Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Incineration permit breaches are a matter for the regulator, the Environment Agency, but we are reviewing energy-from-waste capacity across the country and will be making a statement imminently.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Hanukkah to those who are observing.

What action are this Government taking to promote the purchasing of British-grown and seasonal produce through their public procurement framework?

[Daniel Zeichner]

We are absolutely determined to ensure that we see more British produce bought across our public sector. We will come to the House with our plans in due course.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

There is a process by which any company would go into administration. That situation has not yet arisen with any company. The Government are, of course, closely monitoring the situation with Thames Water, but as things stand the company remains viable and I reassure consumers in that area that there is no threat, and would be no threat, to water supply in any circumstance.

The Government have a three-stage plan to deliver change and bring in the biggest ever investment in our water sector. That started with the initial reforms I announced in the week following the general election. It continues with the Bill before the House today. It will be completed with the water commission, led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, and further legislation that will follow on from that.

In my first week as Environment Secretary, I met water company chief executives and announced a set of immediate reforms to start the process of change. Money earmarked for investment to upgrade water infrastructure will now be ringfenced, so it cannot be diverted for other purposes, including paying bonuses or dividends. If it is not spent on what it was intended for, it will be refunded back to customers as discounts on their bills. Water companies agreed to formally change their company objectives to place customers and the environment at the heart of everything they do. They will set up powerful new customer panels to scrutinise key decisions. Customers who face frequent water outages—like the constituents my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) talked about—or contaminated tap water, as residents and businesses experienced in Brixham in Devon, will now receive more generous compensation and they will get it faster.

We promised in our manifesto to put water companies under special measures to clean up our water. The core provisions of the Bill do precisely that by strengthening the powers of the regulators and holding water companies to account for poor performance.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State rightly talks about the role that regulators have to play, whether that is Ofwat or the Environment Agency. While the water companies were getting away with what they were doing, the Conservative party took huge amounts of money out of the EA. Independent figures from Unchecked UK suggest an 88% reduction in enforcement activities, and that a 50% reduction in the environmental protection budget led to a 60% reduction in activity. Will he set out more on how regulators will be key to clearing up our water industry?

[Steve Reed]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes some extremely important points. In my speech, I will be coming on to how we intend to ensure the regulator not only has additional powers but additional resources to enforce those powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit.

Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.

[Gareth Snell]

And how is that going?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question.

I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises.

Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government.

There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it.

It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [Interruption.] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to support the Bill because we basically live in a monopoly. We live in a situation where a group of companies control an incredibly essential part of everyday life—a part that we need. As a consumer, if I do not like the service I receive, I can go somewhere else; I cannot do that with water. If I want to shop around for a better deal, I can do that; I cannot do that with water. The water companies know that—they know that they hold a monopoly on the service they provide—so they think they can get away with raising bills, failing to invest, and ploughing money into shares and dividends. Their time has come, and the Bill is apt. The new Government is providing new opportunities to change the way in which we look at water and consider it as a fundamental part of everyday life.

But as I have been listening to the debate this afternoon, I started to wonder whether the Bill is actually needed, because if we listen to the hon. Members for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) or for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), apparently everything in the Bill has already been done, and we are fine. I struggled to reconcile what the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said in her opening speech—about this Government copying what the previous Government did in the Environment Act—with the rather gory descriptions of the effluence and other material found in waterways across the country.

I represent Stoke-on-Trent—the clue is in the name; it is the river on which we sit—and I know thousands of hours of sewage have been discharged into that river. Equivalent amounts of sewage are also being pumped into places like the Fowlea brook and the Lyme brook by a water company that is seemingly more worried about protecting its dividends than the health of the people I have been sent here to represent.

How did we get to this point, if everything the last Government did was apparently fine? The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) summed it up perfectly when he talked about the importance of regulation. Actually, we have gap when it comes to regulation—it is an enforcement gap. We have great regulation on paper that says, “You will do this, and this will happen” and “There will be penalties and fines”, but the previous Government systematically over time reduced the amount of funding available to the regulatory organisations, so that their enforcement became reactionary to events. According to the Conservatives, the reason why we have 100% monitoring of discharges is not because of some benevolent act by a party that cared about the environment; it is because the previous Government got bored and tired of the community groups around the country campaigning on the issue, and they thought, “We’ll do something about it.” I find it no coincidence that that happened this year—in an election year.

I hope that the Minister will talk more about how regulatory enforcement will happen, and about how we will provide the powers and the money that are needed.

Waste Crime: Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adam Jogee]

In a parliamentary context, I feel that I have come of age, having been intervened on by the hon. Member—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

You never forget your first time.

[Adam Jogee]

You never forget your first time with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—there we are. My wife is indeed from Northern Ireland—but we will stop that one there. I am, however, grateful to him for his intervention, because he makes an interesting point. Lots of people in my constituency were told that everything had been done within the law, so the simple response for me is: let us change the law. The Minister already knows some of my thoughts on that. Although we have a very busy legislative programme following the election, it is something I will push strongly and proactively.

My remarks to the inquiry continued:

“The investigation into the fire concluded that it was most likely caused by a lithium battery, but two things on this, Chair—no battery was found, which raises some very serious questions and Walleys’ permit doesn’t allow for lithium batteries to be disposed of.

My call is simple—we need the site closed, capped and restored. And we need that done now. I have made that point to anyone who will listen and will keep doing so.

Today, I am here as the Member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I am here to give voice to all the people who have raised this issue with me directly over the last couple of years.

We now need the Environment Agency to honour its responsibility to the people who live, learn and work here.

Simply put, Chair”—

that chair is in the Public Gallery, Councillor Bettley-Smith—

“enough is enough.

I look forward to answering your questions.”

I acknowledge the work of the cross-party committee leading the inquiry, and I welcome the invitation to speak before it, because I wanted Newcastle’s MP in the room helping to shape the way forward and delivering the results that local people want and desperately need. The stress, concern and fear about hydrogen sulphide emissions coming from the site cannot be overestimated. It is having a real impact on people’s lives and has done for many years now. There have been more than 100 breaches of the permit held by Walleys. Mr Vickers, imagine a citizen breaking an agreement, breaking the law or getting caught speeding more than 100 times? Imagine if there had been more than 100 parties in Downing Street. There must be real penalties and real enforcement.

In advance of this debate, the chief executive of Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council provided me with the number of complaints received by the council from 2019 to the end of August 2024: 32,315. Some 32,315 of my constituents have shared their rage, anger and frustration. Residents are also encouraged to report complaints to the Environment Agency, so I suspect there will be many more complaints. More than 30,000 people over five years have said that enough is enough, and we—the relevant agencies, from borough and county councils to the Environment Agency and Whitehall—must listen.

I acknowledge the work of the former Tory MP in my constituency for his work on this issue, but the simple fact is that the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme have been let down and left behind, and that must change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing such an important debate in Westminster Hall so early in what I know will be a long and illustrious parliamentary career.

Although the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may have left, I want to pick up the point he made. Waste crime is often seen as an almost harmless activity and as something that does not hurt anybody, so the urge to deal with it does not necessarily manifest itself in immediate action. The hon. Member talked about the necessity of having significant fines that are robustly levied and vigorously collected, which would be a huge deterrent for rogue operators. Whatever form their action took, they would know that there was a penalty for the blight they cause to communities and the damage they do to people.

I will constrain my comments, first, to the Walleys Quarry site, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned. Starting 14 years ago, I had the pleasure of being a district councillor in the neighbouring authority of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The very first piece of casework I had was about Walleys Quarry—the smell emanating from it, the activities happening on site, and the questionable content of lorries driving up Cemetery Road on quiet mornings, with flocks of seagulls feasting on what was deposited. There have been several operators since then, but even at that time it was impossible to get to the bottom of what was going into the site and what was happening there. The situation was opaque, with obfuscation and sleight of hand by people who, I believe, simply tried to tell the community, “It’s all good. It’s all fine. By the way the landfill fund that your community can bid for offsets the fact that we’re here.” One day, they tried to blame the smell on the neighbouring sewage treatment plant, directing me and my ward colleagues to talk to Severn Trent Water about what they said must obviously be a faulty sewerage outlet.

Unfortunately, that attitude summed up any interaction I had with the operating company for many years. The concerns of residents were secondary, and as long as the company was bringing in the waste and able to put it in a hole, cover it with a layer of clay and say that it was capped off properly, it was not particularly worried about the impact. That has gone on for years and years, so I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on bringing the issue to the attention of the House.

I am no longer resident in my hon. Friend’s constituency or the councillor for Silverdale. When I moved to where I live now, my lung health improved dramatically. I am asthmatic. I lived in Silverdale for about 15 years, and every day my Ventolin inhaler was glued to my pocket because at some point I would have some sort of triggering event requiring me to take a reliever. When, about three years ago, I moved a mere three miles away to where I am now, my lung health dramatically improved. I no longer need my Ventolin inhaler as frequently as I did. My lifestyle has not changed; if anything, my burgeoning waistline has put me in a slightly less healthy position. The only common factor that has impacted my health is the air that I breathe daily.

I am glad that we are discussing this issue, and I am glad that we are doing so in a Westminster Hall debate where we can consider it at length. However, I say to the Minister—my friend whom I have known for many years now—that the local debate on it has gone on for a while. What we seek, and I have great faith that she will deliver, is the action that was missing under the previous Government. Although my constituency is three miles away, there are some mornings—particularly cold, crisp weather mornings—when, much like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), I can open my front door, walk to the bottom of my street and smell the landfill site three miles away. It is a smell you do not forget if you have lived there and know the area. It does not matter where you are in north Staffordshire, if you can smell it, you can smell it, and you know what it is. It is the same scent wherever it manifests.

Up until only a couple of years ago, my daughter still went to school in Silverdale. If we drove towards the school, the smell would get stronger and stronger. We would get to the crossroads at the bottom of Cemetery Road and Silverdale Road, and we would hope with all our hearts that the lights were on green. The last thing we wanted to do was sit there while the rotation went through at the traffic lights, knowing that we would be stuck in a puddle of foul-stenching air that was almost certainly coming from Walleys Quarry. What may have been only four or five minutes as the traffic lights cycled through would feel like an age as we breathed in what was undoubtedly harmful, somewhat poisonous gas from the operating site. I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue, but, as I said to the Minister, now that we have a new set of Members of Parliament for north Staffordshire and a new Government, I hope that there is an opportunity to reset national action so that we can get the outcome that local people need.

I want to expand my speech to include wider waste crime issues across north Staffordshire. Although Walleys Quarry is undoubtedly a national disgrace, other parts of north Staffordshire have equally found themselves at the mercy of reprehensible individuals who have undertaken to make a fast buck on the back of local communities through the way they have dealt with waste. One such site was the old Twyford factory in the middle of Etruria in my Stoke-on-Trent Central constituency. I first raised the issue with the then Minister back in 2018, when it was quite clear that the factory was stuffed to the rafters with illegally accepted industrial waste. The chief fire officer for Staffordshire at the time, Becci Bryant, made it quite clear that not only would a fire on the site be devastating to the immediate area, where businesses were trying to operate, but, because the site was next to the west coast main line, a fire would shut the line down for months. Significant public investment would be required to make the railway safe, and the untold health implications would not be known for many years.

What waste was in there, nobody knew. How much was in there, nobody knew. All anyone could see as they drove around the A500 in Stoke-on-Trent was this once-proud factory that had such manufacturing history, and, through its graffitied windows, polythene bales of unknown materials stacked one upon the other. I was told by the chief fire officer that a genuine concern was spontaneous combustion, because tightly packed, unknown materials in plastic can sometimes simply set themselves on fire. That was in the heart of my constituency next to a residential housing development of several hundred people.

To his credit, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who was the Minister at the time, was happy to look at how we could use funds from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to try to clear the site. The former Secretary of State, Michael Gove, met us to discuss the matter and we had a plan. To her great credit, my successor and predecessor, Jo Gideon, fought hard to get the site cleared. She made it a priority for her constituency and her constituents. The site was cleared at a cost to the public purse of around £10 million. That is £10 million of public money to clear one site in one constituency. It took a very long time, not because of intervention from the Government or for any local reason, but because every time we got to a point at which an enforcement notice could be raised, the owner would promise to clear up the site and the enforcement notice would not be taken forward. We then went down the cost recovery route for proceeds of crime, which took an inordinately long time. A fine was levied against the owner to have it cleared, and he was given six months to raise the money to pay for that. During all that additional time, the site remained a huge fire, health and safety risk to the neighbouring businesses, one of which closed up and moved for its own safety. The site was an eyesore in the middle of Stoke-on-Trent.

I know the Minister takes a huge interest in our environment and how we can make communities such as mine better, more prosperous and more sustainable. We are talking about a prime development site where development was slowed down because we were wrangling with one individual who had made an obscene amount of money by accepting illegal waste on to the site, and who did not want to use any of that money to clear it up. The fact that we had to clear it up not only represented a waste of taxpayers’ money, but slowed down the economic regeneration and development of Etruria and Hanley in my constituency. To this day, although it has now been cleared, the site stands vacant. The opportunities that it presented would have been game-changing for my constituency. We are talking not just about the cost of cleaning sites up, but about the opportunity costs in cities where huge buildings are misused by individuals who seek to make a fast buck.

[Dave Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue. Around seven years ago, piled-up waste was disposed of in a similar site in Lichfield city—the old GKN site. My understanding is that the waste was fly-tipped. It caught fire, and arson was suspected. It was the fourth such incident in Staffordshire that year, and it took eight appliances and 65 firefighters to deal with the fire. Like the site my hon. Friend is discussing, it has been cleared but still awaits development. This is endemic across Staffordshire.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—and I am grateful to be able to call him my hon. Friend; last time I was in the Commons, I never thought I would have the opportunity to call a Member who represented Lichfield my hon. Friend, and doing so fills my heart with glee. He is absolutely right. This debate could easily have been about waste crime anywhere in the country, because duplicitous operators who seek to make money off the backs of our communities without any care or attention are everywhere. I am sure that the new Minister will be clamping down on them hard.

I turn to how we do that. While we can all air our grievances about the sites in our constituencies, I want to spend a few moments focusing on what comes next. I tend to agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said about the fitness for purpose of the Environment Agency, but I will be slightly more generous to it than he was. He rightly has a grievance with it over the operation of Walleys Quarry, but I think there is a bigger problem about the way we do regulatory enforcement in this country. The Environment Agency is an example that we can use to demonstrate that.

Every so often, Unchecked UK produces a document about the enforcement gap, looking at how regulatory organisations and agencies have done less and less enforcement over time. In its 2020 enforcement gap report, Unchecked UK found that between 2010 and 2020, the number of staff working for the Environment Agency decreased by 32%, so one in three staff disappeared. It also found that over the same period of time, the Environment Agency’s budget decreased by 63%. As a result, the number of prosecutions it could undertake decreased by 88%. The number of enforcement notices it was able to levy went down by 69.5%, and it could only take 44% of them through to prosecution because it lacked the capacity to undertake the necessary regulatory enforcement work.

While we must not excuse the actions of those who perpetrate waste crime around our country, it is not impossible to see why they think it is a lucrative way to spend their time and energy. The likelihood of their getting caught, of an enforcement notice being levied upon them or of a prosecution being brought has gone down and down over the past 10 years.

It is not just the Environment Agency that has had this problem. Local authorities around the country, which have a really important environmental health role and can quite often take small-scale actions in communities to prevent much larger destructive activities, have suffered the same blight. Over the past 10 years, 32% of environmental health staff in local authorities have been lost. That means that many enforcement and regulatory agencies react to problems, but they are unable to take proactive and preventive work to avoid things becoming problems in the first place.

[Dr Gardner]

Further to what my hon. Friend has said, we have to think about the involvement of other agencies. In Staffordshire, and I am sure elsewhere, fly-tipping and the illegal dumping of waste are often linked to organised crime. Therefore, the points that he made about local government, the Environment Agency and regulators also extend to preventive policing.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is almost as if she has read the script in front of me, because she has perfectly lined me up for my next point, which is about the link between illegal dumping, fly-tipping in communities and the wider connection to organised crime and money making. Another report from Unchecked UK, published in 2022, pointed out that enforcement against fly-tipping was at a 10-year low, while the number of incidents of fly-tipping was at a 10-year high. There is a growing chasm between what is happening on the ground and the activities that perpetrators are being punished for and prevented from carrying out.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I am in the neighbouring county of Warwickshire —we share many borders with Staffordshire—and fly-tipping is at an all-time high in my constituency. Much of that is from organised crime from the neighbouring boroughs of Tamworth, Coventry and Birmingham. They come along the M42, the M6 or the A5 and dump waste in the entrances to farms in the middle of the night.

That was the biggest issue that was raised when I recently met the National Farmers’ Union in my area. It is also the No. 1 issue raised by our local rural crime service, but it is not taken seriously by the police and crime commissioner for Warwickshire, and neither is any funding spent on advising people not to use the white vans that parade the streets offering to remove their waste. Reports of fly-tipping are the No. 1 thing I see every day on my local Facebook page. Because no money is spent on publicity, people have no idea where they should report these crimes—whether it is the local authority, the Environment Agency or the police. There has to be more joined-up working, and I would like to see the Minister leading that.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be a little shorter than that.

[Gareth Snell]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said. We should not think about fly-tipping simply as community blight. It is not just about the sofa abandoned down the back alley; it is about cross-country, cross-border organised crime that is making millions of pounds for people in our communities who, frankly, have no interest in our communities. She made the point rather eloquently about the requirement for our police and crime commissioners to understand that this is an important issue that they must prioritise and tackle.

On the fly-tipping point that my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stoke-on-Trent South raised, I return to its longer-term impact. Fly-tipping is a waste crime that takes place in Staffordshire, and the House of Commons Library note that accompanies the debate gives the rather sad fact from the 2022-23 figures that almost half of all fly-tipping incidents across the whole of Staffordshire took place in Stoke-on-Trent. That is not a record that I am particularly proud of or would want to be associated with my city. That is why I am glad that upon its election in 2023, under the expert leadership of Councillor Amjid Wazir, the deputy leader of the council, the city council launched a clean-up campaign against illegal dumping in our towns under the moniker of “IDIOT”. “Don’t be an IDIOT” was the line. The council said, “Don’t dump in our towns. Don’t allow our community to be used by those criminal gangs that want to ruin our cities.”

The outcome has been spectacular: we now have considerably fewer incidents of fly-tipping. That is not only because the council makes a concerted effort to clear it up, but because it has invested in an environmental crime unit that seeks to prosecute and fine those people who dump waste in our towns and cities. The council has tripled the number of fines it hands out, and it pursues people through the courts where they refuse to pay the fine. It makes it clear that if people wish to undertake illegal activity related to waste in Stoke-on-Trent at a community level, the council is coming for them and will fine them. I personally would like a name-and-shame campaign, but I have not quite won the battle with the council yet; give it time.

What I would not want to be taken away from this debate is the idea that Staffordshire is the nation’s dustbin, and that it is strewn with all these terrible activities; because while we have these incidents, most of the people in our communities who live in Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire want to see clean neighbourhoods. They go out every day and do a little bit of work to make their community better. They clean up fly-tipping, report an illegally dumped sofa, report the smells to the Environment Agency, and report to the police abandoned buildings that suddenly start having industrial waste put near them. They do that because they want—as does everyone else in my constituency, county and city—to live in a clean, tidy and safe place. When the Minister winds up, will she give me some sense of hope to take back to Stoke-on-Trent that this Government, with this Minister, will deliver on that aspiration for clean, safe streets in every community, and that she will let us know how we can help her achieve that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I distinctly recall saying from the Dispatch Box that no options were off the table, and that specifically meant that, in my view, the site should be closed. Officials will know that those points were being made to officials in the Department and at the Environment Agency, but officials will present other challenges, to do with legal implications and the processes that need to be followed. I am sure that the current Minister will have to deal with those challenges before the Environment Agency is able to take any further action, but there was clear advocacy from the previous ministerial team that Walleys Quarry should be closed. I wish the Minister well and am prepared to work with her to ensure that that solution can be reached.

The Environment Agency also singularly failed to find a solution to sufficiently safeguard the local community against the hazard presented by hydrogen sulphide, a gas released when waste breaks down on the site. For far too long, residents have had to put up with a strong eggy smell, which I experienced for myself when I visited the site. In my view, urgent and decisive action from the Environment Agency is required right now. I certainly made those frustrations known when I was in the Department, as I have indicated.

The Environment Agency has expressed its sympathy for local residents, but now is not the time for sympathy; it is time for action, not words. The Environment Agency put in place regular inspections to monitor levels of hydrogen sulphide. However, the latest data suggests mass under-reporting of the extent of the gas, and that the levels at the site were on average 80% higher than reported by the Environment Agency over a two-year period. The Environment Agency’s response to that latest failure on its part has been to apologise again and to announce another public meeting—yet again, words not actions. We all know that data collection is incredibly important for an enforcer to be able to take action, but the Environment Agency has failed in this simple task and, in my view, has failed to put monitoring points in appropriate locations around the Walleys Quarry site.

[Gareth Snell]

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), there have been 10 years of data. I know because I used to ring the EA frequently in 2010, when I was in my constituency surgeries in the library in Silverdale and we could smell the smell. What more does the former Minister believe he would have needed in order to give a closure notice? Given that we all seem to agree that there has been a decade of failure by the Environment Agency, when he was Minister, what did he do to try to work out what the internal failings were, so that other communities that may have these problems do not have the long period of terribleness that we have had?

[Robbie Moore]

As I said, monitoring is incredibly important, because we need the data to be able to hold those who pollute to account, and the regulator needs the data to be able to take appropriate enforcement action, as the Environment Agency should do. But that data has to be collected appropriately, which the EA has not done, in my view, and the datasets have to be accurate. Looking back, there was a calibration issue with the datasets that were being collected, which meant that the Environment Agency had to issue a further apology. In my view, it is completely unacceptable.

That raises the bigger question, which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has already asked, whether the Environment Agency is fit for purpose in its current format. All the challenges that I am laying out today are things that I experienced in my short months at the Department. This is simply not good enough action by the Environment Agency. As I have stipulated, the site should be closed. Again, that is something that I advocated while in the Department. As the hon. Member said, this leads to the bigger question: is the Environment Agency fit for purpose?

In the debate earlier in the week I put some questions to the Minister and sought a response, and I will do so again today. If she is not able to give me an answer now—I quite appreciate that she may not be—I kindly ask that she puts her responses in writing, for the benefit of all of us in the Chamber and the residents of Newcastle-under-Lyme. I note that I have previously put similar questions to officials.

Will the Minister update the House on the current situation at Walleys Quarry, and is she content with the advice that she is being given by the Environment Agency? Does she agree that Walleys Quarry should be closed with immediate effect, as has been strongly advocated by previous Ministers in the Department?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentlemen is in a position of unparalleled knowledge compared with all of us, having been the Minister, at which time he advocated for immediate closure. I think the quarry should be closed immediately, and he has said that he does. What was he missing as the Minister? What lever that was just out of reach would have immediately brought about the closure of the site? If legislative change is needed then we can write that Bill here and now and take it to the House and try to get it passed, but the hon. Gentleman has been there and knows why it could not happen. What else would he have needed to get the job done?

[Robbie Moore]

In my view, it came down to process. There is a process that needs to be followed, with a suspension notice being served in the first instance to reasonably give the operator the chance to sort itself out. In my view, that process is not sufficient to satisfy residents, businesses and the wider community, but it was advocated to me that the process needed to be adhered to before we could get to the position of issuing a closure notice. I wish the Minister extremely well, and she will have my full support in trying to achieve a closure notice at speed. That is the only way of issuing a clear warning to the operator that if it pollutes, it cannot get away. The taxpayer should not have to pay for it.

Coming back to my questions, how many other landfill sites are being impacted by illegal waste dumping? How many other sites are there where local residents are being negatively impacted by pollutants and emissions?

Sheep Farming: No-deal EU Exit

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

The hon. Lady has it the wrong way round, as it is always the case that for sectors that are producing goods, such as agriculture, a weaker exchange rate against the euro leads to higher prices. It is no secret that since the referendum result in 2016, when there was an adjustment of sterling against the euro, agriculture commodity prices in the UK have been at highs, and that has helped farm incomes. That is a recognised fact; exchange rates are a key driver of agriculture commodity prices.

We recognise that even with those important factors going in our favour, the sector is still exposed. Some modelling has been done by a number of different organisations, including the NFU. It is important to recognise that tariffs are a tax on consumers first and foremost. Some estimates therefore anticipate that were the EU to apply full most favoured nation tariffs on lamb, there would likely be an increase in consumer prices in the EU of up to about 20%. That reflects the fact that the UK is the dominant lamb producer in the EU and there are limited other options for it to source its lamb from.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister mentions choosing to apply MFN tariffs. I profess not to be an expert on the sheep industry, but in the ceramics industry we have been told that there is no choice over MFN and it is the tariff that has to be applied to abide by World Trade Organisation rules. Is the Minister now saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government can apply discretion on that? If so, will he outline what that plan is?

[George Eustice]

Yes, absolutely, there is discretion, and the UK Government have already indicated what our tariff schedule would be in a no-deal scenario. Governments have the opportunity to have a lower applied tariff—lower than the bound tariff set in the WTO. The option is also open to any Government unilaterally to suspend tariffs. Indeed, should it wish, tariff suspension would be open to the EU, which I think is unlikely. Alternatively, and more likely, is the creation of an autonomous tariff rate quota for lamb that would be open to the whole world, including the UK. There are many options that both the EU and the British Government have unilaterally to apply tariffs that are lower than the WTO bound tariff.

However, as I said, it is important to recognise that we are the dominant producer. The EU could source more product from New Zealand, provided it had access to the ceiling currently set under the EU tariff rate quota. In the medium term, countries such as Spain could increase their production, but they are unlikely to be able to do that in the short term. For those reasons, it is likely that there would be an increase in consumer prices in the European Union as a result of its applying the full MFN tariff.

It is important to recognise that that increase in price would dampen demand in the European Union. Modelling suggests that that would increase supply in the domestic market and that as a result prices in the UK could fall by up to 30%. To put that into context, that means prices going back down to roughly where they were in 2015, which was a difficult year for the sheep sector. We are talking about a significant potential reduction, but it is not unprecedented. It would simply be going back to levels prior to the referendum result.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Hopefully, the hon. Lady will be swift in her praise for the work we are doing with the forthcoming environment Bill. As the species champion for bitterns, which are literally booming as we speak, I know that this issue matters. We want to take more proactive approaches to how we protect species. I am not sure whether a swift box in every single house is the right thing, as opposed to all sorts of other things such as beetle hotels—there is a wide variety—but we need to make sure that we encourage a wide range of biodiversity for birds, for wildlife and for the protection of nature for future generations.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The crowing from the Department about their bird policy this morning is rather touching. The Minister will be aware that changes by the water undertakers to discharge water regulations are causing concern for the Bathroom Manufacturers Association and house builders. Will she meet me and a small delegation to discuss how future developments can better look after our waste water?

Draft Air Quality (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Database) (England and Wales) Regulations 2019

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 General Committees

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

At a given time, taxi drivers may drive for personal use a taxi vehicle that would be registered on the database as a private hire vehicle. Have the Government considered how they might make a distinction in the database between when a vehicle is working and when it is being driven for personal use?

[Dr Coffey]

It will not be for the Government to make that judgment call. It will be for the local authority, because that concerns the charge it intends to impose. The database simply gives local councils the information about which vehicles are private hire vehicles and which are not. When the time comes, if ever, when Stoke-on-Trent City Council has a clean air zone, the hon. Gentleman may wish to take that issue up with it directly.

The purpose of the regulations is to require licensing authorities in England and Wales to supply to a central database certain information relating to taxis and private hire vehicles that have been licensed in their area. The instrument is made using powers under the Environment Act 1995. The database may then be used by local authorities for the purposes of enforcing locally introduced clean air zones that will apply charges in respect of taxis and private hire vehicles. The database will ensure that taxis and private hire vehicles can be differentiated from other vehicles when entering a charging clean air zone.

Regulation 3 will place a duty on all taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England and Wales to supply certain information at least once a week. That information will include the vehicle registration number, the start and expiry dates of the vehicle licence, whether a vehicle is a taxi or a private hire vehicle, and the name of the licensing authority. Additional information required and the means of providing it will be set out in supporting guidance, which will be published before the regulations come into force.

The regulations extend to England and Wales and apply to all 315 taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities, including Transport for London. Given the geographical location of charging clean air zones, it is important that all taxis and private hire vehicles registered in England and Wales are recorded on the database.

The creation and maintenance of the database itself will not have a significant impact on businesses. A regulatory triage assessment has been prepared to assess the impacts on licensing authorities. The database will be designed and hosted in a way that complements existing processes wherever possible, in order to minimise the burden on licensing authorities. Licensing authorities will be funded for this additional work in line with the new burdens principle.

The draft regulations are necessary to support local authorities in introducing charging clean air zones where these have been demonstrated to be the quickest way to reduce roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations to legal limits. We cannot rely on a voluntary approach for the submission of information covered by the draft regulations, given that there are 315 licensing authorities in England and Wales. Without a centralised database, local authorities will be able to charge only those vehicles that they have licensed in their own area.

The draft regulations and the database are necessary to ensure that measures to charge taxis and private hire vehicles will be effective. Without such a database, the level of reduced emissions from these vehicles will be less certain, which may result in the need to introduce charging for additional vehicles, possibly including private cars. As such, the creation of the database is an important step in supporting our air quality ambitions and those of local councils. For those reasons, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). He and I disagree on answers to Brexit, but no one can doubt his passion for his community and the causes that he champions. I wish to make a brief contribution in that spirit of conciliatory debate.

I wish mainly to speak to amendment (p), which I have tabled along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Wigan (Lisa Nandy). We hope that our amendment is the start of a conversation: a process to understand that there are various things wrong with the Prime Minister’s deal that mean that we are unlikely to be able to support it next Tuesday—things that will probably not be resolved by next Tuesday. But whatever the result on Tuesday, it is the start and not the end of a process.

We as a Parliament have to be honest and up front with ourselves about where we go after Tuesday. On Wednesday morning, we are not suddenly going to have a magic answer coming from the rejection of the deal. We will see people who ardently advocate leaving on WTO terms with no deal going into the same Lobby as those who ardently want a second referendum with a remain option, and to campaign for remain. I am sorry to burst their bubbles, but one half of that unlikely coalition will be very disappointed in whatever we get out of Brexit as a result of our votes in this place.

The grown-up response is to look at the cross-party group—it exists, unfortunately, mainly on the Back Benches, not the Front Benches—who want to find a way of getting through this that does the least economic damage to our country but respects and understands that those who voted leave did so not because they were duped by words on the side of a bus, or because they were not clever enough to understand the Facebook ads put towards them, but because they had deep-seated anxieties about the inequalities that exist in this country. The amendment would, I hope, start that conversation.

For me, as a Labour and Co-operative party member, and someone who has worked in the trade union movement, how we protect and enshrine workers’ rights in future is fundamental to the sort of country we want to be. A number of those rights have been derived from Europe, but we must be honest about the fact that a number of rights that Europe now holds up as a bastion of its good practice came from work done by the United Kingdom in the first place, by driving those changes through Europe and providing the bar that everybody else needs to reach.

We must protect those rights and ensure that we do not regress or water them down once we leave the European Union. Any new changes from Europe must be considered by this place, and once we have brought back sovereignty, we will choose whether to adopt them. My argument will be that we should adopt all such measures and continue in step with Europe, because in my opinion any change or improvement to environmental standards, consumer protections or workers’ rights is a good thing.

[Angela Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Gareth Snell]

I am afraid I will not. Everyone else has had their time, so I will carry on.

It is important to find a mechanism that protects those rights, and does not kick the can down the road with another referendum, or simply add procedure and stop talking about the people. Too much of this debate—we saw this yesterday on both sides of the House with tedious and continual points of order—has been about a point of process that does not progress the debate further, or resolve the fundamental issues that are important to my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent, and those of hon. Members across the House.

At some point in this Parliament we must decide what we are for—not what we are against, or what we wish to rehash or reargue, but what we are for. I wish that the conversations I was privileged to have this week with Government and Opposition Front-Bench speakers had taken place two years ago. I wish that the Government and those on the Labour Front-Bench had got together after the general election to try to hash out some sort of plan. Such a plan would not have pleased everybody or given them what they wanted, but we need a pragmatic approach to find a way of healing the country, bringing forward the things we know are important, and delivering a Brexit referendum outcome that does not do economic damage to our country. We must ensure that people who voted leave, and those who voted remain, feel that they have a stake in the future of our country.

My frustration with this process is, and continues to be, that we appear to be moving away from a pragmatic middle and towards two extremes. Those who do not support a second referendum are labelled as hard Brexiteers who wish to sell their country down the river, and those—like many of my colleagues—who hold the principled position that we should have a second referendum are an affront to democracy. Neither of those things is true, but at some point we must face facts and understand that the country voted to leave—albeit marginally—and our job as parliamentarians is to work out how we take that forward and bring everybody together. The amendment that I have tabled is one way of achieving that unity. It by no means solves everything, and it will not remove a number of the concerns that I still have about the vote on Tuesday, but if we can use it as a starting point after that vote, I hope we will have achieved something better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (George Eustice)]

The Government obviously did not agree with every element of the Migration Advisory Committee report. The food industry is the most important manufacturing industry in this country and horticulture is one of our most productive agricultural sectors. It is important that we ensure that these crucial industries have the labour requirements that they need in future.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Illegal waste sites such as the Twyford factory in Stoke-on-Trent pose a huge risk to our environment. Despite the £10 million that was in the Budget, that site is not eligible for that help because it remains in private ownership. Court action has ordered a clearance. The local authority and the fire service want it cleared. Will the Minister meet me and those interested parties so that we can find a way forward so the site can be cleared once and for all?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is a formidable advocate for his constituency and I will make sure that a meeting happens at ministerial level in order to try to ensure that that waste site is tackled.