. His record is clear and not to be questioned. However, we are seeing such mixed messages from the Government regarding their commitment to environmental regulation: they promised not to reduce regulation yet, even as we speak, their proposals in the Chamber regarding nutrient neutrality in the levelling up Bill are seemingly a broken promise related to this issue. So I am sure that the Minister understands why some of us have some concerns about the current state of environmental regulation and enforcement.

I turn to the substance of this SI. We will of course support these changes but, as was made clear during the debate in the other place, His Majesty’s Opposition are not convinced that these actions alone will make any real impact on the sewage crisis currently before us. Given the urgency of the situation and the facts that your Lordships’ House sat for longer than the other place prior to the Summer Recess, that MPs agreed the legislation on 18 July and that it was laid before us on 12 July, can the Minister confirm why this SI was not brought forward for approval sooner?

There is a long history of regulators having the power to issue fines or pursue legal action but there are relatively few cases of these steps reaching a conclusion. What, if anything, makes the Minister believe that this time will be different? Can she provide the Committee with more detail about how these fines will be set aside and spent? The Secretary of State has previously said that they will go into a dedicated fund, which will, where possible, invest in local improvements. Can the Minister provide a definition of “local”? I do not aim to be difficult but is this an aim or a requirement? What will happen if it is thought that infrastructure improvement elsewhere would have a greater impact on future discharge levels in a locality?

While I have the Minister’s attention, can he update us on when the sewage task force established by Defra last met? I believe that it has met only once in the past 12 months. If the Government are truly serious about tackling this crisis, the task force may wish to meet more regularly than once a year. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their response to this instrument and their qualified support for what the Government are doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, rightly pointed out that the consultation produced a clear level of support, which is why we are taking this through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked why this is being brought forward now. It has been through a process, including the consultation and the response to it, and SIs cannot be done overnight. They need to be drafted and brought forward properly; I think that we brought this one forward in as timely a way as possible. I hope that she does not think that this a stunt or any form of window dressing because it is a very serious attempt to tackle the justice gap that I referred to in my earlier remarks. The SI was brought in to address precisely the justice gap that exists within the environmental civil sanctions regime. Expectations of the Government and the public on protections for the environment are higher than ever. We need to address this gap and ensure that regulators have the right tools to take action against environmental offences.

The noble Baroness asked whether this will make a difference. Deterrent is the best form of avoiding pollution in the first place. If the level of fines was no deterrent and was being priced in by some bad actors, that will no longer be the case and they will face very severe financial penalties indeed. It should be added that, since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 criminal prosecutions against water companies and secured £150 million in fines. The regulators—the Environment Agency and Ofwat—have recently launched the largest-ever criminal and civil investigation into water companies’ sewage discharges, at more than 2,200 treatment works. The Environment Agency will act against non-compliance. This will include criminal prosecution, for which there can be unlimited fines. On 12 July we began legislation to introduce unlimited civil penalties, which is before the Committee today.

This needs to be seen in the context of more activity than there has ever been to try to address the quality of our waters. The storm overflow actions start from the basis of knowing where the storm overflows are, which we did not when we came into government. The coalition Government set about requiring water companies to tell us where their overflows were. We are now at the point of knowing every single one, and that is part of the reason why a light has been shone on the activities of some water and sewerage companies. Transparency is the best form of sanction because people can see what is going on—and so can the enforcement authorities. We have increased monitoring and will have 100% monitored by the end of this year.

Other continuous efforts will be part of this. In 2022, 93% of our bathing waters in England met the highest standards of “good” or “excellent”, up from 76% in 2010, but that statistic will not see us rest on our laurels. We want to make sure that all bathing waters are of good or excellent standard. We are eliminating all storm overflows and seeing investment levels never seen before.

The noble Baroness asked about the sewage task force. I do not know when it last met, but I am happy to find out and share that. There are a whole lot of engagement activities, including talking to water and sewerage companies and working with the Environment Agency. Just because one body has not met, that does not mean there is not a resolve to deal with this problem; this is part of it. I hope that, with those remarks, I have addressed this statutory instrument.

Orphan Sites: Hazardous Waste

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord is asking about an issue that is not in my knowledge. I will therefore write to him on the matter.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The Minister knows that the dumping of hazardous waste is on many occasions undertaken by organised crime gangs. Given that, how many successful prosecutions have there been over the last 12 months of individuals who have abandoned responsibility for hazardous waste sites?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right that organised crime is involved in this, as well as very low-level speculative crime, and it is important that we have measures in place to deal with that. In the financial year 2021-22 the Environment Agency brought 94 prosecutions against companies and individuals for waste-crime offences, resulting in total fines exceeding £6.2 million. In the three years since the Joint Unit for Waste Crime was launched, it has worked with 102 partner organisations and engaged in 175 multiagency days of action, and there have been 51 associated arrests.

Climate Change

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises a really important point. What we are doing through our environmental land management schemes and future farming is to try to make farming more resilient in so many ways. One of the great difficulties we face in the east and the south of England is that we have rainfall levels in many parts that are equivalent to some sub-Saharan African countries, and using water, slowing it and using it more sensibly, with the production of more reservoirs, is crucial. Also, the Bills that this House has passed, such as the one on gene technology, producing crops that are more resilient to drought, are really important.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, in his recent resignation letter, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, cited a concern that

“the UK has visibly stepped off the world stage and withdrawn our leadership on climate and nature”.

He told us:

“The problem is not that the government is hostile to the environment, it is that you, our Prime Minister, are simply uninterested. That signal, or lack of it, has trickled down through Whitehall and caused a kind of paralysis”.


Does the Minister agree with his former colleague?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

This Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed to the doubling of our international climate finance contribution to £11.6 billion, one of the most generous of any country. I have been to three recent COPs and seen that the United Kingdom is revered in this area of policy in a way that I cannot put words to, because we are leading on so much of this. At COP 27, the UK committed to tripling its funding for climate adaptation finance. In 2021, the UK was the first Government to endorse the principles for locally led adaptation, which has now been picked up by 140 countries. We are very much a leader, and I know that this Prime Minister, who gave that assurance again at the more recent COP, is right behind making sure that we are tackling this the greatest challenge that mankind has ever faced.

European Union: Trade Barriers

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the operations manager at Felixstowe port, Hannah Panting, told the BBC that Defra has informed it that the health authority will have to check between 1% and 30% of EU food exports. She rightly pointed out that the unknown is very difficult to work with, and that it is nice to have a plan and know what your targets are. I think the House would agree. Can the Minister assist Hannah?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We work very closely with Hannah and other port managers—for example, on the common user charge, which is a way of alleviating very high costs on some and very low costs on others, which we think is fair—but we also work with local authorities. The local health authority is also facing a cost-recovery arrangement. We are making sure that we have a risk profile that minimises the number of stops for low-risk items, but we are absolutely focused on the problem. We will continue to work with ports and all other authorities to make sure that the impact is minimised as much as possible.

Farm Animal Welfare

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

This is a fast-moving technology all over the world, and I think people look at it with some suspicion in terms of where plants come from and what has to happen to plants in order to make them both taste like meat and look like meat. We want to support a livestock industry in this country that continues to have a much wider benefit across the rural economy but with the highest welfare standards possible. However, in this area of policy, if a Minister was to stand at this Dispatch Box and go to the furthest extreme possible, there would still be people in the animal welfare movement—or more the animal rights movement—who would say it is too little, too late; you will never satisfy everyone. I think the Government have this right.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Nearly three years ago, the campaign group Christian Ethics of Farmed Animal Welfare published a report exploring the ethics of current farming practices, yet little has seemingly progressed. When Christian churches are concerned about severe welfare problems experienced by caged laying hens, broiler chickens and the impact of fast-growth breeds, we should probably take note. What discussions is the Minister having with chicken farmers to encourage transition back to slower-growing, higher-welfare breeds of chicken, as recommended by the RSPCA?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I refer the noble Baroness to my earlier comments about the power of the consumer here and retailers in informing their consumers and providing what they want. There is that side to it, but the Government have a role. The UK is currently 91% self-sufficient in eggs and produces 40 million hens per year. The movement for them to be either in cages where there are high welfare standards or reared in the open air is now moving very fast, but there is more that we can do. That is why we passed several rafts of legislation in recent years: the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act; the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act, which does have relevance here; the Animals (Penalty Notices) Act; and a whole range of other measures, which we described in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare which the Government are taking through. Some of them are legislative but not all of them.

REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. As with a number of SIs in the past, we have been facing this issue since 2019. At that time, the Government were urged from all sides, especially the chemical industry, to stay within EU REACH. The data analysis and licensing systems that would not be made available to the UK were and are extensive. This would not be the case if the country remained within EU REACH.

The need for registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals is obvious. It protects the public, plants and animals from the harm caused by toxic chemicals, all of which have to be licensed and registered. This is a complex process. Without access to EU REACH data, a completely new set of data had to be compiled and licensed from scratch. This involves animal testing. We cannot get away from this fact. It is necessary, but it could have been avoided. It will also involve huge financial costs to the chemical industry.

On 4 March 2019, my noble friend Lord Fox and I met Defra officials along with the then Minister. We stressed the huge costs involved, which we felt ran into billions, and the long timeframe needed to get the necessary licences in place. I regret to say that we were treated with contempt and told that it would be much cheaper and quicker than our predictions.

The deadline before implementation has already been extended from that set on 26 March 2019. In answer to an Oral Question in September 2020, Defra revealed that EU REACH employed some 600 staff and took 10 years to deal with the difficulties in the system at a cost of £100 million. Defra proposed to achieve the same with 40 staff, at a cost of £13 million. By December 2020, in a debate on a regret Motion, a cost of £1 billion was mentioned.

Here we are today once again extending the already extended timeframe. This is a piece of elastic that has come to the end of its life. Defra’s estimation of the current costs for completing the licensing is now between £1.3 billion and the figure that I think the Minister mentioned of £3.5 billion. I have tremendous respect for the Minister and his predecessor, but on this occasion I have to say to Defra: “We told you so”.

In a debate in 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, began his remarks by saying:

“My Lords, I would like to echo the regret that others have expressed that we have allowed ourselves to walk into this unnecessary nightmare”.—[Official Report, 8/12/20; col. 1162.]


I could not agree more. It is clear than an extension of the timeframe is needed. Is the Minister sure that the timings now being requested will be sufficient? In its report of 11 May, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which he referred, says that it does not believe that the alternative transitional registration—ATR—model deadline of 2024 is achievable. Can the Minister say whether, during this extended timeframe, animals will continue to be subjected to painful and harmful testing methods? Others have spoken about the effect and the danger of hazardous substances.

Given that the extended timeframe favours large businesses with the greatest tonnage, can the Minister assure the Grand Committee that the smaller but nevertheless vital businesses often providing subcontract work will be able to survive? How many, if any, businesses dealing with and producing chemicals have gone under since the country left EU REACH?

The Minister referred to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. How will the three-year extension period proposed today interact with the sunset provisions in the REUL Bill? I believe he said that there would be no impact, but I would be glad for confirmation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this issue and the proposed extended deadlines.

In November 2022, Defra extended the submission deadlines for the consultation outcomes. Some 82% of the 289 responses had a strong preference for a three-year extension. However, the NGOs preferred no extension at all. This was due to concerns that the ATR model would be weaker and less protective of human health and the environment than current transitional arrangements, which are also still under development. UK REACH is supposed to be bound by the Environment Act’s precautionary principle. However, there is clear risk involved in the ATR model.

The Chemical Industries Association, the CIA, stresses the importance of urgently providing legal certainty to businesses. The current level of uncertainty around registration requirements, expected timelines and related costs is not encouraging new market opportunities. Extending deadlines is not providing the clarity needed on the viability of the registration model or allowing sufficient time for appropriate legislation to be developed and for authorities and industries to implement it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. Will the Minister please comment?

The CIA is of the view that an effective UK REACH could be achieved even without requiring a full resubmission dossier of all substances already registered under EU REACH. Sadly, so prejudiced is Defra to anything that might smack of the EU, it will not adapt EU REACH and insists that UK REACH will be better. If we ever get there, it certainly will not be cheaper.

I will give an example from the CHEM Trust. In its second-year programme, UK REACH deprioritised controls on nine hazardous substances targeted by the EU. These included concentration limits for eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used as infill and, in loose form, in synthetic football pitches and playgrounds. These are linked to increased cancer risk. A typical sports pitch uses 120 tonnes of these crumbs. According to a 2017 study, six tonnes of potentially carcinogenic material would be non-compliant with the current EU standards. Is Defra’s prioritisation of fewer EU controls on harmful substances a short-term measure until it reaches capacity, or will it introduce other measures to close the protective gap that is opening up before our eyes?

I have serious concerns about the deliverability of the UK REACH regulations. However, I feel I have no choice but to support the extension of the timeframe for delivery. I have a terrible feeling that the ATR will not be achieved and that we will be debating this issue again before too long.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the SI before us and for his correspondence in advance of today’s debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which highlight the importance of the discussion. Given the discussion in the other place, it will not surprise the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will support this SI. However, we have some specific concerns relating to the direction of the post- Brexit REACH regulatory framework and the capacity of the HSE as a statutory body to provide effective enforcement.

As we discussed last week in our debate on the packaging waste statutory instrument—I am becoming a pro—the collation of this data is key to the implementation and enforcement of an effective regulatory regime. But that requires the Government to move at speed to ensure that they have the data available to make informed decisions. Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The changes provide sufficient time for the government to develop and introduce a new registration model that will cater for EU registrations transferred to Great Britain under Title 14A of UK REACH”.


The Government have known about the need to develop and introduce this model for seven years. In fact, the Minister will remember that discussions regarding the future of REACH were a regular feature of the debate around Brexit in the other place before and after the referendum. Given that the industry has been doing everything possible to support the department in reaching a new model, can the Minister inform the Committee why the department is so far behind schedule and why this is being addressed only now?

Paragraph 7.2 of the EM states:

“The statutory timelines for HSE to carry out their compliance checks on the information submitted by industry are also being extended to align with the data submission deadlines”.


I sound like a stuck record, but this is a similar situation to the ones we have seen with imports of food and certain goods from the EU, with launch dates repeatedly postponed due to a lack of preparedness. Can the Minister inform the Committee why we repeatedly need to extend the deadlines?

Later paragraphs of the EM—from paragraph 7.7 onwards—explain why His Majesty’s Government have opted to take a different approach and outline the likely timescales on implementing changes to IT systems. Why were industry concerns about the cost of the original proposal not given more weight at the time? How many civil servants have been used and how much financial resource has been spent on the original option? How much of the work that has already been done can Ministers carry over? While industry supports the changes being made, concerns have already been voiced about the workability of the alternative system and its potential implications for safety, which must remain paramount. We are not against divergence from the EU, but we must not allow gaps to form in our regulation of chemicals. Neither businesses, workers nor citizens will benefit if health and well-being are put at risk unnecessarily.

The Minister in the House of Commons, Rebecca Pow, addressed concerns about the HSE’s capacity by saying:

“Its capacity is increasing all the time … by 2025 the number of HSE staff working on UK REACH delivery is expected to grow to 50, and the number is around 60 or 70 if we consider the wider support functions”.


We welcome that ramping up of capacity, but is the Minister satisfied that this staffing level is sufficient given the areas that we are talking about? In that debate, the Minister also said that the department

“will be developing a chemical strategy”

and that we

“will hear more about that in due course”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 16/5/23; cols. 9-10.]

Can the Minister here, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, be any more specific? How confident is he that this will not simply be added to the list of items that arrive late?

I sincerely believe that each and every one of us wants nothing more than a regulatory framework that keeps our population safe and secure. Given the nature and importance of the REACH regulations, it is therefore vital that we do not just get this right but get it done quickly.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful for noble Lords’ interest in this issue, their important contributions to this debate and their support for the REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023. I will deal with as many of the points as I can.

On my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s point, I can absolutely confirm that there is no intention to amend or revoke any of these measures in the next two years. I will come on to the point about cost.

On the 2024 date, which the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and a number of noble Lords raised, I repeat the point that I made earlier: the Government are confident that we will be able to meet that date. I am sure that noble Lords will be active in holding the Government to account on that.

On the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the Health and Safety Executive continues to increase its capacity. The National Audit Office report from May 2022 details the increased staffing levels at the HSE, including the staffing level in its Chemicals Regulation Division going up by 46% between September 2020 and March 2022. The HSE has continued to build capacity in the last year. In the longer term, by 2025, the number of HSE staff working on UK REACH delivery is expected to grow to 50, or around 60 to 70 when considering wider support functions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned that the staff in the EU directorate numbered 600. Of course, that covers the whole of the EU, which is a considerably larger area, but nevertheless we seek to align any regulatory changes we can with them, working with the EU, and I will give more assurances on that.