Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

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

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

There are two things on which I want to reflect. We must remember that the schedule concerns the Northern Ireland function of the Office for Environmental Protection, and should effectively provide the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly with a reasonable replica of what is required to set up the OEP in England and Wales. At the same time, it should provide for substantial reporting and discretion to the Assembly by the OEP.

A particular concern, about which I hope the Minister will reflect and respond, is that that replication of the OEP’s operation for its Northern Ireland function is not as close as it could be. Amendment 194, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who both represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, was discussed earlier as part of a debate on a group of amendments, so we did not actually discuss its content. I draw the Committee’s attention to the effect that amendment would have on the OEP in Northern Ireland: it sought essentially to provide a mechanism for long-term and interim targets.

That mechanism was the same as the one for the OEP response to targets set out in clauses 1 to 6. Although there is reference to those targets in general, it is very different from clause 1. Indeed, it does not include, for example, achievement measures and does not specifically discuss interim targets. That could have been resolved with the amendment, as the formulation is different from the one for England and Wales. I wonder whether that has arisen by commission or omission. Was the Government’s intention that there should be different arrangements relating to targets and interim targets for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland? Was their intention that the OEP should have different responsibilities towards targets in Northern Ireland? That is the first concern.

The second concern relates to the formulation of the requirement for Ministers to lay before Parliament the notices and legal actions that the OEP has introduced in respect of environmental law and environmental protection. Hon. Members will see that there is a repetition of our earlier debate about what we characterised as a particularly egregious “may” and “must” issue. Clause 3(6), on page 134 of the Bill states:

“The Northern Ireland department concerned may, if it thinks fit, lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly— (a) the advice, and (b) any response that department may make to the advice.”

Hon. Members will recall that is exactly what we debated, and whether the Minister responsible might decide that he or she would lay something before Parliament or, on the other hand, they might decide that they would not lay something before Parliament, and that was the end of that. We expressed concern about what we thought was a very poor formulation, as far as the UK Parliament was concerned, when we discussed the relevant amendment.

In the first instance, it looks as if that formulation is simply being repeated as far as the OEP and the Minister are concerned, in Northern Ireland, but there is a difference: it is not the Minister who may lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly if he or she sees fit, but the Northern Ireland Department. I am puzzled by that formulation. How it is possible for an entire Department to think that something is fit, or not? In the formulation used in the England and Wales version, there is a person—the Minister—who must decide whether or not it is fit. We criticised the potential actions of that person in not thinking that something was fit.

I am puzzled about how this will work. Someone, somewhere, may or may not decide to lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is okay as far as it goes, but we do not like the idea of “may or may not”. However, I do not think what we are considering is a particularly easy legal concept: not only an entire Department thinking fit, but an entire Department thinking at all. The formulation that the Department “thinks fit” would require an entire Department to decide something, and an entire Department then to decide whether what it thought fit would be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.

There is no identified person at any stage in this to whom the Northern Ireland Assembly say,  “We would rather you had put that in front of us. Why have you not, and why did you not think it was fit to put that in front of us?” Instead, they presumably have to knock on the door of the UK’s Northern Ireland Office and ask to speak to someone who could shed some light on that, then pursue how that thinking and fitness came about in the corridors of that Office.

That seems to be a very strange formulation. Can the Minister elucidate whether that means that an individual, one way or another, is responsible in the Northern Ireland Office and can be identified and can take the responsibility for thinking fit or otherwise? Or is it just a formulation that is so legally opaque as to make it virtually unworkable? If that is the case, would the Minister think about taking that away and thinking again about how the provision is formulated as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I want to be clear that, as part of our dual commitment to a strong Union and protecting and enhancing the natural environment, the Northern Ireland Executive have asked us to extend certain aspects of our new environmental governance framework to Northern Ireland, subject to affirmation from the Assembly. A great deal of discussion has gone into that, and the Executive asked for that. I want to be clear about that. They do not believe it is clouded in opaqueness, because they have been fully engaged.

Schedule 3 provides an option to extend the OEP’s functions to apply to devolved matters in Northern Ireland in the future, should the Assembly decide to do so. That is important. The shadow Minister touched on targets, but we voted on that earlier in schedule 2, so I do not think that is necessarily relevant to what we are talking about now.

The provisions in part 1 of schedule 3 will provide the OEP with powers in Northern Ireland broadly equivalent to those in England. For example, the OEP will be able to monitor and report on the implementation of Northern Irish environmental law, much as it would be able to do in England under clause 26. Similarly, schedule 3 provides for the extension of the OEP’s enforcement functions to Northern Ireland, taking into account the two nations’ different court systems. Part 2 will provide for the OEP to adapt its operating procedures appropriately if extended to cover devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and amends the general functions of the OEP so they may adequately apply to Northern Ireland. For example, part 2 ensures appropriate Northern Ireland representation on the OEP board and ensures that the OEP’s remit covers Northern Irish environmental law. Schedule 3 is essential to ensure the extension of the OEP to Northern Ireland should the Assembly decide to do that. I hope that I have made that quite clear.

[Dr Whitehead]

I do not think the Minister has clarified what paragraph 3(6) of schedule 3 means. I offered a possible interpretation of what that clause meant—it appears to say that an entire Department is responsible for thinking, and for thinking something fit. I assume that the entire Department that is mentioned in the provision is the Northern Ireland Department concerned, so that, as the Minister said, should these matters proceed properly towards devolution, there will be—she said that there has been, as I anticipated there should have been— extensive discussion with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland on how this will work and what it means, and that a substantial part of this process is at their request. It is important to understand, since we are making legislation here for that to work there, what this actually means. I assume that it does not mean that the UK Northern Ireland Office is responsible, if it thinks fit, for laying before the Northern Assembly—

[Rebecca Pow]

First, I want to clarify the fact that the decision to commence provisions to extend the OEP to devolved matters to Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers and for affirmation by the Assembly. I also want to point out that it is common practice for Northern Ireland to confer powers on a Department. Departmental functions are exercised subject to the direction and control of the departmental Minister, as set out in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that. That is very helpful. If it is the case that a Department, in Northern Ireland practice, effectively takes its cue for these things from the Minister in the Department that is responsible, that potentially answers my particular question. I have not heard that before, but it would be good if we could be assured that that is what will happen in practice once that goes into devolution—that there will be a person responsible for thinking fit, namely, the Minister in that Department.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will intervene again and give those assurances. I send a great many letters to my counterpart in that Department. We have a lot of toing and froing, so the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is a lot of communication. We want it to work for Northern Ireland the way that they want it to work

[Dr Whitehead]

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

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Producer responsibility obligations

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

That topic is not referenced in the Bill. Those are issues relating to how the regulations will work when it comes to producer responsibility and deposit return. Local authorities will still play a huge role, but the great point is that they will not be responsible for all the costs any more. What is brilliant is that the costs will be shifted on to the businesses. They will then be forced to design products that are much easier to recycle. That brings us again to the circular economy. I thank the hon. Lady for raising another good point.

The measures will help us to tackle waste from the beginning of the life cycle, and complement measures elsewhere in the Bill that support the later stages of that cycle. There are also powers in schedule 7 that will allow resource efficiency requirements to be placed on specified products. Those requirements will relate to factors such as the materials from which the product is manufactured, and the resources consumed during its production. For instance, thinking off the top of my head, one could say that clothing or textiles must contain a certain amount of recycled fibre. There could be a requirement to use fewer virgin materials or more recycled materials in the manufacture of the product.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Putney welcomes the schedule. It is great to have that positivity, and I applaud her work on food waste. It is very exciting that it will become law for food waste to be collected. That will be an important part of the Bill, because while some local authorities, such as mine in Taunton Deane, do collect it, loads do not. Much of it ends up in landfill, giving off emissions. We could make so much better use of it, and could focus attention on how much food waste is produced, which is frankly shocking.

[Dr Whitehead]

Is the Minister’s example of requiring a certain proportion of textiles to include recycled materials now a policy?

[The Chair]

In the context of this amendment, Minister.

[Rebecca Pow]

I was just giving a random example, off the top of my head. I do not see any policies written here. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch me out?

[Dr Whitehead]

I was hoping it was going to be policy.

[Rebecca Pow]

The measures are the kind of thing that will open up the doors to all those opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Whitehead]

I want to add a little bit of context to amendment 159. As my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Newport West have already mentioned, it increases the dimension within which these issues can be considered in terms of targets. It does so not by an accidental addition of words, but essentially by adding what is in the Government’s White Paper “Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England”, which was published in 2018.

In that White Paper, the Government fully embrace the notion of the waste hierarchy, and the document contains lots of good charts to illustrate it. At the bottom of the waste hierarchy are things such as landfill. Moving up the hierarchy, we find energy from waste, which is still pretty low in the hierarchy; after that, it is necessary to start recycling. From a policy point of view, measures should always drive waste as far up the hierarchy as possible. If it is possible to recycle waste, rather than putting it into an incinerator as an alternative to burying it in the land, that is what should be done. If, however, there is residual waste that cannot be incinerated or recycled—there is some of that in the waste stream—it should be put into landfill, but only on a residual basis. We would hope that over time, the amount of waste going into landfill will be virtually nil, because we have moved up the waste hierarchy in terms of how the system works.

In the waste hierarchy, there are two other categories above recycling: reducing and preventing. The best way to handle a waste stream is to make sure that there is less waste in it in the first place, and that it contains only things that cannot be reused or prevented from arising. At that point, we would be dealing, pretty much, with a residual waste stream when it came to volume and climate change energy considerations. In the whole waste stream, the only waste to be addressed would be residual waste from a largely circular economy, in which products are designed to come apart so that the parts can be put to other uses, and, through industrial symbiosis, products that one company views as waste are presented to other organisations as raw material.

That process is possible only if product design or articulation allows it to happen. For example, the expectation would be that a vehicle could be taken apart and all the components—even if they are made of different elements, and they are not all metal or plastic—would be sufficiently pure and reusable to be used as the raw material for something else straight away. As we will discuss later, that is particularly important with the coming upon us of electric vehicles. If electric vehicles cannot be taken apart—in particular, if their batteries cannot be taken apart to recover the rare earth elements, lithium and other materials for use in other batteries, so that they are not put into the waste stream in the first place—we are not very far down the line of recycling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend speaks with passion and experience on this issue. This is not novel, so I have found myself wondering, exactly as he does, why those words have been excluded. Would he care to speculate on why the Government would choose not to have them in the Bill?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes an important point about what is and is not in the legislation. I would expect him to have similar views about other words. It seems plain to me that if the waste hierarchy is to be adopted, all the components of that hierarchy must be in the description. They are not there, and I cannot speculate on why not. It may be that those who drafted the Bill were not fully aware of the waste White Paper when they sat down late at night to write that passage. If they were not, they should have been. The amendment would offer an opportunity to rectify that omission. We are not suggesting that there was any malevolent intention; perhaps it is just an omission. I hope the Minister can oblige us by ensuring that the words sit proudly in the Bill, alongside Government policy.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for the proposed amendment. Although I recognise the intentions behind it, I must disagree with it. She pressed the Government to be as ambitious as possible, and I assure her that we are being ambitious. I am delighted that we think in the same way in wanting the highest ambition; I like to think that we are as one on that.

I do not believe we need the amendment. The power, as drafted, already allows us to place obligations, including targets, on producers to prevent waste or to reduce the amount of a product or material that becomes waste. Paragraph 2(2) gives examples of how targets may be set. They include, but are not limited to, the setting of targets to increase the proportion of a product or material that is reused, redistributed, recycled or recovered to prevent it from becoming waste. Those examples do not prevent the powers in schedule 4 from being used to set targets in relation to preventing waste from being produced, or reducing the amount of waste that is produced.

Producer responsibility obligations could be set as targets to incentivise producers to prevent or reduce waste, but they do not have to be set only as targets. We can all get a bit hung up on targets. Targets are important, but we could use the powers, for example, to require producers to take specific action to tackle waste, such as by requiring retailers to take back products. There is a lot of work in this space in the area of electronic waste, where department stores are expected to take back products. Another possibility could be single-use cups, once they have been used. Obligations such as this should create a strong incentive to create less waste in the first place: I think we are all agreed that that is what we are driving towards.

The hon. Member for Putney made a similar case about the circular economy. I applaud her work on nappies; I was one of those mothers. I have three children, and—this was a long time ago, when people were not talking about this sort of thing—with my first child, I used only washable nappies. Can you imagine, Mr Gray, how much work that was? Oh my goodness—not to mention the smell! I am not digressing, because this is all relevant. I was a news reporter at the time, and I interviewed a lady who had set up a business making these nappies, so I thought, “I am going to use those.” In fact, I think I used my child allowance support to pay for them. That was what I had decided I would do, but it was a labour of love.

The point is that through all these measures in the Bill, manufacturers of any product will be driven to think about what is in it. For example, are nappies made of recycled material? Do they have recycled content? Could they be reused? Are they washable? The Bill will drive everyone to think like that.

[Dr Whitehead]

If they made nappy pins that did not stab the baby.

[Rebecca Pow]

Did the shadow Minister use washable nappies for his children?

[Dr Whitehead]

I did indeed, absolutely.

[Rebecca Pow]

Did he?

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

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

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

in schedule 5 would make a great difference.

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

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

[Dr Whitehead]

Just to add to my colleagues’ excellent expositions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of the schedule. It is headed “Producer responsibility for disposal costs”—fair enough. Paragraph 1(2) talks about

“the disposal costs of the products or materials”.

It is then as if the framers of the schedule thought, “Hang on a minute, is that what we really want to do?”, because paragraph 2(2) says:

“In this Schedule the ‘disposal’ of products or materials includes their re-use, redistribution, recovery or recycling.”

In order to continue with the way that the schedule is set out, the framers have had to mangle the English language to such an extent as to make it unrecognisable. A reasonable dictionary definition of “disposal” is “the action or process of getting rid of something”. The whole point about the circular economy and the waste hierarchy is to avoid doing that as much as possible in processing waste. Rather, one should try to recycle it, reuse it and keep it in life. It should go round the circular economy for as long as possible.

This schedule therefore looks like it is facing the wrong way in its whole outlook. The amendment goes some way to putting that right by emphasising that it is about the whole life of the product: what happens after it has been used the first time and how it can best fit into the circular economy definition of continuing with its use in the economy, so that new materials do not have to be brought in because the previous materials have been disposed of.

I suggest that the amendment is tremendously helpful, because it puts right the mangling that has gone on to get the schedule into existence in the first place. While paragraph 2(2) goes some way to un-mangle the phrase, the amendment completely un-mangles it. It emphasises what we should all emphasise—indeed, it is policy to emphasise—namely the whole life; the circular life of products that go round and round in the economy.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the positive spirit in which it is intended. Among other things, it will restore to the Bill what most members of the public would consider to be the meaning of the word “disposal”. It is quite important that we ensure that legislation is not just intelligible to the general public, but can be received by them in the spirit in which it was put forward—that is, that they understand a particular phrase to mean what they think it means, not what someone somewhere in a building far away has invented it to mean because they could not get it right in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

Resource efficiency information

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 6, page 161, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This is another “may” and “must” amendment. Hon. Members are familiar with the arguments, so I will not rehearse them at this late hour of the day. In moving the amendment, I am adding to the pile on the Minister’s desk. I ask her to consider whether, even at this late hour, it might be a good idea to start putting in a few more “musts” than was the case previously. I hope the Minister will look at that favourably in the future. I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote.

[The Chair]

But you are moving it.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He is trying at every opportunity to sneak in a “must”, but we share the sentiment and recognise the importance of taking action to improve the design of products—that is what this is all about—including by mandating the provision of information relating to resource efficiency on products. Given the pace of change and the need for flexibility in deciding where regulation is necessary, however, it is not appropriate to insert a requirement that we must take such action across the board for all products, nor to specify a list in advance. Our intention is to use this power to set resource efficiency information requirements where they will give the greatest impact. I can reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to doing that.

I am pleased that the first anticipated use of the information power will mandate labelling to show the recyclability of packaging, which I know is a source of stress for many households, including my own. In fact, I go absolutely berserk if I get home and find that my children have gone to a shop where everything is in packets, instead of buying it loose. Labelling and clear messaging about the damage that some packaging can do would get the message through.

The Government are considering how we should implement these measures beyond packaging, and we want to ensure that, where requirements for more information are introduced, it will have significant positive impacts on the environment. We expect that some industries will be motivated to proactively settle or improve their standards for products. Where industry does not, however, these powers will enable us to set mandatory requirements in future. It has to be said that lots of supermarkets are already looking at what they can do to reduce their packaging, which is to be welcomed.

For those reasons, it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than impose a duty on the Government to set standards. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance of powers—what may be done; a duty is what must be done—and this power is no different. This approach will provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable timespan. Additionally, it will facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise this power.

On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whether she would kindly withdraw the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am sorry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

We now come to amendment 226, which the sharp-eyed will have seen is not on the selection list. That is because it is what is known in the trade as a starred amendment, which means that it was tabled after the cut-off date last Thursday. I have nevertheless taken the view that it is appropriate to debate it under schedule 6, which we have now reached. I call Alan Whitehead to move the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I have no idea what amendment 226 is about—or at least I have not got it in front of me.

[The Chair]

While he is finding his feet, it may help the hon. Gentleman if he looks at page 8 of the amendment paper, where he will see that amendment 226 amends schedule 6, line 7.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 226, page 162, line 7, schedule 6, after “product” insert

“and the expected total environmental impact the product will have throughout its life”.

This amendment requires manufacturers or sellers to evaluate the environmental impact of a product throughout its life cycle, alongside the expected life of the product.

The amendment speaks for itself. As the Chair has kindly reminded us, it concerns the overall life of the product, not specific moments in the life of that product. As hon. Members know from stories such as the 5,000-mile yoghurt pot, the overall life of a product includes a range of travel, processing and other activities before it gets on to the shelf. Modern arrangements mean that something that looks very simple will have been fabricated in one country, exported to another and further processed there, exported back to the original country and filled with another product, while the lid is added somewhere else during the refrigeration process and then it is back to where it started from. In my constituency, there are many instances of stuff leaving the port in a container, going to the other side of the world for processing and coming back for sale in roughly the place it started out from.

The lifetime of the product is about all the things that happen to it on its journey. The amendment recognises that that is the case and that, in moving towards a circular economy, we need to be mindful that the lifetime of the product is a theme that needs to be seriously taken into account so that we can ensure that it is as efficient, economical, low-carbon and resource-efficient as it can be. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am very happy to discuss the amendment in the circumstances outlined by the Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling it. The Government recognise the value of providing consumers with information on the expected lifecycle and environmental impact of products. The amendment is not necessary, because the powers in the Bill already allow for that. Indeed, I hope that it is clear from everything we have been talking about that it is the whole lifecycle of the product that will be the key thing once the measures in the Bill are in place.

The resource efficiency powers set out in the Bill enable us to achieve the amendment’s goal. However, the current drafting allows us to provide greater clarity on the aspects of a product’s lifecycle that can be covered, in recognition of what it is practicable and feasible to require. The schedule covers the scope of the powers in relation to lifecycle impacts, including production processes, pollution impact during production, use and disposal, product lifetime and related aspects such as recyclability. There is a broad and comprehensive list of what consumer information could be about. It provides the scope for meaningful and specific provisions relevant to a product’s impact on the natural environment without placing overly complex or impractical requirements on manufacturers.

We want this to be simple for manufacturers and to help consumers make the right choices. It is a two-pronged attack: we want manufacturers to do the right thing, but they need to be able to do it, and we want to give the consumers the information to make the right choices. For example, we could require that items of clothing are sold with information about the resources used to make them, as well as about the pollution—for example, greenhouse gas emissions—arising from a garment’s production, use and disposal. All of those things could be possible. Customers, should they wish, could then use that information to choose products that have less impact on the environment across their life cycle.

I know from talking to people who watch the Attenborough documentaries, and others, that they know about the horrific impacts and consequences of the products they buy. They do not want that to happen, so the information and labelling will really help, as will the whole new life cycle approach that this Bill will introduce. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment, given that the current provisions already do what it suggests.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am encouraged by the Minister’s response, although I am not sure that the wording is exactly as it should be. I, like, I suspect, her, am very taken by the idea of a backpack on a product. For example, if a pen has a gold nib—unfortunately, my pen has a steel nib, but there we are—it would have a substantial backpack outlining the cost of mining that gold and the amount of resources used, such as oil, in getting the gold out. Everything would have a backpack: some products would have huge backpacks, while others would have smaller ones. I take on board the Minister’s comments. The aim is to start talking about those backpacks and how we relate to products. The life cycle information relates to not just what is in the backpack but how far the backpack has travelled.

[Rebecca Pow]

This whole subject is interesting. “Product passport” is another term that could cover all that detail. The Bill will also allow us to introduce labelling requirements relating to water use and carbon footprint, so it will open up a wealth of opportunities in the space that the shadow Minister is talking about.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. That is absolutely right: “passport” is another good way to describe it, although only a limited number of things can be jammed in a passport, whereas rather more things can be jammed in a backpack. The principle, however, is exactly the same, and I am encouraged to hear the Minister speaking of it in that particular way. I do not, therefore, wish to push the amendment to a vote and hope that what the Minister has said is how the schedule will be interpreted in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I was in the middle of a brief exposition of the word “proportionately”, as found in clause 16, which we were discussing this morning. As I mentioned, the clause requires that a policy statement on environmental principles must be prepared in accordance with clauses 16 and 17. Subsection (2) defines the policy statement on environmental principles as

“a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”

The word “proportionately” very much concerns Opposition Members, because the clause not only deals with the statement itself and how the environmental principles should be interpreted, but adds that Ministers of the Crown will be assumed to be proportionately applying those principles. It goes beyond the environmental principles themselves and gives Ministers of the Crown the leeway to apply those principles “proportionately”.

“Proportionately” is a strange word. The Cambridge philosopher of ordinary language J. L. Austin defined it, among others, as a “trouser-word”—a word that does not function properly without a pair of trousers on.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Where are you going with this, Alan?

[Dr Whitehead]

I think J. L. Austin is very interesting, but others disagree. Indeed, the dictionary definition of “proportionately”, which underlines his point, is:

“In a way that corresponds in size or amount to something else.”

It has no consequence in its own right, and that is the problem that we have with this particular formulation. If there are no trousers on “proportionately”, it can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. In this instance, it appears to mean what Ministers of the Crown may want it to mean. It is possible—not in terms of the intentions or anything else of present company—that the definition of “proportionately” is entirely what Ministers of the Crown may want to make of it. A much more straightforward example of that particular action is Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty deciding that words mean exactly what he wanted them to mean.

We may come on to this later, but the Bill should define what “proportionately” might mean, what its limits are and what Ministers may do when deciding, proportionately, what environmental principles should be. I accept that it may well be the case that Ministers have a view on environmental principles and how that policy statement may be put into place. This is not an appropriate way to bring Ministers into that particular discussion. For the sake of clarity, we would like the to see the word removed from the clause, so that it reads, “a policy statement is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted.” That offers enough leeway as far as policy statements are concerned. I welcome the Minister’s explanation as to why that additional line should be necessary in the clause, and what it adds rather than what it takes away, in terms of making quite meaningless some of the things that I have outlined in the first part of the clause with regard to Ministers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for these amendments, and welcome the opportunity to clarify why the provisions are needed. The amendments would remove the need for the policy statement to set out how the environmental principles should be proportionately applied by Ministers when making policy. They also remove important proportionality considerations associated with the legal duty to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. Proportionate application is a key aspect of use of the principles, and it ensures that Government policy is reasoned and based on sensible decision making. It is vital that this policy statement provides current and future Ministers with clarity on how the principles should be applied proportionately, so that they are used in a balanced and sensible way. Setting out how these principles need to be applied in a proportionate manner does not weaken their effect, nor does ensuring that action on the basis of the policy statement is only taken where there is an environmental benefit. It simply means that in the policy statement, we will be clear that Ministers need to think through environmental, social and economic considerations in the round, and ensure that the environment is properly factored into policy made across Government from the very start of the process.

When the policy statement is then used, Ministers of the Crown will take action when it is sensible to do so. This approach is consistent with the objective in relation to the policy statement of embedding sustainable development, aimed at ensuring environmental, social, and economic factors are all considered when making policy. Not balancing those factors could have consequences that halt progress. For example, a disproportionate application of the “polluter pays” principle could result in anyone being asked to pay for any negligible harm on the environment, when in reality, many actions taken by humans cause some environmental harm, such as going for a walk in the country. It is essential to ensure that the principles are applied in an appropriate and balanced way, and proportionality is absolutely key to this. Since this amendment removes vital proportionality considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 91 and 92.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Thank you, Mr Gray. My apologies for muddling up the procedure.  I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points on what seems to be one of the most important parts of the Bill. For many of us, the precautionary principle has been a key part of our environmental protections.

It is fair to say that there is a difference of view internationally about how one approaches these things. Without trying to trivialise it in any way, there is a difference between the American approach and the European approach. Of course, we have been part of the European approach for a long time, and the precautionary principle has been absolutely key. The introduction of proportionality will seriously weaken our environmental protections. Although we have reams of paper to go through, that is the key distinction. I fear that the application of proportionality will water down our environmental protections.

I found the explanatory notes very helpful, as I always do. Paragraph 173 says:

“Proportionate application means ensuring that action taken on the basis of the principles balances the potential for environmental benefit against other benefits and costs associated with the action.”

Of course, as soon as we introduce that balancing side, those essential precautionary environmental protection are at risk. I am afraid, despite the Minister’s optimism about the Bill, that this is the crunch issue. If this amendment is not carried, there is no doubt that our environmental protections will be weakened.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes a key point about the importance of the amendment. It is not just that many things pivot on it; one could almost go so far as to say that the whole thrust of the Bill pivots on it.

The understanding has always been that the Bill really will put the environment on the map and will provide not only good environmental protection in the long term, but no regression and enhanced environmental protection in the future. If that word is at the heart of it, things could be traded off against considerations that are completely outwith the intentions and purposes of the Bill, and it could be subverted entirely at ministerial discretion. That is surely not something that we should easily countenance.

In a moment, we will come on to an amendment that attempts to get a definition of proportionality on to the statute book. Although we do not want to divide the Committee on this amendment, if we do not secure substantial progress with the next amendment, we may seek to divide the Committee at that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Policy statement on environmental principles: effect

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Clause 18 makes the armed forces, defence or national security exempt from due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It is detrimental to leave this whole section of Government out of the Bill’s provisions. If we want this Bill to be a legal framework for environmental governance and to have all the correct people in one room, why leave out one of the biggest polluters, the biggest spenders and the biggest landowners? It just does not make sense in terms of achieving ambitious net zero targets.

Were the exemption to be confined and constricted to decisions relating to urgent military matters and those of national security, it is of course entirely reasonable. I fully accept that there will be occasions when national security has to take precedence over environmental concerns. We do not want to impede the work of our armed forces or compromise our safety and security in any way. However, the clause is not drafted as tightly, cleverly and smartly as that. Rather, it is a blanket exclusion for the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the armed forces from complying with the environmental principles set out in the Bill.

The carbon footprint of UK military spending was approximately 11 million tonnes of CO₂ in 2018—very significant. Some £38 billion was spent on defence last year alone—more than 2% of our GDP. Bringing how that is spent in line with our environmental aims is essential to achieving our overall national environmental targets. If it is not in the Bill, it is just going to be left to goodwill and to hoping that it will work.

I hope that the Minister will shortly argue that the principle is important and, if it is, the armed forces and defence must not be exempt—that is how we show it is important. The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest landowners in the country, with an estate that is nearly equal to 2% of the UK landmass. Last week I was on Salisbury plain, which is the size of the Isle of Wight. It is where significant military work is carried out, but it is also where a significant environmental advantage could be held.

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation manages 431,400 hectares of land within the UK. The sites are used for training, accommodation and large bases and the organisation has a remit to ensure the safety, sustainability and rationalisation of the estate. It states that:

“MOD has a major role to play in the conservation of the UK’s natural resources. Stewardship of the estate means that the MOD has responsibility for some of the most unspoilt and remote areas in Britain; with statutory obligations to protect the protected habitats and species that they support.”

I am not arguing that the Ministry of Defence does not care about the environment. I am saying that, if we all care about the environment, the MOD should come within the legal framework of guidance. We can have an amendment specifically tailored for the armed forces. Much of the land used by the MOD for training and operations is in highly sensitive environments and many parts are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty, including Dartmoor, Lulworth, Warcop and the Kent downs. They are subject to a number of associated policy processes, such as bylaw reviews, planning applications and so on, which means that they are subject to environmental protection. They should be joined up and come within the remit of the Bill as well.

A reason for adding this matter to the Bill is that the Ministry of Defence is already deeply committed to environmental protection and to tackling climate change, but a major rethink of defence policy is needed to achieve our ambitious environmental aims. New approaches to procurement are needed in particular. The Air Force, for example, is looking at different types of aircraft fuel. That should come within the Environment Bill, not without.

It prompts the question of why there is a blanket exemption, as it does not give credit to the armed forces and to the newly formed strategic command for all the work they are doing to achieve our environmental goals. The clause should be tightened up considerably. Rather than separating them, here is an opportunity to link the Bill’s environmental principles to the armed forces’ environmental objectives. We are in a climate emergency. There is no time to wait around for the goodwill of enormous Departments to get in line—certainly not one with such significant spending, carbon emissions and land ownership. I urge the Minister to support the amendment, or to come back with a smarter amendment that enshrines our national security at the same time as enforcing the speed of environmental action that we need and expect the armed forces to be able to deliver.

[Dr Whitehead]

What the Committee needs to understand is that the inclusion in the Bill of the application of policy as set out in subsection (1) does not apply to the armed forces. Subsection (1) states:

“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”

The Minister must, therefore, have “due regard” to policies on environmental principles except where it relates to anything to do with the “armed forces”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said. She mentioned that it is particularly important when the land that the MOD has under its control is considered, which we indeed know from the handy “National Statistics” publication which states what land is owned by the MOD. The issue, however, is not only the land owned by the MOD but also the further 207,400 hectares over which it has rights in addition to its freehold and leasehold-owned land. A reasonable interpretation of that is to consider what is controlled by the MOD and the armed forces. Is that a total of 431,000 hectares, as mentioned by my hon. Friend? That is the size of Essex plus half of Greater London, to put it into context. That is the amount of land that is under no jurisdiction at all as far as environmental principles are concerned.

There may be good reasons for that huge amount of national land resource being exempt from these environmental protections, but none are immediately apparent to me. Not only are they not apparent to me, what is apparent to me is that an organisation that undertakes actions that prejudice the environmental quality or environmental protection of UK land is often required to mitigate those actions elsewhere in any other sector. If a new port berth is being decided upon, then one of the first things to happen is that a consideration of environmental mitigation takes place for the land that has been despoiled by the new port, even if the berth is regarded as necessary. Even that principle does not appear to apply as far as the MOD is concerned.

As my hon. Friend said, I accept that when a person drives across Salisbury plain, for example, they occasionally see great big tracks on the plain where tanks have driven around it, and that on the Lulworth ranges there is weaponry practice that has environmental impacts. Of course, that is a part of MOD defence activity, and it may be necessary for that activity to be carried out. However, it does not seem beyond our imagination to consider that the MOD and defence should be in a different position as far as environmental mitigation is concerned. It would be quite reasonable to suggest that within the necessary undertakings that the MOD has to go about doing, environmental mitigation should be part of that process, if necessary. To just give the armed forces a blanket let-off as far as any environmental principles are concerned seems, to me, a bridge too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We just had a discussion about proportionality, and it strikes me as perfectly possible to say to the MOD that it could react proportionately to these kinds of judgments. In our previous discussion, we introduced a notion that I would say will be used to the detriment of the environment; why could we not ask the MOD to act proportionately when it comes to its environmental obligations?

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would not be difficult to draft something that would both protect the activities that I think we all agree the MOD and the Army need to do on occasions, and ask them to act proportionately in respect of their environmental obligations when undertaking those activities.

An amendment to this clause has been tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North—[Hon. Members: “And Leith.”] And Leith as well, yes; I have been to both Edinburgh North and Leith, so I should remember the connection between the two. The Labour party has also put forward amendments, which take out two sections of this clause and, as it were, challenge their inclusion and these exemptions separately. We do not see any substantive difference between what we are saying through those two particular challenges and, as it were, the overall challenge that the hon. Lady has put forward through her amendment: it is essentially a big question about why these particular exemptions are in place. We do not just have exemptions for the MOD; we have exemptions as far as

“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.

I am not exactly sure what land that controls, as we cannot put that in place in the same way as we can with the MOD, but it is also not apparent to me why those areas should also be treated differently.

[The Chair]

The amendment does not refer to that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Sorry, amendment 94—

[The Chair]

Amendment 93 refers to paragraph (a), not paragraph (b).

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Amendment 94, which I believe is in this group—

[The Chair]

No.

[Dr Whitehead]

I stand corrected. So we are discussing amendments 93 and 114 in this group and discussing amendment 94 in the next group. I will remove my remarks on amendment 94 and save them for the next group. I have to say that I do not think there is much between the formulation put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the one put forward by us, as we will come to in the next amendment. Therefore, we support the hon. Lady in her endeavours to try and get some clarity as far as this section is concerned.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for the amendments. Clearly, we have sparked some quite strong feelings here about this particular issue. I want to make it clear, Chair, that I am just going to focus on defence, to which the amendment relates.

While we recognise the intention behind these amendments, it is fundamental to the protection of our country that the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security are maintained. The exemptions that would be removed by the amendments relate to highly sensitive matters that are vital for the protection of our realm, so it is appropriate for them to be omitted from the duty to have due regard to the environmental policy statement. A critical part of the role of Defence and Home Office Ministers is to make decisions about the use of UK forces to prevent harm, save lives, protect UK interests or deal with a threat. We have several colleagues in the Room who have strong armed forces links, and I think they will agree with that summary. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to have to go through the process of considering the set of environmental principles before implementing any vital and urgent policies related to the issues I have just mentioned.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has its own environmental policies in place, as well as a commitment that its policies protect the environment, with a strong record on delivering on those commitments, which we had reference to from both sides, particularly from the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge. For example, the MOD require that all new infrastructure programmes, projects and activities have to include sustainability and environmental appraisals. Those appraisals cover a similar spectrum of analysis to the environmental principles.

I also want to highlight that the MOD takes the environment extremely seriously. It is adapting to mitigate defence’s impact on climate, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Putney, to build resilience and support the Government’s commitment to net-zero emissions and a review is underway to develop its response to net zero and climate change, with a new strategy planned to add to the existing sustainable development policy. That is a clear indication that the MOD means business where the environment is concerned.

As was touched on by a couple of Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, the Ministry of Defence owns or otherwise controls approximately 1% of the UK’s landmass—

[Dr Whitehead]

Two per cent.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 6

Ayes: 6

---

Labour: 5
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment removes the exceptions for tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.

Bearing in mind that we have had something of a debate on this subsection overall, I need not detain the Committee long on this amendment, other than to say that it is a mystery to me that taxation, spending or the allocation of resources should be exempted in the same way that the armed forces should be exempted. The Minister defined why the armed forces should be exempted: they are doing things in the national interest and pursuing our defence. But taxation, spending and the allocation of resources are not doing that. They are doing things that are important to the country but do not come under that definition at all. I cannot understand the justification for exempting them from the provisions on the policy statements on environmental principles or what the exemption’s effect will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what her justification for this particular exemption is. I presume that it does not relate to national security or defence manoeuvres or activities that we should be pleased happen but do not need to know too much about. It would seem that this falls outside all those categories. There must therefore be some other reason and I am sure that we are about to hear about it.

[Deidre Brock]

The amendment would bring tax and spend into the scope of the Bill. I am glad that Labour is also addressing this because when I mentioned this on Second Reading, few Members seemed to have grasped it. It is a really important point. If we are not considering the big issues of politics and the spending on them, we are not putting the environment high on the list of priorities. Likewise, if environmental considerations do not play a part in taxation decisions, we are missing a great chance to influence people’s behaviour and help save our planet.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendment. While we recognise the intention behind it, it is important to maintain the exemption to ensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. It is important to be clear that this exemption only refers to central spending decisions, because at fiscal events and spending reviews such decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of public priorities. These include public spending on individual areas such as health, defence, education and the environment, as well as sustainable economic growth and development, financial stability and sustainable levels of debt.

There is no exemption for individual policy interventions simply because they require spending. Ministers should still have due regard to the policy statement when developing and implementing all policies to which the statement is applicable. This means that while the policy statement will not need to be used when the Treasury is allocating budgets to Departments, it will be used when Departments develop policies that draw upon that budget. This is the best place for the use of the policy statement to effectively deliver environmental protection.

With regard to the exemption for taxation, let me reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to encouraging positive environmental outcomes through the tax system, as demonstrated already by our commitment to introducing a new tax on plastic packaging, to encourage greater use of recycled plastic. We also have examples such as the woodland carbon guarantee and commitments to biodiversity net gain, with the Treasury commissioning the Dasgupta report. A raft of measures demonstrate this. However, we need to ensure the Treasury Minister’s ability to alter the UK’s fiscal position is not undermined, since taxation raises the revenue that allows us to deliver essential public services, such as the NHS, police and schools.

Although I recognise the purpose of the amendment, it is beneficial for the country that the Treasury can make economic and financial decisions with regard to a wide range of considerations, which will, of course, include the environment and climate. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

As I always am, I will be polite. The Minister, with great aplomb, read out words from a piece of paper that was placed in front of her to explain what the clause means, but she must realise, as we all do, that that is total nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

Let us look at actions in various other areas of Government. The imperatives on net zero and climate change that we just passed through the House effectively apply to decision making in all Departments. Departments are not supposed to make decisions about their activities and spending without reference to those imperatives. Yet what we have on this piece of paper—I am sure it was assiduously drafted by someone seeking to defend this particular exemption—appears to drive a coach and horses through that consideration, let alone other considerations. Apparently, in taking its decisions on larger matters, the Treasury does not have to be bound by considerations on environmental protection.

I think that is a shock to all of us, because it means that the Bill is completely useless. The Treasury considers a large number of things in its policies, covering every area of practical Government activity, one way or another. If the situation is as the Minister has described, where do environmental protections stand? With any environmental protection, if it is part of the consideration of Treasury policy development, there is a door for the Treasury to run out of. As I understand it, that is what it says on the piece of paper.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that the Bill should provide the Treasury with an opportunity to give a blank cheque for whatever the Office for Environmental Protection requires?

[Dr Whitehead]

The phrase “due regard” comes in here, importantly. The truth is that clause 18 is a blank cheque in the opposite direction—a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection, as the Bill appears to suggest that we all should be. That is unconscionable; it should not be in the Bill.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify what would happen in the situation that we have faced this year, in which the Treasury has had to make very fast decisions and give billions to businesses because of covid? Some of those businesses might not be of an environmental nature—in fact, some might be what we would regard as non-environmental or actually detrimental to the environment —but because of the social impact of that money, the Treasury has had to do it. It is my understanding that if the law were as the hon. Gentleman would like it, the Treasury would not have had that leeway. Could he clarify that?

[Dr Whitehead]

The Treasury would have had that leeway, because of the phrase “have due regard”. There are clearly circumstances in which emergencies or other issues mean that Ministers may at particular stages have to draw away from their environmental or climate change imperatives and responsibilities. However, the important thing about having due regard is that if they do so, they have to explain why and under what circumstances they are taking the decision. Clause 18 will do exactly the opposite: Ministers will not have to explain anything—they can just not do anything that they do not feel like doing. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in saying that that is not good enough and is not what the Bill should be doing.

There could be another formulation. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has pointed the way; with the right formulation, we could encompass the sort of circumstances she mentions. Of course we would be happy to support that, because there are indeed considerations that need to be undertaken at certain stages of emergency and difficulty, and which may cause some difficulty with the imperatives. That is what due regard protects us from, to a considerable extent. However, the principle that someone who does something other than what we think the imperative should point towards should justify what they are doing and be accountable for it is a very important part of our processes, and that is not the case here.

[Rebecca Pow]

I just want to clarify a few points. As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, HMT takes environmental impact extremely seriously already; in fact, it is referred to in the Green Book, which guides policy making, that it has to be taken into account including consideration of natural capital. The environmental principles will be referred to in the Green Book, so we already have very strong measures that HMT is obviously being guided by.

[Dr Whitehead]

Forgive me, but I think the Minister has elided “is” and “ought”. Yes, the Treasury may do those things and put them in the Green Book, but under clause 18 it does not have to, just as the Ministry of Defence is doing things that we might say are laudable—we heard about curlews coexisting alongside tanks—but it does not have to, and if for any reason it did not do them, it would not have to say anything about it. It is entirely lucky that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence are doing what they are doing, but that need not be the case. The Minister illustrated in what she read out a little while ago that that is not the case. They do not have to do those things under the Bill. In defence of the fact that they do not have do them, she has highlighted examples of where, despite that and because of their good nature and good will, they are doing them anyway. I would expect that to happen, but it does not mean that in legislation we should allow good luck to rule the things that we think are imperative as far as environmental protection is concerned.

[Daniel Zeichner]

This is a fascinating discussion. As the debate has unfolded, I have found myself looking at the clause and thinking, “What would have been in anyone’s mind when drafting that extra line?”. What do they think needs to be excluded, and for what purpose? If the clause existed without that line in the first place, then unless people are seeking something rather extraordinary, I would not have thought they would try to open a huge opportunity to drive a coach and horses through an environmental protection Bill. What was the thinking, I wonder?

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed; my hon. Friend shines a light on it. If one were of a suspicious character, one might say, “Why is this line here anyway?”. As the Minister said, the Treasury and the MOD do quite a lot of work in this respect. One might say, “Good. They do quite a lot of work in this respect, and that needs to be encouraged, so let’s have a pretty strong starting point to bolster the work that they do already, and let’s have some limited exceptions, driven by absolute necessity, with accountability over what they consist of and how they are undertaken.” Instead, we have drafting that does the opposite. If hon. Members were suspicious, they might question why that drafting is in there, and not another form of drafting that is much closer to what we all want to see: environmental protections being respected as far as possible.

Frankly, the Minister has given us no explanation of why it is there. She has given us a very able and clear exposition of who does what through their good nature. I applaud her for that, because it is part of her Department’s remit to make sure other Departments do that. However, her Department’s remit would be strengthened if the clause was strengthened or if it was not there at all. On that basis, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee on this amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Reports on international environmental protection legislation

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 195, in clause 20, page 12, line 16, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must—

(a) consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance for the purposes of subsection (1), and

(b) publish guidance on those matters reflecting the results of the consultation.”

This amendment would require the Government to consult on what counts as “significant” for the purposes of this Clause.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 196, in clause 20, page 12, line 19, at end insert—

“(2A) The report must include—

(a) the results of an independent assessment of developments in international environmental protection legislation, and

(b) the Government’s proposed response to those developments.”

This amendment would require the report to include an independent assessment and the Government’s response to it.

Amendment 197, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”

This amendment would require an oral statement to accompany the written report.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am afraid that we come to another discussion about the definition of a word in the Bill, which I know will cause some Members to groan. Nevertheless, as we saw in the last discussion, just a couple of words, or three, can have enormous significance in terms of a Bill’s wider consequences, so it is important that we look at them, what they mean, and their place in the Bill.

Amendment 195 seeks to define what is meant by “significant” where the clause states:

“The Secretary of State must report on developments in international environmental protection legislation which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant.”

The clause therefore provides for reports on what is happening around the world in terms of environmental protection legislation. What are the good and bad points, what can we learn from, and what things can we co-operate on? The clause kindly defines international environmental protection legislation as

“legislation of countries and territories outside the United Kingdom, and international organisations, that is mainly concerned with environmental protection.”

The clause also states:

“The Secretary of State must report under this section in relation to each reporting period.”

It then states what those reporting periods are to be. International environmental protection legislation is therefore defined, but the Secretary of State apparently has a completely free hand to decide which of those developments are significant, without any accompanying definition in the legislation of what that word means.

One might say that that is quite significant, because clearly there can be an enormous range of judgments on what, subjectively, a particular Secretary of State might think are significant international developments. For one Secretary of State, it might be that a particular state has adopted legislation similar to our own in their Parliament. Another might think it significant that another jurisdiction has decided that its army should be exempt from land holdings coming under its own environmental legislation, and that such an omission has produced riots and street clashes in that country as a result of the population deciding that it was a bad idea. A range of things might be regarded as significant or not.

[Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

This point is fundamental. As drafted, the Bill has it as a subjective judgment by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to make it objective. In our system—this goes to the heart of the amendment, and many others—the Secretary of State and Ministers representing the Department are responsible to Parliament for their actions and whether any judgment they make is correct. The Bill deliberately leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of State to make that subjective judgment, and if the House disagrees at the time the debate will happen at the time.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not quite right, really. The Secretary of State must report on developments and on international environmental protection legislation that appears to him or her to be significant, and after he or she has taken a judgment, he or she produces a report that must be laid before Parliament. What comes before Parliament is not what is before the Secretary of State. It is not a gazetteer of international environmental protection action. It is a report after the Secretary of State has decided what is significant and what is not significant. Those things that the Secretary of State defines as not significant are left out of the report.

Parliament could conceivably say, “Aha! We have done a great deal of separate assiduous research and we have decided that the Secretary of State has left this and this and this out—why has the Secretary of State left these things out?”, but that requires a separate series of actions from Parliament that are outwith the report, not about the report itself. The amendment seeks to define what the Secretary of State should reasonably put into a report for Parliament to look at. We have also tabled an amendment on what should be done in addition to the report being published, which we will come to in a moment.

The central point of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should

“consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance”

and then

“publish guidance on those matters”.

That still gives the Secretary of State some leeway in determining what is in the report, but it means that there is a body of guidance by which the Secretary of State should be guided in terms of what he or she puts in the report for the subsequent perusal of Parliament. At present, because there is no definition of “significant” in the Bill, that guidance is completely lacking.

I hope that now I have given that explanation, the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden can support the amendment, as I think what he seeks to ensure is that Parliament gets a report and the chance to discuss what the Secretary of State has done. I would suggest that a much better way of doing that is by agreeing to the amendment, rather than the word standing unexplained, as it does at the moment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. I recognise the intention behind requiring further guidance on what counts as “significant”. However, this is a horizon-scanning provision. As such, it would be counterproductive for the Government to try to anticipate in advance the kinds of significant developments that might be identified.

There is no single overarching metric for the environment. Many of us touched on the complex landscape that is the environment earlier today. Creating an objective test is impossible. It is important that there is flexibility to take account of the full range of developments in the period, in order to produce a report that is useful in informing domestic legislation. The amendment would reduce the flexibility, potentially limiting the scope and use of the report.

The review will cover other countries’ legislation that aims to protect, maintain, restore or enhance the natural environment or that involves the monitoring, assessing, considering or reporting of anything in relation to the above that is significant. What is significant will depend on the period being assessed. Something significant today might not be significant next year and different things might be significant next year.

On the proposals for an independent assessment and an oral statement, I assure the hon. Member that there are already effective measures in place to allow Parliament to scrutinise the report. That point was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. When the report is laid before Parliament, Members can highlight any areas where they believe the Government have missed important developments. It is obviously really important that they do this, and it will ensure independent scrutiny. It is crucial that this is carried out and that we look at what is going on internationally. If we want to call ourselves global leaders, we have to be aware of what is being done elsewhere. If there are good examples, we need to copy them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I think the hon. Gentleman has stepped right into my trap, because that is why it is really important that the report goes before both Houses so that they can both comment. The whole purpose of it is that it will be well scrutinised, so that the right measures are introduced. There will be many measures, and we will not want all of them to be introduced, so we need to choose the very best ones. The whole idea of the Secretary of State’s report is that it will be open and transparent—I honestly hope that I have made that clear.

The clause is about ensuring that the Government take active steps to identify significant improvements and are accountable to Parliament for the actions that they will take in response. It is therefore right that the Government take full responsibility for producing the report. I do not think that requiring the Secretary of State to outsource the responsibility is the right approach. Additionally, independent consideration can already be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection—for example, clause 27 provides Ministers with the power to require the OEP to advise on any other matters relating to the natural environment, which could include developments in international environmental protection legislation that it sees as important, positive or progressive, so we have that extra layer there as well.

I hope that I have given some clarity, and I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 195 to 197.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think we have not got to amendment 197 yet.

[The Chair]

Amendments 195 to 197 are grouped together. We have debated them, but we will not be deciding on amendments 196 and 197.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, but I have not spoken to amendment 197.

[The Chair]

They are one group: amendments 195, 196 and 197. That is the group we are currently discussing.

[Dr Whitehead]

I wanted to say a few words about amendment 197.

[The Chair]

Well, it is too late. I asked you to discuss it in the first place, and you did not. You can now wind up on the group of amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Chair. Following your advice, I will wind up on this group of amendments. In so doing, it is conceivable that I might refer to some of the amendments during the course of my discussion.

[The Chair]

Quite right.

[Dr Whitehead]

We have the Minister’s explanation of how the word “significant” is to be defined: it is not to be defined, effectively. We also have what I would kindly say is a descriptive, rather than an objective, passage about what Secretaries of State do about significance. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is really important, and it underlines what I said previously. We do not impugn the motives or the commitment of either the present Secretary of State or the present Minister in this respect. I am sure they will do everything they can to ensure that such reports are open and transparent, are put before the House and are properly discussed and that they include everything that most people would consider significant, as far as international environmental protection events are concerned.

However, that is not the point. The point is that different people could occupy those offices. They might have significantly different views and might produce virtually nothing for the House regarding environmental protection events. There would be nothing in the Bill to stop them doing that, except, possibly, if we were to pass amendment 197. That amendment would add to this part of the Bill by saying:

“The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”

As the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden envisaged, the Secretary of State would have to come before the House and make an oral statement, on which he or she could be questioned. There would therefore be a clear line of transparency at that time as far as whatever the Secretary of State decided to do concerning the report. If the Minister went as far as to accept amendment 197, that would make a difference concerning this test of significance. As matters stand, we feel that the protections are woefully inadequate in terms of the way in which the report must be compiled and presented. Therefore, we seek to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 8

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must—

(a) keep under consideration whether there are any steps which they could take which would or might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention, and

(b) if they consider it appropriate to do so, take any of the steps identified by that consideration.

(8) A report under this section must set out what steps have been taken during the reporting period to secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention and what steps the Secretary of State intends to take during the next reporting period to that effect.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider what steps may be taken to improve compliance with the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and, if they consider it appropriate to do so, to take those steps.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 97, in clause 22, page 13, line 8, at end insert—

“(c) respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.”

This amendment requires the OEP to oversee implementation of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

[Dr Whitehead]

The explanatory statement for this particular amendment relates to the question of securing better or further effecting full compliance with the Aarhus convention, which is a wide-ranging convention relating to environmental protection and activities.

The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should keep under consideration how the UK Government might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus convention. We are signatories to it, so one would have thought that we should try to fully comply with it, in general terms. The amendment is really asking the Secretary of State to do something that we ought to do anyway. If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, the amendment also suggests that they take the steps identified in that consideration and produce a report setting out what steps are being taken to secure full compliance and what steps they intend to take over the next reporting period.

The Aarhus convention is important, but it has been, in some people’s eyes, somewhat overtaken by other events. Nevertheless, it remains important in international environmental considerations, and it important that it should be put into the Bill as one of the Secretary of State’s considerations to undertake.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Committee’s attention to the Aarhus convention, which is of course an international agreement. I do not deny its importance, so he and I agree on that.

The UK ratified the convention in 2005, and we remain a party to it in our own right. Our exit from the EU does not change our commitment to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in this important international agreement. Implementation of the Aarhus convention is overseen by the Aarhus convention compliance committee, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs co-ordinates the UK’s ongoing engagement with the committee on our implementation and on findings pertaining to the UK on specific issues. The committee has welcomed the willingness of the United Kingdom to discuss compliance issues in a constructive manner.

Clause 20 requires the Government to review significant developments in international environmental protection legislation, as we discussed. The findings of that review will then be used to inform Government policy on environmental protections, enabling the UK to stay at the forefront of international best practice on environmental protection. The amendment would require that report to include material about existing obligations under the Aarhus convention, not new, innovative developments in environmental protection legislation. That would dilute the purpose of the clause. We independently meet our convention obligations, and there is no need to amend clause 20 to ensure that we continue to do so.

Amendment 97 is unnecessary, as the provisions of the Aarhus convention already fall within the remit of the OEP, where they have been given effect in UK law and meet the definition of environmental law. The OEP will improve access to justice: it will receive complaints free of charge to complainants and will have powers to investigate and enforce compliance with environmental law by public authorities. The OEP will be legally required to keep complainants informed about the handling of their complaints, and it will also have to produce public statements when it takes enforcement action, unless it would not be in the public interest to do so. In addition, public authorities that have been subject to legal proceedings by the OEP will be required to publish a statement setting out the steps they intend to take in the light of the outcome of the proceedings.

Given that we are already engaged with the convention committee on our obligations, the amendments are unnecessary. I ask the hon. Gentlemen not to press them.

[Dr Whitehead]

I appreciate that the Minister has already replied, but I wonder whether she could—

[The Chair]

The Minister could intervene.

[Dr Whitehead]

Has the Minister thought about the extent to which the Aarhus convention is fully implemented in the UK, either via retained EU law or the existing domestic system? In terms of her response to this debate, was she saying that it is the case that the Aarhus convention is now fully implemented in UK law?

[Rebecca Pow]

I know I am not able to speak again, but perhaps the shadow Minister will allow me to intervene on him—I think I will have to put this in the form of a question, which makes it quite tricky, Mr Gray. Does the shadow Minister agree that the UK’s commitment to the Aarhus convention is unaffected by EU exit, because the UK is a party to the convention in its own right?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is true, but nevertheless there is the question of the extent to which that commitment itself is a freestanding commitment or additional, via EU retained law. I think the Minister will agree that there is EU retained law in respect of the Aarhus convention. While it is true that we are an individual signatory to it, we were also effectively a joint signatory to it through the EU joint law arrangement. Therefore, we were actually twofold signatories, as far as the Aarhus convention is concerned. Does the fact that we are now a onefold signatory to the Aarhus convention fully replace what it was that we were originally as a twofold signatory to the Aarhus convention? I think the Minister was saying yes, but I am not absolutely certain that that is the case.

[Richard Graham]

I am slightly confused that the shadow Minister appears to be suggesting that if we are a signatory to any convention in our own right, we are somehow a stronger signatory if we are also a signatory as part of the EU, which we have already left. Are we not straying into areas of semantics way beyond the Environment Bill today?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I can understand the hon. Member indicating that this may be semantics, and indeed, it may be. I was attempting to elucidate the question of whether our being an original signatory to the Aarhus convention—when the convention took place—is identical to what has happened in terms of our being a joint signatory to the Aarhus convention, which took place through our EU membership. There are instances where something that the UK originally signed up for was signed up for jointly through the EU at a different stage. A lot of the conventions on atomic materials transfers and various similar things, which have gone through Euratom or the International Atomic Energy Agency are subject to that sort of progression, where what we signed with the IAEA and what the European Community signed up to subsequently, are a progression in terms of those original signatories. They therefore mean slightly different things, even though it appears that there are two signatories.

It may be the case that the hon. Member is right, and I am seeking to get the Minister to elucidate whether, indeed, the hon. Member is absolutely right. Is the fact that we are a signatory to the Aarhus convention exactly the same as what was the case when we were previously—in addition—a joint signatory with the European Union? Are there any particular matters relating to that signatory which should be converted into UK law to ensure that we are actually in the right place, as far as that signatory issue is concerned? The Minister may well stand up and say yes, that is the case—in which case, I will be a very happy Member of Parliament.

[The Chair]

That question must hang in the air, because the Minister has already spoken. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the amendment?

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

The Office for Environmental Protection

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 179, page 121, line 16, at end insert

“with the consent of the Environmental Audit and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees of the House of Commons”.

The amendment would require the appointment of the Chair and other non-executive members of the Office for Environmental Protection to be made with the consent of the relevant select committees.

We have now moved from chapter 1 of the Bill, which is about environmental governance and improving the natural environment, to the very important topic of the Office for Environmental Protection, which I think will detain the Committee for a little while, as we will discuss not only its formation and operation, but the amendments that the Government made while the Bill was not before us, changing what the Opposition think are substantial elements of the OEP’s operation.

Clause 21 states:

“A body corporate called the Office for Environmental Protection is established.”

So before anybody worries too much about where we have got to, that is all we have done so far. We have just established the Office for Environmental Protection. As with all good Bills, however, the meaning is often contained at the end, in the schedules. That is the next bit we are dealing with this afternoon—the schedule that sets up what the Office for Environmental Protection is about. I assume that we will get stuck into the substance of the Office for Environmental Protection’s objectives, independence and general function in our next sitting, but this afternoon we are concentrating on some details about the OEP’s membership, non-executive directors, interim chief executive and so on. Some people may say that those are not particularly central or important to the OEP, but they nevertheless have quite considerable repercussions in terms of its independence or otherwise.

Amendment 179 looks at the first appointment of the chair and non-executive members, and at how they are appointed and with what agreement. I am sure hon. Members will agree that, in addition to what the Office for Environmental Protection does, a key part of its independence lies in who its chair is, who the non-executive directors are, how they act in their role and the extent to which they ensure and guarantee that the office carries out an independent function in terms of that protection role. Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 defines what the OEP consists of: a chair, at least two but not more than five other non-executive members, a chief executive, and

“at least one, but not more than three, executive members.”

Paragraph 1(2) states:

“The members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”.

Under paragraph 2, the non-executive members are also to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but

“The Secretary of State must consult the Chair before appointing any other non-executive member.”

The key is that a lot of the appointments effectively flow from the appointment of the chair. The Secretary of State must consult the chair on how other members are appointed having appointed the chair in the first place. The question then is whether it is right that the chair of the OEP is appointed simply because the Secretary of State decides that he or she should be appointed and has an untrammelled ability to do that. We think that that could create a cascading lack of independence in the whole OEP, depending on how the process is carried out. If it is carried out without any scrutiny or accountability, it is quite possible that the Secretary of State could appoint someone whom he/she particularly favours or thinks will give him or her an easy time with the appointment of other members of the office, and shape the office to be entirely subservient to what the Secretary of State wants to do.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is making an important point. A theme runs through the debates today: an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the discussion on the Aarhus convention, we saw the move away from supranational bodies. It is a basic principle that if power is spread, there is far more chance of it being exercised properly, particularly with something as important as environmental protection. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of a theme that has developed all the way through?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is indeed a concern. We have raised, and will repeatedly raise, the difference between the Bill’s aspirations and many of the practicalities. The difference between the Bill’s lofty aspirations and its often severely lacking practicalities is apparent throughout its construction. This is one instance where that is the case. The chair of the OEP is, in the first instance, to be a non-executive member of the office. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding, but it looks to be the case that the chair will be appointed from among the non-executive members whom the Secretary of State has appointed in the first place. The key at that point is who the non-executive members are and how they are appointed. In this instance, they appointed just by the Secretary of State. We suggest a procedure that grounds those appointments within parliamentary procedures.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member recognise that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have the opportunity in the appointment process to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate?

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member has put his finger exactly on the problem, because according to this piece of legislation, in practice, they do not. There is no requirement to do that in the Bill. The amendment is designed to do exactly what he suggests should be done, which is that the appointment should take place with the scrutiny and consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister sat down before you asked, Mr Graham, but I dare say you may intervene on the shadow Minister. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister has yet again provided us with a description of things that happen, as opposed to what ought to happen as far as this House is concerned. On the second category of events, she appears to be saying that Select Committees may well take it upon themselves to interview and discuss candidates for posts—with the agreement of that candidate—and report back their thoughts, and that Ministers may then decide that they like or do not like what the Select Committee has said, but are pleased, in any event, that the Select Committee did that piece of work.

I do not think the Minister can show me anything in the Bill that requires that process to be cemented, so that the Secretary of State could not go ahead with an appointment without Select Committees having done that work. Let us say, for example, that the Select Committees decided that they did not want to do the work or were too busy with other matters, and the Secretary of State appointed the chair and the non-executive members of the board, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it, because nothing in the legislation says that that scrutiny has to happen. The Minister should be able to confirm that there is nothing in the legislation for that.

[Richard Graham]

I think I understand the position of the Opposition, which is to undermine slightly the independence of the new Office for Environmental Protection before it has even got under way by suggesting that the appointments process for the chair will somehow be rigged, with some crony of the Minister or the Secretary of State comfortably slotted into position. Shock, horror! That never happened under the Government of which he was a member. 

In fact, what has taken place is rather remarkable. It is much closer to an American appointments hearing than almost anything that has ever happened in relation to senior appointments to new independent offices. The idea that two—not just one but two—Select Committees would be so disinterested in their unusual and new power to scrutinise and hold to account someone who is being put forward as the first chairman of a new independent body and would completely overlook their responsibilities is surely bizarre. The hon. Member is a reasonable man. Can he not agree that this is a very good process?

[The Chair]

Interventions must be brief. That was a speech.

[Dr Whitehead]

A very good one, if I may say, but nevertheless a speech. You are right, Mr Gray.

The point the hon. Gentleman was making is that a process of scrutiny will, in this instance, be undertaken by the Select Committees in question. However, we need to look at the circumstances whereby that scrutiny comes about. The Committee and, indeed, members of the Select Committee, may say “Actually, this particular piece of formulation in the schedule relates to the appointment of the initial chair of the Office for Environmental Protection” but I think it probably applies to the appointment of chairs as they go forward.

[Rebecca Pow]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committees pressed for that scrutiny and they have welcomed the fact that they will be able to scrutinise the potential chair. They did some prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill; that was one of their recommendations and we accepted it. It has gone down extremely well. I want to back up the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in terms of what is being put in place. I am sure the shadow Minister, when he fully understands the process, will agree with me that the purpose is that non-exec members in particular are appointed on a fair and open basis, regulated through our public appointments process.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not suggesting that anything is other than that, and I am not suggesting that the Select Committees are anything other than pleased with what they have undertaken to do and the welcome their work has received from the Government. However, the Minister, in a sense, answered her own question by stating that the Select Committees pushed for that. That is what Select Committees do, and they have the power to summon all sorts of people. In this instance, as far as I understand—I may not have fully understood the process—the Select Committees in their power as Select Committees in general pushed for the hearing and Ministers thought that was a good idea and they went ahead with it. To that extent, yes, things have gone well, but it is still not in the Bill that that should ever happen. It is entirely down to the Select Committees. We should not do it that way round.

[Rebecca Pow]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the very fact that that has happened demonstrates that Select Committees are taken seriously? As such, the measure in the Bill is sensible, serious and fair.

[Dr Whitehead]

As it happens, yes. However, again, we are in “as it happens” territory, which we seem to be in rather a lot this afternoon. As it happens, yes, that appears to be working quite well. I do not know, should there be a future reconstitution of the Office for Environmental Protection or future appointments of non-exec members and the chair, whether that procedure would necessarily be replicated. It might be; it might not. We are lucky we have Select Committees that are as strong as they are.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

As a new Member, I am just understanding the mechanisms here. From what I am hearing, the process that has just taken place to ensure that we are where we are is due to good parliamentary mechanisms. It seems that the hon. Member is asking Ministers to put more parliamentary mechanisms in the Bill when those checks and balances are already in place and work very well.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to good parliamentary mechanisms. I do not want us to be diverted into a long discussion about the Executive and the unwritten UK constitution, but Parliament is not putting a provision on the Executive by passing this Bill—that does not exist. Instead, Parliament has used parliamentary procedures outside of that to have an effect on the Executive, and the Executive have agreed for that effect to be placed upon them. That is a good thing—I do not in any way want to undermine that. As the hon. Member says, that has worked well.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

The hon. Gentleman is illustrating the point perfectly. Secretaries of State come and go at the mercy of the electorate, whereas the parliamentary checks and balances are always here. That is what should govern the procedure.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed—Secretaries of State come and go, just as Presidents of the USA come and go. Nevertheless, while they are there, Presidents can appoint justices of the Supreme Court who are always there. Although the member of the Executive has gone, the effect of their actions remains—in this example, with the judiciary branch in the US. In principle, that is what could happen as far as this construction is concerned in the Bill. A Secretary of State who comes and goes could appoint, without involving the parliamentary process, somebody who will outlast the Secretary of State in that position.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I am a member of the Treasury Committee. We do a lot of selection hearings and most of them are agreed through parliamentary processes. We find we end up doing an awful lot of selection hearings, and we have spent a huge amount of time doing them, on the board of the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Policy Committee and so on. We end up having discussions about whether we want to do all these hearings. Do we do them in this way or that way? Do we do reappointment hearings? We retain flexibility around that, because it is done through the parliamentary procedure.

It seems to me that the danger of setting down in legislation that all non-executive members should be appointed on the consent of the two Committees is that we bind their hands into the future. They may decide that they want to do it in some other way. We retain more flexibility for the Committees if they do it through parliamentary means.

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, yes is the answer. We are trying to bind those Committees to some extent to do the right thing, as far as those appointments are concerned. The hon. Gentleman who has experience on the Treasury Committee and other hon. Members who have experience on Committees will know that Committees take their responsibilities seriously. I have been party to that sort of discussion in Select Committees that I have served on in the past. They take their responsibilities very seriously. They take the issue seriously. They do it very carefully and make sure that the result of their deliberations is as good as it can be. That is something that I am absolutely fine with; I do not wish to fetter that in any way.

However, the hon. Gentleman and other Members also know that that has not always been the case with Select Committees. Indeed, in my time in Parliament, is has largely not been the case. The process of deciding upon the appointment of members of various organisations via a Select Committee hearing is a relatively recent innovation. That came about not as a result of legislation but as a result of Select Committees pushing their own authority within the parliamentary system.

In one sense, that is perfectly acceptable, but I am seeking to draw a distinction between that process, which has by and large resulted in a good outcome as far as these appointments are concerned, and the fact that it says in a piece of legislation, “That is what is supposed to be done.” There are other pieces of legislation in existence that specify what is supposed to be done, but this piece of legislation does not. I wonder to myself why those pieces of legislation specify those things whereas this piece of legislation does not.

It would not be difficult—on the contrary, it would be very straightforward—to specify in this piece of legislation what is to be done, while agreeing that that is largely what happens in practice in this Parliament. That is a good thing, and it is a sign of our changing unwritten constitution—I emphasise the word “unwritten”. That is why, in a piece of legislation, it is probably necessary to write down what our intentions are and how they are to be carried out in practice by the House in its interpretation of the unwritten constitution of this country.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I had the privilege of serving on the Transport Committee for a couple of years. Like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—my near neighbour—I went to a number of hearings and found them very useful. It strikes me that there is a range of levels of significance. This appointment is hugely significant. It takes back from a supranational body, the European Union, responsibility for one of the most important oversights. We all agree that it would be good to go through this process, so I do not understand why the Government do not want to codify in law what will in fact happen. I do not quite see what they are frightened of. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[The Chair]

Order. I do feel that we are slightly going round in circles.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed, Mr Gray. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be a good idea for the Government to put this in the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that, in practice, the creaking oak of the British constitution does things in sometimes surprising ways in order to develop itself. It is always useful to have something on the face of a piece of legislation to fix how the unwritten constitution works in respect of a particular function of Government. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from putting this in the legislation.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 122, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.”

The amendment asks for “may” to be left out and “must” to be inserted. As I recall, we have had previous discussions about that in this Committee, so I do not think I need to add anything further.

[The Chair]

I think the hon. Member is therefore seeking to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 154, in schedule 1, page 122, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

This amendment prevents the Government from giving directions to the interim chief executive of the OEP.

The amendment concerns the directions that the Secretary of State may give an interim chief executive of the Office for Environmental Protection. As hon. Members will see, paragraph 4(3) of schedule 1 refers to an interim chief executive

“exercising the power in sub-paragraph (2)”,

which states:

“Where the OEP has fewer members than are needed to hold a meeting that is quorate…an interim chief executive may incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the OEP.”

The key point is that the interim chief executive may do “other things” in the name of and on behalf of the OEP, even though the OEP does not have sufficient members to be quorate and take a decision.

What appears to be envisaged is that in those circumstances,

“an interim chief executive must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”

Quite simply, if an interim chief executive is in post without those other members of the OEP being appointed—depending on the speed with which that is done, it could be quite a while—the independence of the OEP will not be compromised just a little bit; it will be compromised completely, in that the interim chief executive is completely the creature of the Secretary of State.

[The Chair]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the wrong amendment, because this amendment requires that sub-paragraph (3) be deleted from paragraph 4. You are referring to sub-paragraph (2), I think.

[Dr Whitehead]

Mr Gray, if I gave that impression then I am sorry, but I thought I was speaking to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4, which is that the chief executive

“must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”

As far as I can tell, amendment 154 leaves out sub-paragraph (3), which is the sub-paragraph to which I was referring.

That is, in essence, the case that we want to make this afternoon. As hon. Members have already asked, why is this particular provision in place? What is the problem here? If this is an interim chief executive of a body that is going to be independent, why the lack of independence when the OEP is still forming itself? Is it because the Secretary of State thinks that the interim chief executive might go rogue and do all sorts of odd things in the absence of other non-executive directors to hold them in place? In that case, the appointment process for the interim chief executive must be pretty lacking. Is it that the Secretary of State might be tempted to mould the OEP and its operations before it is fully functional as an independent office and can therefore, as it were, hit back?

I would not like to think that either of those are correct interpretations of this sub-paragraph, but as it is written, that is what it appears to say: that the interim chief executive does as the Secretary of State says. That seems to fly in the face of everything I have understood about the OEP and how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to be set up and how it is supposed to start operating. As the amendment states, we would therefore like to see the sub-paragraph excised from this Bill, so that the interim chief executive has the beginnings of the independence in his or her actions in the OEP that we would expect the OEP to have when it is fully formed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

There have been some fiery comments about this particular amendment, Chair.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for our inclusion in the Bill of a mechanism to appoint an interim chief executive of the OEP. I want to give some reassurances that establishing this independent body that can hold future Governments to account is of crucial importance. That remains very much in focus when considering this power for the Secretary of State to appoint an interim chief executive.

The initial role of the interim chief executive would be to take urgent administrative decisions to ensure that the OEP is up and running as soon as possible, which I know is a key concern of Members. I want to say a little about that role and why it is necessary. Such decisions would include staff recruitment and other matters related to setting up the new body. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who has a lot of experience in setting up these bodies. It is a fully practical step to help with the interim period. By way of background information for the hon. Member for Cambridge—he raised some pertinent points—we intend that the permanent chief executive will be in place no later than autumn 2021, and the proposed timeline then allows for the OEP chair to lead the appointment of that chief executive.

By way of more background, the Secretary of State has asked officials to assemble a team of staff within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs group, to be funded from the Department’s budget, to receive and validate any complaints against the criteria for complaining to the OEP; so there will be a team in place in the interim. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes but we had a lull because of the coronavirus, so it is nobody’s fault that this has happened. Obviously, other structures and plans are being put in place, but that is why details of an interim chief executive have had to be considered. That power will be required for the interim chief executive only in the event that a quorate board is not in place in time to make the decisions. If the board is quorate in time, it will be able to make its own arrangements. During any period when they are making administrative decisions on behalf of the OEP before the board is quorate, the interim chief executive must be capable of being held to account. That is essential good governance and oversight of public funds. That is why we are giving the Secretary of State, as the accountable Minister, the power to direct the interim chief executive during that period.

The shadow Minister was, if I may say so, making some slightly malign intimations about what he potentially thought the Secretary of State had in mind in controlling the interim chief executive. I would like to set all those thoughts and views aside—that is not the purpose; it is a practical arrangement. I would like to give more reassurance on two point. First, the Bill provides for the interim chief executive to report to the OEP’s board, not the Secretary of State, as soon as the board is quorate. Secondly, the Government will not commence the OEP’s statutory functions before the OEP is quorate. Therefore, the interim chief executive will only be able to make decisions relating to the OEP’s statutory functions when they report to a quorate board, not to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not have any power of direction over the OEP’s statutory functions. It is important to make that clear. Amendment 154 is, consequently, unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Dr Whitehead]

I wonder whether the Minister has considered at what point the interim chief executive of the OEP must be in place, bearing in mind that the actual chief executive is not to be appointed until next August. The OEP, which is essential, should be operational from 1 January—indeed, we have had assurances on that—because of the differences in environmental protection that may result from our leaving the EU, and so not having areas of EU law available for environmental protection purposes, which are supposed to be replaced by, among other things, the independence of the OEP, to ensure that those areas of law are fully upheld.

The Minister appears to be telling us that there will be something like an OEP in existence from 1 January, and that it will have something like an interim chief executive to run it—indeed, I understand that a lot of work on that has already been done—but that during that entire period the OEP will not be independent, because effectively it will be run by the Secretary of State. That may be a function of the fact that the process is dragging on in a way that we did not anticipate, and that the Minister probably did not anticipate, overlapping the period when lots of work should have been under way to get this system going, to ensure a seamless change on 1 January. Instead we will have a raggedy process that is a very, very long way from any of the aspirations that were expressed for the OEP—the way it will operate, what it will do in terms of environmental protection, and its independence of the Secretary of State.

I accept that when a new organisation is set up—as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, and he has experience of these matters—there can be issues. If someone is setting up, say, a new subsidiary company, the board of the company that is setting up the new company will appoint a chief executive of that subsidiary company, and while that chief executive is getting in place it is quite reasonable for the board of the superior or parent company to expect that person to be responsible to the superior or parent company as the new company is being set up. Only if, for example, at a later date Chinese walls are inserted between the operation of the subsidiary and that of the superior or parent company does that reporting go adrift; but that is only when things are properly set up.

We are not in that situation here. We said from the word go that we would set up an independent body that would be responsible for all the environmental legislation that has come over to us from the EU, which is now bedding down in UK law, and that that responsibility needed to be exercised from day one of that transfer.

[Rebecca Pow]

Does the shadow Minister not agree that an unprecedented and unexpected incident has occurred? We have had the coronavirus pandemic. In the light of that, does he not agree that arrangements are well under way for setting up the OEP, and that the Government fully intend—I have given more details today—to introduce the OEP by 2021? Because of the pause in consideration of the Bill and because of the coronavirus, we cannot confirm the exact date, but we will implement—indeed, are implementing—bona fide transitional arrangements, with a secretariat that will support the OEP chair. The chair is currently being sought, through a public appointments campaign. The whole system is in process. We will have an interim chief executive and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire understands exactly the role of that person. There is nothing malignant about it, and the Secretary of State will certainly not control him. Does the hon. Member agree that I made that quite clear in my speech just now?

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, I hope the Secretary of State will not be controlling him. [Interruption.] Or her. I hope the Secretary of State will scrupulously keep his or her hands out of controlling that person. I am pleased to hear assurances from the Minister that that may well be the case—in terms of the Minister’s bona fides, I would expect nothing less. That is what the Minister should be saying, because that has always been her commitment on the OEP in the past; but that does not in any way excuse the fact that it says something opposite on the face of the Bill. That is the issue that, as legislators, we need to look at.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 10

Ayes: 4

---

Labour: 4

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 1, page 122, line 15, after sub-paragraph (4) insert

“;but an appointment may be made in reliance on this sub-paragraph only with the approval of the Chair.”.

This amendment requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.

Although it is late afternoon and I do not want to go on the record as being excessively shirty for a long period, I am afraid that discussion of the amendment is part of that shirtiness process. Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1, which was written as part of the Bill and was not part of the suite of amendments we saw when the Bill reconvened from the Government side, suggests that rules that the chief executive may not be an employee or a civil servant do not apply to the appointment and operation of an interim chief executive.

The constraints on the appointment of an interim chief executive are not there. They could be an employee of the Department, a civil servant, or someone placed by the Secretary of State in that position, when the requirement to underpin the independence of the OEP means that should not be the case for the chief executive proper. That underlines the theme of determined non-independence of the OEP in its early stages, and the Secretary of State’s ability to mould and shape how the OEP works, before it is properly formed.

Amendment 155

“requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.”

Having been appointed, the real chair—not the interim chair—would have the authority to act as a guardian of the independence of the OEP. We have already been through the process of appointing the chair, so at the point at which the interim chief executive might be appointed from within the civil service or the Department, or that might be proposed, the chair of the OEP would not necessarily say that was bad or impossible, but would at least have the authority to decide whether the Secretary of State was doing the right thing. That seems to me to be the least of the requirements that should be placed on this sub-paragraph.

We have discussed the independence of the OEP as it is set up. Having got to the position of having a reasonably independent chair in place, to then not involve the chair in the appointment of the interim chief executive seems perverse. The amendment does nothing except try to ensure that the OEP is visibly independent; Members from all parties can agree to that.

[Anthony Browne]

I used to be the chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee, a non-departmental public body linked to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; I appointed its entire new board. In a previous life, as I have mentioned, I was involved in setting up various other bodies, such as TheCityUK and the HomeOwners Alliance, and I have been involved tangentially in setting up independent bodies as part of the civil service.

I completely salute the support expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the Opposition for the independence of the OEP. They are doggedly making sure that it is fully independent, and I totally support that; it will function properly only if it is fully independent. However, on the issue of the interim chief executive, I think—to follow the dogged analogy—that they are slightly barking up the wrong tree.

The whole point about the interim chief executive of any organisation is that they are setting it up. They are designing the org chart, saying “Right: this committee will do this, we need to hire these personnel to do that, these are the finances, this is the first draft budget,” and everything else—they are not actually fulfilling the substantive end function of the public body. The Opposition are worried about the timing, and I am worried about the timing too.

What normally, or very often, happens is that an organisation does not go through a recruitment process for an external interim chief executive. The chief executive is normally banned from being a civil servant, which is absolutely right, but we are talking about getting somebody to set the body up and get it going before the recruitment process for the end chief executive, the appointment of the entire board and everything else, which will take a long, long time—I think it took me about eight months to recruit a new board for the Regulatory Policy Committee.

The thing to do is get a civil servant who has experience of setting up bodies. Because of employment rules in the civil service, they can basically just be reassigned and put in place immediately. They can start setting up the organisation and doing all the stuff that needs doing, and in the meantime we can recruit the full, substantive, independent chief executive, which takes longer. When the independent chief executive is recruited, they will then have an organisation that they can work with and can retune and rejig if they want. That is a far better and more efficient way of setting up an organisation than taking the completely purist approach that the first chief executive has to be a fully independent person who is not a civil servant and will not take directions from the civil service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not have put it better myself. I feel that I am under a certain amount of attack here. This is all being put into place so that we can get things up and running. As everyone knows, we are in an extraordinary time. I know the shadow Minister said that the provision was in there anyway as a failsafe, in case we needed this interim set-up. It could well have never been needed to be used, but it is there in case we need it.

We want the OEP to get off to a good start. When the chair is appointed—as I said, that process is well under way—we want them to be the person to appoint what I would call the first real chief executive. That is the right process. I think we would all agree with that. The requirement in the amendment would be disproportionate to how long the interim post might be there, because we expect this chief executive to be fully in place during 2021.

I must clarify another separate point. Although it would be a short-term role, the interim chief would be able to make decisions on behalf of the OEP, but they would be just set-up decisions. That is also why—I allude again to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire—we need to get the right person in place, because they have a lot of work to do to put the tools in place. Allowing for the successful candidate not to be an employee of the OEP, such as a civil servant on secondment, helps to widen the field of candidates. We need to ensure that the person has the right skills to swing into action very quickly and get this whole system set up.

I remind the shadow Minister that the Secretary of State is subject to parliamentary scrutiny—there is a long process by which that will happen—concerning all the decisions taken in respect of the OEP. I have a page I could read about how the OEP will be independent, but I am sure we will get into that in discussing other clauses. The Secretary of State would be legally required to have regard for the need to protect the OEP’s independence in making this appointment, as required by paragraph 17 of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw it.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister spoke of the importance of getting things done now. After all the problems we have had, I cannot for the life of me see how that is in any way impacted by the idea that the chair of the OEP, who will shortly be in place, should have a say in deciding—guidance has properly been put in for the independence of the OEP—whether long-term recruits should not be from the civil service or any other external persons. Why should the chair not have that say in an appointment?

I assume that the chair of the OEP would be equally concerned to ensure that things are up and running as quickly as possible, that a proper and good appointment is made of an interim chief executive, and that, if a good case is put forward, that appointment might be of someone in the civil service or another person in the Department.

The amendment does not stop any of those things from happening; it merely says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, that if it is the intention that the OEP will be truly independent it is the look of the thing from the beginning that will convince people of that.

I do not think that we can duck the issue. There are a lot of people out there who are profoundly suspicious and concerned that the OEP will not have its independence and will not be able to act as an environmental watchdog in the way that is claimed. Indeed, they will have suspicions, many of which we do not share, that a lot of what is being done is to undermine that independence, and—I would not go so far as to say to strangle the OEP at birth—to clutch the OEP much more closely to the bosom of Government than might have otherwise been the intention.

I hear what the Minister says about the fact that it was extremely fortunate that the provisions in the Bill were there anyway, which sort of came to the rescue when we were in the position of having to do these things very much at the last minute, rather than in a more considered way over a longer period. The fact that they have always been here, and always allowed that to happen, increases some of the suspicions out there. It is our duty, and would at least be good sense, for us to dispel those suspicions as early as we can in the life of the OEP.

Accepting the amendment would not, therefore, be a big deal. I do not intend to divide the Committee yet again, because we have made our point by dividing the Committee on other amendments, but this one is entirely on the same theme. I enjoin the Minister to think again about whether she wants to introduce something at a later date in proceedings that at least waves a flag in the direction of proper independence for the OEP as it gets under way, in addition to when it is fully under way. That would be very helpful for all of us who are concerned, in terms of what we will try to do to ensure that the OEP does its job properly.

[Cherilyn Mackrory]

Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 explicitly says:

“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”

I notice that the Opposition have not tabled an amendment to that, because they are obviously happy with it.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is right, but that is the OEP as it is up and running; this is about the OEP as it is formed. Our point on a number of things this afternoon has been that if we undermine the independence of the OEP as it is being formed it is rather difficult to carry out paragraph 17 later on, when the OEP is fully functioning. I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to that point, but it is not entirely what we are discussing this afternoon—although I fully agree that the Secretary of State should, of course, have regard to the independence of the OEP when it is up and running and functioning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

May I start by welcoming the Committee back to the interrupted consideration of the Environment Bill and give you a few little parish notices? First, I start from the position of being a very traditional chairman. Chairmen come in different shapes and sizes, and I am at the traditional end of things and, therefore, try to use the procedures and practices we have in the main Chamber, although there may be some variations.

Secondly, we should be extremely careful about social distancing. The idea is to sit at the chairs with a blue tick, so the central row is not used, by and large. I think that is a matter for Members’ discretion, but perhaps people can make a point of keeping their distance throughout the process of the Bill. On social distancing, instead of passing notes to Hansard, which we would normally do, would Members kindly send by email any speeches they might make. I know that the Hansard Reporters would appreciate that.

Most members of the Committee are very experienced, but for those who might not be that experienced, the principle of what we are doing is that, having agreed the principle behind the Bill on Second Reading, we now consider the detail of the wording of the Bill, to make it a good Bill, no matter what we thought of the principle behind it. We can do that by considering the Bill line by line. The means by which that happens is that members of the Committee, whether Opposition or Government—or indeed people who are not members of the Committee, by means that I will describe in a moment—put down amendments to the Bill. Those amendments are then grouped for debate in a convenient way, bringing together topics that are similar.

Only members of the Committee may argue for amendments. However, hon. Members who are not members of the Committee may lay amendments if they can persuade a member of the Committee to move them, and I think one or two examples of that may occur during the Bill. Amendments must be laid by the rise of the House on Thursday for discussion on Tuesday and by the rise of the House on Monday for discussion on the Thursday. That is all I have to say by way of introductory remarks.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. I welcome you back to the Committee after our long break. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome Committee members back to our proceedings.

Because of the particularly long break we have had, a number of events have occurred since the last sitting in the earlier part of the year, which those with a long memory will dimly recall. Those events are twofold. First, the Government decided during the period in which the Committee was in abeyance to table a large number of new amendments, particularly concerning the operation of the Office for Environmental Protection, which, certainly in the Opposition’s view, considerably alter how that office works.

Secondly, in the period between our original deliberations and now, the Government also brought forward a planning White Paper, which looks as though it will cut across many of the provisions of the Bill relating to environmental improvement and action areas, which depend on planning zones for their operation.

Both those developments fundamentally alter some structures of the Bill. Through the usual channels, we made representations that we should have new evidence sessions at the beginning of this Committee period so that the Committee is informed of those new developments, which would help to ensure that our deliberations are carried out in the best way possible. Unfortunately, that has not found favour, and we begin our proceedings this morning without the benefit of any new information that might allow the Committee to consider those developments.

Would it be possible, Mr Gray, to accommodate a statement from the Minister on those two issues, on which she could be questioned, so that the Committee can have some elucidation before it continues its proceedings? Whether that statement should be made immediately upon the resumption of the Committee this morning, or could be accommodated as early as possible in the Committee’s proceedings, is clearly a matter for discussion, but we strongly hope that such a statement could be agreed.

[The Chair]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which is more of a point of information than anything else. The changes that have occurred since the Committee last sat will be considered via amendments submitted by Opposition and other Members during our proceedings. There is no facility for making a ministerial statement to the Committee, but the Minister will have ample opportunity to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise during the debates that we will have between now and 1 December, which is the agreed out date. If there were extra evidence sessions, that would delay the out date. Although it cannot be done, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and the Committee has heard it. I know that the Minister will seek to answer those points during the debates that lie ahead of us.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now move to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list of amendments arrived in the Committee Room a few moments ago. I hope that everyone has a copy. It shows how the amendments have been grouped, starting with clause 7.

One point that I omitted to make during my earlier remarks is that amendments are grouped for convenience of debate. However, if a decision has to be made on them, that decision comes at the point in the Bill to which the amendment refers. In other words, we may have an amendment to clause 7 and an amendment to clause 25 considered together, but the amendment to clause 25 will be moved formally at the time when we discuss clause 25.

Clause 7

Environmental improvement plans

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) The environmental improvement plan must include, as a minimum—

(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met;

(b) measures that each relevant central government department must carry out;

(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups (including children, older people, people with chronic illnesses and outdoor and transport workers) from the health impacts of pollution;

(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery;

(e) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets; and

(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”

This amendment looks to strengthen Environmental Improvement Plans by connecting them to; measures which are proportionate to targets set out in the bill, departmental action, vulnerable people, a timetable and analysis.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 112, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

“(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take in the period to which the plan relates, which the Secretary of State considers will—

(a) enable targets set under section 1(1) and that meet the conditions at section 6(8) to be met, and

(b) make a significant contribution to meeting the environmental objectives irrespective of whether targets are in place to cover all matters relating to the environmental objectives.”

[Dr Whitehead]

This is potentially an important amendment. What we would expect to happen in a Bill is that as the legislation moves through its narrative, one part of the narrative connects to the next one in a coherent way. One of our criticisms of this Bill, although we have said that it is a good Bill in its own right in what it seeks to achieve, is that it fails to add to its coherence as the narrative of the Bill proceeds. What I mean by that is that the Bill tends to set itself out in a number of chunks, a little like an early picaresque novel, rather than a more recent novel that includes the present, the past and the future. I am not suggesting that the Bill itself is a novel, but others may have views on that.

The amendment seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at the beginning of the Bill, which we discussed, as hon. Members with long memories will recall, when our proceedings started earlier this year. Those targets, which we agreed—indeed, we agreed not only the targets, but the mechanism by which they would be decided on—are very important in relation to the environmental improvement plan that will arise from the Bill. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets and, indeed, has a narrative on environmental improvement that is actually a descriptive arrangement rather than an action arrangement, it is vital that the connection is properly made in the Bill itself and that the environmental improvement plan, essentially, is instructed to organise itself along lines that do relate to those targets in the first place.

As we discover when we go through this clause, an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence—or rather, this Bill will bring that environmental improvement plan into existence. The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, and then the Bill says, “Oh and by the way, it so happens that there is an environmental improvement plan already in existence that we can adopt for the purpose of the Bill”—and that is “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”. People will see that, in the legislation, it is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan, the one in front of us.

However, that improvement plan—as, again, I am sure hon. Members will know—was actually adopted in 2018. To show people how far back that goes, I point out that it has a “Foreword from the Prime Minister”, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and a “Foreword from the Secretary of State”, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). Neither of them is in the same role at the moment, so it is quite an old document. Among other things, it does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill; it says a lot of very interesting things, but it certainly does not address itself to how those things should take place. I want to talk later in the debate about some of the issues in the environment plan, “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”.

For the time being, suffice it to say that there appears to be a problem of connection, as far as the Bill is concerned. The amendment seeks to rectify that by clearly stating on the face of the Bill:

“The environmental improvement plan must include... measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met”.

It therefore makes a direct connection between this part of the Bill and the first part. It states that the environmental improvement plan must include

“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out… measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups… a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures… analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress… and measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment”.

The amendment therefore comprehensively makes those connections.

I am sure the Minister will say that none of that is necessary, because everything is okay—it all works all right. However, I hope, at the very least, that, in explaining why that is the case, she will also explain why it is not necessary to make that link between this part of the Bill, the environmental improvement plan and the targets that we set out and agreed in previous sittings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening words. It is an absolute privilege to be back with the Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is more than seven months since we had to adjourn, very unusually, and we all know why that occurred. Sadly, we are still in a tricky situation with the coronavirus pandemic, but I am pleased that we are able to carry on with this hugely important piece of legislation, which will change the way we think about our environment forever. We are all involved in a very significant piece of work, and it is a delight to have you in the chair, Mr Gray.

Despite the fact that we are in these very tricky times with the pandemic, we need to look ahead as a Government and as a country. As we build back, as the Prime Minister has said, we want to base the recovery on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy. I want to touch on a few of these issues before we carry on, because it has been such a long time since we reconvened.

On the points made by the shadow Minister, we took expert evidence before. Everyone is entitled to take their own evidence as we go along to inform anything that we do. Written evidence is also submitted to back up the Bill, and that is always welcomed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning issues, and I absolutely assure him that we will address those when we get to the right part of the Bill and particularly the nature chapter. I think the Chair covered the issue of a statement comprehensively, and I fully support your words, Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head: the natural environment is very complicated and complex. We have set out the Bill as it appears so that it takes an holistic approach to the environment, as I believe he will see as we proceed in our deliberations.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was referring to rurality in particular, but the Bill covers everything about the environment, and not just one thing or another. It takes an holistic approach, and is a great deal more holistic than anything that the European Union has done. The environmental improvement plans are significant because there are no equivalents to them under EU law: member states were not required to maintain a comprehensive long-term plan to improve the environment significantly, but that is a key issue of the Bill. Nor was there any requirement on member states to report annually on progress towards any kind of significant improvement. EU law tends to require member states to prepare or publish plans to achieve particular targets, for example on air quality or water quality, but it does not offer the holistic approach of the Bill. By leaving the EU, we have an enormous opportunity to look at the environment in the round. I hope that helps Members.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry, but I am just not convinced. I will consider clause 7 in further detail later, but the gap that we have identified in terms of the connection between this part of the Bill and the first six clauses is egregious, and does not appear to relate at all to what is in the 25-year environment plan, interesting though that plan may be in its own right.

The amendment is important because it addresses those shortcomings and it should not be set aside on the grounds that everything will be all right, and that the Bill is quite an holistic Bill after all. For that reason, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

This is likely to be the shortest amendment proposed to the Bill. It simply substitutes the word “must” for “may” in clause 7, which would in turn require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan. Why does this one-word change, which amounts to a net increase of one letter to the Bill, matter so much? The clue is in clause 7(5) and its clear intent to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The Government explicitly recognise the importance of that in the environmental improvement plan, which will set interim targets for each five-year period, and the amendment would ensure that the Bill includes people’s enjoyment in the five-year targets.

Many of us would argue that people’s enjoyment of the natural environment is always important, but it is especially so now, during the period of this pandemic. Many more of us have been enjoying green spaces during lockdown, and park visits in the UK were up 195% in the six weeks to 25 May compared with February. The amendment would put a greater legal burden on the Government to enhance access to such spaces as they set out new environmental policies in their environmental improvement plan.

The amendment acknowledges the value of parks and green spaces to all of us and all our constituents. This is a chance to appropriately fund our parks and green spaces, including the organisations that maintain them. Some of us will be aware of the Government scheme for pocket parks, which was announced by the Communities Secretary in March 2020. It was a £1.35 million fund—a very small fund by comparison with many of those that have had to be launched to support businesses, culture and many other organisations—and it created 68 new pocket parks around the country in order to transform urban spaces into green havens. They were hugely helpful, and I believe that further rounds would be both welcome and possible. They would help fund the priorities identified in the five-year targets for people’s enjoyment that should be created.

At this stage, I would like to bring as a remote witness the Ramblers organisation, which has made the point that access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment has multiple benefits that are relevant to the aims of the Bill and to wider Government objectives. They include encouraging pro-environmental behaviours. There is evidence to suggest that people who spend more recreational time in natural settings are more likely to report engaging in a range of pro-environmental behaviours. In simple speech, that can often amount to volunteers joining litter-picking groups to ensure that our parks and green space are kept clean and are attractive to more visitors.

A survey shows that 85% of adults in England and Wales believe that being able to experience the countryside is important for children’s understanding of the environment. I think that is true in all our constituencies. In my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of the Robinswood Hill country park right in the middle of our small city. I believe that every child should have the experience of sitting on their mother’s or father’s shoulders for their first visit up the hill to watch the sunset over the River Severn in the summer. It is one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do, and it stimulates enjoyment and healthy behaviours.

There is also the issue of physical and mental health. More than eight out of 10 adults believe that visiting the countryside is good for their physical fitness and mental wellbeing. In a sense, we do not really need surveys to confirm that; we know it is true. People who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24% more likely to achieve the 30 minutes of daily physical activity that doctors constantly recommend. Access to green space is associated with reductions in long-term conditions such as heart disease and cancer, and close connections to green space are also associated with significantly less income-related health inequality, weakening the effects of deprivation on health. During the pandemic, there has been a huge increase in mental health problems, and during a lockdown period green spaces are in many ways people’s one chance of restoring some balance to their mental health.

In the current 25-year environment plan, which will be given statutory footing on Royal Assent, there are broad aspirations on engagement with the natural environment, but there are opportunities to improve them. I will turn briefly to some of the aspects that could be addressed. Evidence shows that access to nature and the outdoors is not entirely equal: for example, children in lower income areas and people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds have the poorest access to green spaces and the natural environment. That is not always the case—in my constituency of Gloucester, the ward that is closest to Gloucester park, Barton and Tredworth, is also the area with the highest concentration of ethnic background diversity—but in general, access to the outdoors is unequal in our larger cities compared with towns or countryside.

The amendment would make a substantial difference by requiring the Government to take a strategic and coherent approach to issues of access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. Some non-governmental organisations have suggested that the amendment might put people’s enjoyment over the value of the natural environment to wildlife—that, for example, people and the environment are in competition and their goals are necessarily incompatible—but I reject that suggestion, because I believe that there are very clear examples of how people and the environment go well together.

The easiest way to shine a light on that is by talking about sensory gardens, which, as many of us know, are a frequent feature in schools that handle people with the greatest physical disabilities. Years ago, my family helped to raise funds for a sensory garden that was full of biodiversity. Not only was it a wonderful environmental joy, but it brought great joy to those with disabilities who attended the school. It is important therefore that the amendment be seen not as pro-people and anti-environment, but as pro-people and pro-environment.

Nor is the amendment intended purely to benefit urban dwellers—far from it. Aspects of it will hugely benefit the countryside as well. Research commissioned by the National Trust estimates that people across Great Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic facility upgrades, from toilets and income-generating cafés to play areas, can help accessibility; litter collection, which I have already mentioned, is also incredibly important. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can prevent easy access and deter their use. One in eight households has no access to a private or shared garden, a figure that rises to 21% of households in London, which highlights the importance of enjoyment of our green spaces.

Overall, parks in England deliver an estimated £6.5 billion of health, climate change and environmental benefits every year, including £2.2 billion in avoided health costs alone. It is not for me to challenge those figures; I think we can all intuitively relate to them, and I hope that as guesstimates, which are inevitably imprecise, those are as accurate as they can be. For every £1 spent on parks in England, an estimated £7 in additional wealth is generated for health and wellbeing and the environment.

These anecdotal examples of evidence, surveys and research make a strong case for making sure that the people’s enjoyment of our public spaces is included in the Bill as a “must”, rather than a “may”. In a sense, the Environment Secretary showed his support for such concepts in July 2020 in a speech announcing £4 million for a two-year pilot project to bring green prescribing to four areas hit hardest by coronavirus, saying:

“Studies across the spectrum, from health to financial risk, remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved mental health.”

I could not agree more. I know that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House, and whose whole career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to working on the environment, shares those feelings.

I draw attention to two other aspects. First, in September 2019, Julian Glover published his independent “Landscapes Review”, sometimes known as the Glover review, into whether protections for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are fit for purpose. The Government have not yet formally responded to that review, but I believe they are broadly supportive. Its proposals include:

“A stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes, supported and held to account by the new National Landscapes Service”,

and,

“A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child”.

What a wonderful idea. Millions of children in this country have never had the chance to do that, and if this could stimulate that experience, what could be better? Also proposed is:

“New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors”.

That has to be the right way forward. Different ethnic communities in my city have not had the same experiences in enjoying our national parks. We need to encourage them, and to make sure that national parks are seen as open, accessible and to be enjoyed by everyone. The proposals continue:

“Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes”,

and,

“A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a national family”.

All those recommendations, alongside the nature recovery network that is part of the Bill and that aims to join up green spaces and landscapes, only emphasise the value of replacing “may” with “must” in the Bill, which will help to achieve some of the recommendations.

My one-word amendment has the backing of the Conservative Environment Network, which my hon. Friend the Minister and I were founder members of. It has the support of the Ramblers, as well as the support of all the heritage organisations that come together in a group chaired by a former colleague of ours. Some of those aspects are reflected in amendment 202, which no doubt somebody else will talk to. It highlights the importance of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historical interest in our parks.

I particularly draw the attention of those listening from my constituency to the great Jurassic landscape in Robinswood Hill country park; stones that are millions of years old are sitting there on our doorstep. Having been a civil servant in another life, I recognise that no Department welcomes changes to its Bills, and that “must” implies additional responsibilities and work that is unlikely to be welcomed; however, I believe that this one-word change is a worthwhile measure. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to have only one chance to lead a major new environmental Bill through the House. She will want it to be as strong and successful as possible. All Members on the Government Benches and, I suspect, on both sides of the House, share her ambition. I move this probing amendment in the hope that she will see this one written word as an entirely positive contribution to the spirit and intent of the environmental plan and the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester on bringing the amendment forward. It is an important amendment in its own right. It is also important in terms of something we did at the beginning of the Bill and which was briefly discussed during the earlier stages in the spring. The Bill is littered with “mays” where there ought to be “musts” and we drew attention to about 25 instances where there are “mays” in place and they should be “musts”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am glad of that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am putting that to the Committee for its comfort and security. However, there is a continuing real issue in the Bill with the way in which it has been drafted with those “mays” and “musts”. While we have done part of our job by drawing attention to that and putting those amendments down, even though we are not going to pursue them in detail, it is within the powers of other members of the Committee—as happened this morning—to draw attention to the effect that a “may” instead of a “must” has on a passage as we go through the Bill. I fear that that will be, even without my intervention, a recurring leitmotif as we go through the Bill, and that hon. Members will be particularly concerned about that formation as it relates to a thing they are concerned with as the Bill goes through. They may raise that concern independent of our portmanteau amendments on “mays” and “musts”.

I hope the Minister will reflect on that. I observe that she has been assiduous in tabling amendments. It is unfortunate, that those amendments do not include any recognition that this is a particular problem with the Bill. There are amendments that could be put forward that would rectify that.

I hope the Minister will take from this exchange that there is a real concern about how that particular formulation works through the Bill, and especially in this instance. I hope she will consider, at least in some of the instances where those “mays” and “musts” collide, tabling some amendments later in the Bill’s passage to rectify or ameliorate those parts of the Bill. That piece of sunny optimism on my part perhaps goes with the Minister’s sunny optimism on many things. Let us see whose optimism gets the upper hand in this instance.

Finally, it might have been a little mischievous of us to seek to draw the hon. Member for Gloucester into supporting a vote on this clause. Out of sensitivity to his general circumstances in life, we will not seek to do that, because I think the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I think it illustrates, however, that this concern is held not only on this side, but across the Committee, so there is an additional onus on the Minister to think about whether there are instances where those “mays” and “musts” can cease colliding and can be amended for the better purposes of the Bill as a whole.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his excellent speech. He knows that I hold him in great respect and I always listen to what he says. He collars me many a time. I have given this a huge amount of thought and talked to a great many people about it, because it has been preying on my mind—he can be absolutely sure of that. He has explained a bit about my background, so he will know that I am not making that up.

My hon. Friend painted a lovely picture of life in the countryside, especially in his lovely constituency, including in the Robinswood Hill park, which I know because I briefly worked on rural and countryside issues in Gloucester many years ago. That was one of the places people revered even then.

I am dealing with the “may” as it relates to this amendment, which I think is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Before we move on to the next group, I would like to say that I have been very relaxed so far. We have had some very discursive contributions to the two groups we have had in the past hour and 10 minutes. We should all collectively seek to address our remarks particularly to the absolute detail of the amendments in front of us and not stray into other areas, however interesting.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—

“(5A) It may also set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”

This amendment invites the government to consider the historic environment in environmental improvement plans.

We are enjoined to concentrate on the amendment in front of us and how it affects the Bill as a whole. It would be useful to put to the Committee where we stand on clause 7. The clause states that the Secretary of State must prepare an environmental improvement plan. The beginning of the clause appears to suggest that the Secretary of State must sit down—presumably with a towel round his head—and work out an environmental improvement plan and present it to the House.

The clause then sets out what an environmental improvement plan is—significantly improving the natural environment in the period to which the plan relates—and that that period must not be shorter than 15 years. As the hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned, an earlier clause provides that the EIP should include

“steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in that period.”

Clause 7 then takes an abrupt handbrake turn. It says that is all very well, and all those things must be done by the Secretary of State. However, in the great tradition of “Blue Peter”, here is one I prepared earlier. It states in subsection (7):

“The document entitled ‘A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the environment’…is to be treated as an environmental improvement plan”.

That is, it has already been done before the Secretary of State has to put pen to paper as provided earlier in the clause, to produce an environmental improvement plan. It then specifically states in subsection (8) of this clause:

“References in this Part…(a) to the first environmental improvement plan, are to that document; (b) to the current environmental improvement plan, are to the environmental improvement plan for the time being in effect.”

That is the 25-year environment plan—

[The Chair]

Order. We have a very long Bill to consider, with a great deal of amendments. I therefore intend to be tough on both sides of the Committee. I know that that may upset every member of the Committee equally, but we need to make some progress. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman should speak not to the whole of clause 7—he will have an opportunity to do that, if he chooses, in a stand part debate shortly—but specifically to his amendment, which refers to the conservation of land environments. Broader discussion of the clause may wait for later.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I will, of course, follow your guidance closely, but I feel it is necessary to set out what part of the clause we seek to amend, and why, in order to explain the status quo ante. By tabling the amendment, we seek to set out steps for Her Majesty’s Government to take to improve the conservation of land environments of, among other things, archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historical interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them. The clause as it stands mentions people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The amendment would place one of the definitions of the natural environment into the context of what has happened to it over a very long period of history.

One little example of that, close to my constituency in Southampton, is the New Forest. The New Forest is not new and it is not, by and large, a forest. It is a very large and precious part of our natural environment, but it is not the natural environment it was originally. Actually, it is a spectacularly complex and superbly varied environment that has been worked on substantially by humans over 10 centuries. Substantial sections of the New Forest that were originally forest are heathland, for example, with their own habitats and precious areas of rare species within them. Those habitats have come about only as a result of human activity in the original area of the New Forest, clearing what was forest and working on, draining, changing, enriching and variegating the land. As a result, those species have colonised those areas and are now, to the human eye, indistinguishable from the natural environment as part of that forest.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In the east of England, the Broads landscape is a similarly excellent example. It was long thought to be an example of the natural environment, but it now turns out to be a consequence of human intervention. The definition of what is natural is extremely important.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is right. The Broads came about as a result of peat extraction by Saxon and early medieval inhabitants of the area, and an amazing interlinked lakeland and wetland environment has developed as a result. Landscapes of archaeological, environmental, artistic, cultural or historic interest are an important part of the natural environment. They should be conserved and preserved, and loved and looked after for that reason, and not because they are a variation from the original landscape that was in place once upon a time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to assure the shadow Minister that the Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to protect and restore our natural environment after leaving the EU, and that is why the environment improvement plans and targets share an objective of significantly improving the natural environment.

I will whizz through my response as briefly as I can. The hon. Member touched on the fact that the natural world does not exist in a vacuum. We are in complete agreement. It is a very complicated scene. We interact with it; we use it and rely on it; and we change it, as the hon. Member referred to in many examples. It becomes part of our life, our history, our values and it is a natural heritage and inheritance that we should all be proud of. That is why the 25-year environment plan has at its heart that we will improve the natural environment and recognises that we cannot manage it in isolation.

The plan committed us to

“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.”

That is what the plan mentions, so I want to give absolute assurances. I believe the shadow Minister is not aware that this point is all part and parcel of the Environment Bill already.

I understand that those outside this House who have been calling for the amendment feel that greater confidence would be given by an explicit reference in the Bill to these particular heritage features of land. I know that lots of people have been concerned about this, so I want to reassure them that the Bill ensures that our 25-year environment plan, including its stated recognition of the connection between the natural environment and heritage, will be adopted as the first environmental improvement plan. It will set the benchmark for future plans, including how to balance environmental and heritage considerations.

The approach we took in our 25-year environment plan on heritage was welcomed by stakeholders and is expected to be mirrored in future environmental plans by the future Government. I hope that give assurances. The shadow Minister raises some serious points about heritage, but I think we are actually in agreement, so I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not sure that the Minister can point to the exact part of the Bill where those things take place in the way that she has suggested they do, although I am a little reassured by the fact that she clearly has a good understanding of the problem that we have set out today and is alive to the issue. I hope the Minister will follow up this debate with some equally assiduous work as previously, to ensure that it is a substantial feature of the next, or revised, environmental improvement plan. I hope it will give great reassurance not just to people in this House, but to those concerned with our natural heritage and the way that our heritage as a whole impacts on the natural environment and the changes that have been made within it over time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

Annual reports on environmental improvement plans

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert—

“and,

(c) consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”

Clause 8 is concerned with the preparation of annual reports on the implementation of the current environmental improvement plan. The amendment would additionally require the consideration of annual reports on the plan’s implementation and operation. The clause sets out a number of ways in which that should be done. By the way, I cannot resist stating that, as hon. Members will observe, subsection (1) says:

“The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports”.

The Secretary of State has no option but to do this. It is not a question of the Secretary of State “may”; rather, he “must prepare annual reports”. There is obviously some careful writing going on here.

Subsection (1) says:

“An annual report must...describe what has been done, in the period to which the report relates”

and

“consider...whether the natural environment has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period.”

Later in the Bill, clause 94 amends the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require the Secretary of State to look at biodiversity reports, which

“must contain...a summary of the action which the authority has taken over the period covered by the report...a summary of the authority’s plans for complying with those duties... any quantitative data required to be included in the report”,

and

“any other information that the authority considers it appropriate to include in the report.”

I will not read out the entire clause—as you will be delighted to hear, Mr Gray—but it sets out a number of other things that the biodiversity report should include. Nevertheless, in terms of biodiversity reports, that appears to be fairly central to the idea of reporting, on an annual basis, what has happened to that environmental improvement plan. That is, those biodiversity reports, which are coming out on a regular basis, should inevitably be included in the annual changes that have happened, which are required to be reported on by the Secretary of State as far as the improvement plan is concerned.

However, as hon. Members can observe, there is no linkage in clause 8 with clause 94 as far as biodiversity plans are concerned. We are concerned that, without something on the face of the Bill to link those biodiversity reports and the progress of the environmental improvement plan, those reports will be set aside, not taken into account and not included in the Secretary of State’s progress reports, and will have much less effect as a result. The amendment would therefore require the Secretary of State to

“consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”

That is the important part. We are considering an amendment to the 2006 Act later in the Bill specifically to do with biodiversity reports, yet we leave them hanging elsewhere in the legislation. The amendment introduce create an important linking passage between those two issues. The Committee ought to think carefully about whether it wishes that link to be explicit on the face of the Bill, or whether the inclusion of those biodiversity reports in the Secretary of State’s update on the environmental improvement plan should be left to chance.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his consideration of the Bill and the amendment. However, I assure him that the amendment is not needed. Clause 8 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports on progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan. As the current 25-year environment plan shows, EIPs have a very broad scope. We have already touched on that. The reporting requirements that the Government have proposed are equally broad in scope, describing what action has been taken to implement the plan, and considering whether aspects of the natural environment are improving. This consideration should draw upon relevant existing data. Specifying that particular reports must be considered is not necessary.

The Bill will introduce a requirement to produce biodiversity reports as part of a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities. These reports will provide valuable data, but are already in the scope of the existing reporting duty of the annual EIP reports. To ensure that the annual EIP reports are as robust and comprehensive as possible, we want them to be based on the best evidence. We also want to retain the flexibility to consider the most relevant evidence for a particular context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I suspect that we will be discussing the same points on a number of different amendments, but this amendment raises the whole issue of those biodiversity plans. It also raises the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test at the beginning of today’s sitting, which is that we have seen significant changes over the summer in terms of the Government’s stated intent for the planning White Paper.

When we look at the information that goes into the environmental improvement plans, my concern is that, as my hon. Friend has suggested, the data needs to be there to make any kind of sensible judgment. It is suggested, through the links to clause 94, that local planning authorities will be providing much of that information, yet the Government now propose to create a planning system that makes that nearly impossible. We will return to that, but it points to the great difficulty for the Opposition, in that, without an evidence session to explore these points, it is difficult to have a rational discussion at this point in our proceedings. My hon. Friend’s suggested amendment very much strengthens the Government’s ability to draw up a coherent plan. If we do not have that, we will end up with a nice-looking document that is not based on any real information.

This debates also touches on a more fundamental issue: the relationship between this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I had the pleasure of leading on the Agriculture Bill in this very room some months ago, and we raised the point then. The interaction between the two is complicated and sophisticated, particularly in relation to environmental land management schemes. The Minister mentioned that earlier. Without the relevant information, we will not be able to have the planning strength we would all like to see.

[Dr Whitehead]

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

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

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert

“and,

(c) include an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2 and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13 are likely to be met.”

This amendment is another example of the theme that we have been developing, first on the extent to which the later parts of the Bill link properly to the earlier parts, and secondly on whether provisions should be included in the Bill to ensure that those links are made when the Bill becomes law and are not just in the minds of the Minister and well-disposed civil servants.

The amendment, which also relates to clause 7(5), proposes that the environmental improvement plan should include

“an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2”,

which we have agreed to,

“and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13”,

which we will talk about later,

“are likely to be met.”

It is important to the proper functioning of any environmental improvement plan that it is drawn up on the basis of the targets. The Minister has mentioned that this is not just a question of the targets that are in the Bill; other targets can be set on the basis of the framework in clause 1. It seems to me that if that is one of our prime mechanisms for ensuring that what happens under the Bill as a whole works, it has to be a prime function of an environmental improvement plan. The idea of setting up an environmental improvement plan to miss, subvert or undermine those targets would be anathema to us, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. The two clauses are just not linked together. We therefore think, as I have mentioned before, that the amendment is important to rectify architectural defects in the Bill.

Under the amendment, the analysis would be one of the things the Secretary of State was required to include when preparing an environmental improvement plan. Of course, when the environmental improvement plan that we have at present was produced, no targets were in place, no targets had been set and no targets had been considered. This is therefore an entirely new thing that would have to go into the revision of the environmental improvement plan that the Secretary of State is required to do in 2023.

I hope that the Minister will be fairly generous in considering whether to put this provision in the Bill. I think that it is an important change that needs to be made and, given that we have thought about it for a while, we will consider dividing the Committee if there is not a reasonable response to what is a serious and considerable lack of joining up between this clause and the earlier clauses.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank shadow Minister for his proposal that the Government annually assess the sufficiency of environmental improvement plan measures for achieving our targets. He is clearly aware, as are we and, indeed, all the people who have put so much work into the structure of the targets and the EIPs, that it is very important to keep the EIPs on track. With that in mind, I assure him that the whole system that has been set up—the Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting—is designed to ensure that the Government regularly assess the sufficiency of their actions, while allowing some flexibility in how they do so.

The EIP annual reports are intended to be a retrospective assessment of what has happened in the preceding 12 months. The five-yearly EIP review is a more comprehensive assessment in which the Government must look not only backwards but forwards and consider whether the EIP should include additional measures. If so, the EIP may be updated and a new version laid before Parliament.

The Office for Environmental Protection will comment yearly on the progress reported in each EIP annual report, providing it with the opportunity to flag early on where it believes there is a risk that the Government might not meet their legally binding, long-term targets. It may also make recommendations on how progress towards meeting targets can be improved, to which the Government must respond.

--- Later in debate ---

The intent of the amendment already appears in the EIP cycle. I have it all written out, because there is a step-by-step process to ensure we are kept on track. Any extra or duplicative reporting is unnecessary and could divert resourcing from that needed to ensure the successful implementation of the policy, so I ask the hon. Member for Southampton Test to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I wonder whether the Minister will explain why—

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister has finished her remarks; the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed. I am wondering in a non-specific way, Mr Gray, what the Minister might think about this issue, having responded to the debate so far.

The provision that we wish to place in clause 8(2) appears in subsection (3), so will the Minister consider including it in subsection (2), which states what an annual report must consist of, whereas subsection (3) states that the report might consider these matters. Surely those targets and interim targets are central to any annual report and are not a consideration that might arise in the report.

I do not know whether the wording is slack or whether there is a reason why the consideration of relevant targets under clauses 1 and 2 are in subsection (3) and not in subsection (2). Our amendment expresses the centrality of targets to annual reports.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have to say that I am finding this a slightly dry discussion, Mr Gray.

I listened to the Minister carefully and I am trying to understand the amendment’s effect in the real world. For those that influence the environment—I think of water companies and transport authorities—the extra clarity offered by the amendment would make it far more likely that they would amend their planning and investment decisions at the right time, which seems to be key to what we are trying to achieve.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, although it is perhaps going a little too far for an hon. Friend to say that I am involved in dry discussions. On his suggestion, I will try to make my discussions a little damper in future.

To be honest, I do not think the Minister has given us a good reply. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I want to put it on the record that we think it is important that these issues should be gathered together centrally in the annual reports and not put in the considerations about the annual reports. Again, I would hope—it is not a general reflection on this occasion, but an actual reflection—that the Minister might look at the fact that the wording applies to the documentation of the report and consider whether a drafting amendment to put subsection (3) into subsection (2) might not be a wise course of action at a future date.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 9 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

Policy statement on environmental principles

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 16, page 10, line 6, leave out “proportionately”.

This amendment removes ministerial estimates of proportionality as a limitation on the policy statement on environmental principles.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I am afraid that we might be here discussing slightly dry propositions for a little while. Amendments 91 and 92 look at the wording in the Bill that relates to the proportionality of the interpretation by Ministers of the Crown when making policy. Clause 16(2) defines what a policy statement on environmental principles is. It explains that it

“is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”

Although that appears to be an innocuous point, our view is that it is not remotely as innocuous as it looks, because it is not just talking about the statement on how the environmental principles should be interpreted. It is stating that, even after that interpretation, there is a second course of action that may be taken: Ministers of the Crown may decide to apply them proportionately. As far as I can see, there is no definition of the word “proportionately” in clause 16 or in the Bill as a whole, even though it is quite usual to place an interpretation of particular words in a Bill.

My understanding is that the word “proportionately” has to be attached to something—it is proportionate to something, or proportionately a part of something. When it is stated in the—

Environment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start, a couple of housekeeping matters. Please make sure that your electronics are turned off. No tea and coffee, I am afraid; you will have to go outside if you want that, as it is not allowed during the sittings. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.

We now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list is available on the table if you do not already have it. We had a discussion on this during the evidence-taking sessions, but I repeat that amendments are generally put into groups on the same or similar issues for debate. Amendments are decided on not necessarily in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they come up in the Bill. You will find yourselves debating matters that are not immediately voted on, and there is sometimes a tendency, particularly on the part of the Opposition, to panic and say, “We wanted to vote on that.” You may well be right that we have missed something, and if we do, please remind us, but bear in mind that the vote happens at the right place in the Bill, and not necessarily because of where the amendment appears in the group. If that does not make sense, ask me and I will try to clarify it.

My policy—Sir George may have a different one—is that it is often helpful to have a fairly broad-ranging debate at the start of a group of amendments on a clause. I have no problem with that; it tends to facilitate the discussion, but—and it is a big but, for the benefit of the new Members—at the end of consideration on each clause, we have a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. There cannot be a stand part debate at the beginning and the end of proceedings on a clause, so if you choose to talk a lot at the beginning, you will not get two bites at the cherry. The Chair will decide whether there will be a stand part debate.

I hope that is clear. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom; if you have any cause for concern, or you do not understand what is going on, please ask, and someone will endeavour to provide you with a tolerably intelligent answer.

Clause 1

Environmental targets

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment seeks to ensure the power given in this Bill to the Secretary of State to set long term targets is exercised.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gale, as it will be, I anticipate, for many more mornings and afternoons. I will not say it is a pleasure every time I speak, but please take it as being one.

I would like to say a few things about how the Opposition intend to pursue matters in this Committee. As hon. Members will see, a substantial number of amendments have been tabled, and we will go through those in Committee. I hope that upon scrutiny of those amendments, hon. Members will conclude that every one is an attempt to make a good Bill better. They are not in any way intended to be subversive of the Bill’s purposes, to wreck the Bill’s outcome, or to divert the Bill from its intended outcomes. Rather, they are intended to make the Bill as good as it can be. I echo the sentiments of one of the star witnesses in our evidence sessions last week, Richard Benwell of Wildlife and Countryside Link, who said that this could be a brilliant Bill. I hope that it will be by the time we finish our considerations in Committee.

I am fully dedicated to making sure that when the Bill gets on to the statute book, it has the purposes that we all, I think, agree on, and is a serious marker of what this country has to do to develop environmental biodiversity and a healthy environment—a healthy environment in which nature recovers, and we have clean water and, in the context of the climate change emergency, everything that will allow our natural environment to be in a healthy state for the future. I want the Bill to mark this House’s contribution to that process.

I am completely at one with the Minister in that aim; I know that is what she wants to achieve. I know from her environmental commitment and credentials, which she has worn on her sleeve ever since she has been in this House—she has a fine, nature-friendly outfit on today—that she is completely dedicated to getting the Bill passed in the best possible way. I hope that our discussions in Committee, and our amendments, will be viewed in that light. Regardless of party affiliation or other considerations, I hope they will be looked at based on one criterion: do they or do they not make this a brilliant Bill? I hope that is how we will judge our proceedings; I will certainly try to conduct myself in that spirit.

That brings me to my concerns about what is in clause 1—and a number of other clauses throughout the legislation, as we will find as we go through the Bill. In addition to being a potentially brilliant Bill for now, this has to be a brilliant Bill for the future. The House, and this Committee in particular, has to turn it into legislation that will really last—that will commit future generations of parliamentarians and Governments to the actions it sets out. It has to be very robust in the instructions that it sends to those future generations, but we are particularly concerned that it simply is not, in a number of respects.

The Bill derives in substantial part from the Government’s 25-year nature plan. There is a clue there about how long its provisions are supposed to last. The things we consider today have to be robust and relevant for tomorrow. The Bill has to work in that way, and we have to know that it will work across Administrations. However, clause 1 demonstrates that it may not easily do so.

In the clause, and a number of others, the Secretary of State is given the option of implementing, by regulations, a particular part of the Bill. Throughout the Bill, a number of provisions are couched in terms of not “may” but “must”. For example, clause 92 states:

“The Secretary of State must publish information…The Secretary of State must publish reports…A report must relate to a period”,

and

“A report must set out”.

Those provisions are all clear about what has to happen, but the same is not true of clause 1 and a number of other clauses.

There is an even more worrying double lock—or double unlock—regarding the Bill’s way of doing things. When I look at a Bill, I always turn to the end. It is rather like looking at the last three pages of a novel to see what happens before starting to read it. I do not recommend doing that for a novel, but I do recommend it for this particular Bill.

Clause 131, the commencement clause, is clear. For Members who are less familiar with how such clauses work, the commencement clause sets out a number of dates on which clauses in the Bill should be taken as commencing—that is, become live legislation. Clause 131 states that a number of provisions in the Bill come into force on the day that it becomes an Act. A number of other provisions come into force two months after the Bill becomes an Act. Part 1 of the Bill, which contains clause 1 and is probably the most important part of the Bill, comes

“into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.

There is therefore a double lock on the clause. The Secretary of State “may” decide to make it live—or not. If they decide not to make it live, it simply does not become real, and what is set out in the clause does not happen. Even if they decide in principle that it will happen, and the clause is live, its wording means that the Secretary of State can decide that what it sets out will not take place, and need not implement the regulatory process.

Hon. Members may be thinking, “He protests too much. This doesn’t happen in real life, surely. This is just how things are set out in legislation,” but I assure them that this does happen in real life; it has happened on a number of occasions. The statute books are not exactly littered with, but are substantially populated by, things in Bills that simply have not happened because of the way the legislation was constructed. I can give the example of the Energy Act 2013. I happened to sit on that Bill Committee. Part 5 is on the construction and designation of a strategy and policy statement, which would set out imperatives that would bind authorities and bodies dealing with low-carbon energy. When that Bill was passed, I really thought that the statement would happen; I considered that really important—and still do—in making sure that Ofgem would be guided by a low-carbon imperative.

The wording on that policy and strategy statement was couched in the same way as the provision in this Bill. The 2013 Act said:

“The Secretary of State may designate a statement as the strategy and policy statement for the purposes of this Part”.

The 2013 Act was stronger than this Bill. Part 5 of the Act became live two months after the Act became law. However, the Act was passed during the Conservative- led coalition of 2010 to 2015, and in a subsequent Administration, a Minister decided, because they could, that there was no need for a policy and strategy statement, and that it would not be produced. I have asked a number of questions about why that statement has not appeared. The situation does not help at all to ensure that Ofgem does what it should on its low-carbon commitments and imperatives. But the Minister in that Administration decided that they were not going to produce the statement, and that was it. I hope that this Administration will take a different view and finally introduce such a statement, which I think is essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

But I might do if no consideration at all is given to this particular point.

I hope that the Minister will be able to come at least some way towards me in reshaping the Bill so that the confidence we both want to have in this legislation can be seen by the outside world, and so that we can ensure that what we say in this Committee actually gets done—not just by this Minister, but by subsequent Administrations. With that, I assure the Committee that that is the longest I am going to speak on this subject. I rest my case. I hope that the Minister has something positive on her piece of paper in this respect. We shall see how we go.

[Rebecca Pow]

It is a huge pleasure to have you as our Chairman, Sir Roger. Hopefully we are all going to have a long and fruitful bonding experience over the next few weeks.

I thank the shadow Minister for his opening remarks and for describing this legislation as a “good Bill”; we all welcome that tone. I echo his general comments about wanting to do the right thing for the environment. I believe everyone on this Committee wants to do that, but I do in particular. I also thank him for his personal comments. I must actually throw some similar comments back at him. He and I have appeared many times in the same Committees, environmental all-party parliamentary groups and all that, so I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area. In many respects, we sing from the same hymn sheet. I welcome his involvement, as he brings a great deal of experience to the table.

Let me turn to the detail of the amendment. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire for there to be a duty on the Secretary of State to set targets. However, such a duty would remove the flexibility and discretion needed by the Secretary of State in relation to target setting. The Bill creates a power to set long-term, legally-binding environmental targets, and provides for such targets to be set in relation to any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. It is very wide-ranging, so flexibility is required. It is entirely appropriate to give the Secretary of State flexibility as to when and how the power ought to be exercised. That is the beauty of this power.

As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers, which are “may”, and duties, which are “must”. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister has raised this point, because I have been quizzing my own team about those two words and exactly what they do, and it is quite clear to me that this is the right approach. When the Government are under a clear requirement, the word “must” is used. This recognises that the circumstances, scenario and background to the use of the provision are clear.

In other scenarios, it might not be possible definitely to say that something must be done, due to factors outside our control—for example, if public consultation is still under way, and there will be a great deal of consultation as the statutory instruments are laid before Parliament.

The Secretary of State is already under a duty—that means “must”—to exercise this power to set “at least one” target in each of the Bill’s priority areas. That is in the next few lines of the Bill. They are also under a separate duty to set the PM_2.5 target. That is a legal requirement and the Government cannot get out of that. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting ensures that the Government will take early regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and will be held accountable through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection.

The shadow Minister asked whether the system would be robust. I assure him that it will be—that is its purpose. The need for new targets will be reviewed every five years through the significant improvement test that we will come on to later. That is also a legal requirement, and the Secretary of State will use the review’s outcome to decide whether to set new long-term environmental targets.

The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, with the OEP—the body that will be set up to hold the Government to account—having oversight of the Government’s implementation of the provisions, as it will over all aspects of environmental law. That is my summary of the shadow Minister’s queries.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the Minister not accept that, as I pointed out in my analysis of the Energy Act 2013, if a number of obligations or “musts” in a clause are subservient to a fundamental “may”, they have no independent existence? That was exactly the case in that Act: the Minister had a number of musts to do, but they were all subject to the original may. As the original may turned out to be just a may, all the musts completely fell away. The Minister has given examples of some musts in the Bill, but unless we have a first must or duty—it might not be time-limited, so that the Minister has flexibility over when exactly to do it—those other things are not of any great significance. It is the first may or must that is key.

[Rebecca Pow]

We are muddling a lot of “musts” and “mays” here—it is a good job that Theresa May is not still Prime Minister.

[Dr Whitehead]

It could be Theresa Must.

[Rebecca Pow]

It is clear that there is flexibility in the power to set long-term targets by regulations, but clause 1(2) says that the Secretary of State “must exercise the power”. That brings in the duty, which is a legal requirement to set the targets. If there is a “must” provision—and there is: to set targets in those four key areas—it must be exercised. It is quite clear.

[Dr Whitehead]

Mr Gale, I think you can gather that I am not terribly convinced. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity for a minute. Indeed, I wonder whether, had the Minister been in post during the Bill’s construction—I think this part was originally constructed in 2018—she would have gone along with that particular wording. I appreciate that she has a Bill in front of her with the wording as it is, and she has advice that the wording is as it is because that is how it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The Office for Environmental Protection can intervene against the Minister, but the Minister will see later on in the Bill that not even the office has to be set up under these circumstances. The word “may” is so pervasive in the Bill that a number of the things that can act to do what the Minister wants to do are contingent. That should give the Minister some concern, as well as me.

The Minister makes the strong point that once the mechanism is up and running, arguably it will be quite robust. We would like the mechanism to be a little more robust. However, if the whole thing depends on the idea that a Minister may or may not decide that it will be implemented, the rest of it does not necessarily follow strongly. I urge the Minister to please go away and think about this, despite what she said this morning, and see whether a formulation—not necessarily exactly the formulation in the amendment—can be arrived at that will give us and the outside world a much better series of assurances about the Bill’s robustness overall. I may speak on this matter again later in the Bill, but I have done my best this morning and we will see where we go from there.

[The Chair]

The hon. Gentleman did not make the request, but I think he indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

For the time being, yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) with the aim of establishing a coherent framework of targets he or she considers would, if met:

(a) make a significant contribution towards the environmental objectives, and

(b) ensure continuous improvement of the environment as a whole.

(1B) Where the Secretary of State considers that a target is necessary but the means of expressing the target is not yet sufficiently developed, he or she must explain the steps being taken to develop an appropriate target.”

The amendment aims to bind the target setting processes into the environmental objectives.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not want to have to remind the Minister that under the EU regulations we are leaving, the Government had to be taken to court three times by one of the witnesses from ClientEarth in order to strengthen their actions. I do not think that the clean air zones implemented in my constituency—although they are nearly nine months late—would have been introduced without that action. This Bill takes over from those EU regulations, and to set it on the right foot we need these targets and mechanisms to be front and centre, otherwise we may find ourselves unable to take the actions that have been taken in the past to safeguard and improve our air quality. I will now draw to a conclusion, and thank you, Sir Roger.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for these amendments to be included in the Bill, and has said most of the things that I wanted to say about them. What I will add for the clarification of the Committee is that, as hon. Members can see, new clause 1 is very similar to new clause 6, which has the support of the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The purpose of these new clauses, particularly new clause 1, is—as the title of new clause 6 suggests—to add an overall clarification of the environmental purpose of the Bill, and to draw together a Bill that, for all its merits, has in many ways turned up via a process of iteration.

The first two sections of the Bill originally surfaced at the end of 2018, and it was then amended to some considerable extent and appeared as part of a larger Bill in 2019. That Bill did not get through all of its stages before the election was called, although it passed on Second Reading. Significantly, between the original Bill and the 2019 Bill appearing, no less than six parts had been added, including the Office for Environmental Protection part. As a result, the Bill does not have a coherent overarching principle that applies to all its parts. Historically, that has been done in some instances by what is called a preamble clause, which is pretty obscure and has fallen into disuse when writing Bills in this country. I would have preferred a preamble clause to do the job, but an environmental purpose clause does the job just as well. Indeed, there are numerous examples in different pieces of legislation. In health and safety legislation, for example, there is a purpose clause to pull everything together.

The clauses differ only very slightly in their definitions, so I would be happy with any of them. New clause 6 brings together the purposes of the Bill within a stated framework that enables,

“a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment”

and

“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and...sustainable use of resources.”

It defines the overall purpose of the Bill, which is important. It keeps the different elements of the different parts of the Bill’s metaphorical noses to the grindstone. It makes sure that all the things we are thinking of doing in the Bill have an overall purpose behind them: a healthy, natural environment. The Minister might say that that is a bit of a free hit for environmental lawyers who might come in on the environmental purpose and say, “You are not putting forward a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment with what you are doing.” I might say that that is precisely the purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the overall objective of the Bill to be judged against the actions of parts of the Bill as they fall for individual action in any clauses that we might pass.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West has said, that is the idea of these clauses. I think they would add considerably to the robustness of the Bill—a theme we began to talk about seriously this morning—because of the way in which they would gather everything together under an umbrella of purpose. That point is arguable. Some might say there is sufficient purpose in the Bill, and there is indeed plenty of purpose in the Bill. It is just a question of whether it is fully gathered together in the relationship between the parts of the Bill on biodiversity, water, air and waste, and gathered together into the fundamental purposes of the first part of the Bill and put together as an overall whole.

I hope the Minister will think about what I have said carefully. As you have reminded us, Mr Gale, the clauses would not come up for a vote until the end of our proceedings, so they will not be voted on today. However, we feel strongly about this, and I think we would consider dividing the Committee when they come up, if there is no reasonable response to the intent put forward in these new clauses.

[The Chair]

Thank you, Dr Whitehead. We will make a note, and whoever is in the Chair at the time that the new clauses are reached will take cognisance of what you have just said.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for Leeds North West mentioned carve-outs. I want it to be clear that the environmental principles policy statement will apply across Government—across the whole policy function of Government. When a Minister of another Department brings forward primary legislation, they have to consider the environmental principles. That is a groundbreaking introduction by the Government. There will be exceptions in a couple of areas, where it is self-explanatory that the principles could not be used appropriately. That defence is one of those, but I am sure the hon. Member will understand that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I wonder if the Minister could help me. Let us take the example of a habitat in extremely poor condition and facing further decline. That habitat could be significantly improved simply by preventing further decline and intervening to bring the habitat up to a poor but improving condition. That would be a significant improvement, but it would not constitute a high-quality or healthy habitat. Does the Minister accept that that is a problem with the definition of significant improvement? Or does she think that other elements in the Bill would define significant improvement to make that definition of a poor environment improvement—[Interruption.] I see the Minister has been provided with inspiration. Does she think that other parts of the Bill would make that argument superfluous—namely, that significant improvement would equate to healthy, with the other elements of the Bill being in place? I am not sure it does.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Before I read the inspiration that has been passed to me, let me say that the whole point of the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement—we have other requirements to keep on checking, testing and monitoring targets through the environment improvement plan, which is also checked every five years —is that it is a holistic approach. The shadow Minister is picking one thing, but with the range of targets that will be set, that one thing will be constantly reported on and monitored. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the nature recovery networks and strategy. The point he raises will be addressed through those other measures in the Bill that, on the whole, will be the levers to raise all our biodiversity and ensure nature improvement.

We have a constant monitoring system in place where we raise up the holistic approach. Every five years the Government have to assess whether meeting the long-term targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside the other statutory targets, would significantly improve the natural environment. That is all open and transparent; the Government have to respond to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to close the gap, setting other powers. There are many powers in the Bill for target setting, but also for reporting back. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman some assurances that the things I believe he wants in the Bill will get into it through the levers provided in it.

Clause 22 sets a principal objective for the Office for Environmental Protection. It will ensure that the OEP contributes to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment in exercising its functions. Not only do we have measures for Government, we also have an overarching body checking and monitoring everything and saying what it thinks should or should not happen—whether there should be new targets or whether the targets are being addressed. All those measures are closely aligned; the idea is that they will work together to deliver the environmental protection mentioned in the amendments, concerning improvement and protection of the natural environment as well as the sustainable use of resources.

The shadow Minister said that the Bill had come and gone a few times and has grown a bit; I say it has grown better and stronger, and that we need lots of those measures. The framework now is coherent. I have done a flow-chart of how this all works together, because it is quite complicated. However, if the shadow Minister looks at all the measures together, they knit in with each other to give this holistic approach to what will happen for the environment and how we will care for it.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister mentioned this “healthy environment” wording. Clearly, there are many different views on what constitutes a healthy environment, and the Government could not assess what they needed to do to satisfy that new legal obligation, and nor could anyone else. The Government cannot support an amendment that creates such an obligation. It would create uncertainty to call just for a “healthy environment”, because everyone’s idea of that is different. The Government cannot support such a commitment, because the legal obligations are too uncertain. However, we support the overarching architecture of everything working together to create the holistic environment, and an approach where all the targets work together and we are on a trajectory towards a much better environment. The shadow Minister and I are in complete agreement with each other that that is the direction that we should be taking.

To sum up, the Government do not believe that amendment 103 or new clauses 1 and 6 are necessary. I ask hon. Members kindly to withdraw them.

[Alex Sobel]

I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

On a point of order, Mr Gale. I want to be clear that amendment 103 and new clause 6 are to be withdrawn, with no effect on new clause 1.

[The Chair]

That is absolutely the case. Let me restate, because none of us has a monopoly on wisdom: formally, only the lead amendment is moved. If any other amendments or new clauses are to be moved, we have to have an indication of that fact at the right time, when they will be moved. Only the lead amendment can be withdrawn, because only the lead amendment has been moved, at this stage. Everyone happy?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set the appropriate long-term targets within each priority area for the purpose of achieving and maintaining a healthy environment on land and at sea”.

This amendment seeks to provide legal clarification to show that the Secretary of State’s purpose when setting targets is to maintain a healthy environment. It also seeks to explicitly include the marine environment links to which are currently sparse in this Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at the end insert—

“on land, and at sea.”

This amendment makes explicit that the review of environmental targets should consider both marine and terrestrial environments

[Dr Whitehead]

We have not yet got beyond the first page of the Bill because, I suggest, it is a particularly important page for the rest of the Bill. These two amendments seek to put clearly on the face of the Bill what we are talking about in terms of the environment. They add “on land” and “at sea”, first to the targets in line 11 onwards. They do so because we think—as we have made clear by tabling an amendment to clause 6—that the Bill ought to be completely clear that we are talking about the threats not just to the environment but to the marine environment as well. The two are indissolubly linked.

Later, we will talk about beaches, which one might say are neither terrestrial nor marine, but involve a particular series of concerns about both of them. The Bill needs to be clear that that all comes within an definition of what we are talking about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for amendments 1 and 85, which would include specific reference to

“on land, and at sea”

in clauses 1 and 6. The Bill requires that at least one long-term target is set in each of the four priority areas, as has been explained. That provides clarity and certainty about the areas on which policy setting will focus between now and October 2022.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to set targets is not limited to those priority areas alone and can be used in respect of any matter relating to the natural environment. I give him absolute reassurances that the definition of the natural environment includes consideration of the marine environment. Indeed, I welcome this being raised. The fact that we are discussing it and getting that in writing will clarify the position. He is absolutely right to raise the issue. The marine environment will be included, and it is explicitly highlighted on page 57 of the explanatory notes. The shadow Minister is not alone in calling for that; the Natural Capital Committee also wanted clarification, and we gave it reassurances.

The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects—terrestrial and marine—of England’s natural environment when conducting the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement. That involves assessing whether the natural environment as a whole, including the marine environment, will have improved significantly. Such an approach is aligned with comments made at the evidence session. The Committee may remember that Dr Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that

“the environment has to operate as a system.”—[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]

Of course, the system has to include marine and land—all aspects. Furthermore, the Office for Environmental Protection has a key role, and if it believes that additional targets should be set, it can recommend that in its annual report on assessing the Government’s progress. The OEP could therefore comment on the marine environment specifically, and the Government must publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s report.

The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that provides clarification and reassurance about the word “marine” and references to “on land” and “on sea.” I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

As the Minister said, the fact that we are discussing these matters, and that our words are going on the record, is useful in buttressing what is in the legislation. I am grateful to her for her clarification, which is also on the record. On that basis, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

The Environment Bill provides an opportunity to accelerate this change, to provide a level playing for business and to demonstrate UK leadership.”

[Dr Whitehead]

I apologise, Sir Roger, for having inadvertently deknighted you earlier. I do not wish to continue with that practice any further. It is a new world, but it is quite useful, I think.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the amendments, which we strongly think should be supported. It would be an omission if the Bill did not recognise what the international footprint of our actions is all about and how intrinsically linked that is, in a world where sugar snap peas are grown in Kenya—[Interruption.] I am merely saying that they are grown there, Minister—our choices are our own in those respects. Things are flown around the world at a moment’s notice and flowers are put in cargo plane holds. There are the effects of our attempts at reforestation, but we then observe deforestation in substantial parts of the world as a result, quite probably, of them taking part in the processes by which we get soya milk on our tables in the UK. We might deplore such practices in principle, but actually, we substantially support them as a result of our preferences for particular things in this country. That causes those international events to occur, which we then deplore further.

The idea that we are intrinsically linked through our global footprint, in terms of what we do in this country as far as the environment is concerned, seems very important in the Bill’s successful passage through the House. Although amendment 77 makes very specific points, the amendments are more than slightly contingent on new clause 5, which we will debate later. I would like to hear how the Minister thinks that in the absence of a something that includes our international environmental footprint, the Bill can do justice to what should be intrinsic elements of concern when we talk about our domestic environment. Not only did my hon. Friend make a powerful case, but we are completely convinced that this needs rectifying in the Bill, and I hope that we can do that by not just passing the amendments, but taking serious cognisance of new clause 5 when we discuss it later on.

[Alex Sobel]

I have signed amendments 76 and 78 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), but not amendment 77—that is an oversight, however, and I also fully support it. I will talk about two specific things relating to our global footprint in the Amazon and West Papua, and it is worth declaring that I am the chair of the all-party group on West Papua, although I have no pecuniary interests.

My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister made excellent cases, but I want to add a bit more detail. Three weeks ago, Chief Raoni, one of the indigenous leaders of the Amazon, came to the House and I met him, and last week, I hosted WWF Brazil’s chief executive here. They also met the Minister’s colleague, Lord Goldsmith, while they were here, and one of their key asks was that the UK Government are very clear about the import of goods from the Amazon. The range of goods is very broad. The dangers in the Amazon are live at the moment, with concerns that in just a matter of months, wildfires could rage in the Amazon as we saw last year, destroying millions of hectares of rainforest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made good points about soya and cattle farming, but there is also extremely widespread mining—not just by large companies, but the wildcat mining, in which the family of the Brazilian President have traditionally been involved —for metals such as aluminium, iron, nickel and copper. The sourcing of the materials for many of the everyday products that people use involves deforestation and mining in the Amazon. That has further effects because activities such as farming and mining require infrastructure, such as roads right through the rainforest. The use of the river and of heavy diesel vehicles creates water and air degradation.

We spoke about biodiversity in the UK, but our biodiversity pales into insignificance compared with the biodiversity in the rainforests of the Amazon or West Papua. It is the Committee’s duty not to forget that the UK is a major importer of goods and a major world centre for resources and raw materials, which are traded in London and imported into the UK. That means that we have a much broader responsibility.

West Papua is a lesser-known area that is part of Indonesia and has one of the world’s largest mines, the Grasberg Freeport mine. There, beyond the loss of environmental habitat and the pollution of water and air, there are also human rights abuses. There is a well-documented history of extrajudicial killings around the operation of the mine. Offshore, BP—a British company—is involved in oil and gas resources. Our global footprint is huge and the Bill must focus on that. If we are to enshrine environmental protections in domestic law, we cannot close our borders and say, “We are doing sufficient things here,” while forgetting our global footprint and the effects of our markets, imports, production facilities and export investment in causing global environmental degradation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said, I want to revisit that, because I thought the Minister was making an argument against being able to pursue targets. She did not adequately make the case for not having the specific priority of a global footprint target, but we will return to that when we discuss new clause 5, which is a comprehensive clause about due diligence in the supply chain and how we enforce all this. We shall return to the debate then, rather than my pressing these issues to a vote now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) Targets set within the priority area of air quality must include targets for—

(a) the ambient 24 hour mean concentration of PM2.5 and PM10;

(b) average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10; and

(c) annual emissions of NOx, ammonia, PM2.5, PM10, SO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds.

(3B) Targets set within the priority area of water must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) abstraction rates; and

(b) the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater and the marine environment.

(3C) Targets set within the priority area of biodiversity must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species; and

(b) the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats.

(3D) Targets set within the priority area of waste and resources must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to the reduction of overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”

We are now moving on to a debate on one of the most important elements of the Bill. I suspect it will take us beyond the break for lunch, but I will start my remarks. The amendment is designed to address the priority areas for environmental targets, which are set out in clause 1(3). Hon. Members can see that the stated policy areas are air quality, water, biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Other targets, particularly on PM_2.5 air quality, are mentioned later in the Bill, but those are the priority areas for the purpose of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Order. It is tiresome, but I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman.

Environment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start proceedings, I have been advised that the ambition today is to get to the end of clause 6, which as far as I am concerned is both admirable and acceptable. The Chairman’s job is to be in the Chair, and I am prepared to do that, but if we sit rather later than we might have done, I will suspend the sitting, probably for 15 minutes at 4.30 pm—for natural causes.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

For the elucidation of the Committee, I confirm that the intention of the Opposition is to get to the end of clause 6 in reasonably good order, so it will not be necessary, I hope, for the Chair to suspend proceedings, because we will already have gone home by then. We will see whether I manage to keep my remarks suitably brief, so that we can achieve that goal.

I barely started my remarks about the amendment this morning. I will first emphasise how important the amendment is to ensuring that the priority area targets are seen as targets with content, rather than targets in theory. That is important because of the frankly rather odd way in which subsection (2) is set out:

“The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set a long-term target in respect of at least one matter within each priority area.”

That might suggest that the Secretary of State will have a lottery choice, and will say, “Well, I’ve got to set at least one target in each area, so what’s it going to be? If I go above my limit of one target per area, I might not be able to get targets in other areas,” or perhaps, “I haven’t got enough targets in this section, so I have to beef them up.”

In reality, targets are not one per customer; they are based on what targets should be set in each area. What are the themes that one would prioritise within each area in which a target might be set? What are the priorities regarding air quality, water, biodiversity and waste and resources that would cause us to say, “Perhaps in this area there should be three or four targets, and in that area two, or more than three”?

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set more than one target, but it at least strongly suggests that it should be one target, and implies that that should be it. I hope we can be clear today that that certainly is not it, and that the Secretary of State will be charged with looking at each area and deciding, on the basis of what is needed, what the targets for those areas should be. They might or might not be numerous.

There is a rumour that there was discussion with the Treasury about how many targets might be allowed in each area, and the Treasury said, “Maybe keep it to one each. That will be okay.” I am sure that is untrue, but nevertheless the drafting of this part of part 1 seems a little odd.

In amendment 178, we have tried to say, “What would be the general priority areas?” One might say that it was our best go at answering that. If we have time to spare this afternoon, having got through our business, we could have a little roundtable and decide whether we think those are the absolute priorities, or whether we should put in others or change them around. It is an attempt, which I think is good enough to go into the legislation, to look at what the main areas are within each priority area that we could reasonably set targets on.

Within air quality, it would be good to have targets on average human exposure to PM_2.5 and PM₁₀, and annual emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, the different PMs and non-methane volatile organic compounds. For water, the targets could be on abstraction rates,

“the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater”

and, importantly, the marine environment, which we touched on this morning.

In the priority area of biodiversity, there could be targets on

“the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species”

and

“the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats”.

Later in the Bill, we will talk about recreating habitats if necessary, and ensuring, through local plans, that habitats join up with each other, so that we do not have a series of island habitants with no relation to each other. Perhaps we should have a biodiversity target on ensuring that those habitats are connected.

In the priority area of waste and resources, there could be targets on

“overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”

As we will see later in our discussions, there could certainly be targets relating to the extent to which things are properly moved up the waste hierarchy. One of the concerns we have regarding the waste and resources part of the Bill is the extent to which there is, rightly, a concern for recycling, but not for going any further up the waste hierarchy than that.

Amendment 178 is the explanation that we would like to see after the very thin gruel served up in clause 1(3). It is by no means the last word, and we state in the amendment that the targets are not limited to those set out in it. Indeed, it would be a perfectly good idea if the Secretary of State or Minister said, “I don’t quite agree with the targets that you have set out here. There are other priority areas in these sectors, and we’d like to set targets on those instead.” We are not precious about that in any way.

I hope the Committee can accept the principle that it is not sufficient to set out single-word priority areas, particularly in clause 1(2). In the Bill, there needs to be some unpacking of the process, so that we can assure ourselves that we will get to grips with the sort of targets that we believe are necessary. That is a friendly proposal. I hope it is met with interest from Government Members, and that we can discuss how we get that right, having accepted the principle. We do not necessarily need the amendment to be accepted in its totality, but if we do not see any movement at all in its direction, we strongly feel that we ought to set down a marker to show that it is important that such a process be undertaken, and would therefore reluctantly seek to divide the Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

I thank the shadow Minister for seeking to specify the targets that the Government should set within each priority area. He asked if what he said was met with interest. Of course it was. He recognises that the Bill includes a requirement, which I reiterate, to set at least one long-term legally binding target in each of four important areas: air quality; water; biodiversity; and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Those were chosen because they are the priority areas that reflect where we believe targets will drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment, which is the aim of the Bill.

The four priority areas were chosen to complement the chapters of the Bill, to build on the vision in the 25-year environment plan—the first environment improvement plan in the Bill—and to facilitate the delivery of comprehensive measures, with an “s” on the end, across the natural environment; we are talking about not just one thing, but a whole raft of measures. The Bill’s framework allows long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment, or people’s enjoyment of it, beyond the four priority areas in order to drive significant improvement in the natural environment. Of course, all those things will be monitored, checked and reported on to ensure that the significant improvement is achieved, and if more targets are seen to be required, then more targets are what will happen.

I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the Government will be able to determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting process that I referred to this morning. Advice from independent experts will be sought in every case during the process. Stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to give input on targets. Indeed, just now in the Tea Room, one of our colleagues asked about giving input on the deposit return scheme. I said, “Yes, there will be a lot of engagement and a lot of consultation, through the Bill.” Targets will be based on robust, scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis.

We do not want to prejudge which specific targets will emerge from the process, and the Office for Environmental Protection has a role in setting targets. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, it can say what it thinks should be done in its annual report when it is assessing the Government’s progress. It will do that every year. The Government then have to publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s call. Any long-term targets will be set via statutory instruments, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament can scrutinise, debate, and ultimately vote on them, so everyone gets their say. I hope that will please the shadow Minister, because he will very much be part of that. This process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account for the targets they set.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly, thank you, Sir Roger.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. He has hit the nail on the head in summing up the flexibility for the targets and the importance of getting and inputting the right expert advice and having the flexibility to move and change with the requirements. The environment is such a huge thing. There is no one thing; it is not a straightforward answer. There will be lots of different targets to consider. Specifically, however, we have a requirement to set at least one long-term target.

To pick on the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West on air quality, we have a clean air strategy already, which the World Health Organisation has held up as an example for the rest of the world to follow. We are already taking the lead on that and have committed £3.5 billion to delivering our clean air strategy and the measures within it. They are already operating and will work part and parcel with the Bill’s new measures to have an even more holistic and comprehensive approach to air quality.

[Dr Whitehead]

If the Bill were just a framework Bill, it would be about a quarter as long as it is. The fact that, in various parts, it has quite a lot of detail about the things that are required within the overall framework indicates that the Bill is more than that. It seeks to set out, guide and secure a whole series of advances in environmental standards and enhancements of the natural environment in a way that hopefully we can all be proud of.

That is why I call this particular section thin gruel. I was trying to see where we can go with the porridge analogy. Although its potential is not thin gruel, the way it is set out in the Bill appears to me to turn out something that is rather more thin gruel than good porridge. Some Government Members, meanwhile, are thinking “How can we make it flower out of its bowl with all sorts of things added to it?”

Our amendment does not stop Ministers coming up with new targets—wide targets, changeover time and so on—and go with the flow of circumstances as they unfold, but it prevents the porridge from being thinner than it might otherwise be. We want to see basic, good porridge with some fruit, raspberries—

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

Nuts.

[Dr Whitehead]

With some nuts on top, which together makes a pleasing dish that one can understand and be secure that one is going to get a good breakfast as a result. That is the purpose of our amendment. We feel strongly about that—we all like a good breakfast. On that basis, I am not happy with the Minister’s response. I do not see how the things that she wants to get done on the Bill will in any way be undermined or diluted by the structure that we have put forward. On the contrary, I think they would be underpinned and expanded. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) A target under this section must be set on the basis of the best available evidence and any advice given under section (3)(1).

(4B) In setting targets under this section, the Secretary of State must take into account relevant international best practices and seek to improve on them.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that targets are evidence based and have considered international best practises.

The amendment deals with what the targets must specify. As the Bill stands at the moment, that is a little vague. Subsection (4) states:

“A target set under this section must specify—

(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively

measured, and

(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.”

We think that that formulation does not take full account of the way in which those targets should be appraised, particularly the way they should be appraised on the basis of the best available evidence and international best practices and how the UK might be able to improve on them. We therefore suggest adding proposed new subsections (4A) and (4B) after subsection (4).

We have to look at the best available evidence. I am not saying for a moment that this would occur, but a target that was set under this procedure by the Minister, which appeared to have been conjured out of thin air on a whim and did not have much support, would be gravely undermining of those people who want those targets to be achieved and those achievements to be firmly attained.

The best available evidence and the relevant international best practices are extremely important. We should be able to say that we can learn from others and incorporate that into our practices so that we leap ahead in our achievements. That is a very good guideline to inform target setting, and it is what we offer in our amendment. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that what is in the Bill at the moment really does the job in terms of setting targets, or whether, perhaps by using different means from the clause, there are ways in which we can make sure that the Bill stands up rather better to the target-setting task that we have set it.

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to ensure that, when these targets are set, they are based on the highest possible standards of evidence, practice and advice. However, I believe that it is not necessary to make such explicit amendments as the one that we are considering, because we have already committed to setting targets under a robust, evidence-led process. We expect the best available evidence to inform this, including, of course, scientific data, models, historical datasets and assessment of what is feasible from a socioeconomic perspective. I can assure him that absolutely nothing will be conjured out of thin air, as he was suggesting; conducting ourselves in such a way would not be a correct way for Government to operate.

I am sure that the shadow Minister will be interested to be reminded that every two years, we will conduct a review of significant developments in international environmental legislation. I think that that was one of the new additions to the Bill that was inserted during the process that he was outlining earlier, about how the Bill came and went, and fell, and various other things. This is an extra addition that I believe will be useful and will address exactly what he is talking about, because it is right that we consider what is happening across the rest of the world, to make sure that we are aligned, whether we want to be or not, and consider what other people are doing, and make sure we keep abreast of developments in driving forward our environmental protection legislation.

Of course, we will publish that review and make sure that any relevant findings are factored into our environmental improvement plan, and considered with the environmental target-setting process. We will also seek and consider very carefully the advice of independent experts before setting the targets. Additionally, our target proposals will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament; both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ultimately vote on the details and the ambition of the targets. We also expect the Select Committees to take an interest in this process and they will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s target proposals. They might choose to conduct their own inquiries or publish reports, which the Government would then respond to in the usual manner.

Having given that amount of detail, I hope that it provides some reassurance. The shadow Minister is obviously raising really important issues, but I hope that my response makes it clear that we are taking this matter very seriously. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister has said exactly what I had anticipated she might say in the best of outcomes, and that is now on the record; indeed, our purpose principally was to ensure that that kind of statement about these targets was there for all to see. I am grateful to her for setting that out and I am much happier than I would have been if she had not said that. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

This amendment reflects the renaming of the National Assembly for Wales as “Senedd Cymru” by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. Similar changes are made by Amendments 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, and 73.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am satisfied that clause 1 has been sufficiently debated, and I therefore do not propose to take a clause stand part debate.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Environmental targets: particulate matter

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;

(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”

This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 185, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) follow World Health Organisation guidelines and;

(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”

This amendment ensures that the international standard on small particulate matter set by the World Health Organisation is followed, and that this target is reached by the end of the decade.

Amendment 25, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after “England” insert—

“and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health and the environment as quickly as possible”.

This amendment is intended to strengthen the test against which targets are assessed, to ensure that the human health impacts of air pollution are considered, with the aim of minimising, or where possible eliminating, them.

Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after “2023” insert—

“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.

This amendment is intended to allow any new targets to reflect updated WHO guidelines.

Amendment 27, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, after “completed” insert—

“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.

This amendment is intended to trigger an early review of the PM2.5 target, and other air quality targets, within 6 months of the publication of the updated WHO guidelines.

[Dr Whitehead]

This amendment should be discussed with amendment 185. Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of the esteemed Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and a number of other Members, most of whom are not on this Committee—and some of our names have been added. Amendment 185 is in the names of Members who are mostly on the Committee.

These amendments highlight a real difference between what is in the Bill about the additional environmental target on particulate matter, in addition to what is in clause 1(3), and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Clause 2 indicates why this is not just a framework Bill, as it includes some real stuff on particulate matter. But that real stuff does not get us to where we need to be on targets for particulate matter in ambient air.

One way or another, these amendments seek to equate the target guidelines to the World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate matter. Indeed, amendment 23 states that the PM_2.5 air quality target should be,

“less than or equal to 10µg/m3”.

I understand that that would be equivalent to the World Health Organisation guidelines. In that sense, although the amendments are slightly differently worded, they do not have any different intent or purpose.

The questions are: why the WHO guidelines; what have we done so far on PM_2.5 emissions; and where might the targets suggested in the Bill get us? One problem with how we have addressed PM_2.5 and other particulate matter is that although the emissions expressed as density per cubic metre of air have come down very substantially over the years, levels have pretty much plateaued between the early 2000s and the present. Indeed, as I see it we will not get too much further in achieving targets on the basis of that performance over recent years. The suggested targets set out in the Bill do not take us much further down the road as far as a fall in emissions is concerned. We need to align ourselves with the WHO guidelines, so that we can ensure that we are targeting a regular and continuing reduction in emissions.

As hon. Members will know, these emissions are serious for human health. The smaller the particulate emissions, the more likely those particulates are to penetrate human tissue and lungs, and to cause long-term injury and health problems for the recipients. These finer particulates are pretty much a product of a lot of modern living, coming from, for example, tyres, brakes, diesel emissions—all sorts of things like that. It is certainly more than possible to target those factors in such a way as to get emissions down to a much more seriously depleted level than at present.

Indeed, that was the subject of a report by the Department in 2019 entitled, “Air quality: Assessing progress towards WHO guideline levels of PM_2.5 in the UK”. That report, which was obviously a Government report, suggested in its conclusion that the analysis of progress that had been made and of future progress demonstrated that,

“measures in the Clean Air Strategy, alongside action by EU Member States, are likely to take us a substantial way towards achieving the WHO guideline level for annual mean PM_2.5”,

but that:

“It also helps us understand where further action is needed.”

That is probably a summary of where the Government are as far as these guidelines are concerned: we are some way towards the WHO guidelines, but we are not there yet, and we need to understand that further action is needed and where it is needed. That is why we think a target, which should run alongside the WHO guideline level, is essential in or around this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

The hon. Gentleman says we must have guidelines; I agree with him totally, but in fact the guidelines are there in the legislation. Clause 1 lays out specifically what the standard means and the date by which it is to be achieved, which cannot be more than 15 years after the date on which the target is initially set. The guidelines are there, and clause 2, in seven crisp bullets, gives more detail about what is expected of the Secretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment looks, on appearance, to be a modest word or two, but what he is trying to achieve is a rewriting of clauses 1, 2 and 3 altogether, setting not the guideline, but a very specific target and deadline. I cannot help wondering whether the deadline, which is before January 2030, is not linked specifically to the Labour party conference motion that called for net zero carbon by 2030—something his own Front Bench has rejected, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target of net zero by 2050.

[Dr Whitehead]

Those are two different things.

[Richard Graham]

They are indeed, but the date is, by coincidence, the same.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a bit like thinking that, if there are two bodies in different parts of the country, they must be connected because they are two bodies. It does not follow, to be honest, because they are not connected.

[Richard Graham]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman saying that they are not connected. The two dates happen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is not like two bodies in different parts of the country. The key thing is that the guidelines for which he calls are there; the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to mention Professor Alastair Lewis. Members will remember that he is the chairman of the UK’s air quality expert group. He gave stark evidence. He is obviously an expert in his field, and it was really interesting to hear what he said. He stressed the technical challenges involved in setting a target for a pollutant as complex as PM_2.5, which he explained is formed from diverse sources—the shadow Minister is right about that—and chemical reactions in the atmosphere. He was at pains to explain that a lot of PM_2.5 comes from the continent, and it depends on the direction of the wind, the weather and the atmospheric conditions. My hon. Friend is right that those things are not totally within our control.

Professor Lewis explained the need to decide how we would measure progress towards the target, and that the process would be challenging and would take time. It is crucial to get it right. When developing the detail of the target, we will seek evidence from a wide range of sources and ensure we give due consideration to the health benefits of reducing pollution, as well as the measures required to meet the targets and the costs to business and taxpayers. It is really important that we bring them on board.

I want to refer quickly to the report that the shadow Minister mentioned. I thought he might bring up the DEFRA report published in July 2019, which demonstrated that significant progress would be made towards the current WHO guideline level of 2.5 by 2030. He is right about that. However, the analysis did not outline a pathway to achieve the WHO guideline level across the country or take into account the full economic viability or practical deliverability.

In setting our ambitions for achievable targets, it is essential that we give consideration to these matters—achievability and the measures required to meet it. That is very much what our witnesses said last week. If we set unrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that are neither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why we are committed to an evidence-based process using the best available science—something I know the shadow Minister is really keen we do—and advice from experts to set an ambitious and achievable PM_2.5 air quality target.

I reiterate that it is crucial for public, Parliament and stakeholders that they have the opportunity to comment on this and have an input in the process of developing these targets. By taking the time to carry out this important work in engagement, we will ensure that targets are ambitious, credible and, crucially, supported by society. We have the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement, outlined in the Bill. It will consider all relevant targets collectively and assess whether meeting them will significantly improve the natural environment of England as a whole. It is intended to capture the breadth and the amount of improvement. It is very much a holistic approach and it encompasses the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment and the associated effects on human health. All these things will be taken into account in assessing the journey to the targets. I therefore surmise that the proposal in amendment 25 is not necessary.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is quite right in pointing out that the report we mentioned did not take into account within a scientific model the full economic viability or practical deliverability of that change. If she were to commission this group to go away and do that, would she commit to the WHO guidelines after that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister knows that I will make no such commitment here. This has to be evidence based. Get the right evidence, then the decisions can be made. That is how this Bill will operate. All the advice we took last week from the experts—the people we have to listen to—very much agreed that this was the direction that we need to take. Reviewing individual targets through the test, as proposed in amendments 26 and 27, would not be in line with the holistic approach of the Bill.

Furthermore, the fixed timetable for periodically conducting the significant improvement test provides much needed certainty and predictability to business and society. We have heard from many businesses that they want this surety. It would be inappropriate to determine the timescale for this test on the basis of one new piece of evidence. However, we recognise that the evidence will evolve as highlighted by amendments 26, 27 and 185. The Government will consider new evidence as it comes to light after targets have been set, as part of the five-yearly review of our environmental improvement plan and its annual progress report. The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, as I have said before, or that an update to a target is necessary as a result of new evidence, it can recommend this in its annual report, assessing the Government’s progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I do worry about the idea that a target should only be set if we know that the target can be achieved and exceeded immediately. If we did that all of the time, we would not have targets. We would set what we were going to do as a target and—well I never—we would always achieve it. A target has to be something that is grasping at the stars in order to be achieved. A target, among other things, should not just be based on the idea that you can do something now, easily. It should be, in part, a wake-up call and a gee-up to make sure the target is achieved once you have done the basic work that it is technically possible to do. Indeed, the Government report got us to a position of doing that. I do not accept the Minister’s arguments on this. There should be a target, at the very least to keep us on the straight and narrow as far as reduction in particulate emissions are concerned, which is based on WHO guidelines. I therefore seek a division on this.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Environmental targets: process

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) Before making regulations under sections 1 or 2, reviewing targets under section 6, setting interim targets under section 10, or considering actions required to achieve targets set under sections 1, 2, or 10, the Secretary of State must—

(a) obtain, and take into account, the advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose;

(b) carry out full public consultation;

(c) publish that advice as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(1A) If regulations laid under sections 1 or 2 or interim targets make provision different from that recommended by the advisory body, the Secretary of State must both publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.

(1B) Any advisory body set up under subsection (1)(a) must comprise 50 per cent of members nominated by the OEP and 50 per cent of members nominated by the Committee on Climate Change.”

This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from breaking Articles 4 to 8 of the United Nations Aarhus Convention of which the UK is a party. It encourages the Secretary of State to set up and listen to an independent expert body, to consult with the public, and share information. Where discrepancies between what is advised and the regulations the secretary of state chooses to make arise, it requests explanation of that discrepancy. Finally it makes suggestions for how that advisory body should be set up.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 181, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert—

“(1A) The advice sought under section 3(1) must include advice on how the scope and level of targets should be set to significantly improve the natural environment and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”

[Dr Whitehead]

I was slightly taken aback as I had received an indication from the Chair’s provisional grouping and selection of amendments that amendments 81 and 181 would be taken separately.

[The Chair]

They can be voted on separately but debated together. I hate to say it, but I am right.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think I probably have a provisional grouping in front of me here and things maybe have changed since then. In that case, I am very sorry that I raised that particular point.

[The Chair]

No problem at all. The grouping on the selection paper indicates amendment 81 with 181 and then, separately, amendment 24.

[Dr Whitehead]

My other problem here was that I had extensively marked up the provisional grouping with colour coding and so on, and was reluctant to set it aside. That is maybe why I brought it into the Committee. It is a nice piece of work in its own right.

We are talking about amendments 81 and 181 grouped together, which I am happy to talk to. I begin with amendment 81, which seeks to unpack the statement at the beginning of clause 3 that before “making regulations” the

“Secretary of State must seek advice from persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.”

That is a rather strange form of wording. Hon. Members may agree on that. It appears, at its face, that the Secretary of State could choose who—in his or her opinion— is “independent”, a subjective view from the Secretary of State, and who has “relevant expertise”. That is also a subjective view. The Secretary of State can decide on his or her advice without consultation, and can decide from whom he or she must seek that advice.

Amendment 81 seeks to make it much clearer that that is not how the process of seeking and obtaining advice would be carried out. Not only that, that it also seeks to put in place what is essentially good practice from previous legislation in this area, to guide us on how that process would be undertaken. Amendment 81 sets out that the Secretary of State would have to “obtain” and “take into account” the

“advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose”

when reviewing targets and making regulations under clauses 1 or 2. It would not just be someone who the Secretary of State thought had some relevance to the matter, or to whom they decided to go in the belief that they might be independent. They would be “independent”, they would be “expert”, and they would be separate. It would be clear who that advice was coming from.

On the basis of that advice, full public consultation should be undertaken, and that advice would be published as soon as was reasonably practical. It gives the Secretary of State a get-out, and it is proper that it should. Since the advice is to be given as advice, and if the Secretary of State decided that they did not want to take that advice, or wanted to make a provision other than the one recommended by the advisory body, then the Secretary of State should

“publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.”

That is what is known as a comply or explain procedure. It would be expected, in the first instance, that the Secretary of State would comply with properly given, properly expert and properly independent advice, but if they did not feel that they could comply with that advice, it would be up to them to put up a good case as to why not, to publish that good case and to make a statement to Parliament on the good case as to why they could not comply.

We have suggested that the members of the advisory body for this purpose should be nominated by two bodies, one of which is independent and the other, we hope, will very shortly be independent. We suggest that 50% of members be nominated by the Office for Environmental Protection and 50% by the Committee on Climate Change.

That brings me to the procedures that were set up under the original climate change legislation, the Climate Change Act 2008, which, as I have already mentioned in these proceedings and will undoubtedly mention again, seems to me to be a yardstick by which we should measure what we are doing in the Bill. The Bill has often been described as a Climate Change Act for the environment, and it is right that we should make that comparison, because a Bill in its best form will, first, stand the comparison and, secondly, as the Climate Change Act has, stand the test of time between Administrations and through vicissitudes and changes in scientific consideration. It will have within it the mechanism to keep a firm eye on what we are doing, but at the same time change, if necessary, with changes in circumstances.

The Climate Change Act is clear about what the Secretary of State must do in terms of either setting targets or amending target percentages. That is a comparator with what is suggested in this Bill in clause 3. The Climate Change Act states the following:

“Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order…amending the 2050 target or the baseline year…the Secretary of State must…obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change”—

the Committee on Climate Change was set up by the Climate Change Act for that purpose of providing independent advice. The Act also says that the Secretary of State must publish that advice and, if the order that the Secretary of State lays makes provision different from that recommended by the committee,

“the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.”

The “comply or explain” mode of doing things is enshrined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, it is shot through the Climate Change Act in terms of different orders that can be made to amend targets or baseline years or to amend target percentages. When the target percentage in the Act was, as hon. Members will recall, changed in July of last year—I was privileged to lead for Labour on the change that was put forward in, as it happened, a statutory instrument—that change went through well, in that the procedures in the Climate Change Act allowed the change to be made on the basis of proper advice and consultation and ministerial statements to that effect. All those procedures worked well in relation to the Climate Change Act and the changes made there.

There are no such procedures in this Bill. That is what we are particularly concerned about. We think that a procedure similar to that in the Climate Change Act but addressing the particular concerns of the Environment Bill—not everything can simply be squeezed in unamended and unchanged—would be the appropriate way to deal with this request for advice on setting targets and interim targets. Yes, the amendment is quite a bit more extensive than the brief mention of targets in clause 3, but it would add real lustre to the Bill, ensuring that targets would be properly set, properly consulted on and properly explained. Therefore, they would be properly and legitimately adopted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for amendments 81 and 181. I hope he has already got the impression that we are absolutely committed to setting targets under a robust evidence-led process. Independent experts, the public, stakeholders and Parliament will all play a part in informing the scope and level of target development. The Government will carefully consider advice from independent experts before setting targets.

As the Bill progresses, we will continue to consider how the role of experts is best fulfilled. A number of witnesses last week referred to the need to use experts, and they will be used constantly and continuously. Such experts could include academics, scientists and practitioners within the four priority areas included in the Bill. The expert advice we receive to support the setting of both the target for PM_2.5 and the further long-term air quality target will include that on how targets will reduce the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health. We will rely hugely on that expert advice.

Long-term targets will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and analyse the target proposals. That will, of course, include the shadow Minister, because both Houses will debate the statutory instruments that will set the targets. The Office for Environmental Protection will publish annual reports on the Government’s progress towards the targets, which may include recommendations for improving progress. As I have reiterated a number of times, the Government will be required to publish a response to the recommendations.

I want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection can advise on targets, either through its duties related to environmental law or through its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan. For example, it has a statutory power to advise on changes to environmental law, which enables it to comment on proposed legislation on long-term targets. It also has a statutory duty to monitor progress towards meeting targets as part of its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan, which can include recommending how progress could be improved. So there is already a very strong mechanism.

Environmental law extends to all target provisions of the Bill—for example, procedural requirements on target setting and amendments, and the requirement to achieve targets. In addition, the Government will conduct the first significant improvement test—that is a legal requirement—and report to Parliament on its outcome, three months after the deadline for bringing forward the initial priority area targets.

The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, which is why they will come under the OEP. That means that the OEP will have oversight of the provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law, and will have a key role in making sure that the Government meet the targets.

The shadow Minister rightly drew analogies with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that he recognises the similarities. In designing this framework, we have learned from the successful example of the Climate Change Act—for example, the strong duty to achieve long-term targets, the requirement to report on progress and scrutiny of progress by an independent, statutory body, in this case, the Office for Environmental Protection. That mirrors the CCA. We are confident that the framework is every bit as strong as the CCA framework and that it provides certainty to society that the Government will achieve the targets, delivering significant environmental improvements.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement, expert advice and public consultation will help to inform future target areas, as part of the robust, evidence-led, target-setting process. The Government will, as a matter of course, conduct a wide range of consultations for the first set of long-term targets. I hope that that is clear. We do not need the amendments suggested by the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw them.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is all quite terrific, but it is not quite what it says in the Bill. That is the problem. The Minister has set out a robust and wide-ranging procedure for setting targets and I hope that all the steps she mentioned are going to be followed. If they are, we have a good arrangement. However, if we look at the Bill, there is fairly scattered evidence that that is the way we are going to conduct ourselves. On the contrary, it actually appears to give a great deal of leeway for somebody or some people not to do most of those things in setting the targets, if that is what they wanted to do.

We are perhaps back to some of the discussions we had this morning about the extent to which the Bill has to stand not just the test of time, but the potential test of malevolence. If a well-minded and dedicated Minister, such as the one we have before us this afternoon, were to conduct the procedure, that is exactly how she would conduct it, and I would expect nothing less of her, because that is the frame of mind in which she approaches the issue—but, in legislating, we have to consider that not everyone would have that positive frame of mind. I do not want to divide the Committee, but I am concerned that the procedure in the Bill is too sketchily set out for comfort. Maybe, when we draw up the regulations, we could flesh out some of the things that the Minister said this afternoon, to assure ourselves that that is what we will do, and do properly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

I call Alex Sobel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

I thank the Minister for giving some reassurance that the date is not absolutely set in stone and that measures could be introduced earlier, although obviously the date given in the amendment is ideal from my point of view and that of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Environmental targets: effect

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert

“and,

(c) interim targets are met.”

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.

For the Committee’s further enlightenment, I can say that amendment 24 was in a different place in the provisional grouping. I landed my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West in it slightly by assuming that it would be debated under clause 2; it is actually a separate discussion. I am sorry to my hon. Friend for that, but he did a brilliant job under the circumstances.

Amendment 82 is deceptively small but makes an important point about interim targets in this piece of legislation. The Bill requires interim targets to be set on a five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvement plans, the Government are required to set out the steps they will take over a 15-year period to improve the natural environment. However, environmental improvement plans are not legally binding; they are simply policy documents.

Although the plans need to be reviewed, potentially updated every five years and reported on every year, that is not the same as legal accountability. Indeed, voluntary environmental targets have been badly missed on a number of occasions. The target set in 2010 to end the inclusion of peat in amateur gardening products by 2020 will be badly missed. The target set in 2011 for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conserve 50%—by area—of England’s sites of special scientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned and replaced with a new target to ensure that 38.7% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only just higher than the current level. A number of voluntary, interim and other targets have clearly been missed because they are just reporting objects; they do not have legal accountability.

Interim targets should be legally binding to guarantee that they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robust legal framework in place to hold the Government and public authorities to account—not just in the long term, but in the short term. As things stand, the Government could in theory set a long-term, legally binding target for 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoid having to do anything whatever about meeting it until 2036.

Amendment 82 would insert the phrase, “interim targets are met.” That would effectively place a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets that they set. In that context, it is no different from the provisions of the Climate Change Act, which I keep repeating as an example for us all to follow. Indeed, how the five-year carbon budgets work is an example for all of us to follow. They were set up by the Climate Change Act effectively as interim targets before the overall target set for 2050, which is now a 100% reduction; it was an 80% reduction in the original Act.

Those five-year targets are set by the independent body—the Committee on Climate Change—and the Government are required to meet them. If the Government cannot meet them, they are required to take measures to rectify the situation shortly afterwards. Therefore, there are far better mechanisms than those in the Bill to give interim targets real life and ensure they are not just exercises on a piece of paper.

It is important that the Secretary of State is given a duty to meet the targets, because that means that they will have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that they meet those targets. That is what we anticipate would happen as a subset of these measures.

We need to take interim targets seriously, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Indeed, it is not a question of whether we take them seriously; it is a question of how we take them seriously, in a way that ensures that they are credible, achievable, workable and play a full part in the process of getting to the eventual targets that we set at the start of the Bill.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will be very brief. I entirely support what my hon. Friend says about the need for interim targets. We have seen how the carbon budgets work under the Climate Change Act. There is real concern that the timetable might be slipping and that we might not manage to meet the commitments in the next couple of carbon budgets, but at least there is a mechanism.

I know that we have the environmental improvement plans, and that there is a requirement to review them and potentially update them every five years. However, there are so many strategy documents and plans. If we look at peat, for example, my hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the target set in 2010 for ending the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by the end of this year will be missed. I know that the Government have a peat strategy, and there are various other things kicking around that are mentioned every time we talk about peat. But there is a lack of focus, a lack of drive and a lack of certainty as to where the Government are heading on that issue. I feel that if we had legally binding interim targets in the Bill, that would give a sense of direction and it would be something against which we could hold the Government to account—more so than with what is currently proposed.

Regarding my last intervention on the Minister, I was trying to be helpful. I was just asking her to give a reassurance that all the efforts to clear up our air and to tackle air pollution are going on regardless; it is not just about setting this target and whether we set it for 2022 or 2020. That is one particular measure. All I am trying to say is that I am looking for reassurances that the Government will still be focused on cleaning up our air. All she has to do is say yes.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Very quickly, I can give assurances that of course work is ongoing to clean up our air, because we have our clean air strategy. A great many processes are being put in place through that strategy to tackle all the key pollutants that affect air quality. The measures in the Bill come on top of that. I hope that gives the reassurance that was sought.

It is of course critical that we achieve our long-term targets to deliver significant environmental improvement, and this framework provides strong assurances that we will do so. The Bill has this whole framework of robust statutory requirements for monitoring, reporting and reviewing, combined with the Office for Environmental Protection and parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that meeting the interim targets is taken seriously, without the need for them to be legally binding.

Interim targets are there to help the trajectory towards meeting the long-term targets, to ensure that the Government are staying on track. We cannot simply set a long-term target for 2037 and forget about it. Through this cycle—the reporting requirement and the requirement to set out the interim target of up to five years—the Bill will ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and can be held to account. The OEP and Parliament will, of course, play their role too.

To be clear, we have a little mechanism called the triple lock, which is the key to driving short-term progress. The Government must have an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment, and review it at least every five years. In step 2, the Government must report on progress towards achieving the targets every year. In step 3, the OEP will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year it can recommend how we could make better progress, if it thinks better progress needs to be made. The Government then have to respond.

If progress seems too slow, or is deemed to be too slow, the Government may need to develop new policies to make up for that when reviewing their EIPs. They will not wait until 2037 to do that; these things can be done as a continuous process, and that is important.

The shadow Minister rightly referred back to the Climate Change Act and the five-yearly carbon budgets, as did the hon. Member for Bristol East. He asked why, if the carbon budgets were legally binding, the interim targets are not. That is a good question, but of course the targets in the Environment Bill are quite different from carbon budgets. Carbon budgets relate to a single metric: the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. These targets will be set on several different aspects of the natural environment.

As I am sure hon. Members will understand, that is very complicated; it is an interconnected system that is subject to natural factors as well as to human activity. Additionally, aspects of the natural environment such as water quality or soil health might respond more quickly to some things and more slowly to others, even with ambitious interventions. It is possible that the Government could adopt extremely ambitious measures and still miss their interim targets due to external factors.

What is important, in this case, is that a missed interim target is recognised and that the Government consider what is needed to get back on track. I am convinced that the system that is there to recognising that—the reporting, analysis and so on—will highlight it. There will be reporting through the EIPs, the targets and the OEP scrutiny, and the incorporation of any new interim targets or measures; it can all be looked at in the five-yearly review of the EIP. I believe there is a strong framework there already.

Finally, of course, the OEP will have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets. Of course, we cannot reach the long-term targets unless we have achieved the interim targets first. I hope I have been clear on that; I feel strongly that we have the right process here, and I hope the shadow Minister will kindly withdraw his amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I hope the Minister will not think I am being too unkind if I say that she is describing a triple lock process rather more like a triple bunch of flowers process. Yes, what she says about the process operating under positive circumstances is good. Indeed, if it happens as she has outlined, we will have a good process in place. It may well be that as time goes by and people have more confidence in how the process works, and if the Government of the day play ball with that process in its own right, the outcome will be good.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert

“and,

(c) steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken.”

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to do what they have said needs to be done in their report.

The amendment attempts to tidy up the procedures in clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 talks about reporting duties, and it identifies the steps that are taken to make sure the Secretary of State does what they need to do according to their report. At present, the steps identified in clause 5 stand separate from the Secretary of State’s report, and the Secretary of State appears to report in isolation. Various things have to be done, but they are not tied in with the report.

The amendment would ensure that the

“steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken”,

which would mean that the Secretary of State’s report is not only a piece of paper. The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to do what their report says needs to be done, so the report would have real substance for future activity in this area.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment. I am sure he agrees that the most critical thing is the meeting of long-term targets in order to deliver significant environmental improvement, rather than the specific process of getting there. Our target framework provides strong assurance that the Government will achieve them, so the amendment is not necessary.

If a long-term target is missed, the Government’s remedial plan must set out the steps they intend to take towards meeting the missed target as soon as reasonably practicable. The Government will remain under an explicit duty to meet the target. The OEP will have a key role in holding the Government to account on the delivery of targets, both through the annual scrutiny of progress and through its enforcement functions. If a long-term target is missed, the OEP may decide to commence an investigation, which could ultimately lead to enforcement action. We expect the case for enforcement action to increase with time if the target keeps being missed, including if the Government fail to take the steps outlined in the remedial plan. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I am a little happier with the Minister’s consideration of that amendment. I think it might be a good idea to pull these things together, but I accept what the Minister says, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Environmental targets: effect

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—

“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”.

The amendment strengthens the Secretary of State’s reporting by including a timetable and analysis.

We now turn to clause 5, which sets out that the Secretary of State must

“set out the steps the Secretary of State has taken, or intends to take, to ensure the specified standard is achieved as soon as reasonably practicable.”

To give the clause a little more robustness, the amendment would add at the end that the Secretary of State’s report should

“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”

That sounds a little routine, but we think that without such shaping, the report could be pretty much anything. We could give the report considerable shape by requiring it to contain a timetable for the adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, to shape and specify them; to set out who will be responsible for doing those things; and to contain an analysis of the options that have been considered and their estimated impact. That might not necessarily be an impact assessment as we traditionally know them in legislation, but a background analysis of those options and how they would affect the delivery of progress against relevant targets would be a good net addition to the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister may think otherwise, but I am interested to hear what she has to say. I am interested to know whether she thinks that such a process, which would give reports a lot more shape, might be considered for future reports. That might be done by further secondary legislation, or by other means—not necessarily those that are laid out in the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees that missing a legally binding target should lead to clear consequences and next steps. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however, because it does not strengthen the requirements that we are creating. The Bill requires the Government to publish a remedial plan to achieve the missed standard

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

To draw up their remedial plan, the Government would therefore have to assess both what is practicable—feasible —and what is reasonable. That would include how long the chosen measures are expected to take to achieve the missed standard, how and by whom they would be implemented, and what alternatives had been considered. To show that they had met that standard, the Government would need to set out how they had selected the measures included in the remedial plan—I think that is what the shadow Minister was getting at—as part of sound policy making and to ensure transparency.

The OEP would have a key role to play. If, for example, the Government failed to publish a remedial plan that met the relevant statutory requirements, the OEP might decide to open an investigation, which ultimately could lead to enforcement action. There are already very strong measures to back up the remedial plan, and in case standards or targets are missed. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

As I anticipated, I did not have an eager taker for my suggestion. Nevertheless, the Minister put on the record some of the anticipated structure following those reports. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Environmental targets: review

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

“(3A) In considering whether the natural environment would be significantly improved, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—

(a) the terrestrial and marine natural environment in England has improved as a system; and

(b) that the achievement of any targets which meet the conditions specified in subsection (8) would constitute significant improvement in that matter.”

This amendment would require a review to consider whether significant improvement is achieved for the environment as a whole, as well as for certain individual aspects of the environment.

We now move to the fabled land of clause 6. We have been looking at it from afar and thinking that it might be a mirage, but it turns out that, like the targets we are talking about, it may be within our grasp. The amendment is important when it comes to looking at the system of the terrestrial and marine environment as a whole in the consideration of significant improvement to the natural environment.

We have talked about what we mean by significant improvement. We have discussed whether in certain circumstances, the improvement of the habitat for a particular species near Birmingham might constitute significant improvement, or whether we need a more holistic consideration of significant improvement. I think we need something more holistic, because it is important that our individual efforts—we will discuss them later in relation to local nature action plans—join up, and that they are seen as a whole and as parts of a wider process that provides systematic improvement for the whole terrestrial and marine environment. Individual improvements should therefore be judged against that wider yardstick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Secretary of State looks at whether targets will achieve significant improvement in the natural environment as a whole, as well as in individual areas of it. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, but even in our evidence session of last week, Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that

“the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose one thing to focus on, you end up causing more problems to solve.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]

In line with that, the significant improvement test—a legal requirement in the Bill—is intended to consider both the breadth and the amount of improvement, with the aim of assessing whether England’s natural environment as a whole would significantly improve. It is a holistic approach, and the Bill’s definition of the natural environment is drafted to be broad enough to encompass all its elements, including the marine environment, which we discussed earlier. I believe the shadow Minister and I are thinking along the same lines, as I think he was intimating that he wants this all-encompassing approach, which is explicitly highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes.

The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects of England’s natural environment, both terrestrial and marine, when conducting the significant improvement test. The test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would significantly improve as a result of collectively meeting the long-term targets, which are legally binding, under the Bill, alongside any other relevant legislative environmental targets to which we are also adhering. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw amendment 183.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am interested to know what status the Minister thinks the explanatory notes have in these proceedings. I imagine they are rather more than insignificant, and rather less than completely significant. I read the explanatory notes to any piece of legislation. Sometimes, it occurs to me that they run very close to what is in the legislation, and sometimes they depart a little, yet they come before us in the same form on all occasions. They are a sort of concordance that goes along with the legislation so that we can understand the clauses more easily.

I am not sure whether there is a consistent production line technique for explanatory notes, and whether they have at least some legal significance in terms of seeking the Minister’s intention in presenting a piece of legislation or, indeed, a Committee’s intention in seeking to legislate.

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister makes a very good point about the explanatory notes, although I always love having a look at them. Explanatory notes can obviously be used in the interpretation of the Bill and in legal proceedings, if necessary, as part of wider evidence.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a very helpful intervention, and it is what I thought. It means that even if explanatory notes appear to stray a little from what one might read in the legislation, if one took it absolutely at face value, we can rely on them for clarification, for future reference. That is an important point, because this afternoon, in the Minister’s response to my inquiry, she relied on what the explanatory notes said about the Bill, rather than what the Bill said. I take her point. If we are to take on board what the explanatory notes say, then that is not a bad response to my point. I wonder whether it would have been a better idea to put that stuff in the legislation, but hey, no one is perfect. We probably have a reasonably good framework to proceed with, in the light of the Minister’s explanation. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, at end insert—

“(9) In carrying out a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets relating to the priority areas in section 1 that are contained in legislation which forms part of the law of England and Wales—

(a) have expired, or

(b) are required to be achieved by a date which has passed.

(10) If paragraph (a) or (b) applies, then the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”

This amendment prevents the targets from meeting the significant improvement test through virtue of being out of date and so more easily achieved.

The amendment seeks to ensure that—

[Richard Graham]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, am I right in thinking that we have got roughly halfway down page 1 of the selection list, and still have more than three full pages to go? By your calculation, are we on time to complete this business by 6 pm? If we are not, would it be possible for the Opposition to consider which of the amendments they most want to discuss, debate in detail and to push to a vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I think we were aiming to get to the end of clause 6, so this is the last amendment that we want to raise this afternoon.

This amendment seeks to ensure that measures that are considered in carrying out a review are timely and in date. For example, the Secretary of State cannot carry out a review when things are out of date, and so more easily achieved than they would have been if the tests were in date. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider whether the targets that relate to the priority areas in clause 1 have expired or are required to be achieved by a date that has passed. That sounds a little like sell-by dates on cartons of milk, but it is more important than that, because a review could address targets that have expired, have been changed or have been achieved, and then the effect of that review could be pretty null.

This amendment puts at the end of the clause the requirement that

“the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets…have expired.”

If either of the considerations in proposed new subsection (9) apply, then under proposed new subsection (10),

“the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”

That is to say, if, in carrying out a review, the Secretary of State considers a target to have expired, or to have been required to be achieved by a date which has passed, then the significant environmental improvement test is met only if that is rectified.

As hon. Members said this morning, this is a moving and creaking ship. Things can change over time. New targets can be put in place, and existing targets can be changed, amended and improved. This amendment reflects the fact that over time, that may well happen. Indeed, some targets might be achieved and exceeded. If a Secretary of State is reporting on a target that has been exceeded, but is saying how a target should be reached, then clearly that report does not make a great deal of sense. The amendment rectifies that possibility, and puts in place a requirement that new targets be sought through the target-setting process discussed this morning. It allies these targets with the significant improvement test, and allows them to be met in a coherent way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member. If I may say so, he tables slightly tortuous amendments and it is often a case of trying to get one’s head around them. I reassure him that this is not a creaking ship. This is a buoyant ship sailing towards a bright new blue environmentally enhanced horizon. As this is the last amendment today, I feel I can slip that in.

[Dr Whitehead]

Perhaps I can clarify the issue. My understanding of the term “creaking ship” is that it is a ship that is under sail, flourishing and driving through the water, and whose timbers are creaking as it is propelled to new horizons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I think that does provide clarification, to a reasonable extent. The amendment sought to copper-bottom guarantees, but the ship can sail quite well under the circumstances set out by the Minister, while perhaps not being fully caulked. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

Before everybody leaves, the expectation is that the Committee will sit at 11.30 on Thursday 19 March. I say “expectation” because, as we all know, we live in rather strange times, and I feel I owe it to Mr Graham, having slapped him down a bit, to answer the question properly.

The timetable for the Bill is agreed by the usual channels, in consultation with the Minister and shadow Minister. There should be more than adequate time to thoroughly debate the Bill, given the programme we have. I have no problems with that whatsoever. However, I understand that discussions are taking place that may affect the progress not only of this Bill, but of other legislation. That remains to be seen. We may find this extremely important piece of legislation going on ice for a week, a month or six months.

Before we part—in case we do not meet even on Thursday —I want to say two things. The proceedings today have been slightly ramshackle around the edges, but I can live with that. You have been immensely courteous, thorough and good-humoured about the proceedings, and I am grateful to you for that.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

Environment Bill (Third sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Good morning. I thank the witnesses for attending. This is an important Bill, and it is important that we have the opportunity to hear expert evidence. You are probably aware that members of the Committee have already received the briefings that you issued, so I do not propose to request that you go through yours; you can assume that people have read it, so we will go straight into questioning. I ask each witness to introduce themselves for the record, from left to right—purely topographically—and to say which organisation you represent.

Liam Sollis: Hi everyone. My name is Liam Sollis. I am the head of policy at UNICEF UK.

Katie Nield: Hello. My name is Katie Nield. I am a clean air lawyer at a charity called ClientEarth.

Sarah MacFadyen: I am Sarah MacFadyen. I am the head of policy and public affairs at the British Lung Foundation.

Professor Lewis: Hello. I am Alastair Lewis. I am a professor of atmospheric chemistry. I am here as the chair of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs advisory group on air pollution—the air quality expert group.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Q126 Good morning. This may be a bit of a challenge, but for the Committee’s edification, could you—between you, or one or two of you—give us a little scene-setting about the impact of air quality on human health, with regard to asthma rates, disability, causes of death and so on, and then briefly set out for us where you think we are with Government action in this area? That is particularly important for what we may put into the Bill.

Sarah MacFadyen: I will start on health impacts. Air pollution is absolutely a risk to everybody’s health. Our understanding of the evidence base on how it relates to different health conditions is growing all the time. We know for sure that air pollution is a carcinogen, and it is absolutely linked to the development of lung cancer, including in people who do not have other risk factors such as smoking. We know that air pollution is also a cause of heart disease. There is also evidence that is not quite as strong, though definitely emerging, suggesting that air pollution could be a cause of asthma and a whole range of other health conditions, including things like diabetes and dementia. It is a really rich area of research at the moment.

As well as causing ill health, air pollution has a huge impact on people living with a long-term health condition, especially respiratory conditions such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. There is really strong evidence that breathing polluted air will make people’s symptoms worse and could trigger an attack or an exacerbation—in some cases even hospitalisation.

Professor Lewis: It is worth unpacking that air pollution is not one thing; it is a whole range of different chemicals and entities. We may get into more detail on that. Broadly speaking, in the UK we are concerned about particulate matter, which is the small, fine, respirable particles—small droplets or small solids—that can get into your lungs and cause irritation. The health impacts have been described.

There is also a gas, nitrogen dioxide, which is brown—you see it as a haze. That has been covered a lot around diesel engine emissions, and it has similar effects. The third gaseous pollutant is surface ozone, which causes harm and irritation to the lungs and causes damage to crops and plants and reduces agricultural yield. Each of those has its own effect and each needs its own solution, so it is always worth breaking air pollution apart to understand which of the pollutants we are talking about, and which actions will bring about improvements.

Liam Sollis: Infants are likely to breathe as much as three times as much air as adults, because they breathe faster, and for other reasons, so children are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. We have heard about some of the health impacts of that. There is growing evidence every single day about the impact on lung health, the propensity for risk of cancer, and how air pollution can affect a child’s lung development. There is new evidence that suggests it may have an impact on child brain development as well. When it is seen through the crystal clear lens of the impact on child health, we see it really needs to be prioritised.

I say that partly because about a third of children in the UK—4.5 million children between the ages of zero and 18, and 1.6 million children under five—are growing up in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matter. Those are huge numbers. When we reflect on the Bill, and the extent to which we should push for high levels of ambition on what we can achieve, in relation to the targets set and the implementation plans that follow, we need to keep the impact on the most vulnerable people in our society right at the front and centre of our thoughts.

Katie Nield: To add to that, and hopefully bring this back to the opportunity that is on the table through the Bill, all that makes it really clear that we need a legal framework that sets a meaningful ambition to protect people’s health, as well as requiring action to achieve and deliver on that ambition. We already have legal limits for air quality and the emission of certain pollutants in law, but what we have does not achieve them.

Most specifically and starkly, the legal limits we have for particulate matter pollution—one of the most harmful pollutants to human health—are not strong enough to protect our health, and the health of children and vulnerable people. Those limits are more than two times higher—that is, two times less strong—than the guidelines that the World Health Organisation set back in 2005. That is why we are really keen for the Environment Bill to provide the opportunity for setting a higher level of ambition when it comes to protecting people’s health, and the opportunity to commit the Government to achieving those World Health Organisation guideline levels of particulate matter, and to putting a plan in place to show how they will do that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I guess you were surprised that the Bill does not require legally binding targets to be set until October 2022 and does not go any way towards ensuring that the UK meets World Health Organisation clean air emission limits, for example. Are there particular measures that you think should be put in the Bill to enable those things to be addressed properly? How might we ensure that the limits are properly reflected in the legislation?

Professor Lewis: I will comment on the setting of targets, which is obviously an area in which a lot of people have an interest. It is worth understanding that there are quite a few components to what setting a target means, and there is more to that than simply crossing out an existing 20 or 25 and writing in 10. Although there is probably universal agreement that we want to head for a limit value of around 10, from a scientific perspective, we have to be absolutely sure that we have all the other parts in place at the same time, particularly the means to assess progress. It is no good setting a limit if we are not confident that we can measure progress towards it. That is considerably harder than picking the number that you would like to shoot for.

I have some sympathy about the timescales, if the timescales are to allow us to get the assessment framework right, because I suspect that will take a bit of time. The UK is potentially going into a place, in terms of the limit value, where no other large developed country has been before, so we are likely to need infrastructure, methodologies and so on to assess progress towards that, for which there is no blueprint. The WHO does not tell you how to do the assessment side. If all that is wrapped up in the discussion of what is a target and setting a target, we need to be a bit cautious about trying to do things too quickly, in case we do not get the assessment part of the equation right.

Katie Nield: I mentioned that the existing legal limit for particulate matter is too weak. It is great that the Bill acknowledges that, because it is the only target that is specifically required by the Bill—a new binding target for PM_2.5 pollution. It is really positive that the Bill, in that respect, recognises the current weaknesses.

What the Bill does not do and does not tell us, however, is how that target will actually be set to better protect people’s health. As you alluded to, the decision on that is kicked down the road for another two and a half years. Issues around finding out exactly how it will be assessed aside, we are frustrated because we know that we need action to tackle this pollutant now. We have heard from the other panel members the impacts that it is having on people’s health now. We do not want the ambition to take urgent action to tackle this pollutant to be stalled for another two and a half years.

There is evidence that it is possible to achieve the WHO guidelines for this pollutant by 2030. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released a report last year that concluded that. London is arguably the city in the country with the largest-scale problem when it comes to particulate matter, but it is also said to be possible in the capital too. With all the evidence there, despite the ins and outs of exactly how the target will be assessed, and the fact that it might be set out in subsequent secondary legislation, the Bill provides a real opportunity to set out the Government’s stall now, and show that they are committed to real ambition to protect people’s health now, rather than delaying action any further.

Sarah MacFadyen: We fully understand that the Government’s intention with the legislation is to allow them to consult with the right experts on the environment and health to set the right targets, but we feel that, with air pollution, the World Health Organisation has made its recommendation very clear, and it is the expert on this. There is a really strong case for taking that guideline and committing to it in the legislation, in addition to doing the work around that to set out exactly how we will reach it and monitor our progress.

Liam Sollis: The logic that underpins the WHO recommendation is to set a benchmark that says, “If the PM_2.5 levels exceed this level, you will be doing irrevocable harm to people’s health.” We need to make sure that we target below that, because it has been designated by health experts as the very maximum that we can legitimately see as permissible. That level of ambition needs to be front and centre, because health is the common purpose that underpins the air quality component of the Bill.

On the timing of the targets, some important points have been made. We want to make sure that the process of setting the targets and the assessment processes that will follow will not stall action and implementation and hold things up any longer than they need to. We need action now, because people are falling ill and dying now. The more impetus there is, and the quicker we can move towards that, the better for people’s long-term health.

[The Chair]

I shall bring in the Minister responsible for the Bill, Rebecca Pow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Good afternoon. We will now hear evidence from Water UK, Blueprint for Water and the Marine Conservation Society. We have until 1 pm, but it has been very difficult to get through all the questions in the time allocated. As Members of the Committee do not seem to understand what “concise” means, I ask them to condense their questions. Our witnesses are very welcome. Do not feel that you have to answer every question if you do not have anything to add to what the others have already said.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Good afternoon. I want to start with some thoughts about water efficiency, and specifically the extent to which it is widely thought that the Bill perhaps misses the opportunity to strengthen water efficiency targets and encourage homes and businesses to reduce their water usage. Do you think there should be powers and targets included in the Bill to enable those efficiency measures to be expedited?

Stuart Colville: My name is Stuart Colville and I am from Water UK. The position of the water industry is really clear on this. Looking at the second half of this century, we are starting to see projections of water deficits in every part of England, and water efficiency is clearly part of the toolkit for dealing with that. We would like to see some of the Bill’s resource efficiency clauses used to bring forward a scheme to label water-using appliances—dishwashers, washing machines and that kind of thing—coupled with minimum standards. We feel that is really important. The modelling shows that if you do not do that kind of thing, you end up having to bring forward a lot of supply-side measures, such as strategic transfer schemes or desalination plants, which are not only very expensive, but quite carbon-intensive. That is the kind of measure we are looking for from the Bill.

Ian Hepburn: I am Ian Hepburn of Blueprint for Water, which is part of the Greener UK coalition. We entirely support and endorse the view that there should be opportunities for water consumption reductions in the Bill. We have identified a couple of parts of the waste and resource efficiency element of the Bill that could allow for the relevant reduction opportunities to be put in, in the form of mandatory water efficiency labelling and setting standards. There is an absence of a target, and if this Bill could be used to produce a target for water efficiency, we would be very supportive of that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I want to touch on the other aspect of water that we have heard rather a lot about recently, namely flooding, and observe that the Bill likewise holds no powers or duties on flood defence or work on drainage of waste water to reduce flood risk. Do you think that is an omission in the Bill, or are there other ways in which such measures could be reliably incorporated into legislation?

Stuart Colville: From a water industry perspective, the most serious omission, or the thing we would most want addressed, is a recognition in statute of these things called drainage and waste water or drainage and sewage management plans. There is no adjacent duty on those others in the water industry to co-operate and collaborate in the development of those plans. Those plans are slightly technical, but we see them as fundamental to our long-term ability to deal with increased rainfall patterns, climate change and so on, to ensure that there is enough capacity to meet that.

At the moment, the onus is placed on water companies, which is correct because they are at the heart of that planning process, but there is an absence of any requirement on other operators of drainage systems to be part of that. In practice, we are already seeing that leading to some variability across the country in the quality of co-operation, whether with strategic road operators or local authorities. The most serious omission for us is that lack of obligation on others to be part of that process, to be around the table and to think about how these very long-term plans will work.

Ian Hepburn: If I could add briefly to that, one of the big opportunities missed in this Bill is to provide for a strategic catchment-scale management of water. Without that, we have lots of little piecemeal bits of mechanisms, bits of legislation, the flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy, the resource management plans that are coming in—a whole host of different elements, none of which are joined up. That join-up cuts across to the Agriculture Bill and the opportunities there under the environmental land management scheme to generate natural flood management opportunities.

If none of those are joined up and it is not dealt with in a strategic way, we will still be doing things using a very piecemeal, bitty approach, and that is not the way water works. Water falls, it moves, it goes into the sea; that is what you have to manage. You are managing the issues that we will increasingly face, too much water and too little water. We have to manage for that. We have to manage that so that we are able to take out water for our own communities and purposes, while having enough left for the environment.

Chris Tuckett: I am Chris Tuckett from the Marine Conservation Society. I entirely agree with what Ian says about the connectivity between different parts of the environment. Yes, if you are managing the environment in terms of waste water and drainage, that also means that potentially preventing things such as bathing water quality impacts down at the sea. It is about looking at the different aspects in a more integrated way. Some of it is in the Bill—certainly in part I, which is quite general and integrated—but the connection is quite often missing. It should not be missed; in thinking about the Bill, we should think about the connections in our environment.

[The Chair]

Minister, would you like to add to our proceedings?

Environment Bill (Fourth sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We have until 2.45 pm before we reach the end of this session. I will call Dr Alan Whitehead to open up with one or two questions and then go to the Minister.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Q154 Good afternoon. A pretty direct, straight initial question: do you think this Bill is up to the task of protecting the environment in its own right? If you do not, what do you think is missing from the Bill that would enable it to do that job better?

George Monbiot: There are several areas that are clearly missing, because of the scale of the impacts and a long-standing failure to engage with them. One is the unlicensed release of game birds. They amount at some times of year to a greater biomass than all the wild birds put together and have a massive ecological impact, yet their release is unregulated and uncontrolled.

[The Chair]

Sorry to interrupt, but the acoustics are not brilliant in this room. If people could speak up a little, it would be helpful.

George Monbiot: I am so sorry. Associated with that is the widespread use of lead shot. It is completely incomprehensible and unacceptable that in the 21st century we are still allowed to spray lead shot all over the countryside with, again, significant environmental impacts. We have also, as a nation, completely failed to get to grips with phytosanitary issues; as a result, we are in a situation where just about every tree will eventually meet its deadly pathogen, because we are so successfully moving tree and other plant diseases around the world.

A previous Environment Minister, Thérèse Coffey, said that one dividend of Brexit would be that we could set much tighter phytosanitary rules. Well, I think we should cash in that dividend and see how far we can push it. There might be an option to say, “No live plant imports into the UK that are not grown from tissue culture.” At the moment, ash dieback alone is likely to cost around £15 billion in economic terms. The entire live plant trade has an annual value of £300 million, so in raw economic terms, let alone ecological terms, it makes no sense to continue as we are.

A fourth issue that I would like to introduce as missing from the Bill is the release of the statutory environmental agencies from the duty imposed on them in section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015: to

“have regard to…promoting economic growth.”

Doing so might be appropriate in some Government agencies, but when you are meant to be protecting the natural world and ecosystems, that should come first. Very often, promoting economic growth is in direct opposition to the aims of protecting the living world, so it seems perverse to me that agencies such as the Environment Agency or Natural England should have a duty to promote economic growth.

Dr Benwell: I would like to start by saying that this is not a run-of-the-mill Bill; it is a really, really exciting piece of legislation that has the potential to be amazing. It has a huge job of work to do. The latest “State of Nature” report found that 44% of species are in long-term decline and that 15% of species here in the UK are at risk of extinction.

The trend of the decline of nature has been going on for a very, very long time. To put a Bill before Parliament with the aspiration of finally bending that curve to improve nature is a really big aspiration, and this Bill has many of the building blocks to start doing those things. It is really exciting; in particular, the promise of legally binding targets for nature is a tremendous step forward from where this Bill started—we really welcome it, so thank you for that. I hope that the Committee is excited about the prospect of considering a Bill that, hopefully, people will talk about for a very long time. That said, of course, I think that improvements need to be made to realise that ambition. If we were able to talk about two areas of improvement and one area of missing provisions, I would be very grateful.

Two areas really need improvement. The first is the targets framework. Although we have that promise of legally binding targets, at the moment the duty in clause 1 could be satisfied by setting a single target in each of the priority areas of air, water, waste and wildlife. Consequently, I think the first thing that we need to think about is how to shore up that provision, so that enough targets of the right ambition are set to deal with that whole natural environment improvement.

The second area that I would like to turn to if possible this afternoon is the nature chapter, in which there are, again, some really positive provisions. The system of local nature recovery strategies has the potential to start directing how we spend our natural environment money with much greater efficiency. At the moment, we spend our environment money in separate silos in the most inefficient manner imaginable—we spend our flood money here, our biodiversity money there and our air quality money there, and all that is usually tagged on after the end of the development process. In those local nature recovery strategies, we have the chance to align development planning and environmental spending in a way that can really up value for money and improve the way we use our cash.

The second bit in the nature chapter that really has good potential is the promise of net environmental gain in development. I have always thought of this as a sort of Jekyll and Hyde policy: if it is done badly, it can be a licence to trash, but if it is done well, it can be extra money from development to internalise some of that environmental cost that at the moment is not factored into the damage of development.

Again, those areas need a couple of improvements. Particularly on net gain, we need to ensure that it is properly covering the whole of development. At the moment, major infrastructure projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—are not included. That is a big lacuna.

On local nature recovery strategies, the things that we need to tighten up are the duties to use those strategies. At the moment, there is a duty to do five-yearly planning and policy making, but that does not necessarily feed through into day-to-day planning and spending decisions. Focusing in on that duty, which is the one that also operationalises the local nature recovery strategies, is another really important way to fix the Bill.

If that can be done, not only can we start to think about bending that curve here in the UK—it is really important to remember that some big international negotiations are coming up this year: in Glasgow in November and before that, in autumn time, in Kunming, for the convention on biological diversity, where the world will come together to set biodiversity targets.

If we can fix this Bill and make it one that genuinely says, “Here in the UK, we will have a legal commitment to restore nature and the tools to do that”, not only could we start to bend the curve here but we could once again set a model for improving nature around the world.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Thank you for that; it very much coincides with my general thoughts about the Bill. I guess that, as part of your homework for your appearance this afternoon, you may have had the misfortune of having to read through the entire Bill, from end to end.

I wonder whether you have any thoughts on how the Bill, though its various clauses and powers and permissions, actually does the task that it needs to do between Administrations and different stages of the process of protecting the environment, which will take place over a number of years. I am talking about how the Bill really does the job of surviving between Administrations and perhaps doing something like the Climate Change Act 2008 is doing—not necessarily binding future Administrations, but standing there as something that has to be done, so that an Administration must have very good reasons why they should not do the things subsequently, even if they are not as well disposed towards environmental improvement as the one we have at the moment.

Dr Benwell: I will make three points on that: two about the targets framework and one about the Office for Environmental Protection.

We want the targets framework to be a legacy framework—one that will keep having statutory force from Administration to Administration and ensure that the suite of targets can work for the natural environment as a system in place over time. That is why, even if this Government intend to set a really strong set of targets, we need to ensure that the duties in the Bill are strong enough so that when we come to a period of review later, any gaps that emerge are once again filled.

We talked earlier about the marine strategy framework directive targets, which end in 2020. We talked about the water framework directive targets, which end in 2027. We have thought about the ambient air quality directive targets, which end in 2030. The Bill needs to do the heavy lifting of ensuring that when those targets come and go, future Governments are obliged to revisit them and see which need to be put back in place.

I thought the Minister started a really fun game earlier of, “What’s your favourite target?”

[Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)]

You should chip in!

Dr Benwell: Thank you; I could do a little list now.

On biodiversity, we would have species abundance, species diversity and extinction risk. On habitat, you would have habitat extent and quality. On waste and resources, you would have resource productivity and waste minimisation. On air quality, you would have SOx, NOx—sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides—ozone and ammonia. And on water, you would have biological quality, chemical status and abstraction. There is a great set there, but some of those exist in law at the moment, so we do not need them now. What we do need is a framework that will ensure that when they come and go, future Governments have to fill that gap.

There are several ways to do that. You have heard about the options in relation to an overarching objective that could be a touchpoint for setting targets. You could simply list those targets in the Bill and say that they all have to exist somewhere in law. Alternatively, you could look at the significant environmental improvement test in clause 6 and make it clear that it needs to achieve significant improvement for the environment as a system—not just in the individual areas listed, but across the whole natural environment. That is so we know that we will have a strong set of targets now and in the future.

I will be briefer on the next points, but that was point one. Point two would be about ensuring that action actually happens. The environmental improvement plans should link to targets. There should be a requirement for environmental improvement plans to be capable of meeting targets and for the Government to take the steps in those plans. And the interim targets to get you there should be legally binding.

Point three—I promised I would be faster—is about the Office for Environmental Protection and ensuring that it has the independence and powers to hold the Government to account on delivery.

I have just remembered one thing missing from the Bill, in response to Dr Whitehead’s first question: the global footprint of our consumption and impacts here in the UK. Adding a priority area for our global footprint and a due diligence requirement on business would be a really remarkable step, again, to show our leadership around the world.

George Monbiot: All I would add to that brilliant and comprehensive review is that there has been an extraordinary failure on monitoring and enforcement of existing environmental law in this country. We see that with Environment Agency prosecutions and follow-ups, and similarly with Natural England.

You can have excellent laws in statute, but if the resources and the will to enforce are not there, they might as well not exist. At every possible opportunity in the Bill, we need to nail that down and say, “That money will be there, and those powers will be used.” That is particularly the case with OEP, but it also applies to the existing statutory agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear evidence from Keep Britain Tidy and the Green Alliance. We have until 3.15 pm for this session. I ask our witnesses to briefly introduce themselves and their organisation.

Richard McIlwain: I am Richard McIlwain, deputy chief executive of the charity Keep Britain Tidy. We work on issues of litter, resource and waste consumption, sustainable living and the improvement of quality places. We ultimately want to see a zero-litter and zero-waste society.

Libby Peake: I am Libby Peake, head of resource policy at Green Alliance, which is a charity and think-tank focusing on ambitious leadership for the environment. To achieve that, we work with other NGOs, including through the Greener UK coalition, as well as businesses, to identify the most resource-efficient policies.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q The framework I am looking for, particularly in the waste and resources section of the Bill, is something that encompasses all the stages of the waste hierarchy, and particularly reflects how that waste hierarchy is put forward in the waste and resources White Paper, which is supposed to be taken on board as part of the Bill. Do you have any thoughts about the extent to which the Bill focuses on the design, reuse and minimisation stages of the waste hierarchy? If you think that it does not fully do that, are there ways that it could be made more useful in that respect? Do you have any particular thoughts on how the Bill might be pointed more in that direction?

Libby Peake: I think you are absolutely right. We would certainly welcome the framing in the resources and waste strategy, which is trying to maximise resource use and minimise waste—we think that is the right strategy. There are some things in the Bill that would lead in that direction. The resource efficiency clauses could be very useful. One of our concerns is that these are enabling measures and we are not entirely sure how they will be used.

In terms of what has been talked about and debated, the focus has overwhelmingly been on municipal waste and plastics. To give a bit of perspective, it is worth remembering that plastics make up about 10% of municipal waste; municipal waste makes up about 12% to 13% of all waste; and waste is the final stage of the material cycle. Looking at the overall material impact that the UK is responsible for, 81% of the materials that meet final UK demand occur outside the UK. In terms of measures that we would like to see in the Bill, which we think could improve things, it would be really useful to take greater account of the global material footprint. That would send a powerful signal.

There are some simple measures in the Bill that could potentially be changed quite easily. The extended producer responsibility clauses are welcome. The clauses themselves look at things such as preventing material becoming waste and products becoming waste. The overall framing of it, however, is still on end of life and disposal costs, which does not necessarily point people in the right direction in terms of preventing waste and respecting the hierarchy.

I am sure that we will come on to the single-use plastics charge, which is also potentially worrying because it applies just to plastics. There are lots of other materials with impacts that could be avoided if the Bill took a bigger view towards that sort of thing.

Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. In many respects, all the key words and phrases are in the Bill, but it is about looking for the joined-up flow from a waste hierarchy perspective.

To go back to clause 1, where it sets the idea of long-term targets at 15 years-plus, it is very brief about waste and resource. I wonder if there, in terms of painting a picture, it could outline the sorts of issues that we are looking to push targets towards, such as becoming more resource efficient, reducing the amount of waste we produce overall, and improving our recycling rates across the whole range of wastes.

As Libby says, when we talk about recycling rates, we often talk about household waste and municipal waste, but a lot of inert waste and soil still go to landfill. There is an opportunity there to look more broadly across the whole piece.

Libby touched on a number of points, including the specific detail about extended producer responsibility and charges for single-use plastics. There are opportunities there to frame the language a bit more and, as Libby said, to be specific when we are talking about things such as charges for single-use plastics. We should not get hung up on the issue of plastic. Plastic pollution is an issue, but plastic itself is a valuable material. We want to reduce consumption of it but keep what is in the system going round and round as far as we can. That is where the targets that look at resource use, waste minimisation and recycling will be key.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Those are excellent succinct responses. The circular economy directive already exists, but we are not now bound by it, as we are not an EU member. Do the measures in the Bill reflect the UK moving on from that directive—capturing what is in it and moving ahead of it? Are there things that could be done in the Bill to ensure that that happens?

Libby Peake: The Government have said that they are going adopt the measures in the circular economy package, but we have not determined yet whether we are going to exactly match what the EU does in future. Yesterday, the EU published a circular economy action plan, which we will not be bound by. It is really welcome that the Government have said on multiple occasions that they want to at least meet, and preferably exceed, what the EU does, but there are some ways in which the document that was released yesterday is potentially more ambitious than the measures laid out here.

One of the things in that document is that the EU is planning to regulate and tax single use and planned obsolescence, and it is not focused specifically on plastics. If the UK wants to get a jump on the EU, there is an opportunity to do that by simply changing the language in the Bill so that we are tackling single use, rather than just single-use plastics.

Richard McIlwain: I agree that the EU has already talked about an ambition, even by 2030, to halve waste produced. That is very ambitious, granted, by 2030, but that is the level of ambition it is looking at.

As is always the case with enabling legislation, primary Acts, the devil will be in the detail of the statutory instruments, but there may well be some framing to do in the Bill to set the level of ambition about where we are ultimately trying to get to on the materials we consume, the amount we recycle, and the amount of waste we produce.

Even in the circular economy package, there are some targets that have been talked about in the resources and waste strategy, such as 65% household waste recycling. We are currently bumping around 45%, so we have some way to go, but Wales is up above 70%. Perhaps we should be looking across at Wales as a leader, as much as we look to the EU.

Libby Peake: An earlier leaked version of the circular economy action plan that was released yesterday included a much more ambitious target, which was to halve resource use—not just halve residual waste. That did not make it into the final version, but it would have been revolutionary. It was widely applauded by the environment sector. It has not made it into the EU legislation, but that does not mean that the UK cannot aim for that and up its ambition. That is certainly something that we would like to see in the targets.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q On that point, one of the ideas is that we can do our own thing on our environmental targets. We do not have to do what Europe says, and potentially our targets could be better.

Yesterday, we had some business interests explaining how the measures in the Bill would help them change the design of their products so that they are more reusable and recyclable, longer lasting and so forth. What are your views on measures in the Bill that would help consumers to take more considered actions towards reducing waste and recycling? I am thinking particularly about the requirement for local authorities to be more consistent in their waste collections.

Libby Peake: I would say that, in terms of recycling collections, a lot of the things that the Government have proposed will certainly correct some of the long-standing shortcomings of the system we have had in the UK. We have a postcode lottery, because people do not necessarily know what can be recycled and it is quite confusing.

In terms of getting people to feel responsible for their decisions and the materials they create, the main mechanism in the Bill that does that is the deposit return scheme, because that is the one thing that will indicate to people that the material they have actually has a value; it is not just a waste material that you need the council to take away. We would certainly encourage the Government to come forward as quickly as possible with plans for an all-in deposit scheme that can encourage such thinking.

Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. There has been an awful lot of focus over the last few years on how we incentivise business to do the right thing. Often, that is about economics and the bottom line, and we sometimes forget that that is equally important for the citizen. We often come up with campaigns and ways to raise awareness—they involve pictures of dolphins and whales—and we appeal to people’s sense of morality rather than making it cheaper for them to do the right thing.

Libby mentioned a deposit return scheme, which works brilliantly in over 40 countries and regions around the world. We should absolutely be doing that on time, by 2023; we should not be delaying. Charges on single-use items, not just single-use plastics, is another economic nudge for people. On recycling, there are twin sides of the coin. We need to extend producer responsibility and simplify the types of packaging material, which will hopefully all be recyclable. On the other hand, having a harmonised collection system that allows people to collect those at home will make a big difference.

One further step that could ultimately be considered is whether you could place an economic incentive in the home through a scheme such as “save as you recycle”. Once you have harmonised people’s collection systems, you would make waste a separate chargeable service, so people pay for what they have taken away—in the same way that, if you are on a water meter, you pay for what you use. That would really focus minds. There is a real relationship between the producer’s responsibility and the citizen’s responsibility, but we need to incentivise both—not just business.

Libby Peake: That is a logical extension of the “polluter pays” principle. It is great that that is part of the Bill and that part of Government thinking is that the polluter must pay. At the moment, however, you are tackling only one side: the producers. People’s decisions produce waste as well, and not having “save as you recycle” variable charging, or what is traditionally called “pay as you throw”, puts people off a bit. Not having that does not necessarily carry through the logic of producer responsibility and “polluter pays”.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from the CHEM Trust, the Chemical Industries Association and Unite. We have until 4 pm. I ask the three witnesses to introduce themselves briefly and state which organisation they represent.

Dr Warhurst: My name is Michael Warhurst. I am the executive director of CHEM Trust, which is an environmental charity that works on chemicals health and pollution at UK and EU levels.

Bud Hudspith: My name is Bud Hudspith. I am the national health and safety adviser for the trade union Unite.

Nishma Patel: I am Nishma Patel, policy director at the Chemical Industries Association.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Good afternoon. My reading of schedule 19 to the Bill is that it enables the Secretary of State to change REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—although there are a number of protected areas within it. However, the schedule does not appear to require consultation with the chemicals industry or wider public bodies that might have an interest, or that any consultation responses be made public. Are you, like me, concerned about that omission, or do you think that the way the Bill is structured regarding the possibility of change and consultation is adequate given the importance of the issues?

Nishma Patel: For us, it is—

[The Chair]

Sorry, may I stop you there? The acoustics are very bad in this room, so may I ask our witnesses to speak up a little?

Nishma Patel: Okay. For us, it is about the detail behind how the schedule will be implemented. At the moment, there is no clarity on consultation and how that will take place. We would like to know the policy behind UK REACH, how it will be implemented, and exactly how it will work—not just the protected parts, but the entire UK REACH regime. We, as industry, see a number of issues—perhaps others see them as well—on which further consultation will probably be required. For us, it is about clarity on the process behind it.

Bud Hudspith: I think there are some broad requirements in the Bill to consult, but they are very broad, and specify something like “other possible stakeholders”. We would like to see much more formal and arranged consultation. In the area I largely work in, health and safety in the workplace, we are used to being consulted. We think it is a very useful way for Governments to find out what is actually going on on the ground, so we would welcome that. I agree with you: we would like to see a slightly tighter indication of who should be consulted and when.

Dr Warhurst: The CHEM Trust position is that we agree with that. The consultation is limited, and the consultation on this measure as a whole has been limited; for example, there was no consultation on which protected articles should be in there, and there has been no rationale as to why those are protected and others are not. We are very involved in EU-level work on chemicals, and we find that process is a lot more open and consultative than the UK process.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q On the subject of protected articles, I share your view: I am somewhat mystified as to how those have landed on the Bill in this way, and about what is protected and what is not. Are there particular areas that you consider ought to be in the Bill as protected articles, in addition to the ones that we have at the moment, and are there any ways in which you think the protection element of REACH regulations—securing proper standards, inter-trading of chemicals and so on—might be better reflected in the Bill, or do you think the protected articles that there are at the moment fulfil that requirement?

Dr Warhurst: On the protected articles, REACH is a huge piece of legislation. You could decide to protect everything, but that might cause some problems. One of the things we particularly noticed is that article 33 of REACH is about consumers’ right to know about the most hazardous chemicals in the product, and article 34 is an obligation on the supply chain to report problems with chemicals up the chain. Those would certainly be added to what we would view as protected.

However, it goes beyond that; as you said, it is about the level of protection for the public. The problem with chemicals regulation is that we are dealing with tens of thousands of chemicals in millions of different products. It is a very complex area, and it has been very challenging over the decades as Governments and regions have tried to control them. EU REACH is the most sophisticated system in the world, but it still has a huge amount of work to do. There are a lot of chemicals to be got through, because when one chemical gets restricted, the industry moves to a very similar one. Our worry is that some of the decisions around that require huge amounts of work and data, and are subject to legal challenge by industry. We do not see any way in which the UK can replicate that system. In many ways, it would be more straightforward—although possibly not in terms of legal challenge—to be more focused on following what the EU does, rather than trying to create another system that to some extent may be a bit of a hollow shell, because there is not the resource to really control new chemicals.

Bud Hudspith: I pretty much agree with that. I do not think I need to add much to it.

Nishma Patel: Again, this comes back to the process and detail behind the Secretary of State being able to consult, who the consultation is with, and how it would take place. One point to consider is that anything that would be changed under UK REACH overall—any article—would have tso be in line with article 1 of REACH, which is about providing the highest standard of environmental protection to consumers, as well as reducing testing where possible. It is not about the principle of “Is there a possibility for the regulations to digress, because a justification needs to be provided?” It is about how that will be consulted on, and how that information will inform policy making in the UK through various stakeholders.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Thank you very much for coming in to talk to us. Obviously, exiting the EU provides us with opportunities for industry, such as integrating the most current scientific knowledge into the decisions we make concerning chemicals. In the Bill, we have the flexibility to amend REACH while retaining its aims and principles; I just wondered whether you could summarise what you thought the right balance was.

Nishma Patel: From an industry perspective, if we look at the trade of chemicals leaving and coming back to the UK, 50% of our trade goes to the European Union and 75% comes to the UK. To work from two pieces of legislation, which go in the same direction, communicate with each other and co-operate, makes sense from a commercial perspective, as it does from an environmental perspective.

The opportunities are there, in terms of doing something differently or making amendments. As it stands, however, we see that the need to stay close to the European chemicals regulations far outweighs the opportunities.

Bud Hudspith: I think we are coming from a similar position. We start from the basis that alignment is one of the most important things. We have interesting problems. We have members in the south of Ireland as well as in the rest of the UK. It would be pretty unacceptable to us if there were different protections, in terms of chemicals, for those two groups of people. That extends from a broader view across the whole of Europe among people at work.

I would agree with Nishma that alignment is most important. We accept that in theory there could be improvement made through the UK position, but I suppose I am a bit cynical about whether that is likely to happen. Therefore, we would be supportive of—I think an amendment was proposed—making it clear that the Minister needs to improve on what is there. Clearly, however, consultation about what we believe is an improvement and what is not is quite important, because an improvement to someone may not be seen by others as an improvement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I welcome the three witnesses. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to come and act as witnesses before the Committee. I hope that starting slightly earlier has not inconvenienced you too much. The session has to conclude by 5 pm, although it does not have to go on until then if there are insufficient questions. We will open the questioning with Dr Alan Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Bill contains many sections that run on from a central theme and have what looks like pretty comprehensive legislation for the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Administration. I appreciate that you may have to act as a proxy for everybody rather than just for Scotland.

One of my concerns, about which I do not know enough, is the extent to which we are putting things in the Environment Bill and expecting everything to happen in the same way in all the different Governments and Administrations within the UK, which all clearly have quite different practices. Are you confident that the Bill, certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, will enable us to have UK-wide environmental protection standards that are good for everybody, bearing in mind that species, waste and various other things do not worry too much about borders and are of particular concern to the whole of this part of the world? Are you happy that the Bill does that job, or are there things that could go into it to better reflect the particular circumstances in different parts of the UK, particularly for the Scottish Government?

[The Chair]

Before anybody answers, I neglected to ask people to introduce themselves, so would you perhaps make up for my deficiency by introducing yourselves as you go along?

Lloyd Austin: We are all looking at each other to see who goes first. My name is Lloyd Austin. I am an honorary fellow of Scottish Environment LINK and convener of Scottish Environment LINK’s governance group.

My answer to the question is that it depends. Different parts of the Bill work in different ways. It is clear that environment has been devolved for the whole time. Lots of environmental regulations and, as you say, practices differ between the Administrations already, and they will continue to do so. On the other hand, there is also a need, as you rightly say, for proper co-ordination, co-operation and joint working, so we would encourage all those things. In a way, it is not for us to comment on whether the devolution settlement or any other constitutional arrangement is right or wrong; we simply try to encourage the Administrations, in whatever arrangement there is, to try to achieve the best environmental outcome.

There are different ways of doing that for different things in the Bill. On the EU environmental principles, we have a question mark about how they are applied in Scotland and Wales in relation to reserved matters; that seems to be a gap in the Bill. We understand that the Scottish Government are bringing forward their own legislation in relation to the EU environmental principles, which will apply, obviously, to devolved matters. That is positive and welcome, but we would encourage the Administrations to work together to try to agree some form of statement about how those principles, which are the same at the moment because they are in the Lisbon treaty and therefore apply to all Administrations, will operate coherently across the piece and how they will replicate, in a sense, the way they work at the moment. We believe there are discussions between the Administrations about that at the moment, but it would be useful to stakeholders for such a thing to be consulted on before the different bits of legislation get finished off.

John Bynorth: I am John Bynorth, policy communications officer at Environmental Protection Scotland. Certainly, devolution is one of the main challenges facing the UK legislation that is coming in. It is important to ensure that standards are common between the different countries. There is no point having one set of standards in England and not having the same standards in Scotland. Ministers and civil servants in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Northern Ireland should talk to each other to ensure consistency, so we do not end up with two different types of air quality policy, for example, which could be quite damaging, and just in general, as Lloyd said, in respect of environmental standards.

The SNP Government launched their environmental strategy for Scotland last month. They have made it very clear that they will retain or even try to exceed the EU standards that we have just left behind by leaving Brussels. They have been a lot clearer on that. We do not see so much of that in the UK Environment Bill. Those are important distinctions. On the clampdown on domestic burning—the sale of solid wood fuels and wet wood—you cannot have two different policies in England and Scotland, for example, because somebody would just sell something across the border that was illegal in England. We need to have a look at things like that and to ensure that people are talking to each other and that the links we have are maintained.

Alison McNab: I am Alison McNab. I am a policy executive with the Law Society of Scotland. We are the professional body for solicitors in Scotland and have an interest not only in representing our own members but in acting in the public interest.

Your question raises an interesting point. It is important, of course, to bear in mind that deviation is a natural consequence of devolution. Equally, I agree with the comments by both Lloyd and John that there is merit in consistency and coherence in the approach. We know that, in attempting to avoid regulatory tourism, there are aspects where Scotland may be said to be slightly ahead. In Scotland, we have seen regulations on the introduction of a deposit and return scheme.

In terms of the Bill, Lloyd made a point about the environmental principles, and how reserved functions of UK Ministers in Scotland will be dealt with. We anticipate Scottish legislation in the coming weeks. That may give some clarity around that. There may be opportunities where the consistency of the work of the Office for Environmental Protection can be strengthened. There are provisions in clause 24 of the Bill about a requirement for the OEP to consult, and an exemption from the restriction on disclosing information in clause 40. There is potential scope for strengthening those provisions.

In relation to everything else in the Bill and common frameworks around environmental matters more generally, the extent to which consistency is sought is somewhat of a political matter for the Joint Ministerial Committee to give consideration to. At the moment, it appears clear that there is a desire to achieve consistency on at least a number of environmental matters.

Environment Bill (Second sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

We are most grateful to you for coming in.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Q 48 Good afternoon, Mr Mayor. What consultations on the Bill have taken place while you have been a representative on the Local Government Association committee that has been dealing with Bill? Where have been the main disagreements with regard to local government interests?

Mayor Glanville: There has been extensive engagement. Obviously, the original Bill dates back to last year. Our committee has been looking at various aspects of the Bill and we have submitted our package of evidence to the Committee. We are seeing new powers and responsibilities for local government. I appeared before the waste reduction investigation that was conducted last year. There has been extensive engagement and investigation into some aspects of the Bill. The challenge for all of us is that the Bill is very ambitious and sets new targets. In some areas, such as biodiversity and air pollution, the relationship with local government and where responsibilities lie are less clear.

On areas such as waste, recycling, plastic pollution and single-use plastics, the engagement has been more extensive. It depends on the areas of the Bill we are talking about and the responsibilities that are in focus. The areas of disagreement are common to those that arise when local government takes representations. Where we take on new responsibilities, we need adequate time to prepare and adequate funding in order to do that.

We have a track record of delivering improved and innovative recycling services during a decade of funding changes as a result of austerity. We have continued to improve our recycling services, investing more than £4.2 billion of resources. If we were to move towards the types of changes suggested in the Bill, the burden could be increased by up to £700 million. We will provide further information as the LGA on that. Without that increase in resources, council tax payers will have to meet that uplift in our duties around waste and recycling, or other services will have to be cut.

Those sorts of challenges go across different parts of the Bill, whether it is the work on biodiversity and planning or the clear ambition to deal with air pollution. Some of those responsibilities do sit with local authorities and we are ready to rise to that challenge, but whole industries will see changes in regulation as a result of the Bill. We believe we can rise to that challenge, in partnership with Government and industry. I am sure that over the course of the next half hour we will explore some of those areas more specifically. The main areas of disagreement relate to having the right powers and funding to match our duties.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q That is very clear, certainly in terms of the ability of local government to deliver on the challenges set by the Bill. Are there particular areas that relate to the powers that local government has at the moment to do things that may be within, or possibly outside, some of the particular asks that the Bill will put on local government? Are there areas where local government may not have powers at the moment, for example on planning, in terms of biodiversity gain, and so on, and where further work will be needed should such aspirations be placed on local government as a result of the Bill?

Mayor Glanville: Biodiversity and how the planning system could lead to the net gain that is the priority within the Bill is one of the key areas. We have a system of local planning authorities that is well established. The system has accommodated various changes relating to energy, carbon and sustainability over a number of years, and we have adapted to those changes and adopted them within both our local plan development and the way our committees regulate development.

The planning context is really important, before I come to the detail on biodiversity. We have seen 2.6 million homes consented to in the past six years. A million of those have yet to be built, in the context of a 40% reduction in funding for local planning authorities. We have seen some improvements. We can set fees that allow us to recover the costs of fulfilling our planning responsibilities as local authorities, but there is still a £180 million gap between the cost of fulfilling our responsibilities and the funding that we receive from planning fees.

If we introduce new responsibilities for biodiversity, the challenge is whether we will close the existing gap and ensure that a new gap does not develop. We need to ensure that local authorities have the expertise to meet those new biodiversity responsibilities. That could be addressed either through the wider financial settlement for local government, or through a fees regime. As it is written at the moment, the Bill does not suggest that local authorities will be pre-eminent in collecting any additional resources if a development does not meet biodiversity standards.

Many Members who are involved in constituency casework, as I am as a council leader, will know that planning is always contested. People see the impact of a new development very much in their local community. If we are saying that the impact of new developments on biodiversity will be fully recognised, which we welcome, we want to ensure that any compensation is either held within that development, and the development contributes to a net improvement in biodiversity, or, if not, that local planning authorities can use those resources for the local community. That could be by placing extra requirements on a development, or by using our expertise in tree planting, and improving diversity and green infrastructure in the local area. As things stand in the Bill, we fear that there may well be a levy, but the levy would not be recycled back into the planning system, or would not result in the net improvement in biodiversity that we all want to see.

[The Chair]

I will come back to you if I can, Dr Whitehead.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. I should have said this at the beginning and I will say it now: if any Members and, indeed, any guests for that matter—it seems to be a bit fetid in here—wish to take their jackets off, you are welcome to do so.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q A particular issue that concerns all of you in different ways is the nature recovery network, and it is the Bill’s intention to lay the foundation for that. Do you think that local nature recovery strategies actually do provide that mechanism to secure nature’s recovery on the land?

Dr Young: A nature recovery network is a really important part of the solution to the ecological crisis that we are facing. It is a joined-up system of places needed to allow nature to recover. To be effective, it must extend across the whole of England, including rural and urban areas, and connect to similar initiatives elsewhere in the UK. The section on local nature recovery strategies in the Bill is really good and sets an ambitious agenda that would enable us to tackle nature’s recovery. It needs to be clearer how the local nature recovery strategies will contribute to a national network and targets for nature’s recovery.

That seems to be missing in the Bill at the moment; there is not a clear description of how the components that are set out in that part will add up to a system that works ecologically. The Bill says that the strategies will identify areas that could be good for biodiversity in the future, but that really needs to be based on ecological principles, rather than being an ad hoc set of sites where habitats could be created. That will ensure that the ambition contained within the Bill to secure nature’s recovery is realised. That could be achieved with some relatively small amendments to clause 97.

[The Chair]

Thank you. It will not be necessary for every member of the panel to answer every question, but to set the stage and for ease of reference, I will on this occasion simply work from, in my case, right to left—in your case, left to right. Ms Hammond, please.

Judicaelle Hammond: Thank you. Local nature recovery strategies are a real opportunity to make a difference to nature. There are a few things I would like to raise in terms of how they are going to work. First, at the moment, they are just about nature. We wonder whether there is a point to them being more holistic, so that we avoid silos and manage to have a look at how land is used in a way that maximises the various benefit types, including flood management and climate change, not just nature. This is a plea for them to not just be considered in isolation.

Another aspect is the issue of who should be leading on this. The Bill provides for a multiplicity of possible responsible bodies, including local authorities. As we heard from the gentleman from the Local Government Association, local authorities are already overstretched. We have an issue over whether they have the capacity to lead on that.

Another aspect is skills, and that was raised to the Committee. Would Natural England be better placed to do that?

It is important to have clear priorities. There need to be no gaps and no overlaps with regards to local nature recovery strategies, and that needs to be an important driver from national Government. Most of the land we refer to is in private ownership, so it will be important to consult with landowners and land managers on that.

Alan Law: The Bill has the potential to be the most significant environmental piece of legislation since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We have worked on conservation in this country for the last 70 years, driven by a focus on looking at the rare and putting in place protection measures for those rare site species: parks. What is exciting about the Bill and its links to the 25-year environment plan is the ambition to go from protecting small parts of the countryside—looking after the rare and the special—to trying to drive wholesale large nature recovery. That ambition around recovery is fundamental. The most important part of the Bill revolves around this nature recovery network and the links between the local and the national.

Will local nature recovery strategies alone deliver the ambition of the nature recovery network? No, they probably will not. That will not happen without further tightening up, either in the Bill or in supporting guidance or regulations. For reasons already articulated, we need to ensure that local nature recovery strategies operate within some form of national framework so that they are coherent. A national framework needs to be in place.

There need to be mechanisms for developing local nature recovery strategies so that they are quality assured and checked to ensure that they actually add up to a part of that coherent network. We need to see clear expressions of the set national targets writ into those local nature recovery strategies. At the moment we have an ambition at the front of the Bill around targets and we have a tool—a delivery mechanism—around local plans, but there is no hard-wired connection between the two. That is not difficult to achieve, so the issue is to tighten up around the links between targets, delivery processes, and some of the accountabilities.

Dr Mitchell: I have some opening words from my perspective on the Bill itself. British farmers are the stewards of our natural environment, and they have a good track record of protecting, maintaining and enhancing our environment. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, but some improvements could be made to ensure that environmental enhancement policies are carefully considered, and that food production and the environment go hand in hand. One of the key themes in the Bill and its various measures will be the need for them to work for farmers and food production as well as for the environment. Setting that context and going on to nature recovery networks and local nature recovery strategies, there is a lot of jargon around. We need greater clarity on these different phrases and how they all fit together.

How local nature recovery strategies may be used is unclear from our perspective. The suggestion is that they may be used to inform planning decisions. That makes us slightly nervous because is it some sort of designation that may be used to identify environmental priorities or opportunities that may restrict what farmers might want to do with their land in future, such as new building requirements? Farmers may want to update and modernise their buildings, but will that be restricted if they are in one of these areas? Or might they have an impact on land values?

Those are some of the questions we have in the back of our minds. Farmers get very nervous when you start drawing lines on maps, particularly when it comes to thinking about how environmental land management schemes may be ruled out in future. If these strategies are used to identify where farmers may be able to enter into one of these ELM schemes, does that mean they will be restricted in their engagement? We recommend that these local nature recovery strategies are confined to areas that are already identified for environmental value, such as sites of special scientific interest.

My final point is that we need to ensure that farmers are properly consulted at an early stage of the strategies, so that food production is considered alongside any environmental priorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much. I apologise again for keeping you waiting.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Good afternoon. Before our break, we were talking about local nature recovery strategies. There is obviously a requirement in the Bill to have regard to such strategies in planning, but not a duty to use them. Do you feel that that is likely to translate into clear requirements on developers, or might there need to be some clarification in the Bill about how that might proceed?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Clarity would be very helpful. Developers really struggle with wishy-washy comments from planners and local authorities that perhaps do not have an established strategy that they can follow. That is definitely one of our concerns about this sort of approach. It is really important that developers can be part of the strategy and are not asked to deliver somebody else’s strategy. That is vital going forward.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q In the context of recovery strategies, one suggestion is that permissions for, say, residential building could require a target of a specified percentage of canopy cover on developments. As a number of people have said, it is significant that the section in the Bill on trees deals with cutting them down but is silent on planting them. Do you think that a target for a specified percentage of canopy cover on developments might be welcome among builders if it could be incorporated into plans in a clear way?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Ideally, yes. The difficulty is that every site will be very different, so if you specify a particular type of site, it might be quite difficult. In somewhere like London, where you desperately want an increased density, if you specify a particular type of canopy cover, it might be very difficult to deliver that, whereas in somewhere like Cornwall you might be able to deliver increased canopy cover with less concern.

It also depends on the type of canopy cover that you are looking at. If, as part of your biodiversity strategy, you know that you would like to encourage a particular type of species to visit that site, and maybe encourage a nature network to improve, you need to know what species of tree or plant you would like to use. That information is very scant, which is a real difficulty for developers. The majority of the people I represent are small and medium-sized builders, although we have some larger ones, and they win work on reputation, so a good site is vital. That is almost part of the sales pitch in the end, but unless you have that feed-in knowledge it is very difficult.

We work with an organisation called the Trees and Design Action Group, with which we have been partnered for a while. It produces a document called “Trees in Hard Landscapes”. That allows us a better idea about what we can do on sites. That expertise is not necessarily shared across the wider industry and specifically among local planning authorities.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Welcome. Thank you very much for coming. I know that many house builders have already done some really excellent work on biodiversity and net gain, voluntarily, off their own bat. What is your view about mandating it to get environmental improvement? Do you think the 10% specified in the Bill is the right level?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I honestly could not—I do not think anyone could—give an honest answer to that. When we were approached, we welcomed biodiversity net gain because we recognise it is vital. We recognised that 10% might feel like an arbitrary figure, but if it is deliverable, why should developers not go for it?

We are at the start of understanding what we can deliver and how. I can give three perfect examples of that. We have the great crested newt district licensing scheme, which has only really come to fruition in the past few years. We worked with Natural England on that. That eDNA tests newts in a local area, which means you do not have to do a ginormous survey. That is a very new technology and has only just been introduced. Two other ones are bee bricks and swift bricks. Those allow more bees and swifts to visit a site and be part of the network of biodiversity on that site. Those are new technologies. It seems amazing that we could not incorporate those before in developments, but we are really at the early stages.

From our point view—whenever I speak to our members—we will do as much as needs be, as long as there is an industry out there. If you look at ecologists, do we have enough ecologists in local authorities to offer advice and guidance? Do we have the right network of information, so that it is simple and easy to use—so that all developers, whether self-build or building 2,000 homes, can understand what to deliver on site to reduce the burden on professional ecologists, who might want to tailor a scheme to make it unique.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Q We will interpret that as meaning that your members are ready to play their part.

Rico Wojtulewicz: To play their part, yes.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q On a slightly different topic, the question of building waste wood in the waste stream has been a live issue for quite a while, and the extent to which legislation should be introduced to ban waste wood from the waste stream—that is, other things need to be done to it higher up the waste hierarchy. That issue particularly involves wood that has been used in building. Very often builders just put their wood in waste streams when they have finished building the property or properties. Do you have a view on that? Do you think legislation is required, possibly in this Bill, to ensure that that wood does not go into the waste stream and is used higher up the hierarchy or are there things the building industry could do to make sure it does not happen?

Rico Wojtulewicz: It is definitely not my expertise, but if it is a real concern, the industry would support measures to ensure that that does not occur.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Q To go back to the 10% target, I thought you were being quite enthusiastic about quite a lot that could be done from the house builders’ side of things. As parliamentary species champion for the swift, I was glad that you mentioned swift boxes, which are great, but there has been a 57% decline in swift breeding pairs since 1995, according to the RSPB. That is just one example, but if you look at biodiversity loss across the board, some people would argue that 10% is only really keeping things at a standstill. Do you feel that if you were pushed to do more, you would be able to respond and try to meet a higher target? If a 20% target was in the Bill, what would be needed from your point of view to enable you to help with that?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Guidance on what we could do to increase the swift population, such as on what trees and food they might like and what lights do and don’t attract the food that they enjoy eating. All these little things actually make a big difference. If that knowledge is there, it feels quite isolated. I think we are very enthusiastic about the things we can do, which will effectively make our sites better at delivering what people want.

The difficulty is that sometimes politicians perhaps do not understand the development process and what occurs. We in the development industry need to ensure that we have a greater understanding of what we can do on site. Perhaps you would have a particular target in an area that you know would encourage more swifts. Perhaps you could issue specific guidance for that local authority, as part of the network.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you all very much indeed for joining us.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I know that there has been a considerable amount of discussion among environmental and green groups about how the Office for Environmental Protection will work within the Bill, and to what extent it will be sufficiently independent to carry out the function that is widely regarded as the function that it should carry out on environmental protection overall. How do you think the OEP could be strengthened in the Bill, and do you think that the Bill has it right regarding the teeth that the OEP will need to hold the Government and public authorities to account?

[The Chair]

It is not necessary for every member of the panel to answer every question, but in answer to this first question it may be helpful for you to set your stall out a bit as well.

Ruth Chambers: That is a very important question. There are three ways in which the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection will be ensured. The first is through the legal foundations provided by the Bill. The second is through its culture, which we will not talk about today. The third is through its organisational design, and the initial budget that it will get. Again, that is not relevant to the Bill, but it is a very important issue to ensure that we get the OEP off to a good start, so that it is not hampered from the get-go.

In terms of the legal foundations, there are two main ways in which the independence of a public body can be assured through law: how it gets its money and where its members come from. At the moment, although there have been some welcome strides forward, the Bill unfortunately falls down in both those regards. In terms of where it gets its money from, we welcome the commitment that the Government made around October that the OEP will have a multi-year annual funding framework for five years, ring-fenced in each spending review. That is very helpful. We see no reason why that could not be enshrined in the Bill, to give those guarantees on an enduring basis. The route by which the OEP gets its money is also very important. We have argued that it should be able to submit its own estimate directly to Parliament in the way that other public bodies, such as the National Audit Office, can.

Secondly, where the body will get its chair and other members from will be entirely at the discretion of Government Ministers at the moment. For a body of this import, which is meant to be independent not just at the start but for the duration, we think that greater involvement from Parliament would be very helpful. We are not asking for something unprecedented. Indeed, there are very good models where that is the case in practice. The National Audit Office and the Office for Budget Responsibility have already been flagged before the Committee. They are two examples of how you could crack the same nut in a slightly different way. Either way would be better than what the OEP has at the moment.

In terms of teeth, finally, we think that the way the enforcement functions are configured at the moment is certainly a step forward but there are some serious flaws, particularly in clause 35. One example is the upper tribunal being constrained in the types of remedies that it can issue and grant, should a public authority be found to be in breach of environmental law. We think it should have more freedom to impose the remedies as it sees fit.

Rebecca Newsom: I echo everything that Ruth just said. From Greenpeace’s perspective, we have concerns around the OEP’s independence, funding and enforcement powers, which definitely need to be closed. The scale of public concern for getting this right is such that over 20,000 Greenpeace supporters have been in touch this week with their MPs about this and other issues relating to the target-setting framework.

Ali Plummer: We share the concerns Ruth has outlined. I would add that part of getting a robust watchdog in place is the likeliness of its acting at its most effective. We welcome the escalating processes in the Bill, and there are opportunities to look to resolve issues before they get to full enforcement. To our mind, the way those remedies and escalating processes work most effectively is when you have a robust stop at the end, which encourages action before you have to get to that point. We welcome and share everything Ruth said in terms of strengthening the OEP in respect of both its independence and its ability to act as a true deterrent. We need to make sure that we are remedying any environmental damage or failure to comply with environmental law.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Following on from that, the OEP is substantially seen as the guarantor, as it were, that the standards of environmental protection that existed when the UK was a member of the EU will not only be continued but will be enhanced. Do your concerns about the OEP’s independence and other such matters relate to ensuring that we have that proper standard of environmental protection following the UK leaving the EU? Or do you have other concerns about the question of regression or otherwise in terms of environmental law, as we are now on our own in environmental law rather than substantially under the carapace of EU directives?

Ruth Chambers: That is an important question. Independent accountability and oversight will definitely be crucial in ensuring that our environmental laws are not only maintained but enhanced in the future, as the Government have said they want. That is an important element, but so are environmental principles—there are clauses that embed those principles in law, but again there are flaws in how that would be done. We can come on to those later.

There are also some potential loopholes in the Bill where standards could be weakened, almost accidentally. We will not talk about it today, but clause 81 in relation to chemicals in water is a good example of that. We feel that there are a lot of good work and good standards in this Bill but there is a lot of wriggle room as well. We hope that the conversations we will have today and throughout the passage of the Bill will enable some of those loopholes to be closed.

An example of where there could be some wriggle room is in the section on the REACH regulation and chemical standards. It is a wide-ranging power, and extra oversight and accountability could ensure that the power is exercised in a faithful way. We are clear that clauses 19 and 20 are not tantamount to a binding commitment to non-regression. They are welcome and important transparency mechanisms, but that really is what they should be seen as. There are modest, pragmatic ways in which they could be improved. For example, we think that clause 19 is modelled on human rights legislation, but the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998 ensures that human rights are factored into new legislation and new policy is a little bit more stringent and strategic. There are ways in which those clauses could be tightened as well.

[The Chair]

Before we proceed, Ms Chambers, you indicated that we would not talk about a particular clause today. In so far as we have the time you are entirely within your rights to comment on anything that is relevant.

Ruth Chambers: Thank you.

Ali Plummer: If I could just add something, there are two parts to that question. One is about maintaining the robustness of enforcement mechanisms; what we are really looking for through the independence of the OEP is maintaining that in longevity. It is not necessarily about the intent of the body as it is being set up, but making sure that it maintains that independence and robustness going forward.

I guess a watchdog and enforcement body is only as good as the law it is able to uphold, which comes to the second part of your question. There are lots of welcome provisions within this Bill that should allow us to go much further and to build on existing environmental protections, but we would be looking for much more robust reassurance that that floor—those existing protections—will remain for us to build on. The second part is making sure that we are able to secure existing environmental legislation so that the OEP can continue to uphold that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Q How important do you think it is that businesses are brought on board throughout the process in relation to meeting the global footprint target and in relation to the due diligence requirement?

Rebecca Newsom: It is really important. There have been indications from companies that they are interested and support the idea of a due diligence framework. Again, it is about setting up a level playing field. There have been voluntary commitments over the last decade through the consumer goods forum to deliver deforestation-free supply chains by 2020. Those commitments have not been met or delivered on, basically because it has been a voluntary framework and the mechanisms have not been in place to deliver on it. The Bill is an opportunity to do that, and to set it in law and give the direction of travel. There is business interest in doing that because it means that the companies that want to move ahead and be progressive are not going to be at a competitive disadvantage.

Ali Plummer: More broadly, getting business on board across the whole Bill is really important. As we have talked about quite a lot, it is a bit of framework legislation. An awful lot will need to be delivered through actions taken elsewhere—for example, actions coming through the Agriculture Bill and through house builders. You had a session earlier on planning. It is about getting business on board and getting understanding. This will need to be delivered across society. It is beholden on us all to contribute to delivering the ambition of the Bill.

Getting understanding and input from business, particularly in the target-setting framework in terms of what will need to be in place to deliver that, is really important—not just for the global footprint bit but for the Bill more broadly. Finding that coherence and narrative between the first and second half of the Bill, and in other Bills including the Agriculture Bill, is also really important, so that they work together to deliver the Government ambition on environmental restoration and recovery.

Ruth Chambers: Again, this is a really important question. From our engagement with businesses across the piece—our members have many contacts with all sorts of businesses—we do not detect that business is opposed to such measures in any way. Of course businesses want to know the detail and the nature of the measures and any particular mechanisms that are proposed. The easiest way to do that is to set out a policy proposition and then consult on it. We would encourage the Government to do that as quickly as possible. That consultation can be done at the same time as the passage of the Bill. That is not unheard of. Certainly, we would want to see that. I worked on the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which did a similar thing in relation to a transparency-in-supply-chains requirement. That was done with the consent and help of businesses.

Finally, there is a group called the Global Resource Initiative, which is a taskforce that has been looking at the questions that we have been talking about. We hope that it will publish its report while the Bill is still live. If it does, we would encourage you to look at those recommendations as well.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Turning to another part of the Bill, as you know there is a section concerning single-use plastics and proposals to raise a tax on them to discourage their use. Is the emphasis on plastics in single use the right way round in the Bill? Should we perhaps think about single use, which might include plastics, and legislate for that? What are your thoughts on that? Are there ways to legislate to take that view into account?

Ruth Chambers: In our evidence we very much recognised that point. Our preferred position would be not to introduce charges just for single-use plastics, because although it sounds really good, it could have unintended consequences. If we really want as our policy objective to drive down single-use cultures and practices, we need to look at including a broader range of material. We would suggest an amendment to that part of the Bill that related not just to single-use plastics, but to all single-use materials.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q I will try not to take too long; I know that people want to get home. One part of the plastics concern in the Bill is about transfrontier exports. As a result of the powers that could be in the Bill, it is suggested that restrictions could be placed on the export of plastics to non-OECD countries, but there are potential problems even within OECD countries as far as receiving exports of plastics is concerned. One view is that we might resolve the issue simply by setting a date for the banning of plastic exports, provided we have the resources and plant to recycle and reprocess plastics within the UK. Do you have a view on that? If so, what date do you think that a ban might properly be introduced, taking into account what we would need to do in the meantime to accommodate that ban within the UK?

[The Chair]

Ms Newsom? You are nodding.

Rebecca Newsom: I do not have a specific recommendation on a waste export ban date, but it is important to remember the big picture. Plastic production globally is set to quadruple, at the same time as a lot of countries across the world are due to enforce their own plastic waste export bans, coming from the UK. The only way to deal with the problem without causing a massive spike in incineration is to reduce how much plastic is used in the first place. That is why we have placed the emphasis on the reduction side of things. We need to emphasise the waste hierarchy. Reuse needs to be at the top of that, without emphasising as much on the recycling side because of course we need infrastructure there. But there is no way that the UK’s recycling infrastructure, even with a lot of extra investment, will be able to cope with the anticipated rise in production and with the waste export bans, so we need to turn the tap on the production at source.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q So you might favour something in the legislation that requires attention to the waste hierarchy, for example, in terms of the passages on waste and resources.

Rebecca Newsom: Definitely. As Ruth said, we would support making sure that there are reduction targets stemming from the waste priority area across all materials. Such is the urgency specific to plastics that Greenpeace would support a plastic reduction target for packaging in the Bill in the short term, with an emphasis on reuse to avoid unintended environmental consequences.

Ruth Chambers: I definitely agree with all of what Rebecca has just said. Certainly one of the schedules in the Bill talks about disposal costs, which does not seem to sit readily within the strategic framework that Dr Whitehead has outlined. I do not have a view on the date, but you should certainly put that question to my colleague Libby Peake when she gives evidence on Thursday.

Finally, to reinforce a point that was made in the discussion, a key to ensuring that such a ban is to be enforced effectively is resourcing—the resourcing of bodies such as the Environment Agency. That point has come up a few times now in the discussion. It is obviously not an issue that the Bill has much ability to direct—it is an issue of much broader import than that—but it keeps coming up. If the Bill is to matter and to be delivered and implemented successfully, the resourcing needs to be there to match that over the long term.

[The Chair]

I need to bring the Minister back in. Ms McCarthy, do you want to come in briefly?

Environment Bill (First sitting)

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you—and thank you for giving your time this morning. We have limited time, as you are aware, before I will have to draw the sitting to a close. Concise answers—I have already urged my colleagues to ask concise questions—will help us to get through the business.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. I would like to start with some thoughts about the Office for Environmental Protection. You will have seen from the structure of the Bill that the office will be set up by the Government, essentially, and will have certain powers, but many people say that, in other areas, it lacks independence or teeth. What is your view of the structure of the OEP?

Martin Baxter: I might as well go first. I think we would share some of the concerns around independence. I think there is an opportunity for greater independence, particularly on the appointment and removal of the chair. The Office for Budget Responsibility has a confirmatory vote for the appointment of its chair, and I think a similar mechanism could be put in for the OEP. It has a wide range of powers and duties. Potentially, some of the powers could become duties, particularly if there are changes to targets, but, largely, it is a body that could have strategic effect in helping to drive improvements in environmental performance.

Signe Norberg: We would agree that the OEP will have a wide remit, and some of its powers are really welcome. We share the view that there are some aspects, with regard to its independence, that we would like strengthened, particularly on matters explicitly to do with funding and the commitment that the Government made previously, in the pre-legislative scrutiny on the previous draft Bill, to having an explicit five-year budget on the face of the Bill, to make sure that there would be long-term certainty. We also support calls for Parliament to have a role in the appointment of the chair of the OEP—making sure that the relevant Select Committee was involved in the appointment process.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I would just make a wider point, from a business perspective. I think that the OEP has an important role to play because it gives confidence in the overall system. That is why independence is important. I just wanted to fill in that gap as to why business thinks that independence is important in terms of having a really credible body. That can also be achieved in the way that it operates. I found this with the Committee on Climate Change. One of the important things is the appointment of the first chair—and, actually, the second chair. The chair can determine how a body like that works in practice—its credibility, the things it chooses to pursue, how it gives strategic advice, and things like that. So I think it is also very much the way, and the type of person who is the chair, that are important.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q You reflected on the independence of the OEP and have suggested that concerns might be raised about its funding and funding cycle. Are there amendments you would like to see to the Bill to establish that independence in a clearcut way? Along with the OEP’s potential independence, would you like to see something specific in the Bill that protects its remit and funding cycle so we can be assured that it will not be subject to the vicissitudes of the Department or the Exchequer?

Signe Norberg: With regards to the specific areas of the Bill, there could be strengthening amendments to schedule 1, which sets out the appointment process. A paragraph in there to specify the role of the Select Committee in appointing the chair would strengthen the Bill, because the OEP’s chair has the power to select the other members. Within that, there is also a funding section, which could establish the five-year process. The important thing is that the OEP, with its formidable remit, will have independence and certainty in the long term. That should go beyond this Government, secure in the fact that successive Governments will deliver on the commitments. It should have a baseline budget to operate from, regardless of economic circumstances. If the funding mechanism in schedule 1 is strengthened, that would be welcome and really bolster the OEP’s ability to do its work.

Martin Baxter: In terms of a specific amendment, paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1 could be changed. It says:

“Non-executive members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State” ,

but you could add to that, “with confirmation from the Environmental Audit Committee and/or Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.” That would give Parliament enhanced power in that appointments process. That is a targeted, small amendment that could enhance independence in the process.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)]

Q Thank you so much for coming in; it is really appreciated. I have two points to pick up, one of which was raised by Ms Norberg. I think you suggested that the Office for Environmental Protection, the overarching body that will hold public bodies to account, ought to be more like the Office for Budget Responsibility, but that body does not have the enforcement functions that the OEP will have. Do you have any views about that?

Signe Norberg: The point about appointing the chair is more about ensuring that there is scrutiny around who is appointed as chair. We fully recognise that the OEP will have a different remit compared to the OBR. It is more about ensuring that Parliament has a role in appointing the chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We are nearing the end of this session, I am afraid. In the context of what we have heard this morning, Dr Whitehead, do you have any further questions?

[Dr Whitehead]

Q One thing we have not heard this morning, in the context of how the OEP and the targets that are to be set might work, is the fact that all this is taking over from the environmental protections that were there through the European Union when we were members. Do you think the Bill allows for the transition of those protections to a UK context to be sufficiently enforced and, ideally, enhanced? Or do you think there needs to be anything else in the Bill that can perhaps ensure that there is no regression in standards as we move forward with these new arrangements?

Signe Norberg: With regard to whether or not it would sufficiently transfer protections into a UK context, it is important, as Martin pointed out earlier, to noteeb;normal;j that the Bill itself predominantly applies to England. There must be processes through which the devolved Administrations set up their independent supervisory bodies, but they also all need to work together. Through that, the Bill has the right building blocks; it will be about how those bodies co-ordinate among themselves.

In and of itself, the Bill does not inherently prevent future regression from standards, but there could be mechanisms within the Bill to clarify that. For instance, if you had strong language in the objective about maintaining high environmental standards, that would clearly set out that it should not be a regression. We recognise that there is not an intention for a regression to take place, but that could be an example of how you would potentially safeguard against that.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: On day one, of course, we roll over all existing standards, and then we have the OEP in place to enforce. That gives us the starting point. With a few tweaks, this governance framework ensures that we at least maintain and improve, because you have that process of setting targets that always have to improve, and because the governance process is set out with the environmental improvement plans and principles, with the Office for Environmental Protection overseeing everything.

If that works, we are in a better position and we can really think creatively here. What are the structures, what are the plans, what are the partnerships that are needed to achieve those objectives? I would put a “potentially” in front of that, because potentially we have a better basis for achieving, but there are probably some tweaks that can be made to the Bill during its passage. Implementation, and how everyone works together on achieving the outcomes, is also important.

The transparency mechanism that was inserted into the Bill between its first and second iterations is helpful, because it allows proper, transparent consideration of whether we are doing something that regresses and how we look compared with international standards. That is a useful way of driving transparency within Parliament about what is happening. Clearly, the Government have moved quite a distance on this. We are driving from the private sector perspective to try to make all of this work and support the direction of the Bill. We are doing it in hope, to some extent.

[The Chair]

Thank you. In the light of all of that, are there any final questions from the Minister?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, gentlemen. We are grateful to you for coming along and giving us the help that we are likely to need. We will start with Dr Whitehead.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Good morning, gentlemen. The Bill is generally recognised as having some good bits, on recycling materials and end-of-life concerns about materials in the part on waste and resources, but it has been widely criticised because it concentrates on those particular elements of the waste hierarchy rather than looking at ways in which the waste hierarchy could be driven up, as reflected in the waste and resources White Paper. Do you have any views on that? Do you think that there are any ways in which the Bill could be strengthened to emphasise the point that, actually, recycling is not the end of the road, as far as waste is concerned, and that other things—reuse, redesign and minimisation—have an equally important part to play?

Martin Curtois: In terms of the Bill, the resources and waste strategy that DEFRA devised is very strong—you are absolutely right—because what it does, in a number of different ways, is try to improve the whole process. It incorporates things such as “polluter pays”, so it puts the onus on manufacturers to design better. The inclusion of modulated fees in the extended producer responsibility puts a clear onus on manufacturers and producers to design for recyclability, and that will ultimately reduce waste, which is what we all want. Obviously, it involves elements including better segregation, for example, of food waste, which should reduce the carbon impact. It talks about taking the burden away from local authorities and putting it more on manufacturers.

You are therefore absolutely right to say that that is a strong element of the Bill, but I think possibly there should also be other things. As you say, at the top of the hierarchy are elements such as reuse. We operate many sites across the UK where we have voluntary arrangements, for example in Southwark with the British Heart Foundation, where there are various items that can be reused and that is done for charitable benefit. It may be that that ought to be looked at, possibly in the detail of the Bill, just to see where it can be done, because obviously it ultimately is the best way forward. It should at least get some consideration, because everything focused around the resources and waste strategy is primarily, as you say, on the recycling side. There is not much emphasis on residual waste, which obviously we need to avoid because we need to avoid landfill. I therefore think there could be some consideration in terms of reuse.

I also think that one of the best ways in which you can reduce waste right at the outset is by designing better. The Bill reflects that element of the resources and waste strategy, which we see in a very positive way, because so many manufacturers and producers have come to our site—some from not far away in south-east London—to see how they can design their products with perhaps less composites, in a better way, which will ensure that they are at least recyclable at the outset. That is the very start of the process, which we have to get right if we are to make significant change.

[The Chair]

Mr Bellamy, does the FDF have a view on this?

David Bellamy: Yes, we do. I think what we would argue is this. As the previous contribution outlined, we obviously expect the extended producer responsibility reforms and the accompaniments to that in terms of consistency, and the focus much more on producers paying full net costs for the end-of-life management of packaging, to focus minds a lot more on the prevention side in itself. Having said that, we must not lose sight of the fact that it is a legal requirement, for those who handle waste and convey it to another person in the waste transfer system, to have regard to the waste hierarchy. That is a legal requirement; it is in the law as it stands at the moment. It is also a legal requirement in respect of packaging waste and packaging under the essential requirements regulations that producers who pack food products must have regard to using the minimum amount of packaging to maintain the necessary levels of safety, food hygiene, etc., and consumer acceptance. That is also a legal requirement that is enshrined in the legislation. In that sense, there are already legal requirements around maintaining a focus on prevention, in the sense of how we regulate the waste hierarchy. While it is right that there is a lot of focus on recycling in the resources and waste strategy, we feel that that is part of a bigger picture.

We should not lose sight of voluntary activity around this space. Our members’ commitment to reducing food waste has been documented in some figures that the Waste and Resources Action Programme recently published that show that the food and drink manufacturing sector has reduced food waste by 30% since 2011. Half that reduction has been achieved between 2015 and 2018. That is on a per capita basis measured against the target of the sustainable development goal of the United Nations. So there is a focus on source reduction, whether through legal mechanisms that are already in place, but also in terms of the voluntary work that our members are engaged in.

[The Chair]

Thank you. Does the FSB have a view, Mr Poole?

Andrew Poole: I agree with the assertion that reuse and reduction are equally important to recycling. It is worth bearing in mind the sheer diversity of the small business audience, which operates across myriad different sectors and in very different ways from one another. It is also worth bearing in mind that many small businesses operate as both producers of materials and consumers. It is worth understanding the very different issues that they face. For many, particularly those operating as consumers within the parameters set by the business, it is clear that recycling will be some low-hanging fruit. When we compare our recycling rates with other countries in the world, clearly some rapid improvements should be made. However, I take the point that it is equally important to look at reuse and reduction as well.

[Dr Whitehead]

Q Clause 52, in the context of recycling and minimisation of waste, provides for charges for single-use plastic items. Do you think this clause clarifies its purpose sufficiently? Is it about minimising single-use items, or is it about reducing the role of plastic in single-use items? First, do you think that a clause such as this would work in reducing single-use items in the food and drink industry, for example? Do you consider that it might be prudent to concentrate on the fact that single-use items can be made of more things than plastic and that amendments to the Bill might make that clear in terms of how the single-use environment might develop?

[The Chair]

Mr Bellamy, food and drink have been mentioned, so perhaps you might like to have the first crack at this one?

David Bellamy: Our comments are framed around single-use plastic packaging items, which is our interest in terms of plastic. Basically, our view is that a better way to achieve this kind of outcome would be to deal with this within the refinements to the extended producer responsibility system and the reform programme, in the sense that you could do this through modulated fees, as a much better way of achieving the same sort of outcome. In that way, we would be sure that the money raised from such an approach would be used to improve the system. That is a vital principle of FDF: that the moneys we raise through increased producer fees are used to improve the system of recycling and that those moneys do not get channelled off into other expenditure demands. That is a very important principle that we hold dear in FDF. We have to be mindful that alternatives to plastic materials may also have an impact; it is not only plastics themselves. If you switch to some other materials, you have to look at their life cycle, including perhaps at how they are mined. They all have impacts that we need to consider.

In terms of the clause in the Bill for this, we suggest that any introduction of a charge should be subject to some form of public consultation. We are a little bit concerned that this could be taken forward in a way that did not involve any public debate or allow interested stakeholders to make representations.

Andrew Poole: It is really important for the Government, through the legislation, to make clear the objective of requirements such as this and what they want small firms to do differently from what they are doing already. When looking across environmental legislation, I will talk a lot about pathways to change. We want to set out not only the reasoning behind the legislation but what businesses should be doing differently, and how the Government see them doing it differently.

In terms of single-use plastics, we can compare that to the carrier bag charge, which has worked fairly successfully. Businesses, on the whole, were quite happy to adopt that. It was clear that the outcome was to be a reduction in those bags. There were also some obvious ways of doing things differently that could have achieved the same outcome. It is just about making clear what that outcome needs to be and what businesses should be doing differently to achieve the same thing.

Environment Bill

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We have had an excellent, thoughtful and informed debate, with contributions from many hon. Members from across the House. The several maiden speeches we heard this afternoon were universally first rate, and the Members who made them will have an important role to play in future debates on the environment. The hon. Members for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) acquitted themselves brilliantly.

I am informed that the hon. Member for Aylesbury appeared on “Blankety Blank”, and I can only add to that my youthful appearance on “Crackerjack”. I do not know whether that equates to “Blankety Blank”, but it perhaps goes some of the way. I am happy to visit the constituency of the hon. Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) provided that I get a tour of the brewery and a ticket for the match on 5 May when Burton Albion are going to thrash Portsmouth—my local rival football team.

All this afternoon’s speeches, thoughtful and important though they were, concentrated on the imperatives of the Environment Bill. One imperative is that we ensure the maintenance of high environmental standards on leaving the EU and that there is no regression. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) worries that standards would be lowered and that the OEP will perhaps not be as independent as it should be in terms of enforcing standards. We heard from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) about delivering on the promises of higher environmental standards, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) about the independence of the OEP, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on non-regression.

Another imperative is that we must be sure about how we are to treat the natural environment and biodiversity in the wake of the climate emergency. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) about the imperative of countryside access and natural spaces, from my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester about biodiversity targets, from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on tree planting, from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon on net gain in biodiversity, from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on biodiversity gain and species decline, and from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson) on biodiversity gain.

As for the imperative to enshrine standards on water, air quality and waste, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney about air pollution and WHO guidelines, from my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) on chemicals and air quality, from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, about water retention and standards, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West about air quality targets and his particular concern about beaches. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) drew attention to air quality standards, and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about going further on air pollution than we currently are. The hon. Member for Bath spoke about return schemes, removing plastic from municipal waste and knowing where waste ends up.

The hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) spoke about air quality, and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) spoke about targets and fine particle air pollution. The imperative in setting targets in these areas and more is to make them stick, and we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about milestones and the lag in implementation.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West about the need for targets to be connected. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) about the targets having no teeth and about his concerns on the indoor air pollution targets.

We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon about concerns that targets can easily be set aside by the Secretary of State at his discretion. Indeed, we heard from the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) about the obligations on the Government to support local authorities and other agencies in making these things work—that was a vital contribution.

On both sides of the House, there is a view that this is not a bad Bill but that it could be much better. In short, the Opposition want a Bill that is

“a truly landmark piece of legislation, enshrining environmental principles in law, requiring this Government and their successors to set demanding and legally binding targets and creating a world-leading…watchdog to hold them to account.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2019; Vol. 667, c. 90.]

That is what we want, but they are not my words. They are the words of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) in moving Second Reading when the Environment Bill last appeared on the Floor of the House.

Is this Bill, as it stands, that landmark piece of legislation? Will it stand the test of time and bind this and future Governments to the targets and practices it sets out? Is it a Bill for the future or just for the next period, to get the Government over an environmental hump, and then maybe the issue will go away? Well, it will not go away, which is why we need a Bill that delivers in the long term. Looking at the Bill as it stands, we know it probably will not.

The Bill is full of loopholes that allow the Government of the day to act, or not, as they think fit. It opens an enormous door that a future Government who are not committed to action on the environment and the climate emergency can walk through. The key issue of the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection is inadequately addressed. The target-making sections of the Bill do not cohere with the delivery sections. There is obscurity about how targets in the Bill are to be set and met. Altogether, it is not good enough.

The Bill has to bind Governments of whatever colour to doing the right things relative to the natural environment, water, waste, conservation and land use for the future, because we will secure a liveable environment and a secure home for species facing the consequences of climate change only if we do the right thing by the environment and keep on doing it.

We need a climate change Act for the environment, and what we have at the moment is a charter for now and not for tomorrow. That is why we will table a robust series of amendments in Committee. In the spirit of our jointly stated aim of making this Bill a landmark Act that will stand the test of time on the environment, we expect those amendments to be carefully considered and acted on by the Government in Committee. That is why we will not oppose Second Reading, but we expect that when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House we will be able, as a result of those amendments, to endorse it wholeheartedly as the Bill we all need for our environmental and climate futures.