Environment Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 20th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause concerns well consents for hydraulic fracking: cessation of issue and termination. Hon. Members may ask themselves, “What has fracking got to do with this Bill? Why is there a new clause about fracking when we are talking about other issues entirely?” I would contend that fracking, or potential fracking, is central to many of the issues that we have discussed. The current fracking regime and whether or not wells are being fracked cut across, potentially considerably so, the Bill’s protections and provisions relating to the natural environment, biodiversity and various other issues. There are a number of worrying issues relating to how fracking is carried out, how its consequences are dealt with, and how its by-products come about and are or are not disposed of.

I am sure that hon. Members will have access to a fair amount of information about the fracking process and that they will be aware that, as far as this country is concerned, it has not got very far. The Cuadrilla well in Preston was paused on the grounds that it caused earthquakes when the fracking process began. Although the then BEIS Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), used a provision to direct that that particular drilling company should not proceeded, that provision also allowed for corners to be cut on standards, so that it could get going with the fracking process. The standard relating to seismic disturbance was only a small part of the substantial environmental consequences to which the widespread introduction of fracking would give rise.

Mercifully, fracking is not used substantially in this country, but it is in other countries. When I visited Texas some time ago, I went to Austin, which is right in the middle of the fracking industry, in the large, relatively easy-to-access basin that covers a lot of Texas and in which a lot of fracking wells have been drilled. As we came into the airport, we could see ahead of us what looked like a moonscape. There was a large number of circular pads with extraction equipment covering the landscape as far as the eye could see. It also glinted in the sun, inasmuch as attached to those fracking pads were a number of what looked like ponds or small lakes. It looked like a landscape of lakes, but it was not. It was a landscape of tailing ponds associated with the fracking pads, and in which were placed the results of the fracking process—the fracking fluid that had been used to blast the rocks apart, which contained substantial chemicals to assist in that process. If they were to be produced in this country in the quantities suggested—at least 10,000 or so cubic metres of fluid per fracking pad—they would be classed as hazardous waste and would need to be disposed of very carefully. There are actually very few hazardous waste sites in this country that can take that kind of waste. The solution in the United States was that, on some occasions, they injected the waste back down into deep basins, which is not ideal. Alternatively, they just kept it on the surface in tailing ponds on the landscape. That could be the future for us, if we were to develop fracking to any great extent.

As I say, we have had only two goes at fracking in this country so far. They happened to be in two areas of the UK that contain the seams from which gas can be extracted through the fracking process. One is the Bowland shale in the north-west of the country, which happens to encompass the Lake District national park. The other is across the Weald and into South Downs national park, an area of outstanding natural beauty that goes across Sussex and into Hampshire. If we had a substantial fracking industry in the UK, wells would be drilled in those two concentrated areas. There would be a concentration of wells in that precious landscape, possibly like the concentration that I saw in Austin, Texas.

The Infrastructure Act 2015 placed restrictions on where fracking can take place, but it did not have a great deal of traction in this country. Modern fracking can proceed by diagonal drilling; it does not have to involve drilling down. An interesting discussion emerged about the extent to which parts of the country could be declared to be surfaces on which fracking should not take place. The Government of the day identified some areas of outstanding beauty and national parks as areas where fracking should not take place, but all people need to do is set up a fracking plant right on the boundaries of a national park and drill diagonally.

[Fleur Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the new clause is not agreed to and fracking is not stopped, that will undermine a lot of the biodiversity and ecosystem protection elsewhere in the Bill? It is bad for the climate, the environment and pollution, and local people do not want it either.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about a regime of substantial fracking. All that has happened at the moment is that fracking has been paused. All the infrastructure requirements and legislation allowing fracking on a reasonably unrestrained basis are still in place, so it is more than possible that a future Government, or indeed this Government, might decide that they no longer wish to pause fracking. Everything is ready to go. As she said, this raises the question not only of what happens to the fracking fluid but of the escape of fugitive emissions between the well being produced and the gas being conveyed. Indeed, it is the practice, when fracking has been completed, to have a so-called flare-off to clean the well’s tubes, as it were. Enormous amounts of gas mixed with elements of the fracking fluid are released into the atmosphere and simply flared.

We understand that fracking sites will have multiple wells drilled with a very large amount of transport involved, with traffic coming to remote countryside areas, the levelling of an area several football pitches wide to make the pad, and a host of other things that result in environmental despoliation in pursuit of fracking. There are also the long-term consequences when the well is depleted: will it be re-fracked? If it is depleted, will it be properly capped off? One of the problems in Texas now is that the fracking wells have not proved to be as bountiful as had been thought––what a surprise––and several have simply been abandoned with little done to cap them off. There can be a regime for doing that properly, but in the countryside where the fracking has taken place, there is continuing danger and concern in respect of surface water and water in seams underground.

Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 21st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for looking into the issue and for some assurances that targets could be included in future, and that we will be seeking alternatives. I note the concerns and considerations that we all want the same thing, which is stronger animal welfare. I am disappointed that we will not agree on this matter this afternoon, but I will not press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

OEP: Penalty notices

‘(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with a decision notice, the OEP may, by written notice (a “penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEP an amount in sterling specified in the notice.

(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a public authority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEP must have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).

(3) Those matters are—

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;

(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;

(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;

(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the failure;

(e) the manner in which the infringement became known to the OEP, including whether, and if so to what extent, the public authority notified the OEP of the failure;

(f) the extent to which the public authority has complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;

(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures.

(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set the minimum and maximum amount of penalty.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause would allow the OEP to impose fines.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This proposed new clause was originally put forward in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who no longer sit on the Committee. With our names added, we certainly support the sentiment.

The proposed new clause contains a simple proposition relating to the Office for Environmental Protection and its functions. Hon. Members will recall that we have had substantial discussions about the extent to which the OEP has powers to make its functions work well. It is a question of giving it not just general authority but enforcement powers, notices and so on, which we have debated. As the Bill stands, although the OEP would have a number of powers concerning notices and the ability to bring court proceedings, it would not have the power to levy fines.

That argument is sometimes raised where a no-fine outcome is concerned, when the question arises regarding the bodies on which the OEP would levy fines. That would, by and large, be public authorities. The argument then runs about what it would mean to levy a fine on public authorities. I remind hon. Members that that was not the case before we took powers over from the EU, in running our own environmental importance. Nor is it something that other agencies do not have as shots in their locker.

The clean air regime, for example, allowed the EU Commission the power to levy fines on infracting countries. In the case of clean air regulations, there was a suggestion that the fines that the EU authorities had the power to levy could be applied to infracting local authorities that were not adhering to clean air regulations. Indeed, there was quite a to-ing and fro-ing between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local authorities, because it was suggested that authorities that had been identified as infracting, and therefore needed to draw up clean air plans, would bear the brunt of the fines, rather than the UK Government. The UK Government were the public authority that was infracting, but they had passed on their infraction responsibilities to other public authorities, so those public authorities would be fined. That was a real issue with regards to clean air just a little while ago, but it has not been passed on to the Office for Environmental Protection, which would be the agency in that instance with UK powers.

Similarly, Ofgem has considerable powers to fine companies that do not undertake proper management of their customer bills or their responsibilities for energy supply. Indeed, a considerable number of fines have been levied, running to millions of pounds, on energy companies. Ofgem has that clear and workable power to levy fines, but the OEP does not.

We are saying that the OEP should have the power to fine. Indeed, the new clause would give it that power. The other part of the problem is what the agency would do with the fines once they have been collected—is it not just a circular process? The new clause states that, once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures. The fines would be recycled, but in a positive way for environmental management and improvement.

Having that power to fine, and being able to publicly state that authorities had been fined, are potentially strong weapons in the OEP’s locker, not necessarily because the fines would be punitive in their own right, but because they would be a mark against that public authority and because, through the transfer of the fine payments, the sins of that public authority would be effectively transferred into positive action on environmental improvement in other areas.

We think the new clause is a sensible, straightforward measure that would generally improve the efficacy of the OEP. The fact that nothing like it was thought about emphasises the general theme that we have been talking about in Committee of the power, independence and force of the OEP being downgraded through a number of Government amendments that have been made as we have gone through the Bill. This would be one back for the OEP, so I hope the Committee will view it in a favourable light.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Since I have only just heard that, I am not sure I can completely agree with it. The Minister is suggesting that there is a mesh of things there already, which could lead towards moves unpinning the targets. I hope the Minister is right about that process. I am not absolutely sure that they are as strong as we might like them to be in terms of what the new clause suggests, but I am sure that the Minister would be able to review that position, if it turns out that, once those targets are set, the mesh is not strong enough to impel those regulators in the direction that should be taken.

On that basis, and with confidence in the Minister’s powers of persuasion for future arrangements, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Reservoirs: flood risk

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to grant the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies and other connected agencies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Fleur Anderson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Fleur Anderson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I speak as a representative of a constituency that is no stranger to flooding. In Putney, we regularly have very high tides along the river. There is even a “high tide club” of car drivers who had not realised that the water was going to come, and found themselves water logged and stranded. People love to go and take photos of them, but it is not very good for the drivers.

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause, which has an unusual range of support—perhaps it will be the first that attracts the support of the whole Committee. I hope that all Committee members have noticed that it has the support of the Conservative hon. Members for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) and the SNP hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), alongside my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Leeds North West and for Halifax (Holly Lynch). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for all the work she has done championing the use of reservoirs and reservoirs management in mitigating flood risk for communities.

This Environment Bill will mean more collaboration between water companies to deliver the infrastructure we need and ensure that we have clean and plentiful water, now and for decades to come. That is in the bag. This new clause takes the Bill further in strengthening the powers of the Environment Agency to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax introduced a private Member’s Bill on this issue last year, as a result of many years of conversations and learning between agencies, including the Environment Agency, water companies and local authorities for the area of Calderdale, about what will really help to stop communities being at risk from flooding.

Currently, the legislation that underpins water companies and their regulation has a focus on mitigating drought risk rather than flood risk.

The new clause seeks to redress the balance, as is only appropriate. Reservoir management is vital to mitigation of the damage and havoc that floods can wreak on communities such as those in Calderdale, and trials of flood management are already under way in such areas as Thirlmere in Cumbria and the reservoirs in the upper Don valley. We know that it will affect reservoirs across Wales and Scotland, as well as Wessex in England.

Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 19th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone chanced upon the Bill, flicked through it, looked at the contents at the front and said, “There is a section on tree felling and planting; that’s good, because we want to know about tree planting,” and then found that there was no tree planting, that would be rather an odd outcome, yet that is what we have in front of us. I would like to know, at the very least, what the Minister thinks can be done to rectify that omission and whether she intends, when the tree strategy is mature, to amend the Bill or, if this Bill has already gone through the whole of the House, introduce a subsequent Bill that will match up with what will be in the Environment Act, to give whole-life regulation and protection to tree planting, which is absolutely necessary for our ambitions for the future. Although we do not want to amend these clauses, because we accept that they are within the limitations written into the Bill, we give notice that we intend to proceed to rectify at least part of the issue concerning the heading of the clauses as we move on to the new clauses.

There is an indication, certainly in schedule 15, that the problem of maintenance and stewardship for the future is not anticipated, even on the question of felling and restocking trees. Schedule 15, which is an amendment to the Forestry Act 1967, requires restoration orders to be put in place—a good thing in itself—where people have felled trees when they should not have done or without the proper provisions being applied for.

Schedule 15 provides a welcome advance, in that there is clear regulatory guidance on restocking, but that guidance then starts to fall down, inasmuch as the restocking orders last for only 10 years. The precise problem that we have outlined with replanting could arise for the restocking orders. The person who has knocked the trees down might grudgingly replant more under the restocking order, but 10 years later, he or she can pull them all up again.

That is certainly not in line with the sort of stewardship that we think has to take place for trees, both in general and in particular with regard to the restocking orders. I would appreciate it if the Minister could comment this afternoon on whether she thinks the provisions in schedule 15 for the duration of restocking orders are sufficient in the light of our discussion, or whether she might review that for future reference.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I know that I represent millions of people across the country in wanting to speak more about trees and seek more about trees in the Bill. There are some things in these clauses that we can agree on. I know that the Minister is a lover of ancient woodland and that the clauses are close to her heart as a chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees.

Environment Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 16th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 75, page 66, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

We start this morning with an amendment relating to clause 75. It will not be a surprise to any member of the Committee. The suggestion is to replace the word “may” in the line under the heading “Plans and joint proposals: regulations about procedure”. Proposed new section 39F of the Water Industry Act 1991 states:

“The Minister may by regulations make provision about the procedure for preparing and publishing—

(a) a water resources management plan,

(b) a drought plan, and

(c) a joint proposal”.

It seems to the Opposition that it is very important that these things—a management plan, drought plan and joint proposal—are actually published and that provision is made about the procedure for publishing them. That is a central part of this clause.

As we have said in this Committee previously, no aspersions are cast in any direction concerning the present intentions of Ministers, but I remind the Committee that we are making legislation for a very long time and that there might conceivably be circumstances in which Ministers less well inclined towards the process light upon this clause and decide that it is not really so important that regulations are made, hence we think that the word “must” should be inserted in the Bill.

We have pointed on a number of occasions to the lack of “musts” in the Bill. I think that this is one of the more important ones and I hope that the Minister, even if she is not prepared to consider a number of the other “musts”, will have laid by a little store of sympathy for this “must” proposal, because it relates, as I think she would agree, to a very important feature of this clause.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I would like to add to the argument about the fact that this legislation will stand for a long time. Even the fact that clause 75 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 is a reminder to us of how long we expect this legislation to be in force and people to be acting on it accordingly. The Water Industry Act became law 29 years ago and we are still discussing it, and how we will amend it, now. Many years from now, we will still be discussing this legislation, and therefore it is so important to get it right. That is why a “must” instead of a “may” is very important, especially in this clause.

This amendment seeks especially to talk about regional plans. Currently, planning on a regional rather than a company-by-company basis is non-statutory, and so to put this on a statutory basis would be a gear change in terms of water resource management. I would welcome any moves to put regional plans on a statutory footing, but the Government have to be clearer on the circumstances in which the Secretary of State would use the powers and how adherence to the regional plans would be encouraged if it were not clearly set out here. The current drafting is too weak and does not give this clause the teeth that it needs.

By changing “may” to “must”, amendment 9 would tighten up the clause considerably and make it far more effective. It would require the Secretary of State to make provision setting out the procedure for preparing and publishing water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals. I would like the Minister, before rejecting the amendment and dismissing it as unnecessary, to answer the following questions. Under what circumstances would the Secretary of State expect to use the powers created by clause 75 to direct water companies to prepare and publish joint proposals—the regional plans? There is a concern that that will not become standard practice if it is not expected. If the powers are not used and regional water resources planning remains on a non-statutory footing—if it is just a “may”—how will the Secretary of State ensure that companies produce water resources management plans that are aligned with the regional plans?

In the absence of a commitment to using the powers created under clause 75 to direct regional planning, can the Minister assure us that the Secretary of State will direct the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to set out the need for company plans to align fully with regional plans in its strategic policy statement to Ofwat? Otherwise, many who are listening to and reading this debate will remain concerned that companies’ individual plans could deviate from regional plans, affecting our ability to provide sustainable water resources for society in the light of the worrying projections set out in the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 75, page 66, line 22, at end insert

“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected.”

I will give the game away straight away by saying that this is a probing amendment, as I am sure the Minister will be pleased to learn, and we seek her comments on it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, the 1991 Act has been with us for a while. Does the Minister think that bodies that represent those who are likely to be affected by a water resources proposal or a drought plan should be included in the process of preparing and publishing regulations? There is a distinction to be made between the Government deciding to make a plan, and those who would be particularly affected by that plan—for example, the hon. Members who would be affected by a drought plan in Cambridgeshire—having input into the process. There is a relationship between a high-level plan and the reality of any changes on the ground, and it is important to have both perspectives.

That is the reason for this amendment, and the Minister may wish to comment on whether she agrees with the principle behind it, even if the wording is not quite right. I would particularly like to hear whether she is signed up to the idea that I have set out and, if so, whether there are other ways of ensuring that the drawing up of these plans and proposals is a two-way process.

[Fleur Anderson]

I would like to unpack the amendment slightly more and highlight some areas that may be affected by the Government’s proposals. We would be very interested to hear from the Minister how this Bill will be enacted on the ground after it has progressed through both Houses.

Consultation is key during any planned preparation. The plans to clean up our water across the country are essential and, unless they are done correctly and with the full engagement of all the representative bodies, they will not work. If that happens, the current plateauing of environmental protection, which many people find very concerning, will continue.

The removal of section 37A(8) from the Water Industry Act 1991will remove a list of other bodies. The Act states:

“Before preparing its water resources management plan…the water undertaker shall consult”—

the use of the word “shall” is interesting. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, I think that our job in this Bill is to say what is within the OEP’s remit, what must happen and what the OEP, with its flexibility, can decide should happen. We need to set that framework, and an essential part of that is engagement with all the right agencies. The proposed deletion will remove the Environment Agency; Natural Resources Wales; the Water Services Regulation Authority, or Ofwat; the Secretary of State; and any licensed water supplier, as listed in the 1991 Act. These bodies will not be included in this Bill unless we add the text of the amendment, which is, I think, very reasonable,

“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected”.

I do not think that that is overly restrictive, because it would give the OEP the ability to decide who those persons or bodies are. It does, though, say that they must be consulted. Has the Minister considered how to ensure that the new provisions on the preparation of plans by water undertakers will retain stakeholder engagement requirements? Does the Minister believe that the proposals are sufficient to ensure that the Environment Agency, in particular, is fully engaged in plan development? Its involvement is crucial to ensure a high level of environmental scrutiny of water resources options. That is essential for both the working of the Environment Agency and the effectiveness of any plans.

The Minister may suggest that this is dealt with through other requirements such as the customer challenge groups. However, those arrangements are typically extremely narrow and do not enable the wide engagement of the stakeholder that is necessary for the best plans—world-leading plans. Amendment 30 would ensure that consultation rights for stakeholders—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 199, in clause 76, page 70, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

When a minister chooses to make a drainage and sewerage management plan, this amendment obliges them to consult on it.

Yes, this is another amendment. By the way, I thought that last bit was really exciting. I am sorry that hon. Members did not vote our way on amendment 200 this morning, but I appreciate the effort that everyone put it to make it almost get there.

Amendment 199 relates to the amendments to the Water Industry Act 1991. This is about how regulations “may” make provision about consultation, which is a particularly weak “may”. I would have thought that consultation is an essential element of the process. In particular, we are talking about consultation to be carried out by sewerage undertakers—that is, water companies—who are required by regulation to make provision about the person to be consulted, the frequency and timing of the consultation and the publication of statements.

There is a pretty tight requirement on water companies to be clear about what their provision is, except they do not have to do it. That seems to me to be a suggestion that holds the entire subsection. There is quite a fierce thing in this subsection about consultation. This is a good thing. It covers not just consultation, but who it should be carried out by—the sewerage undertakers—as well as instructions on who should be consulted and so on. It is all spoiled by the “may” at the beginning of the sentence. I think this is another important “must”, which ought to go into the Bill. Again, I will not push the amendment to a Division, but I hope the Minister will take careful note of our strong feelings on the issue and will put it in the box of reconsiderations for when she gets around to deciding whether there should be drafting amendments to the Bill in the future.

[Fleur Anderson]

I welcome the Minister’s earlier comments about taking action on sewage pollution, of which this is an additional part. I welcome the aims of the clause, and I believe it is vital that a strategic approach is taken to waste water management. However, I have a couple of issues with it that I would like to point out.

Sewage pollution is a very important issue for constituents across the country, including in my constituency of Putney, next to the beautiful River Thames, where we are extremely concerned about it. Some 39 million tonnes of sewage is dumped into the River Thames every year, with an estimated 50 epic dumps of pollution. The Tideway project is making great headway—it is making amazing progress, and I commend it. It will result in a real difference being made. However, there are still extreme concerns. One is about the use of the term “sewerage” in the clause, whereas the industry would prefer to use the term “wastewater”. Wastewater is a much larger section of domestic, industrial, commercial and agricultural production, of which sewerage is only a small subsection.

I slightly digress from the amendment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

These amendments all make the same point about there being no compensation for certain licence modifications in water abstraction. Should licences be modified as a result of environmental considerations, especially with the uprating of environmental legislation, water companies and other organisations will have to undertake additional actions to ensure that their licences are adhered to, but they will not receive compensation for those modifications. That is all well and good, except when those licences come to be revoked or varied, in pursuit of a direction under a section of the Water Act.

The no compensation clause comes in on 1 January 2028, so it could be argued that that gives the water undertakings a reasonable period to adjust to the changes, but it may have the reverse effect of what is intended. If companies were to make changes that might need to be undertaken before 2028, they would get compensation. I am not sure whether the clause requires a period of notice for changes caused by increased environmental protection—it is reasonable to give water companies time to adapt—or is it a device that allows water companies to get some money for environmental changes that they should be doing anyway, if they do them before 2028? It is a pretty long run-in for changes. I ask the Minister—and this goes for all these amendments, because they all seek to change the date from 2028 to 2021—whether she thinks that the 2028 date is satisfactory in terms of a run-in for the water companies to make their changes.

If they make the necessary changes before 2028, would they be protected from a legal requirement to enter into and discuss compensation? I would suggest that that is less than satisfactory. The Minister faces a choice this morning on which way she jumps; or perhaps, with great dexterity, she could jump in both directions.

Not only is there potential confusion about the precise intention of this clause, but the 2028 date itself seems to be excessively generous by any measure. If the Minister is not able to at least give us an indication that that date might be considered for foreshortening, we may wish to divide the Committee.

[Fleur Anderson]

I would like to speak in support of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the long deadlines of this Bill, which would be rectified by amendments 132, 133 and 134.

Clause 80 amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to improve the way in which the abstraction is managed. This additional Environment Agency power, to act on licensing that causes environmental harm, is welcome. However, the timescale proposed in the Bill is too long, as the changes will apply to licenses revoked or varied on or after January 2028. With compensation remaining payable on any license changes opposed by the agency before that time, budgetary constraints will significantly limit its scope to act, which cannot be the aim of this Bill.

The current timescale does not appear to fully grasp the severity and immediacy of the problems facing UK waterways and the poor performance of water companies to date. Four out of nine companies assessed by the Environment Agency require improvement. We cannot wait until 2028 to start revoking licenses and take action, when there is clearly systemic underperformance in the water industry.

Moreover, water companies in England were responsible for their worst ever levels of environmental pollution in the five years up to 2019, leading to condemnation from Ministers and the Environment Agency. In the agency’s annual assessment of the nine privatised water and sewage companies, its chair, Emma Howard Boyd, said that their performance continued to be unacceptable.

Unsustainable abstraction can do serious environmental damage, particularly by changing the natural flow regime. This results in lower flows and reduced water levels which, in turn, may limit ecological health and result in changes and reductions of river flows and groundwater levels. This is about far more than just hosepipe bans.

The Government’s own analysis has shown that 5% of surface water bodies and 15% of groundwater bodies are at risk from increasing water use by current license holders, which could damage the environment. With the Environment Agency recently warning that in 25 years, England’s water supply may no longer meet demand, we will have to clamp down on over-abstraction now. Before becoming an MP, I worked for the aid agency WaterAid, where I saw the result of over-abstraction and how damaging that was for communities around the world. We do not want to face that here.

Abstracters are unlikely to give up these abstraction rights voluntarily and forfeit potential compensation payments. This means that over-abstracted rivers and groundwater-dependent habitats will continue to suffer for at least another eight years under the clauses of this Bill, putting threatened habitats and public water supplies at risk. Further clarification could then ensure that the new date would not impose unrealistic time pressures on water abstractors. 

Variations to licences could then be made, setting out a reasonable compliance period for changes to be put in place before the abstractor would be in breach of the new conditions. That would give fair notice to abstractors, which I understand is a concern for the Minister and is the original purpose of the 2028 date, while also enabling swift action on the mounting environmental harm caused by damaging abstraction. It would put environmental risks in the driving seat, not the concerns of water companies, which is what the Bill does at the moment.

Does the Minister agree that without bringing forward the date from which environmentally damaging abstraction licences could be amended without compensation, we are unlikely to achieve the existing Government targets for the health of the water environment, which require us to bring our waters into good status by 2027 at the latest? Bringing the date forward to 2021 will allow action to be taken within the final cycle of the river basin management plans for 2021 to 2027, and allow us to reduce abstraction damage in line with Government targets set under the water environmental regulations of 2017. The dates need to add up.

In its report, “Water supply and demand management”, published in July, the Public Accounts Committee advised:

“The Environment Agency should write…within three months setting out clear objectives, and its planned mitigation actions and associated timescales for eliminating environmental damage from over-abstraction”.

The Committee wants immediate action and we should, too. Has the Environment Agency yet been able to outline how it will eliminate the environmental damage in line with statutory deadlines, given that this power will not come into effect until after those deadlines have passed?

I support these amendments, in order to put the Government’s own targets in line with each other and make sure that we take action against over-abstraction as urgently as necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 135, in clause 81, page 80, line 28, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

“(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the super- affirmative resolution procedure.

(10) In this subsection, ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’ has the same meaning as it does in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”

I will not detain the Committee for long. Our amendment suggests that instead of regulations under this section being subject to the negative procedure, they should be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. There is a real difference between the two because, as hon. Members will know, the negative procedure for secondary legislation requires merely that the legislation be laid before the House, and if no one objects to it within 21 days, it automatically becomes law. The affirmative procedure, on the other hand, means that under normal circumstances, the House is entitled to a debate on the legislation, in which the Minister is required to take part, at least to air the reasons behind the introduction of the regulations.

The affirmative procedure is potentially an important protection for Parliament to hear properly what is happening with secondary legislation. The super-affirmative procedure guarantees a 90-minute maximum debate on a piece of secondary legislation, and that is the procedure that we would prefer for this clause. We will not press the amendment to a vote, but we would be grateful if the Minister reflected briefly on why she thinks the negative procedure is the right way to go.

[Fleur Anderson]

Although there is some justification for a power to make technical updates to regulations, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has set out, the clause could provide a licence for the Secretary of State to weaken, via secondary legislation, the standards of our waters, and their chemical status in particular. Secondary legislation has caused a huge amount of division between the Opposition and the Government, as we have asked that much more of it be put into primary legislation. If there is more secondary legislation, and “may” does not become “must”, it is really important that it is debated under the super-affirmative procedure.

That is particularly worrying in the light of Sir James Bevan’s speech, which suggested possible reform of the way in which the status of our water is considered. What is behind that suggestion? The last thing we need now is a regression of water quality standards. According to data released by the Environment Agency last month, not a single lake or river in England that has been recently tested has achieved a good chemical status. We are experiencing a five-year high for environmental pollution by the water industry.

Stakeholder concerns about the unmitigated power in the clause would be unlikely to evaporate if there were a commitment to non-regression of environmental standards. Given the public support for environmental protection, which I am sure the Committee will acknowledge, why are the Government reluctant to provide assurances and to agree to the amendment? That goes to the heart of many of the issues at the centre of the Bill. Time and again, we have heard assurances of non-regression, but the Government have so far avoided every single opportunity to put those promises into statute. That persistent refusal makes us all highly suspicious.

At the heart of the water framework directive is the principle that the water environment is a system and that all its parts need to be in good working order for it to operate effectively. That principle remains true. The clarity of the one in, one out rule should not be abandoned, and any weakening of chemical standards would be a backward step in the light of growing public concern about water pollution and the new data showing the extent of water quality failures across England.

I urge the Committee to support the amendment, which goes some way towards addressing that significant risk, and would ensure that any changes to water quality regulations would be subject not to the negative procedure, as the Bill currently states, but to the super-affirmative procedure—as a new MP, I had to go and look it up and have learned a lot about it—as defined in section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. That would give stakeholders the right to input into any water quality regulation changes, including UKTAG, the UK technical advisory group that currently advises on standards—

Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

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

[Fleur Anderson]

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

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

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

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

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

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

in schedule 5 would make a great difference.

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

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

“the disposal costs of the products or materials”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

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

[Dr Whitehead]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but it is not a question of the OEP having to take on the mantle of English Heritage, or a national monuments commission, and assiduously sweeping the leaves off ramparts and other things. Hon. Members will see that clause 41 is simply a meaning clause: it defines what we mean elsewhere in the Bill. It is important inasmuch as it provides a serious context in which other measures in the Bill can be seated. That is its only function. When we are seating those meanings within other parts of the Bill, it is important that we are clear about the extent of those meanings or indeed the limits of those meanings. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. It does not seek to do anything more, and does not give the OEP any obligation as far as these monuments and buildings are concerned, nor the changes in the landscape to which I refer. The hon. Member can rest assured that there would be no duty of care on the OEP, and it is merely a matter of including that in the definition.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share with me concerns that the National Trust—one of the custodians of our British landscape—is also concerned about that very clause? They say that heritage and the natural environment “go hand in hand”. They will be looking to the clause to put them together in the correct way, as my hon. Friend said, for the very nature of our British environment. Nobody in this room would disagree with that.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I had not fully covered. The National Trust is, indeed, responsible for sweeping the leaves and various other things from these monuments, and it is among the bodies expressing concern that the meaning of clause 41 will not adequately serve the purpose of guiding the clauses that go before it. I hope that the Minister can provide a good explanation for the meaning in parenthesis being as it is. It is not that it should not be there—it will cover a number of issues, and if it was not there then we might start considering a modern block of flats part of the natural environment. Clearly, we would not want to go that far. I hope that the Minister accepts that amendment 126 strikes the right balance, ensuring that we have a much better definition to work with and that we make a distinction between buildings and other structures that are clearly not part of our natural environment and those that have become so, certainly in the public’s view, and deserve to be included in this meaning clause.

Environment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Sir George. We can perhaps talk about this offline, so to speak. I am happy to stand by what I said previously, but I would welcome discussing it further with the hon. Gentleman if he would like to.

The amendment is fairly straightforward. On Tuesday, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth made a point about paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which reads:

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

In her intervention, she emphasised the words “protect its independence”. However, we would rather emphasise the fact that the wording

“have regard to the need to protect its independence”

would not actually protect the OEP’s independence. We suggest deleting the words

“have regard to the need to”

so that the passage would read, “In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must protect its independence.” That is simpler and more straightforward, and makes the duty of the Secretary of State clear. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

[Fleur Anderson]

I also want to speak about the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), promised us a new, “world-leading”, independent environmental watchdog. However, what is in the Bill is not good enough. The current wording is:

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

The amendment would change that so that the Secretary of State “must protect its independence”. We have had previous amendments that were short but important, and this is another one. Instead of giving a nod to something, hoping it will happen or wishing for the best, we will actually write this proposal into the Bill. That is important in relation to our earlier conversations about the appointment of the chair and the OEP’s independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

No. The Secretary of State can decide by guidance how “serious” is to be interpreted regarding the OEP’s actions.

[Fleur Anderson]

It is a fact that environmental protection and action that breaches air pollution limits, for example, will happen slowly and incrementally. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is hard to determine the point at which that becomes serious?

For example, Putney High Street in my constituency is one of the most polluted high streets in the country. That has happened slowly over many years; it would be hard to say when it became serious. When will the Office for Environmental Protection be enabled to step in and say, “This is an issue”? That goes for rivers and all the other issues we will discuss.

The nature of environmental action is that it will happen slowly. The measure of saying something is “serious” will limit the term to so few large-scale events that the Office for Environmental Protection will be rendered so weak in its action.

Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)

Debate between Fleur Anderson and Alan Whitehead

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

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Whitehead]

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

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

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

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

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