Environment Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsTuesday 17th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 November 2020 - (17 Nov 2020)
Dr Whitehead
Apologies, Mr Gray, but we had previously notified the Committee that our amendments to the natural environment and environmental protection elements of the Bill would be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to increase the relevant percentage.
(5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentage after 5 years or sooner.”
This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it can only be increased.
I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continue to hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I am grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour.
After all the excitement this morning, I hope we can have a similarly exciting afternoon. We are coming to the bit that I have been looking forward to most since I first read the Bill: the exciting part around nature and biodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine a more important and pressing subject when we all know that around the world, the targets we have collectively set ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the same time, we look to find ways out of the economic crisis stemming from covid.
Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I looked at the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread some of the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic, forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of “wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that some of that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route. One of the key things is that somewhere along the line, the planning White Paper came along, and there is an unresolved tension between the excellent ambition of the 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we think this is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. My task this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restore it to the Bill it might once have been. We could see this as a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did the changes creep in? Who did such harm to it, and how can we now help the Government make good? In some of the discussions on this schedule, the Government thought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towards net environmental gain, and we would really like that desire to be addressed.
Much of the schedule is about the planning system. I suspect many Members here have direct or indirect experience of our planning system and know how important it is. For the moment, the provisions for reducing environmental impact in the planning system are focused on preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objective has been embraced in the national planning policy framework since 2012, when it replaced the previous policy objective of no net loss, which sought only a neutral outcome after losses and gains were accounted for. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the net gain objective has been relatively effective in reducing loss of habitats and species without slowing down development, but it has been far from enough to turn the tide in nature’s decline. The principle of taking a more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiring a 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support. That is what is addressed in this schedule.
We know how important that is because, sadly, the UK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. The Government have failed on too many metrics: 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact the Government have begun to address some of the issues, although we think we need to approach this serious issue in an open and clear way. We note the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% of land being protected, but we also gently point out that some 26% of that is achieved through a counting mechanism that includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. We want to address this problem. We have to be serious about it and not try to play with the figures, and our view is that at the moment the Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However, the new general condition has the potential to be an effective tool to boost biodiversity across the country, and there are many issues we want to address in the amendments to see how the Bill can be improved.
I will touch on several of our amendments, including on the length of time for which habitats should be maintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, too many, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition; the relationship between the new system and irreplaceable habitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guarantee what is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan to ensure it is actually delivered on the ground. To turn to the detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are in danger of being left with a rather unambitious percentage of biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for the Government to decrease if they choose to do so. At first sight, setting the condition for planning permission at 10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing to do, but it is important to note that the impact assessment published alongside the biodiversity net gain consultation in December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowest level of net gain at which the Department
“could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no net loss”.
It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward. Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the current practice of some local authorities. I am told that Lichfield District Council already requires 20% net gain on new development, so although we welcome the Government’s statement and its response to the biodiversity net gain consultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers who want to go further. I was pleased that the Minister reiterated this point on Second Reading. It would be very helpful if she could make a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developers and to help them and local planning authorities, underlining that the aspiration is to go further.
A number of changes need to be made. Under schedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number of powers to make regulations, including a Henry VIII power to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objective and to amend the types of developments the net gain will apply to. The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevant percentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is 10%, and:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to change the relevant percentage.”
Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended to include a commitment to monitor and review practice, so that the level of gain can be increased in future if evidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. We also need a lock-in so that the percentage can only be increased by the Government, not simply decreased at a later date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill to lower the level of gain; that would seriously undermine the objectives of the system as a whole, and would likely result in little or no gain being achieved in practice.
Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the 10% net gain figure could be changed is by being increased after review by the Secretary of State. It would also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentage is reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, within a maximum period of five years.
I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout, assure us that there is no need for concern. But to return to my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain in my story and Members might be able to guess who some of the contenders might be. Looking back at the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, he did claim—spuriously in our view—that:
“Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.”
We will discuss newts in more detail later, but when Government policy lurches from one approach to another, we need certainty that the commitment of the current Minister will not be trumped by future Ministers who might take a different view. Unless we get that certainty, we will certainly wish to press this amendment to a Division.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge as he takes the floor this afternoon. This is a tremendously exciting part of the Bill, through which we can all be a part in doing our hugely important bit for nature in this country. He is right about degradation—I am not even going to think about denying that—and about how important the Bill is. This is the tool for achieving the measures in the 25-year environment plan, which was the first environmental improvement plan. It is great that the plan is full of optimism because it sets out what we want to do and where we want to go, and these measures will be in this Bill.
Let me turn to the amendment. Responses to the net gain consultation revealed that some developers have already made voluntary commitments to no net loss or net gain and there were calls for both a higher and a lower percentage. It was quite interesting how that came out. On balance and having considered all responses, we believe that requiring at least a 10% gain strikes the right balance between ambition, creating certainty in achieving environmental outcomes, deliverability and costs for developers. It should not be viewed as a cap and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned a local authority that has set its sights higher. Many more are doing that and going voluntarily above 10%.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Planning for the future” White Paper, which I think will probably be referred to a lot today. It specifically sets out support for biodiversity net gain and rightly identifies improving biodiversity as one of our most important national challenges. It is important to build the houses people want and all of the developments that we need, but that cannot be done to the detriment of the environment.
That is quite clear in the White Paper that biodiversity net gain and biodiversity more generally are one of our most important challenges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the implementation of biodiversity net gain to make sure it is fully integrated into the planning system. I have already said that the 25-year environment plan is the first environmental improvement plan, and all these things will work as part and parcel of one another.
The ambition of 10% net gain represents a significant step forward beyond current practice while striking a balance and meaning it does not have be reviewed as a cap. Restricting the ability to set a lower percentage requirement may force the Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve a 10% net gain, rather than keeping them in scope and subjecting them to a lower percentage requirement. Broader exemptions would be a greater risk to the achievement of the wide policy aims than targeted application of a lower percentage gain.
Limiting the power might therefore compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement, which could compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain.
Rebecca Pow
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I still stick to my point that restricting the ability to set a low percentage requirement might force Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve the 10%. What we are trying to do is to make sure that everyone gets to the 10% mark, and others might go above that voluntarily.
On the final point about the amendment, about compelling the Secretary of State to review the percentage within five years, I offer my assurances that the Government intend to monitor closely the policy outcome of net gain after its implementation. Of course, Members should remember that we have our Office for Environmental Protection; we have a great big monitoring and reporting body. It will be very difficult for anyone not to stick to these measures. They are all in the Bill and they add to the overall enhancing of the environment. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that a theme is already emerging from this discussion, whereby the Minister tries very hard to explain away the differences that have emerged. That is her job and she has made a very good attempt at it. However, it seems counterintuitive to argue that, on the one hand, the Government are going to introduce this level and, on the other hand, they will have the ability to reduce it. As for the argument that that somehow protects the measure, I think that the cat was slightly let out of the bag by the suggestion that there might be exemptions that will allow another way round it. We will come on to that in a moment.
In some ways, this is a strange discussion, because the White Paper on planning emerged in the summer, after this Committee was in abeyance. It seemed to us—we made this point very strongly—that this process is a complicated set of interactions that would have benefited from the detailed interrogation of experts. We will get into some quite detailed planning law issues in the coming hours, I suspect, and many of us possibly do not have the expertise that some of our witnesses might have been able to bring to these discussions. It is a great pity that we are not able to explore that in more detail. But we are where we are and we will have to do our best.
The problem is that a lot of this goes back to the question of trust. Basically, the Minister is asking us to trust the Government. She says that they are introducing the OEP, but the OEP will work to the legislation that we are putting in place today. Inevitably, there is pressure —we know that there is huge pressure and we understand why—from local developers and a Government who want to build, build, build. That is why nature needs a voice: it needs the legislative protection that the Minister is so passionate about. There should not be any loopholes, because we know what will happen: if we leave loopholes, people will use them. That is why—and I will keep repeating this point—I want to understand what changed, who did it and why, because if we get an answer to those questions, we will understand what is likely to happen in future.
This Bill might look lovely and sound great, but when we begin to delve down into the detail and look at the “mays” rather than the “musts” and at the exemptions and loopholes it introduces, we may find that, like on so many other occasions in the past, it is a great disappointment. That is why we want to absolutely tie this down. On that basis, we wish to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 168, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out
“maintained for at least 30 years”
and insert
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.
This amendment requires habitat created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 75, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert “in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require post-development habitat enhancements for the purposes of biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuity rather than for 30 years.
Amendment 74, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert “in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require habitat enhancements for the purposes of biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuity rather than for 30 years.
Amendment 230, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out
“for at least 30 years”
and insert
“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.
This amendment would require habitat enhancements created under net gain to be secured in perpetuity.
Daniel Zeichner
The theme continues with this set of amendments because, in exactly the same way as I have just explained, there is a risk of not achieving the desired outcome and ambition of the 25-year environment plan.
The amendment relates to the length of time that the biodiversity gain habitats should be maintained. Our amendment challenges the Government’s suggestion of 30 years. In our view, both schedule 14 and clause 91(2)(b) would allow protected sites potentially to be downgraded or destroyed after 30 years, thereby destroying the ecological gains and carbon storage benefits, and any prospect of those gains and benefits making a long-term impact.
That is essentially the issue: we are talking about the long term. I am sure the Minister will explain in a moment the logic for the Government’s 30-year proposal, but this takes us back to the basic point about how serious and ambitious we are about embedding these changes for the future. There will be little point to the provisions if they do not work in practice. For instance, if someone gets rid of a pond that has been in place for hundreds of years, with all the richness in biodiversity it has developed, and replaces it with another pond nearby, that replacement could be let go after 30 years. Our concern is that the provisions do not give the necessary strong support. The danger is that too short a period could simply see the biodiversity gains swiftly lost. Thirty years sounds like quite a long time, but when one bears in mind that we are already two years down the line from the 25-year environment plan and that politics does not always move at a frightfully great pace, it is not hard to imagine things moving quickly and those gains being quickly lost. If biodiversity gains are to properly contribute to the 25-year environment plan commitments to a nature recovery network and to provide carbon sequestration, which is so crucial to our net zero targets, these areas must be secured and maintained for the long term, because only through that kind of approach will we secure long-term nature recovery.
There really ought to be some binding mechanisms to ensure that the habitat condition target is reached in a timely way. One does not want to be cynical about some of these things, but one can well imagine that people wishing to build, build, build will try to find ways around them and will try, on occasion, to take advantage. The time taken for a habitat to reach its target condition—for example, for woodlands to reach maturity—could be specified in a biodiversity gain plan and included in planning conditions to ensure that it can be enforced. One can see so many possibilities here, and yet, even though the goal is within grasp, it seems that it is being clawed back. Again, I wonder by whom and for what purpose.
Amendment 168 to schedule 14 and amendment 74 to clause 91 would change the provisions by requiring post-development habitat enhancements for the purpose of maintaining biodiversity gains in perpetuity, rather than for 30 years. I have no doubt that the Minister secretly agrees with that; I suspect that she would like to see these things achieved. However, I suspect that she is constrained.
Our amendment 168 would ensure that those habitats are maintained at their target condition. It is interesting to note that that proposal comes not only from the Opposition Benches but is broadly supported. I was delighted to see a similar amendment in this group from the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), although I do not think that it goes quite as far as ours. However, there are clearly Government Members who see the significance and importance of achieving this for the long term. I have to say once again that, if we do not get the commitment we are looking for on amendment 168, we will divide the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I want to add a few thoughts to the excellent introduction to the clause from my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. This issue has a considerable relationship to not only biodiversity gains generally but our targets under climate change legislation.
Part of the purpose of a number of the biodiversity gains that may arise as a result of putting percentages on biodiversity gain is not only to make a little gain but to actually sequester what is in that gain. That sequestration should and will count towards the carbon balance, so far as getting to net zero is concerned. We will discuss, when considering a new clause later in Committee, the whole question of what to do about planting trees over a period of time and how the planting of those trees leads, as those trees mature—my hon. Friend alluded to this—to substantial gains in net negative emissions, which are absolutely essential for reaching a net zero target in the future. The assumption would be that the carbon embedded in those trees is permanently placed on the carbon account as a negative input, because it has been effectively sequestered by the trees. That means not only that we can get to net zero, but that the whole question of net negative in the net zero equation is an essential starting point, and without that net negative input, there is no way we will get to net zero by 2050. As we in this House have all agreed, 2050 is the proper target, although we would like net zero to be achieved sooner in this country as far as emissions are concerned.
Daniel Zeichner
I am not sure what a doctor looks like, but thank you.
This has been a useful discussion, because it begins to show how complicated some of this is. It shows—we will come to this in subsequent discussions—that the interactions between the different pieces of protection legislation are complicated, as I have already hinted. This is possibly already a discussion for lawyers, and my fear is that it will become a discussion for lawyers in the future, because these things will be disputed. If we do not get the legislation clear now, it will lead, I suspect, to disappointment in the future.
Perhaps I was overly gushing in my praise for the 25-year environment plan at the beginning, but I was seeking to make a broader point, which is that in too many cases we have stepped back. This is a case in point. The Minister, in explaining the logic behind the 30 years, has raised more concerns in people’s minds than she might have allayed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for linking this issue to sequestration and our necessary attempts to achieve net zero by 2050. He seems to me to be absolutely right; we need these improvements.
It is striking that, in this schedule, this is the key tool that the Government are adopting. They are using the planning process. If that is the key path to protecting nature in future, we do not want to start introducing loopholes and qualifications in this way. I understand the debate around the 30 years—I was ploughing my way through the submissions to the net gain consultation and the Government’s responses—but I am sure that the Minister will concede that many people agree with our position, which is that this needs to be seen in perpetuity. An additional point is about how we monitor and check that progress in between. As we all know, it is all too easy for this place to pass legislation and think, “job done,” only to wonder why it has not had an effect in the real world. We will probably touch on some of those points as the debate continues.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 14, page 212, line 15 leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 22 would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide a clear procedure to planning authorities. Here, again, we come back to the realms of local government. I should perhaps have said earlier that some years ago I was a district councillor in rural Norfolk. I very much enjoyed the experience, and spent many hours—as, I suspect, did many other members of the Committee—on local planning processes. I learned that planning law is lengthy, complicated and sometimes controversial, but very important when it comes to protecting and developing local communities.
This is another one of those “may” and “must” issues. The amendment would strengthen the Bill, which states only that
“The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedure which a planning authority is to follow in determining whether to approve a biodiversity gain plan”.
I fear, yet again, that the devil is in the detail. I remember being quite impressed as a district councillor some years ago that there was an interest in biodiversity. We had a biodiversity committee, which meant that we had some fascinating discussions, but I fear that nothing much happened. That is so often the problem: that there is concern but no means of translating intent into action.
Whether the Secretary of State “may” or “must” make regulations is therefore quite important. I fear that many planning authorities that do not have to engage with this will look at it sympathetically, because people want it, but it will be the usual thing: when they are constrained by so many competing requirements, it is tough to do something unless they have to, which is what we are in this place to ensure.
Regulations may specify the details of the
“time by which a determination must be made…factors which may or must be taken into account in making such a determination”,
and appeals against the planning’s authority’s decisions. I suspect that we are all familiar with the dilemmas that local councillors often face. We give them a huge range of things to take into consideration while trying to achieve balanced outcomes that can withstand scrutiny and appeal, and quite often—and rightly so—they have to take direction from their expert officers who have already made those calculations.
The question is where we balance this issue as a priority against the other things that councillors take into account. My sense is that unless we strengthen the Bill, it will become one more on the list of things that they really ought to take into account. At best, it may become a line on an agenda that gets ticked: “Yes, we have taken it into account, because somebody raised it,” but will it actually be considered among the trade-offs in the decision-making process? I am not convinced.
We also wish to raise the question of how the regulations will be decided here; again, we believe that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny. They should also be subject to proper public consultation; because the issue is complicated, the input of biodiversity and planning professionals through public consultation would strengthen discussion and improve procedures. These are not simple matters—they have significant consequences and significant costs—but in due course such input would improve the overall planning outcomes. Improved procedures could ensure that all planning authorities’ biodiversity gain plans are sufficiently detailed, subject to public consultation, and made available in draft so as to inform planning applications. That is a part of the democratic process that we believe very valuable, although the planning White Paper seems to suggest that, for whole swathes of the country, that process may not be continued in future.
We want to get the Minister’s thinking on this, because it is not clear why she would not want to accept the amendment. We will not press it to a Division, but we would like an explanation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for moving the amendment. Paragraph 16 of schedule 14 sets out that the Secretary of State may impose further procedural requirements relating to how a planning authority approves a biodiversity gain plan. Paragraph 15 makes it clear that the biodiversity gain objective must be met; it also specifies that other key factors, such as the accuracy of the plan’s ecological information, must be considered by the planning authority. The Government intend to use the paragraph 16 power to ensure that the requirements fit well with the planning system; the hon. Member alluded to that, and obviously it is really important, but we believe that the other considerations in paragraph 15 should provide confidence that approved plans will meet the legislation’s environmental policy objectives.
Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as we have discussed many times. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to how the provision is given effect. Forcing the use of regulations when they might not be needed risks creating unnecessary complication, or even weakening the purpose of the measures. It may not be necessary for the regulations to cover all the areas in paragraph 16; they are set out to give the Secretary of State discretion to address them if it is considered necessary. While we cannot rule out needing to address appeals in the regulations, that may not be necessary. Forcing the Secretary of State to regulate such matters immediately when that may not be a clear necessity would risk adding complexity to a process that we aim to keep straightforward. The addition of undue complexity risks undermining the benefits of the approach for the planning authorities, the communities—which are obviously so important—and the developers using it.
The biodiversity gain plan is simply the document that allows the developer to demonstrate to the planning authority how it has satisfied the biodiversity net gain requirement. A typical biodiversity gain plan will consist of the completed biodiversity metric and some supplementary information. We expect that the consistency of the plans will make their assessment easier for the planning authorities, and reduce the risk of miscommunication. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I listened with interest to the Minister’s explanation. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it, because it is not clear to me why making regulations at a later date, rather than making things clear sooner, will make the position less complex. Having the discretion to make them or not does not seem helpful.
The Minister also raised an issue about the biodiversity net gain metric, which is worthier of comment. There is a worry that we are creating yet another algorithm that people will not understand—the phrase “mutant algorithm” has already been bandied about with regard to housing numbers and the planning White Paper. As someone who is interested in data, I am not convinced that it is the algorithm that is mutant, the issue is those who put the data in, or interpret or programme it in a certain way.
Clearly, there is concern that technocratic approaches to making such decisions will take away local input—that those with unique knowledge of the local community and local biodiversity could in some way be excluded. That is a concern. The amendment has the potential to explain to local planning authorities how things should work, so the Minister is missing an opportunity.
An important point was made to me by the Town and Country Planning Association: if there is just a simple metric, where sites have apparently lower biodiversity value, people’s attachment to that local open space and its social values could somehow be lost. There is a big debate to be had about how the metric works, and what parameters feed into it in.
Rebecca Pow
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but although he suggests that the metric is a new thing being imposed on people, it has been used for about five years, and is referred to by planning authorities and developers. As I think I just mentioned, Natural England is working on updating it, because it is complicated —it is not a simple thing, but it is a very useful thing. We want to know what is there, what the value is, and what the value could be—all that. We must also remember that all of this will link into the local nature recovery networks, which local communities will be really involved with.
Daniel Zeichner
Yes, and we will discuss those local nature recovery networks. The point that I am making is that the amendment was an opportunity for the Government to give direction to local planning authorities. Different planning authorities would do this differently—some would probably not do it at all, some would do it well, and some less well. It is sufficiently important for the Government to give direction. That is the point of our probing amendment.
To some extent, the Minister has clarified things, although I am not sure that has left us any more hopeful about the impacts, but at least we have had clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 170, in schedule 14, page 212, leave out line 26.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 171, in schedule 14, page 212, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Daniel Zeichner
Amendments 170 and 171 relate to a major concern about the proposals, which is that a number of exceptions have been made to the condition to provide a biodiversity net gain. As I said earlier, a noble ambition can be undone if there are too many exceptions and loopholes.
Under the Bill’s schedule 14 amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, biodiversity net gain provisions will not apply to development for which planning permission is granted by a development order, an urgent Crown development, or a
“development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify”.
I hope Members are all still with me. The excitement of this morning cannot necessarily be replicated when discussing this provision, but it is clear that, in the wrong hands, it could lead to some pretty major exemptions.
In order to maximise the benefits of biodiversity gain, provide developers with certainty and create a level playing field, it is important that the application of the biodiversity gain system is broad, and that most development is part of the net gain system. As I said, the intention is noble, but if people want to find gaps and we give them the opportunity to find lots of them, I am afraid that that is what is likely to happen. We have probably seen that kind of thing happen in the past. If biodiversity gains are to be delivered on the scale that I genuinely think we all agree is needed, we need to ensure that the exemptions and loopholes are limited.
We think that the exemptions for development orders could have a very broad application in practice, particularly if they are extended to the full range of development orders, which include local or neighbourhood development orders, and development orders brought forward by development corporations. That could lead to major developments such as new towns, and wider proposals for free ports, being exempt from the biodiversity gain provisions. That is a significant loophole, and a major missed opportunity to deliver biodiversity gains at scale.
The problem that we face, which goes right back to where the discussion started, is that the challenge is pressing and huge. We know that. If we start introducing exemptions and loopholes, we know what happens. It is not an aspersion on developers; we know that lots of people are paid in the development sector to find ways around planning laws. In my part of the world, there are many of them, and they are very good. They are assiduous, and they probably know planning law better than I do—in fact, I think I can guarantee it. That is why we need to ensure that we do not give them extra opportunities to get around it. Clarification on the development orders exemption and its intended scope would be very welcome from the Minister, not least because I think her words might be useful in future, as local authorities try to defend themselves against clever people who are trying to find ways through this.
I am sorry to have to go back to the planning White Paper, but it is relevant because of its proposals. Incidentally —I do not think I made this point earlier—the Minister had to search pretty hard in the planning White Paper to find references to net gain and biodiversity; the mention of it is very tangential. Anyway, the White Paper includes proposals for the extended use of development orders for large-scale development, as well as wider permission in principle.
We fear that significant swathes of development could be taken out of the system of net gain. If I were being kind, I would say that that would be an unintended consequence of the planning White Paper, but I think that there are some who know full well what they are doing with this. It allows the Government on the one hand to say, “Look what we’re doing with our wonderful new Environment Bill. We’re delivering on our 25-year environment plan,” while on the other hand it is business as usual. That is really not what we need. Perhaps the Minister could use this moment to explain how she sees the relationship between the Bill and the planning White Paper. It is highly significant, and difficult, because the White Paper has come along since the Bill Committee was originally formed, but it is hardly irrelevant.
Paragraph 17(b) of the proposed new schedule introduced by schedule 14, which effectively enables the Secretary of State to exempt any type of development in future, could lead to wide exemptions from net gain. I note that in their response to the net gain consultation, the Government have outlined that a “targeted exemption” may be intended for brownfield sites. That is quite a significant statement. For many years, there has been considerable interest in pursuing brownfield sites. I think there is sometimes a misunderstanding that nature exists only in some parts of our landscape. It can, of course, exist everywhere. Brownfield sites are no exception to that. It may not always be as diverse and high grade, but it is still very important to our overall attempt to restore and recover nature.
I understand that some environmental organisations such as Greener UK have expressed concerns that the proposed targeted exemption for brownfield sites could undermine the delivery of biodiversity gain as a whole, if a substantial amount of brownfield land is brought forward for housing development. One can see how that could begin to happen. If it is predominantly brownfield land, frankly, for all our good intentions, we are not making sufficient progress. The sites can have significant biodiversity interest, even when there is no formal biodiversity designation. Under these proposals, we could see damage to brownfield land of high environmental value, which sometimes is not really appreciated until the planning process is well under way. That raises some issues around how the process will happen. At some point in the process, it has to be assessed. The point at which that assessment is done is quite significant. We will come on to that with other amendments.
Will the Minister clarify how brownfield land of high environmental value will be protected and enhanced? What steps will the Government take to ensure that any brownfield site exemption does not undermine our goal of biodiversity gain as a whole? Will she also clarify by what process any future exemptions will be considered by the Secretary of State before being pursued under the broad power in the Bill?
Will there be any public consultation on further significant exemptions from biodiversity net gain? That is a very important point. In my part of the country, which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will be familiar with, we have a very engaged electorate, to put it mildly, which is a good thing, but it means that people are interested and would not want to be excluded from a discussion. It would be hard to exclude some of them, frankly, but they should have a proper, formal role in that discussion, and a sense that their involvement affects the outcome. Otherwise, it leads to further disenchantment in the way our politics works.
There is a range of weaknesses and loopholes, even before we get to what I have described as the real whopper. It is deeply concerning that nationally significant infrastructure projects and other large-scale infrastructure projects are currently exempted from mandatory biodiversity gains. That is a bigger discussion, but it is a factor in this discussion. We know that such projects can cause significant damage to nature and we believe that provision must be made to include such developments within the scope of mandatory biodiversity gain, in line with the Government’s 25-year environment plan to embed environmental net gain in infrastructure. We will return to this point later in Committee when we discuss new clause 32.
Amendments 170 and 171 would strengthen what the Government are trying to do, by removing the potentially very wide exemption from net gain for development orders, and remove the broad power given to the Secretary of State in the Bill to lay down regulations exempting further development from biodiversity gain as and when they wish. We are genuinely interested in the Minister’s response. I have posed a series of questions. We do not seek to divide the Committee on the amendment, but it is important that people in the wider world get a sense of what the Government are trying to do through this measure.
The Chair
I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I call Dr Alan Whitehead. I am terribly sorry. I would be most grateful if you would indicate more clearly if you wish to speak. The order of speaking goes from the proposer of the amendment to the Minister, but if you wish to add anything, please indicate that to me by standing up or by any other method that is clear.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that and I reiterate my first sentence. The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gain, and we have made that quite clear.
Amendment 170 would undo the exemption for permitted development from the net gain requirement. Permitted development rights play a vital role in freeing up local planning authorities to deal with planning applications that really matter to local communities, and have a wider social, economic and environmental impact. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that from his time on the planning committee at the district council. Many permitted development rights are for small-scale development or changes of use, such as modest alterations to buildings, small fences or temporary use of land for fairs, where there is little or no impact on biodiversity.
Development undertaken through local planning orders is not exempt from net gain, as we have touched on. Only development under the general permitted development order, such as adding a conservatory, is exempt. It is true that we have extended the scope of the permitted development rights in recent years in order to deliver more homes, but permitted development rights such as allowing office-to-residential conversions and allowing residential blocks to be built up are principally about the use of existing developments and development land, and so are generally outside the scope of biodiversity net gain.
Brownfield sites were mentioned. It is not the Government’s intention to exempt brownfield sites. We absolutely recognise the biodiversity value those sites can have and, indeed, their value to communities—many of them are right in the centre of towns and cities. Any brownfield exemptions will be narrow and will have to recognise biodiversity value. We will consult further on the details of exemptions. For example, brownfield sites will have a set of criteria that would relate to them when these matters were being considered.
Special development orders are rarely used, but it is important to retain the legislative flexibility to make them very quickly to respond to urgent priorities. For instance, in recent years they have been used to secure urgent planning permission for the temporary lorry parks as part of the Brexit preparations, and Members will be able to see the benefit of that and why it is important to do that quickly.
New towns were also touched on, and we are aware that there are extant powers in the New Towns Act 1981 to use special development orders to set out the planning framework for new towns. There are no plans to use those powers at present, and the Government recently consulted on modernising the planning powers of development corporations to ensure that they are fit for purpose. However, we are clear that any new town would need to contribute to biodiversity gain: indeed, one of the great things about new towns is that there is the opportunity and scope to make them wonderful, green, biodiverse spaces in which to live. We have learned so many lessons this year about how important those things are.
We think it is right that the legislation is clear that biodiversity gain should not be included in permitted development rights, and that a clear exemption for development orders is the best way forward. I hope I have given clarity on some of those other areas, and for the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments 170 and 171.
Daniel Zeichner
I thank the Minister, and I do think that some of what she said was helpful. However, I have to say that not only was my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test excited this morning; he is now shocked. Being excited and shocked in the same day is a bit worrying, but the Minister will have heard the shocked tones from the Opposition Benches.
I think a close reading of the text gives cause for concern, and I hope that the Minister might, on reflection, look at what she described as “narrow”. One person’s flexibility is sometimes another person’s loophole. There are different definitions of narrow, and some of us can see a yawning chasm—a big gap that anyone who is astride a bulldozer could drive straight through—so we do think there is legitimate cause for concern. Clearly, the permitted development rights extensions have been extremely controversial and a cause for concern, so I am not entirely sure that the Minister’s defence would reassure everyone. Certainly in my part of the world, some huge problems have arisen from some of those changes, and I am not convinced that any concern was given to restoring nature when making those changes. I also have to say that whenever a Minister says there are no plans to do something at present, that is generally a good sign that it may happen sometime soon, so that is also a cause for worry.
I do think this issue needs to be further examined, and I suspect we will be coming back to it. I also suspect that the other place will look quite closely at this, so I do not think today’s discussion will be the end of the matter. However, it is useful to have had it, because if the Bill is not precise, the words that Ministers use become more helpful in defining and limiting.
I suspect that many people will look at the Bill and think that this is too big a loophole, and ask—exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test did—what was the thinking behind doing this? That is the question I keep going back to: why has there been this change from the optimism of a couple of years ago? It may just be that this is what happens in government: officials look at it more closely and say, “You really do not want to do that, because”—and then the Government find that they are losing out on the noble ambition they had at the outset. We are pretty determined to make sure that that noble ambition stays on track.
I hope the Minister thinks we are in being in some way helpful to her; I am sure that is not how it feels at the moment, but she may come to see that in time. With the reset of Government policy, she may suddenly be flavour of the month. Maybe she can feature in a 10-point green plan—who knows? However, we do not need to pursue this issue further at the moment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 172, in schedule 14, page 212, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would commit the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding irreplaceable habitat from the net gain policy.
I am afraid that we are going to go further into the legalities of the planning system. I apologise: mid-afternoon is probably not the time to be doing this, but it needs to be gone into. This amendment is another may/must one. We are concerned about the provisions for net gain in the Bill, and the relationship between this new system and the irreplaceable habitats that, in many places, we treasure and love. These irreplaceable habitats are very precious places and include ancient woodlands, salt marshes, blanket bog and lowland fen, which, if destroyed, are technically extremely difficult to restore, and it takes a hugely long time to do so. By their very nature, these habitats cannot be properly recreated, so this is not a case of providing a replacement or, in any real sense, a gain.
The national planning policy framework sets out that
“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats…should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.
We need further clarity that provisions on biodiversity net gain will not undermine existing protections for irreplaceable habitats. The amendment seeks to explore the complicated relationship between these new provisions and the existing protections.
Schedule 14 gives the Secretary of State powers to define what is meant by “irreplaceable habitat” and to exclude such habitats from net gain or amend how the legislation applies to them. Amendment 172 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make such regulations, such that they “must” rather than “may” make them. Any regulations and associated guidance on irreplaceable habitats should make it clear that current legal protections and requirements for irreplaceable habitats are fully retained and take precedence.
That is the problem with the interpretation of the different pieces of legislation. I suspect that the Minister has probably had these conversations. We want to add clarity to the process. If that is not done, we fear that it will be open to dispute in future. Not only that, but people would also be able to do things that they would not have been able to do before. The theme of some of the upcoming amendments is that there is a danger that something that looks good could end up doing harm as a result of unintended consequences. I am not in any way suggesting that that is the intention, but it is the risk, and that is why it is important that this is sorted out.
The Government should also reiterate that adverse impacts from development should be avoided, not just minimised. Our concern is that if the requirements for irreplaceable habitats are less arduous than those for other habitats, a perverse incentive could be created. We do not want the regulations to do that or to end up with the extraordinary situation of developers being incentivised to target irreplaceable habitats instead.
The Bill should be absolutely explicit that the mitigation hierarchy, existing designations, and statutory and planning protections for sites and species are not undermined by any of the new proposals. Net gain should be what happens right at the end of the process, if planners cannot find a way of stopping damage to habitats along the way. These protected sites should remain inviolate and rely on and benefit from the current protections and systems, which we want to ensure are in no way diminished.
Any regulations proposed by the Secretary of State should be taken under the affirmative procedure, and there should be public consultation because there is very real public interest in these issues. We believe that allowing third parties, including experts in the nature sector, to input into those regulations through public consultation would ensure that new net gain conditions would not inadvertently provide the kinds of loopholes that I have been describing. I do not think that the Minister will disagree with this, but in my experience local people invariably know their own locality best, and we should not be silencing them.
I say again that this amendment is an attempt to tease out from the Minister some safeguards and words of reassurance, and that we will not need to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for looking into this issue and for the amendment. Some habitats include ancient woodland, with which I have a great affinity, having been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees. We did a lot of cross-party work on this habitat. These habitats cannot be recreated and are typically considered irreplaceable. They are of enormous ecological and cultural importance and significance.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister’s helpful comments. I do not think anyone doubts her commitment to those irreplaceable habitats. The key points are ensuring that that message is clear and understood and that the regulations are made, and the relationship between them explained, in the correct way. We are concerned about future arguments as a result of misunderstanding the gaps. We are all trying to get to the same place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 14 agreed to.
Clause 91
Biodiversity gain site register
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 91, page 91, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I am sure you will be delighted, Mr Gray, that we have moved on to another clause, but the previous schedule was a big and important one. The biodiversity gain site register requires another discussion about “may” and “must”. The amendment seeks to tease out the intention behind the measure.
Clause 91 sets out that the Secretary of State may make provision for a biodiversity gain site register to be created. To some extent, this is the last stage of the mitigation hierarchy: it is not something that anyone would want to do, but we recognise that it might sometimes be necessary. It is very important that a register of compensatory habitat sites is publicly available and updated regularly, and that we are able to see how the process works.
All our amendment does is seek to tighten the Government’s responsibility to provide the register by turning it into a duty for them to do so. A register of sites is essential to secure and record meaningful and lasting net gain. I refer to some of my earlier comments: we worry that in some cases there will be not necessarily a lack of will but a lack of capacity to check and monitor. Not only does this have to work, but the message needs to go out that it works, such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said earlier, people will not think, “Well, no one is ever going to check. It’s not going to matter, and after 30 years who’s going to know and who’s going to care?” If that becomes the attitude, clearly this whole process and system will have failed in its intentions.
We do not want a simple tick-box exercise where it looks as if it has been done but no one knows what is happening in the real world. We think the amendment would help check on progress in delivering and maintaining enhanced habitat sites. We think it would help with the checking, monitoring, and enforcement function, even though we worry whether it will actually be done. This is a probing amendment, so we will not seek a Division. The question to the Minister is: why would one not do it? If the net gain system is to be established respective of mitigation hierarchy, it is hard to see why one would not do this as soon as possible.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. It is definitely worth enquiring about this register, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about it.
Clause 91 makes provisions for the creation of a register of these biodiversity gain sites. The register is necessary for the biodiversity gain condition to work effectively. Without a register, no habitat enforcement outside development sites would be undertaken in pursuit of biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, without the register, a development that is unable to achieve biodiversity net gain within its site boundary may not be able to commence development at all. That would block a significant proportion of new development, so the register is useful in a number of ways.
I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of the register and the provisions in this clause, and understand his wish that the powers within it should be exercised in good time. There is a clear need for the Government to design and implement this register before the biodiversity gain condition comes into effect, and I can confirm that, while the hon. Member seemed to suggest that one or may not create the register, it is the Government’s intention to do so.
I want to clarify that this clause provides this power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that will set out the rules and procedures for the operation and maintenance of the new register of biodiversity gain sites. That will include setting fees for applications to add land to the register, criteria for determining eligibility of land to be added to the register, and rules for the allocation of land in the register in relation to developments. The use and nature of the register is likely to evolve, and flexibility will be needed to update its requirements. Before making an order under this power, the Department wants to consult stakeholders. Detailed regulations will need to be in place to provide all parties with sufficient guidance on how the biodiversity gain register will operate. This will help create confidence that the system can achieve the intended environmental outcomes. I hope I am answering all the things that the hon. Member has on his mind.
Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as I have said many times before. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility as to how this provision is given effect. I hope that provides clarity. I think it is a probing amendment, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister. This is a probing amendment, so we will not divide the Committee, but it is extraordinary that it almost seems like a global change has resulted in “shall” or “will” appearing as “may” throughout the Bill. We could do a global change back again. It is clear that the system cannot work without the register, which gives rise to the question: why the delays? The Minister may be slightly nervous, in the sense that she said that we will need to design and implement the register. It comes from a 25-year environment plan from two or three years ago, so how long is this all going to take? She might want to intervene to say roughly how long she thinks it will take, but I suspect she will not want to do so.
Why is there not a greater sense of urgency? To go right back to where we started, it is urgent and crucial that we tackle this crisis, yet in designing the system it appears that there was a presumption that it would take a few months for the legislation to get through and that the register would then need to be designed.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that local authorities in particular will want a system that works, not some flim-flam, half-developed thing that is going to go wrong. That is why it is so important to do it step by step. There is urgency, hence the Bill and all the measures in it. All this has to work with the local nature recovery strategies and the overall nature recovery strategy. The targets and all the rest of it will fit together, and it will come on stream with some urgency. Was that an intervention? Does he agree?
Daniel Zeichner
I have clearly touched a nerve. I am delighted to hear that. All I gently observe is that things move rather slowly sometimes. I am sure that the Minister wants it to happen quickly, just as we all want it to happen quickly and to work. I am not entirely sure that those two things have to be mutually exclusive, but I suppose experience suggests that things do not always instantly work smoothly. I appreciate the Minister’s contribution, and having heard what she has had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 92, page 93, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I am afraid that this is going to sound remarkably similar to the previous discussion. We welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure that developers who cannot achieve biodiversity net gain on a particular site will be required to fund improvements elsewhere, through purchasing biodiversity credits, to make up their required 10%—we would say at least 10%, but that is what the Bill requires—biodiversity net gain. We also welcome that the funds from these credits must be used for projects to enhance habitats and biodiversity. However, we have some concerns about clause 92, which we will interrogate with amendment 11 and amendment 136, which we will come to next. On amendment 11, clause 92(1) uses the wording:
“The Secretary of State may make arrangements under which a person who is entitled to carry out the development of any land may purchase a credit from the Secretary of State for the purpose of meeting the biodiversity gain objective”.
This is exactly the same point as in the previous discussion: the system cannot work unless that is done. The amendment would tighten the Government’s responsibility to operate those credits by requiring them to get on with it—to put it crudely.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister’s comments are helpful. There is concern that if the system does not work appropriately, we could end up with credits stacking up without the work being done, which is clearly not the aim of the exercise. I think that we are all trying to get to the same place, so there is no need for me to re-rehearse the previous arguments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 92, page 94, line 5, at end insert—
“(11) In accordance with the biodiversity metric, the Secretary of State or another person, is obliged to carry out such works as necessary to enhance the biodiversity of habitat associated with the sale of biodiversity credits.
(12) The Secretary of State or another person is required to secure and maintain the enhancement in perpetuity after the habitat enhancement has reached its target condition.”
There is concern that biodiversity credits could undermine the biodiversity gains system as a whole. Our worry—to some extent this touches on my previous point—is that it is obviously uncharted territory. We do not entirely know how it will work, but the key thing, in our view, is that it is linked as much as possible to local priorities. The Minister hinted in her previous reply that it may be a touch optimistic to imagine that local alternatives will always be found, which is the reason for setting this up in the first place, but through the amendment we want to press her on how the Government can guard against the long-term pooling of revenue, instead of funds being used to achieve the net gain that we all want. That is our worry.
We also think—this goes back to an earlier discussion—that it would have been possible to make a requirement for habitats created through the purchase of biodiversity credits to be maintained in perpetuity. I suppose our worry throughout is that, for all the good intentions, it is possible that the system could end up not achieving what we want it to. It could be abused, and could, in effect, buy a way through for developers to access habitats that none of us would want to see developed. That is the danger and the risk, and we want to help the Government, through the amendments, to ensure that is not the case.
We also think that there ought to be a reporting function, and that the added value of biodiversity credits to local habitat creation projects and strategic ecological networks should be set out clearly in an annual report. To ensure transparency, habitats created through biodiversity credits should also be held on a register of biodiversity gain sites. That is partly about ensuring that the mechanisms work in an open and transparent way.
We have had strong representations from both the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association, which are genuinely worried about the possibility that biodiversity credits really will not be reinvested in their own locality. I think that is a reasonable concern. The danger, as those organisations see it, is that communities that accept developments might not see improved biodiversity, which could, in turn, make the process really quite hard to justify to local people. I can see how that could happen.
There is a question about whether credits should be retained by local authorities, so that funding stays in the area where development takes place, and local people can have a say in how the funding can be used to improve the natural environment. What level we should set that at is quite a big question. To some extent, we are trying to tease out from the Minister what she thinks it should be. We think that there is a genuine discussion to be had. I think she has already hinted that she shares my view that the overwhelming priority should be to get new development to achieve net gain onsite and locally, and that offsite contributions and credits should be a last resort. Further reassurance on that would be helpful.
We are placing, through the amendments, two key requirements on the Secretary of State, or any other body charged with using biodiversity credit funds, to ensure that natural sites created or enhanced by biodiversity credit funds are held to a high and lasting standard. I guess one of the running themes through our amendments is the sense of the provisions actually being for the long-term, rather than a mechanism for developers to find a way through to sites that they might not have had access to before.
The first requirement is that all habitat work carried out using biodiversity credits would have to achieve an actual enhancement in biodiversity, as measured by the biodiversity metric. The second requirement is that enhancement be maintained in perpetuity. I anticipate the Minister’s answers, because I think we have heard some of them before, but this amendment is sufficiently significant that, unless she comes back with a miraculous response, we will seek to divide on it.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the importance of the long-term maintenance of biodiversity gains in order to ensure that we provide that long-lasting benefit to wildlife and communities. The Government, too, recognise the importance of those long-term benefits. Indeed, the Government response to the net gain consultation confirmed that through the stated criteria for selecting habitat projects. The response stated that enhancement projects will be selected
“on the basis of their additionality, their long-term environmental benefits and their contribution to strategic ecological networks.”
Obviously, they have to have some real value.
The long-term benefits of habitats are vital, but binding future Secretaries of State to deliver only habitats that can be secured “in perpetuity” risks compromising another of the criteria: that of delivering habitats in strategically critical networks. We would not want to see new habitat creation fail to provide the coherent networks that our wildlife needs because we are bound only to use land that can be secured forever. Where enhancements in perpetuity are an appropriate option, the Secretary of State will have powers under the clause to use payments to purchase land interests in England for habitat restorations, or to secure the enhancements through other means.
With regard to the obligation on the Secretary of State to spend those credit sale funds, I draw the Committee’s attention to the reporting requirement under the clause, which will create a strong incentive for the Secretary of State to spend the funds both promptly and prudently. It was intimated by the hon. Gentleman, I think, that the Secretary of State might be hoarding the funds, but the idea is that this becomes its own trading platform—a bit like the nitrates trading platform, for example. DEFRA would only get involved were the market not working, or potentially just at the beginning when it is getting going. The intention is not that he or she is the banker—that is absolutely not how it should work.
Subsection (6) of the clause should also provide some reassurance. It clarifies that funds may only be used for activities related to habitat enhancement. I think the hon. Member for Cambridge was pressing to ensure that that is what would happen, but that is absolutely what they are for. Furthermore, subsection (10) will ensure that the long-term value of the money received from the sale of credits and the use of biodiversity enhancements can be monitored. That is important as well.
In the light of the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome much of what the Minister has said but, as I intimated, the perpetuity issue, and the concern about what might happen with the system not working and the potential for achieving outcomes other than those we are all trying to achieve, mean that we think our amendment would strongly improve the clause. On that basis, we seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 93, page 94, line 13, after “biodiversity in England” insert
“, including in particular the species and habitats listed in section 41,”.
The amendment clarifies the intent of the duty in relation to the conservation of priority species and habitats.
I am afraid that we are back to some of the interaction with different pieces of legislation. We welcome the change in the Bill to strengthen the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—abbreviated to NERC—so that local authorities have a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity, as well as to follow the obligations of public authorities to plan for appropriate action in order to fulfil their duty and to report on their actions regarding that duty. That is the good news. That is the bit we support.
However, we have some concerns. Public authorities have a key role to play in turning around the state of nature, and the current duty on public bodies to have regard to conserving biodiversity has been rightly criticised for not being strong enough. A House of Lords Select Committee report on NERC in 2018 clearly outlined that
“the duty is ineffective as it stands, as a result of limited awareness and understanding among public bodies, weak wording and the lack of clear reporting requirements and enforcement measures.”
I cannot help but notice that those are exactly the kinds of concerns that I have been expressing all the way through this Bill as well. I guess what it shows is that there is nothing new about the difficulties that people have had trying to do good things but not necessarily doing them in ways that are clear and specific enough to translate into action.
The Lords Select Committee said:
“We recommend that the NERC Act should be amended in order to add a reporting requirement to the duty; the Government should also consider strengthening the wording.”
The measures taken in the Bill to do so are welcome, but we have concerns about the rewording of the duty of public authorities. We want to probe some of those points with some amendments. We will come to the more serious changes, but the first one is proposed in amendment 140. Currently, clause 93 stipulates that the “general biodiversity objective” be defined as
“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.
Our amendment would broaden that to include the species and habitats listed in section 41 of the NERC Act. In effect, it is a clarifying amendment, as we feel that the provisions in the duty could be seen as being too open-ended to guide everyday action by public authorities.
We think it would be more helpful for there to be a direction that the biodiversity duty clearly requires authorities to act in order to further the conservation of the species and habitats listed under section 41. For those who are not familiar with section 41, it is a list of some of our most precious and vulnerable species, from water voles and otters to particular species of orchids and the short-haired bumble bee. We believe the amendment would provide a closer link between the public duty to enhance biodiversity and the species that need the most attention. Although I will listen with interest to the Minister’s comments, I do not think it is an amendment on which we will seek a Division.
Rebecca Pow
I appreciate that the intent behind the amendment is to ensure that action that might be taken under the biodiversity duty is effective and is targeted where it is most needed. At the same time, one of the strengths of the duty is that it is broad, and we want public authorities to consider all functions when determining the best action to take. That could be action on limiting their biodiversity footprint or addressing wider, indirect impacts on biodiversity, such as from transport policy, water use or energy consumption. We would not want to stop authorities considering such action, even inadvertently, by focusing their attention on what can be done for a targeted set of species and habitats. Also, there are some 943 species, some of which the hon. Member for Cambridge named, including the hairy bumble bee.
Rebecca Pow
There are some fantastic creatures and 56 habitats of importance on that list, as set out under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Interpreting this list and the actions required is likely to require specialist knowledge, which may not be available within every public authority.
In complying with the strengthened biodiversity duty, public authorities must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy. If Government amendment 222 is agreed to, public authorities must also have regard to relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies, which will help public authorities to identify the actions with the most benefits for biodiversity, including for species and habitats listed in section 41 of the 2006 Act. I therefore suggest that the amendment is not needed; indeed, it might constrain public authorities’ actions to conserve and enhance biodiversity. While I think that it was a probing amendment, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Daniel Zeichner
We will not press the amendment to a Division. While the Minister and I might have a slight difference of opinion, the approaches are legitimately different. I was grateful for her reference to the short-haired bumblebee. Like many Members, I am a species champion. I stand up for the ruderal bumblebee, although I have never had the pleasure of meeting one—I live in hope. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 93, page 94, line 18, at end insert—
“(1ZA) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must exercise those functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective.”
This amendment requires public authorities to apply the biodiversity duty in the exercising of all of their functions.
This is a slightly more serious amendment, in the sense that this is a more difficult issue, as we think that the clause has a couple of key weaknesses. Section 40 of the 2006 Act currently states that any public authority must,
“in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”
That implies a biodiversity duty in all day-to-day public authority decision making. As it stands, although the new duty widens public authorities’ responsibility to both conserve and enhance biodiversity, the wording narrows the application of the duty. Its current drafting applies only to actions taken in line with specific policies and objectives developed in relation to clause 93(3), which requires authorities to consider from time to time what action they can take to further the biodiversity objective and to take the actions appropriate to do so.
I apologise that this is slightly complicated, Mr Gray, but, yet again, we see the interaction between different forms of wording in various pieces of legislation. The risk is that the Government are changing the duty on public authorities to have regard to conserving biodiversity in all their functions to a duty on conserving and enhancing biodiversity with specific considerations that they must make from time to time. The reach into their everyday functions is not made clear.
This is, I guess, a discussion about how local authority members should make their decisions—what they should take into consideration and when. We fear that a key opportunity is being missed to improve the effectiveness of public authorities’ biodiversity work, namely by requiring them to factor in the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity in all decision making, including statutorily required planning and spending decisions. This is actually quite a big issue.
Biodiversity work is in continual danger of being marginalised. I referred to that when I spoke about my experience as a councillor, and I suspect that others will have had the same experience. This is not a criticism of councils or local government—they are under pressure, and many, many demands are put on them. However, if we have the challenge of restoring nature to a level that every member of the Committee would agree is what we are seeking, and if that is actually going to happen, the agenda needs to be taken up in local government. Embedding biodiversity into all public authority decision making is vital to ensure that we do not miss the opportunities that are available.
During my time as a councillor, I very much enjoyed our discussions but, as I have said, I do not think I could honestly say that I recall, when we came to make big decisions—we did make some quite big decisions, such as when the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital was discussed, which was referenced at today’s Health questions—any discussion around biodiversity, although we tried to take many things into account. It would make a real difference if biodiversity was central to decision making.
It is worth noting that the House of Lords Select Committee identified the “have regard” wording in the current obligation as the main reason, in its view, why the duty has been ineffective. That point has not been properly addressed. “Have regard” is a perfectly innocuous term, but it is just that—have regard in passing, not as a central part of decision making. We would welcome an explanation from the Minister on that point.
The amendment would fix the problem with the current wording of legislation and prevent biodiversity opportunities from being missed by requiring public authorities to exercise all their functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective. That would prevent biodiversity being siloed. It would be rendered as a critical factor to be considered in all public authority decisions, including statutory planning and spending decisions, which can have significant impacts on nature and biodiversity.
Rebecca Pow
Our purpose in strengthening the current biodiversity duty is to ensure that public authorities take robust action to drive nature recovery. It is absolutely not the intention for biodiversity to become siloed, as the hon. Member has just said. He referred to the Norfolk hospital planning having no reference to biodiversity. I do not know what year that was—
Rebecca Pow
How times have changed. That will change—biodiversity will come into the general parlance. This is an ambitious duty. All public authorities will have to undertake a thorough consideration of what they can do to enhance biodiversity at least every five years, and then take action. As I said before, they will need to have regard to local nature recovery strategies and, if Government amendment 222 is accepted, relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies will provide information, data and tools to identify the most beneficial action to be taken in the region.
Clause 93 requires all public authorities to take a broad look across all their functions to identify the action they can take that would be most beneficial for nature. In our view, the strengthened duty in the Bill strikes the right balance by supporting action to conserve and enhance biodiversity while retaining the flexibility for public authorities to balance competing priorities. The amendment risks distorting those priorities by requiring public authorities always to exercise their functions to further the objective of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Public authorities must retain the power to decide the best use of their resources. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge, having been a councillor, appreciates that point.
We expect public authorities to look across all their functions and prioritise the actions that will have the most impact, in contrast to the existing biodiversity duty, which is a reactive duty. It is intended to be universal but, as we know, in many cases it has not driven action on the ground, as the hon. Member suggests. The amendment risks replicating the reactive nature of the existing duty by requiring a case-by-case assessment of each individual function and decision to ensure that it is furthering the biodiversity objectives. We would thereby lose the advantages of the more strategic view, which allows the most effective measures to be prioritised, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I hear what the Minister says, but the amendment is crucial to tilt the balance in local authorities. On that basis, I wish to divide the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 93, page 94, line 42, at end insert—
‘(1G) In this part, “public authority” has the meaning given by section 28(3) of the Environment Act 2020.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 147, in clause 99, page 99, line 16, leave out “95” and insert “93”.
Amendment 148, in clause 99, page 99, line 31, at end insert—
‘(4) “Public Authority” means—
(a) a Minister of the Crown, a government department and public body (including a local authority), and
(b) a person carrying out any function of a public nature that is not a devolved function, a parliamentary function or a function of any of the following persons—
(i) the OEP;
(ii) a court or tribunal;
(iii) either House of Parliament;
(iv) a devolved legislature;
(v) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, a Northern Ireland department or a Minister within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’
Daniel Zeichner
We tabled these technical but important amendments to interrogate the definition of “public authority” in the Bill as it applies to the biodiversity objective and the local nature recovery strategies—they are linked. Amendment 139 is consequential on amendment 147 and would clarify the meaning of “public authority” under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 by using the definition set out in clause 28(3) of the Bill, as that particularly strong definition would apply well to biodiversity provisions. It would make it clear that the term “public authority” would apply to local authorities or organisations
“carrying out any function of a public nature”,
which would ensure that bodies with key public statutory undertakings, such as water companies or rail providers, would have a responsibility to comply with the enhanced biodiversity duty.
Such bodies might not be included in a narrower definition, and that is important because we know that they have many responsibilities, or a lot of land or many rivers to look after. Keeping them within the ambit of the biodiversity duty would therefore give them a much stronger incentive to do the right thing. Such bodies’ legal status or corporate structures might be different from those of local government authorities, but they still provide key public functions. Amendment 148, like amendment 139, would make it clear that the term “public authority” in relation to local nature recovery strategies applies to planning authorities and all planning functions.
Amendment 147 would amend clause 99, which currently provides definitions of a “local authority” and a “national conservation site”. However, that clause applies only to clauses 95 to 98, which set out provisions for local nature recovery strategies. Our amendment would extend the definition of local authorities and national conservation sites to the Bill’s broader provisions on biodiversity objectives and reporting—clause 93 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; and clause 94 on biodiversity reports. Yet again, our proposals would strengthen the Bill, so my question to the Minister is: why would she not choose to support us on that?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments—I shall rattle through them.
Amendment 139 would change the definition of “public authority” in relation to the strengthened biodiversity duty to that used in clause 28. Taken together, amendments 147 and 148 would have the same effect. Clause 93 does not alter the definition of public authority under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but clause 28 represents a different approach: it is drafted to be UK-wide, and then has carve-outs. Amending the definition to that in clause 28 would not make a significant difference to the bodies covered by the duty, although it would mean that the parliamentary estate would not be captured.
Amendment 147 would apply two additional definitions to the Bill’s biodiversity duty provisions, the first being “local authority”. The definition in clause 99 is very similar to the existing definition in section 40 of the 2006 Act. However, that definition includes parish councils, so the amendment would remove parish councils from the scope of the biodiversity duty—[Interruption.] “Shocking,” says the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
I accept that many parish councils are very small and have limited resources, but they are likely to make a contribution to local biodiversity and we do not want to exclude them from the duty. I speak from experience: the hon. Member for Cambridge might have been a district councillor, but I was on my parish council for 10 years—I am very proud of it. We did a great amount of work on biodiversity, including by planting a chestnut avenue and creating a village garden out of a piece of tarmac. There is biodiversity if ever I saw it—we walk past it every day.
The second definition, “national conservation site”, is not a term used in the Bill’s biodiversity provisions, so applying it would have no practical effect. On its own, amendment 148 would have no effect. It would insert a new definition of “public authority” into clause 99. The definitions in clause 99 apply to the provisions relating to local nature recovery strategies, which are set out in clauses 95 to 98, but the term “public authority” is not used in a way that has an effect in those clauses.
I hope that that information was helpful, and I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification and I endorse her comments about parish councils. I, too, started on a parish council, and as a district councillor, I diligently attended my five parish councils regularly. They have a hugely important role to play. We were trying to widen the scope of the bodies that would be drawn into the process. That might be something that we need to revisit in order to embrace both points, which would be a good outcome.
The amendments were probing, so we will not need to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 93, page 95, line 1, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) the authority must act in accordance with any relevant local nature recovery strategy in the exercise of relevant public functions, including strategic and local land-use planning and decision making and in spending decisions, and in particular in complying with subsections (1) and (1A).””
This amendment would ensure that Local Nature Recovery Strategies are considered in day-to-day planning and spending decisions by public authorities.
Amendment 137 addresses a key issue in the Bill’s current drafting regarding local nature recovery strategies, which we welcome. If they are implemented properly, the strategies can enable a wide range of organisations to contribute to measures needed to address the biodiversity crisis and deliver the Government’s ambitions in the 25-year environment plan, in particular by supporting the creation of a nature recovery network.
By identifying local biodiversity priorities, including restoration opportunities, we think—I am sure that the Government agree—that policy integration and better value for money could be achieved at the same time as saving nature. I suspect that we all have good examples from our areas, but I am sure that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire will join me in praising Natural Cambridgeshire, chaired by Richard Astle, and the excellent work that it is already doing through its nature recovery toolkit. I believe that the hon. Member addressed Natural Cambridgeshire recently. I hope to do so again soon, and I will be keen to bring news of a strengthened Bill.
At the moment, despite local enthusiasm, the duty to use local nature recovery strategies is very weak. It is included in the duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity under clause 93(5), which requires local authorities to “have regard” to the strategies when making plans to conserve or enhance biodiversity, but that risks creating obligations for local authorities to develop local nature recovery strategies, thereby expending precious local resources, only to see that that effort might be wasted through a failure to give the strategies any influence on real decision making. That is a problem.
The duty should be a much stronger requirement to take the strategies into account in the exercise of public functions, including in the statutory planning system and in spending decisions. This mirrors arguments that I have previously made. Unless such a change is made, there is a real risk that local nature recovery strategies will overburden local authorities and once again risk sitting on the proverbial dusty policy shelf.
This is not a criticism of local authorities, but a reflection of the fact that many are already hard pressed and will not have the capacity to do what is asked of them. When I raised this previously, the Minister reassured me that all necessary funding will be made available under the Bill. I liked her reassurance, but she was not able to point me to where that was specified. I invite her to do so again, but I do not think she will be able to do so, because it is not specified—it is just an aspiration. This is not a party political point, but anyone who has been in local government well knows the problem that while central Government frequently make promises, the outcomes rarely transmit. They often end up in general funding, and we are told that it is in there somewhere, without clarity that it is enough. It is important to note that the success of the measures in general will be dependent on the Government making those funds available. I recognise that at this stage it seems difficult to predict the costs—there was some discussion in the impact assessment about how it was not entirely clear how much would be needed—but I ask the Minister how the Government intend to carry out an assessment of how the new duties operate and how they can ensure that resources are available to make the duties work.
The strategies are potentially a very useful tool. If they work well, they could effectively co-ordinate the actions of multiple stakeholders and direct local use of biodiversity gains from the planning system, environmental land management systems and other sources, helping to build and maintain ecologically coherent networks and nature recovery sites. That leads me back to the 25-year environment plan, particularly page 58, which is littered with “we will”, “we shall” and “it will happen”, including the statement that we
“will coordinate our action in England with that of external nature conservation…as well as farmers and land managers.”
That is great, but I have to ask when that will happen.
I had the pleasure of being an Opposition spokesman on the Agriculture Bill, and we were begging constantly, and tabling amendments, for an integrated approach between this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I am afraid that we were constantly knocked back. Here we are, just a few weeks from the beginning of the phasing out of basic payments, and we do not have ELM schemes in place. The Secretary of State will have to deliver a fix in 10 days’ time. I am happy to be corrected by hon. Members on the other side if that is not correct, but that is what I hear. While the sustainable farming initiative sounds fine, it is a missed opportunity to link to the local nature recovery strategies that we are discussing today. Because of this weak duty to apply the strategies in decision making, I am afraid the potential that these have may well fall short.
Amendment 137 aims to strengthen the duty to use local nature recovery strategies by requiring all public authorities to “act in accordance with” any relevant local nature recovery strategy in exercising their duties, including the statutory requirements, planning and spending decisions. That would make a big difference and deliver real change, and that is why I worry that it is not in the legislation as it stands at the moment. It is essential to ensure that the local nature recovery strategies actively influence important day-to-day decisions that affect nature.
Fleur Anderson
I, too, would like to support amendment 137. I can picture the scene in the drafting committee. One group wanted to have “act in accordance with”, to make the duty very strong so “we would definitely put this into action”, and on the other side was the “must have regard to” group. I would like to speak on behalf of the “act in accordance with” group, and it was a mistake that the “have regard to” group won the day.
The provision for planning to work for nature is very welcome, but there is a risk that it will be stalled indefinitely if we do not have the amendment in the Bill. The duty to use local nature recovery strategies is very weak. The environmental coalition, Greener UK, has similar concerns. The amendment would embed biodiversity in public authority decision making, because here the rubber hits the road—or the hedgerow or the greener area of a siding. The amendment includes complying with spending decisions, and that is what will ultimately decide whether this is put into action.
There is great potential for these strategies to be a highly effective tool, and I welcome the five pilot schemes, as I know the Minister does. However, as it stands, the potential will not be realised because the duty is so weak. The amendment would ensure that local nature recovery strategies actually influence day-to-day decisions that affect nature. There are two examples of how that would work out in my constituency. We have many wonderful green spaces which have “friends of” groups, and they are knocking on the door and trying to get the attention of the local authority all the time. It is not a given that that will happen. Those groups really care about biodiversity, but the day-to-day work of the local authority is not reflecting that.
I have a very active save our hedgehogs group, and I am surprised that they have not been mentioned this afternoon up to now, so I want to put that straight. Those vulnerable mammals have been in decline by 30% in urban areas and 50% in rural areas since 2000. That is dreadful. If the local authority will have regard to the local nature recovery strategies, rather than acting in accordance with those strategies, there is a danger that the work to reverse the decline of hedgehogs will not happen. There is a mention of hedgehogs in the environment plan, but this amendment would cement action to save hedgehogs and all other biodiversity in our planning system.
Rebecca Pow
Some strong points have been made about local nature recovery strategies. I think we all agree that they are a good idea. When I was a trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust many years ago, it was working on a similar idea to that which is now coming into legislation. Subsequent Government amendment 222 changes the provision so, if accepted, public authorities will be required to have regard to species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. However, I will speak only to the original purpose of the amendment now.
We want public, private and voluntary groups to engage openly in the development of local nature recovery strategies and for this to follow through into their implementation. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Putney is asking for, so that those hedgehog highways and interlinking runways through fences in towns will stay there. I love a hedgehog as much as she does. I had some rescue ones from the rescue centre sent to my garden. We need to look after our hedgehogs.
Requiring public authorities to have regard to a specific document is an established and effective means of achieving that aim. I have discussed this with the officials. They have convinced me that this is the right terminology. We should also be mindful that public authorities have a wide range of existing duties such as housing, health and social care, which have to be considered. Some flexibility to take these wider considerations into account is important. Similarly, local planning authorities are required to balance a wide range of important considerations when establishing their planning policy for this area. I am keen that we continue to work with the planning system, rather than create complexity by making separate demands on planning authorities. The spatial information provided by the local nature recovery strategies will support the development of local plans.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to set out clearly the role for local nature recovery strategies as part of the ongoing planning reforms. The work has already started, and it has been clear that this must be an integral part of our future going forward. Those five pilots will inform the local nature recovery strategies. They have already been announced and money has been agreed for them. We will learn a lot from those about how these strategies will work.
We want the reformed system to play a proactive role in promoting environmental recovery and long-term sustainability. We have really high ambitions for the local nature recovery strategies in helping to do this. They are a crucial tool towards the whole endeavour of biodiversity from the ground upwards. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for enlivening our discussions late in the afternoon—well past teatime, in some people’s view, which I understand—and for introducing hedgehogs into the discussion. I had a side bet with one of my colleagues as to how long it would take for the Minister to raise a hedgehog highway. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney because that allows me to mention Nora the rescue hedgehog. The Cambridge Wildlife Trust allowed her to escape down a hedgehog highway in my sight. I am not sure where she went, but hedgehogs are very important.
The problem was confirmed by the Minister, who admitted that she had been convinced by her officials that this is the correct terminology. We do not think that it is the correct terminology; it is not strong enough. I invite the Minister perhaps to go and have that conversation again. That point takes us back to the beginning of our sitting, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and I questioned why some of these things are as they are. I am led to conclude, I am afraid, that despite the admirable enthusiasm, there are flaws in the process.
The Minister said that we do not want to put too many demands on planning authorities. Actually, we do want to put demands on planning authorities; that is exactly what this will be about if our goals are to be achieved. We get distracted by the hedgehogs and the bumblebees, but at heart there is a serious question of allocation of resources, effort and money through the planning process. That is often what it is about, and my fear is that, wonderful though much local effort is, sadly if it cannot be translated into action it will go on being just good effort, without the kind of gain that we want to see.
I suggested at the beginning of our sitting that there were some villains in the piece, and I think the Committee has a sense of who I think one villain is, but it is not just about the current Prime Minister. It is worth remembering that in 2011 the then Chancellor, George Osborne, described the EU habitats directive as placing
“ridiculous costs on British businesses”,
and spoke about companies being burdened with
“endless social and environmental goals”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807-808.]
The point is that there is a view out there that this is all “green crap”, as another eminent former Prime Minister described it. That is why we are worried, why this matters, and why the Bill needs to be strengthened.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman used the word “villain” with regard to the Prime Minister. He might wish to withdraw it as unparliamentary.
Daniel Zeichner
I withdraw the comment. [Interruption.] But I would like to press the amendment to a Division. I was distracted by the pantomime.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rebecca Pow
The overall purpose of this group of amendments is to enable better species and habitat conservation in England as part of the Government’s commitment to growing back better, faster, greener. They will allow for the creation of two new types of strategies and will resolve inconsistencies regarding the licensing of development.
New clause 25 will allow Natural England to create species conservation strategies, which are innovative approaches to safeguard the long-term future of species that are at greater risk. The strategies will be developed using up-front surveying, planning and zoning across a wide area. Natural England will then develop measures to mitigate, or compensate for, the impact on species— from building projects, for example. This approach helps to avoid the need for reactive site-based assessments and mitigation.
The legislation is based on the successful district-level licensing approach to the conservation of great crested newts, which have already been mentioned today. An area is comprehensively surveyed in advance and a licensing strategy is developed. Up-front mitigation work is then carried out to cover the creation or restoration of ponds in areas that are known to provide the best habitats for newts to thrive in. Developers then make a conservation payment and can begin work without delays.
New clause 26 will allow Natural England to prepare and consult on protected site strategies. These will enable the design of bespoke solutions for sites that are affected by a combination of different impacts, such as pollution from agriculture and pressure from development. Protected site strategies are also based on existing, innovative schemes such as that in the South Humber Gateway, which has unlocked development on hundreds of hectares of land while creating 275 hectares of new wet grassland for birds, and is held up as something of a model.
For both species conservation and protected site strategies, local planning authorities will be placed under a duty to co-operate with Natural England. They will also be required to have regard to relevant strategies as they carry out their planning functions. These new strategies will deliver better environmental protections through simpler processes, and are therefore fully aligned with the proposals set out in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. The planning reforms will reinforce the implementation of these measures.
Amendment 222 adds an important provision to support the new strategies. Clause 93 strengthens the existing duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It also requires public authorities to have regard to local nature recovery strategies as they do so. This amendment extends that duty so that public authorities must also have regard to any relevant conservation strategy or protected site strategy as they consider what action to take, so the three kinds of strategies are designed to work together. The local nature recovery strategies will be a system of strategies covering the whole of England, and will identify where action can be taken to reverse the decline of nature as a whole. Species conservation and protected site strategies are more bespoke, targeted measures to help protect specific species and sites that are at risk, and are intended to ensure public authorities comply with legal protections in a way that achieves better outcomes for nature. It is therefore important to make this amendment, to ensure public authorities have regard to all three types of the new strategies.
Finally, new clause 27 makes three changes related to protecting species licences granted under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those changes are intended to unlock the full potential of strategic licensing for protected species. First, the new clause will introduce an additional “overriding public interest” purpose for granting a licence. Secondly, it will introduce two additional tests that must be met before a licence can be granted if
“there is no other satisfactory solution, and…the grant of the licence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of the species”.
Thirdly, the new clause will extend the maximum permitted licence period from two years to five years.
Taken together, the amendment and new clauses strengthen the nature chapter of the Bill and help to protect and restore species and habitats at risk, while also enabling much-needed development. I have rattled through them, Chair, and there is a lot of detail there, but I commend amendment 222 to the Committee.
Amendment 222 agreed to.
Daniel Zeichner
I think I may have missed a point. We discussed all those new clauses, did we?
The Chair
There was no sign from the Opposition that the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss Government amendment 222, so it was passed. Therefore, we will move on to Government amendment 223. If you are waiting for votes on Government new clauses 25, 26 and 27, they will come at the appropriate point in the consideration of the Bill—not now.
The Chair
Hang on, this is not a general conversation. It is of course possible that if anyone in Committee wishes to have a stand part debate, they may do so at the appropriate moment. That is absolutely fine, but it is not to become a discussion.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”.
This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
This amendment makes a small change to section 41 of the NERC Act. The section requires the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of species and habitats that are of principal importance to conserving biodiversity. The amendment will change the requirement to “conserving or enhancing” biodiversity.
The language mirrors that of the strengthened biodiversity duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, as amended by clause 93. The duty will require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The amendment will therefore create consistent language across two related sections of the NERC Act.
When the list is updated in future, the amendment will allow wider consideration of which species and habitats should be included. That is consistent with our intention, as expressed in the 25-year environment plan, to improve beyond merely trying to maintain the status quo—or conserving—and instead recovering and restoring nature. This small amendment further signals our ambitions to enhance biodiversity.
Daniel Zeichner
I regret to say that we have some extensive questions about clause 93 as amended, which may not come as a welcome moment for the Government. I get the sense, however, from looking at the Government Whip, that he may think tea has come.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)
Environment Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsThursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. As with amendment 18 on the resource efficiency information power, it is not appropriate to have a duty to take action on all products or to specify particular products in advance. Our intention is to use the power to set resource efficiency eco-design requirements for products where the greatest benefit can be realised. As I did in respect of amendment 18, I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to approaching the making of any regulations in that way.
It is really important that we have flexibility on setting standards on products that come to light as critical. It is not possible right now to identify products in advance, as it very much depends on industry practice, the environmental impact that the particular group of products being considered might have on the environment, and the feasibility of setting minimum eco-design requirements.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Sir George. The Minister is making a fine speech, but on all the “may” and “must” issues I find myself casting my mind back to children on the streets on Fridays, as they left their schools, to demand climate justice, and huge numbers of people expressing concern about the urgency of it. Would she really feel comfortable standing in front of those groups of people and dithering in this way on issues that need to be dealt with urgently?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his slightly cheeky intervention. We are talking about the Environment Bill. I have outlined the difference between “may” and “must” in great detail. Importantly, we are not stopping it happening, but it has to happen in the right way and on the right products. A great deal of stakeholder engagement has already happened with industry and will continue, because industry has to be able to do such things, and we have to bring industry along with us.
I will give a good example of where we might soon need to use the measures. Evidence has suggested that absorbent hygiene products might be a good place to start. Similarly, we have identified some other waste streams. The powers might be useful on textiles, furniture, electronics and construction materials, so the provision will genuinely be used and it will genuinely be useful.
I believe that the prioritisation approach will also provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable time span. It will also facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise the powers, as the hon. Member for Newport West recognised. For those reasons, I believe it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than a duty on the Government to set standards, and I therefore ask her to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. We have made considerable progress on food waste, and we will come to discuss some wider aspects of food waste later in the proceedings. Nevertheless, she rightly states the principle: if a piece of waste which would otherwise be taken out and processed in certain ways is stewarded through that process, knowing that the outcome of that process is a good outcome, that process can be much more easily streamlined to ensure that what was waste becomes a resource.
For years, the Environment Agency has been trying to tackle the many instances where something that goes into a waste stream, such as bones residual to animal rendering, carcases and various other things, may well be treated as hazardous and have particular measures apply to them. However, if those bones can be transferred for the making of bone china, that industry can take the bones and steward them through the process of becoming a resource for undertaking what the industry wants to do. That allows what looked like a problem to become a solution. That is just one example—perhaps, not a terribly good example—but there are many examples of that in industry, where one industry’s waste, which may be classified in particular ways, is desperately needed as a resource for another industry, which cannot unlock that resource from it being waste. We have never properly gotten to grips with that in this country.
The concept of stewardship, whereby what is a piece of waste can be certified as being stewarded, ready for the purpose of becoming a resource, has never properly been defined in regulations or in law. Hence, often by the time we have gotten around to thinking that something is a particular resource, it has already been disposed of down a particular waste stream and is lost for that resource purpose.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. As he spoke, I thought of some of the examples that came up in the covid-19 crisis in the food chains, where we were at risk because one part of the system relied on another in exactly the ways he is describing. What struck me is that the economies of scale are critical. Are we not much better being part of a wider, bigger system that allows us to use things that are potentially regarded as waste? With a small, narrow system, they cannot be reused, but they can be if we are part of a bigger system.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The concept of a larger system through which all of this works is key to this whole discussion. Indeed, what we have been talking about, and what the waste strategy document says about the circular economy, means that putting this into a wider frame of how we circulate products through the economy, so that we do not pull virgin materials in and that everything we are using as it goes through the economy is reusable, recyclable or replaceable in one way or another, is essential to a resource-efficient and low-carbon waste and resource economy.
In this part of the Bill, we are essentially replacing elements of the waste framework directive with UK law, but does not seem to me that what we have done allows the sort of processes that I have described to be properly incorporated in regulations so that the circular economy arrangement can be expedited. Does the Minister consider that the regulations that will be associated with schedule 7 are capable of allowing those sorts of changes to be made, to the benefit of the recycled and reclaimed resources industry in the UK; or does she consider that we have missed an opportunity here, and that further legislation and/or regulations may be necessary to ensure that that can be done?
Rebecca Pow
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is overcomplicating the issue. Through the measures in the Bill, every single person who makes something will have to think about what it contains, what it is made of, what is going to happen to it, where it is going to go, who is going to reuse it and how long it will last. I think the issues he is worried about will solve themselves, in a way. If he wants more detail on that, I am sure we can write to him.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on. The schedule considers eco-design. Clauses 49 and 50 and schedules 6 and 7 describe resource efficiency powers, which complement various other powers in the Bill, including the extended producer responsibility—that very much touches on what I have just said. They aim, as a minimum, to ensure that we can be ahead of the curve internationally and, ideally, to enable us to lead the way. Acquiring resource efficiency powers is an essential step towards delivering against the goals of the 25-year environment plan and the resources and waste strategy, and achieving net zero by 2050. I believe that all the things in the schedule will help that work.
We are ahead of the curve even compared with the EU on this matter. Once we have acquired the powers, it will be possible to set requirements for all products, whether they are energy related or not. That is not yet possible for the EU. At present, its eco legislation extends only to energy-related products. On those grounds alone, we are ahead, which I hope my hon. Friends and hon. Members will be pleased about.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 51
Deposit schemes
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am slightly anxious that she is talking about further consultation here, because the public just want us to get on with this. They are fed up with being consulted. They have given their views and they want it to happen now. As Greta Thunberg and all the young people, certainly in my constituency, are telling me, “Get on with it. We cannot afford to wait for you. This planet has to be there for us tomorrow.”
Daniel Zeichner
That is exactly the point. I was tempted to intervene on the Minister, but she seemed reluctant. The call from people out there is that this needs to be got on with. I do not understand why the Government persistently delay. There is a danger that the Government could be accused of virtue signalling.
Ruth Jones
That is an interesting point. As my hon. Friend said, if the Government are serious about this, they need to get on with it and they need to be seen to be getting on with it.
Environment Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsThursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
Rebecca Pow
All the district councils in Somerset join together for that scheme. It works extremely well and it is very straightforward. All other local authorities will follow a similar model, so there will no longer be a postcode lottery with one place where they do collect it and another where they do not.
For the first time, there will also be a requirement, as was raised by the hon. Gentleman, for non-domestic premises and businesses to arrange to have the same recyclable waste streams as households, separately collected, with the exception of garden waste, and for them to present their waste in accordance with those arrangements. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is getting a bit muddled in his interpretation of what he is reading, because what is envisaged is clear.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not mean to usurp my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who I am sure will follow immediately afterwards, but I think much of that is to be welcomed—certainly weekly collections. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Local Government Association has caveated its support with a request for funding to be made available to carry those out. Can she point to where in the Bill that guarantee is given?
Rebecca Pow
We have made it very clear from the beginning that burdens to local authorities will be covered. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to write to him in more detail about that, we can, but that has been made quite clear.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who has made a very good case for the amendment. I am puzzled about why the world is not more excited by the Bill at the moment. Given the wider world’s interest in environmental issues, one would expect it to be on everyone’s lips. Of course, Greta Thunberg laid out the challenge: she does not trust a single politician, and here was the opportunity for the Minister to respond and to become a politician Greta Thunberg might trust. Part of the problem is the lack of ambition in the Bill, and that is exactly what the amendment inserts into it—a sense of urgency.
I suspect that hon. Members have been into primary schools and talked to young children. I used to do that often, and I was struck by how many times environmental issues came up. I have had numerous letters from schools, and the issue of waste being transported elsewhere comes up time after time. So many of our fellow citizens do the right thing. In so many households, particularly in a city such as Cambridge, people go to huge efforts to recycle, but then they ask themselves where it goes. When they read—possibly even in The Guardian occasionally—that all is not well on this front, it really demoralises them. They think, “What’s the point?” They are doing their bit, but their Government are not doing the bit that only Government can do.
That is why there is an opportunity to strengthen the Bill. The Minister should welcome the opportunity the Opposition are giving her today to do that and to perhaps begin to be able to say to the wider world that these things really are worth supporting. With all the caveats, all the “mays” and all the reasons why these things cannot be done yet because they are too difficult and complicated, the feeling out there in the wider world among the people we represent is that there really is not the sense of urgency that the situation requires.
Dr Whitehead
I echo my hon. Friend’s claim that the amendment is very important for how the country is seen to deal with its waste, and particularly for how we are seen by our own population. Hopefully, we are seen in a positive light. All that we have discussed about recycling, single-use plastics and such things is based, to a considerable extent, on the public’s confidence that what is going to happen is actually what does happen. If the public think that none of what is being said to them is true, the chances of them co-operating—by sorting everything into different bins, ensuring that things are returned, and stopping dumping things in hedges—will be undermined.
The fact that we are seen to be dealing with our own waste properly and safely, and that we are not simply using the export of waste as a safety valve for our inadequacies in processing waste fully in our country, ought to be something that should concern us very much. Frankly, that is what has happened over a number of years with our waste exports. We do import some waste, but we export quite a lot more than we import. The waste we import is usually waste that can be used for energy from waste and various other things, such as refuse-derived fuel. The waste we export is not only of a much wider variety, but actually goes to parts of the world where, in many instances, we cannot be sure—and certainly, people there cannot be sure—that the destination for that waste is of the standard we would expect if that waste were disposed of in our own country.
The Minister has said this legislation would ensure that we do not export waste other than to OECD countries. That sounds very reassuring, until we look at membership of OECD countries. It is not, shall we say, EU members and a couple of other states in the world. It is actually a wide variety of states across the world: for example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Turkey are members of the OECD. Therefore, that is not necessarily the quality standard route, as far as safety valves are concerned. The best thing to do is probably to ensure we have sufficient recycling collection, processing and reuse facilities here, so that we can really deal with all our waste in the UK. That is not just a practical thing; it is a moral obligation we have for the future, as far as waste management is concerned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West mentioned, what we really do not want is repeated scenes—not just repeated scenes, but repeated extremely embarrassing scenes—of bales of waste, mainly consisting of plastic, going to countries we think will quite easily accept them and say nothing, but that are now beginning to say, “This is not good enough. The quality of this material is not right. It is not what we thought it was going to be, so you can have it back.” That is not just one instance—Sri Lanka; we have form on this. This has happened with several countries, including Malaysia, which sent back 27 bales of waste. Indeed, I put a written question to the Minister a little while ago about how that had happened, what was going to happen with that material when it came back to the UK and whether it would be properly dealt with and disposed of.
Part of the reason these things have started to happen is that some of our traditional destinations, in terms of what have historically been fairly lazy assumptions about export of waste, have drawn the drawbridge up themselves. China’s great green wall policy means that the Chinese no longer want to receive anything that looks vaguely usable that we might put in a container back to China, and that we cannot work on the assumption that they can somehow reprocess some of it and will be quite pleased to do so because that will help their economy. They do not want it. They have put a green wall up to stop these things happening.
That has meant that the waste exports have gone to other countries, which it was thought are less particular about what they want to receive and, indeed, probably happy to receive stuff that is not what it says on the tin or on the bale. One issue from this particular return of bales of waste to the UK was that they were claimed to be high-quality waste that could be reused and remanufactured by those countries for recycling purposes. However, they were not. There was all sorts of old stuff, to coin a phrase, in those bales, and it was way beyond the standard that they would reasonably accept. Two questions arise from that. First, what were we doing continuing to export in that lazy way to those countries? Secondly, why did what I thought were our internal checks and balances to ensure the quality of what we export fail to work?
We have potentially considerable work to do. If we are to continue to export waste at all, we have to get our act together and ensure that that waste is as good as it could be and is absolutely not going to the wrong places. The Opposition think that the best way to deal with plastic or mostly plastic waste is simply to say that by 2025 we will stop doing that. Yes, that gives us a challenge, because we currently do not have sufficient good-quality plastic recycling facilities in this country, particularly those that can properly separate the 25 or 26 different kinds of plastic and put them at the right level in the plastics hierarchy so that we do not end up only making traffic cones with the plastic we recycle.
With plastic recycling, the production level of the plastic going into the system needs to be commensurate with the recycling that takes place, so that the plastic can be recycled at that level. For example, food-grade plastic has to be recycled with other food-grade plastic. If it is contaminated with anything else, it stops being food-grade plastic, recycled or not. Indeed, if we are not careful, it all goes to the bottom of the plastic hierarchy, and we get massive amounts of park benches and traffic cones and nothing else.
We need better facilities in this country for recycling and reprocessing plastic that can be recycled properly, according to the hierarchy. That is partly why the amendment says:
“from no later than March 2025.”
That would give us the space to start getting our act together in this country and ensuring that facilities are available to recycle properly. We really cannot accept, and I do not think any of us would want to accept, that exporting waste should in the future be seen as a safety valve for our own inadequacies. It has to be different from that. The amendment underlines why it has to be different, how it can be different and how we can set an example to the world by ensuring that we deal with what arises from our own backyard in our own backyard and do not send it out across the world, for purposes that we do not know too much about and that the people concerned are obviously increasingly upset about when it gets to them.
This is an important amendment that we hope the Minister will accept entirely in the spirit in which it is intended. I know that she is absolutely committed to those high standards in our waste management, and I hope that she will accept it in that spirit.
Draft Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to be back with the Minister. Yesterday we were on the Environment Bill Committee and we will be on it again tomorrow.
CITES is widely praised and supported and is very important. I first came across it in detail during the 2015 general election. The city of Cambridge has an extraordinary number of husting events—25 to 30 of them—and one was devoted entirely to CITES. That tells us something about Cambridge, as well as about the importance of CITES. One of the speakers on that occasion was none other than Tony Juniper, who now of course chairs Natural England. At the time he was a candidate for the Green party.
One of the pleasures of the statutory instrument process is that our debates are often prefigured by discussion in the other place, so it is possible to see what others have said. The introduction of my colleague Baroness Jones of Whitchurch was so good that I feel little need to change it. She said:
“The CITES international agreement is an absolutely vital protection for endangered wild animals and plants, as the Minister explained. We know that the trade across borders is worth billions of pounds. It covers exotic live animals as well as animal products and plants. Sadly, it attracts some of the most unscrupulous international gangs, which will readily flout the rules in pursuit of profit. So it is crucial that we have robust laws to ensure that the rules are properly enforced and that no loopholes can be exploited. So far, we on these Benches have supported the UK Government’s leadership on international co-operation with CITES, although we believe that they could have moved faster to enforce and expand UK laws to protect endangered species.
It is important that the regulations before us today are absolutely watertight. This is particularly important as the application of the Northern Ireland protocol opens up a new dynamic in border control. We do not want any minor discrepancies between the different regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and, by extension, in the single market—to unintentionally open loopholes that could be exploited by criminal gangs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC261.]
In the Minister’s opening remarks, she cited the UK’s influence at the 2019 conference of the parties. She mentioned some of the 93 new species that are afforded protection, including—I picked similar examples—the swallowtail butterfly and several species of gecko and newt. Sadly, there is no additional protection for newt counters, nor indeed for Prime Ministers who think that concern for such creatures is to be derided. I suspect there are differences of opinion on the Government Benches on the policy on newts. The Minister will be delighted to know that this is a subject to which I will return in the coming days.
I also take issue with the statement in the explanatory memorandum that there is no impact. We need to think about the real-world consequences. There may be no change in legislation, but there certainly is a significant impact on the people who have to administer these systems. The Minister has talked about additional staffing. There was a time when Conservatives would instantly say to a Labour Government, “Where’s the money coming from?” It is coming from businesses, so there is impact out there.
I also note with joy the term “operability fix”. The Minister in the other place talked about “consolidating operability fixes”—a marvellous piece of jargon, which I think basically means pulling together a whole range of previous errors, mistakes, gaps and so on. However, it is a difficult process and I pay tribute to those who had to draft this stuff. Anyone who has read through it—I am sure people have read in detail the 25 pages of changes attached to the statutory instrument—will have seen how much work must be going into the process.
The Minister said that documentation will now be required at the UK border. I ask her to confirm where that border is. I suspect it is somewhere in the Irish sea—the place where the Prime Minister said no border should ever go. Perhaps she could also tell us where the border posts will be and tell us a little more about staffing. She says that APHA has increased its staff numbers. Of course, “increase” is a very vague term. By how much has it increased its staff numbers, and by how much does it need to increase them to make the system work?
ClientEarth raised detailed questions in its correspondence with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which were pursued by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I would like to go through those so that we have the answers on the record. It pointed out:
“Regulation 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(r) remove references to the ‘committee’ and the ‘scientific review group’. Other parts of the regulations, including Regulation 7(5)(b)(ii)(aa) and 7(5)(c)(ii)(aa), remove requirements to consider to consider the opinion of the scientific review group before the domestic scientific authority can advise on the import of wild species. Whilst the UK will no longer collaborate with other Member States in this way, the loss of this collaboration mechanism with other scientific bodies is disappointing. In addition, in certain instances references to the scientific review group are replaced with references to a ‘scientific authority’, but in other instances the role of the scientific review group is not replaced.”
We do have a reply from DEFRA, but I have to say that I found it slightly insulting. It basically makes the assertion that we are the best in the world and there is nothing to worry about—we could possibly be described as “world-beating”. I think a little more humility might be useful sometimes. It goes on to say that we are no longer “bound by EU structures”, which implies that those somehow weaken the process. It goes on to talk about our scientific authorities, which are of course very good:
“The Joint Nature Conservation Committee…for fauna and Royal Botanic Gardens Kew for flora”.
Of course those are good, but is it not always better to collaborate? I would be grateful for the Minister’s view on how we might better collaborate in future.
The second question, I am afraid, leads to another equally complacent answer, which led the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to say that although DEFRA may be confident about that, it is not convinced that the measures in place do not
“pose a risk of spreading disease.”
That is a serious concern about the holding of particular specimens.
The third question asks about collaboration and the enforcement group, currently at EU level, for which there is no apparent domestic equivalent. The responsibility would pass to the National Wildlife Crime Unit and Border Force. Can the Minister explain what that enforcement group did before and how it will be replicated? My guess is that it will be a question of oversight. If so, there may be an observation that the National Wildlife Crime Unit is very pressed. Some hon. Members will remember that, a few years ago, there were real questions about its future funding. In 2016, it was given a four-year funding settlement, which brings us to today. Anyone who has been involved with it knows what excellent work it does and how hard pressed it is to do it. That raises the question whether it will be able to take on extra responsibilities.
ClientEarth’s final question is about the removal of sanctions and seizures. DEFRA says in reply that that is already in the domestic enforcement legislation. Is it an exact equivalent or are there differences?
In general, can the Minister confirm how the UK will continue to collaborate internationally to prevent the unlawful import of wild species? Although she is likely to assert that the effect of the regulations will not be a weaker regime for the implementation and enforcement of CITES in the UK, can she provide any evidence of that? It is all very well to assert it, but what independent assessment has been done? I suspect that the answer is, “Truthfully, we don’t know. Only time will tell,” and that, as with all our other environmental protections, despite the bluster and spin, they will be weaker next month than they are today.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for his comments and the raft of questions. He has obviously looked closely at what has happened in the other place and has put the measure under a great deal of scrutiny. I will set it in context quickly, then run through as many of the questions as I had time to note down, because they were coming thick and fast. If he feels that I do not cover something, I am happy to follow up afterwards, if that is acceptable.
To prepare for the end of the transition period, it is essential to have the right legislation in place to continue to protect our endangered species, in accordance with our international obligations, to ensure that trade does not threaten the survival of those species in the wild. The UK remains absolutely committed to supporting work on CITES. The hon. Gentleman was slightly derogatory about our global leadership, but we are recognised around the world for our scientific lead on this issue—that is genuinely true—and we will not lessen or weaken that in any way. Indeed, there might be opportunities to strengthen it, which I would be keen on.
As hon. Members know, I am a great supporter of our National Wildlife Crime Unit and, as a Back Bencher, I fought to get that money committed for it. I think the hon. Gentleman was involved in that as well, from the other side of the House: it was a joint initiative. I was interested to hear about the CITES hustings that he attended, which sound fascinating.
Daniel Zeichner
On the National Wildlife Crime Unit, is that funding secured for the future? I am not necessarily expecting the Minister to give an answer today, but it is an important point.
Rebecca Pow
It is an important point. I am really annoyed with myself, because I read about it last night and I cannot lay my hands on the actual details. May I write to the hon. Gentleman about that? Certainly, it is in there and it has been highlighted. I will give him chapter and verse in writing.
The instrument will achieve that protection by ensuring that relevant regulations can operate properly after the end of the transition period. It will make operability changes to retained EU law, ensure implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol with regard to CITES and consolidate amendments made by earlier instruments that have not yet come into force, to make regulation clearer and more accessible to all who use them. The important thing is that there will not be any changes to policy, other than those necessitated by the Northern Ireland protocol. That should give some assurances.
I will go through some of the comments. I hope I can give some more useful background. The hon. Gentleman referred to our scientific involvement. As we have left the EU, we will no longer participate in or be bound by the EU structures, including the EU scientific review group, under CITES regulations applicable to GB, but our scientific authorities, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee for fauna and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, for flora—which is, of course, world-leading—will continue to provide advice on a range of CITES matters and to collaborate internationally with other CITES scientific authorities as appropriate. Our involvement in the convention to which I referred demonstrates that we will not be weakening in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might somehow weaken our combatting of the illegal wildlife trade. It is essential that we keep our eye on that. The draft SI will not weaken that. The UK is and will remain a world leader in the fight against the illegal wildlife trade. In 2018, the UK convened the largest ever global international wildlife trade conference, at which 65 countries signed up to the London declaration committing to take urgent and co-ordinated action against the illegal wildlife trade. That is not something we will suddenly drop. Through our internationally renowned IWT challenge fund, we have committed £26 million since 2014 to 85 projects around the world that directly counter the illegal wildlife trade, including projects to reduce demand, to strengthen enforcement, to ensure effective legal frameworks and to develop sustainable livelihoods.
Draft Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd, and it is a pleasure to continue the conversation with the Minister. I note a sense of humour has been introduced to this place. Whoever thought we would link organic products with genetically modified organisms? If I brought those two groups together in my constituency, it would be a fiery exchange.
One of the benefits of the current process is that the discussions we have in this place are often mirrored in discussions elsewhere. This instrument was discussed at some length yesterday in the other place—longer than it will be here today, I suspect. The organic products SI also refers, of course, to a similarly named SI that was discussed back in March last year, in that extraordinary pre-no deal panic period. Many of the arguments are therefore very well rehearsed.
Looking back at that debate, it was quite fascinating. Some of the characters involved as Back Benchers now occupy very senior positions in the Department, including the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who I think managed to name check almost every organic producer in her constituency in her excellent speech on that occasion.
We can all be proud of the organic sector, with its 6,000 producers, at least. It is very important to customers and producers, and its potential was discussed at some length in debates on the Agriculture Bill. The European Union has recently made a major commitment to organics up to 2030, which could have significant consequences for our own producers.
While the SI is limited in policy terms, the threats—or challenges, depending on how we want to see it—are grave and should not be underestimated. Looking back at earlier debates, the same key themes keep emerging. Today’s SI deals with one extra complication, which is the Northern Ireland protocol.
I was very struck by two points in those previous debates. The first was the wise words of my predecessor, Dr David Drew, who drew attention to just how complicated some of the negotiations are, not just with the European Union. He mentioned the long time it had taken to get equivalence agreements with the United States, for instance. I gently suggest that there could be some work here for the Trade and Agriculture Commission to get its teeth into fairly early on, to make sure that we can make good progress on such things.
I was also struck by comments at a recent meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on dairy from Richard Hampton, chief executive of Omsco, which I think is the second largest organic co-op in the country, responsible for two thirds of our organic milk. He was very worried that our £280 million export market into Europe faces some jeopardy at the moment not only because the EU has yet to recognise our organic standard, but because shipments will require export health certificates and higher costs. That is a series of very pressing issues, which I hope the Minister will update us on.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
As chair of the dairy group, I appreciate the hon. Member’s membership. We had a very wide-ranging discussion around Operation Brock and some of the challenges in the dairy sector. Does he agree that expanding some of the very tight restraints within Operation Brock to incorporate organics, dairy and cheese would definitely be a help to much of the sector?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the work that the hon. Gentleman does convening that group, which I have found fascinating on recent occasions when I have been able to join. I very much agree that there are important opportunities as well as challenges at the moment.
One issue that came up in yesterday’s debate in the other place, as well as in previous discussions, involves the IT systems that may or may not be in place. I wonder whether the Minister can help us on TRACES—the Trade Control and Expert System—which is used to monitor and track some of the organic produce coming in. In the debate in March last year, the now Secretary of State talked about a new IT system that would be ready in good time for our departure from the European Union. The then Minister, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), clarified that it was the TRACES New Technology import system that was being replaced
“with a manual system for an interim period for organics”.—[Official Report, 18 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 896.]
At the time, an autumn 2020 implementation was hoped for. I ask the Minister for an update on whether that has happened. It seems relevant, because new challenges are introduced by this SI on GB-NI movement. Yesterday, the Minister in the other place was able to say only that we
“continue to discuss access to the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System New Technology—TRACES NT—for imports into Northern Ireland”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 992.]
That question is certainly worth pursuing.
I echo the question raised by Baroness Hayman of Ullock yesterday on the existing derogation for porcine and poultry feed into 2021 and 2022, which the Minister raised in her opening comments. Yesterday, the question was: what will happen after that period? How will that be resolved? Will it be rolled forward? Will there be a review? Will there be a consultation? I do not think that the answer yesterday was particularly clear.
My main contribution this afternoon will be to draw attention to a very important letter that was sent from a range of organisations in September to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The group included the organic control bodies, the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, the Food and Drink Federation and many more. They raised a series of concerns about the issues touched on by today’s SI and more widely.
I will quote only the part that is relevant today. They said:
“We are writing to you as representatives of the UK organics sector with a deep concern about the future of trade in organic products between the UK and the EU…Unless equivalence is secured as part of the UK-EU negotiations, British organic food producers will not be legally allowed to sell their products in the EU or in Northern Ireland, due to its status as part of the EU’s regulatory regime.
Global sales of organic products are rapidly approaching £100 billion and the UK is the world’s 9th biggest organic market worth £2.6 billion in 2019. Consistently strong growth in global consumer demand represents a significant opportunity for UK producers.”
That is very much as the Minister laid out. They went on to say:
“The EU market alone has seen a doubling of per capita spending on organic food in the last decade with the new EU draft policy Farm to Fork highlighting the growth and opportunities across the organics market. With the right deal in place, there remains very strong growth potential for organic trade between the UK and EU after the transition period ends… UK Organic Control Bodies have applied for recognition under the EU Regulation (EC) 1235/2008. In the event of these applications being successful but without an equivalency agreement in place, then any product destined for the EU, or potentially destined for the EU, would need to comply with Regulation (EU) 2018/848 and its delegating and implementing acts. It is estimated that around 80 per cent of UK organic operators would need to be certified to both the UK regulation and the EU regulation.
From a certification perspective, the control bodies will face new lengthy processes, having to certify to two regulations (the UK organic regulation and the EU regulation), issue nonconformances relating to each and issue two separate certificates. This will lead to significantly more administration as there will need to be accreditation to both the EU regulation and UK regulation, adding cost and regulatory burden to UK business.
Unless equivalence is secured as part of the negotiations, it would bring significant practical and financial problems… Manufacturers in Northern Ireland are likely to lose access to some essential sources of organic ingredients or products produced in Great Britain in favour of products from EU member states which will be able to be imported without additional administration, or certification requirements.
When exporting not only would British producers have to create new packaging with any reference to ‘organic’ removed, potentially increasing food and packaging waste, they will also lose their premium status and will quickly become unviable in terms of recouping the cost of production.”
I could go on—there is plenty more—but that quotation shows that there is a real issue. I ask the Minister to explain what our organic producers are to do in the face of such chronic uncertainty.
Yesterday, the Minister in the Lords expressed “hope” that the EU will reciprocate our recognition. He confirmed that six UK control bodies have individually applied for recognition by the EU. But here we are, six weeks before the key date, and we have got ourselves into this extraordinary position. He also confirmed that these applications are independent of the Government’s negotiations and not covered by any potential deal—what a mess.
I turn briefly to the GMO statutory instrument. We appreciate that during the passage of the Agriculture Bill, there was a debate in the other place about technological developments in gene editing. We very much welcome the Government’s assurances that no change will be suggested without a full and proper review. These are complicated issues that merit wide and full public discussion and debate. However, for the purposes of this SI, the issue is only about ensuring that the legislation works within Great Britain; each Administration will continue to make their own decisions.
I again echo a question posed by Baroness Hayman yesterday:
“if the UK were to grant a GMO authorisation to a product that did not enjoy similar accreditation at the EU level,”
what would be the impact on movement within the UK—that is, between GB and NI?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. 990.] She also asked whether the UK will maintain equivalence to the EU on GMOs, particularly in the context of the UK-US negotiations, and what potential impact that would have on our ability to export agricultural products to the EU.
I appreciate that these are major questions, and I wish the Minister well in attempting to answer them, but I do think they show the very difficult situation we are now in.
Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsTuesday 10th November 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman will have accepted already that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have tried to assert robustly—this is accepted on all sides—that the OEP should be truly independent and should undertake its activities in that spirit of independence. We have tried to point out that a number of measures in the Bill would undermine that independence by putting constraints on the way in which it acts.
Secondly, we have tried to ensure that the OEP is set up in such a way that it is fully transparent and organisationally accountable for what it does. Those two things go together: the OEP should be fully independent, and it should be set up in such a way that that independence is based on accountability and transparency in its actions. Clause 38—I remind hon. Members that this is a clause stand part debate, not an Opposition amendment—appears to suggest that the OEP has an option to be less than transparent in its dealings with the public in relation to public statements. That is a substantial caveat on a requirement. It is a “must”, not a “may”. It “must” publish those statements, but the caveat is that if the OEP thinks that it is not in the public interest, it does not have to do so. On the face of it, that is resiling from the second principle that I set out: that the OEP should act in a publicly transparent and accountable way.
What I want from the Minister is either an explanation of why that subsection has been placed in the Bill or to know whether there could be a potential challenge to the subsection, which appears to enable the OEP to decide, regardless of any other criteria, that it feels something would not be in the public interest. If the OEP decided that it would not be in the public interest to publish a statement—so no such statement would appear and people would not know even that a statement was about to come out—what would be the potential challenge, and what machinery exists elsewhere in the Bill that one may not yet have seen that would enable criteria to be applied to how the OEP considers what is in the public interest or otherwise? All hon. Members will agree that if the question of public interest is subjective and internal to an organisation, that is not necessarily a good test of what the public interest might be considered to be.
That is why this is a stand part debate: it is a question to the Minister, rather than a suggestion that this clause be removed.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Gray. My hon. Friend is making important points. In paragraph 340 of the explanatory notes, there is a comparison with how the European Commission works. One of the key issues is: is this system now stronger or weaker? Does my hon. Friend believe that this is a more or less transparent process?
Dr Whitehead
As my hon. Friend suggests, it is a less transparent process than before. It appears that, in this clause, we are retreating from the principle of transparency. Of course, I may be completely wrong, and there may be factors, to which I hope to be pointed shortly, that mitigate or dissolve that concern. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that, or point to things that mean that the clause, odd though it looks in terms of transparency, is not as bad as it seems on the surface.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment on the meaning of the natural environment. Obviously, we discussed this previously in some of the earlier clauses relating to heritage and such. I recognise that the natural environment does not exist in a vacuum and that our interactions with it and use of it create a heritage that we should be proud of, as I think we all are. It does not exist in a vacuum—the shadow Minister himself touched on this—but I believe it would be inappropriate to include the elements in the amendment in this particular definition, given that one of its key aims is to determine the scope of the functions of the Office for Environmental Protection.
The OEP must remain focused on its principal objective of environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. It is not its place to investigate complaints against breaches of legislation such as that concerned with cultural heritage such as listed buildings, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire touched on, listed building consents or protection for ancient monuments. There is a raft of legislation that deals with all those things, and that is not the role of the OEP.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister back to the Committee. This is a fine distinction, but does she not agree that, in so dramatically excluding “buildings or other structures”, the Bill goes too far, and the amendment is an attempt to bring it back slightly?
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Amendments 125 and 193 have similar intentions. My amendment was meant as a probing amendment. I will not revisit the areas that the shadow Minister has eloquently gone through. My assumption was that the marine environment was considered for inclusion here and the decision was taken to exclude it. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the rationale was for that.
Obviously, marine life is just as vital to the global ecosystem as terrestrial life, and the health of marine environments also needs to be protected. There may be some other agencies responsible, which the Government reckon should do the job, but surely there is a good case to be made for an agency with an overarching view of these tasks and challenges for the whole environment. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a short clause, but it is very important. I am fortunate to represent Cambridge, a city with some fantastic environmental organisations. The David Attenborough Building is renowned. It houses the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, which includes the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fauna & Flora International and BirdLife International. I was fortunate to visit them a while ago, when I was preparing for a Westminster Hall debate. I was briefed by a range of dazzling experts. I was struck from their presentations by how many talked about the marine environment. I had not realised how significant it was. That was very much the term they used throughout their recommendations and advice to me.
I know the Minister cares passionately about the marine environment. I remember a Prime Minister’s Question Time when she questioned the showering habits of the Speaker. It is amazing the things that people remember. I should be clear that she was referring to the microbeads in Mr Bercow’s shower gel. I do not doubt the passion that she feels for the marine environment.
That leads me to question, given that we all agree on this point, why it cannot be put in the Bill. I believe the Government intend to include it. If there is such resistance to putting it in the Bill, it is either because each side wants to defend its position and does not want to give way, or there is something a bit more sinister.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister says no. She might want to think about that, maybe not this morning, but as the Bill progresses. I would have said that including that one phrase would strengthen the Bill from the Government’s point of view and not leave people wondering what other treasures close to our land mass some parts of Government organisations have their eye on.
Rebecca Pow
I think that is quite a good example, but the hon. Member for Cambridge might come up with another.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not come up with a counter-example, but I think many would draw a very different conclusion from the Minister’s example. I am not a lawyer, but we are advised that the term “mainly” is mainly ambiguous in law. Others have suggested that “related to” would be a better term. Why have the Government chosen “mainly” rather than “related to”?
Rebecca Pow
Just like the hon. Gentleman, we have also taken a great deal of advice and have used “mainly” for the reasons that I have set out. Although the OEP could still prioritise, it would be unhelpful for stakeholders were the OEP to be concerned in a huge range of issues that have only minor or tangential links to environmental protection or improvement.
It is important to note that the definition is already broader than it might initially seem because it applies to individual legislative provisions, so it could be part of a wider Act or statutory instrument. That means that even if most of an Act or statutory instrument is not mainly concerned with environmental protections, any specific provisions that are considered environmental law would come under the OEP’s remit. It is also worth noting that the term “mainly” is not prescribed in the Bill. The OEP and public authorities will therefore be able to interpret it in accordance with its normal—another legal word—meaning.
I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but the amendment is not necessary or appropriate because the existing definition is sufficiently broad and balanced with the need to maintain the OEP’s focus on the protection and improvement of the natural environmental. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I would like to. This amendment, as hon. Members will see, Mr Gray, was tabled by two previous members of the Committee. With the effluxion of time, however, they are no longer members of the Committee, for reasons of ascent—
Dr Whitehead
Elevated indeed, to higher and more august posts in the Opposition ranks. They are therefore no longer on the Committee, but that does not mean that what they put forward should have less consideration by the Committee.
The fact that additional consideration should be given is underlined by the information that we received just before the Committee met, which was that the Government proposed to table amendments that will come up later in the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestation in supply chains and the due diligence to be carried out in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Members will see from the latest marshalled list of amendments that those amendments—a new clause, which we will debate later, and a defining amendment that will be debated a little earlier than that—have now indeed been tabled.
The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial parts of another amendment that was tabled by some hon. Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we will debate much later. This concerns the question of due diligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, for example, and various other elements such as that. I suggest that my amendment was an essential defining part of new clause 5, which has in effect been run with by the Government in the proposals they have just tabled. There is a complete chain of connection between all those.
In that context, what is missing from the Bill is a definition not just of environmental harm, whether direct or indirect, but of what is meant in that context by the global footprint of environmental harm or environmental activity. By tabling their amendments, the Government are strongly indicating that the global footprint of environmental harm is a key element of the Bill.
I am delighted that the Government have tabled their amendments, because they cover an area that a lot of people have been concerned about for a long time. We will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, but the fact that the Government have considered the issue, listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—
Rebecca Pow
That was a massive canter or, actually, a gallop. We have whizzed on. The amendment and new clause will provide a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) concerning its enforcement policy. The OEP will be required to have regard to this guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and in carrying out its enforcement functions. This is an important new provision, which will allow the Secretary of State to seek to address any ambiguities or issues relating to the OEP’s enforcement functions where necessary. We expect the OEP to develop an effective and proportionate enforcement policy in any event, but Secretary of State guidance can act as a helpful resource for the OEP in the process. For example, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP relating to how it should respect the integrity of other statutory regimes, including those implemented by regulators such as the Environment Agency. That could also be invaluable to resolve and clarify any confusion that may arise regarding the wider environmental regulatory landscape.
As the Minister ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP’s use of public money, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to act if the OEP were not exercising its functions effectively or needed guidance from the Secretary of State to be able to do so, for instance, if it were failing to act strategically and, therefore, not taking appropriate action in relation to major systematic issues. The new clause will not provide the Secretary of State with any power to issue directions to the OEP—that is important—or to intervene in specific decisions. Rather, the OEP is simply required to have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcement functions. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in line with the provision in paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which requires them to
“have regard to the need to protect”
the OEP’s independence. That is important as well.
Rebecca Pow
May I just finish? Any guidance must also be laid before Parliament and published. That means that the process will be transparent, and the Secretary of State will ultimately be accountable to Parliament.
There are precedents elsewhere in legislation for this type of approach. For example, the Climate Change Act 2007 provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Committee on Climate Change—a body that is considered to be highly effective and independent.
Daniel Zeichner
This is very important, and it came as a surprise to many of us that the Government are introducing it as an amendment. Will the Minister explain why it was not in the Bill originally? What was the process that led to the introduction of these amendments?
Rebecca Pow
As usual, much debate and discussion went on. It is all about transparency and clarity for the OEP—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is raising his eyebrows. The Opposition are always seeking to suggest that there is something underhand going on, but I wear my heart on my sleeve, and this is all in the interests of transparency. There is a whole flowchart about how the OEP will remain independent. Schedule 1(17) sets out that the Secretary of State must be aware of the independence of the OEP. It is about giving much more clarity and focus to the way that the OEP will operate.
Amendment 221 is a consequential amendment to schedule 3, which provides an option to extend the OEP’s funtions to apply to devolved matters in the future. As the functions conferred by schedule 3 are devolved, the amendment ensures that, if schedule 3 comes into force, any guidance issued under new clause 24 will not apply to those devolved functions. Amendment 221 is therefore necessary to ensure that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. It leaves the Government the flexibility to assist the OEP through guidance if ever necessary while ensuring that it remains an independent enforcement body. In the light of that, amendment 221 is essential to ensuring that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland.
Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsTuesday 10th November 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
Rebecca Pow
Yes, taking up the baton on behalf of the Opposition. May I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 4? The Bill creates producer responsibility obligations in respect of specified products or materials. That is one of a number of provisions that will enable us to take action significantly to improve the environmental performance of products across their entire life cycle—from the raw material used, to end-of-life management. Other powers in the Bill include our ability in schedule 5 to require producers to pay disposal costs for their products; our powers in schedule 6 to introduce deposit return schemes; and the powers in schedule 7 to set resource efficiency standards in relation to the design and lifetime of products.
The Government need the flexibility to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes that we want. Imposing producer responsibility obligations in all cases may not be appropriate. The power is drafted in a way that gives us the flexibility to choose the appropriate measure or combination of measures for any product, and to decide which producers are obligated, the obligations on them, and the steps that they need to take to demonstrate that they have met their obligations.
In this instance, we will use these powers to introduce new regulations for producer packaging responsibility. That will increase the reuse and recycling of packaging and reduce the use of unnecessary and avoidable packaging. In 2019, we consulted with the devolved Administrations on proposals to reform the regulations, and we will consult again in 2021, so it is a lengthy process, but a lot of discussion has informed this. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we made commitments relating to updating our already up-and-running producer responsibility schemes on waste electricals, waste batteries and end-of-life vehicles; these powers are needed to implement those commitments. We also committed to taking action to address food waste.
Products vary. They have different supply chains, use different materials and have different impacts on the environment. That is why we need to be able to introduce product-specific regulations, using the appropriate powers. This power provides the flexibility to impose producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so, and that flexibility would be removed by the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw it.
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.
Food Supply: Covid-19
Daniel Zeichner Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Eagle, albeit very briefly. I am sure it will be a pleasure to serve under Ms McVey’s chairmanship too.
[Esther McVey in the Chair]
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), who speaks with great passion and knowledge. The shadow DEFRA team appreciates all the work and effort he puts in. It is also a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I thought he rather undersold his Committee’s report.
Daniel Zeichner
It is not only timely but extremely important. I am possibly somewhat biased. I came to this role somewhat unexpectedly just after Christmas, and although I had done rural policy many years ago, it was not recent. No one at that time imagined that we would be going into the kind of year that we have had so far and, sadly, it looks like we will continue to have.
One of the consequences of that was that I and the shadow team quickly found ourselves in the unusual position of having a dialogue with many of the people who came to give evidence to the Select Committee, in some cases on a weekly basis. On behalf of the shadow DEFRA team, I want to thank Ministers for the access that they gave us at the time—it felt like the door had been cracked open slightly. We are beginning to see just a little of how Government operate. I have to say that we did not get to see very much, but sometimes in those conversations we began to get a sense of how Government work, or maybe do not work—I will make one or two observations on that—and it was appreciated.
It also meant that, from the conversations I had regularly with some people, particularly those who gave evidence, I recognised in the Committee reports what had been going on for many months. I was a shadow Transport Minister in a previous Parliament, and nobody ever explains to you how to do things in this place. Having been on a Select Committee, I realise how much hugely important information is derived from Select Committees. I suspect that the right way to do it is to be on the Select Committee first and then to be a shadow Minister, but it does not always work like that.
Sadly, we come here today at the start of a second national lockdown. Almost the first thing to do is to pay tribute to all the people in the food production system, from farm right the way through to shop, right across the food sector, including charities and all workers in the supply chain. It must be said that in those early conversations there were genuine anxieties and concerns about the supply chain, because it was not clear that it would survive. In the beginning, we did not know how many of the workers would fall prey to covid. It is fair to say that we were fortunate that it did not spread through the workforce in the way that some of us had feared, but that was not guaranteed, and we saw the issues in the shops. It was difficult in a trying period. It was a good example in this place of people working together to make sure that we kept things going.
The report quite rightly asks a series of detailed questions. Any Government faced with that kind of crisis will not get it all right, so I hope that my criticisms, as they are, will be taken in a constructive spirit, because anyone would have struggled with it. There were some important lessons. The first goes back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby. Frankly, there is a level of food poverty and insecurity in this country that was already there, and a light has been shone on that to some extent. It is sometimes hard for people in this place to understand what other people’s lives are like. That is a general comment. I look across the Atlantic and I cannot believe that 67 million people have done what they have done—hopefully, 70 million have done the right thing, in my view. The sad truth of the report is that too many people in this country are already in a poor position.
We have already seen a huge rise in food bank use, which is a dilemma for all of us. Whenever I go to my food bank, I always say, “I want to get rid of you.” I am sure that others say the same. We do not want food banks. We should not have food banks in the 21st century, but they have a vital role. The next thing I say is, “Thank you,” because it absolutely needs to be done. The worry is that during this crisis, unsurprisingly, usage has shot up. There were particular challenges for food banks, not least because many of their volunteers were in exactly the age group that needed to shield. It was a difficult period for them. The number of people who came forward to help at that point was encouraging, certainly in my city. I heard that from others too, and it was helped by the fact that they were not necessarily doing other things. As the city unlocked, it meant that there was a transition back again. None of it is easy.
The most recent data from the Food Foundation shows that 14% of adults living with children have now reported experiencing food insecurity in the last six months. That is a trite phrase: “experiencing food insecurity.” What does it mean? It means that they do not have any food. That is an almost unthinkable situation for many of us in this country in the 21st century. A total of 4 million people, including 2.3 million children, are having to make really difficult decisions about what they eat, and then make difficult decisions about nutritional content because they cannot afford to access food.
Some 10% of adults living with children reported that food insecurity has affected their children, forcing them to rely on only a few kinds of low-cost food and possibly unbalanced meals—I am afraid that we have seen cases of people skipping meals altogether. It is only day one of the second lockdown, but I fear that we will see similar issues arising again, and somehow it all seems that much more difficult in winter than in spring, particularly with some of the religious festivals approaching.
This is an issue not just of food supply, but of insufficient income and social support. Labour has repeatedly urged the Government to ensure that the welfare safety net is fit to handle the crisis. Those simple measures that we have proposed include scrapping the five-week wait for universal credit, suspending the benefits cap and updating legacy benefits so that they match the increase in universal credit.
We are not here to re-rehearse those arguments, but it is important that they are put on record, and I think it is pretty incredible, in the face of where we are now, that the £20 per week increase in universal credit is still not guaranteed. I know it is not within the Minister’s gift to make a promise on that today, but I am sure that message will go back strongly. It is quite clear that the £63 million that was put in place, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, was there for a particular time and a particular purpose. We will need it again, so I echo his questions: what is going to be in place, when, and can we get some guarantees on that quickly?
When the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned part one of the national food strategy, he said that Henry Dimbleby had been appointed by the previous Secretary of State—the hon. Gentleman is losing count of Secretaries of State, because by my reckoning it was the previous but one. However, it is an important report and the huge petition that has been running recently picks up those recommendations. We appreciate that they are quite significant and that they are expensive, but the Opposition also recognise that they are what the public are looking to achieve, and I urge the Government to look at them closely. At the start of the pandemic, Labour called for an emergency coronavirus food plan to ensure that everyone in the country has access to nutritious food. I urge the Government to lay out, if not today then very soon, how they plan to meet those kinds of objectives in the period ahead.
The report makes it clear that the Government have made some mistakes. The national free school meals voucher scheme was a particularly trying period. As I think the Chair of the Select Committee pointed out, the Minister is not directly responsible for each Government Department, but she does have an overall co-ordinating role, so it is entirely right and proper that we criticise the scheme that was run by Edenred. I am afraid every MP across the House probably had examples in their constituencies; I certainly did in mine. It was a nightmare, frankly, for teachers doing their best to ensure that children were fed. Again, let me be generous to the Government and say that it is not easy to set up a scheme very quickly, but there were some fundamental problems with it, particularly with the online portal. It was very tough on parents who were facing considerable difficulties accessing it, so it really did not seem to work.
One of the biggest problems was the failure to come up with a scheme that gave those vouchers to shops where people live and shop. I could not believe that the Co-op, which is such a fundamental part of so many communities, particularly in cities such as mine, was left out. Of course people can get to the big shops—the people who do not need vouchers; the people who needed the vouchers were much closer to the shops that did not have them. The Minister is acknowledging the problem, but it did go on for a very long time, despite detailed questioning and pressing. I know the Co-op was in near despair, speaking to us very regularly, and my shadow DEFRA colleagues and I kept raising that with the Secretary of State.
Schools needing to source alternative food voucher schemes from this one were also left in confusion about the costs that they were able to bear and the effect that might have on schools that had a financial surplus. We do not want schools to be completely running down their reserves all the time. There was a whole series of things that could have been done better, and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton’s report highlights them very effectively. The Committee is absolutely right to say that children in poverty are particularly vulnerable to experiencing insufficient nutritious food during the school holidays.
Given the significant impact on people’s incomes, it is extraordinary that we have had this series of crises. A feature of the Government’s response is that they do not seem to spot very obvious things coming down the road. I can, probably fairly accurately, predict that the Christmas holidays will come along in a few weeks. Without being unkind, I think it might be sensible for the Government to acknowledge that it will happen again and again, and they might as well get things sorted out in advance.
Of course, Marcus Rashford is always cited, and he has done a fantastic job, but it should not have taken him to resolve this issue; the Government should have seen it coming. The Government will be judged on how they respond to this. I hope that they will not fall into the same trap again. Certainly, Labour’s view is very clear that free school meals should be extended.
Alongside children are those people who are clinically extremely vulnerable. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby made some important points about some of the early food parcels. Again, let me be generous and say that it was hard to organise them quickly, but it was clear that particularly some of the early parcels were quite inappropriate for many people. If, as I hope we do not, we get to a situation where we need to do that again, I hope that lessons have been learned.
I wholeheartedly echo the Committee’s conclusion that going back to the pre-pandemic normal will not be good enough. That is why we look forward to Henry Dimbleby’s work continuing and a national food strategy emerging. This has been a long-running campaign, and I pay tribute to some of my colleagues, particularly— I cannot remember her constituency, but I think hon. Members will know who I mean. She has done a lot of work arguing for food poverty to be tackled better.
I also hope that the Government will listen on food security. We had this discussion on the Agriculture Bill. There are two types of food security, of course: individual food security, which I have been referring to, and food chain security. Although we had that debate and the Government conceded to move from five years to three, given the situation that we may we find ourselves in fairly soon we may have to address that on a more regular basis.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response to our report. What we found in looking into the food chain was that it worked, but it is very much a just-in-time food chain. Especially with fresh fruit and vegetables, and especially in the winter, we need to ensure that we can get those imports in. As much as I want to produce everything in this country if we can, at certain times of the year we will import a lot of salad, vegetables and fruit especially.
Daniel Zeichner
The Chair of the Select Committee is right. I will come on to the very pressing fresh food issues that we face, but I agree we need to ensure that that works.
I will touch briefly on the right to food, which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, and which featured in Labour’s manifesto last year. I am pleased that the Committee is recommending that that be looked at. It is a complicated issue, because is not quite as obvious as it might seem in just a few words, but it encompasses a range of issues around income security and how we judge what is appropriate in a modern, civilised society. I suspect that that will come in time.
The report mentions how our food is produced. This was a remarkable achievement by everyone involved in the food chain, from farmers right the way through to food processors, but one thing that the report could have touched on a bit more, and that the Government need to look at much more, is how we hear the voices of the people involved in the food processing sector. I have been struck by the lack of transparency. It is a hidden workforce to some extent, and of course it is not always a UK workforce.
That workforce is a key part of how we will ensure that food gets on our shelves and to our people. However, at the moment, we are seeing week by week more incidents of sickness—in East Anglia, my part of the world, we have had some very difficult outbreaks—in some of those factories. The bit that is missing from the analysis is the voice of those workers. I am disappointed that more evidence was not taken from trade unions and particularly some of the national officers. I know that the Government are not necessarily particularly keen on all trade unions, but my work and conversations with national officers show that they have a huge wealth of knowledge, and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and I have been pressing the Government to make more use of that knowledge. I think we all know that if we go to any trade organisation or any major organisation, we will hear a whole series of things about what they would like to be the case. When we talk to the people who are actually doing the work, we very frequently get a rather different account, and it is the lack of that account that is contributing in some cases to the problems that we are seeing.
At the beginning, there were problems about ensuring that there was adequate statutory guidance. There were problems with personal protective equipment. There were problems about social distancing. We hope that that is now sorted, because there has been plenty of time to get the information in place, but there are good employers and less good employers. We want to ensure that the practice of the good employers is spread widely, and there is a real opportunity to do that. I would suggest to the Minister that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs might look at commissioning some research on whether there is any link between the work practices and the spread of the disease, because there is a worry about that, which I hear.
There is also, of course, the issue of proper sick pay, because without that people cannot afford to isolate. Even if we get the testing system sorted out, if people are not isolating, it will not work, and if they cannot isolate because the statutory sick pay is too low or they are not getting it properly, we will be able to see exactly why the problem has got worse.
Back in July, the shadow Secretary of State did write to the Secretary of State, urging the Government to follow what we think is the good example of risk assessments being carried out in Wales. I would encourage the Minister to look at that.
We are hearing from our trade union colleagues that they do think that there is a problem, not least because in some cases people are working on agency contracts, which moves them from factory to factory. That has been, I think, addressed in care homes, but I do not think it has been addressed in the food processing sector, and that is in all our interests, frankly. Obviously, we need to get on top of the virus, but if there are people who are putting themselves at risk, that puts others at risk, too.
Some research was done by an organisation called PIRC—Pensions & Investment Research Consultants—which I think did a desk job of looking at some of these things. It found that the number of covid-19 cases at food factories could actually be 30 times higher than those being reported to the Health and Safety Executive. I have been pressing the Department of Health and Social Care with a number of questions on this, but frankly, we have not been getting very good answers, so I think that there is more work to be done, and it would be to everybody’s benefit.
We have of course been supportive of the lockdown measures, but I do think that, right at the beginning, more could have been done to anticipate some of the problems that arose from the closure of the hospitality and food service sector. Again, this is not an easy thing to do. At the beginning, there was criticism, including from the National Farmers Union, of the Government for being too slow in responding to the problems in the dairy sector. It is not an easy thing to shift so much product from one area to another. And on the financial support scheme—the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned this—there is a sense that by the time that the scheme was finally in place, the complexity of it and the eligibility criteria meant that probably not that many people benefited from it, so I hope that that can be looked at again.
I have raised this point informally with the Minister. At the beginning, there were, rightly, measures to relax some of the competition laws, to allow co-operation, particularly in the dairy sector, that would not normally be allowed. I spoke to Dairy UK at the time, and it was very disappointed that one of the statutory instruments was not actually brought before the House for discussion. It said to me that it would have been extremely useful for some of the points to be clarified. As a consequence, the first measure did not really work and a second one had to be laid. I will just make the point. Ministers say of the CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act—process, for instance, that we can absolutely rely on it. But what happened when we came to try to use this procedure? I spent a lot of time and effort on this. I got the Leader of the Opposition to lay an early-day motion, pray and all the rest of it. When we came to try to use this procedure, what happened? It was earlier than July. The measures have come and gone. They will probably have to be introduced again and we will still not have had any opportunity to query them or, as would be in the Government’s interest, to clarify them. The competition laws are very tight and many producers are nervous about discussions because they have been stung before and ended up with big bills. It is in everybody’s interest. I say gently that we need to make that work better.
It is difficult when the public is worried about supplies, so one has to be careful about one’s use of language. I understand why the Secretary of State was careful. But we asked for a proper, national public advertising campaign at the beginning. That did not seem to be done quickly enough. The Government’s communication messages need to be refined.
We felt that leaving frontline retail staff to deal with some of the issues they faced was rather unfair. We have seen continuing incidents of violence against shopworkers, up 9% this year compared to last year. In response to the report, the Government said they will take lessons from the first lockdown, to deliver better aligned and joined-up communications. I ask the Minister, what communications will they be making to reassure the public that they do not need to stockpile?
I will conclude on a subject, Ms McVey, on which you and I will not agree, namely, the future relationship with the European Union. Looking at what is coming down the line in a few weeks, I would echo the comments of the chair of the Select Committee. Some have thought that it will be fine, because we got through covid-19 with the food supply chain. I think it is exactly the other way around, I am afraid. I would not say we were lucky—people worked very hard—but it was close. When I see all the things exporters and importers will have to do over the next few weeks, it is eyewatering. I am hearing that it is very difficult. However much communication the Government do, it will not be solved.
Everyone is on tenterhooks as we come to the end of the transition period. We will need some urgent planning to get us through all of it. There are some fundamental differences between the approach this Government have taken and the approach of a Labour Government. I do not think we would have relied so much on the private sector to provide solutions. The school meals fiasco showed why that did not work.
As we face a second wave of the pandemic and the second lockdown, I ask the Government to up their game in ensuring people have access to nutritional food, and particularly that food businesses and retailers get good sound advice, so that the buck is not passed on to them to take responsibility. Finally, we must give all the support we can to the farmers, food producers, delivery drivers, factory engineers and all the other people. It is a just-in-time system, and we do not have much time to secure it before we face the problems of the epidemic and some of our own making.
Victoria Prentis
This is a difficult and delicate area, but the point I am trying to make is that we need to address the needs of all those who are in food poverty. Obviously, children are particularly important but so are adults. If, sadly, we need to get welfare systems up and running later in the pandemic and to address the economic problems that might follow it, we will need to ensure that a holistic approach is taken to all those in food poverty. I will come to more detail in a moment. In terms of the welfare net, universal credit has been increased by £20 a week, and increases to local housing allowance rates have also been helpful to families. We also continue to spend over £95 billion a year on working-age benefits.
In the last few weeks I have had useful conversations with the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society about the targeted support for which DEFRA made a bid in May and which local authorities dispersed. Some £63 million-worth of food and essential supplies was distributed to the people who local authorities knew were in most need, about half of whom have children. The Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society say that that money was helpful and very well spent. It is being assessed at the moment, not least by those two organisations and other frontline deliverers that communicate regularly with DEFRA.
In May, £16 million was provided directly by Government to food charities, such as FareShare. That was an unusual step for Government to take. Some of that £16 million went directly to the Waste and Resources Action Programme, as none of us likes to see good food go to waste. There is other funding available to WRAP, which is doing excellent work.
In respect of today’s lockdown, for which the hospitality sector did not, given the nature of the disease, have long to prepare—restaurants, for example, still have food that they had ordered—WRAP has today been sharing knowledge, at very short notice, on increasing redistribution. If businesses with multiple pallets of surplus food cannot find a recipient, they should contact WRAP, which will help facilitate connections with people who need it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) was a key part of my taskforce. We work closely together on the issue of children who access free school meals during term time. We know very well that Christmas is coming and we understand that there will be winter pressures. I am not able to make any announcements today, but I am confident that the right work is being done to prepare for winter.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not expect the Minister to make an announcement late on a Thursday afternoon, but if local authorities are going to be in a position to help, they need to get funding fairly soon. May I also say that the Member I was referring to earlier was my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)?
Victoria Prentis
On recommendation 12, food boxes contained a basic selection of food and other essential items for those who were unable to leave home. They were a standardised package, designed to be suitable for the majority of people. They had been reviewed by a nutritionist. I know there were complaints, but I am very proud of the fact that 4.5 million boxes were delivered at short notice to people who needed them. It was not a long-term solution—a box of ingredients delivered by the Government is not how we want people to be able to feed themselves in the long term. We are not planning currently to do it again for this lockdown because we have online delivery slots, the volunteer network—the GoodSAM volunteers who are prepared to go and shop for anybody—and the excellent local authority systems. We therefore think we have a good and robust system in place to deal with those who are shielding now. The message for those experiencing difficulties is: please do get in touch with the local authority.
On recommendations 13, 14 and 24, we remain committed to publishing a White Paper within six months of the publication of Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy, which we still expect next spring.
Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
Rebecca Pow
Thank you Chair, I get your point and I beg your forgiveness. I will not include everything, but I wanted to update the Committee because so much has happened since we stopped our consideration of the Bill. People think we have gone on hold, but absolutely we have not.
We will be doing much more work, and we will discuss our statutory EIPs, which will drive up environmental improvement, in the next few days alone, as well as how we will continue to protect the environment from damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of Government policy.
Turning to the amendments, which is what you really want me to do, Mr Gray, I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to strengthen the EIPs—that is what clause 7 is all about. I am delighted that he has raised the 25-year environment plan because I was at the launch of that plan. Although colleagues who filled those important posts are in different roles now, I was there as Parliamentary Private Secretary in this Department.
I am utterly delighted to introduce this—perhaps the shadow Minister failed to address this—as the 25-year environment plan is actually the first EIP. That is what this is all about. What we are doing with the EIPs is triggering what is set out in the excellent plan. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, reporting and planning is designed to ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve long-term targets and are held to account through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection and by Parliament.
The Bill creates a statutory triple lock, which we will hear about a great deal as the Bill progresses, to drive short-term progress. First, the Government must have an environmental improvement plan setting out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment and to review it every five years. When reviewing it, they must consider whether further or different measures should be adopted to achieve interim—five yearly—targets and long-term targets. When we review the EIP in 2023 we will update it as necessary to include the steps that we intend to take to achieve the targets that we set. That will be five years after the launch of the first plan in 2018.
Secondly, the Government must report on progress towards achieving targets every year. Thirdly, the Office for Environmental Protection will hold us to account on progress towards achieving targets. Each year it will comment on the progress towards targets reported in the Government’s EIP annual report and can flag early on whether it believes there is a risk of the Government not meeting their long-term targets. It may make recommendations on how progress could be improved, and the Government have to respond. Ultimately, the OEP has the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including the duty to achieve long-term targets.
In requiring that EIPs set measures to deal with pollution, amendment 88 would single out aspects of the environment ahead of others. EIPs are defined as plans significantly to increase the natural environment. Measures on air quality, with corresponding benefits to human health, are already within the scope of EIP, so it is not necessary to place duties on particular matters in the EIP, which could undermine consideration of other important environmental goals.
The Bill includes a duty to set a legally binding target for PM2.5, the air pollutant with the greatest impact on human health, in addition to a further long-term air quality target. The introduction of measures to meet the air quality target will reduce exposure to harmful pollutants and deliver significant improvements to human health. Other targets that meet the criteria set out in clause 6(8) already have their own statutory regimes, including any appropriate requirements to set out plans and measures to achieve them. It is therefore unnecessary to require that EIPs include measures to achieve them.
Amendment 112 would explicitly link the measures in the EIP to “meeting the environmental objectives”, and I address this with the assumption that the environmental objectives are to achieve and maintain a healthy and natural environment, as set out in new clause 1. The Bill’s provisions already ensure the delivery of the significant environmental improvements that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test seeks through the amendment and ensure that the Government can be held to account. Targets and EIPs have the objective under clauses 6 and 7 of delivering significant improvements to the natural environment, so I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As you suggest, Mr Gray, I will not go through all the formalities. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee, although it is a little like the philosopher’s axe: which part of this Committee is still part of the preceding Committee? Many of us are new to this, and it has been a long-running process.
The Minister is notorious for her optimism—[Interruption]—or has a reputation for optimism. When she talks about the 25-year improvement plan, I wonder whether that is 25 years forward or whether it is taking us 25 years back, because it is about filling the gaps left by our leaving the European Union and the protections that came from that membership. I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test explained earlier, that the heart has been ripped out of the Bill.
To turn to the amendment, as you directed Mr Gray, I listened closely to the Minister’s observations and I do not quite understand why she is not sympathetic to some of the amendment’s proposals. I particularly query her attitude to the natural environment. She will have seen the representations from the National Trust about including heritage within the ambit of natural environment, and that prompts a big question. There is no natural environment; we have been part of the environment as human beings for many, many years and we have had huge impact on it. I suspect we will pursue this matter in further discussions, but I would welcome her observations on why heritage is not included among the proposed protections.
In particular, I do not understand why the Minister does not favour the inclusion in the environmental improvement plans of proposed paragraph (b) in amendment 88, which calls for the reporting of
“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out”.
All of us involved in rural policy know that it is an endless issue, and that virtually every part of government touches on the environment of rural areas. Those policies must be included as an essential safeguard to ensure that the environmental improvement plans work properly.
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.
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.
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
Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Daniel Zeichner ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
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.
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 Chair
Before I call Daniel Zeichner, who caught my eye, can I explain a small point about procedure? It would be helpful if anybody who wishes to speak while the person who has moved the amendment is speaking would catch my eye one way or another—standing up in their place is the clearest way to do so. Those people speak, and the Minister speaks afterwards. That means the Minister is replying to the points that are made. For now, it is fine, but in future, Members should catch my eye while the mover of the amendment is speaking. They can speak, and the Minister can reply to what hon. Members have to say.
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
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.
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.
Daniel Zeichner
As I listen to the Minister, I think there is so much subjectivity involved in this. Just thinking back through the glorious array of Secretaries of State who we have had in the Conservative Government over the past decade—
Daniel Zeichner
There has been a glorious range of opinions, including those of one or two notorious climate change deniers, so there would have been a completely different view on things that were happening internationally, depending on which part of the spectrum of opinion was held by the office holder at the time. Clearly, there can be a change of Governments in the future when this legislation is in place. Surely having an objective set of criteria for how this is done is far better than just having a subjective view, with it depending on whether something is deemed to be significant by the office holder and Government at the time.
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 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.
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?
Anthony Browne
I have set up lots of organisations and it is completely standard to go through a process where there is a shadow or interim chief executive and an interim board. There is a critical difference between that position and a substantive chief executive, which is that they are setting up the way the whole system works—the operations, the modus operandi—and making significant decisions that will last for many years or decades. They are doing it in a position where there is not full governance around it, such as a fully established board, an established chair and everything else. It is right that there is some oversight of what an interim chief executive is doing in setting up the organisation, because the rest of the governance infrastructure will not be there yet.
Daniel Zeichner
There has not been any comment yet on the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in. We are just 55 days away from the end of the year and the new situation that we are about to embark upon, and there is nothing in place. That is part of the problem. It is a shambles, quite frankly, that we are leaving the European Union and entering a period where it is unclear how our environmental protections will work. I suggest much more will be said about that as we go through our debates.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire have said, this is a key moment in setting the path ahead for this new organisation. This provision feeds into this general sense that, far from having a much more sophisticated and wider way of approaching these issues, it all comes down to centralising power in the hands of the Secretary of State to determine the way forward. That cannot be right and I think there is genuine outrage among many who are looking at how this process is unfolding.
We have gone from helping to establish strong environmental principles as a leading player in the European Union to the extraordinary position we find ourselves in. We have no idea how long this is going to take. Is it going to be in place? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Perhaps things are in train and we are waiting for announcements. Perhaps it will happen next week or in January, or perhaps it will not happen for months and months. In the meantime, many of our own protections are in limbo, effectively.
The schedule gives us no confidence that the Government even have a plan for where we are going with this. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurances, because many of my constituents—and, I suspect, many constituents of other Members—are really worried about these issues. At a time of climate crisis and biodiversity emergency, how can we possibly be setting an example to the rest of the world as we approach COP26 when we are in this shambolic position, with the suggestion that this so-called independent agency should effectively be run by the Secretary of State?
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.
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.
Anthony Browne
I have finished, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to succeed me.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can unfinish briefly.
This is not just about setting up another body; it is an extraordinarily delicate issue. The complaint out there is concern about independence. Because of the substantial shift away from a supranational body, surely it is much more important to make sure that everybody sees that that the new body is independent from the outset. This is exactly the wrong way of going about giving people that confidence.
Anthony Browne
I will just make one observation, speaking as somebody who has hired various chief executives for other organisations. On the boards that I have been on, the recruitment processes for external chief executives has taken at least three months just to identify the candidate. The sort of people we are looking for are often on notice periods of three or six months, so we are really talking about a minimum of six months, maybe nine months—quite probably a year—to hire the substantive chief executive.
Do we want to sit around doing nothing, with no organisation and no one doing anything for a year or nine months, while we hire the substantive chief executive? I agree with the principle, but what is more important is getting the machinery up and running, the cog wheels going and the pieces in place, and doing the recruitment of the substantive chief executive in the meantime. When we finally appoint them, which might well be six or nine months later, they will then have a skeletal organisation to run.