Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Thursday 30th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

The simple answer is no. Clearly we look at all the World Health Organisation guidelines, but they are only there to inform the setting of standards; they are not ready-made targets. Being realistic, even without man-made emissions and all the measures we have set forward in our groundbreaking targets, PM_2.5 concentrations would still exceed the WHO guidelines—even the lower one—because we get these emissions from natural sources and also from other countries. The WHO guidelines would therefore be unachievable. I was heartened by my recent visit to Sweden to launch the Forum for International Co-operation on Air Quality, which shows we have to work together on this internationally.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, has just issued a report, with 15 recommendations, that gives a route map on how to achieve these targets earlier, including on indoor air pollution and wood burners. Will the Minister respond to that now, write in greater detail to me as the chair of the all-party group on air pollution, and come to a meeting to explain what progress the Government can make on these 15 objectives, so that we can make faster progress and save more lives sooner?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for that. I have met him many times on these issues, and I commend him for this work, but I have also met Professor Chris Whitty on this very subject. The hon. Member just needs to look at the forthcoming update of our clean air strategy. We are already working on many of the things that Chris Whitty has raised, and we have to get the Department of Health and Social Care to play its part as well.

Water Company Performance

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for those sensible points. To be honest, it is because of the monitoring this Government have put in place that we now know what is going on. Under the Labour Government there was virtually no monitoring at all: in 2016, some 5% of storm sewerage overflows were being monitored; that figure is 90% now, and by the end of the year it will be 100%. We will also have to monitor upstream and downstream of every sewerage overflow outlet, so we will know exactly what is going on, and unacceptable behaviour will be acted upon.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Water bosses are actively allowing more pollution, because they know it is cheaper to pay the fines than to put in the investment, mend the leaks and stop the sewage. When will the Minister introduce the higher fines of £250 million that the Environment Secretary has pooh-poohed, and take the Environment Agency’s advice to put directors in jail if they fail? Will she give an undertaking that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill will not get rid of all the protections from Europe, so that we do not have even more stools in our rivers and on our beaches?

[Rebecca Pow]

If the hon. Gentleman had been listening earlier, he would have heard me say that we are consulting on plans to raise the cap on fines to £250 million, to make it quicker and easier to tackle enforcement. That will be a significant step, along with all the other measures we are taking, which I have clearly outlined, to hold the water companies to account.

Environment Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I hope that might answer the point the hon. Member was going to ask.

Draft guidance will need to be laid before both Houses for 21 days. During that time, either House will be able to review the guidance and make recommendations or resolutions to which the Government must respond. Select Committees, such as the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee, may also wish to take the opportunity to scrutinise the guidance, and Ministers would be obliged to respond to them in the usual manner.

I turn now to Lords amendment 33B on environmental review, tabled by the noble Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu that I am tabling today. On environmental review, the key area of debate has been the remedies available in the event a breach of environmental law if that is confirmed by the court. At the heart of the issue has always been the fact that through environmental review the OEP will have the ability to bring cases to court outside standard judicial review time limits, potentially long after the decisions in question have been taken. For that reason, the Government have maintained that bespoke provision is necessary to ensure certainty and fairness for third parties who have acted in line with decisions made by public bodies, and to protect good administration.

The OEP may pursue cases for enforcement action only if it considers that the conduct in question would constitute a “serious” failure to comply with environmental law. Clause 22(7) states that the OEP must have regard, among other things,

“to the particular importance of prioritising cases that it considers have or may have national implications.”

The OEP will have discretion to interpret those criteria, setting out its approach in its enforcement policy, but it follows, in the Government’s view, that cases which have only a local concern, for example most individual planning and environmental permitting decisions, are unlikely to have sufficiently broad or widespread impact to be prioritised. The OEP could pursue such cases if it considers they are indicative of a broader or more systemic issue or failure, or if especially serious harm has or may result from the potential failure. The OEP, for example, could consider it in relation to the destruction of a nationally important population of a rare and protected species, but it should not be the norm.

However, we have listened to and carefully considered the views and concerns raised in this House and in the other place, and agree it is important that the protections are balanced with the need to prevent or mitigate serious environmental harm. As such, I am pleased to be able to propose an amendment in lieu, which strikes that important balance. In introducing it to the House, I must repeat my earlier acknowledgement that ministerial statements in Hansard could be drawn on by the courts as a legitimate aid to statutory interpretation in future. The amendment will ensure that a high bar is still set for the granting of remedies where third parties may be affected. This is set out in condition A of our amendment. But, critically, it will also provide that, even where condition A is not met, if the court is satisfied that it is necessary in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health, and there is an exceptional public interest reason to do so, the court will be able to grant a remedy. This is set out in condition B. It gives the court discretion to undertake a real and meaningful, albeit weighted, balancing exercise. It means that there would no longer be a blanket prohibition on the granting of remedies where third parties are likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice.

In the rare cases where third parties may be affected, however, I would like to illustrate how this provision could operate with an example. Potentially, on an environmental review, the court could rule that an environmental permit had been granted to a factory operator with such inadequate conditions that it was unlawful. If the court concluded that condition A was not met, because substantial hardship to the factory operator would be likely to result from quashing the permit, it would turn to condition B. If, in the absence of a quashing order, it is likely that the factory would continue to release harmful air pollutants with serious impacts for the health of the local population, the court may conclude that it is necessary to grant a remedy in order to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or human health. At this point, the court would need to weigh the public interest in preventing serious harm against the public interest in preventing substantial hardship occurring to the third party. In order to grant a remedy, the court would need to be satisfied that the public interest in preventing this serious harm substantially outweighed the interest in preventing hardship, thereby constituting an “exceptional public interest reason” to grant the remedy.

In such cases, where severe damage to the environment or people’s health could occur or continue if no remedy was granted, the court may choose to grant a remedy. Given the types of serious cases that the OEP is likely to bring, we consider that this test strikes the appropriate balance. I have every faith that it will do so and that the amendment will therefore be a valuable addition to the OEP’s enforcement framework as a whole. I hope that the amendment provides reassurance that the Government are thoroughly committed to protecting against environmental harms through the OEP’s enforcement functions, and that the House will support it today.

I turn to what I believe most people are waiting for: the issue of storm overflows. I hope that colleagues will bear with me while I set out our position, because I believe that this is extremely important. So many people have spoken to and contacted me constantly about this whole process and I will take questions at the end, if that is okay, because we are so tight for time.

I have been clear that the frequency with which sewage is discharged from storm overflows into our waters is absolutely unacceptable. It is a credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) and the campaigning of many others that the phrase “storm overflow” is now used 47 times on the face of the Bill. However, I recognise that many hon. Members wanted to see more, and I am pleased to have tabled a further amendment that says that water companies “must” secure a progressive reduction in the adverse impact of discharges from their storm overflows. In this legal drafting, the word “must” means that we are placing a direct legal duty on water companies to do this. That is really crucial. Water companies will have a simple choice: reduce sewage discharges or face the consequences—that is, strong enforcement action.

Turning back to the specific amendment from the Duke of Wellington, we have redrafted it to ensure that it has proper legal effect and there is more effective implementation, and we have gone further in places. I have had much discussion with the Duke of Wellington —I greatly respect and value that—and I would like to clarify a number of points. This amendment places a clear legal duty on water companies to deliver improvements —something that the Duke particularly pressed for. Indeed, ours is a stronger duty than in his wording. Our amendment will ensure that they have to take the necessary steps relative to the size of the problem. We have taken the “progressive” reduction wording from the Lords amendment. “Progressive” means that water companies must continue to take action even after the next price review period and even after they have achieved a significant reduction and tackled high-priority sites, as required in the draft policy statement to the regulator, Ofwat.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not take any interventions, because I just want to get this on the record, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind—I know that he is passionate about this whole environmental issue.

I am aware of some wildly inaccurate claims that have been circulating online for the past so many days that we are somehow legalising the dumping of raw sewage—we are not. Our amendment goes further than the Lords amendment by legally specifying that “adverse impacts” includes impacts both on the environment and on public health—for bathers, canoeists and so forth. Enforcement was a key part of the Duke’s amendment and our version goes further, because it will dock in with the existing enforcement regime in the Water Industry Act 1991. Ofwat can issue enforcement notices that can direct specific actions or fine companies up to 10% of their annual turnover, running to millions of pounds. If we do not see sufficient progress from water companies, Ofwat and the Government will be able to take enforcement action, and we will not hesitate to do so. Not only that—under other provisions in the Bill, the OEP will be able to take enforcement action against the Environment Agency or Ofwat or, indeed, the Government, should it feel that any of us are not adequately discharging our duties.

There has been much debate about the costs required to eliminate sewage discharges from storm overflows. Last week, the Storm Overflows Taskforce, which I set up, published research on this issue. It estimated that the complete elimination of sewage discharges through storm overflows in England, which many are calling for more broadly, is likely to cost between approximately £350 billion and £600 billion. That could mean up to £1,000 on bills every year. There are important discussions to be had about the best way to address this important issue while protecting bill payers, and this very morning, I called the CEOs of all the water companies in to a meeting. They assured me that they recognise the need for urgent action. We must see better performance from them and I will be watching the progress closely, as indeed, will the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

I would much very like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the Duke of Wellington for their tireless efforts on this issue. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government: you will be voting directly—

Environment Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am just going to answer this question.

Yes, the WHO has already lowered what it thinks is the safe limit, which I think demonstrates how complicated the issue is. It would be wrong to set a number on the face of the Bill without being absolutely certain that it was the right one—as my hon. Friend understands. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue with academics and scientists, and I am happy to share with others if that is helpful. We must make sure we get this right before we set the target. To be clear, to achieve even the 10 micrograms per metre squared in our cities would require significant change in all our lives. It would likely introduce policies aimed at restricting traffic kilometres by as much as 50% or more, a total ban on solid fuel burning including wood, and significant changes to farming practices to reduce ammonia, which reacts in the air to form particulate matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for all his work in this area. In the spirit of being friendly, I have a smile on my face, but I would say that we are not moving slowly. He did not even reference the clean air strategy, which the WHO commended as being a world-leading piece of legislation. That is already bringing in measures across the country. There is also the £3.6 billion in the nitrogen oxide programme. The new air quality Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—who is sitting here, has a very big health interest. We are taking this extremely seriously. We need to look at the wider context and the Bill will then set the two targets—not just the average target, but the population exposure target, which is really important.

[Geraint Davies]

Given that the World Health Organisation had a target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre, which we are asking for in this amendment, and it is now 5 micrograms, does that not show that the only direction is down? Ten micrograms is a minimum standard that we surely need to achieve both to save tens of thousands of lives and to tell the world, through COP26—8.7 million people are dying every year of air pollution—that global Britain means showcasing the fact that we are willing to provide legally binding targets to deliver on public health, care costs, productivity and a cleaner, greener, better world.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. We have met many, many times and we share a common interest in this issue. We are not arguing about its importance—[Interruption.] He is encouraging me—I thank him, but I do not need any encouragement actually; we realise how serious this is. The point is that we will be setting the target and we will be showing the world. We will announce that target next October, but we will consult on it before that. It would be wrong to set, for example, a specific number, if, indeed, we found that that number should be lower. I will leave it there.

We have to have a public consultation on this issue and we will do so early next year. Members of the public will want to understand not only the health impacts, but what impacts the measures that will be taken will have on their life. But we will not be sitting around. The consultation will allow us to bring forward the final target in October, and we cannot miss that target.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I would suggest a meeting with the new air quality Minister—actually, I meet Sir Stephen Holgate regularly, as he is one of our advisers. We are increasing monitoring across the country for exactly the purposes that the hon. Gentleman mentions: the better the data, the more we know what action we can take.

The targets that we are working on are being carefully approached with experts such as Sir Stephen Holgate, as well as others from Imperial College London and the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. We have two expert panels: the air quality expert group, chaired by Professor Alastair Lewis, and the committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, chaired by Anna Hansell of the University of Leicester. That will ensure that we get the targets right and that they are informed by the latest atmospheric science and health evidence. We will, of course, share those findings with the World Health Organisation.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to plough on for a bit, because I think I have been pretty generous so far. The two targets that we will set—a concentration target and a population exposure reduction target—will work together to both reduce PM_2.5 in areas with the highest levels and drive the continuous improvement that we need. A focus on reducing population exposure, not just a concentration-based target, recognises that there is no safe level of PM_2.5, and a scientific approach is absolutely the right way to go. We recognise that this will not be easy and that we need to engage with society to bring it along with us.

Plastic Waste

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Ms Rees. It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair. I am really pleased to be in this very important debate in Westminster Hall. As colleagues know, I take the whole issue of plastics very seriously indeed. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for bringing the issue to us. Clearly, there is an awful lot of synergy in the room on the issue, as there is from the public. I get a lot of letters from schools, as we all do. It is good that there is so much interest in this agenda, which we take very seriously in Government.

My hon. Friend mentioned that the issue is not just about what we do with waste at the end; it is about not producing it in the first place, and I will touch on that. That is why we have a lot of targets. We have already set targets to reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill to 10% by 2035, and an overall target of zero avoidable plastic waste of any kind by 2042—a point touched on by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). That does not mean that we will wait until then; we have a raft of measures in place to tackle the issue long before that. The Government are moving on the issue, which I am sure hon. Friends and hon. Members will understand, because we are moving towards a recyclable, reusable, compostable era, with all plastic[Official Report, 13 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 6MC.] waste hopefully being of that nature by 2025. We are committed to transitioning to a circular economy.

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not give way, because I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I want to get through the many points that have been made.

We have already introduced one of the toughest bans on microbeads and microplastics anywhere.[Official Report, 13 September 2021, Vol. 700, c. 6MC.] We have had the 5p carrier bag charge—now the 10p charge. As has been highlighted, that has cut down dramatically on the number of single-use plastic bags being used by supermarkets. We have extended it to small producers. I love the image of juggling the baby and not taking a bag. I have done the same, but I always take my Somerset Willow wicker basket with me. Everyone should have one—support local traditions.

We have also restricted the supply of single-use plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, and we will go much further than that shortly, because we are consulting on banning single-use plastic plates and cutlery, and polystyrene drinks containers. In that consultation, we will ask whether there are similar things that we should be working towards. I know that there is an awful lot of pressure relating to the EU single-use plastic directive, but we will be addressing all that and more. Indeed, we are tackling a whole lot of other issues that have not even been tackled yet by that directive. For example, we are looking at textiles, because a lot of textiles produce microfibres. There is an awful lot that we are working on.

Innovation and research have been touched on. We have established a £100 million package for research and innovation to deal with the issue of plastic waste. That includes £38 million through the plastics research and innovation fund and £10 million through the resource action fund to innovate in recycling and in tackling litter, which was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). Talking of science, she touched on oxo-biodegradables, an issue that has been raised with me and that I have had meetings about. As a result of a call for evidence on this, and the review by the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee on oxo-biodegradable plastics, we are minded to consult on a ban on those materials. That is the latest update that I can give her on that.

Plastic pollution is not just a problem for our country. That is why we have worked to support the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance and the tide turners plastic challenge badge, helping hundreds of thousands of young people tackle plastics in their communities. Through the £500 million Blue Planet Fund, we are investing in, among other things, the Global Plastic Action Partnership.

We are ready to go further, and that is why we are calling for a new global agreement to co-ordinate action on marine plastic litter and microplastics. Just as we had in Paris for climate change, we believe we need an international agreement on these types of plastic pollution. The majority of UN members are already on board, so when we come together at the UN Environmental Assembly next February, I hope that other nations will join in with this.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the Minister give way on that?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly.

[Geraint Davies]

Is the Minister sympathetic to the EU’s idea of a carbon border tax, whereby we tax imports of plastic? The implication is that the cost of plastic would go up and consumption would go down.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I heard what he said in his speech. All issues are being discussed. It is not something that we are particularly focusing on right now.

The export of plastics was touched on by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) and by the shadow Minister. We have committed to banning the export of waste to non-OECD countries, and we are working with other global partners to implement our obligations under the Basel convention and the OECD decision on waste. We have a robust system, run by the Environment Agency, for compliance and tackling any illegal exports of plastic. It is doing increasingly focused work on that. At a national level, I am sure the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that we are committed to tackling waste crime, mandatory electronic waste tracking and the overhauling and improving of the carrier, broker and dealer regime. We are moving on with that very shortly. This was mentioned in the Environment Bill as well, as she knows. Our comprehensive electronic waste tracking system will help regulators to identify illegal and non-compliant activity.

What next? Many councils are already doing great work on recycling. We are determined to learn more, and to ensure that every household can recycle easily, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned. We have myriad different systems, but clarity will be key, as well as guidance, because the Environment Bill requires a core set of materials to be collected by every council, to make recycling easier across the board.

We will seek powers under the Bill to introduce the deposit return scheme that so many hon. Members mentioned. It would apply to drinks containers of multiple materials—not just plastic—including packed plastic bottles. That has been very successful in other countries, as we have heard. We have consulted on the all-in-one and on-the-go systems, and we are analysing all that information.

On the digital DRS system, we have a lot of trials running on technology, because we have to harness that. There could be real opportunities there for systems in busy places such as transport hubs—railway stations and so forth—as well as shops. I know Scotland has been working away on the deposit return scheme. I think it has already been delayed and a review is under way, so we will watch how Scotland proceeds with interest. We have the extended producer responsibility scheme, introduced under the Environment Bill. That has a special focus on plastic packaging, because it is the most littered item. We will ensure that companies that place plastic packaging on the market will cover the costs of disposal, rather than passing it on to the taxpayer, which is what happens at the moment.

In addition, from April next year, the plastic packaging tax will impose a charge of £200 a tonne on plastic packaging with less than 30% recycled content. It is estimated that that will lead to 40% more recycled plastic used in packaging by 2022-23, which will cut carbon emissions by 200,000 tonnes. I think all hon. Members and friends will agree that that will be significant; it will make a big difference to our moving in the right direction, and it will happen very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned incineration. In October 2020, we legislated to include a permit condition for landfill and incineration operators, which means that they cannot accept separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic for landfill or incineration unless it has gone through some form of treatment process first and that is the best environmental outcome.

I hope this demonstrates how many measures are under way and will be coming forward shortly to help us to reach all those targets and to tackle this issue, which I think we all agree is a scourge. We must do something about it, but we genuinely are moving at great speed in the right direction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, I would be delighted to thank those key workers. We must not forget that those who work in the waste sector are key workers, and they have done a tremendous job in keeping our waste systems flowing, with a terrific record of 91% maintaining normal collection services from our households during this difficult period. Many are now working in the waste and recycling centres that I am pleased to say have opened, and that are working efficiently in almost every area—albeit with strict guidance and slightly different services from those that they were operating before.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the relationship between air quality and the rate of (a) death and (b) infection from covid-19.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the link between air quality and the exacerbation of covid-19 symptoms.

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

DEFRA has had extensive discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care on the relationship between air quality and health, recently considering the specific relationship between covid-19 deaths and air quality. DEFRA is actively working with Public Health England and the Office for National Statistics to assess further the relationship for the UK, and DEFRA’s chief scientific adviser is working with relevant experts in health, disease and air quality to assess the relationship between air quality and the risk of infection, based on the emerging scientific research into covid-19.

[Geraint Davies [V]]

Research from Harvard University suggests that a change of 1 microgram per cubic metre of PM2.5 leads to a 15% reduction in covid deaths, and Queen Mary University of London has shown that short-term pollution gives rise to more infection. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State meet me and the academics from Harvard and Queen Mary on 29 May at the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution to discuss this, with a view to introducing World Health Organisation air quality standards into the Environment Bill?

[Rebecca Pow]

I know that the hon. Gentleman works very hard in this area. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Public Health England and the ONS are working together to assess whether there is evidence of association between exposure to particulates—the PM2.5 that he refers to—and covid-19 mortality in the UK. The clean air strategy sets out the comprehensive action required across all parts of Government to improve air quality for everyone, and it includes measures to reduce key sources that contribute to fine particulate matter. Because of the lockdown, I think joining the APPG would be difficult, but I would be very interested to have some feedback from that meeting.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Geraint Davies and Rebecca Pow

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on speech and language difficulties, so my primary concern is that people will have their freedom taken away simply because they cannot be understood rather than due to a mental capacity problem. The Minister will know that this is a big problem, with something like 10% of children entering school having a speech or language difficulty. Some 60% of young people in the criminal justice system have a speech or language difficulty, and yet speech and language therapy reduces reoffending from 39% to 26%, so it is a cost-effective intervention at that stage and would be even more cost-effective beforehand. Some 81% of children with emotional and behavioural disorders have unidentified language difficulties. Left untreated, 33% of children with speech and language difficulties develop a mental illness, and half of them commit crimes.

In other words, it is important to identify and provide support for people in such situations because, as we have already heard, it can cost £13,000 a week to keep someone incarcerated, but that may be happening simply because they have not been properly understood and have not received the support they needed. There is therefore a financial and moral onus on us to identify and provide therapy to reduce and reverse the development of mental health problems linked to speech and language difficulties.

The situation at the moment—it will be the same under the Bill—is that assessors often will not and do not recognise speech and language difficulties or cannot differentiate between them, and they often do not know how to support the client and communicate their needs.

[Rebecca Pow]

I support all the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He is making a strong case. Does he believe that staff training on communication ought to be included in the Bill, and that speech therapists should be included in the list of approved mental capacity professionals?

[Geraint Davies]

I was going to make precisely that point. The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has said that the list of professionals should include such therapists and that all professionals carrying out assessments should have speech and language training so that they can identify the issues that they currently do not identify and provide clients with support. I ask the Minister to consider the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which requires that support must be provided for communication.

When people are deprived of their liberty, that comes through their lack of capacity to consent, which is questionable if there has been no proper assessment of speech and language difficulties. The person may have a mental disorder, and the action that is taken must be necessary and proportionate. If they object, a review is carried out, but there is no requirement that a speech and language therapist should be involved in the review, which is another change that needs to be made.

The central point is that speech and language problems do not mean a problem with mental capacity, but they are commonly misread as such, which obviously costs the public sector a fortune and costs thousands of people their liberty. As has already been asked, I ask the Minister to look carefully at these issues over a longer timeframe, because we are in danger of rushing this through under the heat and smoke of Brexit, and everything else, and we risk denying the liberty of people whose liberty should not be denied and costing the public sector a fortune when that money would be better invested in preventive treatment such as early intervention for speech and language problems.