Blaydon Quarry Landfill Site
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate. She has spoken with eloquence and passion in representing her constituents here today. She referred to some of the work that was undertaken by her predecessor, Dave Anderson, who was also very proactive on the subject. She is right to ask why it is taking years to sort the situation out. If she does not mind, I will set out a few ways in which action has been taken and is still proactively under way, as I think she is aware.
It is important to ensure we have clear and strong environmental regulation and planning controls that work for the environment, for people and for business. Twice in her four questions, the hon. Lady asked about practical and legislative steps, including stronger powers for the Environment Agency. I am pleased to say that, during the next Session of Parliament, in the Environment Bill, we hope to introduce powers to tackle some of the issues that she raised. An ongoing policy, and a success of both the former Labour Government and this Government, is the gradual and significant reduction in the amount of waste that goes to landfill. That has largely been driven by the success of the landfill tax. We will continue to do more to try to increase recycling.
A well-functioning and regulated waste industry is essential for us. It enables us to maximise the efficient use of our resources and to minimise the impacts of waste on the environment. The Environment Agency is the regulator for the sector in England. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to an issue in his constituency, and he is right that neighbourhood relations are important for any waste operator. He will be aware that a different regulator applies. He mentioned strong community relations, which were made possible by the council on which he used to serve.
The Environment Agency issues environmental permits for waste operators and regulates against them. It particularly targets operators that do not comply with the regulatory framework and that, in turn, cause suffering to nearby communities. Environmental permits are issued for regulated activities carried out at sites. In the case of a permitted landfill facility, such as that located at Blaydon quarry, the permit will cover hazards and risks arising from the activities on the site of the landfill. The current permit has been in place since landfill activity recommenced in 2004. The permit allows for the deposit of up to 329,000 tonnes of non-hazardous waste within engineered cells on the site.
Environmental permits do not cover wider planning controls, and nor should they if we are to avoid unnecessary regulatory duplication. The site has planning permission to allow landfilling, and that was issued and is governed by Gateshead Council. I am conscious of the hon. Lady’s request to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about enforcement and location. We believe that councils already have the opportunity to do both those things. I recognise the challenges on historic sites where relocation is no longer necessarily possible.
In May 2012 the permit was transferred from the initial operator to Niramax Group Ltd. It was transferred again in May 2013 to Octagon Green Solutions Ltd, which continues to operate the site today. In 2017, two applications were made to transfer the permit, first to the landowner, Recyclogical Ltd, and secondly to a company called Midwest Solutions Ltd. A third transfer application was received in September 2018, again in relation to Midwest Solutions Ltd. All those applications have been refused, most recently just last week, because the Environment Agency has not been satisfied that the companies had sufficient competence to comply with the permit.
It is right that only properly competent people can hold a waste permit. In this instance, the Environment Agency was concerned that the applicants lacked the ability to comply with permits and to run a waste site effectively. That is in line with our work to tighten up the waste permitting and exemptions regime by raising the bar for people to operate in the sector.
Understandably, the hon. Lady read out a litany of non-compliance, which resulted in notices being served. Between 2014 and 2018, the Environment Agency served a series of enforcement notices for the identified issues on the Blaydon site. Those breaches included litter escaping from the site, for which additional control measures were installed, including the improved management of landfill gas and leachate. There were also additional engineering works following odour issues. In February 2019, it was found that odour issues were coming from an area of waste that was not properly tipped or covered, and a regulation 37 suspension notice was served to prevent waste input while remedial works were carried out. As the hon. Lady pointed out, that notice was served on 19 February, and the work was completed and the notice lifted on 26 February.
The hon. Lady is right to point out that there have been a number of breaches. By and large, the company—perhaps cleverly—has responded quite quickly to those breaches. However, we would of course rather that the breaches did not happen in the first place. A number of planning contraventions on the site are also being investigated by Gateshead Council. The Environment Agency and Gateshead Council work closely together on the site and have ongoing engagement with the local community, including through attending regular meetings. I encourage Gateshead Council to do more on planning enforcement in this regard.
The Environment Agency is concerned about the level of non-compliance with the permit. Following the issues that led it to serve a suspension notice in February, it is now investigating fully whether the operator is fit to continue to run the site, and is exploring its options regarding further sanctions. In addition to prosecution, further sanctions could include serving a permit revocation notice, which would prevent any further landfilling from taking place.
Let me turn to the wider policy context. After our consultation last year, from 7 April, all permitted waste sites will need to demonstrate technical competence through a scheme approved by the Government. This change will provide the regulator with the flexibility to use its full range of enforcement powers, such as enforcement or suspension notices, on all waste operation permits to ensure that the operators are technically competent. The Government recently announced a tougher approach to the regulation of environmental permits, including tightening up technical competence requirements and allowing the Environment Agency to take a wider range of criminal convictions—beyond environmental offences—into account when considering permit applications and variations.
Our resources and waste strategy commits us to the recommendations of the review into serious and organised criminality in the waste sector, which was completed last autumn by Lizzie Noel. We will continue to bear down on criminal activity in the waste sector and drive out of the sector the organisations that undercut legitimate businesses and make communities’ lives miserable. Let me be clear to the hon. Lady and the House that the Government and the Environment Agency take the regulation of the waste sector very seriously.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am very much alive to the challenges faced by residents in her constituency and beyond, as is the Environment Agency, and I will continue to work proactively with her and to bear down on those operating in a manner that causes pollution, ugliness and misery in the affected communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s progress report was published this month, and of 19 targets assessed, five are on track and 14 show progress, but at an insufficient rate. The Aichi targets are multifaceted and global in scope, and they include a mixture of processes and outcomes, which are not always specific. Their assessment requires a degree of interpretation and judgment. Nevertheless, the report identifies progress, but there is more that we need to do.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that response. As she says, we are on track to miss 14 of the 20 targets. Given that they are meant to be achieved by 2020—next year—what talks has she had with the Treasury to achieve target 20, on mobilising financial resources? Will they be reflected in the forthcoming comprehensive spending review?
Dr Coffey
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State just pointed out, one of the changes that will be coming as a result of our leaving the European Union is that the UK—England, certainly—will have a new way of doing environmental land management, and the public services will be paid for by taxpayers. Many of the targets are quite nebulous—[Interruption.] Because they are not particularly specific and are open to interpretation and judgment. We are working carefully on that and have made excellent progress on marine conservation. We are doing global work to ensure that, when the next targets are agreed, which will happen next year for 2030, the UK will lead the way in ensuring that 30% of oceans are marine conservation areas.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very much enjoyed that meeting and visit. He and I are committed to ensuring we do more to protect the wonderful species that are part of our natural habitat, including our marine habitat. We will work hard to do exactly what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) is seeking to achieve.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Only about 4% of the world’s oceans are protected. Although I hear what the Minister just said about the aim to increase that, what work can we do with our overseas territories to increase that far more quickly, not least to have an overall target of reducing plastic in the oceans?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. Once we designate the marine conservation zones, which I believe will happen in the next two months, the UK will have comfortably exceeded the 30% target that we have set ourselves for the rest of the world by 2030. One of the key things that I do at G7 Environment and in other forums is speak to other nations to see what more we can do to get more designations. The hon. Gentleman is also right about plastics. He will be aware that at the spring statement the Chancellor specifically referred to the overseas territories. Ascension Island will be moving its entire economic zone to fully protected status, and we will continue to work on the Blue Belt programme, which I think will be one of the greatest achievements of this Government.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
We have heard that the UK is on track to meet only five of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets. This is an environmental and climate emergency. Does the Minister—and the Secretary of State—agree with the around 50 councils and thousands of young people who have declared an environment and climate emergency? Will they today commit to join Labour in declaring a national environment and climate emergency?
Dr Coffey
We are already ahead of the game, with a 25-year environment plan published last year, and the strategies and the work that are ongoing. We are making significant improvements in improving our natural environment, and I genuinely hope that the whole House comes together and gets behind the plan to ensure that we leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it.
Sue Hayman
The question was: will the Minister commit to join me in declaring a national environment and climate emergency? The answer, to be honest, was a bit of a fudge. Labour is going to bring this forward, with or without the Government’s support. Will the Government think again and commit to announcing an environment and climate emergency, and will they commit to meeting the youth strike action for climate representatives?
Dr Coffey
DEFRA will account for more than half the achievements under the Paris agreements, so I can assure the hon. Lady that work is very much under way on improving the climate and also the environment. This is about actions rather than words. I pay particular tribute to those who joined the Great British spring clean this weekend and who will do so for the next few weeks. I am very happy to work with young people, as we are with our Year of Green Action 2019. We are already working with the Step Up To Serve brigade, which we will be doing with the National Citizen Service.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I have discussed certain issues with Home Office Ministers; I am thinking particularly of recent discussions about hare coursing. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is for chief constables to determine how offences are enforced, but I welcome the move by police and crime commissioners to increasingly make that a priority for their local constabularies.
Bill Esterson
Foxhunting is illegal in this country, yet it is allowed and even encouraged by some landowners. This is not trail hunting; it involves the pain and suffering of animals before they are killed. Will the Minister confirm that she supports the prosecution of those involved in this cruel activity, including landowners—even if they are Members of this House?
Dr Coffey
I think the hon. Gentleman was about to make an allegation against somebody. It is important that evidence be provided to the police, and it is for them to make a recommendation to the Crown Prosecution Service. If anybody is breaking the law on this sort of activity, I fully welcome prosecutions being made.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
What investigations is the Minister making on what drives rural and wildlife crime, so that the police can understand it and respond appropriately?
Dr Coffey
Both DEFRA and the Home Office fund the national wildlife crime unit and support its work in investigating crimes. They undertake analysis and share intelligence with police forces. There are six wildlife crime priorities—badgers, bat and raptor persecution, illegal trade in species covered by the convention on international trade in endangered species, poaching and freshwater mussels, but more can be done locally, and I am aware that hare coursing in particular concerns many Members of Parliament.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister will be aware of the devastating impact that dog attacks on livestock can have for farmers. What discussions are the Government having with colleagues about possible amendment to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 to better enable police forces to address the matter?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is already an offence to leave an engine running unnecessarily when the vehicle is stationary on a public road. Local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices to drivers who leave engines running after being asked to turn them off. Westminster Council is probably the most successful at this, but I encourage local authorities to use their powers so that more people stop idling unnecessarily.
Bambos Charalambous
What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about the need to establish ring-fenced funding for local authorities to implement measures to protect our children’s health where they are disproportionately affected by toxic air in areas where they live, learn and play?
Dr Coffey
The Government are investing more than £3.5 billion in the strategy to improve air quality. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this matter is devolved to the Mayor of London. I know that he is seeking to be active on this, but there is more that local authorities can do today that is self-financing in order to improve air quality, including on this issue of idling.
Stephen Morgan
Given that the Secretary of State accepts that air quality is a matter of social justice and health inequality, why is he doing so little to support low-income households to switch to cleaner forms of transport?
Dr Coffey
I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets that impression from. We have offered grants to people who want to switch to electric vehicles. We are investing several billion pounds in different strategies to help people make that switch. We outlined other issues of air quality in our clean air strategy, which the World Health Organisation has said is something that every other country in the world should follow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Dr Coffey
I have met Highways England with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), on several occasions. The chief executive holds a fortnightly meeting to discuss air quality and the progress that it is required to make under our air quality plan, and I am convinced that I can organise a direct meeting for my hon. Friend with him to discuss his specific issue.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Air quality around schools is a concern, and in my constituency and west Cornwall we are working up a plan to plant 20,000 trees with our school children by the end of 2020 to improve their air quality. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can deliver that ambition?
Dr Coffey
I welcome anyone who wants to plant trees. I think it is fair to say that the scientific evidence does not definitively say that trees help air quality, but they are good in so many other ways. It is about improving the local environment. We must continue to do more to ensure that children are not affected by poor air quality, and I welcome activities around the country to achieve that.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The House will be aware that we increased the amount of money being spent on flood defences between 2015 and 2021—£2.1 billion across those six years—better to protect more than 300,000 homes. The hon. Lady will be aware that there are formulas for how we can allocate money to projects. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) opened up the doors with a partnership funding approach, which is largely working. However, I am very conscious that the hon. Lady is doing diligent work on behalf of her constituents to get better flood protection.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Dr Thérèse Coffey
The Government are absolutely committed to that aim. We are making good progress on regulations to achieve that, on cross-Government strategies, and on working with industry to do precisely what my hon. Friend wants. I praise the volunteers who went out litter-picking to keep the beach clean; I used to play on that beach as a child, and it is great to see that it is in safe hands under the stewardship of my hon. Friend, working with the local community.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State agree to meet Humber MPs to discuss making funding for a national flood resilience centre in the Humber area a priority in the comprehensive spending review?
Wildlife Crime
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I know that you are passionate about animals and wildlife, so I am sure that you have enjoyed the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on securing this important debate on wildlife crime. I know that he is particularly concerned about the events that took place over Christmas in his constituency and nearby. Following his parliamentary question in January, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials contacted the Cheshire Constabulary, which has confirmed that an investigation into the five fox deaths is ongoing. We will be informed when or if the Cheshire constabulary decides to refer a file to the Crown Prosecution Service. As he will appreciate, I cannot comment further on that specific matter, but I assure him that I am confident that the police will ascertain whether a crime has been committed and, if so, will take appropriate action.
The Government recognise the importance of tackling all wildlife crimes, which is why DEFRA, together with the Home Office, directly funds the National Wildlife Crime Unit to support its work to investigate these crimes. The National Police Chiefs Council, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Government also contribute to that funding. The National Wildlife Crime Unit is ably led by Chief Inspector Louise Hubble, who I have met. It helps prevent and detect wildlife crime by obtaining and disseminating intelligence, undertaking analysis that highlights local or national threats, and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations.
Across the UK, more than 500 specially trained wildlife officers across most forces support investigations in their local areas. DEFRA provided additional funding for the unit to carry out a project on internet-related wildlife crime. The unit has subsequently identified wildlife-related online criminality as a thematic threat area. I will bring to its attention the points made by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans).
The unit’s funding structure will continue until the end of the comprehensive spending review cycle. Decisions on funding beyond 2020 will be taken at the next review, which is due to start this summer, as right hon. and hon. Members will know. I cannot say any more at this stage, but as the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) noted, my right. hon Friend the Secretary of State is very committed to this important unit. I am pleased that wildlife crime seems to be an increasing priority for many of our police and crime commissioners across England and Wales.
There are six UK wildlife crime priorities: badger persecution, bat persecution, the illegal trade in species protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, freshwater pearl mussels, poaching and raptor persecution. Wildlife crime priorities are set by the UK wildlife crime tasking and co-ordination group, which is chaired by the chief constable wildlife crime lead. Priority areas are those that either are assessed as posing the greatest threat to the conservation status of a species or show a high volume of crime and require a UK-wide tactical response. Each priority has an implementation plan—with plan owners identified—to prevent wildlife crime, improve intelligence gathering and strengthen enforcement of the law.
Raptor persecution is one of the UK’s wildlife crime priorities. All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and there are strong penalties for those committing offences. In the five years up to 2017—the latest year for which data is available—there were 107 prosecutions for crimes against wild birds and 75 convictions. The police are leading efforts to prevent the persecution of birds of prey. I praise the work done by North Yorkshire police, particularly on Operation Owl, and I commend police and crime commissioner Julie Milligan in particular. She has been fundamental not only in that work, but in chairing the rural group of police and crime commissioners. She has also made hare coursing a key priority for work across a number of forces.
In addition to activity to disrupt and deter criminality, officers of the North Yorkshire police have worked to raise awareness about raptor persecution among local landowners and members of the public. Only through working in partnership with those living and working in rural communities can raptor persecution be combated. Despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine, red kite and buzzard, have increased. I fully recognise, however, that some species continue to cause concern.
The Government take the decline in the hen harrier population in England particularly seriously, and we are committed to securing the future of that iconic species. That is why we took the lead on the hen harrier action plan, which sets out what will be done to increase hen harrier numbers in England, including the trialling of brood management. In the recent judicial review of the lawfulness of Natural England’s decision to grant a licence for trials of hen harrier brood management, the claimants’ claims were dismissed. The proposed brood management scheme will continue. It seeks to manage the conflict between the conservation of hen harriers and the grouse shooting industry. That decision means the important work to protect and conserve the hen harrier can continue.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to an article that was published in a journal yesterday; I take that issue very seriously and will be seeking to meet the chair of the raptor persecution group, Superintendent Lyall, to go through it in detail. Although it is not for the Government to tell the police or the Crown Prosecution Service who they should be investigating and charging, we should take a proactive approach, particularly to stamp out the persecution of birds of prey.
The Government also support work to combat hare coursing, which is pursued under the poaching national wildlife crime priority. Police action against hare coursing is supported by the poaching priority delivery group, which brings together law enforcement and NGOs to improve intelligence gathering, enforcement and prevention of those crimes.
The Government recognise the distress that hare coursing causes for rural communities. I know that it is a priority of my own police and crime commissioner, Tim Passmore. Concerns are about not just the activity itself, but, increasingly, the associated violence between those involved or damage to property suffered by those whose land is blighted by the activity. There is also increasing concern about the involvement of organised crime in that particular venture. That is why I welcome the ongoing work done by police forces under Operation Galileo, which contributed to a 30% reduction in hare coursing incidents in Lincolnshire last year. I also commend the work of the six forces across the east of England, which come together to share intelligence so that they can try to stamp out that particularly heinous activity. The Hunting Act 2004 bans all hare coursing in England and Wales. Anyone found guilty of hare coursing or illegal hunting under that Act can receive an unlimited fine.
That brings me to hunting and the concerns raised by the hon. Member for City of Chester. The 2004 Act has been in force since 2005 and has fundamentally changed hunting with dogs in this country. Before that Act, between 21,000 and 25,000 foxes were killed each year by organised hunts, which accounted for only 5% to 6% of all annual fox deaths annually. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) pointed out, further culling of foxes is often undertaken for predator control.
The introduction of the 2004 Act made it an offence to hunt wild mammals with dogs or to knowingly allow land to be used for fox hunting. Since the Act came into effect, many hunts have turned to trail hunting as an alternative to live quarry hunting. Clearly, trail hunting is a huge improvement on live fox hunting, while still allowing hunting groups to undertake an activity important to them and much of the rural community.
I recognise it is possible that dogs used for trail hunting may on occasion pick up and follow the scent of live foxes during a trail hunt. If that occurs, it is the responsibility of the huntsman and other members of hunt staff to control their hounds and, if necessary, stop the hounds as soon as they are made aware that the hounds are no longer following the trail that has been laid. The Act has been used successfully to prosecute those who break the law. Between 2005 and 2017, a total of 778 individuals were prosecuted under the Act and 469 individuals were found guilty. The Government have no plans to amend the 2004 Act, but I have heard what hon. Members have said on that, and I will address sentencing guidelines. I recognise that the Labour party has changed its stance since the Act was introduced, but at the time, Parliament decided that the offence would not carry a custodial punishment. The Act allows for fines of up to £5,000. Sentencing is a matter for judges and sentencing guidelines. We would look to the independent Sentencing Council to consider that particular matter—based on correspondence that I have had with it, it absolutely and strongly defends its independence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) referred to the illegal wildlife trade. I am proud of the Government’s record on making changes, including the groundbreaking Ivory Act 2018. The Government recognise that wildlife criminals do not respect international borders, which is why the UK is committed to its global leadership in tackling the illegal wildlife trade. As has been said, we started a series of groundbreaking London conferences in 2014, the first of which secured ambitious agreements from more than 40 Governments to take urgent co-ordinated action. It was hailed as a turning point in global efforts to tackle those damaging activities, in particular in generating a response from China on its role in tackling the heinous trade. In October 2018 the conference returned to London.
The United Kingdom Government are investing more than £36 million between 2014 and 2021 to take action to counter the illegal wildlife trade, including work to reduce demand, to strengthen enforcement, to ensure effective legal frameworks and to develop sustainable livelihoods. A good example of that is building on the successful ranger training deployments that we have already done in Gabon and Malawi. The UK is committing a further £900,000 of new funding to develop a British military counter-poaching taskforce. Its members will train park rangers to use more effective and safer counter-poaching techniques as they seek to disrupt such criminality.
I assure hon. Members of our expertise and of the way in which we work with other countries. For example, I have made several trips to African countries, and at the 2018 conference, with a particular focus on birds, for the first time we brought in people from the Americas. I am pleased that we will support one of those regional conferences this year, with that particular focus.
One of my hon. Friends referred to bird trapping in Cyprus. The Government take our responsibility to combat wildlife crime in Britain’s overseas territories seriously, which is why we have supported the sovereign base areas administration on the island of Cyprus in its work to counter illegal bird trapping. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence who made it a personal pledge when he visited the bases to ensure that it was happening, and the Minister for the Armed Forces.
That work is being done through a combination of enhanced police action, eradication of non-native habitats and enforcement of regulations. The SBA administration works closely with Birdlife, the RSPB and other NGOs. The administration is confident that the enhanced measures are delivering meaningful results. I therefore welcome the report released this month by the RSPB and Birdlife, which shows a continued decline in the number of birds being illegally killed on the bases.
On enforcement, it is important to remember that the enforcement of all offences, including wildlife offences, is an operational matter for the police. It is not only for individual chief constables to determine how their resources are deployed, but for locally elected police and crime commissioners to hold their forces to account and to set priorities, including on how they tackle the crimes that matter most to residents and businesses in rural and urban areas alike. However, the Government are taking steps to ensure that the enforcement of wildlife protection legislation achieves the best possible outcomes for wildlife through the expertise hosted by the National Wildlife Crime Unit and the involvement of the National Police Chiefs Council.
Several people talked about notifiable offences. DEFRA has supported work led by the National Police Chiefs Council and the Home Office to explore widening the range of notifiable wildlife offences, including some of those relating to foxhunting. Other offences put forward for consideration include those relevant to raptor and badger persecution, crimes against deer, and the criminal damage of protected habitats. The benefit of an offence becoming notifiable is that there is a national standard for the recording and counting of such offences by police forces in England and Wales, and reports produced by the Home Office provide a measure of demand on the police and inform the public of the scale, scope and evidence of crime in their local communities.
The National Police Chiefs Council is now considering stakeholder feedback, and a formal submission will be made to the Home Office this spring. The decision on which, if any, offences might become notifiable does not sit with my Department, but will be taken by the Home Office. I am conscious of growing interest, as is the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is taking a particular interest in the issue, including sentencing.
In response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), livestock is not wildlife so it is outside the scope of today’s debate, strictly speaking. However, I will ask my noble Friend the Minister in the other place to write to him about the questions he asked. I will ensure that that happens.
I also have an extra point to make to the hon. Member for Islwyn. I was pleased that only a couple of months ago a particularly strong sentence—more than three years—was given to someone convicted of smuggling birds’ eggs, so important changes are being made in that regard.
On sentencing, I have already tried to make the point about the maximum fine, in particular under the Hunting Act. I will work with other Ministers, and I have raised illegal wildlife trade issues before with a previous Minister for Justice. We have an opportunity, and there is interest across Government to see what more we can do, but I stress to the House that we might have to change the law specifically. There are indications about how we extend the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. I commit to work with fellow Ministers to see what we can do. It is down to the independent Sentencing Council to change any guidelines under existing law.
The Government will continue to support work to protect our wildlife from criminal activity, to deter people from breaking the law and to punish those who do. We are equally committed to leading international efforts to tackle the illegal wildlife trade. I believe that there has been a change in behaviour, brought in by the Hunting Act. I fully recognise the concerns expressed by hon. Members who do not believe that the Act goes far enough but, as I said, the Government do not intend to reopen it in this Parliament. I again thank the hon. Member for City of Chester for securing this important debate, and all those who contributed to it.
Insect Population
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Thank you, Mr Davies; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) on having secured this debate, in which we have heard a number of interventions from other hon. Members. One might muse that time is running out for insects, but I assure Members that the Government understand that insects are crucial to our prosperity and wellbeing. The Royal Entomological Society estimates that there are over 24,000 species of insect—classified as six-legged animals with segmented bodies—in Britain. We know that they are vital to the food chain; they support many of our mammals and birds; and they play a fundamental role in much pollination, nutrient cycling, pest control and decomposition. The value of insect pollination to UK agriculture is estimated at more than £500 million a year.
As many hon. Members have observed, recent scientific papers and media reports have highlighted declines in insect populations and projected extinctions across the globe. We acknowledge that there have been long-term declines in the UK and globally, and there is no dispute about the seriousness of the issue, nor the need to take action. That is why, in the 25-year environment plan, we committed to improving the status of insects. I was also struck by Professor Sir Bob Watson’s comments in the media last week. He made it clear that we need concerted global action, but that extinction of insects within decades is probably unlikely, so we sometimes need to be mindful of the language we use to describe the evidence.
The Government report annually on how well different groups of insect species are doing, in partnership with academics and volunteer recording societies. That includes the UK-wide Pollinator Monitoring and Research Partnership, which is partly funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The Government’s indicators of the abundance of UK butterflies show long-term decline since 1976, but no significant change since 2012, and our indicator of pollinating insects in the UK tells a similar story. Overall distribution has declined since 1980, but has stabilised in recent years, although some individual species continue to decline. We are keeping those trends under review as encouraging, but not yet definitive, signs of progress.
Dr Coffey
I have so little time to respond to all the questions that I have already been asked, so I will do my best to answer the points that were made.
Our academic partnerships are helping us to deliver the most appropriate approaches to key factors affecting insect populations, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive species, pests and disease, climate change and pesticide use; to understand the importance of other emerging potential threats, such as light or radiation; and to better define and predict the impact of climate change. I am conscious of hon. Members’ comments about how tackling climate change will also help biodiversity in insects.
We know that where we put habitat back, insects respond positively. For that reason, we are taking action to improve, extend and connect insect habitats. Over 1 million hectares of our best habitats for wildlife are protected as sites of special scientific interest, and we spend more than £50 million through agri-environment schemes to help bring more of those sites into favourable condition. Natural England reports that since 2011, over 130,000 hectares of land have been set aside to create new wildlife-rich habitats, largely through agri-environment schemes. In 2015, the Government introduced wildlife packages to those schemes, to make it easier for farmers to provide flowers to support pollinating insects and other insects on farms. There has been real progress for some species that landowners, NGOs and Government have collaborated to conserve, including supporting the re-introduction of lost species such as the short-haired bumblebee and chequered skipper butterfly. The environmental land management system that we are introducing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) referred, will build on that by rewarding farmers and land managers for delivering environmental outcomes, such as protection of insect habitats.
In 2014, the Government published the national pollinator strategy, following a scientific review of the status of pollinating insects. That 10-year strategy sets out how Government, conservation groups, farmers, beekeepers and researchers can work together to improve the status of our pollinating insect species. Last week, we published an update to that review of the evidence base, which will inform our planned refresh of the pollinator strategy and, in turn, much of our action for other insect species.
In our 25-year environment plan, we committed to producing a new strategy for nature. That will take forward any new post-2020 global agreements on biodiversity, and bring together our biodiversity and pollinator strategies. I am conscious of the report to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) referred, but the Aichi 2020 targets are quite nebulous, and a lot comes down to judgment. I hope that when we come to the Conference of the Parties for the convention on biological diversity in Beijing next year, we will have more rigorous measures and indicators for targets for the global recovery of the environment, in particular biodiversity.
I know that there is concern about the impact of pesticides, including on insects. The Government carry out a thorough assessment of pesticide safety using the best scientific evidence before authorising their use, drawing advice from the Health and Safety Executive and the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides. Pesticides that carry unacceptable risks to pollinators are not authorised, as was the case with the science-led restrictions on neonicotinoids: outdoor use of three neonicotinoids was withdrawn from 19 December 2018.
We also need to take action against invasive species. Such action is largely focused on the Asian hornet: last year, the National Bee Unit located and destroyed four Asian hornet nests to tackle that threat to our native species, and surveillance continues. Our inspectors carry out about 6,000 apiary visits per year in England and Wales further to protect our honey bees. Advice and inspections help us to manage pests such as varroa, keep endemic diseases such as foulbrood at low levels, and keep other exotic pests such as the small hive beetle absent from the UK. The Bees’ Needs Week campaign, which happens every year in July, brings together expert partners to raise awareness of actions that all of us can take, whether we have gardens, window boxes, allotments or community gardens.
We have set out in the 25-year environment plan our step change in ambition for wildlife, in order to reverse declines. We have committed to improving protected sites and restoring new wildlife-rich habitats outside the protected site network. We are investing in peatland and woodland restoration as a contribution to climate change mitigation, which will also provide important habitats for insects and other wildlife; Members know about our investment in the northern forest. The nature recovery network will expand and connect our existing wildlife habitats by developing partnerships that can effect changes to land management at a catchment or landscape scale.
We are consulting on conservation covenants, which will be voluntary but legally binding agreements that would enable landowners to leave a permanent conservation legacy on their land. Such public commitments to taking positive actions to preserve and improve treasured features on their land, such as trees, woodland or flower-rich meadows, would be binding on future owners of that land and overseen by responsible bodies to ensure that land management obligations were delivered. I have already referred to the new environmental land management system, which will be the cornerstone of the country’s agricultural policy after we leave the EU. It is important that farmers are able to protect their crops, but also that people are protected from the risks that pesticides present, both to them and to the environment. It is therefore right to minimise the use of pesticides and to make the greatest possible use of other techniques, including non-chemical alternatives to protect crops.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Leeds North West seemed to suggest that gene editing or GM could be used to modify crops. That is still a debate that matters, but it is important to highlight to hon. Members that we will continue to develop and refine our approach to pest control, with integrated pest management at its heart, minimising the need for pesticides. That approach combines different management strategies and practices to target and minimise the use of pesticides. The voluntary initiative scheme promotes and records IPM practices, and the uptake of that scheme is encouraging. It is important that we are able to protect crops, and such progress shows that the scheme works.
Regarding the introduction of a new environment Bill, I will give evidence to several hon. Members in about two hours’ time, so I am surprised that the hon. Member for Leeds North West has already declared what he thinks should happen with respect to scrutiny.
Dr Coffey
I am afraid I will not. The Government are open to this, and believe that what we have put forward is important. The policy paper that we published alongside the plan is an important indication of what else we want to achieve in that Bill.
Insect decline is a global problem that needs a global solution, which is why we will continue to play a leading role in the development of an ambitious strategy as we proceed. It is critical that we act now on the improving evidence base, internationally and at home, to ensure that we leave our environment in a better state for future generations.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
March EU Environment Council
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I attended the EU Environment Council on 5 March in Brussels. I wish to update the House on the matters discussed.
Strategic EU long-term vision for a climate neutral economy—policy debate
The presidency invited member states to give their views on the Commission’s draft long-term strategy on climate, “A Clean Planet for all”, following an initial exchange of views at the Environment Council on 20 December 2018. The presidency asked for views on the challenges and opportunities arising from the transition to a climate-neutral economy and the enabling framework required to stimulate investment, especially private sector investment, in technology, education, and training.
Member states’ interventions focused on four main areas. First, a number of member states gave their views on the EU’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets for 2030, and the proposed target of net-zero GHG emissions in the EU by 2050. Some welcomed the ambition of the Commission’s proposed 2050 target, while others cautioned against any revision to the EU’s 2030 targets. Secondly, many argued that the strategy must recognise and enable a socially fair and just transition recognising the different impacts across member states, regions, and sectors of the economy. Thirdly, a number spoke of the need to frame the strategy positively, as the transition to a low-carbon economy presents opportunities including for competitiveness, employment, public health and the environment. Fourthly, the transition should be acceptable to citizens and businesses to give investors’ confidence in the direction of travel, given that both public and private investment will be crucial to the transition.
I intervened to welcome the Commission’s strategy as a positive response to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s special report on global warming of 1.5 degrees published in October 2018. I spoke of the need to ensure that all sectors of the economy take action to tackle climate change while at the same time managing the impact on those sectors disproportionately affected. I referred to the benefits of clean growth and that both technological and nature-based solutions must play their part in reducing emissions, including carbon capture usage and storage, and natural carbon sinks, such as mangrove forests. I emphasised that private sector investment and green finance will be integral to financing the transition and highlighted the UK’s funding for low-carbon innovation. In closing, I underscored that the United Nations’ Secretary General’s climate summit in September would be an important milestone, and that the UK intends to play a leading role on climate resilience at the summit.
Drinking water directive—general approach
The presidency invited member states to agree the proposed general approach, stressing debate should focus on article 10a and 10b, (materials and substances in contact with water) and article 13 (access to water). The Commission urged member states to agree the text, noting that they would reserve their position due to concerns on article 10a.
The UK, along with a number of other member states, fully supported article 10a and 10b. Others expressed concern, but noted that ultimately they could accept the proposed text. These member states also called for further work to help understand the impacts of the proposal and to clarify the text. Latvia, Estonia and Austria were unable to accept the general approach due to article 10a.
On article 13, member states noted the delicate Council position and agreed that the presidency text provided a good compromise. The UK highlighted concerns regarding subsidiarity, drawing attention to the UK Parliament’s reasoned opinion but confirmed that it could accept the compromise text.
The presidency concluded the general approach had been agreed. The Commission noted that more work was needed on article 10a and it would issue a formal declaration outlining its concerns.
Greening the European semester—exchange of views
The Council exchanged views on the greening of the European semester and post-2020 investments (6260/19) with member states stressing the importance of the environmental dimension. A group of member states recognised the importance of taking the Paris agreement into account.
EU framework on endocrine disruptors—policy debate
The Commission stressed the need for a coherent approach based on scientific advice, and the need to follow the precautionary approach where the science was inconclusive. It announced a cross-cutting fitness check on endocrine disruptors (with the aim of concluding findings in early 2020) and a new comprehensive forum to engage stakeholders.
Member states welcomed the Commission communication, with significant differences between the levels of ambition expressed. A small number of member states led a group calling for more concrete actions including a ban on endocrine disruptors in toys and consumer goods. Others, including the UK, were more cautious, stressing the need for further research and emphasising the importance of risk-based measures.
AOB items
The following items were also discussed under any other business.
1. Global data collection system for ship fuel oil consumption
Council noted the information from the Commission on the proposal to revise the regulation on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport. The aim of the proposal is to reduce the administrative burden for ships having to report under both EU regulations and the global data collection system for fuel oil consumption, established recently by the International Maritime Organisation.
2. Better EU enforcement of the EU phasedown of hydrocarbons
Council noted the information from the Commission.
3. Tackling greenhouse gas emissions through aviation pricing
Council noted the information from the Belgian delegation concerning its proposal for a fair, European pricing system on aviation. This information was previously presented at the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 12 February by the Dutch delegation. Some member state delegations intervened in support of further work on this. The Commission stated that it will consider existing policy instruments and assess whether there is a need to make a legislative proposal.
4. Strengthening the coherence between EU free trade agreements and the Paris climate change agreement
Council noted the information from the French, Spanish, and Luxembourgish delegations, proposing that ratification of the Paris agreement should be an essential clause of the EU’s trade agreements with third countries, and that the Council should be able to suspend trade agreements following breaches of the obligations under the Paris agreement. Other member states expressed a degree of caution on the proposed approach. The Commission noted that such a proposal would need to be operational.
5. Outcome of the intermediary sessions of the parties to the Espoo convention and to the protocol on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) (Geneva, 5 to 7 February 2019)
Council noted the information from the presidency and the Commission regarding the work of the EU and member states. It also noted the decisions adopted at the meeting of the parties to the Espoo convention and the protocol on SEA, which the UK, other member states, and the EU attended. Lithuania stated that they considered that further steps were needed concerning the case of the Ostrovets nuclear power plant in Belarus.
6. Environmental protection policies to combat depopulation in rural areas and to improve quality of life
Council noted the information from the Spanish delegation and the difficulties between population and conservation efforts. Other member states intervened to show their support and outline their own nation’s struggles with depopulation.
7. Preparation for the 21st meeting of the contracting parties to the Barcelona convention for the protection of the marine environment and the coastal region of the Mediterranean (Naples, 2 to 5 December 2019)
Council noted the information from the Italian delegation. There were limited interventions around this AOB.
Additional engagement
In the margins of the Council, I met with counterparts from member states and the European Commission to reassure them of our intention to continue working closely on these global environmental issues, and to highlight the UK’s bid to host the 26th conference of the parties (COP26) to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC).
[HCWS1425]
Draft Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Marsha. The regulations, together with the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, amend the existing domestic legislation that implements the EU’s plant health directive. That directive is implemented in England by the Plant Health (England) Order 2015 and, in relation to forestry matters, by the Plant Health (Forestry) Order 2005, which extends to Great Britain. The existing orders set out obligations for the control and management of plant health risks arising from import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material in order to protect biosecurity and the £8 billion value of plant material to the economy, society and the environment.
This is a new statutory instrument covering obligations on plant health authorities, relating to retained EU law on plant health, which arise when we leave the EU. The instrument contains amendments to retained EU law to address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues. It sets out the import requirements from exit day to trading partners around the world regarding the harmful plant pests we want to stay free from, and the plants and plant products for which we require assurances that they have met our prescribed requirements. It also provides clarity to businesses on the pests, plants and plant products that will be regulated within the UK.
The requirements complement the Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which set out the processes that businesses must follow regarding imports and internal movements of the plants and plant products subject to regulation. The instrument’s main purpose is to re-enact the existing list of harmful pests and plant material that apply in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and related import and movement requirements, with appropriate amendments to reflect the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Scottish Ministers have decided to introduce separate legislation in Scotland and their equivalent legislation will include the existing risks, and thus give effect to UK-wide arrangements. Even though plant health is devolved, the devolved Administrations have worked closely in developing their EU exit legislation to ensure a co-ordinated approach. As a result, these regulations apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the equivalent arrangements in Scotland. In practice, this means we have a common list of regulated pests and plant material across the UK on exit day that remain the same as in our existing list, which transposes the EU’s list of harmful pests and material.
The instrument also sets out amendments to deal with technical deficiencies and retain directly applicable EU legislation to ensure plant health legislation operates effectively. For example, it provides derogations to facilitate the import of specified material, such as bonsai plants from Japan, to ensure this trade can continue under the same conditions after exit. Similarly, the instrument sets out the actions required by UK plant health authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to control certain pests, such as Xylella fastidiosa, in the event of outbreaks—not that we want an outbreak of that. For this instrument, the plant health authority is the Secretary of State in relation to England; the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales; and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to Northern Ireland. The forestry commissioners are the relevant authority for timber and forest pests in England.
Technical expertise and advice to Ministers, as well as actions to control outbreaks, will continue to be provided by Government officials and agencies, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Our long-established UK plant health risk group provides a good example of how the UK’s plant health authorities and agencies work together to develop specific technical and scientific advice to UK Ministers on managing risks to plant health. This instrument is necessary to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day and to facilitate the flow of goods, while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest disease and disease threats. I assure the Committee that Welsh Government Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have given their consent for this instrument.
The Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are complementary, as I indicated. The existing orders set out obligations on businesses on the control and management of plant health risks arising from the import from third countries and movement within the EU single market of plant material in order to protect biosecurity and the £8 billion value of plant material. As I have set out, the instrument amends the existing orders to address technical deficiencies and inoperability issues relating to retained EU law on plant health. The key point of this second instrument is that it provides clarity to businesses on the requirements that they need to meet and the authorisations and checks they will be subject to when importing or moving regulated plants and plant products. As is set out in the other regulations, they will set out the list of pests and diseases in plant material that is subject to regulation.
I should make clear that, although businesses will see some changes to import arrangements, those are risk-focused, avoiding unnecessary new burdens while, importantly, preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing the introduction and spread of pest and disease threats. They do not in any way diminish our controls in this important area and seek to protect biosecurity, while continuing to facilitate trade in plant material.
As I have said, the purpose of the regulations is to correct technical deficiencies—for example, revising definitions to be UK-based instead of EU-based. The instrument also transposes provisions in certain Council directives in relation to the control of relevant potato pests. The aim is to provide clarity to third countries that, following exit, the UK will continue to maintain the same control over the production of potatoes.
There are two aspects in the instrument in relation to the changes to import arrangements that I highlighted. First, regulated plant material that currently enters the UK from the EU or Switzerland with an EU or Swiss plant passport will in future require a phytosanitary certificate, in line with international obligations. This applies mainly to plants for planting and will ensure that we maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by the EU plant passport regime once we leave. In order to maintain the flow of goods, this regulated plant material from the EU or Switzerland will not be subject to routine physical checks at the border. That recognises that biosecurity risks from such material do not change immediately on exit day.
Secondly, businesses wishing to bring third-country regulated goods, such as tomatoes from Morocco and cut flowers from Israel and Turkey, into England via the European Union and through roll-on/roll-off ports in England will be required to facilitate plant health checks, which will take place inland at approved premises prior to their release. These new inland checks are necessary to maintain the biosecurity assurances currently provided by checks at the EU border given that other EU member states will no longer be required to carry out those checks on goods in transit for the UK after we leave the European Union.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
On a point of clarification, by “plants”, does the Minister also mean trees? I have recently met with the Woodland Trust, which is very concerned about diseases such as ash dieback. They want to properly protect our indigenous species, and this is the way to go about it.
Dr Coffey
Yes, I do. The forestry commissioners will be the relevant authority in that regard. The majority of ash dieback issues are blown in, so there is nothing we can do about that anyway. The key issue for us is to protect our domestic forests and woodlands from biosecurity risks.
The direct cost on businesses arising from these changes to import arrangements is expected to be low. Officials have held discussions with key stakeholders on the development of our approach to this instrument and the changes to import requirements, and they continue to engage with businesses to support preparation for day one changes.
This instrument also provides for a system of UK plant passports to replace EU plant passports to maintain existing safeguards, to protect biosecurity from the trade in regulated plant material within the UK. The costs and burdens on businesses using plant passports should not change.
The other amendments are: a new offence in relation to the new import regulations just outlined; a new offence to force any failure by businesses or landowners to comply with pest control measures specified in a statutory notice in demarcated areas where there is a pest outbreak; and consequential minor amendments to inspection fees. These regulations apply to England only. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland will hold separate equivalent legislation just as they do now. This second instrument is necessary to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place for exit day to facilitate the flow of goods while preserving the current plant health regime’s overall aim of preventing and managing pest and disease threats.
Dr Coffey
I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich for his questions. There has been direct engagement with stakeholders. Officials prepared for that in anticipation of what was needed.
The hon. Gentleman referred to databases. There is some precedent for third-country access to EU notification systems, which we will seek to negotiate with the European Union. However, we have contingency plans for the eventuality that we lose access to such notification systems. We are developing our own database to capture the details of interceptions and incursions from day one to inform our decision making. All EU systems have publicly available elements, which the UK will continue to be able to access after EU exit, but it is our intention to continue proactively to share information with the European Union.
Our dedicated UK-wide risk and horizon-scanning team will continue to gather intelligence on plant health risks and tree health risks, including from other organisations, agencies and networks, and by increasing bilateral relationships with key trading partners and nearest neighbours. Functionality has been added to the UK-owned and run plant health portal to replace some of the EU notification system functions.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about transit, it is not the case that we will reduce quality in that regard. I am not sure where he was informed that we will not check goods until they get to their destination. There should be approved premises inland. That is done deliberately to recognise that products will be transported safely in a roll-on/roll-off situation—usually in a container. It is fair to say that we need to anticipate that that may initially require some higher level of inspection, but I know that APHA is recruiting. I am trying to recall how many people—I have the figure 30 in my head—but perhaps officials can provide me with the number, which they informed me of the other day but I regret I do not have instantly to hand.
Our focus for day one is those goods that have been deemed a plant health threat and are covered by the EU plant passport system. At present, those goods are not systematically checked when imported, but the businesses dispatching them must ensure that they meet certain requirements and must be officially authorised and audited on a regular basis. In future, those goods will be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, an official document issued by the relevant national plant protection organisation confirming that prescribed requirements have been met. Those requirements will be the same as under the plant passport scheme, and a phytosanitary certificate will be required for each consignment exported.
That will require a greater level of official oversight than is currently necessary under the plant passport scheme, but it is necessary to meet our international obligations. We will continue our risk-based programme of inland surveillance as a further check that such requirements are being met.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Can the Minister say a bit more about physically where those checks will occur and how long they are likely to take?
Dr Coffey
No, because I am trying to finish my answer to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I am very conscious that different elements of checks will be required. I have been informed by officials that 227 extra officers have been recruited to facilitate the inspections that we believe may be necessary.
If the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to intervene now, he would be very welcome to do so.
Sandy Martin
I apologise if I have misunderstood the advice in the explanatory memorandum, but I was under the impression that importers would be able to register their premises. That was the basis on which I was talking about the destination of imports. Clearly, the Government do not control how many premises are registered—unless, of course, they decide not to register them, in which case they will have a problem, because people will no longer be able to import.
Dr Coffey
I have since been informed by my officials that the hon. Gentleman is correct in his assertion. The location of these centres around the country will vary, but the total of 227 APHA full-time equivalents is a significant increase. I think it is nearly double the current number. They will be able to undertake those additional controls. Forestry commissioners currently have about 10 FTEs, and they will be increasing that by a further five in order to be able to undertake the work for tree imports.
It is important to note that it is mainly plants and trees that will be planted, rather than fruits, vegetables and flowers, which will largely be able to continue to enter the UK freely from the EU. To give some assurance to the Committee, it is important to say that it is not the case that people will just be able to self-register premises. Recognising how important it is to protect the biosecurity of this nation, APHA inspectors will need to approve those premises in advance. I do not think that somebody’s back garden can suddenly become an import, unless it is so perfect that APHA agrees that it is necessary—well, it could be a very fancy back garden, I suppose.
The hon. Gentleman asked about training and a better training programme. I have already outlined that we will have additional plant health inspectors and additional Forestry Commission inspectors. We will be working with the industry, including the Horticultural Trades Association, to develop a plant health assurance scheme that will include training. I am confident that that programme will work well.
I have already answered the question about databases, and I have tried to answer the question about transit in the third country. We do not have data on the volume of EU transit trade, as regulated goods from third countries are currently checked at the first point of entry into the EU, after which they move under single market arrangements. However, APHA estimates that there are about 14,500 consignments from third countries that transit the EU for entry to the UK. That reflects the substantial increase in the number of plant health inspectors, who are already being recruited.
I have tried to answer all the questions, but I keep being sent more information so I will not have to write to the Committee. So far, about 25 businesses have been improved for the inland facilities check. APHA estimates that a maximum of about 100 will be considered eligible. It will be for businesses to decide whether they want inspections for the non-roll off. Felixstowe is one of the major areas and it already carries out such checks at the border. It will be for businesses to decide if they want to change the situation, but in my experience as the local MP for Felixstowe, one of the major ports, there is no reason why we would expect businesses to change that regime.
My noble Friend Lord Gardiner is responsible for biosecurity. I know of nobody who is more passionate about trying to ensure that we prevent all these different diseases from entering our country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the Commission about, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs worked with the Commission last year on, trying to get more checks on Xylella fastidiosa, because there is a genuine worry about that coming up, in particular from Italy. We are desperate to ensure that it does not cross into the United Kingdom. Our scientists believe it is only a matter of time with regard to how some of these things might get travelled, but we know that the number of species it affects keeps rising; at one point it was 50, but now it is considerably higher. I assure the Committee that we will continue to press the case on ensuring that we have biosecurity.
Neil Coyle
My intervention is linked to my previous question. The Minister mentioned the 14,500 potential checks and 25 extra sites to prevent that disease and others from coming in. I assume the experts know how long these checks are estimated to take. Given the doubling of the workforce required to do that, how much will it cost?
Dr Coffey
I do not have the cost to hand. I have not been given the costs of the extra staff to do that. [Interruption.] I do not have a value for how much it costs today. The issue is part of Lord Gardiner’s portfolio, and if he were here I expect he would give the answer in a second. If the hon. Gentleman really wants me to find out the costs, I will do so. I am not sure when I will be able to get that information to him, but I will write to him and the Committee.
I think I have answered all the questions about the draft regulations, Mr Varma, and I hope the Committee will agree to them.
Dr Coffey
I am sorry.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Health (Amendment) (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Flooding in Cumbria
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) on securing the debate. We have spoken previously on this topic, one to one as well as in the wider group of Cumbrian MPs, two of whom are present—the hon. Members for Workington (Sue Hayman) and for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock). I commend them for the representations that they have made on behalf of their constituents. They are rightly passionate about trying to secure more flood funding for important projects in their constituencies.
Flood and coastal risk management is a high priority for the Government, and I am acutely aware of the impact that flooding can have on lives and livelihoods, which was the case in my constituency following the 2013 surge. People face ongoing challenges and have ongoing concerns, whether those are to do with aspects of weather or surges and high tides combining. Compelling evidence suggests that climate change may lead to increases in heavy rainfall and increased risks from fluvial and surface water flooding by the middle of this century. Both present significant risks, so we are putting in place robust, long-term national strategies to protect our communities. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise the £2.6 billion Government investment made in flood defences over six years.
There has been no major flooding since I have been the Minister responsible for flood risk management—perhaps that is why I have been in post for nearly three years—but I take a keen interest in the latest developments in Cumbria, which is an area particularly prone to the devastating impacts of flooding. That is why I think I have visited Cumbria on more occasions than any other county during my time in office, to hear the community’s experiences at first hand.
I am very aware of the extreme flooding events that have been suffered and the damage that has been caused, and I recognise the impacts, including on mental health, experienced by people and communities. I pay tribute to the responders and volunteers from across the county, and indeed the country, who worked around the clock in challenging circumstances during Storm Desmond, and for their ongoing work in flood action groups.
I also praise the ongoing work of the risk management authorities and the local community groups that contribute their time and vast local knowledge to protect their local communities. They are also involved in discussions about different projects, and they recently produced a report on how to improve funding in Cumbria, as well as a practical guide to natural flood management measures. Together with the expertise of the Environment Agency and local councils, those actions are leading to strong local decisions.
The Government have committed to spend £68 million in Cumbria as part of our current programme, which began in 2015 and will complete in 2021. Hon. Members may be aware that £10 million was initially allocated under today’s funding formula, but I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), when he was the Minister responsible, allocated an extra £58 million to tackle the issues resulting from Storm Desmond. The Environment Agency continues to maintain its flood risk management assets in the county and has spent £1.4 million on maintenance since 2015.
To better improve the flood resilience of properties, a grant of £5,000 per property was made available to homeowners and businesses that were flooded in December 2015 for additional resilience or resistance measures. I understand that 4,307 properties have received that money, which equates to more than £15 million of grant.
The important 2016 Cumbria flood action plan continues to be a living document. Of the 100 actions agreed in it, 74 are now complete, with 96% of short-term actions also complete. The remaining actions are being reviewed to determine whether they are still valid. Recently, the Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill successfully completed its stages in this House and is now going to the House of Lords for consideration. If the Lords do not amend it and it becomes an Act of Parliament, I hope that it will provide a welcome opportunity to meet three actions in the plan that aim to develop water level management boards in the Eden, Derwent and Kent Leven catchments.
Several schemes to reduce the flood risk in Cumbria are progressing. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale pointed out, some will go out for planning consultation shortly. He referred to the preferred option for a £45 million scheme in Kendal, which is expected to reduce the risk of flooding to more than 2,500 local homes and businesses. As he points out, the determination date for planning permission is Thursday. In line with Government guidance, multi-criteria analysis has been used to assess the merits of each option against economic, technical, social and environmental criteria. That is why the Environment Agency has considered the feedback on the options to shape the scheme.
In Carlisle, following public engagement in January, a planning application was submitted for a scheme last month. The completed scheme will cost approximately £25 million and is expected to reduce the risk of flooding to more than 1,000 homes. The flood defence scheme in Egremont received £1.6 million of additional funding from a £40 million national fund to support economic growth and regeneration in 2018. The scheme will cost approximately £6.2 million and is predicted to reduce the risk of flooding to 221 homes and commercial properties. I hope that will get planning consent in May. A further 44 properties will be protected by the installation of property-level protection. In Rickerby, the flood alleviation scheme has received planning approval and, subject to the approval of the final business case, work is expected to start in the next few months.
To respond to national emergencies, the Environment Agency has 25 miles of temporary barriers, which it deployed in Braithwaite, near Keswick, when there were concerns. We continue to work hard on natural flood management to gather evidence on how best it can, or whether it can, be a key part of how we reduce the impacts of flooding. Overall, 11 communities in Cumbria are involved in the pilot project, into which we have put £2.5 million out of a total investment of £15 million. Of that, £800,000 was allocated to the River Kent catchment across eight projects.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to some specific bridges. I went to the Middleton Hall bridge—on a political visit, rather than a ministerial visit—and I know that the county council are working hard to repair the Ford and Middleton bridges that were damaged in Storm Desmond. My understanding is that it expects to complete the works this year. I am conscious that, particularly in Middleton, cars can get over the temporary bridge but emergency services and small buses cannot, which is a real source of disruption to the everyday lives of people in the area.
John Woodcock
Will the Minister and her Department keep in mind that, notwithstanding the terrible damage that Storm Desmond did, they should not let that displace the suffering of other residents, such as my constituents, who are still feeling the effects of storm damage from previous years?
Dr Coffey
Of course, the storms of 2005 and 2009 have had a long impact, which I recognise.
On the funding policy, our current investment programme is due to protect more than 300,000 more homes, although I am conscious that not all of that will be in Cumbria by any means. I am sure that hon. Members, while fighting for their constituents’ needs, also recognise that the Government have to consider projects across the country. In the current programme, it is not possible to deliver every scheme that would reduce flood risk, but I assure hon. Members present that I am fully alive to the issues raised about Cumbria.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to wealthy communities and the funding formula, but the funding formula specifically gives a boost to parts of the country that are not as prosperous, so that is taken into account. Our main impact and focus has been on people, rather than businesses, but I am looking at the funding arrangements ahead of a review of funding needs beyond 2021. We are working closely with the Environment Agency and the Treasury to consider future investment needs and the Government’s role in supporting the resilience of communities. My Department launched a consultation in January, which began the discussion on enabling more local funding to be raised for flood management. While considering the requirements for future programmes, I am looking carefully at the impact on Cumbria.
I am aware of the £58 million, which I have explained to hon. Members, and I am keen to build on that work and continually improve overall flood resistance in Cumbria. I reject the comments of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale that the Government have given up on renewable energy and climate change. He will be aware of the situation regarding the tidal lagoon, which was deemed poor value for money. I think I am right in saying that a prominent non-governmental organisation also challenged the scheme because of its impact on tidal habitats and birds. We have to take a balanced approach.
As the only Member with the word “coastal” in their constituency name, I am conscious of the issue of coastal erosion, which my constituency also suffers from, and I recognise that extreme weather events cause people worry. I do not want to reject what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said but, dare I say it, the Government have to be responsible in preparing for a no-deal Brexit. I repeat the mantra that if hon. Members do not want no deal, they have to vote for a deal. The £2.6 billion investment has been put to good effect, however, and I will push for more to be done in the next spending review, if we can.
I have corresponded with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale about water companies before. We have a different perspective. Some of the challenges of surface level flooding will be due to the county council not managing to drain the gullies or whatever—it will be a variety of things. Sewers are expected to have only a one-in-30-year event design standard, based on the rainfall return period, which is surface water flooding. That is different from the one-in-100-year river flood event experienced in Kendal, so it is not necessarily the case that we should compare them and make them identical.
Regarding the other aspects of the scheme that the hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned, he knows that we have considered it and that we are waiting for an Environment Agency report. He will also be aware that there is a big gap between the grant in aid for which it is eligible and the cost of the scheme. That is why I continue to encourage businesses to take advantage of the tax relief that they can get if they make capital contributions. I know that it will be an ongoing challenge for many people around the country, but I hope that we have considered it today.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. The first statutory instrument relates to reserved matters. The second SI relates to devolved matters, and the devolved Administrations have consented to that SI. Devolved Administrations have also been involved in the preparation for and discussions about the first SI.
This is one of a number of affirmative SIs to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the result of the 2016 referendum and as subsequently agreed by Parliament. In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the regulations simply make technical, legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of the legislation that controls the placing on the market of detergents and that would otherwise be left inoperable so that, following our exit from the EU, the law will continue to function as it does today.
As the Committee will see, these SIs make many adjustments, but I can assure the Committee that they represent no change of policy and will not have any impact on businesses or the public.
The territorial extent of this provision is the United Kingdom, and the provision applies to all of the United Kingdom. Health and Safety Executive officials engaged with representatives of the main trade association with an interest in detergents and cleaning products, and no particular concerns were expressed at that time in relation to detergents.
The EU regulation on detergents establishes common rules to enable detergents and surfactants to be sold and used across the EU. Technical changes are made in these instruments to ensure the continuation of standards and requirements in relation to the placing on the market of detergents and to provide clarity for manufacturers.
Regulation 1 of the first SI makes introductory provision, including for the commencement date. In part 2, regulation 2 amends the domestic Detergents Regulations 2010, which provide for enforcement of the EU detergents regulation and related penalties. The amendments make corrections to the domestic regulations to reflect the fact that they will now be cross-referring to retained EU law, rather than a directly applicable EU regulation.
Part 3 of this SI amends EU detergents regulation EC 648/2004. Regulation 3 of the SI defines terms used throughout the instrument. Regulations 5 and 6 remove references to the free movement of detergents in the EU internal market and to the Union customs territory in articles 1 and 2. Regulation 7 refers to changes to article 3 that cross-refer to a number of other pieces of EU legislation, some of which are out of date and are updated through this instrument. Provision about manufacturers of detergents being established within the Community is omitted. After exit, a manufacturer established in the UK will no longer be an operator established in the EU, and as a consequence it would not be appropriate to have that as a requirement.
Regulations 8 and 9 amend articles 5 and 6 on the derogation provision. If a surfactant passes the primary biodegradability test but fails the ultimate biodegradability test, the manufacturer can apply for derogation, which the Commission has a power to consider granting for a product in line with certain criteria. That function is to be transferred to the Secretary of State.
Regulation 10 amends article 7, transferring functions of the Commission. The Secretary of State will have power to determine disputes about testing methods for a product, taking expert advice as appropriate. Provision is included for the manufacturer to appeal that decision by the Secretary of State to a domestic court.
Regulation 11 amends article 8 about the duties of the member states to notify to the Commission the list of approved laboratories that are authorised to carry out the tests required by the regulation. Provision is made so that tests required by the regulation may be carried out by approved laboratories, and there is a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish that list. In practice, the HSE will publish the list, as it undertakes the regulatory work under an agency agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Regulation 12 amends article 9 on the information to be provided by manufacturers. Paragraph 3 of article 9 requires that manufacturers placing detergent products on the market shall make available an ingredient datasheet, and provides that member states may request that such a datasheet be made available to a specific public body to which the member state has assigned the task of providing the information to medical personnel. The article is amended to refer specifically to the National Poisons Information Service or any other such body that the Secretary of State or the devolved Administrations may assign for that purpose. The NPIS already undertakes that role across the United Kingdom.
Regulation 13 amends article 10, on control measures, to ensure the compliance of detergents with the provisions of the regulation. The Secretary of State must make a decision as to whether a test concerned produced a false positive result. Advice to the Secretary of State will be provided by HSE, which is already well established in this area. An appeal provision for the manufacturer is provided. Regulation 14 amends article 11, on labelling, to provide that the information specified in this article must be in English. Regulation 15 omits article 12, which is no longer appropriate as it is an EU institutional working procedure.
The power of the Commission under article 13 to adapt the annexes to the regulation in line with scientific and technical progress is transferred to the Secretary of State by regulation 16. The Secretary of State will be able to do so by making a statutory instrument. Regulation 17 omits article 13(1), on the power of the Commission to adopt delegated Acts, and article 14, which contains provision about the free movement of detergents within the European Union. Regulation 18 omits article 16, on the Commission’s reporting assessments of the regulation to the European Parliament and Council. That refers to reports that the Commission had to have completed by 2014 and 2016. Regulation 19 omits article 17(4), which provides for repeal by member states of transposing measures for superseded directives on detergents. In effect, this is a legal tiding up exercise for what will be retained EU law.
Regulation 20 omits article 18, which requires member states to prescribe penalties for infringements of the regulation. Enforcement mechanisms for the UK were set out in the Detergents Regulations 2005. Regulation 21 inserts a new article 18A into the retained EU version of the regulation on appeals. With regard to determinations on testing, provision is included for the manufacturer to appeal that decision by the Secretary of State to a domestic court. Regulation 22 amends article 19, which is a standard provision about entry into force of the regulation.
Regulations 23 to 29 amend annexes 1 to 8 to the regulation. The annexes to the regulation contain technical detail, such as the required detail of the labelling and ingredient datasheet, as set out in annexe 7, and labelling provisions for consumer automatic dishwasher detergents, as set out in annexe 7B. The annexes contain references to various technical standards and other pieces of EU legislation and are being amended to make them operable, such as by removing references to member states. Out-of-date references have also been updated.
The draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 have been tabled on behalf of the four Administrations. The safeguard clause was introduced for member states to take provisional measures in relation to those detergents which, while fully compliant with the EU regulation, were deemed to pose a risk to the safety of humans, animals or the environment. Currently, member states intending to use the safeguard clause must immediately inform the Commission, documenting their reasons. The safeguard clause in article 15 of the detergents regulation is amended by the draft instrument, otherwise it would be an inoperable part of retained EU law because, as it stands, it refers to member states and the European Commission. It is amended to reflect arrangements in domestic law.
Regulation 1 of the draft instrument makes introductory provision. Regulation 2 provides a definition of terms used throughout the draft instrument. Regulation 3 amends article 15 of the detergents regulation. The Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations will have the full powers currently held by the European Commission and member states to initiate safeguarding action across the UK in relation to detergents. The Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations—where the matter is devolved—will be able to take urgent, temporary restrictive action in relation to products through this amended safeguard clause.
The draft instruments address technical deficiencies, do not introduce new policy and preserve the current regime, therefore providing legal clarity, certainty and continuity to businesses and the public. I commend them to the Committee.
Dr Coffey
In response to the hon. Member for Falkirk, I have not had direct representations from the detergents industry specifically, but as I shared with the Committee, HSE has had those discussions and seems content—this is about business continuity.
I assure the hon. Member for Ipswich that we will not relax environmental standards. There is no need to do so. I am not aware that the derogation is being used in this country, and I think it is probably only rarely used across the European Union. I do not anticipate a sudden flurry of applications given that, as he said, many manufacturers will want to ensure that their products can be sold as widely as possible.
Discussions are happening on future divergence and mirroring EU laws. In essence, as has been said, particularly in respect of the withdrawal agreement, Parliament will have to make those choices. It is not the case that measures will go through automatically—I anticipate that we will vote on those matters. What does future divergence mean? I will not rule out future divergence—that is a decision for future Parliaments—but I anticipate that most businesses whose main market is other parts of the European Union will follow the market, as long as a product is acceptable in this country. They will always have to comply with the rules of the European Union if that is the market in which they wish to sell.
On HSE and additional requirements, HSE already does the work and we believe that any additional work will be minimal. In effect, this is the day job—HSE already undertakes those obligations on our behalf as an agency contracted into the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
I have covered the questions asked by the hon. Gentlemen, and therefore believe we can agree the SIs.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Detergents (Safeguarding) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)
Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill (First sitting)
Thérèse Coffey ExcerptsMonday 11th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill 2017-19 View all Rivers Authorities and Land Drainage Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 11 March 2019 - (11 Mar 2019)
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is worth saying that, even though the Committee has a south-west majority, those people with a south-west link, even if they represent a different part of the country, are very welcome as well.
That question relates to the patchwork quilt of responsibilities that is the underlying context for rivers authorities. How will these new authorities work with different local authorities? My hon. Friend is entirely right that we are moving to an era where we want fewer carbon-intensive end-of-pipe solutions, which are both expensive for those who pay for them and have a large carbon impact in their construction. Lower-carbon interventions, such as the re-wetting of peat bogs or the planting of more trees, are frequently required in an area other than where flooding takes place. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that.
Proposed new section 21F provides powers to acquire and dispose of property. I am working on the assumption that those powers will be deployed in the same way as local councils deploy them at the moment, with authority and judgment. I would be grateful if the Minister set that out for the record. I am interested to know whether the Minister is confident that the Secretary of State’s framework under proposed new section 21G will not inhibit the autonomy of rivers authorities in relation to how those powers are implemented.
On proposed new sections 21H and 21A, we hope that rivers authorities will be a success and that there will be no need to abolish them, but it is useful to look ahead at all scenarios when creating them in the first place, so what criteria will there be for abolishing a rivers authority? Will there be any scrutiny or appeals in relation to that? A concern from time spent observing the coalition Government is that many bodies were swept away and some of the people who relied on those bodies did not have a say in the process, so I would like to understand how that might work.
It is important, when we talk about flooding, to recognise that with the advent of additional flood planning when new developments come through, those new developments are well protected, but bringing forward flood defences for new developments sometimes means that communities that were not previously affected by flooding now will be. It would be useful to get a sense of how rivers authorities, which will look at flooding in the wider sense, will have an eye on not only the area that they cover, but the impact of their work on other areas.
We have no opposition to the clause, but I would be grateful if those questions could be clarified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey, and I thank all hon. Members present for taking an interest. The Government support the Bill and all the clauses and amendments that will be discussed today.
It is fair to say that the creation of the rivers authority came about because of the situation in Somerset. To answer the question about pilot authorities, Somerset has effectively had a shadow rivers authority running, so I would expect any learnings to be taken from what has happened there to other councils. If communities wish to come forward and take advantage of these powers, we will consider them, but as it stands the only expression of interest so far is from Somerset, which is the reason the Bill has arisen.
It is worth pointing out to the Committee that one of the reasons for creating this wider opportunity for other people to come forward was to avoid the political difficulty of what is called a hybrid Bill to create a specific authority, which can take anywhere between five and 10 years to get through, if it ever does. The Bill provides that opportunity, but it is not the Government’s intention to go around proactively creating rivers authorities. However, the door will be open if there is local support to do that.
Quite a lot of the powers will be set out in regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome talked about the majority of members being from the local authorities comprising the rivers authority. It could be the case that every single member is from those local authorities, but it might make sense to put the Environment Agency on as a member. That will vary from area to area. As things stand, that level of detail has yet to be discussed with the councils from Somerset, but it is something that the Government are open to and it is important that we have that consultation discussion up front.
On the coastal situation, obviously Somerset has a coast. The Bill is intended to address the issue that was identified of a special coming together of a series of rivers, particularly in the levels, which can create a particular situation. All of those rivers are in Somerset and do not go across authorities. However, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, a rivers authority would be required to complement and work with neighbouring areas, as he would expect.
It is important to point out to the hon. Member for Leeds North West that these areas can cover more than one local authority area, so a rivers authority could go across borders if it was deemed appropriate by the councils that wanted to take it forward. The Bill is not prescriptive about there being only one local authority; as I say, there will be ongoing collaboration. I stress that this is not about trying to replace things, but about complementing what already exists by pulling together this new authority concept, which can have a separate precept on a council tax bill. In order to have that privilege, of course the rivers authority will be subject to the elements of local government legislation that were set out.
I do not think that public access to meetings is written into the Bill, but if it were necessary and it needed to be in legislation, I am sure it could be put into the statutory instrument that will be required to create the Somerset Rivers Authority. In effect, the authority would be subject to investigation by the local government ombudsman for England, so protections are in place to ensure there is accountability.
David Warburton
I am grateful in many ways to my hon. Friend for his exceptionally important intervention. He is absolutely right that the drainage boards do tremendous work and are vital. We are lucky to have them. One of the important things about the Bill is that it will facilitate other places’ setting them up—something which they are unable to do at the moment.
In total there are 112 internal drainage boards across England, which cover some 1.2 million hectares—around 10% of the land. The work they do protects 600,000 people and nearly 900,000 properties. They operate and maintain over 500 pumping stations and 22,000 km of watercourse, which is slightly further than from this room to New Zealand. Those are incredible numbers, but there is scope to increase that local support and allow more of the country to benefit. However, to enable this support to be available where it is wanted and where it is appropriate, the Land Drainage Act 1991 needs to change.
Internal drainage boards are funded by the areas they serve. Drainage rates are paid by agricultural landowners, and the special levy is paid by local district or unitary councils, which in turn recoup these costs. Under the Land Drainage Act 1991, the proportion of IDBs’ expenses raised by drainage rates is equal to the agricultural proportion of land values in an internal drainage district. In turn, the proportion of expenses raised by the special levy is proportionate to the value of all other land in the internal drainage district.
The calculations that IDBs are required to carry out, in order to apportion the payment of their expenses between the drainage rate and the special levy, depend on an assessment by each IDB of the relative value of agricultural land and buildings, and the value of other land. However, the assessment of the value of other land in internal drainage districts currently depends on data from 1990, which, unfortunately, in many instances is missing or incomplete. This prevents the creation of new IDBs or the expansion of existing ones.
This part of the Bill amends the Land Drainage Act 1991, to enable new data to be used by internal drainage boards when calculating the value of other lands, if they elect to do so, thereby addressing the current barrier to creating or expanding IDBs. Clause 2 amends section 37 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that provide an alternative methodology for calculating the value of other land. The regulations will be made subject to the affirmative procedure. In the new regulations, the Secretary of State will be able to provide a methodology for calculating the value of other land by making use of data that is not only available and complete, but more up to date.
Among other things, proposed new subsection (5ZB) of the 1991 Act will allow the regulations to make provision about methods to be applied or factors to be taken into account in valuing other land. This proposed subsection allows the regulations to provide for internal drainage boards to elect to have the regulations apply to them and to specify a procedure for making such an election. The IDBs would not have to adopt the new methodology; the Bill provides them with the ability to adopt it if they wish. That benefits those that do not wish to change their procedures; if they do nothing, nothing will change.
IDBs will need access to information from the Valuation Office Agency—the executive agency of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to calculate the value of other land using a new methodology set out in regulations. Clause 3 provides a power enabling the VOA to share revenue and customs information with IDBs—
David Warburton
Before speaking to clause 3, I need to address amendment 1—which I was just about to do, obviously. Since I introduced the Bill, new data protection legislation—the Data Protection Act 2018—has come into force, and the amendment updates the Bill to reflect that. Rather than simply changing the year of the Act mentioned, the amendment refers to data protection legislation as defined in section 3 of the 2018 Act, which means that it incorporates other related and relevant data protection legislation, including the general data protection regulation and related secondary legislation.
Returning to clause 3, proposed new section 37A(5) of the 1991 Act enables the appropriate national authority—the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers—to update and/or amend references to qualifying persons and/or qualifying purposes by regulations to be made under the affirmative procedure. Proposed new subsection (8) ensures that such regulations may be made only with the consent of the commissioners for HMRC.
New section 37B provides restrictions on onward disclosure of Revenue and Customs information. In essence, all onward disclosure is prohibited unless it meets certain criteria, as set out in subsection (1). Subsection (2) sets out the circumstances under which information may not be disclosed by the VOA without the consent of the commissioners for HMRC. It is an offence if a person contravenes the first two subsections by disclosing information relating to a person whose identity is specified in or can be deduced from such a disclosure, as is set out in subsection (4). The associated penalty of imprisonment, a fine or both is set out in subsection (6). Finally, new section 37C sets out further provisions about disclosure of information under the previous new sections, such as the conditions under which the data issued by the VOA would be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
While clause 2 amends the Land Drainage Act 1991 in respect of calculating the value of other land, clause 4 makes amendments in respect of calculating the value of chargeable land—namely, agricultural land and buildings. Clause 4 inserts new section 41A into the 1991 Act, enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations, again by the affirmative procedure, to establish an alternative methodology for calculating the value of chargeable land. Although the issue of missing or incomplete data does not affect the 1991 Act’s method for calculating the value of chargeable land, the change is necessary to reduce the risk of imbalance on either side of the apportionment calculation. The Secretary of State will be able, within the new regulations, to provide a new methodology for calculating the value of chargeable land that makes use of more recent data than that dating back some 30 years.
New section 41A(3) allows the regulations to make provision about the methods to be applied or the factors to be taken into account in valuing chargeable property, including land. As before, subsection (9) allows the regulations to provide for IDBs to elect that the regulations apply to them and to specify the procedure for making such election. As I mentioned in respect of clause 2, that means that they can determine whether to adopt the new methodology and, if they do not wish to do so, nothing will change. Together, the changes will enable new, complete, available data to be used to provide alternative, fair methodologies for the calculations, which fairly apportion payment of IDB expenses between the drainage rate and the special levy.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I will be brief and will begin, as others have, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome on bringing the Bill forward. When a number of constituents wrote to me urging that I support it, I wrote back confident that it would face either the chop or the Chope. However, it has got through, which we should all be grateful for. According to the Association of British Insurers, my constituency is the most likely in the country to flood, and in 2013 it did so, which is why the Minister is spending £100 million on a flood barrier for it. I am as grateful for that as I am for the five IDBs that work in my constituency.
I want to ask two brief questions. First, the Bill is clearly aimed at the south-west, and I will not pretend for a moment that I begrudge that. However, I would like some reassurance that the IDBs in my constituency that work so well together could, if they wanted, avail themselves of the opportunity to form a rivers authority. Would the Government look favourably on that sort of thing? I say that without wishing to indicate that those IDBs necessarily want to do so, but that option is working well for Somerset in its shadow form and will hopefully work well in the future. I would like to think that we, too, could have that potential benefit.
Secondly, as the expansion of areas that are rated for IDBs is permitted elsewhere in the country, and since we all know that drainage boards work and that their benefits often extend well beyond the areas that pay for them, I hope that the expansion of IDBs will reach not just Somerset but other areas. Unfortunately, councils such as mine in Boston are often affected financially by necessary and sensible rises in drainage rates filtering through to their bottom line. That effectively means that borough councils cannot responsibly raise taxes as much as they wish to, because the 2% cap on council tax might be disproportionately taken up by that rise in drainage rates. A rivers authority is one way of solving that problem, but it strikes me that it is not the only way.
I commend this excellent Bill, and the excellent Member who has brought it forward. I hope that he and the Minister will be able to tell me that it is not only the south-west that will benefit from it.
Dr Coffey
To answer the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, internal drainage boards operate in a quite different way. Effectively, cash comes from local councils, which appoint people to them, and there are people who have to pay the drainage rates—that relates to agricultural land. They carry out their own elections and make decisions together. The local businesses will be ones that are concerned with agricultural land, and they run their own election process. I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with some reassurance.
I am conscious of the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness that there is not a separate way of accounting for the item in question on the council tax bill. I am sure he recognises that it is not possible under the Bill to change the existing arrangements by which councils might want to show clearly how money is raised, or, indeed, other aspects of the referendum. However, I assure him that if people in his area, working with the councils, want to come forward on the matter of a rivers authority, it would be open to them to do so if they believed that the benefits would outweigh those of their current arrangement.
I reiterate that the Government support the changes. In my area the East Suffolk internal drainage board operates exceptionally well and, with the de-maining pilot, will take on further responsibilities for certain rivers in the area, with no extra cost to councils or indeed agricultural landowners. I believe that IDBs are generally a force for good. They are a key part of the Cumbria flood action plan.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the Minister for injecting her expertise and local knowledge into the debate. Does she agree that the Somerset IDBs do a complicated job representing landowners, as well as a great job on the conservation front? What is amazing about the Somerset levels is that they are an internationally famous wetland site and the largest area of lowland wetland grassland in the UK. Huge populations of wading birds come there. We have three IDBs in Somerset and they have just jointly produced a biodiversity action plan. It is all part and parcel of why we need to control the water and why the Bill is so important. It is not just about people and businesses, but about wildlife.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which just goes to show how committed farmers and landowners are to improving and enhancing the natural environment in whatever way they can. The flow of water can have a significant impact on nature, and not only in landlocked areas. Members with coastal constituencies will be aware of saltmarsh and intertidal habitats that are critical for the conservation of many special species. I agree with my hon. Friend and support the work going on in Somerset.
David Warburton
I am grateful to the Minister for fielding all the questions so well. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane is well known as a passionate advocate of environmental matters. She is right that the Somerset biodiversity action plan is exciting and that the IDBs will play an integral part in ensuring that our splendid Somerset heritage is maintained.
Draft Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Thérèse Coffey Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. The need for the statutory instrument arises as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the result of the 2016 referendum and as subsequently agreed by Parliament. In line with the European Union (Withdrawal Act) 2018, the regulations simply make technical legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of UK legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable, so that following our exit from the EU, the law will continue to function as it does today. I assure the Committee that the adjustments represent no change in policy and will have no impact on businesses or the public.
The matters under consideration are devolved, but the four Administrations have agreed to make most of the necessary changes through the statutory instrument, so its territorial extent and application is the United Kingdom. That said, the following amendments do not cover the whole United Kingdom.
First, in part 2, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which is amended by regulations 2 and 5, does not extend or apply to Northern Ireland. Secondly, Council decision 2003/33/EC, which is amended by regulation 15, does not form part of retained EU law in relation to Scotland, as the requirements of that decision have previously been implemented directly in Scottish domestic legislation. Thirdly, of the new reporting requirements that replace the existing reporting requirements to the Commission, which I will cover later in my speech, a particular example refers to England only, as the devolved Administrations did not want that duty to apply to them in the instrument. We have worked with the devolved Administrations during the drafting of the instrument. They have all given their consent, as has the Scottish Parliament.
The instrument covers the waste management areas of waste batteries and accumulators, end-of-waste criteria, packaging waste, end-of-life vehicle destruction certification, landfill acceptance criteria, the classification of hazardous waste, the management of waste from extractive industries, and calculation methods for verifying compliance with recycling targets under article 11.2 of the waste framework directive.
To ensure operability, the instrument will make amendments to three waste-related Acts of Parliament and 14 related EU regulations and decisions. More broadly, as has often happened with such statutory instruments, a large number of the changes are due to amending references to the European Union, EU institutions and EU administrative processes to make them refer to their domestic equivalents in the UK, and to updating legal references to refer to relevant domestic legislation.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way and assure her that I will not keep her long. The end-of-life vehicles directive puts a sum of money in place to dispose of vehicles. Naturally, the statutory instrument only passes the legislation from European to British law, but further down the road, I would like the Minister to consider the cost of scrapping vehicles. Perhaps electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles could have a lesser charge, which would be yet another way to encourage people to use electric vehicles so that we improve our air quality in the long run.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend makes an interesting policy point, but he will recognise that the purpose of the instrument is not to generate new policy at this stage. That will be a matter for a future separate debate. I fully understand where he is coming from—he mentioned the matter in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee yesterday—but to keep the debate relevant to the statutory instrument, I suggest we talk about it another time.
Dr Coffey
A significant part of the instrument addresses the way in which references to EU directives will be applied after exit day. I now turn to the detail of the changes that are being made through the instrument.
In part 2, regulations 2 and 3 effectively bring references to the waste framework directive up to date with respect to part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. That is enabled by section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. Part 2 of the draft regulations therefore brings our existing regulations up to date with the correct references.
Part 3 comprises the substantial changes needed to make the retained law operable, with respect to primary legislation, after exit from the EU. That is the element directly relevant to the withdrawal Act. Regulation 4 considers the Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989, which contains a specific power for the Secretary of State to exempt—by secondary legislation—a waste carrier operating in the UK from the need to be UK registered, based solely on meeting the legal requirements in other EU member states. That power has never been used and will be redundant upon exit so we are revoking it, but the existing general power to exempt registering when prescribed conditions are met will remain. I emphasise that all carriers operating in the UK will still need to meet the requirements set by UK competent authorities.
Regulation 5 inserts new section 75A into the Environmental Protection Act. The new section clarifies how the waste framework directive will be applied after exit to maintain the existing effect and operation of the law.
Regulation 6 contains two strands of amendments to the Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003. Regulation 6(2) amends section 1 of that Act. It omits subsection (2), which referred to landfill targets contained in article 5.2 of the landfill directive, as those targets are already set out in domestic legislation. Subsection (4) is also amended to require the Secretary of State to consult the appropriate devolved Administration for each part of the UK before setting any new landfill targets or amending existing ones. That fully respects the devolution agreements as waste is a devolved matter. A similar change is made by regulation 6(3) to the secondary legislation-making power in section 23 of the 2003 Act. Regulation 6(4) amends section 37 of that Act, which defines waste for the purpose of the Act, and inserts new section 37A to provide modifications to clarify the way that the waste framework directive will be applied after exit, in order to maintain the existing effect and operation of the law.
Part 4 of the instrument makes amendments to and revocations of retained direct EU legislation. The lawyers have drafted the regulations by number in order of year, but I will speak to groups of new regulations that refer to specific waste-related subject areas. Chapter 1 of part 4 makes amendments to EU regulations. Regulations 8 and 10 of the instrument are about batteries. They make amendments to Commission regulation 1103/2010, which relates to capacity labelling of batteries, and to Commission regulation 493/2012 on the calculation of recycling efficiencies of the recycling processes of waste batteries and accumulators.
The amendments include replacing references to “Member States” with “The Secretary of State”, and defining “appropriate agency”, which would be the environmental regulators in England, Scotland and Wales, and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland. The amendments also insert modifications that clarify the way that the various EU directives referenced in those EU regulations will be applied after exit in order to maintain the existing effect and operation of the law.
Regulations 9, 11 and 12 cover waste criteria and make amendments to three EU regulations made under article 6.1 of the waste framework directive. Those three EU regulations provide criteria for determining when certain types of scrap metal, glass cullet and copper scrap cease to be waste. The required processes for businesses to achieve end of waste will not change as a result of the instrument. The assessment of end-of-waste status and the guidance provided by regulatory agencies will still apply as before.
The principal amendments made to those EU regulations insert modifications to the way that references to EU directives in those regulations are to be applied on and after exit day. For example, references to “Member States” are to be read as references to the “appropriate authority”, “competent authority” or “local authority”, which was responsible for the UK’s compliance with that obligation or was able to exercise that discretion before exit day. To be clear, those are not new burdens; they merely maintain the status quo about who does what currently.
In addition, the amendments account for the fact that environmental verification under the eco-management and audit scheme—known as EMAS—will no longer apply in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members who have regularly attended such Delegated Legislation Committees will know that the amendments relating to that scheme have already been passed by both Houses.
Chapter 2 covers EU decisions. Regulation 13 amends Commission decision 2000/532/EC, which contains a list of waste classifications for hazardous and non-hazardous waste. The amendments introduce modifications to clarify the way that various EU directives will be applied to maintain the existing effect and operation of the law.
Regulations 14 and 16 make amendments to decisions made under directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste relating to derogations for glass packaging and plastic crates and pallets. References to “Member States” will be replaced by the “Secretary of State”, references to “Community” will be replaced by the “United Kingdom”, and appropriate agencies defined as the regulator of each nation and DAERA in Northern Ireland. They also introduce modifications that clarify the way in which EU directives referenced in the legislation will be read.
Regulations 15 and 17 to 20 amend various decisions made under directives 1999/31/EC and 2006/21/EC relating to the landfilling of waste and extractive waste respectively. These amendments include replacing references to “Member States” with “The Secretary of State”, and references to “Community” with “the United Kingdom”, and provide certainty on definitions and defining the appropriate agency. Two amendments convert requirements to report information to the European Commission into a statutory duty to publish the same information reports. As before, they introduce modifications that clarify the way in which EU directives referenced in the legislation will be applied.
Regulation 21 relates to Commission decision 2011/753/EU on establishing rules and calculation methods for verifying compliance with a target set in the waste framework directive. Regulation 21(7) applies to England only. This is where we have amended article 5 of the decision so that it now requires the Secretary of State to publish the progress report on whether the current target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020, set by article 11.2 of the waste framework directive, has been met in respect of England. The progress report must be published before 1 January 2022. The devolved Administrations did not want this duty to apply to them in this instrument.
In chapter 3 of part 4 and the schedule, the instrument revokes some directly applicable EU legislation on waste. Some of this legislation has been revoked because it is redundant in a domestic context, for example Commission decisions that set the format of questionnaires and data reports that EU member states complete and return to the Commission in relation to the implementation of EU directives.
Other pieces of the directly applicable EU legislation are being revoked because their requirements are already embedded in domestic legislation. For example, Commission decision 2003/138/EC covers material and component coding standards for end-of-life vehicles; and Commission decision 2002/151/EC relates to minimum standards for the certificate of destruction for those vehicles. In both cases, the requirements of those decisions are already set out fully in the End-of-Life Vehicles Regulations 2003.
This statutory instrument is long and technical, but as I said at the start, it does not change policy. It simply makes the rules that we have today applicable.
Dr Coffey
It is a pleasure to respond to the questions, starting with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The Government absolutely recognise the devolution arrangement. The hon. Member for Ipswich effectively complains that reporting requirements apply only to England, and is trying to get the UK Government to make sure other Administrations prepare reports. It is not our obligation to do so.
The 50% target is not advisory; it is already in domestic legislation, and that is not changing in any way. Such targets are not imposed on the United Kingdom; we vote for them in the Council. We also voted for the adoption of the circular economy package. We said in the resources and waste strategy that we intend to bring that package into effect, but the detail of the transposition of directives has yet to be resolved, because elements are still going through certain processes.
Sandy Martin
The Minister is well aware that, although it is certainly the case that EU targets are derived from decisions made by all EU members working together, which is why some of us believe that the EU is a fairly democratic body, none the less once those decisions have been made, they are imposed on the member states. Imposing something on a member state is very different.
Dr Coffey
I do not accept that—the decisions are not imposed on the United Kingdom. We have that system of decision making. It is a collaborative process at the moment, so they are certainly not imposed; we agree to them. That is why we put them into our legislation. The 50% target is already in domestic law.
The hon. Gentleman is right to praise Wales, which is ahead of the target already. At the moment, Scotland is the lowest of the four nations, but I know that active work is being done to improve that. We have already started to see improvements in Northern Ireland. I really hope that hon. Members are aware of the current consultations on how we are considering changing the recycling system, the exchange of producer responsibility, with the packaging recovery network process, and other fiscal measures that we believe will stimulate an increase in recycling.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the office for environmental protection is now going through pre-legislative scrutiny. The Secretary of State and I gave evidence yesterday to the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs Committee. We are due to give further evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. We await their views, which we will consider as we go through to the next steps in the creation of the new body. It is worth pointing out that only the European Court has the ability to submit fines. To date, I am not aware of any fine that has been imposed on the United Kingdom regarding an environmental matter, although I recognise that we may have been on that journey in several places regarding infraction.
There is a desire to ensure that we improve recycling. I believe that the regulations do exactly what they are supposed to. As I said, we updated part 2 using the European Communities Act 1972. The rest of the regulations simply provide that what happens today will happen the day after exit day. It is important that we have that level of regulation, recognising the issues that have been raised about the challenges on what we need to do to ensure that we still have an effective waste system. I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put.