Environment Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

The climate crisis is the most pressing issue facing our planet. The actions we take in the next few years will determine whether we can address the climate emergency or whether we pass on to our children the rotten inheritance of living on a dying planet. It is therefore with great responsibility that we debate this Bill.

The Government are calling this a “landmark Bill” and “world-leading legislation,” but I fear that is not quite right. The Secretary of State should be more honest, because this still seems like a draft Bill—a Bill that is not quite there. This is an okay Bill, but by no means the groundbreaking legislation we have been promised.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Does he share my concern and disappointment that the Secretary of State did not mention part 8? Part 8 refers to the potential for divergence from the incredibly important regulations on the chemical industry that affect our entire manufacturing sector, not just the chemical industry itself. Does he share my concern that part 8 has the ability to diverge, with serious consequences for most of our economy?

[Luke Pollard]

The details on regression and non-regression are an important part of this Bill. We need to make sure we maintain our high standards, because those high standards, especially in the chemical industry, drive jobs and employment right across the country. Any risk of divergence affects the ability of those products to be sold overseas, which affects the ability of jobs to be held back in our country. I am glad my hon. Friend has raised that issue.

Some hon. Members will remember when Parliament adopted Labour’s motion to declare a climate emergency. For me, it presents us with a very simple challenge: now that Parliament has declared a climate emergency, what are we doing differently? It is a challenge to us as individuals and to businesses, but it is especially a challenge to lawmakers, Ministers and regulators.

Because the climate crisis is real, we need bolder, swifter action to decarbonise our economy and to protect vulnerable habitats. We need to recognise that the crisis is not just about carbon, although it is. It is about other greenhouse gases, too, and it is an ecological emergency, with our planet’s animals, birds and insect species in decline and their habitats under threat.

The water we drink, the food we consume and the fish in our seas are all affected by pollutants, from plastics to chemicals. As we have seen from the floods caused by Storms Ciara and Dennis, the climate crisis is also leading to more extreme weather more often and with more severe consequences.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The National Flood Forum has noted that extreme and flash flooding will be one of the greatest effects of the climate crisis. In my constituency, we have experienced unprecedented flooding, and the River Taff’s levels rose by more than a metre above all previous records. If that is not a wake-up call, I do not know what is. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to act urgently to secure better climate protections, to ensure that all other towns, villages and cities across the world are not impacted in the way my community has been this week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and for all the work that she and her Welsh colleagues have been doing in supporting communities that are under water. We need much firmer action. We need a proper plan for flooding that reverses the austerity cuts made to our flood defences, and that removes the requirement for match funding which favours affluent communities over poorer ones. We also need urgent action from the Government to address the worrying aspects of the legacy of the coal industry in Wales, which could result in a real disaster if action is not taken. I encourage her to carry on campaigning on that.

As my hon. Friend has mentioned, Britain is not unique in the challenges facing us in terms of the climate catastrophe. In many cases, what will happen in the global south will be even more disastrous than what is happening in the UK. That is why action cannot wait.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of concerns that the Bill does not focus enough on the UK’s global footprint, so does he agree that the Government should introduce a mandatory due diligence mechanism, which would help to reduce the UK’s global footprint?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for that intervention. It is a good reminder that one way in which we have decarbonised in the past few years has simply been by exporting our carbon; we export not only waste, but the production of the most carbon-intensive products that we use. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Luke Pollard]

I will make some progress before taking further interventions, mindful of the people who are to follow.

As a nation, we need a gold-standard Environment Bill. I agree with the Minister that we need world-leading legislation, but this is not it. This still looks like a draft Bill; there has not been complete pre-legislative scrutiny for the entire Bill, which I think it needs; it lacks coherence as between its different sections; and it lacks the ambition to tackle the climate crisis as a whole with a comprehensive and renewed strategy. Labour will be a critical friend to Ministers during this process. We will be not be opposing the Bill today, but in that spirit we hope that Ministers will look seriously at adopting the measures we will put forward to improve and strengthen it, especially in Committee.

I have a concern about the positioning of the Bill: it has been spun so hard by successive Governments, and Secretaries of State in particular, that it cannot possibly deliver the grand soundbites that it has been set up as doing. That means that the heavy lifting required now to address our decarbonisation efforts and protect our communities may be hampered, because the Bill will not be able to deliver on those lofty promises. I worry that unless we match those grand soundbites with determined action, we will be failing our children and the communities we are here to serve.

In the time left, I want to cover three key areas of concern about the Bill. The first relates to Labour’s belief that non-regression in environmental standards must be a legal requirement. The second relates to how the new Office for Environmental Protection needs to be strengthened, and the third relates to how the ambition of Government press releases needs to be translated into genuine delivery in the Bill. First, on standards and targets, we were promised during the election that the Government would not lower our food standards, despite all the evidence pointing to the contrary, in post-Brexit trade deals. As we have already seen with the debates on the Agriculture Bill, Ministers have chosen to leave the door open for the undercutting of British farm and food standards in post-Brexit trade deals. The new Environment Secretary cannot even guarantee that chlorinated chicken or lactic acid-washed chicken will not be allowed into Britain as a result of the US trade deal. The rough ride he got with the National Farmers Union this morning will just be the start if he does not come to the realisation that many of us on both sides of this House have, that the commitment that he and others have given must be put into law. We cannot allow our standards to be undercut, and that principle of not allowing our standards to be undercut applies to this Bill too. We need to ensure that non-regression on environmental standards with the EU is a floor that we must not go below.

[Geraint Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will come back to my hon. Friend in a moment if I can.

We simply cannot allow our environmental standards to be undercut in the same way as our food and animal welfare standards risk being undercut with trade deals. We need to ensure that we have measures approaching dynamic alignment with the European Union so that Britain is not seen as a country with lower standards than our European friends. Lower regulatory standards and lower animal welfare standards, especially on imported food, would see damage to ecosystems and habitats and a downward pressure on regulation in future, which would harm our efforts to decarbonise our economy. I want to see the lofty words said by all the Ministers on the Front Bench and the Prime Minister about non-regression put in the Bill. Where is the legal commitment to non-regression on environmental protections that the British people have asked for? Why is it not clearly in the Bill? If we are to have any hope of tackling the climate emergency in a meaningful way, we need to be aiming towards net zero by 2030, not by 2050.

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

On net zero by 2030, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise what the Committee on Climate Change and Baroness Brown recognise, which is that reaching net zero by 2050 will be a huge challenge for this country? Blithely throwing around “2030” as though this is easy is doing a disservice not just this House, but to the people watching.

[Luke Pollard]

I am a big fan of the hon. Gentleman’s Instagram feed and follow it with great passion, and sometimes I feel a bit disappointed by interventions such as that. We cannot afford not to hit net zero by 2030, but the Government are currently on track for 2099. A far-off date many, moons away will not deal with the climate emergency and will not protect our habitats that need protecting. That drive needs to be there, though we know that for some sectors achieving net zero target by 2030 will be very challenging, and for some achieving it by 2050 will be very challenging, with agriculture being one of those sectors. The NFU’s plan to hit net zero by 2040 is very challenging. If sectors are to deliver net zero by any date, we will need some sectors to go faster and further than others to create carbon headroom, with the requirement that that progress is not double-counted in carbon calculations. Sadly, this supposedly world-leading Environment Bill does not have a single target in it. It contains no duty on Ministers to ensure that Britain decarbonises and stops the climate crisis getting any worse.

Secondly, I turn to the Office for Environmental Protection—the proposed new regulator. I know from previous debates that some Conservative Members are not too keen on the idea of a new Government outfit created in this space, but I agree with Ministers that we need a robust regulator. Sadly, the one being proposed in the Bill is not strong enough in our view. We need it to have teeth, and a remit that is unaffected by Government patronage. It needs to carefully consider the science and to have a bite that would make Ministers think twice about missing their targets. That is what the Office for Environmental Protection should be, but, sadly, that is not what the Bill envisages.

The new regulator does not have true independence from Government. It has no legal powers to hold the Government to account in the way it needs to. Approving its chair via a Government-led Select Committee, on which the Government have a majority, is not sufficient. Given that Ministers have been dragged time and time again through the courts for missing air quality targets, how can we ensure that this regulator would make that a thing of the past and not a repeat prescription?

We need Ministers to do as Members on both sides have suggested today and adopt World Health Organisation targets for air quality and particulates. We need regulators to have teeth to make sure that those targets are enforced, and we need to make sure that the new regulator sits and works in a complementary way in and with what is an already quite congested regulatory space on the environment.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Prospect the union has written to me expressing its concern that only 100 staff will be employed by the Office for Environmental Protection. Does the shadow Minister share my concerns about this under-resourcing?

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Since 2010 we have seen that quangos and regulators can still exist but their ability to deliver that regulation and the quality of that regulation depends on the resources. If a political lever is being applied by Ministers—as I have said before, I have a lot of time for the current Environment Secretary, but that does not necessarily mean that anyone who follows him would have the same approach—if budgets were to be changed and if political patronage were to be applied in terms of the OEP’s leadership and board, that could affect the outcomes. Resourcing does matter.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Luke Pollard]

I will not take any further interventions, so that I can finish my remarks. [Interruption.] I say that, but that would have been a good time for one. I come to the section of my speech about water, unless someone would like to intervene briefly. [Laughter.]

[Bim Afolami]

I do so in the spirit of kindness, but there is a serious point here. Luton airport is in the constituency next to mine, and one concern that many of my constituents have as a result is about air quality. All of our constituencies will have separate issues. What is the hon. Gentleman’s view as to how we can use this Bill to apply to specific instances at specific times—for example, to deal with poor air quality around Luton airport?

[Luke Pollard]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman and will like more of his Instagram posts as a reward for that kind intervention. We do need to address air quality around airports and transport modes in particular, but the ability to do that is predicated on the data, which is why my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) made the point that he did earlier. It is important to make sure that we take action based on reliable evidence, which means that we need the right testing stations. At the moment there are far too few air-quality monitoring stations. We need to go forward by embracing having monitoring stations on more schools, more GP surgeries and in more areas with a greater level of public dwelling. That is how we should address the issue. For airports in particular, it is about surface access and making sure that people can get to airports more easily.

I have been coughing and spluttering for a while, so I will rush through the rest of my speech so that I do not take up anyone else’s time. As Conservative Members have said, the part of the Bill that deals with water does not go far enough to deal with some of the issues relating to water poverty, or do anything to address per capita consumption or meaningful water labelling or to solve the challenge of where we are going to get the water that we need for the homes we need to build in future. For the Bill to be genuinely world leading, I would have hoped that the Government would adopt some of the current groundbreaking ideas in water policy, such as water neutrality, which is the idea that for every new home that we build we will not provide any more water resources—they will be offset by water efficiency in our existing housing stock. There are some really grand opportunities and fantastic water innovations, which is why we need the Bill to go further on water efficiency in our homes, actions on leaks and investment in water-efficient technologies. We also need a war on leaky loos, as that is important.

I would like the Government to look at a commitment whereby the water industry moves to using 100% renewable energy within the next five years. Ministers already have the power to do that, given the regulatory powers of Ofwat and DEFRA.

Finally, the Secretary of State has already mentioned that the Bill includes a section on trees that will allow trees to be chopped down in a different way. The Bill does not include any new powers to plant trees. That seems to be an omission: I imagine Members from all parties will look at the Bill and say, “Surely that’s not right.” Given that the Government are missing their tree-planting target by 71% already, further powers to chop down trees do not seem to be the priority. We need to look into not only how to plant more trees but at different types of biodiversity and habitats, and make sure that carbon is sequestered in the right way. That is really important, because if we are to address the loss of species, both in the UK and globally, we need to take action.

COP26 provides us with a global platform to showcase the very best of our global thinking, our action and our legislation. Currently, the Bill does not deliver the groundbreaking global platform that we need to take into COP26. I hope that Ministers will take seriously the concerns that I have raised and that my Opposition colleagues will address when they speak later, because there is a real desire on both sides of the House to improve the legislation and make it as genuinely world leading as the Secretary of State aspires for it to be. To that end, I invite the Secretary of State to work with us to improve the legislation; simply voting down every amendment so that we keep a clean sheet will not deliver that. I hope that he will take that challenge in the spirit in which it is meant so that we can work together to improve the legislation. The climate crisis needs to be addressed and it will not be sufficiently addressed if we allow the Bill to pass unaltered.

Environment Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, I would be absolutely delighted to welcome those essays from Christ Church primary school. Indeed, if the hon. Member would like me to send a letter from the Environment Minister, I would be delighted to do so. I am always very pleased to speak to our students and young children about what we are doing on the environment, and they are our future generations whom we are doing all this for, so I thank her for that. We are going to talk about REACH later—I engage very closely with the industry—so we will discuss that in the second grouping of amendments today.

Just before that intervention, I mentioned the new independent Office for Environmental Protection, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with an update on the OEP. We want to ensure that this is located in a good long-term place and, trust me, there were an awful lot of contenders. After considering wider locations, we have decided that Worcester will be an excellent location for the headquarters of the OEP. This is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that opportunities are spread fairly across the country. My heart goes out to people in the area who may have been flooded this week, but I hope the OEP’s being based in Worcester gives a little bit of good news.

As the Prime Minister set out in the Government’s 10-point plan to net zero, protection, restoration and enhancement of our natural environment are crucial. The Bill will play a key part in that mission. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for opening the debate by raising some important points on the environmental principles. The environmental principles will work together to protect the environment from damage by making environmental considerations central to the policy development process across Government. I am keen to hear views from across the House, and there are many references to the environmental principles in some of the other amendments, so I shall respond in more detail to some of her points on the principles and other important issues at the end of the debate. I reassure her, though, that we are working at pace: during the break between the two Report sessions, we will continue unstintingly to deliver measures in the Bill.

Before I go any further, let me mention some Government amendments, some of which make relatively technical changes that will improve and enhance the Bill. Government amendment 6, tabled by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, clarifies that both the terrestrial and the marine aspects of England’s natural environment will be considered when conducting the significant improvement test in clause 6. That has always been our intention, as I explained in Committee, but the amendment puts it beyond doubt. I am delighted that the amendment spells out that marine is absolutely part and parcel of what we mean when we talk about the environment.

With regard to the Office for Environmental Protection, Government amendment 31, also tabled by the Secretary of State, is a technical amendment that simply serves to clarify that section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 does not apply on an environmental review, providing the courts with a full range of remedies for the OEP environmental review procedure. Government amendments 9 to 20, also tabled by the Secretary of State, align the clauses relating to the OEP’s Northern Ireland enforcement functions with the amended part 1 provisions. Those amendments were personally requested by Northern Ireland Ministers.

I welcome the opportunity to hear from hon. Friends and Members on both sides of the House on this vital Bill, and I look forward to responding at the end of the debate.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak to new clause 9 and amendments 25, 39 and 23 in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

Parliament declared a climate and ecological emergency on 1 May 2019. A year and a half has passed, and the need for more urgent action on the environment has only increased. If we are to avoid catastrophic climate change that would only destroy jobs, homes, biodiversity and our planet, we have just nine short years to cut carbon emissions and protect nature, according to the UN’s experts on climate and biodiversity. As David Attenborough says,

“the living world is on course to tip and collapse. Indeed, it has already begun to do so”.

This Bill is a cobbled-together set of disparate actions that is sinking under the weight of greenwash that has been applied by Ministers. It does not take the urgent action that is so desperately needed.

This legislation is not perfect by any means, but the Bill should already be law. The deliberate pausing of Report stage after today means that some amendments will not be debated by MPs until May, the Bill will not be in the House of Lords until just before the summer, and it risks not being on the statute book until the autumn. That means we could be waiting over six months more for an environmental watchdog, for powers to stop our children breathing unsafe air, and to regulate Ministers’ actions. The Minister said that she did not want to see a delay in the Bill, while she was moving a motion to delay the Bill. That simply is not good enough. What a terrible message to send to the world in the year we are hosting COP26. It was supposed to be in law before Britain left the Brexit transition period and it is not. It was supposed to be bold and world-leading because of the urgency of the climate crisis and it is not.

This is a go-slow Government when it comes to environmental action. If we could solve the climate crisis with press releases then the planet would have nothing to worry about, but it is actions, not words, that we need. We need faster action to create the well-paid green jobs our communities need, and we need bolder action on improving standards and protecting habitats and species, so we can strengthen our economy and rebuild our country. If building back better after the pandemic is to be genuine, and not a smash and grab on the language of the environmental left, it must be underpinned by bold policy.

The Bill has a number of important issues, so let me deal with some of the main ones—first, air quality. The whole House remembers Ella Kissi-Debrah, a nine-year-old girl who tragically died following an asthma attack in London seven years ago. The coroner’s court found that air pollution made a material contribution to Ella’s death. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for working with Ella’s mum Rosamund in demanding bolder action. This Sunday would have been Ella’s 17th birthday. As her mum wrote in The Sun on Sunday:

“Had WHO air pollution limits been in place and enforced then, according to the Coroner’s report, she would still be here today.”

Air quality is a matter of social justice, of equality and of poverty and requires fundamental change in the way we do business.

There are three amendments on air quality in the names of my Devon colleague the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and in my own name. All the amendments seek real action on air pollution. Labour will back all of them if they are put to the vote. According to figures published by NHS England, on average 5% of deaths in those over 30 can be attributed to PM_2.5 air pollution. What that means is 40,000 deaths a year are caused by poor air—40,000 deaths. The Confederation of British Industry estimates that a £1.6 billion economic benefit to the UK could be released if we met WHO guidelines.

It is frankly bizarre that, faced with such mounting evidence of the unnecessary deaths caused by poor air, Ministers still refuse to put WHO air quality standards into law. I want to see the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs step up and hold Ministers’ feet to the fire. That means taking the case for the toughest WHO air quality targets to force the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to radically up their game. If Ministers still refuse to accept our amendments, can the Minister confirm she will use the powers in the Bill to adopt WHO targets and exceed them if she can whenever the Bill eventually gets on the statute book? A Labour Government would adopt WHO targets because it is simply the right thing to do, so that everyone in all our communities has clean air to breathe.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will not for time’s sake.

You cannot build back better if you are struggling to breathe.

Secondly, let me to turn to the Office for Environmental Protection. The Bill should have been passed by the end of the Brexit transition period, and the OEP should be up and running now. Labour offered to work with Ministers to ensure that that happened, but here we are with that date passed and the Bill still unlikely to become law until autumn, which is a year too late. That means the UK is now without an environmental watchdog, as the OEP has not yet been set up. We are concerned that it will be a weak watchdog with no real teeth. Calling it tough will in itself not make it tough. The OEP needs to be vigorously independent. That is why our amendment would delete a clause that would allow the Secretary of State to give guidance to the OEP and effectively let the Government mark their own homework. It is backed by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which concluded that we should make sure that

“every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible”.

Although I think many of us would have preferred an out-and-out environmentalist to be leading the OEP, the appointment of Dame Glenys Stacey is welcome and I hope the board members she is now recruiting will look a tad greener. But I must say to the Minister that, as a south-west Member of Parliament, I am deeply concerned that the Government have just robbed the south-west of the Office for Environmental Protection. She will know it was announced in October 2019 that it would be going to Bristol. She knows that the expectation was that this would be a south-west-based regulator and she knows of the anger—the anger—that this will cause in the south-west on finding out it has been sent to somewhere that she claims is near Bristol. Worcester is nowhere near Bristol and that promise is nowhere near being met. The south-west has been robbed of a regulator and I think that is deeply, deeply worrying.



Let me turn briefly to bees and Labour’s amendment to prevent the Government from lifting the ban on bee-killing chemicals. I am a fan of bees; my family keeps bees on a farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 out of 35 native bee species. Bees are essential to the future of our planet, to pollenating our crops and to our rich tapestry of biodiversity, so bee health is non-negotiable. That is what MPs on both sides of the House say in good times, so I expect them to say it now. Labour’s amendment would oppose the Conservative plan to lift the ban on bee-killing pesticides. If bee health really is non-negotiable, the ban must not be set aside just because it is convenient to do so now. There is no doubt that sugar beet farmers have been hit hard by crop blight, but lifting the ban is not the solution. Improved sugar contracts, compensation and accelerating blight-resistant varieties are a much better answer.

Environment Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before the shadow Secretary of State rises to speak, let me remind Members that the time limit on Back-Bench speeches is four minutes, as we have a lot of interest in this important Bill.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Two years ago this month, it was Parliament that declared a climate and an ecological emergency. We were the first Parliament in the world to do so in what was a truly landmark moment in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. I was proud to work on that declaration and proud that it was a Labour motion. We need more landmark moments such as that if we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency in a meaningful way. We were promised that the Environment Bill would be a landmark Bill.

“Landmark” is what the Government kept saying, seemingly until England’s rolling hills were littered with press releases as far as the eye could see, but, sadly, it is not a landmark Bill.

Let us be clear about what the climate crisis means. If we do not take the bold action now that is required, the freak weather, the destruction of homes, job losses, food shortages, habitat loss and species extinction will only get worse. Since Parliament declared that climate emergency, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs has issued 508 press releases about the environment. The group plural for a set of press releases evades me. It could be a discombobulation, a tedium, or a wafer. None the less, the Government seem to have been more focused on the spin than the substance of the matter. The press releases, ambitions, targets and soundbites are no substitute for the bold action that we need on the climate.

[Catherine West]

What does my hon. Friend make of the World Wildlife Fund’s statement that the Bill does not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and oceans? Specifically, I know that there is interest across the House in what is happening in neighbourhoods and suburbs. In my own constituency of Muswell Hill, Highgate and Stroud Green, there is a lot of concern about trees coming down unnecessarily. How can we make that vision a reality?

[Luke Pollard]

Both my hon. Friend and the WWF are right that we need to see bolder action on forests and the oceans. It is a shocking indictment of this Bill that there is barely a mention of the oceans, which is a really important part of our environment.

Ministers must act in a quicker and more decisive way on the environment than we have seen to date. I hoped that the delay in the Bill would have given Ministers that time to be bolder, but I am afraid that they have not used their time as wisely as I would have liked. I welcome the steps forward that the Minister has announced, but they are not enough. The pace and urgency seem to be absent. Our rivers are polluted. There is not a single river in England safe to swim in. More species face extinction at home and abroad; more bees are dying from bee-killing pesticides, the use of which is legitimised by this Government; more plastics are entering our oceans; and dangerous particulates are entering the lungs of some of our most vulnerable. Where is the vision? Where is the landmark boldness that we were promised? Where is the rock-the-boat carbon cutting innovation? Where is the determination to push harder and harder to clean our air, protect our species, plant more trees and get us back on a course for nature recovery? Where is the World Health Organisation’s air quality targets in the Bill? Where is the boldness on ocean protection? We need that bold action not only to cut carbon, but to step up and protect our natural environment as well. If we have this approach that we can either solve a carbon crisis or an ecological crisis, we will solve neither. We need to solve both of them together, or neither of them at all.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I support the amendments, which are also in my name. Many constituents have written to me about these issues. Does he agree that there is a stark contrast here with the approach shown by the Welsh Labour Government? Let us take their tree-planting programme as an example. Since 2008, the Plant! scheme has planted a tree for every child born or adopted in Wales and also in Uganda, supporting forestation globally. The Welsh Government have also introduced a new moratorium on incineration, which affects my constituency and that of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), when it comes to that crucial issue of air quality

[Luke Pollard]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. What the Welsh Labour Government have shown is that we can be bold and decisive and that we can take people with us on that journey. The “people first” approach in Wales is something that could be replicated in an English approach, but sadly, England has fallen further and further behind other nations in the United Kingdom. That is why I want the Minister to do more to preserve our precious habitats and biodiversity. If a car is speeding off a cliff, it is not enough simply to slow it down; we have to bring it to a stop and turn things around, and that is why Labour has tabled several amendments to try to inject some of the boldness that we need into the Bill. Let me turn to those amendments now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government’s proposals on planning reform will actually make the proposals in the Environment Bill on net gain and protecting habitats far more difficult, in that they are a developers’ charter and the wishes of local people are likely to be overridden?

[Luke Pollard]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why Labour is arguing for a comprehensive, joined-up approach from Ministers, in which DEFRA’s policies align with those of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and with Treasury funding. They do not do so at the moment; we have a developers’ charter that does not match the protections that the Minister is talking about. I believe the Minister when she says she is passionate about this, but I just do not see that read-across in Government policy. The peripheralisation of DEFRA in the Government debate is not helping to protect our habitats when other Ministers are able to get away with habitat-destroying policies and seemingly all we have is a Minister patting himself on the back for this Bill. That is not enough, and I am glad my hon. Friend raised that example.

I am worried that the Government’s approach to species conservation is seemingly ad hoc and represents an unambitious approach that seems to have overtaken DEFRA. Labour’s amendment 46 demands a strategic approach to species conservation through protecting, restoring and creating habitats over a wider area to meet the needs of the individual species that are being protected. It acknowledges the vital role that species conservation can play in restoring biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. Indeed, it builds on Labour’s amendment to the Bill tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) at the last stage that would see a nature recovery by 2030. I welcome the steps forward on that but I would like to see more detail, because at the moment it seems like a good press release, but without enough action to ensure that the delivery is ensured.

Mr Speaker, you will know that I am a big fan of bees. I should declare an interest because my family keep bees on their farm in Cornwall. Since 1900, the UK has lost 13 of its 35 native species of bee. Bees are essential to our future on the planet, to pollinating crops and to the rich tapestry of biodiversity that depends on them. Bee health is non-negotiable; we must do all we can to protect our precious pollinators. On the first day on Report, the Conservatives voted down Labour’s amendment that would have restored the ban on bee-killing pesticides; on day 2 on Report—today—will the Government back or defeat Labour’s amendment 46 on species conservation? This really matters because bees really matter, and I think the concern is shared across party lines. The steps that the Minister has taken to support sugar beet farmers, especially in the east of England, is welcome. I want to support sugar beet farmers as well—I want to support British agriculture, which is especially needed given the risk of an Australian trade deal—but lifting the ban on bee-killing pesticides is not the answer. It will not help us in the long term.

Like many campaigners and stakeholders, we on the Opposition Benches are concerned that the overt focus on development in the explanatory narrative on clause 108 supplied by the Government suggests that it could fall into a worrying category. Labour’s amendment 46 seeks to correct that by putting nature-recovery objectives, underpinned by evidence, into the heart of the strategies and ensuring that each one abides by the mitigation hierarchy, starting with trying to conserve existing habitat and then moving to habitat compensation only when all other avenues have been exhausted. That will ensure that each strategy serves to recover a species, rather than greenlighting the destruction of existing habitats that are important to that species, in return for inadequate compensation elsewhere. Our amendment is common sense, it would strengthen the provisions in the name of the Secretary of State and, if passed, will show that this House cares about getting the most out of the Bill. I hope the Minister will give additional attention to those provisions when the Bill enters the other place.

On the other amendments that have been tabled on the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations and Government new clauses 21 and 22, I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—she and I share an awful lot in common on this matter—because on the face of it we are minded to agree that we cannot rely on the Government not to dilute the environmental protections currently in the nature directives. I heard what the Minister had to say and think her heart is in the right place, but I want to see things put in law. She may not be a Minister forever and we need to make sure that whoever follows her will have the same zeal and encouragement. I am afraid that unless it is on the face of the Bill, there is a risk that that might not happen.

We support amendments 26 and 27, tabled by the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on deforestation, the extension of due diligence requirements to the finance sector and the strengthening of protection for local communities and indigenous peoples. That is a good example of a Select Committee Chair proposing something meaningful and important that might not always get the headlines. He is playing an important role and we encourage power to his elbow.

In conclusion, the Bill has been stuck for too long. I had hoped that the delay in bringing the Bill forward caused by the Government would have altered the Government’s pedestrian approach and resulted in bolder action, with more amendments to the Bill to take on the concerns of non-governmental organisations, stakeholders and, indeed, the constituents we all represent. But on air quality, it fails to put WHO targets into law. It fails to require enough trees or seagrass to be planted. It fails to look at our marine environment in a meaningful way. On targets, it is weak, and the difficult decisions required to hit net zero seem to be parked for future dates. It is absent on ocean protection, which is surely a key part of our environment as an island nation.

Labour’s amendments would strengthen the Bill. In all sincerity, I encourage the Minister to look closely at them, because they are good amendments. But that is precisely why I fear that the Government will Whip their MPs to vote against them. I do not think that Ministers want a strong, landmark Bill; I think they want a weak Bill that allows them the freedom to park difficult decisions, delay urgent action and act in their own best interests rather than the planet’s. This Bill is enough to look busy—to do something—but not enough to make meaningful change. It is in that grey area that a real danger lies: enough to convince the public that something is being done without fundamentally changing the outcomes at the end of it—to lull people into a false sense of security that change is happening and does not require the difficult decisions that we all in our hearts know are coming.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as always. I do not think it is fair to say that it is a weak Bill. May I probe the Opposition, as we are on Report, on the whole issue of biodiversity as a condition of planning permission? There are amendments on the amendment paper in that respect today; where do the Opposition stand on planning permission and biodiversity as a precondition thereof?

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention; I know he always listens carefully to my speeches on this subject, and his question is a good one. We are facing a bit of a planning crisis. I am concerned that the developers’ charter that has been set out by the Government regarding planning on one side of Government practice does not fit neatly with what is being proposed in this Bill, on this side of Government practice.

If we are to have the expansion in a free-for-all for development that is being proposed by one Government Department, it is hard to see how that fits with the biodiversity protections on another side of Government. I would like them to gel together, because I want developers to provide the more affordable homes, the zero-carbon homes and the low-carbon homes that we need in all our constituencies. To do that, we need to send a clear message to them about how biodiversity is to be built into the planning system. Where, for instance, is the requirement for swift bricks to be built into new developments—building nature into them? Where is the requirements to have hedgehog holes in some of the fences, as we have seen from some developers?

There are an awful lot of good interventions on biodiversity and planning that create not unnecessary red tape or cost, but an environment where we can build nature into our new planning system. At the moment, I am concerned that those two things do not match together, which is why we want to see biodiversity much more integrated into the planning system. If I am honest, I think Government Members also want that to happen, which is why the planning reforms proposed in the Queen’s Speech do not fit with this Bill and why there is such concern.

[Bob Seely]

These are good individual ideas, but the problem is actually a much wider one. If we do not have a recycling culture in housing and planning, we are just going to use lots of greenfield sites. Doing so would damage not only our environment, but our communities; we would be doing social damage by leaving brownfield sites undeveloped. We need to start taxing greenfield sites and doing radical stuff, so that we get joined-up Government and use that money massively to clear the way for developing brownfield sites. That is what we need to be doing—not just putting in nice little bee bricks, as important as they are.

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am a big fan of bee bricks as well as swift bricks. I fear that his intervention was aimed more at the Government than at me. I hope that the Minister will be listening carefully to her own Back Benchers, because, whether she agrees with the words of the Opposition or not, we need a bolder Environment Bill. We need it to be better joined up across Government because we are not there yet.

DEFRA was at the heart of Government when the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) was in charge, but it has lost its way. It has lost its va va voom. It is now dominated by a bland and dreary managerialism. Where is the energy and drive needed to tackle the climate crisis? The Department has a lot of decent junior Ministers—one of them is opposite me now—but I think it has lost its way. This Bill is okay. It is passable. It is a bit “meh”. But it is not landmark. Indeed, it is deliberately not a landmark Bill.

I say to the Minister: look carefully at Labour’s amendments and please let us work together to get this Bill back on track. I agree with her on the need for bold action; I just do not think that this Bill delivers it. If we are properly to address the climate and ecological crisis, we need more, bolder and decisive action than I am afraid this Bill includes.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that the speaking limit in effect for Back Benchers is four minutes. The countdown clock will be visible on the screen of hon. Members participating virtually and on the screens in the Chamber. For hon. Members participating physically in the Chamber, the usual clock in the Chamber will now operate. I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.

Environment Bill

Luke Pollard Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker—that is a pity. My fault—I got carried away. Today, I am asking the House to vote in support of the Government, and this means a vote directly to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas, with greater protection for our waters than ever before.

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Here we are again—it is 648 days since the Environment Bill was first introduced to Parliament and we are still here debating it, trying to get bolder action from Ministers on the environment, climate and nature. Ministers, I am afraid, are still dragging their heels in not introducing the bold action that we need—particularly against the routine discharge of raw sewage into rivers—still favouring a weaker watchdog than they should be.

In the middle of a climate and ecological crisis and at the very time that the UK is hosting COP26, this is generational injustice in action. We need to see bolder action. There was no mention from the Chancellor in the Budget of climate or nature. In fact, there were cuts to domestic flying duty, coupled with the Prime Minister flying from Glasgow to London on a private jet. I am sure that the Minister will have joined me when we came back from COP in travelling by train, rather than flying, and the Prime Minister should have done so as well. It is a wrong, bad, outdated message to say, “Do as I say. Don’t do as I do”, but I am afraid that that is what we are used to. It sets an appalling example for the world that the Prime Minister did not take the train instead of taking the plane, and it is up to us here to sort that out.

Britain is, again, the dirty man of Europe. Not one English river is in a healthy condition; not one meets good chemical standards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

As a keen wild swimmer, I want bathing water quality in our rivers to improve massively, not just for swimmers but for the natural world, so I support the hon. Lady in her efforts.

Water quality in our rivers in England is not good enough. In the past year alone, raw sewage was discharged into UK rivers and seas more than 400,000 times. The Government’s response was to whip their MPs to vote against an amendment that would have stopped raw human sewage pouring into our precious rivers and seas. I am afraid that the message that that vote sent was a poor one.

Then came the rightful public outcry, which shamed the Government into a U-turn after days of digging in their heels. They have now adopted much of the amendment that they voted against, which is welcome, but they have not adopted it all. I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State for their time speaking to the Opposition about the issue, and I am grateful for the Minister’s words today putting our concerns on record, but I have to say that publishing an amendment at 5 pm last Friday did not really build trust, either among Members on both sides of the House who wanted to see the detail or among the stakeholders who were looking forward to scrutinising carefully what the Minister had to say.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Trust is paramount for the communities up and down the great rivers of this country, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) mentioned. Reading is downstream from Abingdon; London is further downstream. We are all deeply concerned about the state of our rivers. Although the Government have given some concessions and have listened to some extent, the way they have behaved still leaves a lot to be desired. The public remain deeply concerned about the issue.

[Luke Pollard]

I believe that the public are seriously concerned about what has happened in the House over the past few weeks. They have been alerted and awakened to the volume of raw sewage discharged into their rivers and seas; they want faster and bolder action from Ministers now that they are aware of this absolute outrage in our environment. That is why we need to build trust again.

In her speech and in earlier remarks, the Minister has cited a figure of more than £600 billion, but the maths is disputed, to say the least. It is not sufficient to say, “To deal with this properly will cost £600 billion, but to deal with tinkering around the edges will cost hardly anything on the side,” and pretend that those are fair options to choose between. We need a much bolder approach, with honesty and clarity rather than threats about bills and about how the process works.

We also need to look at how to build trust with the public again, because they are very concerned. I share the Minister’s concern about fake news online and do not wish to see wildly inaccurate claims made, so such a large figure needs to be backed up with clear evidence. I have tabled a parliamentary question asking the Minister for the working behind it; I hope she will be able to confirm the answer in due course.

Labour wants a stronger amendment. The Minister’s amendment in lieu of the Duke of Wellington’s amendment is confined to storm overflows rather than addressing the sewerage system as a whole—a really important point. There is no specific duty on Ofwat or the Environment Agency to ensure compliance, but there should be. We need to focus on reducing harm, rather than just on the adverse impacts. The amendment in lieu looks like the Government looking busy without making a real difference, so I want to set out three things that I hope the Minister will confirm today that could make a difference.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

We all want to clean up the rivers. Could the hon. Gentleman give some idea of the timetable and cost that he thinks would be appropriate?

[Luke Pollard]

Funnily enough, that is a point that I was going to refer to the Minister, because there is no timetable—a really glaring hole in what has been published today. A progressive reduction in discharges sounds all well and good, but I would like to progressively reduce the amount of cake I eat, and yet there is a big difference between doing that over a day and doing it over a year. I am a big fan of cake, as some in the House may know.

Let us get down to the detail. There are three things that I would like the Minister to confirm; otherwise, I fear that we will not be able to support her amendment. First, will she commit to reviewing the scale of fines so that water companies that continue to routinely discharge raw sewage face higher penalties?

Secondly, Labour wants the guidance in the strategic policy statement for Ofwat to be super-strengthened so that there is a clear direction to water companies to target the most polluting discharges now, with a plan to address the rest urgently against a clear timeframe. Progress by DEFRA, Ofwat, the EA and water companies should have proper parliamentary scrutiny annually via the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, or potentially the Environmental Audit Committee.

Thirdly, will the Minister set out in detail what she means by “progressive reduction”? That means answering two very simple questions: by when, and how much? If that cannot be set out, it is just spin. I fear that water companies could say, “We are meeting our progressive reduction with these two tiny projects over here,” and not set out a clear commitment. By when and how much will discharges be progressively reduced?

[Geraint Davies]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Luke Pollard]

I will keep going, just because of the pressure on time.

It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. Water UK and water companies tell us that they have concerns about the Government’s amendment and favour the Duke of Wellington’s. Green groups, environmental groups, angling groups, fishing groups and swimming groups also say that they favour the Duke of Wellington’s amendment over the compromise amendment, so there is widespread concern.

There is a lesson for Tory Back Benchers from the sewage vote and from what happened last week with parliamentary standards and corruption. It is now a brave Tory Back Bencher who will listen to their Whips on unpopular votes, because after dragging their MPs into the gutter, the Government are likely to U-turn a week later and make them look foolish. However, let us be clear about the agency that each Member of Parliament has. The last vote on sewage was a disaster for the reputation of many Members of this House. They knew what they were doing: they were putting the party Whip ahead of the environment, and voters will judge them on it. Doing it once was a mistake; doing it twice is a pattern that voters will recognise and will vote on accordingly next time round.

It is vital that we rebuild trust on the issue. The sewage scandal has been a shameful episode for the Government. There is real cross-party desire to make our approach stronger. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three elements that I have outlined so that we can support her amendment; if we do not get that reassurance, I am afraid that we cannot.

Labour wants the OEP, instead of being a lapdog, to be a strong, robustly independent watchdog. The Minister has tried to put reassurances on the record that the Government will not seek to frustrate the OEP if it needs to hold them to account and take enforcement action against Ministers. In the past week, however, we have seen exactly what happens when the rules no longer suit the Government, so we want them in the Bill—not just a statement from the Dispatch Box that may or may not be used in future court cases, but clear rules in the Bill.

What the Minister set out about having regard to the guidance is welcome, but the experience with budget-setting powers and with the Electoral Commission, where Ministers have threatened a public body on receiving bad news from it in another investigation, is a bad precedent that needs to be removed.

We want the Bill to be better. There are good things in it, but on the whole it is just a bit “meh”: it does not reach the scale of the action we need for the scale of the crisis we face. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister set out whether she will support the three things that I mentioned. If not, I am afraid that Labour will not be able to support her compromise amendment on sewage and will vote against it so that we can secure a vote on the Duke of Wellington’s amendment, which is far superior.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

I am very conscious of time, so I will be brief. I rise to discuss Lords amendment 45 and the Government amendment in lieu of Lords amendment 45B. I thank the Minister for the time that she and the Secretary of State have taken to engage with me and with the Duke of Wellington in relation to his amendment, which I supported at the last stage. I particularly thank the Minister for her clarification today that the Government amendment in lieu places in the Bill a clear duty on water companies to reduce the impact of sewage discharges. That issue was at the heart of my private Member’s Bill and is included in her amendment.

What the Minister’s amendment adds, which was not in my private Member’s Bill or, frankly, in the Duke’s amendment, is the commitment to include a reduction in harm to public health, which will be of great benefit to the increasing numbers of people who use our rivers for swimming, canoeing and other activities that involve actually getting into the water, rather than just touching it with a fly or a leaded weight to catch a fish. The public health impact is something that we should not forget.

There have been comments about how effective the Minister’s proposed enforcement regime will be. I think that locking the enforcement regime into the existing Water Industry Act regime is potentially a more effective method than the one proposed in the previous Lords amendment. Of course there will have to be enforcement, and one of the big problems that we have had with the Environment Agency over the last 30 years is that its powers have not been rigorously enforced. I strongly encourage the Minister, as she engages with the consequences of the spending review, to urge the agency to increase its enforcement efforts in respect of the water companies.

There have also been comments—a few moments ago from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), with whom I have also engaged on this matter, and from outside—to the effect that the concept of a progressive reduction could be trivial. The hon. Gentleman gave some examples. I think that that is to fundamentally misunderstand how the amendment will lock into the other measures in the Bill. Before my private Member’s Bill emerged, the Government had already indicated that they would introduce for the first time in statute a requirement for sewerage undertakings to produce a drainage and sewerage management plan to last five years. Every five years, it would be updated. Within that plan, there is a requirement to reduce the impact of the activities on the environment.

The proposed new clause locks the duty into those plans, and the plans are subject to a Government power to rewrite them if the Secretary of State of the day does not believe that they are good enough or go far enough. So there is, in my view, a clear link between the amendment and requiring water companies to make a progressive reduction in sewage discharges of materiality. That seems to have been missed by many of the commentators who have been complaining about whether the Bill has teeth.

In addition—as the Minister said—to this set of requirements on water companies, the office for environmental protection will have the power to investigate poor behaviour on the part of companies that do not meet their statutory duties in the Bill, which include a progressive reduction in sewage discharges and their impact. It will be able to consider whether the Environment Agency is doing its job in regulating the companies’ progressive reduction of those discharges, and, as we have just heard, it can also investigate Ofwat.

For all those reasons, I think that the Bill provides a clear direction to water companies that they must reduce sewage discharges, which, as Members in all parts of the House agree, have got to stop. I will be supporting the amendment.