Water Quality: Sewage Discharge

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I agree. Facts are our friends in these matters, and it is important that we continue to ensure that our constituents are well informed.

I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that there is a massive difference between a press release and a plan. We have already set out our plans and are delivering them: the environmental improvement plan; our integrated plan for water, which is tackling all forms of water pollution from transport and metal mines to forever chemicals and farming; and our storm overflow reduction plan, which I am pleased to announce today that we are planning to enshrine further in law. Through the Environment Act 2021, we will legislate for a clear target on storm overflow reduction in line with our plan. That clear, credible and costed legally binding target will add to our transparent and determined approach to solving the issue, while being careful with consumer bills.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know, having grown up in Liverpool, how beautiful the coastal constituency of Wirral West is. The Rivers Trust found that a sewer storm overflow in Caldy spilled 75 times in 2022, for a total of more than 1,700 hours, discharging directly into the Dee estuary. It is a very beautiful part of the world, where people go to enjoy the beach, let their children play, enjoy water sports and so forth. It is also very important environmentally—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Lady is meant to be making an intervention, not a speech. It has to be brief.

Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 General Committees

[Rebecca Pow]

The large producers will bear the brunt of the new measures—the brand owners, the people who put the brand on the market, will be responsible. The regulations we are discussing today are just about recording data. There will be two categories: large producers, and smaller ones producing more than a certain tonnage. I will clarify all the details later in my speech. We have consulted twice, and the industry understands and is overwhelmingly in favour of the system. The concerns my right hon. Friend expresses have been addressed in the creation of this draft statutory instrument.

While we are talking about the cost, it is important to note that the measure will shift the cost away from local authorities, which at the moment do the collecting of packaging, funded by taxpayers, and on to producers who put the stuff on the market. It will provide an estimated £1.2 billion of funding to local authorities across the UK each year for managing packaging waste. This is a big part of driving us toward the circular economy we have all been talking about for so long. Councils will get the extra funding to deal with rubbish and recycling, easing pressure on council budgets.

We set out our intention to introduce extended producer responsibility in our 25-year environment plan and in our 2019 manifesto. Working with the devolved Administrations, we have agreed to introduce EPR for packaging at the UK level. The regulations will require packaging producers to collect and report data on the amounts and types of packaging that they supply from March this year. If they already hold the data, which most large producers do, they will have to supply it from January this year, so giving us more information.

On material type, producers will have to collect data on plastic, steel, aluminium, paper and card, wood, glass, fibre and fibre-based composites—basically, fibre-based cups. That is a new thing. They will collect data on the weight and the number of drinks containers, and state whether they come from England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. They will also give some data on the amount of packaging that ends up being binned—trying to reduce littering is an important part of what we are doing. The data is needed to calculate producers’ recycling obligations and the EPR fees that producers will pay to cover the cost of managing household packaging waste from 2024. We have to start getting the data this year to work out those fees, so the system can be up and running next year.

Packaging producers already report data on packaging under the current producer responsibility regulations. The new regulations will refocus the obligations on the producers that have the most influence over what packaging is being used, and require producers to report more information about the type of packaging they produce than they do now. Larger producers will also be required to increase the frequency of their reporting from once a year, which they do now under the packaging note system, to twice a year.

We expect these data reporting regulations to be in force for only one year. After that, they will be revoked and replaced by the new producer responsibility obligations (packaging and packaging waste) regulations, which will be laid later this year. That will be the big statutory instrument, which will contain all the other information that we need, and make similar provisions relating to data collection and reporting.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Minister is generous in giving way. It is vital that voices from across the country are heard. The section of the Government’s new environmental improvement plan on implementing EPR for packaging states that the Government are

“engaging with stakeholders to shape the future vision of waste reforms through industry wide sprint events, deep dive sessions and fortnightly forums.”

Will the Minister tell us more about the engagement that has taken place so far, and confirm that the Government are engaging with not just industry stakeholders, but environmental groups?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to reiterate that two consultations have already been run, and they have been informative. Sprints with businesses and industry have been running for the last couple of months, with thousands of people taking part in them. There has been really good engagement with industry. I have met with the Advisory Committee on Packaging, which gave a lot of advice on the scheme. Its members work with a lot of those working in the industry, many of whom I have met myself.

The hon. Lady makes an important point about non-governmental organisations. We have been working with many of them too, including the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which addresses the consequences of litter. There has been really good engagement on this, including with the devolved Administrations. I met with my equivalents last week to make sure we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. The DAs are bringing their own SIs through as well. I hope that satisfies the hon. Lady and I thank her for her intervention.

As I said, this reporting will only be necessary for one year, and then it will be superseded by the big SI at the end of the year with all the rest of the information. Without these regulations, there would be a gap in the data. These regulations apply to England only but, as I said, similar regulations are being processed in parallel in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I have met my counterparts, and my Department has worked, and will continue to work, closely at official level to develop the legislation.

A full impact assessment for the packaging EPR scheme has been prepared and laid alongside the draft regulations. The impact of the regulations on business is limited to the additional data collection and reporting requirements, and to familiarisation with the new regulations. When the packaging EPR is introduced in 2024, there will be some additional costs for businesses that handle packaging through the EPR fees, but that will result in a net gain for the public sector, as I explained, because the taxpayer will not be paying for collection. The cost will be put on to people putting products on the market. Producers will pay to manage household packaging waste, rather than local authorities.

The measures in the draft regulations are critical to the implementation of the full packaging EPR, which will bring with it all the environmental benefits that I believe we all want to see. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Sharma.

I am sure that colleagues will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing the draft regulations; none the less, I have a number of important points to make. First, I thank colleagues in the sector, notably Ruth Chambers from the Greener Alliance, for sharing their thoughts and expertise.

This draft statutory instrument brings in reporting requirements for packaging waste in anticipation of the Government introducing a new system of extended producer responsibility. In other words, packaging producers will be expected to pay for the full waste management costs of the material that they place on the market. We support that aim, but as ever with this Government, the devil is in the detail.

It will come as no surprise to the Committee that the new system has been repeatedly delayed and is now not expected to begin its phased introduction until 2024—possibly at the earliest. It replaces a system relying on packaging recovery notes established back in 1997, which has long been widely regarded as not fit for purpose because producers typically pay for only 10% of packaging recycling and waste management costs, with the public—our constituents—covering the rest. Yes, it is important that a more robust system is introduced and introduced properly, but it is so important that we must take a moment—a small moment, Mr Sharma—to touch on the serious shortcomings in the proposed legislation.

This draft SI sets out that only producers that have an annual turnover of more than £2 million and put more than 50 tonnes of packaging on to the market will be subject to the full reporting and payment requirements. In addition, the SI brings in new requirements for smaller businesses, including producers with an annual turnover of more than £1 million that place more than 25 tonnes of packaging on to the market; they will be required to report data, but not obligated to pay EPR fees. Those that meet neither threshold will remain unobligated to collect or report data for the packaging they produce; nor will they be liable to pay for its management. How will that help to introduce a scheme that is fit for purpose and that can tackle the waste crisis?

The higher threshold resulting in full obligations is the same as in the current, flawed PRN system, which is a higher threshold than any producer responsibility scheme in Europe. The Government have not adequately justified the retention of the same full de minimis threshold, or their introduction of limited reporting requirements for those putting 25 tonnes of packaging on the market. Will the Minister explain that, in simple layman’s terms?

I note that the analysis suggests that about 1,800 more businesses will now face reporting obligations, but does the Minister have a precise number of the businesses affected? The Minister’s own impact assessment suggests that the number could be as high as 15,000, or as low as zero. What is the figure, and what will she do to ensure that the legislation means something?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there would have been room in the draft instrument for the Government to make stronger provision to ensure that effective action is taken immediately, in an effort to combat the waste crisis?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want dither and delay; we want to get on with this. We support the aims, but we are not sure about the method. The right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire expressed the concerns that smaller businesses have about the new scheme; they need clarity.

To ensure that all material is covered by the new system, has the Minister considered eliminating the threshold entirely, as is common in many packaging systems in Europe, or lowering it to 1 tonne, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The Government might with more justification lower the threshold to 10 tonnes, to correspond to the requirements of their own plastics packaging tax, which has just come into effect. This prompts a question about Ministers doing something with one hand and something very different with the other, which confuses people. Choosing to retain a full de minimis threshold that is more than five times as high, and a new limited de minimis threshold that is more than twice as high, as the threshold for another Government policy on packaging seems inconsistent, to say the least.

The shortcomings mean that the new system, like the previous one, will have to deal with uncertainty about the amount of material that is actually placed on the market, and therefore uncertainty about the real recycling rate for such materials, given that recycling rates are likely to be lower than reported if material placed on the market is not captured in the data. We should be ambitious as we seek to protect our planet and preserve our environment, but as ever with this Government, there is more dither and delay.

I gently remind the Minister that, back in 2018, the National Audit Office launched a report that criticised the packaging producer responsibility system for lacking “robust data”. Data is key, but this interim SI indicates a peculiar approach to legislation that is piecemeal rather than wholesale. Given the retention of the same threshold for reporting requirements in the proposals, it is likely that the new system will be similarly and unnecessarily flawed. Will the Minister comment on that?

In setting up this new system to hold producers responsible for the waste they create, the Government must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the previous system. I have two final questions. First, will the Minister take all necessary steps to ensure that all packaging is properly accounted for? Secondly, can the Minister be clear that the new system will improve the quality of data compared with the one it is replacing? Without clarity or understanding of our actions, the draft SI will be what we have become used to: more of the same dither and delay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, because the whole thing hinges on good data. A new digital system is being created to handle it all, which is critical. A lot of the large companies are already used to collecting data, so the system is not completely new to them; they have been running it and they understand it. However, they will be required to collect more detailed data. I mentioned the kinds of things that they will now have to list. That data will help to inform the entire system.

The hon. Lady is concerned that not all packaging is going to be captured. In fact, all packaging will be subject to the obligation. For producers below the £2 million turnover and 50 tonnes threshold that has been set, the cost obligation will be met by their suppliers, so everything will be captured. That has been carefully thought through with a lot of the producers. It was one of the main points. She suggested a £1 million threshold, which is just a random number out of the air. We set it at £2 million after a great deal of consultation.

The hon. Lady also asked how we will know whether the system is working, and what we will do if we need to change it. Of course, it will be reviewed as it gets up and running and the data starts to come in. There is plenty of scope to do that. She also questioned the number of suppliers. About 7,000 large producers will be involved in capturing and recording the data, which is what we require this year.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for all the information she is giving. Does she think there will be significant changes in the style of packaging in certain sectors, which will be beneficial to all of us?

[Rebecca Pow]

The change we want to see is that the materials used will become more recyclable and more reusable. We will start to see the whole circle change, with the packaging itself made up of recycled materials. The aim is to avoid packaging going to incineration or landfill, or ending up as litter. This scheme fits with all the others that we are bringing through, including the consistent collection scheme, the deposit return scheme and the food collection scheme. They are all going to dovetail together.

One of the Government’s main commitments is to move in this direction to tackle our emissions and reach net zero. It is a huge part of the commitment made by not just the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the whole Government. It is genuinely popular with the public as well. People understand and want this change, and I am so proud that this Government are implementing it.

I thank everyone for their comments and the Opposition for their support. The measures are critical for the implementation of the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, and they will bring all the benefits that we want and need to see..

Question put and agreed to.

Bee-killing Pesticides

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing this really important debate and on his excellent speech.

As we know, last week the Government yet again approved an emergency authorisation for the use of Cruiser SB, which contains a neonicotinoid, on this year’s sugar beet crop. That is despite the Health and Safety Executive saying that the risks posed to bees foraging on the pollen and nectar from flowering crops planted in fields of treated sugar beet posed “a potential concern”. Furthermore, the independent UK Expert Committee on Pesticides has said:

“In light of the risk assessment conducted, a reduction in survival of honey bees and impacts on homing flight ability (which also influences survival of foragers) could occur.”

The Government are ignoring the advice of their own experts, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why.

It was the same last year when the Government granted authorisation for Cruiser SB, and a number of constituents who have written to me with their concerns were keen to point that out. Wirral West residents who have been in contact with me have also highlighted that this latest move is completely at odds with the pesticide reduction targets the UK advocated less than two months ago at COP15, which aim to reduce by half the overall risk posed by pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by 2030. The Minister has even accepted that there is a degree of uncertainty as to the benefits of using Cruiser SB to address the identified danger to sugar beet production, and that there is a degree of uncertainty in relation to the risk to bees.

It is no surprise, then, that Friends of the Earth has described the decision as “incredibly brazen”. It has rightly pointed out that the

“health of us all and the planet depends on”

the survival of bees and other vital pollinators. Just last month, a scientific study estimated that the sharp decline in the populations of many pollinators is already causing about 500,000 early deaths a year by reducing the supply of healthy foods. That is extremely concerning. As the Pesticide Collaboration points out, even minor traces of toxic neonicotinoids “play havoc” with the ability of bees to forage, navigate and reproduce, which has “catastrophic consequences” for the survival of their colony or populations. Its statement continues:

“A recent study showed that even one exposure of a neonicotinoid insecticide had significant impacts on their ability to produce offspring in future years.”

Just one teaspoon is enough to kill 1.25 billion bees. It is even more concerning, therefore, that even with that knowledge the Government have gone against the advice of their own experts. Will the Minister set out what alternatives were considered before the decision to approve the use of Cruiser SB?

I praise the fantastic work done by all those involved with Flourish at Ford Way community garden project in Upton, in Wirral West. They keep hives that produce delicious honey, and all their gardening is done in a bee-friendly way. I thoroughly enjoyed a recent visit, when I was fortunate enough to witness at first hand how the beekeepers work with the bees and maintain the hives, and I gained an insight into the overall process of how they produce the honey. Flourish has been working with a local Upton women’s group, which has been using Flourish’s polytunnels to grow plants and flowers that are then placed in the village centre in Upton; bees visit those flowers to collect nectar and pollen, which they use as food for themselves and their larvae. When they move from flower to flower, they transfer pollen, which helps plants to grow, breed and produce food, thus keeping the cycle going. That is a great example of two groups coming together in Wirral West in a responsible way to benefit the local community and our environment.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on securing the debate. We all agree that bees are vital for the ecosystem. Bees have been the symbol of our city, Manchester, for 150 years. We have beehives all around the city, including at our cathedral, Manchester Art Gallery, homes and lots of other places, and they play their part in encouraging pollination. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) agree that supporting bees and pollinators in urban areas is also important in providing locally sourced food?

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent contribution. He is absolutely right that it is important to encourage urban bees, but he also reminds us of the historic role and ancient history of beekeeping, which I discussed with the beekeepers in my constituency. It is important that we keep that in mind.

Finally, the Government should listen to the advice of their own experts and think again about their decision to authorise the use of neonicotinoids, which are so harmful to bees. I support the ban.

Nature and Climate Declaration

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this incredibly important debate; I was interested to hear about what is happening in his constituency.

As we all know, the need to act on climate change is urgent. Extreme weather events over the summer saw the UK endure record temperatures of more than 40°C for the first time—something the Met Office described as “virtually impossible” without human-induced climate change. Recently, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy urged the Government to get a grip on the major national security risks posed by the effects of climate change on critical national infrastructure such as that for power, transport, water and communications. Its note reported an extreme weakness at the centre of Government when it comes to tackling climate change.

Earlier this week at COP27, the UN Secretary-General gave a stark warning that humanity is on what he called

“a highway to climate hell with our foot on the accelerator”.

He said:

“We are in the fight of our lives and we are losing…our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible.”

With that in mind, it is disappointing that the Prime Minister saw COP27 as something of an afterthought and initially decided not to attend, only to be shamed into a U-turn. He did go—that is something—but it was very disappointing that he had to be forced. It is so vital that the Government now address the climate emergency with real urgency. I note the Prime Minister’s statement in the House today, but I point out to the Minister that there are glaring inconsistencies in his current position. I would like her to respond to the points I am going to make.

It was the Prime Minister who, as Chancellor, introduced the energy profits levy that allowed energy companies to shield 91p of every £1 of their profits from the levy by investing those profits in fossil fuel extraction. The promotion of fossil fuel extraction instead of investment in renewables is irresponsible as we face the climate emergency—it is an insult to young people and future generations. Of course, in addition to that, the Prime Minister is still committed to the ban on onshore wind which, again, given the urgency of the emergency we face, makes no sense.

I was proud to support the Labour motion in May 2019 that led to the UK Parliament being the first in the world to declare an environment and climate emergency. It was incredibly disappointing that Conservative Members abstained on that vote. Labour’s green prosperity plan would establish a national wealth fund and GB Energy, a publicly owned energy company, to invest in the technologies of the future. The policy would create 1 million new jobs in towns and cities in every corner of the country and bring down energy bills, raise living standards and ensure that Britain shows global leadership in tackling the climate crisis.

Labour also has a clear plan to insulate 19 million homes throughout the country to help to cut people’s energy bills and emissions. Home insulation rates and energy efficiency upgrades have plummeted since the Conservative party took office more than 10 years ago. Why have Conservative Governments decided to slow down on home insulation? We need to see a reversal of this. I urge the Minister to set out what plans they have to get the UK insulated.

I pay tribute to the Cool Places of Worship programme in Wirral, through which places of worship are taking action on climate change as part of Cool 2, Wirral’s climate change strategy. West Kirby United Reformed Church in my constituency is part of the programme and is doing some really interesting and exciting work. I congratulate the church on its recent event to share knowledge about how people can improve the insulation of their homes and tackle climate change, because it is incredibly important that that expert information is shared with people.

Recent research by the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit found that poorly insulated homes will have to pay almost £1,000 more on average than others on their energy bills this winter. Why are the Government not insulating homes on the scale Labour has outlined? The nature and climate declaration that put forward by the campaign group Zero Hour calls for the Government to ensure that the UK fulfils our fair share of emissions reductions to ensure that the average global temperature increase will not exceed 1.5°.

The Government’s October 2021 net zero strategy points to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shows that

“if we fail to limit global warming to 1.5°C…floods and fires…will get more frequent and more fierce, crops will be more likely to fail, and sea levels will rise driving mass migration as millions are forced from their homes. Above 1.5°C we risk reaching climatic tipping points…meaning we could lose control of our climate for good.”

What do the Government intend to do to ensure that the UK plays its part in doing all we can to keep below 1.5°?

Turning to the attack on nature, I pay tribute to the campaign by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. We know that there is an urgent need to protect and restore nature. As the RSPB has said:

“We need immediate action from the UK Government to halt the plans which threaten our water, air, beaches and rivers. Nature cannot wait. We need the UK Government to halt their attack on nature, now.”

The chief executive officer of the RSPB said that

“this is not the time to be pushing forward with destructive legislation that will remove vital wildlife protections and threaten nature’s recovery.”

She has called for the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill to be stopped right now, for an end to the attack on nature and for the Prime Minister to set out an ambitious plan for tackling the nature and climate emergency. She is absolutely right.

The Wildlife Trusts have raised serious concerns that, through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, we could see the loss of important protections for nature, including habitat regulations. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill will soon return to the Commons, bringing with it further risks to environmental protections. The Government have an immense responsibility in the face of the climate emergency and the environmental breakdown that we are experiencing. I call on them to introduce a bold and urgent plan to address the climate emergency, to change course and to drop their attack on nature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) on securing this important debate. I would not normally take part in such a debate, as my personal knowledge of the matter is quite small. However, I was grateful to him for mentioning things such as herbal leys and rewilding, because I listen to “The Archers” regularly. That keeps my nature and farming knowledge up to date.

In the shadow of COP26, Scotland continues to lead on nature restoration and climate targets. Scotland has the most progressive climate targets in the world, and has had for a while: delivering a just transition to net zero by 2045, with an ambitious interim target of a 75% reduction in emissions by 2030. Scotland was the first country in the world to declare a climate emergency, and the first to introduce a climate justice fund, which has a human rights focus on helping those in developing countries, who are most at risk from climate change, to tackle its effects on the frontline.

Scotland has made great progress on our net zero journey, such as in energy supply and waste management, but further emissions cuts will involve some genuinely difficult decisions for Scotland, with significant long-term investment and behaviour change. Our schools are also playing a leading role. I learn not just here but from my grandchildren what I should be doing and what the planet needs. The Scottish Government have been a world leader in renewable energy technologies, with onshore and offshore wind, hydropower and solar meeting the equivalent of 90% to 100% of Scotland’s energy demand. That is up from only 28% in 2009.

We are making progress but there will always be more to do. The Scottish Government’s biodiversity strategy aims to halt biodiversity loss by 2030 and reverse it by 2045. They have also led an international coalition resulting in the Edinburgh declaration, which urges increased international action to tackle biodiversity loss. It now has 244 signatories from Governments, cities and local authorities representing every continent. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) emphasised the need for action not just at Government level but at local authority level.

During the last Parliament, the Scottish Government exceeded the First Minister’s commitment at COP21 in Paris to provide an extra £12 million to support projects in Malawi, Zambia and Rwanda through our world-leading climate justice fund. Under the Scottish Government, the climate justice fund has trebled to £36 million over this Parliament, which aims to support those on the frontline of the climate crisis. That is in contrast to the global Britain espoused by this Tory UK Government, who have cut international aid. For example, the £3.2-million Climate Challenge Programme Malawi, which ran from 2017 to 2020, supported a select group of rural communities to identify and implement their own solutions to adapt to and build resilience against the worst effects of climate change. That contributes directly to many of the UN global goals, especially goal 13 on climate action.

The Scottish Government have provided support through their climate justice fund to not just Malawi, but to Zambia, Tanzania and Rwanda to train people in water resource management and resilience, to improve sustainable agricultural and irrigation systems, to plant 122,000 trees, to develop renewable forms of alternative farming and to fund clean drinking water initiatives. The SNP welcomed the UK Government’s climate justice fund that was announced at COP26, following the nine-year lead of the Scottish Government’s own fund.

As the world gathers in Egypt for COP27, the Scottish Government have been praised for their world-leading loss and damage funding support. At COP26 in Glasgow, they used Scotland’s role as the venue for the summit to support others in calling for action on loss and damage. Scotland became the first country in the world to make an explicit commitment to providing funding to address loss and damage in other nations. That happened 30 years on—30 years, Mr Gray!—from small island states first calling for a loss and damage fund.

Commitments followed from Wallonia, Denmark and philanthropy through the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, showing that there is recognition of the importance of the issue and an appetite to address it. The Scottish Government pledged £2 million from the climate justice fund to the project, jump-starting a further £17.5 million in funding from other Governments and civil society—a ninefold increase on the initial commitment.

Amid the flip-flopping over whether the Prime Minister would attend COP27 at all, the UK Government have not provided the $280 million they pledged to the green climate fund or the $20.6 million they pledged to the adaptation fund. Scotland leads the way in committing to loss and damage funding; it is time for the UK Government to step up.

Egypt’s COP27 presidency welcomed actions by Scotland and Denmark—two very small countries—as

“steps in the right direction”

on loss and damage. It encouraged other developed nations to follow their lead. Ahead of attending COP27, the First Minister said:

“For many countries, particularly in the global south, this must be the COP where the global north not only delivers on our promises to finance adaptation and mitigation, but recognises the need to address the loss and damage experienced by countries already impacted by climate change.”

She has committed to increasing that funding further in future.

At least 33 million Pakistanis have been directly affected by floods in rural and urban areas, after unprecedented torrential rain inundated almost a third of the country, breaking all records of mega-floods, with cumulative damages worth $14.906 billion—I have trouble saying these figures, they are so big. If that is not a call to action, I do not know what is.

The First Minister has called it our “moral responsibility” finally to acknowledge the damage done by developed nations through emissions and to contribute to loss and damage funding. Yesterday, she pledged a further £5 million of funding for loss and damage caused by the climate crisis, such as the effects of sea-level rise or non-economic effects, including the loss of cultural identity. Importantly, the funding will be in the form of grants, rather than loans, ensuring that there is no additional debt burden for recipient countries. The process will be community-led and owned.

Loss and damage is now on the formal agenda for the first time. As the First Minister said,

“this COP can mark a turning point in ensuring the views, experiences and perspectives of the global south”

are at the heart of negotiations.

The UK Government must commit—and act—to restore nature and decelerate the climate catastrophe. Scotland has asked the UK Government to increase their ambition on decarbonisation of the electricity grid and gas network and to immediately confirm support for carbon capture, usage and storage. The UK Government have not yet responded positively to those requests. Such changes would support both the UK and Scotland to meet their emission reduction targets.

The House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee stated in a report last month:

“Behaviour change is essential for achieving climate and environment goals, and for delivering wider benefits.”

It stated:

“The Government’s current approach to enabling behaviour change to meet climate and environment goals is inadequate to meet the scale of the challenge.”

That is from the House of Lords.

The UK Government must incentivise instead of cutting electric vehicle access schemes such as England’s electric vehicle grant system, which has been further downgraded from £5,000 in 2011 to £1,500 in 2022. In balancing their budgets, the UK Government might subject electric and zero-emission vehicles to vehicle excise duty, which is a huge worry. The majority of fossil-fuel buses in Scotland will be removed by next year and will be replaced by green buses that are free to use for all under-22s and over-65s. In fact, the Serjeant at Arms picked up my bus pass from the Floor of the Chamber for me only last night. Scotland’s scheme is a positive way to encourage the use of public transport. Despite the Scottish Government’s achievements, the UK Government have cut bus decarbonisation funding by half, with local authorities warning that up to a third of English bus services are at risk of being scrapped. Public transport must not be sacrificed to balance the books.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I note the hon. Lady’s remarks about bus fares. In the Liverpool city region, the metro Mayor, Steve Rotheram, has introduced the £2 fare, which is having a fantastic impact on the way people travel, because it makes things so much more affordable. Does she agree that we need to see a lot more of that around the country?

[Marion Fellows]

Absolutely. If people use public transport and not their cars, that is a really good way to cut emissions, but the cost of public transport has been rising for quite a long time.

The evidence from Scotland’s rail electrification programme is clear: having a strategic plan on decarbonisation and sticking to it means more efficient and cheaper electrification schemes. The cost of electrification in Scotland is 33% lower per route-kilometre than in England. The electrification schemes recently announced for Scotland’s railway will mean the introduction of even more decarbonised journeys across the Borders, Fife and the Lothians, and the roll-out of innovative battery electric units to accelerate the move to a net zero railway. That must be followed by the UK Government.

A Public Accounts Committee report released last Wednesday states that the UK Government’s commitment that the public sector should “lead by example” in moving to net zero is not being met. It highlighted the poor quality of emissions measuring and reporting, among other things. If we do not measure and report, we do not know where we are. That is a challenge for the UK Government, particularly following the High Court’s ruling that their net zero strategy is unlawful.

The current Prime Minister removed the COP26 president, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), from the Cabinet even before the UK’s COP presidency had ended. He stopped the Minister for Climate from attending Cabinet, and effectively banned the King from attending COP27. The UK Government have blocked plans to ease planning restrictions on onshore wind, despite its being the cheapest form of energy and key to the transition to a renewable energy future.

The UK Government must get the balance right and put the fight against climate change at the forefront of the Prime Minister’s policy agenda, as the First Minister of Scotland has done. We must all root for each other to succeed as we prepare for the worst effects of the climate catastrophe. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in answer to my questions and all the other questions that have been asked this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, for what I believe is the first time. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) very much for his timely securing of this important debate. Given that it is taking place at the time of COP27, I am mightily impressed with the timing. He is an outstanding champion for his constituency, particularly on the issue of nature and biodiversity. It has been a real joy to listen to the cross-party support for nature and biodiversity, and I will set out to respond to the many questions. They strayed across many different Departments, and I certainly work across Departments, because that is absolutely what we need to do in this area.

We do have a strong track record. It is not correct to say that we are the most nature-depleted country in the world. Depending on the measure, we are 142nd out of 201. But we recognise that nature has been declining for a very long time. There are historical reasons for that, such as the pressure on land and the industrial revolution. That is why it is the mission of this Government to halt that trend by 2030, and then reverse it. Our world-leading target to halt the decline in species by 2030 demonstrates our very strong commitment. On nature, we have already implemented myriad measures to support biodiversity and to increase carbon capture through natural methods.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I noted the Minister’s remarks about how she likes to work across Departments. I am particularly concerned about the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, part 5 of which will essentially remove environmental impact assessments and strategic environmental assessments and bring in environmental outcomes reports. It kind of gives the Secretary of State a blank cheque to do what he or she wishes to do, and I am very concerned about what it will mean for the planning system and therefore for the protection of nature. Could the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place between her Department and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about that Bill? I think that it poses potentially a very serious threat to the quality and sustainability of our natural world.

[Trudy Harrison]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but she should be reassured when I say that there must be no regression, and there will be no regression. I have been to speak with my counterparts in BEIS recently, and we are working with DLUHC as well, to ensure that the protections for our environment focus not on the EU as a whole but on the UK.

It might be helpful to set out our record. Although we recognise that there is much more to do, since 2010 we have supported the creation or management of 175,000 hectares of priority habitat. In 2021 alone, we created over 2,700 km of new hedgerows through the countryside stewardship scheme. That is over 3,870 different agreements. There were 9,000 countryside stewardship agreements with the management of hedgerows option, leading to over 46,000 km of hedgerows. Our farming and protected landscapes programme also planted 88 km of hedgerows and delivered around 45,000 hectares of habitat improvement for biodiversity.

We have established over 100 marine protected areas, and we are now putting in place byelaws to reinforce their protection, alongside our work to launch highly protected marine areas. We have brought over 5,800 hectares of peatland in England under restoration, predominantly through the £750 million nature for climate fund. We have also announced 22 ambitious projects receiving funding through the landscape recovery scheme, allowing land managers—in particular, farmers—to take a more long-term and large-scale approach to producing environmental and climate outcomes on their land.

Between 2010 and 2021, 123 hectares of new woodland have been planted across the UK. That is an area equivalent to Bedfordshire. Tree planting is so important for biodiversity, and it is at the heart of our environmental plans for the future. We increased tree planting and woodland creation by approximately 10% to 2,700 hectares of trees planted in England in 2021-22. Is it enough? Absolutely not, but we are improving every year. As part of flood and coastal capital programmes, 25 schemes that include natural flood management measures have secured approval.

We are seeing that improvement in habitat also play out in the improvement in species such as the cirl bunting, which demonstrates how agri-environment schemes have supported species recovery. In 2016, the population exceeded 1,000 pairs, representing a nine-fold increase since conservation action commenced in the early 1990s. The marsh fritillary butterfly increased in abundance by 700% between 2005 and 2016, following years of decline, through action under the two moors threatened butterfly project. Our bat species increased by 47% between 1999 and 2019. Those are just some examples of the progress that is being made. It is important to have hope and to take personal responsibility for the way that we can all improve nature and biodiversity in our back gardens, our farms and right across this country.

Reaching net zero remains a top Government priority. We are really proud to lead the world in ending our own contribution to climate change, not just because it is the right thing to do, but because we are determined to seize the unprecedented economic opportunity it brings for jobs, innovation and exports. That is why our British energy security strategy and net zero strategy build on our 10-point plan and our blueprint for a green industrial revolution. Those commitments will unlock £100 billion of private investment and support 480,000 well-paid jobs in green industries by 2030. I know that many of those jobs will be in Cornwall, which I look forward to visiting. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives set out exactly what is needed right across the country and the need for society to play its part.

As part of our plans for decarbonisation—this is personal to me, because I was the Minister in the Department for Transport who led on it—we have published our ambitious transport decarbonisation plan. There has been much talk of COP27, but I was proud to stand on the world stage during transport day on 10 November last year at COP26—[Interruption.] Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was there as well—where I set out what we were doing across the modes of transport to set our pathway to net zero by 2050. We will require all new builds from 2025 to be future-proofed with low carbon heating and world-leading levels of energy efficiency.

DEFRA has a vital role to play in delivering the Government’s net zero strategy. During the debate, there have been many calls for us to work across Departments. That is absolutely what we do and I will give a few examples. The joint air quality unit works across DEFRA and DFT to improve air quality and reduce nitrogen oxide emissions. The Office for Zero Emission Vehicles works across DFT and BEIS to ensure that we roll out the electric vehicle programme. It is not true to say that the amount of money being spent on electric vehicles has been reduced; the focus has changed to ensure support for taxis and trucks, because we needed to diversify and ensure that our funding has the greatest impact.

We have boosted the nature for climate fund to total spend of more than £750 million by 2025 to protect, restore and expand the support and resilience of habitats such as peat bogs—both upland and lowland peat bogs are essential for nature. This will help us to achieve our ambitious targets to restore 35,000 hectares of peatlands by 2025 and treble woodland creation in England by the end of this Parliament. Yesterday I had the privilege of joining the Northumberland National Park Authority, and the day before I was in woodlands in Cumbria with the Forestry Commission, to understand how we can bust the barriers and increase planting of trees, both coniferous and deciduous, because we recognise the vital role that trees play as well as the value of supporting the UK timber industry. It was also a pleasure to visit A.W. Jenkinson to learn how it takes the waste from woodlands to create peat-free compost. There are fantastic opportunities like this one for our economy as we decarbonise and support biodiversity.

At COP26 last year, we brought nature into the centre of the climate COP for the first time. Today, at COP27 in Egypt, we will maintain our global leadership by demonstrating progress and integrated action on climate and nature since the UK’s presidency, focusing on protecting forests, the ocean and nature. We will build political momentum to secure ambitious outcomes at the convention on biological diversity COP15 in Montreal next month. We are working to ensure that nature is resilient and adaptable to climate change. We recognise that the interlinked threats of climate change, pollution, and habitat and biodiversity loss threaten the security of global health, the food supply and the economy. In 2019, the value of natural capital in the UK was estimated to be £1.2 trillion. The biodiversity net gain measure created by the Environment Act 2021 to aid nature recovery will drive green growth by creating and supporting a private market estimated to be worth £135 million per year. We are committed to halting and reversing the decline of biodiversity, as I have set out. We will continue to implement our world-leading Environment Act, including by building on the 2030 species target by setting other long-term targets to improve our biodiversity, resource efficiency and air and water quality, and to reduce waste.

To set out what we are doing to create habitats and protect species, we have requirements on new developments to build habitats as well as legally binding targets to halt species decline by 2030. We are reducing plastic waste through bans on a number of single-use plastic items, as well as powers to introduce charges for single-use items of any material. We are recycling more plastic through the introduction of a deposit return scheme for single-use drink containers, and extended producer responsibility which makes producers responsible for the cost of the disposal of packaging waste.

Sewage Discharges

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott.

Over the summer, we saw multiple news stories reporting that water companies were pumping sewage into the sea. There were numerous reports of people being warned to stay out of the water at popular beaches because of pollution risks and unsafe conditions. It is an issue that my constituents are very concerned about, particularly as I represent a coastal community. In August, the Government published their storm overflows discharge reduction plan, which requires water companies to reduce discharges into designated bathing water and high-priority nature sites by 2035, and into all sites by 2050. That simply is not good enough.

The Rivers Trust has criticised the Government’s lack of ambition and said that the plan is too little, too late, adding that it was appalled to see that the plan had not taken into account the thousands of responses to the draft consultation, which called for much more ambitious targets. It is very clear that the Government’s plan to tackle discharge just does not show the level of ambition that we need to protect and enhance the quality of our coastal waters and waterways.

War in Ukraine: UK Farming and Food Production

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) on securing this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I join him in expressing solidarity with the people of Ukraine.

Last week, I met a group of farmers in my constituency of Wirral West, along with representatives of the National Farmers Union. I heard from them about the pressures that farmers are facing. We are in a time of severe economic pressure that has been exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. British farmers have been left exposed and vulnerable to the challenges of rising inflation. The cost of agricultural inputs such as fuel, feed, packaging, transport, labour and energy is increasing.

As the House of Commons Library has noted, the cost of feeding livestock has risen considerably in the past six months, with many farmers dependent on feed prices set on a global market. Feed prices for livestock were stable in the first half of 2021, but increased by 18% between August 2021 and April 2022. Energy input costs for farms increased by 34% between January and April this year. Farm motor fuel costs increased by 30% over the same period. All that means, of course, that the cost of producing food in the UK has increased considerably in recent months, and that affects the availability and affordability of food to consumers.

This period of unprecedented agricultural inflation coincides with the introduction of DEFRA’s agricultural transition plan, under which direct payments, the old support payments to farmers in England under the common agricultural policy, are being reduced. Farmers have already experienced significant cuts to direct payments, with further to come this year.

The Government are in the process of rolling out new support schemes, but farmers have expressed concerns about the timescales for their implementation and whether they will provide farmers with enough support. The Public Accounts Committee has criticised the Department for what it calls its “blind optimism” about the introduction of the schemes and the insufficient detail about how they will make up for the ending of current approaches. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government will take, as a matter of urgency, to address those concerns?

The UK’s food self-sufficiency has reduced significantly in recent years. In 1990, we produced 74% of our food; by 2000, that figure was 67%, and in 2021 it was down to 60%. The NFU is calling on the Government to commit to maintaining the UK’s food production self-sufficiency at 60% and helping to create an environment for farm and food businesses to thrive and compete in the coming years.

The NFU points out that we cannot be a global leader in climate-friendly food if we allow our own production levels to drop. The UK is only 18% self-sufficient in fruit, 55% in fresh vegetables and 71% in potatoes. For both veg and potatoes, that figure has fallen by 16% in the past 20 years. While the nation is encouraged to be healthier and eat more fruit and veg, our domestic production of those products falls below our potential. What assessment have the Government made of the UK’s declining food self-sufficiency?

In December last year, the Government published the “United Kingdom Food Security Report 2021”, in which they concluded that

“Global food supply and availability has improved since 2010”

and was “expected to recover” from the problems caused by the covid-19 pandemic. Of course, that was before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, so can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the UK’s food security in the light of that?

As the Minister will know, the UK food security report also listed several factors that threaten the stability and long-term sustainability of global food production, one of which was climate change. The report stated:

“Longer growing seasons and warmer temperatures may have some positive effects for particular crops and regions, but overall risk magnitude is assessed to increase from medium at present to high in future. Increased climate exposure (including heat stress, drought risk, and wetness-related risks) is modifying productive capacity and will continue to do so in future in line with the degrees of warming experienced.”

Over the past few days, we have seen stark warnings in this regard, with record temperatures recorded across the UK, fields and buildings on fire, and emergency services facing unprecedented challenges. I hope the Minister and her colleagues will impress on the new leader of the Conservative party—and our new Prime Minister—the critical importance of addressing climate change as a matter of urgency. I have to say that the lack of concern put on this issue by the leadership candidates in recent days has been extremely worrying. The future Prime Minister bears a huge responsibility in this regard, not only for this generation but for future generations.

It is vital that we build resilience in farming and food production in England and across the UK, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many important points raised by Members in this debate.

Draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray—I think for the first time—and it is good to see you in the Chair. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and I say to the Minister that I am very glad to see that someone turned up today. When we were notified last week that legislation was being considered by the House, we were concerned that we would be Minister-less, but our fears have thankfully been abated, because the people’s business must go on despite the caretaker Government and outgoing Prime Minister.

I welcome the Minister to his new caretaker position in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I gently say that, with the clock ticking, his time in the post may be more about quality than quantity, but that is okay. I want to be helpful—that is how I approach every day—so I urge the Minister to use the days and weeks that he has in his role to be bold, to be strong and to work with Opposition Members to protect our environment and preserve our planet, because we stand ready to serve.

Before I go into the body of the SI, I place on record my genuine thanks to the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) after their resignations from the Government last week. We did not always agree, but we developed a respectful working relationship, and we more than once joked that we saw more of each other than we did of our spouses, children and loved ones due to the constant flow of DEFRA-related business before the House. However, I am sure that the next Prime Minister will speedily return them both to Government positions between now and the imminent general election.

Today, we consider the draft United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (Exclusions from Market Access Principles: Single-use Plastics) Regulations 2022. I have spoken to a range of stakeholders in advance of this sitting, and I particularly thank Sarah Williams and the indefatigable Ruth Chambers of the Green Alliance for their continuing campaign work. As we consider the SI, it is important to understand the background. In our exchange, Sarah noted that a major concern of the 2020 Act was that individual Governments would be disincentivised from improving standards. The mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act means that goods that have been produced in, or imported into, one part of the UK must be able to be sold to any other part of the UK, regardless of any restrictions that apply in that part. That risks rendering any new environmental requirements for goods ineffective, and creating a chilling effect on their creation in the first place.

In another case of being late to the party, the Government did agree that a specific divergence from the operation of the market access principles could be agreed through the common frameworks process where all parties are in agreement, and so we find ourselves here today for the first time. Labour will not oppose the legislation today, but we will continue to be a critical friend and look at how we can make sure Ministers are as bold and effective as possible. That is the only way we will make progress in the battle to protect our environment and clean up our planet.

As the explanatory note published with the legislation helpfully highlighted, the regulations before us

“amend Schedule 1 to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020…to insert a further exclusion from the market access principles in Part 1 of the 2020 Act, in respect of certain specified single-use plastic items.”

As the Minister said, these items are

“straws, plastic stemmed cotton buds, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery and chopsticks, balloon sticks, and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers and cups. In consequence of the amendment, the market access principles will not apply to, or affect the operation of, any legislation so far as it prohibits the sale of the specified items in any part of the United Kingdom.”

I acknowledge the work that the Welsh Labour Government have done on tackling plastic waste. Under Welsh Labour, Wales introduced a fully comprehensive charge on single-use bags back in 2010, and it took another five years before the UK Government introduced a half-measure ban applying only to larger retailers. The Welsh Labour Government are also committed to introducing legislation to ban the supply of said articles, and I note the UK Government have consulted on proposals to ban the supply of single-use plastic plates, balloon sticks and expanded or extruded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, in England in 2023. Will the Minister update hon. Members on that consultation and say how many people have responded to it?

The Northern Ireland protocol requires the supply of single-use plastic plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, drink stirrers, cotton bud sticks and expanded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups, to be banned. Will that be affected by the promises made by many candidates for the Tory party leadership? Will it be on the table when they seek to renegotiate the protocol, as could happen? I would hope not, but I have come to realise that anything is possible at the moment, which is why I ask that question today.

Yesterday, Greenpeace launched its report “The Big Plastic Count Results”. Can the Minister confirm that he has read that report? Will he be meeting Greenpeace to discuss it? The need to act on plastics is obvious to us all; we will support Ministers when they act and hold them to account when they fail to get themselves into gear.

I note that the resources and waste common framework is still referred to as “provisional”. Will the Minister give us a progress check on when it will be permanent? Will he outline what engagement he has had with small and medium-sized businesses across the UK to ensure that they have the support they need to implement the changes? What discussions has he had with colleagues across Government to make sure the funding and support for providing reusable items is there and accessible to businesses and customers?

The resources and waste strategy set out a plan for resource sufficiency and a circular economy, which included an ambition for all plastics to be biodegradable. What steps does the Minister plan to take to remove from circulation plastics that are not biodegradable?

As the Member for Newport West, I am naturally very interested in and totally committed to ensuring that the voices of all the nations of our United Kingdom are part of what we do here and how we do it.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a really good speech. I have been impressed by the enthusiasm of schoolchildren in my constituency of Wirral West, where they are learning about plastic pollution and the importance of looking after the environment. I pay tribute to all their teachers for giving them such inspirational education. The children are going home and educating their parents, which is absolutely what needs to happen because it is the children’s future more than any of ours. Does my hon. Friend agree that education on plastics pollution is incredibly important for the future of our planet?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is all about the children educating the parents. Pester-power is so important. Although my own children are older, they definitely pester and ask the question, “What are you doing to save the planet, Mum?”, which is why I ask the Minister the same question.

The Minister stated that consent was sought from Scotland and Wales. Will he give us an idea of what those discussions touched on? Did they extend to the wider fight against plastics? I was concerned that consent from the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland was not provided in the timeline set out. That highlights the impact of the lack of any functioning devolved Government in Northern Ireland. We need an Executive in Stormont, and we need one now. I urge Ministers to redouble their efforts to get all the parties around the table, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve to have their views, thoughts and needs factored into what happens on plastics, waste and recycling.

I note that no full impact assessment has been produced for this instrument because, as the Minister said, in his view no significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors is foreseen. However, we cannot take the view that there is no impact without making an assessment. It is a bit of a chicken and egg situation: how can we know the impact if an assessment has not been done first?

In many ways, this legislation is a formality and brings things in order, so we will not be pressing for a vote today. That said, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise several issues and to pose questions to the new Minister on the impact of the tidying up, this Government’s approach to plastics and plastic usage, and the need to do all we can to protect and preserve our planet.

Oral Answers to Questions

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend’s question demonstrates the interest in the issue. I am just as interested myself, but we have to get the science right. We must not jump out of the frying pan into the fire, so we are exploring all options and the science behind them before we make an announcement, but I assure him that it will be made shortly.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My constituent Stephen, who is blind and partially deaf, has an assistance dog called Jodie. Stephen has told me that he is required to pay £160 for an animal health certificate and vaccines each time he takes Jodie to an EU country—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a different question. We will come back to the hon. Lady.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Some years ago, we changed the planning guidance from the chief planning officer in the then Department for Communities and Local Government to make it clear that there should be a powerful presumption against the construction of field-scale solar on the best and more versatile agricultural land—that is defined as grade 3b land and above. I am aware that there are concerns that in some parts of the country that advice is no longer holding and applications are being approved, and we are discussing that across Government.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

6. Whether he is taking steps to make it easier for people to travel abroad with their pets.

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

We are clear that we meet all the requirements to gain both part 1 listed status and recognition of the UK’s tapeworm-free status. We see no valid animal health reason for those not to be granted. We are carrying out further engagement to make progress on this issue.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for her answer and wonder whether she could elaborate. My constituent, Stephen, who is blind and partially deaf, has an assistance dog called Jodie. Steven has told me that he is required to pay £160 for an animal health certificate and vaccines each time he takes Jodie to an EU country. I wrote to DEFRA on Steven’s behalf more than a year ago and received a response that basically said that the change has still not happened. Does the Minister recognise the impact of this slow progress on Stephen and other people who rely on assistance dogs? Could she elaborate further on what Stephen might do?

[Jo Churchill]

I do recognise the challenge. There is no change for animals coming from the EU to here and there is no reason why that arrangement should not be reciprocal. We are proactively engaging with the assistance dog community and relevant stakeholders and we are continuing the engagement with the EU to make sure that we can overcome this challenge.

Bees: Neonicotinoids

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Sir Roger.

As we have heard loud and clear, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) loves bees. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on the passionate, knowledgeable and eloquent case that he made on their behalf. Bees need protection. In the last half-century, half of Britain’s bee, butterfly and moth species have declined; in the last 30 years, three bumblebee species have become extinct; and right now, almost one in 10 species of wild bee face extinction. This situation cannot continue.

Bees are our friends. Almost a third of the food that we eat relies on pollination, mainly by bees. That work—pollinating crops—by these notoriously industrious insects is worth millions of pounds each year. If we did not have wild pollinators to do that vital work for us, it would cost around £1.8 billion each year to replace them.

We need to speak up for our bees because we need them. They are not only essential for our farming system but ensure the diversity of our wild plants, and they also have a vital role in sustaining the natural habitats that we know and love. As my constituent Hilary told me when she asked me to attend today:

“This matter affects all our lives.”

Many of my constituents worry about the ecological emergency that we face. They wanted me to speak up to protect our bees and to oppose the Government plans that threaten the future of bees. My constituent Judith tells me:

“I have a wildlife garden and I have noticed the stark decline in the number of bees in recent years.”

She is right to be concerned. We cannot afford to put our bee populations at additional risk.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Flourish at Ford Way community gardening project in Upton, in my constituency, which does fantastic work through bee-friendly gardening, keeping hives and producing fantastic honey? Does she share the concern of my constituents, who have drawn attention to research by Professor David Goulson, an academic and author, who has warned that just a single teaspoon of this type of chemical is enough to kill 1.25 billion honeybees—equivalent to four lorryloads?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she made a very important and valuable point.

As many hon. Members have said, bees are already under threat as a direct result of the way we live and the way we farm and use land, including the use of pesticides and particularly neonicotinoids. Although we have known for many years that neonicotinoids have a harmful effect on bees and other pollinators, recent studies have only confirmed and strengthened the evidence. As the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN has said, there is a consensus about the need to restrict the use of these chemicals.

As an EU member, the UK was part of creating a strict regime to regulate the use of these pesticides. An almost total ban on their use was put in place in 2018, because of the damage that they cause to bees. The then Environment Secretary—the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove)—said that the Government supported that move, because we could not

“afford to put our pollinator populations at risk.”

Those protective regulations are still part of retained law in Great Britain, but now the Government are authorising the use of a bee-killing pesticide. That is clearly a betrayal of promises given during debates on the Environment Act 2021, when we were assured that the Government would only strengthen the protection of nature. My constituent Stewart worries that the Government want to rescind that protection to prove that the UK has more freedom after Brexit. I am sure that he is wrong and I am certain that nobody voted for the freedom to kill bees.

Of course, the Government themselves claim that a benefit of Brexit is

“halting the decline in nature”

and

“strengthening our environmental regulation”.

However, for those words to mean something, we cannot allow the use of neonicotinoids, because that is not consistent with them.

Of course, UK farmers need our support. Living in Nottinghamshire, I understand the importance of sugar beet production. However, we cannot afford to take this risk with our precious pollinators, ignoring the Government’s own scientific advice, especially when the Environment Secretary himself has admitted that it is not possible to

“rule out completely a degree of risk to bees.”

My constituent Christopher worries that with the country still entrenched in the battle against covid and the headline-grabbing scandals of the Prime Minister, it will be easy to forget the long-term policies that affect our natural world.

We all share a huge responsibility to protect our environment for future generations. Government must help our food producers to farm sustainably and invest in resistant crops. It is not too late to reverse this bad decision. Ministers can and must think again, maintain the ban on neonics and save our bees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I appreciate you calling me to speak in this very important debate, Sir Roger. I have received a great deal of correspondence from constituents about the Government’s authorisation of an emergency application in England for the use of Cruiser SB pesticide, which contains the neonicotinoid thiamethoxam. I share their concerns, not least because the Government have not heeded the conclusions of the Health and Safety Executive or their own expert committee on pesticides, which found that

“The requirements for emergency authorisation have not been met”

and that pollution from the pesticide would damage river life.

As the Wildlife Trusts have pointed out, these neonicotinoids

“will have a devastating impact on pollinators, wildflowers, and waterways—at a time when nature needs to be urgently put into recovery.”

The Government have even accepted, as recently as last December, that there is a

“growing weight of scientific evidence that neonicotinoids are harmful to bees and other pollinators.”

Why have Ministers gone ahead and granted the authorisation?

Some of my constituents have highlighted the crucial role that bees play in maintaining a healthy environment. One constituent made the specific point that, by allowing the use of deadly pesticides, the UK Government undermine the urgency and incentive to invest in and implement alternative, less harmful control methods. That perhaps ties in with a point that the RSPB made concerning the importance of upholding the ban on highly toxic pesticides, such as neonics, and instead working to support our farmers to reduce their reliance on these harmful chemicals. As one of my constituents asks:

“How can the UK government approve using such material, it goes against all common sense and scientific reason?”

Clearly this is something that many Wirral West residents care passionately about, and I share their concerns.

The Wildlife Trusts have been very clear that the Government’s authorisation is “short sighted”. They say that, by authorising the use of neonics, the UK Government are damaging their ability to meet the legal requirement contained in the Environment Act 2021 to halt and reverse the decline of nature by 2030. That is because pollinators such as bees are vital to enhancing biodiversity. Without thriving populations of pollinators in the UK, we will struggle to halt the decline of other species. I would very much welcome the Minister’s comments on that specific point; it is an important one that the Minister should address this morning.

I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of wildlife charities, many of which echo the views of my constituents, listen to the views of their own experts and think again.

Environment Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

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

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]]

This is a good and welcome Bill. I support it, but I want it to go further, which is why I have put my name to amendment 2, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). One area in particular in which we should go further, and which is of concern to my constituents, is in relation to PM_2.5 particulate pollution, which is perhaps the most dangerous type of pollution to human health. Its impact on things such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary heart disease, stroke and lung cancer are well documented.

I recognise that the Bill as it stands commits to bringing a new target for PM_2.5 before Parliament by October 2022. It is what Ministers have always said in previous debates and it is good, but we need to go further. The Bill does not, for example, commit to reaching World Health Organisation guidelines and does not give a timescale for adoption, even though Ministers have said that that is their ambition.

As I understand it—it has been said in the House previously—past DEFRA studies have shown that we can achieve the WHO standard of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. That would be a reasonable timeframe, and, if it can be done, there is no reason why we should not put it into the Bill. It is an important issue, even in a constituency such as mine—a comparatively leafy London suburb, which has better scores on pollution than many parts of London, but is still above the UK average in a number of respects—and it is a matter of real concern for my constituents. Putting that commitment, which we want to achieve anyway, on the face of the Bill would show willing on our part towards our own citizens. It is also worth saying that it would increase our influence on these matters abroad, because, at the end of the day, these matters have to be tackled internationally.

There is a great deal of focus on the integrated review that is under way, and many countries have punched above their weight by taking a lead on this issue. New Zealand is a great example, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. If we were to set out our stall and commit ourselves to tackling PM_2.5 pollution in this way on the face of the Bill, that would be a really positive message for global Britain, particularly in the run-up to COP26 in November. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that she will indicate that the Government want to move forward positively and vigorously on this, and I suggest that that is a way they can do so.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]]

A number of my constituents have contacted me to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection should be an independent and powerful body capable of ensuring that the Government uphold environmental laws on everything from plastic pollution to air quality. They are concerned about clause 24 of the Bill and have pointed out that, if the Government have the power to tell the Office for Environmental Protection how to do its job, the office cannot be truly effective; I very much share their concerns. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has remarked that it is

“essential that every step is taken to ensure the Office for Environmental Protection is as independent from the Government as possible, to give the public confidence that the Government will be properly held to account on its duty to protect the environment.”

I therefore support amendment 23, which would delete clause 24.

The quality of the air we breathe is vital to our wellbeing. One of my constituents wrote to me last week to say that air pollution is a daily issue for her and others like her suffering with lung conditions. She told me how, on days when air pollution is high, her symptoms can flare up so badly that she is unable to leave her home. The Government have already committed to adopting a new binding target for PM_2.5 through the Bill. However, as Friends of the Earth has pointed out, the Bill does not set a minimum level of ambition or a deadline for its achievements. Amendment 25 is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM_2.5 target for air quality will be at least as strict as the 2005 World Health Organisation guideline of below 10 micrograms per cubic metre, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.

I now turn to the matter of bees. I pay tribute to the work of Flourish at Ford Way in Upton for the work it does in keeping hives and producing excellent honey. More than 50,000 people have signed The Wildlife Trusts’ petition urging the Prime Minister to overturn the Environment Secretary’s recent authorisation of the emergency use of a bee-killing pesticide for farmers to use on sugar beet crops in England. That shows the real strength of public feeling on this issue.

Amendment 39 would require Ministers to allow parliamentary scrutiny of exemptions granted to allow plant protection products banned under retained EU law, such as neonicotinoid pesticides, where they are likely to impact bees and other species covered by an environmental improvement plan. In conclusion, I urge Members to back these key amendments to ensure the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection, improve air quality and protect bees.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]]

I am glad that this Bill has finally returned to the Commons after months of delay. It has been a frustratingly long time since I took part in prelegislative scrutiny as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and it is nearly a year since I attended the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee. We are now told that we need to wait months more for the second day of Report stage and for the Bill to become law. The Bill should have been in place before the end of transition. Can we even be sure now that it will be in place before COP26? There is absolutely no excuse for the Government’s laxity, and one can only attribute it to a lack of ambition and urgency in tackling the nature and climate emergencies.

Leaving the EU without a fully functioning, properly resourced and independent Office for Environmental Protection that can take public authorities to court over the most serious breaches of environmental law leaves a regulatory gap, which so many of us warned against. We were promised that the Office for Environmental Protection would be located in Bristol, with the creation of 120 jobs. That was publicly reported, and I was told it by Ministers on more than one occasion, yet the Minister has today announced without a hint of shame—in fact, with more than a hint of smugness—that the OEP will be based in Worcester. She can rest assured that I will be seeking an explanation from her as to why this hugely disappointing and, given Bristol’s record, inexplicable decision was made.

This Bill is not all it could be and needs to be strengthened. Labour’s new clause 9 would place firm duties on officials to achieve and maintain biodiversity, human health and sustainable use of resources. New clause 1 would put a duty on public officials to act in accordance with environmental principles. Again, we were repeatedly told during prelegislative scrutiny that a policy statement on environmental principles would be published imminently, so where is it, or was that just another ploy to stave off awkward questioning at the time?

New clause 5 would set the equivalent of the net zero target for tackling the decline in nature by 2030, to begin to reverse the devastating losses we have seen in recent decades. We need such protections in law because, as we have seen repeatedly, the Government’s actions do not always match their words. For example, amendment 39, which would allow parliamentary scrutiny of the use of harmful pesticides such as bee-killing neonicotinoids, was tabled in response to the Government’s emergency authorisation of the use of those pesticides. Labour will always back good British farming practices and farmers but, faced with a devastating decline in biodiversity and our bee populations, we cannot uncritically give the green light, without scrutiny, to the use of harmful pesticides.

To conclude, the Bill needs to be better, the OEP needs to be stronger, and we need proper environmental governance in place without further delay. The natural world is in crisis and we must do all we can to address that, not just the bare minimum.