Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, all the staff of the House, and all those in our public services who will be working over the weekend a very merry Christmas and a safe and successful new year?
The UK has a long history of championing the global conservation of endangered species. We are in the process of extending the Ivory Act 2018 to include four further species—hippopotamus, killer whale, narwhal and sperm whale—in addition to elephants. The Government have also committed to banning the import of hunting trophies. We are considering the most effective way to do so.
Wera Hobhouse
It has been 10 years since the senseless killing of Cecil the lion. It is still legal to import hunting trophies into this country. There has for a long time been cross-party support for banning trophy hunting. In 2023, the Labour party asked the then Conservative Government, “What is stopping you bringing in legislation? Stop the dither and delay.” Why are this Government still dithering and delaying?
Mary Creagh
With the greatest of respect, the hon. Lady’s party was in government for five years, and the Conservative party was in government for 14 years. It is always good after five months in office to be criticised for previous failures.
I agree with the hon. Lady that the Conservatives cannot be trusted on animal welfare. They failed to pass the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill, which would have stopped selfish hunters who slaughter and display endangered animals’ body parts for their own perverse self-gratification, and they dropped the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which would have ended puppy smuggling, puppy farming and pet theft. As I say, we are looking for a suitable legislative vehicle, and we will do it in Government time.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. This time of year brings festive cheer, but it also brings the Boxing day hunts. Alongside many of my constituents, I am keen to see an end to the smoke- screen that is trail hunting. Following the last Labour Government’s historic foxhunting ban, will the Minister confirm this Labour Government’s commitment to banning trail hunting once and for all?
Mary Creagh
We have indeed committed to a ban on trail hunting, which will provide significant protections to wild animals, including foxes and hares. Work to determine the best approach for doing so is ongoing, and further announcements will be made in due course.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
As my hon. Friend knows, each week 8 million vapes—such as single-use, pod and big puff—are thrown away or recycled incorrectly, which is 13 vapes a second. That is why we have already banned single-use vapes and created 10,000 extra vape recycling points in store. We will ensure that online marketplaces and vape producers pay their share of electronic recycling costs in order to avoid the fires, which we know are so devastating.
James Asser
Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a very happy Christmas.
I thank the Minister for her reply. We are all keen to increase recycling, but too often the opportunities for recycling electronic waste are very limited, meaning that it goes into mainstream waste, leading to increased pollution and hazards. We are seeing an increasing number of bin fires starting with vapes, which, as she has highlighted, are a particular problem. Will the Government consider what opportunities there are to work with local authorities to increase recycling opportunities and, in particular, to ensure that the public are aware of the downsides of not disposing of electronic waste properly?
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. My own city council in Coventry has introduced small electrical item take-back points in its libraries, which is an example of an excellent council innovating. I recently visited the Currys recycling plant in Newark, which shows the importance of recycling electricals to ensure that the gifts of Christmas past can be conserved and used for many Christmases to come. More importantly, last-minute Christmas shoppers will get £5 off a new product—I hear that air fryers are very popular.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Mr Speaker, I wish you and all a merry Christmas.
We know that electronic and similar goods in landfill can leach into our waterways and affect water quality. Will Ministers reintroduce water restoration funding, as part of the package of measures they were talking about earlier, so that the River Tone and bathing stations elsewhere across the country can benefit from cleaner water?
Mary Creagh
Our policy is certainly intended to tackle fly-tipping and stop persistent organic pollutants entering the environment, but I will have to consult the Minister for water, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), before answering on that detailed point.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Incineration permit breaches are a matter for the regulator, the Environment Agency, but we are reviewing energy-from-waste capacity across the country and will be making a statement imminently.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Hanukkah to those who are observing.
What action are this Government taking to promote the purchasing of British-grown and seasonal produce through their public procurement framework?
Waste and Recycling
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship this evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) for raising this issue—he has certainly had a busy day, having moved from the Front Bench to the Back Benches—and I thank everyone else who has taken part in the debate.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that resources and waste are a priority issue for DEFRA, and I am pleased to share our plans in this regard. The Government are committed to the transition to a circular economy—a future in which we keep our resources in use for longer, reduce our carbon emissions and invest in critical infrastructure and green jobs in every nation and region, and in which our economy prospers and nature thrives. We want to abandon our linear and unsustainable “take, make, throw” model, which means that we extract resources from the Earth, make things and then throw them away, because there is no such place as “away”. If the whole world consumed resources as we do in the UK, we would need 2.5 times the Earth’s raw materials to sustain our current systems. Meanwhile, nearly 100 million tonnes of residual waste is disposed of annually, and waste crime alone costs our economy £1 billion every year.
That cannot continue. We must and will move toward a system that values longevity, repair and reuse over disposal. In our manifesto, we pledged to reduce waste by moving to a circular economy. That is why we have committed ourselves to developing a circular economy strategy for England, which we will create in partnership with experts from industry, academia, civil society, local government and beyond.
Steve Barclay
I am glad that the Minister has described this as a priority. She has a statutory target to halve residual waste, but what she has not mentioned is the impact that will have on mega-incinerators that are being built essentially to burn plastic. Does she accept that more than 30 environmental charities—charities usually linked to her party and the left—are strongly opposed to those incinerators, and will she commit herself to publishing an impact assessment on the effect of reducing residual waste on the need for incinerators?
Mary Creagh
I will come on to those points later in my speech, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will intervene if he does not get the satisfaction and clarity that he seeks. Good things come to those who wait.
Let me begin with the strategy. We want to have an economy-wide transformation of our relationship with our resources, which is all about supporting the Government’s missions to kick-start economic growth, make Britain a clean energy superpower, and accelerate the path to net zero through our efforts to tackle waste crime and take back our streets. To answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stockton West, preventing food waste is key to my Department, and we are reviewing a range of issues associated with food waste in the supply chain. We hope to make further announcements soon.
Let me address the collection and packaging reforms, which the hon. Member outlined. They are an important starting point in transitioning to a circular economy, and we are proud of the steps that we have taken so far. Over the next three years, simpler recycling, extended producer responsibility and the deposit return scheme will deliver transformational change, creating thousands of new jobs and stimulating billions of pounds’ worth of investment. Those three areas make up the three-legged stool of this Government’s plan to kick-start the circular economy, so I will briefly take each one in turn.
The first area is simpler recycling. We recently affirmed our commitment to delivering simpler recycling in England, which will be introduced for businesses from 31 March 2025 and for households from 31 March 2026. This Government inherited legislation introduced by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) that could have required households to have up to seven bins. As the hon. Member for Stockton West rightly said, some councils have up to 10 bins, but that is because they thought they were doing the right thing, given the signals that were being sent out under the previous Government. That places an unnecessary burden on people and businesses, and unnecessary clutter in everyone’s front and back gardens. We are simplifying the rules to make recycling easier for people, while stimulating growth, maximising the benefits and ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Across England, people will be able to recycle the same materials at home, work or school.
The legislation for simpler recycling has already come into force. To confirm the final details of the policy, we laid regulations before Parliament on 3 December. The policy will support our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035. It is important to remember that figure, because when the last Labour Government brought in the landfill tax reforms in 2002, the original target was to have a recycling rate of 50% by 2015—a target that, sadly, was lost under the previous Government. Ten years on from that date, the target has still not been met.
The policy will also deliver an estimated £11.8 billion-worth of carbon savings between 2024 and 2035. As we have heard, local circumstances differ across the country, so we are making sure that councils and other waste collectors have the flexibility to make the best local choices. We know that local authorities may want to review their waste collection services to ensure that they provide best value for money. As is currently the case, local councils will continue to decide the frequency of waste collections in a way that suits the needs of their local community. The Government’s priority is to ensure that households’ needs are met, so we have recently published guidance to support councils in this area.
The second area is extended producer responsibility for packaging. To help fund simpler recycling, we are introducing in parallel extended producer responsibility for packaging, or pEPR, which will require obligated producers to pay the full end of life costs associated with the packaging that they place on the market. That will bring more than £1 billion of investment into local government waste collections, and incentivise producers to reduce unnecessary packaging and make what they use even more sustainable. Those regulations have now been debated in both Houses. They received unanimous cross-party support and will come into force on 1 January 2025.
The third and final leg is the deposit return scheme—DRS—for drinks containers. We have seen this work in over 50 countries around the world. The DRS will make a real difference to people’s lives by tackling litter and cleaning up our streets. Recycling rates will increase and the drinks industry will benefit from the high quality recycled materials that the DRS will provide. We are committed to delivering a deposit return scheme in England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland in October 2027 and we will continue to work closely with industry partners, the Scottish Government and the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to launch the scheme.
Iqbal Mohamed
I worked across Europe for more than 15 years, and a DRS scheme has been in place all over Europe during all that time. I have been hearing for so long that it would arrive in the UK, but it has not, so I would be interested to hear the timescales. Also, will the Government consider putting restrictions on the use of fresh plastics for drinks bottles? Instead of them being recyclable, can we make them recycled?
Mary Creagh
I share the hon. Gentleman’s impatience. I am old enough to remember, as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in 2017, hearing several predecessors of the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire promising that we would have a DRS scheme. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) is also right to say that there is no point in recycling if there is no end market. I welcomed the plastic packaging tax that was introduced under the prime ministership of Theresa May, which mandates a 30% recycled content. The question, where fossil fuels are very cheap, is how we drive business’s behaviour change, and that is under active consideration to ensure that there is an end market for the recyclates that are placed on the market.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the timescale, we laid the regulations for England and Northern Ireland before Parliament on 25 November and we plan for the regulations to come into force in late January, parliamentary time permitting. The Scottish Government will then make the necessary amendments to legislation in Scotland. After that, the three Governments will appoint the Deposit Management Organisation in April 2025, for which applications opened on Monday 2 December, so this is all hot off the press, and this is a timely debate. The aim is for the DRS to come into force on 1 October 2027.
However, there is much more to do. On Friday, I was delighted to visit Suez’s Malpass Farm facility in Rugby. Working in partnership with Cemex, Suez has provided 1 million tonnes of climafuel from non-recyclable waste, diverting it from landfill and reducing coal consumption in the neighbouring Cemex plant by 75,000 tonnes, thus enabling big industrial decarbonisation. Earlier today, I made a quick trip up to Newark to visit the Curry’s site, which is home to one of its unique repair centres. I saw how Curry’s, a great and proud British company, is using its resources and its market position to repair and refurbish broken phones, laptops and tablets, and I recommend its refurbishment website to anyone looking for a last-minute gift from Santa.
Such industrial partnerships, working together to maximise the value of resources, demonstrate the role that the resources and waste sector can play in supporting net zero and supporting economic growth. A high-performing resources and waste sector is key to driving a circular economy. However, waste crime threatens this by taking resources away from that circular economy and from the good businesses that want to do the right thing and make those green investments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) is interested in this, and I am glad to see him in his traditional place. Waste crime costs the country £1 billion a year, and we know that 18% of waste may be handled illegally at some point in the waste supply chain. That is around 34 million tonnes of waste every year. We are committed to tackling this scourge.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Minister has spoken about many different types of rubbish, but not where it often goes, which is to household waste recycling centres. Not content with the Tory tip tax, cash-strapped Norfolk county council has gone further in trying to encourage fly-tipping by creating a mad booking system for residents who want to use household waste recycling centres. Will the Minister extend the same guidance to household waste recycling centres that she has talked about extending to kerbside recycling schemes?
Mary Creagh
I am very happy to look at that, but I gently tell the hon. Gentleman that after more than a decade of austerity, providing more services with less money is a challenge, and many local councils have not been able to square that circle. Rather than indulging in thinking about what could be done in a perfect world, we have to look at the world we are in and ask, “What can we do?” It is clear that this three-legged stool of reforms will put some much-needed fresh cash into the system, so that the various municipal collections can be ready for the go-live dates, and there may be opportunities in that.
We have had several debates about fly-tipping, and there were more than 1 million fly-tipping incidents in 2022-23, which is 10% more than we had three years ago. As the hon. Member for Stockton West said, Stockton-on-Tees alone has had 1,700 fly-tipping incidents. We cannot allow these incidents to continue, and I pay tribute to the many local litter groups he has met. I will have the enjoyment of meeting the Aylesbury Wombles in Parliament this Wednesday, and there are little groups everywhere.
We want fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess they have created, and we must take back our country from these criminals who blight our communities and undermine legitimate businesses. I look forward to providing details on that.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my favourite Minister in His Majesty’s Government for giving way. Notwithstanding any legal action relating to Walleys Quarry, will the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), and the Minister join me in paying tribute to all the hard-working, good and loyal subjects in Newcastle-under-Lyme who campaigned, day in and day out, for clean air, healthier lungs and the kind of change we so desperately want to see?
Mary Creagh
What we saw there was a local community campaigning to stop the stink, and I am pleased that the regulator has taken swift action.
On the point raised by the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire about energy from waste, his Government failed to reach their recycling targets. We do not support over-capacity of energy from waste, and incineration should be an option only for waste that cannot be prevented, reused or recycled, such as medical waste or nappies.
In the waste hierarchy, recovering energy from waste is still preferable to disposing of waste in landfill. It maximises the value of the resources being disposed of, and avoids the greater environmental impact of landfill, which continues for generations, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee). We cannot solve today’s problems by storing them up for future generations, so we will shortly publish our analysis of the need for further energy from waste development in England, following delivery of our reforms. However, I make it clear that it is for the relevant planning authority to determine the need for proposed developments. Our capacity assessment will help inform decision making on planning.
Steve Barclay
In a classic example of joined-up government, many of these incinerators, including the Wisbech incinerator, are classed as nationally significant infrastructure, so decisions on them are made by the Government, not devolved locally. I welcome the Minister saying that she does not support over-capacity of incineration, just as I welcome her ambition to increase recycling, but given that she wants increased recycling, there will be over-capacity of incineration. We need to see the impact assessment so that we can see the trajectory, and can see the increasing rate at which waste will be recycled. We can then avoid the over-capacity. When will we see that impact assessment, so that we do not have too much capacity in incineration?
Mary Creagh
I am a bit mystified by the right hon. Gentleman’s question, because he put a stop to planning decisions on energy from waste. Did he not conduct an impact assessment beforehand?
Steve Barclay
I do not want to intervene too much, but as a point of clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was recused as the Minister, so I certainly did not make that decision. I am making the argument against incineration; I would have thought that the Minister would support that, because she wants more recycling. Over 30 environmental charities say that incineration is the dirtiest way to produce energy—that it is as dirty as coal. Five years of analysis by the BBC found it was the dirtiest. I am highlighting the contradiction between the Government saying that they are for the environment and clean energy, and there being a risk of over-capacity in incineration, which burns plastics and is harmful to the environment. I am highlighting that contradiction and saying that that is the reason why the Government should publish an impact assessment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Now that the House is aware that Mr Barclay recused himself, we should not repeat that statement, but no doubt the Minister wishes to respond.
Mary Creagh
I am very keen to set the record straight, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House will have heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. It is important that we do not incinerate recyclable materials. The environmental permitting regulations prevent the incineration of separately collected paper, metal, glass or plastic waste unless it has gone through some form of treatment process first, and, following that treatment, incineration is the best environmental outcome. As I say, we will publish our capacity assessment before the end of this year, and we do not support incineration over-capacity.
If we look at the waste hierarchy, waste incineration does not compete with or conflict with recycling. I think the right hon. Gentleman may have been talking to Madam Deputy Speaker when I was describing my visit to Rugby, where it is possible to see some uses for energy from waste that help with the hardest to abate industrial sectors. The process for cement, for example, requires a furnace that is heated to 1,400°C. In my view, the end result in that case means that it is a good use of incineration. That is what comes out of the municipal recycling facilities—out of our black bins—and it is the very tail end of the waste process I have described.
We have consulted on expanding the UK emissions trading scheme to include waste incineration and energy from waste, in order to divert plastics away from incineration. We are taking on board responses, and we will detail final policy on that in due course. We are including energy from waste under decarbonisation readiness requirements. We believe that any energy-producing waste facility seeking an environmental permit needs to look at how it will decarbonise. Moving to a circular economy is no small task, but we will do so by working collaboratively, and across this House, building on the policy left by the previous Government.
Adam Jogee
The Minister talks about the importance of working across Government, across this House and across our communities. Notwithstanding her position as my favourite Minister in His Majesty’s Government, I gently put to her the importance of looking at councils that give planning consent to developments in and around landfill sites. In Newcastle-under-Lyme, a number of housing developments have been built right around Walleys Quarry. That has a material impact on the health and wellbeing of the people who move there, and more generally on how our community is viewed. I urge her to have the appropriate conversations with colleagues across Government to ensure that the 1.5 million homes that we all want are built in the right places, with the right communication and consultation when decisions are taken.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Minister may wish to check Hansard to see how many times the hon. Member has mentioned his “favourite Minister”.
Mary Creagh
I think the kindest thing that we can say is that the experience of Walleys Quarry is a learning experience for us all. I have a former landfill site in my constituency that has been properly remediated and covered over, with housing built alongside it. It started out as a clay quarry for brickmaking. Then it became a landfill site for the council, and now it is housing, but the site has been properly remediated. I think the problems have come through a lack of guidance and regulation about where housing can and should be built, an understandable keenness to build the homes that people desperately need, and a failure to understand that things should not be placed 30 metres away from a landfill site. It is simply not acceptable. Certainly, that is a learning point that we are bringing into the planning and infrastructure Bill.
Moving to a circular economy is no small task, but we are committed to playing our part, building the UK Government’s reputation at home and abroad, and driving green jobs, green growth and the green shoots of recovery in every nation and region of our country.
Question put and agreed to.
Future of Farming
Mary Creagh Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your very crisp chairmanship, Sir Roger. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members for whittling down what must have been very long speeches into very short, but none the less well-received and well-delivered, speeches.
I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), not just for securing this debate but for her work representing her party here in Westminster as a spokesperson on environment, food and rural affairs. She well knows that agriculture is a devolved issue, but we are committed to working closely with devolved Governments as we work to support British farmers and boost the nation’s food security. My colleague Baroness Hayman is in Northern Ireland tomorrow, meeting with large food producers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union and Northern Ireland’s Agriculture Minister.
As the granddaughter of a Fermanagh beef farmer, I too have farming in my blood. The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), has many talents, but he has not yet acquired the skills of cloning himself, so I am here as a pale substitute for him today.
I thank all Members for the comments they have raised. We will never forget that farmers are the beating heart of our great country, and farming and food security is the foundation of a healthy and resilient economy, local community and environment. It is the hard work of our country’s farmers that puts food on the table and stewards our beautiful countryside, which is why, despite the difficult fiscal situation, we are maintaining the total level of Government support to farmers across the UK. For the devolved Governments we are removing the ringfence to respect the devolution settlement, and we are providing the same level of funding in 2025-26 as they are receiving in 2024-25. In England, we have committed £5 billion to the farming budget over two years, including more money than ever for sustainable food production. That enables us to keep momentum on the path to a resilient and more sustainable farming sector.
Environmental land management schemes will remain at the centre of our offer to farmers and nature in England, receiving £1.8 billion in the financial year 2025-26. What is more, we have announced that we will rapidly release £60 million through the farming recovery fund, which will support farmers, including those on family farms, affected by the unprecedented extreme wet weather last winter. Roughly 13,000 farm businesses, including family farms, will receive an exceptional one-off payment to help with severe flooding.
The Government are also investing £208 million to protect the nation from disease outbreaks that threaten the farming industry, our food security and, crucially, human health. All of that is part of the Government’s new deal for farmers. On a UK-wide level, we are working to cut red tape at our borders and get British food exports moving again—protecting farmers from being undercut by shoddy trade deals done by the previous Government. We will lower energy bills for farmers by switching on GB Energy, and introduce grid reform to allow them to plug their renewable energy into the national grid.
We will use Government purchasing power to back British produce so that half of our food in hospitals, Army bases and prisons is locally produced and all certified to high environmental standards. We will introduce a land use framework that balances long-term food security with nature recovery. Critically, we will introduce the first ever cross-Government rural crime strategy to crackdown on antisocial behaviour, fly tipping and GPS theft—a subject on which I have spent many happy hours in the Chamber.
I will address the agricultural property relief changes head-on. There has been a huge range of figures and analysis quoted on all sides. The Treasury’s figures show that 500 estates a year will be affected. That is based on the hard data of actual claims, a figure that is endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. It includes the impact of APR, business property relief, nil-rated inheritance allowances, and other capital allowance. The Government have engaged and will continue to engage with the NFU, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, MPs and other stakeholders on the issue. The reforms will not be introduced until April 2026, so there is still time for farmers to plan for the changes and get professional advice on succession planning.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I have both contacted the Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland. We have spoken to John McLenaghan, the legal officer, who told us clearly that 65% of farmers in Northern Ireland will be impacted. With great respect, when I hear his legal opinion and the opinion that the Minister has just referred to, there is a chasm of difference. Somebody is telling porkies—I do not know who it is.
Mary Creagh
With any fiscal change, we look at the previous year’s figures to see what the impact will be. I am not going to get into the analysis around the figures—I want to make some progress. Those figures have been verified by our independent fiscal authority, the OBR.
We know that the current-use rules have been used by wealthy landowners to avoid inheritance tax, and currently the largest estates pay a lower inheritance tax than smaller estates. That is not fair or sustainable.
Perran Moon
Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Government, following the abject failure and economic incompetence of the previous Government, to deal with the rampant speculative acquisition of farmland by closing the tax loophole that has been exploited for too long, and that if the Conservatives really cared about the future of farming, there would be more than one Conservative MP here, with the exception of the shadow Minister and the Chair?
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which sets out why the Government are better targeting tax reliefs: to make them fairer and to protect the smallest family farms. We believe that that is a fair and balanced approach that safeguards small family farms, while also fixing the public services that farming families rely on. Those families will be able to pass the family farm down to their children just as previous generations have always done.
I will quickly make a couple of other points. The hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned Bovaer, the feed additive. We know that agriculture is one of our largest emitting sectors, and we consider that methane-suppressing feed products are an essential tool in the decarbonisation of the agricultural sector. Bovaer was approved by the Food Standards Agency in April 2024 for use in the UK as a feed additive. The authorisation process assessed evidence about animal health, consumer health and environmental safety, and the evidence that was provided to demonstrate the methane reduction efficacy of the product. Bovaer is fully metabolised by the cow and is not present in milk or meat, so there is no consumer exposure to it. I hope that reassures her about Bovaer.
I will also discuss the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). Its introduction, including on imports of specific fertiliser products, was announced by the previous Government in December 2023, but it will not come into force until 2027. It is intended to address carbon leakage, which is the movement of production and emissions from one country to another due to different levels of decarbonisation effort. About 70% of UK agrifood imports come from the EU, and fertiliser used by EU farmers will have already faced a carbon price. Many non-EU imports cannot be produced in the UK, so the Treasury expects that the impact on UK farmers will be modest and that there will be no material impact on food prices.
On capital grants, we have seen an unprecedented demand, and we will continue to process the applications that have already been received and accept new applications for woodland tree health grants. Capital grant plans and management plans are important to help Countryside Stewardship Higher Tier arrangements, protection and—
Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill
Mary Creagh ExcerptsFriday 29th November 2024
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 View all Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and thank him for bringing forward this important Bill.
This Government take the issue of pet smuggling seriously. Earlier this year, we made a manifesto commitment to end puppy smuggling, and that is exactly what we will do. I am delighted to announce that the Government will be fully supporting the passage of the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Bill through Parliament. We stand ready to work with the hon. Gentleman to clamp down on deceitful pet sellers who prioritise profit over welfare.
This Bill will crack down on pet smuggling by closing loopholes in the current pet travel rules. At present, illegal importers of dogs, cats and ferrets often exploit loopholes to bring in animals under the guise of genuine owners travelling with their pets. The Bill will close those loopholes by reducing the number of dogs, cats and ferrets that are permitted to be brought into Great Britain by a person under the pet travel rules. The limit will be reduced from five pets per person to five pets per vehicle, and three pets per foot or air passenger.
The Bill will also provide us with powers to crack down on low-welfare imports of pets. We will first use those powers to restrict the movement of heavily pregnant and mutilated dogs and cats into Great Britain. At the same time, we will raise the minimum age at which puppies and kittens can be brought into Great Britain, which will be set at six months. We will also ensure that the non-commercial movement of a pet into Great Britain must be linked to the movement of its owner. To move under the pet travel rules going forward, the pet and owner will have to travel within five days of each other.
In the interests of time, I again thank the hon. Member for Winchester for taking forward this important Bill and look forward to working together to progress it through the House.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) wish to come back in?
Draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.
The regulations, which were laid in draft before the House on 24 October 2024, introduce extended producer responsibility for packaging, referred to as pEPR, in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. PEPR is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit returns scheme and the simpler recycling programme in England. It will overhaul the packaging waste system, introducing the biggest change to policy in a generation—since the last Labour Government introduced the landfill tax. Collectively, the packaging reforms are estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent by 2035, which is valued at more than £10 billion in carbon benefit.
The new system established under the regulations will modernise the producer responsibility system for packaging in the United Kingdom by shifting the costs of managing discarded household packaging from taxpayers to businesses that supply packaging, thereby applying the “polluter pays” principle. The regulations implement the international best practice exemplified by the mature systems of our European neighbours, including Belgium and Germany, where comprehensive pEPR schemes have been in place for some time. This is a foundational pillar of our transition to a circular economy, moving away from the linear take, make and throw model, which we know harms our environment and society, to an economic model that keeps valuable material resources in use for longer.
The revenue raised by the new system will generate more than £1 billion a year to support local authority collection, recycling and waste disposal services, which will benefit every household in the UK and stimulate much-needed investment in our recycling infrastructure. It will make a substantial contribution to the benefits of the packaging reforms which together—those three pillars of the DRS, simpler recycling and today’s regulations—are estimated to support 21,000 jobs across nations and regions, and to help to stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. Revenue from pEPR will create a much-needed injection of resources to local authorities to improve the household kerbside collection system across the UK.
In England, the revenue will fund the simpler recycling reforms that will enable consistent collection of all dry packaging materials, ending the postcode lottery for recycling. Taken together, the reforms will support this mission-driven Government’s ambition to kickstart economic growth and create the foundations that are required to transition towards a circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that resources are used for longer. It is a critical first step towards meeting our manifesto commitment to transition to a resource-resilient, productive circular economy that delivers long-term sustainable growth.
Let me draw hon. Members’ attention to the new obligations in the statutory instrument. First, the regulations introduce an obligation on businesses that supply household packaging, referred to as “producers”, to pay the costs incurred by local authorities in managing that packaging once it has been discarded. Producers will also be obligated to meet the cost of providing public information about the correct disposal of packaging. Producers will start incurring fees from April 2025, and invoices will be issued from October 2025 for the 2025-26 scheme year.
Additionally, from the second year of the scheme, producer fees will be adjusted to incentivise producers to make more sustainable decisions at the product design stage, including decisions that make it easier for products to be reused or recycled at their end of life. That will mean that a producer that uses packaging that is not environmentally sustainable, such as packaging that is not widely recycled, will incur higher fees. Conversely, those using packaging that is sustainable and readily recyclable will incur lower fees.
It is right that businesses bear the costs of managing the packaging they place on the market, but we must also protect small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our high streets and the backbone of our economy. That is why only businesses that have a turnover of more than £2 million and that supply over 50 tonnes of packaging a year will have to pay disposal fees under the new system. To administer the system, the regulations require the appointment of a scheme administrator jointly by the four nations. This body will be responsible for the implementation of pEPR, including the setting of producer fees, and the apportionment and payment of those fees to local authorities to fund their waste management services. The scheme administrator will initially be hosted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Let me turn to the detail of the obligations retained from the current producer responsibility system. The instrument revokes and replaces the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023, along with the equivalent regulations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The requirement for packaging producers to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they supply is carried over from the 2023 regulations, as amended. The data is used to calculate producers’ recycling and fee obligations.
The instrument also revokes and replaces the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2007 and the equivalent regulations in Northern Ireland. As was the case under those regulations, the draft instrument places obligations on producers to ensure that a proportion of the packaging they supply is recycled and requires them to provide evidence of that to the regulator. Those requirements apply to all packaging, not just packaging likely to be disposed of in local authority household collections. To meet that obligation, producers must demonstrate compliance by obtaining packaging recovery notes and packaging export recovery notes from recycling facilities, or from those that export packaging waste for recycling.
Finally, the instrument provides the four national regulators with enforcement powers and a duty to monitor compliance. It contains strong enforcement measures, including criminal offences and powers for regulators to impose civil sanctions in cases of non-compliance. As is currently the case, the monitoring and enforcement activity for the producer responsibility regime will be funded by the associated charges in the draft regulations, such as those for registration and accreditation. The charges operate on a cost recovery basis. They have therefore been increased from the levels in the 2007 regulations to reflect the new duties placed on the regulators and the increased level of monitoring and audit activities.
To conclude, there is no such place as “away”; everything that we put into the planet we put into our environment and, ultimately, into ourselves. It is therefore critical that we create the foundations to transition to a circular economy for packaging, ensure resources are kept in use for longer and secure vital carbon savings. As we look at the global plastic pollution treaty negotiations in Busan, South Korea, we certainly hope to play our part in that work.
Mary Creagh
I thank hon. Members very much indeed for their kind and constructive words. We are seeing today an outbreak of unity on the basis of a project of seven years’ gestation. I remember the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs telling the Environmental Audit Committee, which I then chaired, that they would introduce a DRS scheme back in 2017. Here we are, and it falls to a Labour Government to introduce it. Once we pull one thread out of the packaging bin, we affect the income streams on which councils depend—I have a little joke in the Department that simpler recycling is actually hellishly complex recycling. It is a very complex project. There were issues with it during the covid pandemic and there have been four consultations on these reforms, so it has certainly taken a long time to see the light of day.
I would gently say to the shadow Minister that when we left Government in 2010, the recycling rate was more than 40%. It is now at 44%, and kind of going backwards. The original target in 2002 was for us to be at 50% recycling by 2015. The real lesson for all of us as lawmakers of whatever party is that, if we do not continually update policy, encourage behaviour change and give business certainty, these things do not happen on their own. The shadow Minister asked me about taxes; I welcome his constructive comments on charities, but obviously he knows that taxes are a matter for the Chancellor. I believe that the Finance Bill is still being debated in the main Chamber and I am sure he will have an opportunity, should he want to intervene there.
We talked about support for businesses. My officials have worked incredibly closely with businesses on this scheme. I met with a very large bottled drinks manufacturer yesterday in the Department, and I met with other businesses this morning as part of an all-party parliamentary group. We are not getting any comments from businesses that they have not been heard. There has been a consultation. There have been some philosophical questions about where glass should sit, and glass is now in pEPR. We want anyone involved in the production of packaging, such as the great Quaker Oats brand that the hon. Member for North East Fife has near her. That is an example of absolutely perfect cardboard packaging. It is sort of the perfect recycled package—wholesome on the inside and wholesome on the outside.
Most people know that the hard-to-recycle packaging is the plastic films. That is the really tricky stuff. If we look in our waste bins, by the time we have taken out the cardboard, plastic bottles, milk bottles and cans, what is left is food waste—collected in some areas, but not others, and the main source of methane in our landfill—and then the plastic film. Similarly, coffee cups have a plastic liner a few microns thick and then the thick cardboard around it, but they need the plastic to hold the drink. It is a question of product design and innovation. None of this is new, and a lot of it is happening, with pEPR happening in around 30 other countries in the world. Industry and representative groups have actively engaged with Government on developing these schemes and have offered support by sharing their data on recycling.
I take the point from the hon. Member for North East Fife about the two schemes. In a way, it is a bit like Brexit—we have the old regulations, the new regulations, and there are costs. What was supposed to be a bonfire of legislation actually ends up causing more regulation. We also have a number of industry representative groups taking part in the co-design of the future of scheme administration, including consideration of greater value chain involvement in the scheme. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom—this is the first time we as a nation are doing this.
Dr Hudson
I note that the Minister is saying that businesses are feeding in, but my earlier point was that, with changes coming down the track, dialogue needs to go both ways. What plans do the Government have to talk to businesses and sectors in future? They are taking in information, but it is important that information goes the other way, so that people can plan and put measures in place.
Mary Creagh
That is a valid point. We have had to collect the data, but the data is not 100% there yet. Illustrative base fees were shared in August and we did new base fees in September to reflect some of the comments from business. We are looking at 2024, which has not ended yet, so we need to look at the tonnage and packaging for 2024 before we publish the final, definitive fees from April. We have tried to share illustrative fees with people, because we know there are long supply chains and they need six to 12 months to plan properly.
Further iterations will follow up to the summer next year, when we will share those final fees. They will be invoiced in October 2025, which will cover the period from 1 April 2025 to March 2026. At that point there will be absolute clarity and certainty. If there is anything that we feel is not working or that is driving behaviour in the opposite direction from what we want to see, we will not hesitate to change things further. As a new Government—we have been in power for only five months—this has been a big elephant to digest, one bite at a time.
The hon. Member for North East Fife asked me about producer obligations in the two schemes. The regulations carry over the obligation on the Environment Agency to publish a list of large producers from the 2023 data regulations, as amended. That should help producers to reduce the risk of double obligation, because we do not want people to be obligated under two separate schemes. If a producer discovers that it has reported packaging that it was not required to report, the regulations enable it to make a resubmission to correct any errors. We will continue to review the reporting requirements and engage with industry to ensure that the regulations operate effectively.
The payments will also apply to online marketplaces, something that is important for all of us as constituency MPs. We have seen the displacement of traditional high street businesses by online retailers, where it is usually cheaper to buy something. These regulations try to reset the level playing field.
We have legislated for that by creating the online marketplace producer class to address the rising prevalence of products imported into the UK as a result of sales on a third-party website. Where that happens, the operator of an online marketplace established in the UK must now take responsibility for that packaging under pEPR. At the same time, we do not want to unnecessarily burden small producers, so we are retaining the current de minimis thresholds. We will use the data gathered in the first year of the scheme to review the approach to small producers after that first year. We need to see if it is working as intended.
I hope I have covered most of the questions raised by hon. Members. The legislation is necessary to kick-start the circular economy, drive up our recycling rates, drive down our carbon emissions and change our approach to packaging in the UK, to ensure that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I hope that hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instrument, and I am grateful for the Committee’s time.
Question put and agreed to.
Fly-tipping
Mary Creagh Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for tabling this debate, the second on fly-tipping in just three months. How extraordinary it is that not a single Opposition Member has turned up to listen and contribute; that tells us something about the party of the countryside, and the party that is on the side of people who want to do the right thing and keep their areas clean and tidy.
I thank all colleagues for their thoughtful contributions—fly-tipping is a serious crime, and we know it blights local communities. I have been reading about the horrendous case of the front garden on Peach Avenue in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), and we appreciate the difficulty it poses to all landowners. Local councils reported over a million fly-tipping incidents in 2022-23—that is a significant burden on the UK economy, and was an increase of 10% on the three previous years. During that time, we had covid, where we were not allowed out for several months at a time, so I think we can say it is increasing year on year. What we are here to say is enough is enough. Things have to change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has said, there have been years of Conservative failure on this, and we have a plague of rubbish on parks, streets, front gardens, farms, rural estates, and industrial estates. I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) yesterday and was sending him texts on the way home because I could see some illegal burning going on as I drove back from the beautiful Hainault forest.
We want to end our throwaway society: stop this avalanche, increase recycling rates, reduce waste, and crack down on waste crime. To the point about the circular economy made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), yesterday we laid the deposit return scheme regulations in Parliament, and we have a statutory instrument on extended producer responsibility tomorrow. There are colleagues in the room who will participate in that debate to show the three legs of the stool—simpler recycling, EPR, and DRS, all of which are going to drive up our recycling rates, with the intention of getting to 65% by 2035.
I looked back at some news items from 2002, when the last Labour Government was trying to get the recycling rate up to 50% by 2015. That tells you something about the progress that has stalled over the last 14 years, that we are still hovering around a 43% to 44% recycling rate, and actually going backwards in some areas.
We have committed to forcing fly-tippers and vandals to clean up the mess that they have created as part of a crackdown on antisocial behaviour, and I look forward to providing further details on that commitment in due course. I met the Prisons Minister, Lord Timpson, to discuss how we can equip prisoners for their release and rehabilitation through some of the environmental work in this area.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
One of the initiatives in Hull is “bring out your rubbish” days, which clearly reduce fly-tipping. It is an initiative from Labour councillors, using the ward budgets. Is that something the Minister might consider encouraging other councils to take up across the board?
Mary Creagh
I think there is a really interesting philosophical reflection there, because one person’s rubbish is another person’s treasure. I remember leaving a beautiful Italian leather bag outside my house—it had a hole in it, and had come to the end of its life with me—and I thought I would put it on the doorstep and see what happens. Someone knocked on my door and asked if that bag was to go, and I said yes, and she was so pleased. Maybe she was going to take it away and sew it. There was also a tradition when I lived in Belgium of the braderie, where people put their stuff out—got rid of things from their granny’s attic, got rid of different things, like a massive car boot sale, because people like to get a bargain—and I do think there is a role for people to do that. We do not want to stop people putting things out for other people that might be useful, but I encourage people to ask, “Is it going to rain? Is the item going to be destroyed?” It needs to be done in a sensible way. On the council clearing things up, one often finds that other people come along and clear it up before the council even gets there.
Councils have enforcement powers to punish those who harm our communities and to deter other would-be offenders, and I encourage them to make good use of those powers, including their power to prosecute. I pay tribute to the council in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford for their actions. Fly-tipping can lead to a fine, community service or even imprisonment.
Sentencing is a matter for the courts, but the national fly-tipping prevention group, which is chaired by officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has produced guidance to support councils to present robust cases to court. I urge colleagues to encourage their councils to join that group, because there is no monopoly on wisdom in this area and it is good to share initiatives such as the wall of shame.
Instead of prosecuting, local authorities can issue fixed penalty notices of up to £1,000 to those who fly-tip or of up to £600 to those who pass their household waste to someone who does not have the proper licence. They also have powers to stop, seize and search the vehicles of those suspected of fly-tipping. They have the powers; whether they have the finances and resources after losing almost two thirds of their budgets after years of cuts to local authorities is a different question. Ahead of the previous fly-tipping debate, I wrote to those councils that reported no enforcement actions in 2022-23, and I will consider what further action is needed to encourage more councils to increase their efforts to bring them all up to the level of the good.
We are under no illusions about the scale of the funding pressures that local authorities face, and I know that many colleagues have served on local councils. We are committed to resetting the relationship between local and central Government, and we will get councils back on their feet by providing multi-year funding settlements, ending the competitive bidding for pots of money and reforming the local audit system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised the issue of rural fly-tipping, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). Some 80% of farmers have been affected by fly-tipping on their land. We will continue to work with the National Farmers Union and others to promote and disseminate good practice on how to prevent fly-tipping on rural land.
The public have a vital role to play in tackling this, because 60% of fly-tips involve household waste. Householders must check the register of waste carriers to avoid giving their waste to rogue operators who promise quick, cheap waste collection.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Minister will not be surprised to see me in a debate on waste, which I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for securing. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to constituents of mine like Norma in Red Street and Jane in Bradwell for their commitment to safe and clean streets and for their consistent reporting of fly-tips to both me and the council? I assure the Minister of my complete commitment and support for her zero-tolerance approach in tackling fly-tipping and waste crime in our communities.
Mary Creagh
It is good to see my hon. Friend. I have been travelling in Azerbaijan where I could not get his texts and phone calls, so I have had a week off, but I am glad to see that he is back, as an almost permanent shadow. I have not had my latest Walleys Quarry update, but I am sure that will come shortly after the debate. I pay tribute to the persistence of his constituents, Jane and Norma; from their Member of Parliament, I see that the Newcastle-under-Lyme persistence is contagious, and I pay tribute to him for everything he has done on behalf of his constituents in this area.
It is important that we educate householders about their duty of care in this area. I am considering reform to the waste carrier, broker and dealer regime to make it easier to identify rogue operators. I have met representatives of the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management to talk about how we can introduce qualifications around licensing. I am keen to do as much as we can in that area.
Whether they live in the countryside, a town or a city, people should walk through their community feeling proud of a clean environment that is free of rubbish and litter. That is why, with councils, communities and local authorities, we will work together with regulators to force offenders to clean up their mess, put a stop to the waste criminals and keep our communities clean.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. Before we finish this debate, I remind the Minister and Members of paragraph 19.45 of “Erskine May”, in which it says:
“A half-hour adjournment debate is a personal debate between the Member who has secured the debate and the Minister who is to reply…Interventions from the Opposition frontbench are not allowed. Opposition spokespersons may participate, from the backbenches, on matters which do not relate to their portfolio. Equally, because the debate is personal to the Member and the Minister, no reference should be made to the absence of other Members (for example, an Opposition frontbench spokesperson).”
References in this debate to the absence of anybody from the Opposition Front-Bench team were out of order, and I apologise for not having raised that at the time. I think it is important that we remind ourselves of the rules of procedure and the fact that, in half-hour debates, there is no opportunity for Opposition parties to participate.
Mary Creagh
Thank you for that clarification, Sir Christopher. I am happy to withdraw my remarks. We are all learning in our new jobs, and we are grateful to you for your wisdom, advice and guidance on these areas.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for that courtesy.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Oral Answers to Questions
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
May I begin by wishing His Majesty the King a very happy birthday? I am sure the sentiment is echoed on both sides of the House.
Fly-tipping has increased after years of Conservative failure, leaving a plague of dumped rubbish across our streets, parks and cities and imposing huge costs on taxpayers and businesses. This new Labour Government will end our throwaway society and stop the avalanche of rubbish filling up our streets by increasing recycling rates, reducing waste and cracking down on waste crime.
Rachel Taylor
In 2022-23, North Warwickshire borough council recorded 912 incidents of fly-tipping and took 172 investigation actions, yet only one fixed penalty notice was issued. This meant that farmers often picked up the cost of removing the problem, and criminal gangs were allowed to get away scot-free. Does the Minister agree that more must be done by the council to prosecute incidents of fly-tipping?
Mary Creagh
I can tell my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour that local authorities have the power to issue fixed penalty notices—on-the-spot fines—of up to £1,000, but one fixed penalty notice is completely inadequate given the scale of the problem she outlined. The low rates of fixed penalty notices and prosecutions mean that this is a consequence-free crime. We are on a mission to improve that, and I hope her council will work with us to improve its record.
Sarah Coombes
Sandwell Litter Watch does a great job of keeping our streets clean, but it and the council cannot overcome the selfish behaviour of fly-tippers, who dump rubbish all over the borough, from Yew Tree to Oldbury. Incidents of fly-tipping in Sandwell are now double the national average. Will the Minister set out further how the Government are working with councils to catch and punish these dreadful fly-tippers?
Mary Creagh
I pay tribute to Sandwell Litter Watch, and to Destination Barr Hill in my constituency, who get out and about every weekend to clean up other people’s mess. We will crack down on fly-tipping, establishing clean-up squads and forcing those who dump rubbish or vandalise our fields to join in the clean-up. The National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group has produced a guide on how local authorities can present robust prosecutions to support tougher sentences. The Government will also explore further options with the Ministry of Justice’s sentencing review.
Chris Bloore
I am afraid that I have to add to the litany of terrible statistics about fly-tipping in rural areas: there were over 1,500 incidents of rural fly-tipping in my constituency of Redditch, with only one fixed penalty notice given to an offender. Can the Minister tell us more about how she hopes to work with local authorities like mine to ensure that the people committing these crimes are brought to justice?
Mary Creagh
I understand that my hon. Friend’s council has just changed political colour, so I hope that the new Labour administration will take the problem a lot more seriously. I am aware that waste permit exemptions allow low-risk waste activities to be carried out under a registration scheme, and that that can be abused by criminals. Let us not be under any illusion: there is serious organised crime in this area. I am considering proposals to tighten the regime, and I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend’s council about how we tackle this together.
Leigh Ingham
Fly-tipping is a growing concern among residents of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages. Many constituents are increasingly frustrated with the persistent illegal dumping of waste. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how her Department is cleaning up the mess left by the last Government and how the proposed measures will directly address fly-tipping and improve the situation for my constituents?
Mary Creagh
I am aware of some serious incidents in my hon. Friend’s constituency, including one where a significant amount of rubbish was fly-tipped on a driveway near a school and pupils suffered bad health impacts. I am concerned that the carrier, broker and dealer regime that the last Government left is far too weak and not fit for purpose. I am actively considering how the regime can be reviewed, and I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear her input.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is nice to see the hon. Lady back in the House and elevated to a Government position—well done. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency has revealed that it has cleaned up some 306 illegal waste sites in the last two years, with taxpayers footing the bill of half a million pounds—equivalent to 15 nurses’ wages. What discussions has the Minister had with the Minister in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs back home in Northern Ireland about the cost associated with fly-tipping?
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I met his colleague from DAERA at an inter-ministerial group in September. I am aware of the concerns in rural areas about fly-tipping, which blights swathes of our countryside. I am working with the National Farmers Union and others through the National Fly-Tipping Prevention Group to promote good practice, including on private land. We know from the national waste crime survey that 86% of landowners and farmers have been affected by this terrible crime.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State update the House on progress in creating three new national forests, and, as it is my birthday, may I extend to him an invitation to visit Macclesfield forest in my constituency?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday, and I join him in celebrating the 75-year anniversary of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. That pioneering Labour Government created groundbreaking laws so that every citizen could have access to nature’s beauty. We will protect that access, and we will set up three new national forests—and who knows where they will be?
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In our increasingly volatile world, I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that food security is of growing importance to our national resilience. I hope he will commit the new Government to continuing to publish the annual food security index, with the next update coming at next year’s farm to fork summit.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Chester zoo, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), does important and nationally leading conservation work. Zoos nationwide have faced regulatory uncertainty for nearly three years because of the previous Government’s delay in publishing new zoo standards. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out when the Department plans to publish the updated version of the standards of modern zoo practice, to drive improvements in animal welfare and provide certainty to those institutions?
Mary Creagh
I have visited Chester zoo and seen the wonderful work that it does in species conservation. I will endeavour to write to my hon. Friend to update him on the regulations.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The Government have justified their inheritance tax changes for farmers on the basis that they are concerned about people gaining short-term tax advantage by buying agricultural land. May I therefore ask whether, instead of the sweeping changes that they made, the Government considered an approach that would limit the IHT exemption to those who could demonstrate that the family farm had been in family ownership for a certain number of years? If that approach was explored, why was it not pursued? If it was not explored, why not?
Environmental Protection
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
I beg to move,
That the draft Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.
Every person in this country has the right to walk down their street without stumbling on a single-use vape that has been tossed on to the pavement. They have the right to take their children to the park without their child picking up a shiny vape that has been cast aside in the playground. No driver should fear that their car tyre will explode if they drive over a single-use vape in the road, yet I was recently sent a picture of just such a tyre explosion. What started out as a useful means to stop adults smoking has become a menace on our streets.
Almost three quarters of single-use vapes are incorrectly disposed of. Material Focus estimates that 5 million vapes are thrown away each week—equivalent to eight vapes a second, and four times as many as at this time last year. They have turned into a constant wave of waste and are wreaking havoc, and we are left to pick up the pieces. When they are littered, they introduce plastics, nicotine salts, copper, cadmium, lead and lithium-ion batteries into our environment. That harms our wildlife, our soils, our rivers and our streams. Last year, 50 tonnes of lithium—the amount needed to power 5,000 electric vehicle batteries—was discarded into our environment.
Alternatively, vapes end up being incorrectly put into black-bin household waste. At best, they either end up in landfill or are incinerated. At worst, they cause fires when they are crushed in bin lorries. That risks harm to the public, refuse workers and firefighters. In September, a fire at a waste centre in Basildon was started by a lithium-ion battery—the sort that is found in vapes. The fire spread across warehouses and set alight 15 heavy goods vehicles. People were evacuated, and the fire service was on site for 24 hours a day for almost a week.
We know that these products are designed to appeal to children. According to Action on Smoking and Health’s research, the rise in single-use vapes has happened concurrently with an increase in young people vaping. We must ban these harmful products, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for taking steps to introduce a ban earlier this year. His was the right action, and we will not delay. Transitioning to a zero-waste economy is one of five priorities on which my Department, as part of a mission-led Government, will deliver to rebuild Britain. This ban is an important first step on that journey.
Before I turn to the details of the legislation, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its work. Its report highlighted several points of interest, particularly the links to youth vaping, which I have mentioned, and whether we will monitor products coming to market following the implementation of the proposed ban. We will work closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to understand the types of products coming to market, and we will continue to look at this in future.
The Committee also highlighted correspondence from Green Alliance, which supports the ban but wished for earlier implementation and sought assurance on enforcement. We want to introduce the ban as soon as possible, but we must allow a minimal but reasonable transition for businesses to run down stocks and adapt their business activities. This is why the ban will come into force on 1 June next year. Effective enforcement is crucial, and we will work closely with enforcement agencies to understand how best to support them.
Let me now turn to the details of the legislation. The ban we are introducing uses powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Part 1 sets out the meaning of a single-use vape, which is a vape that is
“not refillable and not rechargeable”.
The ban applies to England only, but my excellent officials have worked closely with the devolved Governments, who are bringing an equivalent legislation. We are grateful to our colleagues in the devolved Governments for their collaboration to ensure that, from 1 June next year, there will be a UK-wide ban.
Parts 2 and 3 of the legislation introduce offences and enforcement provisions. Enforcement of the ban in England will be carried out through local authority trading standards officers, and the powers in the legislation have been developed in partnership with them. The regulations mean that illegal traders can be issued with an on-the-spot fine and that the products they are selling can be taken away. It is also possible for local authorities to reclaim the costs of investigating, and enforcing, the regulations from the rogue traders. Finally, part 4 of the legislation covers requirements for guidance and the need to review and evaluate the ban.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Minister has talked about the environmental impact of disposable vapes, but what does she think about the environmental impact of the reusable vape devices that are being sold? The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that by the year 2034, there will be a total of 2 billion reusable vape devices being sold. What impact does she think that will have on the environment, and how will that differ from the sale of disposable vapes?
Mary Creagh
What we are trying to do with this ban is to get rid of the vapes that are not rechargeable and refillable. The vapes that are both refillable and rechargeable will continue to be sold as a valuable aid to help adults stop smoking. The almost toy-like vapes that we find littered in every street are the real problem, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is no different from mine in that regard. I will come back to him on that. On predictions about the future, we saw yesterday in the newspapers that a pill has been developed to help smokers quit smoking, so who knows where we will be in five years’ time. We can always guarantee that the future will be different from the past.
Let me conclude by saying that vapes can help adults to quit smoking, but single-use vapes are a waste of our precious national resources. The sheer volume of them that we see on our streets and the widespread harm that they cause must be stopped, so I commend these regulations to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Mary Creagh
Let me begin by saying how much I enjoyed listening to that interesting debate. I welcome the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) to his place in his new role in the shadow DEFRA team. I send our good wishes to Poppy the dog, after her close encounter with a vape of a disposable kind. I hope that this legislation avoids such encounters in future. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for her generous speech in support of this measure.
I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) to his place. There was a chuckle of recognition around the Chamber when we were taken on a ramble of his constituency, through the geological and the geographical. He mentioned the big-hearted people from his gorgeous part of the world. It was my privilege to open a section of the coastal path there in a previous role. I know that he will continue the work of Margaret Hodge in this place in his role on the Public Accounts Committee, and I am sure that his constituents are delighted to have one of their local sons representing them. I was really pleased to hear about his passion for bringing jobs and growth to his area.
Let me address some of the issues raised. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). As a paediatrician, she is uniquely placed to warn of the dangers of these products. I have not come across a SpongeBob SquarePants vape yet, but who knows what the future holds. I was very distressed to hear of the incident at her local school, where eight children collapsed—I wish those young people and their families well—but it is a striking reminder of the dangers posed particularly by illegal products, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).
Let me talk a little about recycling and producer responsibility for paying the costs. We know that there is no such place as “away”. These products cannot be put into local rivers; they will always turn up. They will always bleed into the environment, and everything that we do to the environment we eventually do to ourselves. It is important that those responsible for putting vapes on the market are accountable for their disposal. A consultation on reforming the producer responsibility system for waste electricals was held under the previous Government at the end of 2023. We are considering the responses, but we noted near unanimous support for the proposal to create a new category of electrical equipment specifically for vapes in the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2013. That would ensure that producers of vapes are properly funding the collection and treatment of those products when they reach the end of their life. We recognise the importance of taking action to ensure that the costs of recycling these products are borne by those who make them, and we will outline our next steps on this in due course.
To answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest on monitoring the ban and its impacts, including in devolved Governments, we will monitor the impacts of the ban, and we will share data and intelligence from Border Force, trading standards and all four nations to ensure effective implementation and that these regulations come in at the same time, so that we do not create an unfortunate internal market.
On disposal of existing stock, the six-month period is to help responsible and reputable businesses—when we regulate, we expect businesses to obey the law of the land, and assume that most people will do so. The period will help ensure that businesses do not have masses of stock to dispose of. Unsold stock will become waste electronics and should therefore be disposed of via routes that avoid the black bin.
Vapes present challenges to recycling, so we need to stem the flow by targeting those that are designed to be used only a small number of times. Reusable vapes are part of a wider shift to the circular economy. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Christchurch on the issue of reusable, refillable—and reusable and refillable. We are trying our best not to create loopholes for creative businesses to get around. We have seen more reusable products coming on to the market in anticipation of the ban. We will promote the ban to improve awareness both for the public and retailers. We encourage shops to stop purchasing single-use vapes and to run down their current stocks. We are seeing more vape bins in supermarkets, high street retailers and garages following the changes to take-back requirements that were brought in earlier this year. That will support people to dispose of vaping products responsibly, keeping them off the streets and out of the bins.
The regulations will be subject to regular reviews, which are set out in legislation. We will have a review of enforcement and civil sanctions within three years, and a post-implementation review at least every five years. We are currently collecting baseline data on the wholesalers and retailers of single-use vapes in England to support future assessments. The Department of Health and Social Care monitors current rates of smoking and vaping through various surveys, including the periodic “Smoking, Drinking and Drug Use among Young People” survey and the Action on Smoking and Health annual surveys. We will use both to monitor the impacts on people.
On imports, if vapes are discovered at ports then Border Force can retain the products and alert the local authority’s trading standards officers. If there is evidence that greater intervention is needed at the borders, we will not hesitate to act.
Sir Christopher Chope
Does the Minister not share my concern? I understand that only one in 3,000 containers coming into a port like Southampton are inspected. It only needs one container to get through and there might be tens of millions of pounds-worth of vapes in one container.
Mary Creagh
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A lot of public services have been run down over the past 14 years. In the Budget, there was an investment of £75 million in border security command to crack down on organised crime. Gangs often operate in multiple sectors of the economy. We need time for this new approach to intelligence gathering and sharing to bed in.
Mary Creagh
Can I make some progress? I am just conscious of time. I am very happy to take interventions towards the end, because I might have answered any questions in advance.
Single-use vapes are one form of illicit vapes. The Government are planning to introduce other pieces of vape legislation under the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, as well as the vaping product duty, as part of a cross-Government approach, so we will look at these things in future and focus on intelligence sharing between Border Force, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and trading standards.
Enforcement is critical to effectiveness. We will work closely with the DHSC and the relevant enforcement bodies, but I do take on board what the hon. Member for Christchurch said about size and number of vapes. I picked up an illegal vape on the street outside my home. It was rechargeable but not refillable, and had too many puffs in it to be legal. For those of us who are not vapers, it is a whole world of complexity. I am certainly on a steep learning curve.
The legislation has been drafted to address fears that manufacturers could circumvent the ban, for example by adding a USB port to the end of a single-use device and calling it reusable, but a manufacturer who adheres to these regulations will have produced a reusable vape. That requires batteries that can be recharged, a tank that can be refilled or pods that can be replaced, and a coil—the part of the vape that burns out with use—that can also be replaced. In that respect, we are going further than other countries such as France and Belgium.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) expressed concern about the health impacts. We know that tobacco is a harmful product and is responsible for one in four of all cancer deaths, killing up to two thirds of its long-term users. The Government are creating the first smokefree generation, so that children turning 15 this year, or younger, can never be legally sold tobacco, while not preventing anyone who currently smokes legally from being able to do so. The ban applies not to all vapes, but just to those that harm the environment. There will still be easy-to-use products on the market to help adults stop smoking. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned 29% of users reverting to smoking following the ban, but it is incorrect to suggest that it will cause a surge in smoking rates. As stated in the assessment, we expect most single-use vape users to stop smoking or to switch to reusable vapes or non-vape products, including nicotine replacement therapies such as nicotine patches and gum.
The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, recently introduced by the Government, takes strong action to strengthen enforcement on illegal vapes, including new fixed-penalty notices and new licensing and registration powers, which will act as a deterrent and empower trading standards to act more quickly against illegitimate producers and retailers. In the first instance, a £200 fixed penalty notice will be issued, and alongside that a stop notice may be issued ordering the business or individual to cease the illegal activity. If it is not complied with, an individual will be guilty of an offence and liable for an unlimited fine, or imprisonment of up to six months. The Budget provides for a £70 million investment in local authority-led stop smoking services, so I hope that the Swap to Stop scheme will continue to help adult smokers to ditch their cigarettes for a free vape starter kit.
Dr Johnson
The impact assessment has been referred to repeatedly during the debate. I understand that it refers to this piece of legislation only, and not to the wider impact of other measures that the Government have proposed, or that have not completed their parliamentary process. Is that correct? Will an assessment of the effects not need to be done in the round, rather than applying to a specific piece of legislation that is only part of a wider plan to tackle youth vaping?
Mary Creagh
My understanding is that the assessment relates to this piece of legislation—I see my officials nodding vigorously in the Box—but if there are any further questions that the hon. Lady would like to ask me following the debate, I shall be only too happy to respond to her in person.
I hope that I have covered most of the comments and questions from colleagues. We are banning a product that is designed almost as a toy, a pocket-money product at pocket-money prices that is intended to appeal to those under 18. This legislation is needed to stop the continued misuse of critical resources and harm to our environment, as well as to support wider measures across government to tackle the increase in youth vaping, and is widely backed by the vast majority of the public and our stakeholders.
I trust that Members understand and accept the need for the regulations, and I commend them to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 23 October, be approved.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16(1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Export and Investment Guarantees shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Lucy Powell.)
Peak Forest and Macclesfield Canals
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) both on her election and on securing this important debate. Similarly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on his election and on his excellent participation today.
We have heard a lot this morning—both hon. Members articulated it so eloquently—about the many benefits that the two beloved canals bring to so many people in Hazel Grove and Macclesfield. I was particularly interested to hear about the work done by CRT with the New Horizons canal boat, widening access to the canal, importantly, for children who are landlocked in the centre of the country and might not have had much access to the water. That is bringing water closer to the people.
As I was listening to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I was thinking about how our canals helped build our country and how our mills helped clothe not just our country, but the world. They are a vital part of our industrial heritage. I had a wry smile when she spoke about lock gates and the flight locks, because the last remaining lock gate maker is in Stanley in Wakefield, my former constituency. They are a very precise piece of manufacturing and an incredibly difficult thing to engineer. When the hon. Lady was bidding for world heritage status for the lock flight, which I am sure is an incredible piece of engineering and which I hope to visit one day, I was thinking about the canal at Marsden by Huddersfield near my old constituency. That canal has what was the longest, deepest and highest canal tunnel in the world, a real feat of pre-Victorian engineering, starting on one side of the hill and going through to the other with fingers crossed that everyone would meet in the middle, which thankfully they did.
Our canals and inland waterways are a real asset to our country. They are important for heritage and provide many public benefits. People live on them, love being by them and use them for leisure, recreation and, as the hon. Lady said, to cycle to work. They are an important part of our natural environment, providing green corridors along which nature can flourish. I know that she has kingfishers on her canal, a rare and vanishing species in our country. Canals and inland waterways also contribute to the growth of local economies through domestic tourism, about which we have heard a great deal this morning.
In my constituency is the Oxford canal, which runs through the north of Coventry. It fed and took the silks away from the old Cash’s factory, which then became the factory for Courtaulds, which invented rayon— the rest is history, as they say. As well as being really popular for walkers, joggers and cyclists, it is a nationally important site for river voles—Ratty, for those of us who loved reading “The Wind in the Willows” to our children. I feel proud that we have a nationally important site for river voles in my bit of Coventry. It is very incongruous: if you saw the site, Mr Dowd, you would not think it was a little haven for nature. Canals provide really important biodiversity corridors.
We have two navigation authorities, the Canal and River Trust and the Environment Agency. The CRT reports that there were nearly 860 million visits to its canals last year, many of which were repeat visits, with around 10 million individual users each fortnight. That gives a real sense of the scale of the popularity of our canals. Our navigation authorities have a vital role to play in the future. They must help to ensure that this part of our nation’s key infrastructure is resilient to climate change, and they will help to meet net zero targets through sustainable transport and energy generation and contribute to water security through flood mitigation measures and water transfers.
The trust is a charity independent of Government, and Ministers do not have a role in its management or operational decisions. Because it is a private sector organisation, it is free to set its fees and charges accordingly. However, we expect it to engage constructively with the boating community and take account of issues of concern it raises, such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield mentioned.
On the funding of the Peak Forest and Macclesfield canals, about which we have heard much today, it is the Canal and River Trust that manages the canals, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove observed. It was set up in 2012 as a charity independent of Government to replace the publicly owned British Waterways. It owns and manages a network of 2,000 miles of canals and rivers in England and Wales, including the two that are the subject of our debate. The trust is free of public sector financing constraints, so it can source alternative revenue streams, including charitable donations and legacies, charity tax relief and third-party project funding, and it can borrow on the financial markets.
The Canal and River Trust is also endowed by the Government with a significant property and investment portfolio from British Waterways, which is now worth around £1 billion as a result of the trust’s sound management, on which I congratulate it. To provide support and certainty for the trust, a 15-year grant totalling around £740 million was provided when the trust was set up. The grant was inflation-adjusted in the first 10 years and then fixed in the final five years. It is now set at £52.6 million a year until the grant ends in 2027, representing about a quarter of the trust’s annual income. Returns from the investment portfolio provide another quarter of the annual income, which means that the trust now successfully raises half its annual income from other sources.
An important part of the transfer from British Waterways was an agreed objective that the trust would move progressively towards greater financial self-sufficiency and reduced reliance on public funding. With a reported increase of £12 million in total income last year over the previous year, the trust is already making good progress towards that objective.
A review of the current grant funding concluded that the trust was performing well and delivering value for money, and, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed directly to the trust this summer, a further substantial grant funding package of £401 million will be provided by the Government over 10 years from 2027. Given the tough fiscal climate in which all Government spending is being closely scrutinised, and the financial black hole in which we were left by the previous Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said, the new funding is a clear sign of the importance that this Government place on our inland waterways.
With all the benefits of canals that I outlined, the Government are supportive of canal restoration generally to bring those benefits to even more people. Bringing canals back into active use contributes to the regeneration of areas that have been in decline. We have seen that in urban settings and in more rural areas, where there has been growth in local economies through increased tourism. However, although we are sympathetic towards the many restoration projects under way around the country, no general Government funding is available for canals. I pay tribute to the local volunteers who come out on a Sunday morning, do the litter picks and help with the restoration, because their commitment and general surveillance of canals is an important part of making them a safe space for everyone. The navigation authorities, local authorities and canal societies, such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, can work well together to preserve the canals for which they are responsible, including through fundraising and on restoration and maintenance work. Successive Governments have encouraged greater local community involvement in their waterways in that way.
I hope I have reassured hon. Members that the Government very much value our inland waterways and the many, varied benefits that this blue and green infrastructure brings to so many people up and down the country. We have demonstrated our commitment to ensuring that this fantastic national asset is able to thrive by providing both the trust and the Environment Agency with substantial funding over the years and into the future with a further significant new 10-year grant funding settlement for the trust.
Question put and agreed to.
Biodiversity COP16
Mary Creagh Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
The climate and nature crisis defines our times, and it is the most vulnerable who bear the brunt. Over half of global GDP is moderately or highly dependent on nature. Loss of biodiversity poses a serious risk to global food security by undermining the resilience of many agricultural systems to threats such as pests, pathogens and climate change. The Government are committed to ending poverty on a liveable planet.
The UN biodiversity summit—CBD COP16—held in Colombia closed on the morning of Saturday 2 November. The UK Government took a leading role in driving forward key elements of work necessary to mobilise more international finance for nature and deliver on our mission to halt and reverse nature loss. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), and I led the UK delegation.
The conclusion of complex negotiations on digital sequence information (DSI) means that businesses have the option of voluntarily contributing to a new fund—known as the Cali fund—if they use this genetic information from nature. DNA that has been sequenced from the natural world is available online for use in research. This research can be applied to important work across agriculture, conservation, medicine and public health. This fund will then support further use of DSI and the conservation and sustainable use of nature, with a significant proportion flowing to indigenous people and local communities.
Progress was made on several fronts, including the UK launching the biodiversity finance trends dashboard to increase transparency and demonstrate that nature finance flows are increasing. The Government welcomed the launch of the framework for high integrity biodiversity credits markets, developed by the Independent Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB), which was sponsored by the UK and France. Alongside the framework, the IAPB also showcased in Cali a suite of pilot projects as a meaningful way of illustrating the current state of the market and its development prospects.
At the conference, the Secretary of State set out new criteria to meet our “30 by 30” targets, which commit to the protection of 30% of land and ocean by 2030. A newly published update outlined criteria for eligible land in England and laid out next steps to achieve this milestone, which is essential for nature conservation and biodiversity.
The UK was pleased that a new permanent body for indigenous peoples and local communities was created at COP16 to increase their formal decision-making power, given that they live on an estimated 50% of the world’s land. I launched the principles for inclusive, gender-responsive, locally-led biodiversity action, which will help focus and co-ordinate action to strengthen the gender equality and social inclusion aspects of the transformative change required to implement the Kunming- Montreal global biodiversity framework and tackle the biodiversity crisis. The Secretary of State and I made commitments to increase support to the global biodiversity framework fund and to join the legacy landscapes fund.
The UK was, however, disappointed that COP16 concluded before reaching an agreement on international strategies for mobilising nature finance. It is only through our international action and leadership that we tackle the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss, which threaten growth, our future prosperity and wellbeing.
[HCWS196]