Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

I agree, and I thank the hon. Member for pointing out the wide support for a move in this direction, but if we can ensure it is in legislation, the move will go further, it will be deeper and it will be guaranteed to happen. Given the high toxicity of lead, we cannot just leave this issue to voluntary moves by all those organisations. Let us go with the flow and accept their willingness to change, but let us underpin that with legislative change, which moves it on faster. These issues have already been under negotiation. The smooth transition is happening. I am not asking for this to happen on 1 January—the proposal is to give another year. There is time to move forward; the new clause is very reasonable. If we want to go further and talk more about single-use plastics, that will happen in time, and this proposal will enable manufacturers to do that.

Only regulation will provide a guaranteed market for ammunition manufacturers. Moving all users of ammunition through these changes, all at once, will enable ammunition manufacturers to make the change that we all surely want to see, and will ensure the provision of game free from lead ammunition for the retail market. It will enable cost-effective enforcement and protect wildlife and human health much earlier than in five years. Why would we want lead shot in our food for another five years? Why would we want to kill all those birds for another five years?

Action on this issue was recommended in 1983 in the report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution on lead in the environment. It has been long enough. It is long overdue. Now, at last, is the time to act.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Putney for the new clause and for highlighting her eating of pheasant as a child. I, too, have had many a pheasant hanging in my garage. Indeed, we had roast pheasant for lunch this Sunday. It was absolutely delicious, covered in bacon. It was really nice.

I reassure the hon. Lady that this Government support the principle of addressing the impacts of lead shot. Evidence published by the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust suggests that, as she pointed out, tens of thousands of wildfowl die from lead poisoning each year and many more birds, including scavengers and predators such as raptors, suffer and die through secondary poisoning.

There is a lot of movement already going on in this space. In England, the use of lead shot is already prohibited over all foreshore, on sites of special scientific interest and for shooting certain waterfowl. I certainly know people in Somerset who give anyone all of the chat before they go out to shoot anywhere near wildfowl and local ponds about not using lead shot.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley has pointed out that the new clause falls short of what shooting organisations are calling for. Organisations such as BASC, the Moorland Association and various other countryside organisations—I engaged with a lot of them as a Back Bencher—are calling for an end within five years to both lead and single-use plastics. They are talking about it seriously. As the hon. Member for Putney will know, there is a lot of research going on as well.

An EU REACH regulation on the use of lead shot in or near wetlands is close to being adopted and a wider measure affecting all terrestrial areas is under consideration. The fact that the industry itself is calling for a ban within five years demonstrates the work going on in this space.

The wetlands measure will apply in Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol and will apply in the rest of the UK and be retained EU law after the transition period if the legislation providing for that comes into force before the end of this period.

The amendment seeks to prohibit use of lead shot in shotguns for the purposes of killing or taking any wild bird or wild animal. That approach may not be the most effective means of restricting the use of lead shot. It is also slightly unclear because it does not cover clay pigeon shooting, for example. If one were really going to address this issue, all aspects of the sport, as it might be termed, would need to be considered. The new clause does not address them all.

The police would enforce under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but as with other wildlife crimes, there are considerable difficulties in detection and taking enforcement action in remote locations. All those things would need ironing out; it is not just a straightforward, “Let’s have a ban tomorrow.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Hon. Members with an elephantine memory will recall that at the beginning of this Committee’s deliberations—I have here the exact date and time a clause is debated; it is written on a piece of parchment, it is so old—we tabled new clause 1, which related to the environmental objective. At that time, we said that one reason for tabling this new clause was that the Bill had no cohesion in terms of its overall objectives. While it has many good things in it, those are essentially disparate elements that do not pull themselves together in terms of what the Bill is or should be about overall. We tabled that brief clause to try to pull the Bill together. The clause was not agreed to on that occasion, but as the Bill Committee has progressed and as we have moved into our latter stages in the autumn, nothing has made the Bill more cohesive.

New clause 28 would do exactly that, with environmental objectives and commitments. It would place in the Bill a very clear environmental objective to

“achieve and maintain…a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment…an environment that supports human health and well-being for everyone; and…sustainable use of resources.

I think that would absolutely pull together what we all think we are doing in this Bill Committee. If passed, imagine the new clause placed at the head of the Bill, where it would underline those objectives and ensure that everything in the Bill was read within them.

The new clause goes further still by ensuring that the Bill takes account of

“all commitments given by Her Majesty’s Government in the United Nations Leaders’ Pledge for Nature of 28 September 2020”,

which reflects those environmental objectives. The legislation would include the international commitments that we as a country have made to our environmental objectives, underlining just how important the Bill may be for those objectives.

We are offering a much better and improved environmental objective clause that takes account of all the various issues raised in Committee, and we think it would be a great adornment to the Bill. I know that in this place we are all looking for “the one” when it comes to clauses, and I was grievously disappointed that the last clause did not make it into the Bill, because there was absolutely no reason at all why it should not have been adopted. I have a similar feeling about new clause 28. I hope that the Committee will unanimously agree that we need an environmental objective in the Bill. This clause fits the bill admirably and should be supported.

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister said that there is no cohesion to what the Bill is about. He spoke about people with elephantine memories, but surely he has not been listening? Throughout Committee stage, we have talked about what the Bill is about. I thank him for his sentiments, but I honestly think that he has missed the point somewhere along the line.

I reassure the Committee that we have designed each governance mechanism in part 1 of the Bill with guiding objectives. They will ensure that targets, environmental improvement plans, the environmental principles, which are included, and the Office for Environmental Protection work in harmony to protect and enhance our natural environment. That has all been devised as one framework. As is set out on the face of the Bill, the objective of the targets and environmental improvement plans is to deliver significant improvement and to provide certainty on the direction of travel. The first EIP is the 25-year environment plan, which the Opposition have waved at us many times.

The policy statement on the environment principles will be required to contribute to the improvement of environmental protection and sustainable development. Ministers of the Crown must have regard to that statement when making policy. Those aims will therefore be integral to policy making across Government. Furthermore, clause 22 sets a principal objective for the OEP of contributing to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environmental in exercising its functions, so if the OEP does not think that enough is being done towards that objective, it can say why, give some steers and advice, and things will have to change. Those measures are all closely aligned and will work together to deliver the environmental objectives outlined in new clause 28 on the improvement and protection of the natural environment, and the sustainable use of resources—that is all very much a part of the measures.

The new clause would include commitments made under the voluntary leaders’ pledge for nature. I am very glad the hon. Gentleman mentioned that, because it was a big moment when our Prime Minister said that we support that pledge at the recent UN biodiversity summit at the UN General Assembly in September. The UK is now working with other key signatories to drive forward the 10 commitments in the pledge, including through our hosting of COP26 and our involvement in the convention on biological diversity negotiations in 2021. I reiterate that the leaders’ pledge for nature is voluntary and, as such, was drafted between the participating states in deliberately non-treaty language, partly to serve as a public document that could be read by as many constituents as possible. The UK is now working with other key signatory countries to drive forward those commitments.

Many of the areas reflected in the leaders’ pledge are already included in the Bill, which introduces a powerful package of new policies and tools to support nature’s recovery. I know that the shadow Minister wants that just as much as I do, but I assure him that the measures in the Bill already cover that, not least on biodiversity net gain, local nature recovery strategies, conservation covenants, which he did welcome, and a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities. All those things will work together to drive from the roots upwards to get overall improvement. As a result, we will be creating or restoring rich habitats to enable wildlife to recover and thrive in future years. Measures on resource efficiency will help to keep products in use for longer, encouraging better repair and recycling of materials by influencing product design at the very beginning.

Clause 2 places a clear, legally binding requirement on the Government to set an air quality target that goes beyond EU requirements and delivers significant health benefits for citizens. The Bill also supports recent legislation on reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and our wider efforts to build resilience to a changing climate. It will do so by improving air and water quality, supporting resource efficiency, and restoring habitats to allow plants and wildlife to thrive, along with other measures in that part of the Bill.

I hope that I have made it clear that I honestly do not believe that new clause 28 is needed. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

[Dr Whitehead]

Although the Minister has provided a good concordance on where to look in the Bill for things that could conceivably pull it together, nothing in the Bill actually does that. Saying that if one looks at the Bill carefully, one can see things that move it in the right direction, is not really a defence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister’s new clause refers to a “healthy, resilient” environment—that is such a loose term. What exactly does he mean by that and what does it mean legally? Does he not agree that, were that wording to be used, it would create huge legal risk and could jeopardise the delivery of key policies in the Bill?

[Dr Whitehead]

I do not think a healthy and resilient environment can be interpreted in any other way than an environment that needs to be as healthy as possible for human development and progress, and one that is able to regenerate itself and keep as close as possible to the most beneficial way of working that it had prior to human intervention. I do not think there is a problem about the definition. Indeed, having it defined in that brief, particular way gives a very good remit for making sure that those are the ways in which that environment can be defined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Much of the Bill is concerned with English-only environmental issues, as I have mentioned in the past, because environment is a devolved area under the Scotland Act 1998 and legislative consent motions have been agreed.

In connection to new clauses 29 and 29, I point out for those who are keen to hear what is happening in Scotland that the Scottish Government are developing their own environmental strategy. “The Environmental Strategy for Scotland: vision and outcomes” was published earlier this year. As the Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform indicated just yesterday at her appearance in front of the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee, she will soon be publishing a monitoring framework for the strategy, which will bring together existing statutory targets, elements of the national performance framework and indicators from other strategies. That is after considerable consultation with stakeholders.

The strategy has attracted a broad range of cross-party support. The Cabinet Secretary just yesterday suggested working with Opposition Members to design amendments that will set out an obligation on Ministers to continue the work on an environmental strategy. It is an example of cross-party working that I think this place would do rather well to emulate. The Scottish Government and Parliament are leading the way in many environmental areas. I encourage Members from this place to lift their eyes from here and look to some of the great progress in this area that is being made in the devolved nations of the UK. I think it really would be worth their while.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for moving this new clause. He is always very passionate about what he says. I am pleased that my letter was able to give a bit of clarity on the subjects he raised in the Committee.

I reassure the Committee that the new clause is not needed. It will not surprise anyone to hear me say that. There are already measures in the Bill to help assess the adequacy of environmental legislation. Under clause 26, the OEP will proactively assess how our environmental laws work in practice and advise the Government on the most effective and efficient way of implementing those laws.

The OEP’s reports must be published and laid before Parliament and the Government are required to respond to the OEP and publish that response, which must also be laid before Parliament. Given that climate and ecology challenges are key environmental issues affecting us, we would expect that the OEP would want to address such matters in its clause 26 reports. That is basically its raison d’être and the raison d’être of the Bill. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is seeing what is in there, which covers what he is asking for. We also report annually on our progress in improving the environment through the 25-year environment plan.

The Bill as drafted already introduces a number of reporting requirements in the areas specified. Clause 94, for example, requires designated public authorities, including local planning authorities, to produce five-yearly biodiversity reports. The reports will provide transparency and accountability, and help local authorities to share best practice. Over time, they will become a very valuable source of data to support nature’s recovery. Clause 75 concerns improving water companies’ water resources management plans. This planning occurs every five years, taking into account the next 25-year period. Companies must review their plans annually.

The reporting requirements introduced by the Bill will complement the Government’s existing and proposed reporting and monitoring of the natural environment. There is only so much reporting people can cope with. I honestly think more reporting would cause people to groan under the weight of it all. What we want is action, and that is what this Bill is going to set in motion, which is why we need to get through it.

Last month, the Government published their response to the 2020 recommendations from the Committee on Climate Change. The response sets out the Government’s intention to publish a comprehensive net zero strategy in the lead up to COP26. The strategy will set out the Government’s vision for transitioning to net zero and reducing emissions across the economy. We have already set out our plans for a nationwide natural capital and ecosystem assessment. That is a big data-gathering census and a new large-scale surveying initiative, which will provide us with the all-important data to drive better decision making. That is something I have absolutely wished for as the Minister, as has the whole Department. It will be crucial in our future—we have talked about data before, and it is absolutely essential to know what we have now, what we will have tomorrow and what we would potentially like in the future.

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for her comments. We obviously work closely with the devolved Administrations, and we will be sharing a lot of the measures in the Bill. We always like to learn best practice from others—I mentioned that in the main Chamber only this morning, when the hon. Member for Putney and I spoke about air quality.

Although I welcome the intent behind the proposed new clause, I do not believe it is necessary, for the reasons I have outlined. Wide-ranging reporting assessment measures are already in place in the Bill and will be able to drive the sort of action that I think the hon. Member for Cambridge is after. I honestly do not believe we need the new clause, so I ask him to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Smoking related waste

“(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste.

(2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.

(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care.

(4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030.

(5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives.

(6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”—(Ruth Jones.)

The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste. No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is really quite clear, and I suspect that colleagues on both sides of the Committee know what is coming, but I want to speak to it for a moment. It is designed to ensure that the Government create a producer responsibility scheme for smoking-related waste. No such scheme exists at present, and the clear-up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other directives.

I remind colleagues that it was this Government who clarified, back in February 2020, that tobacco packaging is covered by the current producer responsibility regulations, which require companies to recycle a proportion of the packaging waste that they place on the market. In their resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to look into and consult on the extended producer responsibility, or EPR, for five new waste streams by 2025, as well as to consult on two of them by 2022. The five priority waste streams are: textiles, fishing gear, certain products in construction and demolition, bulky waste, and vehicle tyres—the Minister has already alluded to that several times during our debates. They are important areas for the challenges facing us as we look to tackle the climate emergency.

The producer responsibility powers in the Bill enable the Government to set up an EPR scheme for cigarette litter. I urge the Minister to do so, and I look forward to a positive response from her on that specific point. I am concerned that, up until now, Ministers have not identified cigarette litter as a priority area for EPR, so I would like some further clarity on the detail and the likely timescale for any progress. I am sure that the Committee does not need to be reminded—I will do so anyway—that cigarette butts are estimated to account for 5% of ocean plastic, which is a big deal. We need to act, and we need to act now.

I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to set out a clear action plan and timetable when addressing the issues raised by the new clause. There is a crossover with the other responsibilities that we have as parliamentarians and lawmakers, because it is clear that smoking has a public health impact. Having been an NHS physiotherapist for more than 30 years before being elected to this place, I know a fair bit about the lungs and the danger that smoking causes. New clause 30 will help the wider battle against smoking and help promote a healthier world for all of us. As such, and with the determination needed to tackle the climate emergency, I wish to divide the Committee.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for her contribution. It is always good to hear about people’s backgrounds, and her medical knowledge is obviously very useful.

Smoking-related litter is a particularly persistent and widespread problem. In the 2017 litter strategy, we explained that the most effective way to tackle smoking-related litter is obviously by reducing the prevalence of smoking in the first place. Given the hon. Member’s background in health, I am sure she would agree with that. Smoking rates in England are currently at their lowest recorded level, and our ambition is for a smoke-free Britain by 2030. In the meantime, I have made it clear that the lack of serious investment by the industry to clear up the mess caused by its products cannot continue.

In September, I held a roundtable with the tobacco industry and other stakeholders. I got a key group together, and I was pleased that we were able to get them to come to the table. We understand that Keep Britain Tidy is working with the tobacco industry to develop a non-regulatory producer responsibility scheme, and we are watching very closely, because it could provide a rapid means of securing significant investment from the industry to tackle the litter created by its products, rather than having to take legislative action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause seeks to address a glaring problem with the current biodiversity net gain provisions, which we discussed earlier in the proceedings. Currently, the Bill does not extend the requirement for biodiversity net gain to major infrastructure developments delivered through the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. We fear that that exemption will result in habitat loss on a large scale due to the size of those major infrastructure developments and could potentially lead to the destruction of irreplaceable habitats, increased fragmentation of remaining habitats and the local extinction of endangered species.

We have a very controversial example at the moment in High Speed 2—a major infrastructure project that does not have biodiversity net gain and that has put at risk 108 ancient woodland sites, 33 sites of scientific interest and 693 local wildlife sites. I appreciate that HS2 was not delivered through the NSIP regime, but it is comparable with future major infrastructure projects that would be delivered in that way. It is disappointing that HS2 has not gone with the trend of recent times and moved away and gone beyond no net loss, despite frequent calls for it to do so. Will the Minister comment on why no net gain is necessary in her view?

In their response to the net gain consultation, in which the Government outlined their intention that nationally significant infrastructure would not be subject to the requirement, despite the fact that there was considerable support from many respondents, the Government said that they will

“continue to work on exploring potential net gain approaches for these types of developments”.

What alternative net gain approaches have been considered for NSIPs? I understand that the Government have commissioned a study into the costs and benefits of bringing the large infrastructure projects into the scope of mandatory biodiversity net gain. What are the findings from that study, and is the Minister able to share them with the Committee?

I have one final plea for the Minister to find redemption in this whole process. As I have said many times—she has quoted it many times—we started with the 25-year environment plan, but we now find ourselves with the “Planning for the future” planning White Paper. Will she write to me on this issue—another item in our endless list of correspondence—and explain how the planning White Paper proposals will impact on net gain? This is one last chance for redemption. I live in hope.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for his tempting words and for the new clause, which would extend the biodiversity net gain objective and the biodiversity gain plan requirement to include nationally significant infrastructure projects.

I recognise the good intentions behind wanting to apply the mandatory biodiversity net gain objective to such projects. The Government are clear in the 25-year environment plan that our commitment to seeking to embed a principle of environmental net gain for development applies to infrastructure as well as housing. In line with that commitment, we are exploring how a biodiversity net gain approach for major infrastructure projects could best be delivered and how policy or legislation could be used to support that.

There are a number of ways in which a form of the biodiversity net gain requirement could be implemented for nationally significant infrastructure projects, but it is very important, as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate, to take the time to work with stakeholders to develop an appropriate approach. Many stakeholders are really keen to discuss the matter.

Introducing a new legal requirement for such projects now could lead to significant delay and increased costs for projects in the pipeline, hampering our ability to build back better in future generations. I am sure the hon. Member appreciates the need to get lots of the projects going, not least because of the link with jobs and levelling up across the nation. Risks of delays and costs to major infrastructure for a premature and inappropriate mandatory requirement could result in delays to the delivery of environmentally beneficial projects, such as those living renewable energy generation and waste facilities.

The hon. Member is trying to draw me on the planning White Paper. All I will say is that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working very closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We are at absolute pains to work with that Department, but also to ensure that the environmental protections remain there. It is going to be a green future, as the Prime Minister himself has said many times—in fact, I heard him say it again yesterday—so I can give assurances on that.

Nationally significant infrastructure projects are often distinct from other types of development in terms of scale and complexity. They have to be planned for over a number of years, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and many are in that design pipeline. We need to be very careful about doing what he is asking for now.

It is therefore important that any strengthening of biodiversity net gain requirements for the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is done at the right time and in the right way, particularly if any mandatory net gain requirement is introduced. We do not want to be limited to the proposed approach to Town and Country Planning Act 1990 development when considering how to introduce any objective to other classes of development. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which biodiversity net gain for those big projects could be implemented through legislation or policy in future, for example through the national policy statement, sponsor-driven objectives or changes to planning legislation.

As I have said, the Government have set out a clear ambition to deliver infrastructure, but greener and faster. I support the intention behind the proposed new clause, but to ensure that we consider the best way to introduce any requirement for biodiversity net gain for major infrastructure, we need to consult on further details, which we will in due course. It is really important that we take that time to get this right. I would like to think that the hon. Gentleman will agree on that and will withdraw his new clause. I hope that we can continue to engage constructively on this issue when we do formally consult.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I admire the Minister’s relentless optimism, which she has managed to maintain throughout the Committee’s proceedings, and I congratulate her on that. I almost misheard her at one point: when she said that DEFRA had been “at absolute pains” with MHCLG, I thought she said that they “are absolute pains”. There may be some truth in that.

I am not surprised to hear that, yet again, the Minister is unable to support our new clause, but we will not divide the Committee. I will just say finally that the Minister’s jacket is enough to brighten any dull winter day, and I thank her for her optimism. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I have met a range of bodies to talk about water efficiency, including the Bathroom Manufacturers Association, and there is no end of things to learn about loos, flushes and showers—it is genuinely very interesting. I now read the riot act to my kids when they have showers that are far too long.

I understand the hon. Member’s intention of improving water efficiency in our homes. We agree that more needs to be done to improve the management of our water resources, but I can reassure her that, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we are already investigating how the building regulations could best promote water efficiency through the introduction of mandatory water efficiency labelling for water-using products. We consulted on those measures in 2019, and we will be able to use clause 49 of and schedule 6 to the Bill, and existing powers under the Building Act 1984, to make the changes required. We expect to publish a Government response to the consultation in spring 2021, which is fast approaching, and that will set out our policy on water efficiency and, specifically, whether changes to the building regulations are required.

The new clause would introduce mandatory minimum standards for water efficiency in the building regulations. However, I hope that the hon. Member notes that the regulations already set minimum water efficiency standards for new homes. She is right about the amounts: we use 145 litres a day. We actually aim to get that down to 110 litres a day. Improving labelling and consumer information about the amount of water that gadgets use will be part and parcel of the new water efficiency world.

Let me add that under section 81 of the Water Act 2003, there is already a duty on the Secretary of State to report every three years on the steps that he has taken to encourage water conservation. That report must be laid before Parliament. The last report was published in December 2018, so I suggest that there is no need for a similar review requirement.

I hope that I have covered all the points that will reassure the hon. Member that she does not need to press the new clause, and that she might kindly withdraw it.

[Ruth Jones]

It is good to hear about the Minister’s new knowledge of bathroom fittings; I must admit that we have all learned a lot about them. I remember, even as a student, putting a brick in our cistern to save water, which was a great thing—and obviously a good use of household bricks. I think we all agree that more absolutely needs to be done, and while I take her point about new homes being covered by regulations, we need to deal with existing homes. Let us be honest: there are far more existing homes that need encouragement and help to do the right thing. We also need to ensure that people are aware of their water usage, because if they do not know how much water they are using, they cannot do anything to conserve it. It would be good to marry up the various sound water conservation measures in other legislation by incorporating them all in the new clause. It is a shame that she has not accepted—

[Rebecca Pow]

I just want to make a quick correction. I mentioned a figure of 110 litres. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the efficiency requirement for a new build will be 125 litres per person per day, it could be the 110 litre figure that I mentioned if that is imposed by a local authority when granting planning permission? Does she welcome that?

[Ruth Jones]

I do welcome it, but I am a bit lukewarm. I would sooner it was down to the original rate in the 1960s of 85 litres per person, which would be far more helpful in moving forward on the climate change emergency. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken the new clause on board, but I will not seek to divide the Committee on it, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 35

Clean Air Duty

‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual policy statement setting out how the Government is working to improve air quality, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2) The annual policy statement in subsection (1) must include—

(a) how public authorities are improving air quality, including indoor air quality; and

(b) how Government departments are working together to improve air quality, including indoor air quality.

(3) A Minister of the Crown must, not later than three months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’—(Fleur Anderson.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on air quality which includes indoor air quality and the work of public authorities and Government departments working together to improve it.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

After 230 amendments, why break the habit of a lifetime? Honestly, the hon. Lady will know that I have great sentiment about much of what she is saying. I also support the work of the APPG, who I have done a lot of close working with and spoken to many times. They have done some really useful work.

We recognise the importance of national leadership on this cross-cutting issue of air quality, including indoor air. It is right to draw attention to the issue. I want to give reassurances that we do not work in a silo. We work very closely with other Departments. We have a ground-breaking clean air strategy that goes across government. Air cannot be dealt with in one place and one silo, it travels everywhere, even to Gloucester. Only yesterday I had a joint meeting with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on an air quality issue. Only last week I had a Zoom call with the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill). I hope that demonstrates how closely we are working on these issues.

On indoor air quality specifically, we are working across government. I have regular meetings with, in particular, the chief scientific adviser on this, and we work closely with the chief medical officer. We also work with the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England on indoor air quality in particular. They are all part of this big landscape, which she has pointed out. Building on the evidence base is a key step to ensure that interventions are appropriately targeted and introduced in the right way and in the right place. I hope that that gives some assurances on cross-government working.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Putney that we have a range of reporting requirements relating to air quality, and we are introducing additional requirements through the Bill. We are introducing a requirement for the Secretary of State to make an annual statement to Parliament on progress toward securing local pollution objectives through paragraph 3 of schedule 11 to the Bill. Perhaps she has not noticed that. It will include steps taken in that year to support local authorities to meet objectives. In addition, the Secretary of State will be required to publish a national air quality strategy and review it every five years. That is under paragraph 2 of schedule 11 to the Bill, in case she wants to have a look at it.

Alongside this, through a statutory cycle of monitoring and reporting, which I have talked about constantly, the Bill ensures that the Government will take steps to achieve the targets set under the Bill. This includes the air quality targets. We have a legal duty to set an air quality target, and we are going to set another one in addition. We are going over and above for air quality. We can be held to account by the OEP if Parliament fails to monitor and report the progress toward the targets.

We also already have several annual reporting obligations on ambient air quality. The UK’s national atmospheric emissions inventory is compiled annually to report total emissions by pollutant. That is a very detailed inventory and has won an award, I think, for its detail. All of that information is already there. I think, perhaps, the Opposition are not aware of that. Do take a look. There is an annual requirement to report total emissions by pollutant and source sector in a similar way. We also remain signatory to the UN convention on long-range trans- boundary air pollution, because this is, of course, also a global issue, and we will continue to abide by that international agreement in full, including its reporting requirements.

The global work is really important. Back when we did the early assessment from the air quality expert group of what was happening during lockdown, we found that some of the pollutants did not reduce as we thought they might have done in the south of England. That was because we got some unexpected wind from Europe, and it brought all kinds of pollutants that were not even ours! It is very important that we remain part of that agreement.

Compliance with air pollution concentration limits and targets is reported in our annual air pollution in the UK report, which summarises measurements from the national air quality monitoring networks. I reassure the hon. Lady that we already work very closely with other Government Departments, and that we have robust mechanisms in place to report on progress. I hope that has provided more detail and clarity as to what is going on in air quality, and hope that the hon. Member might keep up with the trend—or maybe break it—and withdraw her new clause.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for the information about all the action being taken, and for the heartfelt—and I agree, sincere—desire to take action on this, and going over and above on air quality. We all welcome that. However, I have also read schedule 11 very thoroughly, as have the members of the all-party parliamentary group on air pollution. They have taken advice from scientific experts and feel that there is something missing in the reporting that would actually make a difference and ensure that we take the action we want to see on our air, and put that into practice. The missing parts are how public authorities are improving our air and how Government Departments are working together. I welcome the fact that the Minister is meeting with other Departments. She should welcome the opportunity to demonstrate what those meetings are resulting in with the annual report, and to demonstrate the appropriate targeting, achievements and progress we have discussed. As has been customary, we will be dividing on this, but we also want to work together to see a dramatic improvement in our air quality.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

May I congratulate the Committee on the briskness of our discussions this morning. The people of North Wiltshire—and of all our constituencies—are grateful to us for it. I must now report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

[Rebecca Pow]

On a point of order, Mr Gray, I wanted to do a quick round-up. The hon. Member for Putney mentioned that this Committee has gone on for 261 days. We started back in March, then the Committee was adjourned and all the rest, but the whole process of this Bill has been even longer than that. We have done two Second Readings, so it has been a long time in the process and even longer than that behind the scenes.

I give my heartfelt thanks to absolutely everyone, starting with the Chair. Thank you, Mr Gray, for keeping us in great order and managing to have a grandchild during the process. Thank you to the Clerks, particularly the new Clerk, who really got the hang of the role very fast. I must thank the entire Committee, because it is a long old haul, and we are all obviously handpicked. I must also thank all the shadow Ministers for the spirit in which we have conducted this—the hon. Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge South and for Newport West—as well as the hon. Member for Putney and indeed, the Whip. We all have the shared desire to improve the environment, and I do not think that is ever going to change. We will all be driving the endeavour forward, and it must be said that it is good to have a bit of probing.

I want to thank the members of my private office, who have been phenomenal at keeping me up to speed, which is not always easy. I thank the Bill team: Amira, who is sitting in the room, as well as Brendan and Lucy, and four others in the main team. I thank them all, because they do a phenomenal job. Hon. Members do not see it, but I do. We have about 100 policy officials behind them, so it is a massive effort. I thank them all from the bottom of my heart, because their work has been phenomenal. Some of it is pretty detailed and tricky, and I ask a lot of questions about legislative things, because I do not have a legal background. I thank them for all their work. This is not over yet; onwards and upwards to Report.

[Dr Whitehead]

Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. At the risk of straining the point of order, I would like to add my thanks at the conclusion of our Bill Committee proceedings. They have been immensely long, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has enumerated, with 230 amendments and 35 new clauses. I thank you, Mr Gray, for your purposeful, elegant and impartial chairing of our proceedings, and I hope you will pass on our thanks to Sir George for his part in proceedings. I thank the Minister for her immense optimism and terrific jackets, and for the courteous and good-hearted way she has conducted proceedings throughout. I appreciate that undertaking a Bill of this length is a tremendous burden, and I appreciate her fortitude and perseverance in carrying through that job.

I want to single out the Committee Clerks for thanks. They have been a wonderful source of assistance, help and wise guidance, and they have enabled us to do our part as well as we have been able to. Finally, I thank other Opposition Members. I think it will be agreed that they are not a team of journeymen and women; they are a team of Galácticos in their own right, and I thank them for their contributions to scrutinising this Bill so well.

We are, naturally, very disappointed that we have not been able to strengthen the Bill as we had hoped to do, but we will continue with that task on Report and in the other place. We hope that our doing so will help to make it a Bill that we can all be proud of, when it comes to strengthening our country’s natural environment resources and providing the protections that must flow from that; we all agree that we want the Bill to do those things. I welcome the end of this Committee, for obvious reasons, but we can all be proud of our contribution to getting the Bill to this point, and I thank everybody on the Committee for their part in proceedings.

Environment Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 20th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

This may be entirely disorderly, but to give the shadow Minister time to collect his thoughts, I am delighted to be able to advise the Committee that my first grandson, Frederick Evelyn Gray Barker, was born this morning at 6 o’clock. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is something that can go into Hansard and it can be put on his nursery wall.

Clause 130

Extent

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

I beg to move amendment 231, in clause 130, page 116, line 31, at end insert

“except that section (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) and Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) (use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

This amendment provides that NC31 and NS1 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 31—Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity.

Government new schedule 1—Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity.

[Rebecca Pow]

May I be the first to congratulate you on becoming a grandfather, Mr Gray, and to welcome Frederick to the world? He has arrived on a really auspicious day for our global footprint. I hope that he will be very proud when he is a bit more grown-up and reads in Hansard what his grandpa said—hopefully he might just read long enough to read this speech as well. I think that he will be rather proud also that his grandpa was part of this Committee.

[The Chair]

That is enough congratulations, but thank you very much.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am delighted to discuss amendment 231, new clause 31 and new schedule 1. Consumers in this country are increasingly concerned that they are contributing to environmental destruction overseas, and they are right to be concerned: almost 80% of deforestation is caused by agriculture, including produce that we use here in the UK. Globally, half of all recent tropical deforestation was the result of illegal clearance for commercial agriculture and timber plantations. Shockingly, the figure increases to 90% in some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, including parts of the Amazon.

We will be the first country in the world to legislate to tackle this illegal deforestation by setting a framework of requirements on business. Businesses will be prohibited from using forest risk commodities produced on land that was illegally occupied or used. They will be required to establish a due diligence system for regulated commodities to ensure that their supply chains do not support illegal deforestation, and will have to report annually on that exercise. If businesses do not comply, they should be subject to fines. The measures will extend across the whole of the UK, so that we can work across our nations to tackle illegal deforestation.

As the first country in the world to legislate on this issue, we want to continue to lead the way internationally. Therefore, the measures also require us to review the law’s effectiveness every two years. The review will set out any steps that we intend to take as a result, ensuring that we will take action if we do not see progress. The enabling powers in the framework allow us to adjust certain aspects as deforestation patterns change and technology advances.

The law before us today is not only a win for the environment. It is a win for UK consumers, who will have confidence that the food they eat and the products they use have been produced responsibly. It is a win for responsible businesses in the UK, which will no longer be undercut by those who do not follow the rules. And it is a win for our international partners in producer countries, because this approach will deliver for trade and economic development as well as for the environment. We have seen that in Indonesia, where the introduction of a timber licensing scheme meant that confidence in the provenance of its timber grew, leading to an increase in trade. The value of Indonesia’s worldwide exports of timber products doubled from $6 billion in 2013 to nearly $12 billion in 2019.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Indonesia, I had the great pleasure of working closely with colleagues from the Department for International Development and in our embassy in Jakarta on helping the Indonesians to find a solution to what was a significant problem for them. Does the Minister agree with me that this measure shows what the UK can do abroad on our environmental policies, as well as at home?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend so much for his intervention, because he is right to point that out. I must applaud him for the work he did with the UK Government. It was a tricky issue. Timber is an important export for Indonesia, but that must not come at the expense of cutting down its precious rainforests and other forests, with all the knock-on effects that brings for the wider environment. We have the solution for timber, with sustainable timber regulations sorted out, and we are now working on other products. My hon. Friend is right to point out how beneficial that can be all around, with the knock-on effects, and I thank him for that.

As a result of that work in Indonesia, the amount of money made went up, as I said, and deforestation rates were three times lower in areas producing timber covered by the scheme than in other areas, so it worked all around. That shows how driving demand for sustainable products helps not just the people there but nature and the climate—it is an all-round win.

I assure the Committee that the Government intend to move swiftly to bring legislation forward and will lay the necessary secondary legislation shortly after COP26, which we will hold in Glasgow next November. We will consult again to gather views as we develop secondary legislation, and Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise many of the regulations.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

At the risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gray, I will add my congratulations to those of the Minister on the birth of your grandson. I observe that your grandson shares a name with an esteemed public servant in my city of Southampton, and I trust he will live up to the achievements of that individual even if he does not indeed pursue a great career in environmental conservation and management, which perhaps would be appropriate to today’s proceedings. That is all I am going to say.

[Dr Whitehead]

There we are: the coincidences are raining on each other now.

The Government new clause and new schedule represent a tremendous step forward in action not only in the UK but, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, abroad. That demonstrates how we can reach beyond our shores in environmental protection and action, as well as in due diligence for conservation, environmental management and climate change purposes. The Opposition wholly welcome these measures. However, why were they so late in coming?

I think we can claim we nudged the Government a little in that direction, because our due diligence new clause, which we will discuss later, is about the wider subject that the Minister mentioned in her remarks and points the way. We hope that the Government will go beyond forestry products and into other areas. We tabled our new clause, which substantially anticipated the Government’s action, before Parliament went into recess for the lockdown. Can the Minister reflect on why these measures were as late as they were? In her opinion, did the nudging of not only Labour but also a large number of national and international environmental groups, who banded together to develop the due diligence way of doing things, have a substantial hand in making sure—albeit a little late in the day—that these new clauses came into being? It was just in time because the Bill will now have these clauses in it, and I hope they will fully survive the rigours of the Bill’s passage through the House and come to be a substantial part of it. I think it will be a very welcome and progressive part of the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the fact that the Opposition are in agreement and welcome this. Nobody in their right minds would think this is a bad idea. I welcome that and we do share a good relationship, so I thank them for that. Yes, the amendment was tabled and we all listened to it, and indeed we had plenty of people on our side pushing for it as well. This is a global issue. Let us tackle it together globally, which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is what we are doing.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

While we are singing from the same hymn sheet and all in harmony, would the Minister agree with over 90% of respondents to the public consultation—there were 63,000 respondents, which is a fantastic result— who felt the legislation could go further and that local law should be strengthened?

[Rebecca Pow]

A great deal of consultation went into this and all of those views were looked at, and then it was considered what would be the best and most positive way forward. Tackling this issue is not straightforward and requires dealing with other governments around the world. One has to tread a careful path, and I believe we have come up with a really workable solution.

To answer the comment by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about why we did not do this more quickly, the consultation took a long time and we had to take into account a great many views and discussions. We must remember that a lot of this originated from the work done by Sir Ian Cheshire and the Global Resource Initiative. We referenced that way back in March, when I was being asked why the Government were not doing this fast enough. We had the GRI’s summary and we were working up how we could continue to work from its recommendations. That is where we engaged with so many NGOs, particularly the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and WWF, because they are valued partners with a great deal of experience. They have been helpful in inputting into what we have come up with. I hope that is helpful to the shadow Minister and I think we will have a bit more discussion about this later, but I will leave it there.

Amendment 231 agreed to.

Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

Commencement

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 131, page 117, line 21, leave out “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint” and insert

“at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed”.

This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from choosing not to enact parts of the Bill. Currently multiple provisions including the whole of Part 1 (environmental governance), Part 6 (nature and biodiversity) and Part 7 (Conservation Covenants) could never be enacted, even after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 2 would make a substantial difference to the Bill. It would assure the Committee that our work will not just gather dust on a bookshelf, and that the Bill really will do the things that we want it to do and have worked hard to make it do.

[Rebecca Pow]

I support the shadow Minister in urging me to look at the back of the Bill. What goes on at the back of a Bill is the powerhouse, and I have become terribly interested in that. One must look at the back of the Bill, as he says. I must say, however, that I think he is being terribly negative. First, these measures will be in legislation. Secondly, the strength of feeling about improving the environment is now so strong, not just among our super keen Committee members, who are stalwarts in this area, but among everybody out there—we only have to look at Twitter. I want these measures as much as he does.

I thank the hon. Member for the raft of amendments on the same point, which would have the effect, six months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, of commencing all the remaining provisions of the Bill that can be commenced by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

That one-size-fits-all approach would cause very serious problems when the Bill is implemented following Royal Assent. For example, if the amendment were to be accepted, it would very likely delay the establishment of the Office for Environmental Protection by nine months. We have already launched and concluded a recruitment campaign for the chair of the OEP. Far from not doing anything, we have already started, and I hope the hon. Member will commend that.

Many parts of the Bill will be at least partially commenced much earlier than six months after Royal Assent, and other provisions will need at least in part to be commenced somewhat later, requiring further evidence gathering and public consultation, for example. That is not to mention the impact on local authorities. We will have to work very carefully and closely with them, because they are absolutely key to implementing quite a number of measures, not least in terms of biodiversity, as well as the waste measures.

I assure the hon. Member that the Government have not brought this vital piece of legislation to this House only for it to languish uncommenced in a cupboard. He gave an example of another piece of legislation. The Bill will not be like that, particularly not after all the time that has been invested in it. It has gone on for the whole year of my life as the Environment Minister. It has come and gone, and it has returned, and it is the stronger for it. It is certainly not going to languish.

We are setting ourselves legally binding targets under part 1 of the Bill, and we will need all the tools later in the Bill to support the delivery of those targets. The targets are legally binding—that is what the Bill says. Work is already going on with many organisations and the Department to work out how we will devise the targets, what the best targets to start with would be, and what later targets would be. An awful lot of work needs to go on—consultations, further detailed guidance and then new regulations—as I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate.

As we have said, we will bring forward at least one target in each of the four priority areas as well as a target for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, by the Bill’s 31 October 2022 deadline. All that work has to take place before that. Every time I speak on air quality—the hon. Member will understand this point—we are being held to account. We need to do this and we will do it. He asked whether we would trigger any of the work and the measures. We published the targets policy paper on 19 August, detailing the roadmap for delivering the targets.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we are demonstrating that this will not be a Bill that sits in a cupboard getting dusty. Ministers in devolved Administrations need a measure of flexibility in commencing the provisions in many parts of the Bill as well. Other parts of the Bill can safely be commenced on Royal Assent or two months later. Hon. Members will know that that is the customary approach for Bills. Therefore, the commencement of provisions in the Bill already strikes the right balance between automatic commencement and providing the necessary flexibility to Ministers. I hope that clarifies the position, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

We do not want to divide the Committee on the amendments. I welcome the Minister’s enthusiastic intimation that she has no intention that this Bill should sit on a covered shelf. I am sure she is right on that, given her commitment so far to making this Bill work, and the effort that she has put into ensuring that we move forward. Indeed, I welcome her indication that action has already started on ensuring that these provisions work. However, that does not undermine the fundamental point about the legislation, namely that it is possible for Ministers who are less dedicated than she is simply to sit on their hands. That is the central concern behind our amendments. I strongly take on board her point that she is not a Minister who is going to sit on her hands.

I wonder whether she has considered the green Cabinet Sub-Committee as part of her approach. I am not sure whether she sits on it, but if she or a colleague of hers does, she might take the opportunity gently to remind the Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that they also have a responsibility to implement legislation, and that the fact that they have not done so has a substantial effect on some of the things that we want to do in this Bill. She might take the opportunity to say, “Get on with it—seven years down the road, you ought to have implemented this.”

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I was not specifically going to comment on that, but I am sure he will agree that as a result of the Bill, other Departments will have to look at what they do on the environment. Many already do, but there will now be much more of a requirement that they do so. Does he agree that one reason why we must bring forward a lot of these measures, particularly on diversity, is that they will dovetail with the new agricultural land management system? It is important that the two schemes work together.

[Dr Whitehead]

I very much take on board the fact that the Bill is primarily about DEFRA, but it cannot work properly unless all other Departments play their part in ensuring that that happens. That point is very well made, and it underlines my request for the Minister to have a quiet word with another Department to suggest that it does as she intends, as far as this Bill as this concerned, with its areas of responsibility in relation to environmental and climate change outcomes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 131 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132

Transitional or saving provision

Amendments made: 63, in clause 132, page 119, line 38, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 64, in clause 132, page 119, line 39, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 4

Memorandum of understanding

“(1) The OEP and the Committee on Climate Change must prepare a memorandum of understanding.

(2) The memorandum must set out how the OEP and the Committee intend to co-operate with one another and avoid overlap between the exercise by the OEP of its functions and the exercise by the Committee of its functions.”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause requires the OEP and the Committee on Climate Change to prepare a memorandum of understanding, setting out how they will co-operate with one another and avoid overlap in the exercise of their functions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).

(2) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in—

(a) preparing its enforcement policy, and

(b) exercising its enforcement functions.

(3) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).

(5) The OEP’s “enforcement functions” are its functions under sections 29 to 38.’—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy). The OEP must have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcement functions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Species conservation strategies

‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy for improving the conservation status of any species of fauna or flora.

(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “species conservation strategy”.

(3) A species conservation strategy must relate to an area (the “strategy area”) consisting of—

(a) England, or

(b) any part of England.

(4) A species conservation strategy for a species may in particular—

(a) identify areas or features in the strategy area which are of importance to the conservation of the species,

(b) identify priorities in relation to the creation or enhancement of habitat for the purpose of improving the conservation status of the species in the strategy area,

(c) set out how Natural England proposes to exercise its functions in relation to the species across the whole of the strategy area or in any part of it for the purpose of improving the conservation status of the species in the strategy area,

(d) include Natural England’s opinion on the giving by any other public authority of consents or approvals which might affect the conservation status of the species in the strategy area, and

(e) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that it would be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact on the conservation status of the species in the strategy area that may arise from a plan, project or other activity.

(5) Natural England may, from time to time, amend a species conservation strategy.

(6) A local planning authority in England and any prescribed authority must co-operate with Natural England in the preparation and implementation of a species conservation strategy so far as relevant to the authority’s functions.

(7) The Secretary of State may give guidance to local planning authorities in England and to prescribed authorities as to how to discharge the duty in subsection (6).

(8) A local planning authority in England and any prescribed authority must in the exercise of its functions have regard to a species conservation strategy so far as relevant to its functions.

(9) In this section—

“England” includes the territorial sea adjacent to England, which for this purpose does not include—

(a) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Wales for the general or residual purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (see section 158 of that Act), or

(b) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Scotland for the general or residual purposes of the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126 of that Act);

“local planning authority” means a person who is a local planning authority for the purposes of any provision of Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;

“prescribed authority” means an authority exercising functions of a public nature in England which is specified for the purposes of this section by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) Regulations under subsection (9) are subject to the negative procedure.’—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause gives Natural England the function of producing species conservation strategies and makes related provision.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26

Protected site strategies

‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy for—

(a) improving the conservation and management of a protected site, and

(b) managing the impact of plans, projects or other activities (wherever undertaken) on the conservation and management of the protected site.

(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “protected site strategy”.

(3) A “protected site” means—

(a) a European site,

(b) a site of special scientific interest, or

(c) a marine conservation zone,

to the extent the site or zone is within England.

(4) A protected site strategy for a protected site may in particular—

(a) include an assessment of the impact that any plan, project or other activity may have on the conservation or management of the protected site (whether assessed individually or cumulatively with other activities),

(b) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that it would be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate or compensate for any adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site that may arise from a plan, project or other activity,

(c) identify any plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers is necessary for the purposes of the conservation or management of the protected site, and

(d) cover any other matter which Natural England considers is relevant to the conservation or management of the protected site.

(5) In preparing a protected site strategy for a protected site, Natural England must consult—

(a) any local planning authority in England which exercises functions in respect of an area—

(i) within which any part of the protected site is located, or

(ii) within which a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site is being, or is proposed to be, undertaken,

(b) any public authority in England—

(i) that is undertaking, or proposing to undertake, a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site,

(ii) the consent or approval of which is required in respect of a plan, project or other activity that Natural England considers may have an adverse impact on the conservation or management of the protected site, or

(iii) that Natural England considers may otherwise be affected by the strategy,

(c) any IFC authority in England which exercises functions in respect of an area—

(i) the conservation or management of which Natural England considers may be affected by the strategy, or

(ii) the sea fisheries resources of which Natural England considers may be affected by the strategy,

(d) the Marine Management Organisation, where—

(i) any part of the protected site is within the MMO’s area, or

(ii) Natural England considers any part of the MMO’s area may otherwise be affected by the strategy,

(e) the Environment Agency,

(f) the Secretary of State, and

(g) any other person that Natural England considers should be consulted in respect of the strategy, including the general public or any section of it.

(6) In subsections (4) and (5), a reference to an adverse impact on the conservation or management of a protected site includes—

(a) in relation to a European site, anything which adversely affects the integrity of the site,

(b) in relation to a site of special scientific interest, anything which is likely to adversely affect the flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features by reason of which the site is of special interest,

(c) in relation to a marine conservation zone, anything which hinders the conservation objectives stated for the zone pursuant to section 117(2) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, and

(d) any other thing which causes deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbance of the species in the protected site, in so far as such disturbance could be significant in relation to the conservation or management of the protected site.

(7) A person whom Natural England consults under subsection (5)(a) to (e) must co-operate with Natural England in the preparation of a protected site strategy so far as relevant to the person’s functions.

(8) The Secretary of State may give guidance as to how to discharge the duty in subsection (7).

(9) A person must have regard to a protected site strategy so far as relevant to any duty which the person has under—

(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012),

(b) sections 28G to 28I of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or

(c) sections 125 to 128 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.

(10) Natural England may, from time to time, amend a protected site strategy.

(11) The duty to consult a person under subsection (5) also applies when Natural England amends a protected site strategy under subsection (10) so far as the amendment is relevant to the person’s functions.

(12) In this section—

“England” has the meaning given in section (Species conservation strategies);

“European site” has the meaning given in regulation 8 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017;

“IFA authority” means an inshore fisheries and conservation authority created under section 150 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“local planning authority” has the meaning given in section (Species conservation strategies);

“marine conservation zone” means an area designated as a marine conservation zone under section 116(1) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“MMO’s area” has the meaning given in section 2(12) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“public authority” has the meaning given in section 40(4) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006;

“sea fisheries resources” has the meaning given in section 153(10) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“site of special scientific interest” means an area notified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.” —(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause gives Natural England the function of producing protected site strategies and makes related provision.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 27

Wildlife conservation: licences

‘(1) In section 10 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (exceptions to section 9 of that Act), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), omit the final “or”;

(b) at the end insert “or

(c) anything done in relation to an animal of any species pursuant to a licence granted by Natural England under regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) in respect of an animal or animals of that species”.

(2) In section 16 of that Act (power to grant licences), in subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (h), omit the final “or”;

(b) at the end insert “or

(j) in England, for reasons of overriding public interest”.

(3) In that section, after subsection (3A) insert—

“(3B) In England, the appropriate authority shall not grant a licence under subsection (3) unless it is satisfied—

(a) that there is no other satisfactory solution, and

(b) that the grant of the licence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of the species of animal or plant to which the licence relates.”

(4) In that section, in subsections (5A)(c) and (6)(b), after “two years,” insert “or in the case of a licence granted by Natural England five years,”.

(5) In that section, in subsection (9)(c), after “to (e)” insert “or (j)”.

(6) In the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012), in regulation 55(10), for “two years” substitute—

“(a) five years, in the case of a licence granted by Natural England, or

(b) two years, in any other case.”’ —(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause makes provision relating to licences granted under regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2017 and section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 31

Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity

‘(1) In Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity)—

(a) Part 1 makes provision about the use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity,

(b) Part 2 makes provision about enforcement, and

(c) Part 3 contains general provisions.

(2) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) are subject to the affirmative procedure—

(a) paragraph 1;

(b) paragraph 2(4)(c);

(c) paragraph 5 (except for paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5));

(d) paragraph 7;

(e) Part 2.

(3) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) are subject to the negative procedure—

(a) paragraph 3;

(b) paragraph 4;

(c) paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5).”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause inserts NS1 and specifies the Parliamentary procedure for making regulations under that Schedule.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 1

The environmental objective

‘(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain a healthy natural environment.

(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.’—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying together separate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between the target setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus delivery on targets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Members for Cambridge and for Putney for their input. The hon. Member for Cambridge seemed to suggest that my optimism and enthusiasm are negative assets, but I would never even have started my journey to this place if I had not had such optimism and enthusiasm; I am sure the same could be said of every Member here.

I vowed all that time ago that I would engage with environmental issues should I ever make it to Parliament. Lo and behold, here we are discussing the Environment Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very passionate about the environment, and I like to think that he is just teasing me, because he knows that while I and my colleagues are in office, we will stand up for everything in the Bill. We hope that future Governments will do the same, because that is the purpose of the legislation.

The new clause, which aims to tie the UK to EU law at the end of the transition period, is unnecessary. To put it simply, we have left the EU and we should not bind ourselves to the legislative systems of the past. The Government made it very clear that the UK will continue to be a global leader, championing the most effective policies and legislation to achieve our environmental ambitions. I believe that we have demonstrated that even today with the due diligence clause. We will continue to improve on our environmental standards, building on existing legislation as we do so.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister is making some interesting points, but does she agree that this is not about staying tied to the EU’s apron strings but about UK rules getting better and better? The new clause provides us with a baseline to improve on.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady leads me neatly on to say that the UK does not need the EU to improve the environment; our high regulatory standards on environmental protection are not dependent on EU membership. Rightly, one could say that over the years we have taken on board standards, such as those governing sewage in water, but we have actually influenced a lot of European policy. Now we are going further. We often led the way, as members of the EU will acknowledge.

To continue with the same approach as the EU is not good enough. I know that many members of the Committee are well aware of the damaging effects of some EU policies, in particular the common agricultural policy. The thought behind it was good, but the environmental consequences are not necessarily to be lauded. That is why we now have this great opportunity to change it, as we must. We will do better.

Lest everyone always thinks that the EU offers some gold-plated system, let me give some examples of where we have already gone ahead of it. For a start, we were the first major economy to legislate for net-zero emissions by 2050. Another good example is the UK’s landfill tax, which is one of the highest in Europe and has been effective in reducing waste disposal and increasing recycling. The UK has also introduced one of the world’s strictest ivory bans to protect elephants from poaching, whereas the EU has yet to legislate on that. Similarly, our clean air strategy has been applauded by the World Health Organisation as an example for the rest of the world to follow.

I must also mention the UK’s microbeads ban, which shows the power of the Back Benchers who worked on it; just the other day, my involvement and that of many others was cited in the Chamber. That ban came into effect in 2018, but the EU did not move to introduce an equivalent ban until a year later. Those are just a few examples, not to mention our recent ban on single-use plastics—plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds—coming into force in October 2022. We are ahead in many cases.

There are concerns about non-regression, but surely, after we have sat here for weeks going through the Bill with a fine-toothed comb, it is obvious that we have a real, detailed framework of targets, monitoring and reporting. We are then to be held to account on whether the improvement is actually occurring: Parliament will be able to scrutinise. There will be a closer watch on these things than ever before, which is a good thing. The Secretary of State is required to report to Parliament every two years on what is happening on the environmental front internationally—to look at the new environmental laws being introduced, sift through them and work out which ones would benefit us.

[Dr Whitehead]

Would the Minister at least agree that nothing in the new clause suggests that we should be pegged to EU law, as we were in the past? It simply says that a snapshot should be taken at the point of departure, so that there is something to stand on when it comes to things that we wish to carry out in the future. Far from pegging us back, it actually supports the sort of thing the Minister is suggesting.

[Rebecca Pow]

We have reached that point already. We have been in the EU, so have had all the same laws. We are not going to sweep them all away, but we will build on them. When that review of international law is done, the EU laws will also be looked at.

I think we have covered what the hon. Member for Cambridge is asking for. On the SI points—I am very interested that the hon. Gentleman has looked at that report about the SIs—I should say that, three to five years after Royal Assent, the responsible Department must submit a memorandum to the relevant Commons departmental Select Committee, published as a Command Paper. The memorandum will include a preliminary assessment of how the Act has worked in practice, relative to objectives and benchmarks identified during the passage of the Bill and in supporting documentation.

The Select Committee, or potentially another Committee, will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a further post-legislative inquiry into the Act. Perhaps we should send that to the authors of that report, because perhaps they were not aware of it. I think it is really helpful, and I hope that it helps.

I have not yet mentioned the OEP, which will help to uphold our standards as well. It will be absolutely essential, ensuring Governments are held to account for the environmental performance I mentioned before. All that goes further than the EU’s environmental governance framework, with stronger binding remedies available to the courts and a wider scope to hold all public authorities to account on the environment. It is much wider.

Our sovereign Parliament must be able to fully realise the benefits of regulatory autonomy in order to take action on improving environmental protections in the future. To support parliamentary scrutiny of our ambitions, the Bill contains provisions in clause 19 that allow Parliament to hold the Government to account on delivering their commitments to improving environmental protections, and where a new Bill contains environmental provisions, the Ministers in charge of that Bill—who will potentially be Ministers in other Departments—will be required to make a statement confirming whether it maintains the level of environmental protection in place at the time of the Bill’s introduction. I hope that has been helpful, and I ask the Opposition if they now might withdraw the new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not think the Minister will be surprised to hear that I am not convinced and will not be withdrawing the amendment. The reason we are not convinced is that there is nothing wrong with optimism, but it has to be tempered by realism, and frankly, as we have seen at the very top of this Government over the past few months, optimism does not always produce results. Looking at the state of our economy, I suspect that we are facing a hard winter and the pressures that will be put on environmental protections will be intense. It is not unreasonable for us on the Opposition Benches to once again remind Government Members about comments made by the current Prime Minister and previous Conservative leaders. The green crap is still the green crap, as far as some are concerned—[Interruption.] That was said by a Conservative Prime Minister.

[Rebecca Pow]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark and stop referring to that. We have moved echelons from there, and it is really unfair that this keeps being dredged up by the Opposition, who themselves do not have a great record on the environment. Does he agree?

[Daniel Zeichner]

The Minister might well wish it had not been said, and I wish it had not been said, but it was.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

In the last 25 minutes, we have been all the way to Texas and back, we have been up north and we have been all over the place. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his proposed amendment. The Government continue to recognise the importance of natural gas as a source of secure and affordable energy as we aim to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Natural gas still makes up around a third of our current energy usage, and we will need it for many years to come, even as we decarbonise. I know that the shadow Minister has a great deal of knowledge and interest in the energy sector, but I am sure he understands that.

The Government have always been clear that the development of domestic energy sources, including shale gas, must be safe for local communities and for the environment. With regard to fracking and shale gas development, the Government have taken a science-led approach to exploring the potential of the industry, underpinned by world-leading environmental and safety regulations. In addition to a traffic light system to monitor real-time seismic activity during operations—with a clear framework of stopping operations in the event of specified levels of seismic activity—the Government also introduced tighter controls over the shale gas industry through the Infrastructure Act 2015.

A well consent is essentially permission to drill an oil or gas well, and it is required from the Oil and Gas Authority before an operator can explore for oil and gas onshore in the UK. All well consents issued by the OGA on or after 6 April 2016 contain a further requirement for operators to obtain hydraulic fracturing consent from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy before carrying out any associated hydraulic fracturing. That consent ensures that all necessary environmental and health and safety permits have been obtained before activities can commence.

The current definition of “associated hydraulic fracturing” is based on the approach taken by the European Commission, which I am sure the shadow Minister welcomes. Using that definition sets the right balance between capturing hydraulic fracturing operations and not capturing techniques used by conventional oil and gas operations, or more widely in the water industry, where processes such as acidisation are commonly used to clean wells after drilling.

The Environment Agency reviews any proposal involving the use of acid on a site-specific basis before deciding whether the activity is acceptable. The agency’s regulatory controls are in place to protect people and the environment, quite clearly. If the proposed activity poses an unacceptable risk, a permit will not be granted.

We have had such an eloquent description of what goes on in the US. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test paints a very clear picture of that lovely trip—although, it was probably not all that lovely, seeing that moonscape. Comparisons are not necessarily helpful because, of course, in the UK we have an entirely different regulatory system. Construction standards in the UK are robust and regulators have the tools to ensure that the risk of pollutants entering groundwater is minimised.

The EA also assesses the hazards presented by fracking fluid additives on a case-by-case basis and will not allow hazardous substances to be used where they may enter the groundwater and cause pollution. The EA has the power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substances where they pose an environmental risk. The shadow Minister touched on hazardous waste and flow-back fluids, which include fracking fluids. They are deemed to be mining waste and require an environmental permit for management onsite. Disposal of flow-back fluids must be at a regulated waste treatment works, which are also regulated by the EA. Shale gas operators must demonstrate that where any chemicals are left in the waste frack fluid, it will not lead to pollution in groundwater. I think it is quite clear that we have a very tight system already in place, which will address many of the issues raised by the shadow Minister.

Let us move on to what has happened recently, when I was involved as a Back Bencher, as were many colleagues. The Government announced in November 2019 that, although any application would be considered on its merits, in the absence of compelling new evidence, they will take a presumption against issuing any further consents for hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction, creating a moratorium.

The Government set out their position in full via a written statement to the House on 4 November 2019, and we are satisfied that the current regulations ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. We therefore have no plans to repeal sections 4A and 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998, as inserted by section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015, and nor will we direct the OGA to withhold well consents that include provisions for associated hydraulic fracturing.

There are no plans to turn the moratorium on shale gas extraction into a ban. The moratorium will be maintained unless—this is absolutely crucial—compelling new evidence is provided to address the concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity. Such evidence is, it must be said, yet to be presented. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are already one step ahead and, in fact, voted to include the world-leading legislation in the Environment Bill this very morning. We are making more progress than any other country. I understand his sentiments but, yet again, he is being negative about the enormous step we are taking.

Our amendments will help us protect the world’s most precious forests. They will allow us to set mandatory requirements on businesses that use agricultural commodities associated with deforestation. As we have said before, there are other regulations that deal with timber; our amendments will deal with other products where trees are cut down to grow crops such as palm oil, soya, rubber, beef and the associated leather, and cocoa. The hon. Gentleman will agree that those are crucial crops to be looking at as we proceed, and that that will make a genuinely big difference. We have heard the great example of what happened in Indonesia when timber was tackled. The same thing could happen with other crops in reducing the cutting down of forests. I have seen some of those on my travels.

Our framework is designed to work with Governments around the world, who are the custodians of the world’s precious forests, by requiring businesses to ensure that commodities they use have been produced on land that is legally occupied and used. I have pointed out previously how so many countries are not even adhering to their own legislation, so that is the crux of where we are placing our intentions. Our amendments will become part of the Bill now, allowing us to act quickly on this important issue, as opposed to within six months of Royal Assent, as in the new clause.

The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned the consultation, which had a fantastic response. It highlighted that we need to act urgently, which is why we are taking action. That is in line with the recommendation of the Global Resource Initiative to introduce due diligence legislation. That is what we are doing urgently, as was called for. We are listening to feedback and I reassure the Committee that we intend to move swiftly to take forward this legislation, laying the necessary secondary legislation shortly after COP26. We hope that our setting this path will be a big talking point at COP26, potentially encouraging others to follow.

The hon. Gentleman made a sound point on human rights. We agree that, in some circumstances, there is a relationship between commodity production and human rights. It does not necessarily follow that the best solution is to tackle those two issues at the same time. Tackling human rights abuses requires an approach that is tailored for that purpose, rather than through the narrow lens of the subset of commodities, examples of which I have just listed, chosen for their impact on forests.

The Government support the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights—an internationally agreed framework for addressing human rights risks in all kinds of business activities. Those principles encourage businesses to adopt due diligence approaches and to address any negative impacts, where appropriate. The UK was the first state to produce a national action plan for the guiding principles, and we have already announced measures to strengthen the approach of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, as part of that plan. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of that really important step.

The hon. Member for Cambridge touched briefly on finances. I want to clarify that the due diligence legislation is designed for a specific purpose, which is to ensure that companies in the UK are not using products that have come from illegally used or occupied land. We anticipate that information included in the reports published by the regulator will provide data, which others, including the finance sector, can use, thus helping inform investors of the extent to which the companies they invest in are involved in illegal deforestation. That is the way in to what the hon. Gentleman was addressing. I hope that is helpful. I will wind up and ask the hon. Gentleman, in the light of my assurances, to withdraw his proposed new clause.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Frankly, I do not think that the Government are one step ahead, given that our proposal was tabled long in advance and is far more extensive and far reaching. I heard what the Minister said, and I know she is very proud of what is being done. We just need to go further.

I gently point out that I am not the one saying that what is being done is not achieving what was hoped for. It is many environmental organisations, some of which the Minister cited earlier. I suspect she will find that the debate will continue. No one is saying the matter is easy; it is complicated and difficult, and this has to be done in some cases through international negotiation. We understand and appreciate that, but we believe it is better to be more optimistic and ambitious.

Again, I heard what the Minister said on the linkage to human rights, but the evidence is pretty clear that environmental degradation and disrespect for human rights go hand in hand. That is why we believe the new clause would give a sensible way forward. On that basis, Mr Gray, we will divide the Committee.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for the new clause and join her in thanking the EFRA Committee; the Committee does a lot of really helpful inquiries, and the waste and packaging one helps to add to the weight of knowledge and information. As hon. Members will know, I was on that Committee for a long time, and one does feel that the recommendations that come out of those inquiries are often useful and can help in that whole mix of listening, consulting and reporting.

The Government are absolutely committed to monitoring waste throughout its journey by improving the data captured on the generation, treatment and end use of waste. As I have said numerous times, I am keen to see improved transparency in where waste is ending up and to make that information more accessible to and usable for businesses, regulators and Government as well as the public. As the hon. Member said, people do want information and to understand, and that is why our labelling requirements—another measure introduced through the Bill—will be so helpful.

Waste tracking is reliant on largely paper-based record keeping, making it difficult to track waste effectively and providing organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste. That is why clauses 55 and 56 provide the regulation-making powers needed to introduce mandatory electronic waste tracking across the UK. The powers, which I know the green NGOs will welcome, will enable us to monitor waste through its entire journey from production to end use. The hon. Member was slightly critical about some of the NGOs’ comments, but actually those measures met with a great deal of positivity. The clauses will enable us to track all controlled waste and waste from mines and quarries, and that will include information on waste that is being recycled as well as on products and materials produced from waste.

I am pleased to confirm that we will consult on the design of a waste tracking system next year and that the consultation will address both access to and use of waste tracking data as suggested by the new clause. I therefore do not consider it necessary to introduce a separate clause placing a duty on the Government to launch a specific register for the end use of recycled waste, as that would duplicate effort for both public authorities and businesses.

The new clause would place a further duty on the Secretary of State to introduce the measures in England only, but clauses 55 and 56 give us the necessary powers to establish a system that covers the whole of the UK. We are working closely with the devolved Administrations—that includes the Scottish Government —to develop that. While I support the intention behind the new clause, I consider it unnecessary and ask the hon. Member kindly not to press it.

[Ruth Jones]

I am glad that the Minister agrees with the comments of the EFRA Committee about the lack of hard data. That is why we need a register, and that is why we tabled the new clause. I am also glad that she acknowledged the importance of ensuring we bring the public with us. Public confidence is so important; otherwise, they will not buy into any new recycling schemes.

The Minister mentioned mandatory electronic waste tracking, which is to be welcomed. However, the new clause is not about having an either/or system; it would enhance the system. The register would be a useful addition to that electronic waste tracking system.

[Rebecca Pow]

Is the hon. Member aware—I touched on it in my speech—that local authorities already collect and report data on their waste and many publish information about recycling performance? Information reported to local authorities is published, including on the destination of recyclable material where available. Does she agree that one does not want to put extra burdens on local authorities when they are already dealing with a lot of what she is arguing for?

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. The problem is that we have a voluntary code with some taking part and others not. That is the issue. No one wants duplication of anything, but we do want to reinforce and enhance the current system so that we have a coherent and comprehensive system across England and—she mentioned the devolved nations—for all areas.

The Minister mentioned the public consultation, and I take that on board. My only worry is that such consultations have been known to be a cause for people to drag their feet. We urge her to ensure that the consultation is speedy, with suitable results at the end of it. I will not press the new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

I suspect that no one wishes to move new clause 8, unless I hear to the contrary.

[Rebecca Pow]

On a point of order, Mr Gray. New clause 8 is the weeds one, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I know she has a great interest in these things, and we acknowledge that. As a gardener, I am a great weeds person—a weed is just a plant in the wrong place—and I thank her for her continued work on pollinators.

[The Chair]

The Committee has already sent the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford our warmest and best wishes in the current circumstances, and we can add the Minister’s words to that.

Environment Bill (Twenty First sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 21st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I am honoured to be called to speak about this important new clause. Indeed, it is so reasonable that at this stage of this iteration of the Environment Bill Committee, the seventh day, this might be the new clause that is agreed by all its members. We are not setting specific targets; we only ask that targets be set. We are not saying how they should be measured; we are just saying that measurements should be done. It is a new clause, surely, that must be agreed by all.

The issue is not only of concern to constituents across the country and to members of the Committee, it is a huge concern to my constituents. More than 200 people have taken the additional time and effort to write to their MP about animal welfare issues, from testing to warfare experiments and sentencing. I have long believed that the UK should lead the world with high animal welfare standards. I am proud that the UK banned cosmetic testing on animals back in 1997 and extended that to cosmetic ingredients in 1998. I was one of those who had been campaigning since the 1980s for that. We have made some good progress and agreeing on the new clause and putting it into the legislation would entrench those gains and make sure we go further.

It is welcome that animal testing practices have improved and advanced greatly over recent years, and non-animal methods for research have also developed and improved over time. However, I remain concerned at the lack of transparency around animal testing project licence applications, as well as the continued permissibility of severe suffering as defined in UK law. Again, the new clause does not aim to be entirely prescriptive about the conclusions of that—it leaves that for secondary legislation—but it asks for it to be included and considered.

Animal testing is not the answer to protecting people and the planet from potentially harmful chemicals. Tests on animals are unreliable and their value is increasingly being questioned in scientific literature. It is a matter of corporate pride for many businesses to say that they have animal cruelty-free products, because that is increasingly what the public wants.

There are better ways to ensure chemical safety and better assess risks to environmental and human health while also reducing and eliminating the cruel suffering of animals in laboratories. Cruelty Free International estimates that since 2006 more than 2.6 million animals have been used in chemical tests across the EU, including the UK, with many more tests planned. The UK reports conducting more animal tests than any other country in Europe. EU chemical legislation—the REACH legislation—already discussed in Committee, has resulted in a huge increase in the use of animals in European and UK laboratories. Now is our chance to be better and to provide that world-leading legislation. We need a proactive plan to reduce and replace chemical tests on animals. If the UK is serious about its commitment to animal protection, the Government must adopt a forward-looking Environment Bill that moves away from cruel and ineffective animal testing and write into law a target-based, science-led strategy for reduction and replacement.

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

I agree with what the hon. Member for Putney wants to achieve in new clause 9. Just like her, I am an animal lover. As a former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, I think I speak for everyone on the Committee in terms of being animal lovers. The UK was consistently one of the strongest voices in the EU, applying downward pressure on animal testing—I am sure the hon. Lady is well aware of that—including changes to REACH to enforce the use of alternatives. The UK’s presidency of the European Council in the late 1990s was one of the driving forces behind the reform of the chemicals regulations and we referred to that in a previous session. We are continuing with that clear aim now that we have left the EU, and we are already enshrining the last resort principle as one of the protective provisions in the Bill. Under article 138(9) of REACH, the Secretary of State will also be under a duty to review the testing requirements on reproductive toxicity within 18 months of the end of the transition period. That review must be carried out in the light of the objective of reducing the use of animal testing.

In addition, the powers in schedule 19 of the Bill to amend REACH would enable us to build such targets into REACH, if that were felt to be appropriate. Any amendment would have to be consulted on and to be consistent with the aims and the principles of REACH as set out in article 1, including that we must maintain a high level of protection for human health and the environment, seek alternatives to animal testing, and that REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle. I believe that would be the better route, if we conclude that targets are desirable. For those reasons, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw new clause 9.

[Fleur Anderson]

I thank the Minister for looking into the issue and for some assurances that targets could be included in future, and that we will be seeking alternatives. I note the concerns and considerations that we all want the same thing, which is stronger animal welfare. I am disappointed that we will not agree on this matter this afternoon, but I will not press it to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 10

OEP: Penalty notices

‘(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with a decision notice, the OEP may, by written notice (a “penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEP an amount in sterling specified in the notice.

(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a public authority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEP must have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).

(3) Those matters are—

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;

(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;

(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;

(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the failure;

(e) the manner in which the infringement became known to the OEP, including whether, and if so to what extent, the public authority notified the OEP of the failure;

(f) the extent to which the public authority has complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;

(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures.

(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set the minimum and maximum amount of penalty.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause would allow the OEP to impose fines.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This proposed new clause was originally put forward in the names of my hon. Friends the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), who no longer sit on the Committee. With our names added, we certainly support the sentiment.

The proposed new clause contains a simple proposition relating to the Office for Environmental Protection and its functions. Hon. Members will recall that we have had substantial discussions about the extent to which the OEP has powers to make its functions work well. It is a question of giving it not just general authority but enforcement powers, notices and so on, which we have debated. As the Bill stands, although the OEP would have a number of powers concerning notices and the ability to bring court proceedings, it would not have the power to levy fines.

That argument is sometimes raised where a no-fine outcome is concerned, when the question arises regarding the bodies on which the OEP would levy fines. That would, by and large, be public authorities. The argument then runs about what it would mean to levy a fine on public authorities. I remind hon. Members that that was not the case before we took powers over from the EU, in running our own environmental importance. Nor is it something that other agencies do not have as shots in their locker.

The clean air regime, for example, allowed the EU Commission the power to levy fines on infracting countries. In the case of clean air regulations, there was a suggestion that the fines that the EU authorities had the power to levy could be applied to infracting local authorities that were not adhering to clean air regulations. Indeed, there was quite a to-ing and fro-ing between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and local authorities, because it was suggested that authorities that had been identified as infracting, and therefore needed to draw up clean air plans, would bear the brunt of the fines, rather than the UK Government. The UK Government were the public authority that was infracting, but they had passed on their infraction responsibilities to other public authorities, so those public authorities would be fined. That was a real issue with regards to clean air just a little while ago, but it has not been passed on to the Office for Environmental Protection, which would be the agency in that instance with UK powers.

Similarly, Ofgem has considerable powers to fine companies that do not undertake proper management of their customer bills or their responsibilities for energy supply. Indeed, a considerable number of fines have been levied, running to millions of pounds, on energy companies. Ofgem has that clear and workable power to levy fines, but the OEP does not.

We are saying that the OEP should have the power to fine. Indeed, the new clause would give it that power. The other part of the problem is what the agency would do with the fines once they have been collected—is it not just a circular process? The new clause states that, once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS and local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures. The fines would be recycled, but in a positive way for environmental management and improvement.

Having that power to fine, and being able to publicly state that authorities had been fined, are potentially strong weapons in the OEP’s locker, not necessarily because the fines would be punitive in their own right, but because they would be a mark against that public authority and because, through the transfer of the fine payments, the sins of that public authority would be effectively transferred into positive action on environmental improvement in other areas.

We think the new clause is a sensible, straightforward measure that would generally improve the efficacy of the OEP. The fact that nothing like it was thought about emphasises the general theme that we have been talking about in Committee of the power, independence and force of the OEP being downgraded through a number of Government amendments that have been made as we have gone through the Bill. This would be one back for the OEP, so I hope the Committee will view it in a favourable light.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for the intention behind tabling the new clause. The Government completely agree that effective enforcement of public authorities’ compliance with environmental law is vital. That is why we are establishing the OEP to hold public authorities to account, as we have clearly talked about many times in Committee. However, in our domestic legal system it is unnecessary to make specific provisions for fines to achieve that.

Fines play an important role in the EU infraction process, as the hon. Member points out, but only because the Court of Justice of the European Union is unable to compel member states to take a specific course of action through a court order. It is the only penalty that it has in its armoury. It is therefore reliant on the significantly less effective approach of penalising the member state until they take some form of remedial action, although the UK has never been fined for an environmental infraction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case as to why it is much more effective that the OEP works with public authorities to try to make the sort of environmental improvements that everybody here wants to see, rather than acting as a fining mechanism. Does she agree with me that on this occasion unfortunately the Opposition have confused trying to replicate a European measure with a much better way of doing things here in the UK?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for making my case for me. A great deal of thought has gone into it, which I was going to come to at the end. The shadow Minister suggests that this has not been thought about; I think those were his exact words. To reiterate what my hon. Friend said, this has been thought about in great detail, to come up with a system that will be better at solving problems and improving the environment than the one the EU has on offer.

Furthermore, the Committee might wish to note that this new clause would give the OEP powers that even the European Commission does not have, so it cannot claim to be ensuring equivalence between the OEP and the European Commission. The European Commission cannot fine a member state government, only the Court of Justice of the European Union can do so, a point that really needs clarifying with the shadow Minister. As I have already mentioned, we have stronger remedies than the CJEU. It would be wholly inappropriate for the OEP to directly impose fines. Effectively that would mean the OEP could prematurely sanction public authorities, without reference to the courts, and with no appeals mechanism for the public authority to challenge the decision.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that enabling the OEP to issue penalty notices would help to give its investigatory work a degree of clout, and serve as a meaningful contribution to efforts to improve public authorities’ compliance with environmental law?

[Rebecca Pow]

I do not think the OEP is going to have any problem at all operating its clout. We will have a new chairman and a supporting board, and that will be their raison d’être. They do not need fines. In fact, I wrote an exclamation mark as I thought it was a bit of a joke when I saw that the shadow Minister had suggested that the OEP should become a funding body. That would be a significant expansion in its scope, and not consistent with its role as a watchdog to hold Government to account.

In summary, the OEP’s enforcement framework has been designed to resolve cases as robustly, quickly and effectively as possible. The powers already available to the courts to grant and enforce remedies make a system of fines unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that response. There are arguable cases. What we want to see as an emphasis on enforcement is a matter of opinion as to what is most effective, rather than a fundamental discussion about having a power or not. I remind the Minister that we had a debate about the fact that OEP appears to be pushed further away from its ability to go through the courts by the debate on who should decide whether something was a serious breach, and the role of the OEP and the Minister in that. At the very least, this idea, that the OEP could introduce penalties in its own right, would be a step to rectify that particular problem.

I take what the Minister has to say about the extent to which there are, at least in principle, reasonable methods of enforcement as far as the OEP is concerned. It is not a wholly unreasonable point to make that that should not necessarily include fines. However, this is a route worth considering, and it may be that, as the OEP develops and we see how it manages to enforce things, the idea of fines might be revisited. I do not intend to press the clause to a vote this afternoon, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 12

Duty to follow recommendations

(1) A “public authority” must follow the course of action set out in a recommendation made by the OEP in a report issued under sections 25 or 26 unless the public authority has determined that there are reasons of public interest demonstrating that it is not necessary for it to do so in order to comply with the law.

(2) If the authority does not follow a recommendation, it must publish a report setting out the reasons for not doing so and set out what alternative course of action it proposes to take.

(3) In this section public authority carries the same definition as in section 28(3). —(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause requires a public authority to whom the OEP has issued a recommendation to normally follow that recommendation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, Mr Gray; I will not be too far tempted on to the history of regulation and privatised industries and how that has worked out, other than to say that the checks and balances of the regulator are an important part of the process. What the new clause proposes does not depart from that practice, and I really do not agree with the suggestion that it is somehow following an authoritarian course.

I have been tempted to make a lengthier speech on the new clause than I intended by the interventions from the hon. Member for Gloucester, so I will not say any more at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will react favourably to the new clause.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling the new clause because it allows me to provide some detail on the OEP’s scrutiny function as well as its interactions with Government and public bodies.

The new clause refers to recommendations made under clauses 25 and 26, which cover the OEP’s scrutiny of the Government’s environmental improvement plans and targets, as well as the implementation of environmental law. Many of the OEP’s recommendations, if implemented, are likely to require changes to law and policy, and those changes need to be carefully assessed alongside many other considerations. The responsibility for making changes to policy as well as introducing changes to legislation lies firmly with the elected Government, not an independent body. That was highlighted in the interventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

I also want to use this opportunity to explain how the OEP will interact with Government and public authorities with regard to its scrutiny function. In terms of the OEP’s report issued under clause 25, it will be addressed to the Government, as the Government are ultimately responsible for delivery of the environmental improvement plan and targets. Clearly, public authorities will help Government meet their objective of improving the natural environment, but, when the OEP makes recommendations as to how progress could be improved, Government are best placed to determine how, and by whom, those recommendations should be implemented. That is particularly important because it is the Government, obviously, who have the statutory duty to respond to the OEP’s recommendations, and are therefore held accountable. The Government must respond to the OEP’s reports; they must publish the reports and lay their responses before Parliament. That means that the Government will be held to account for their actions by the OEP, Parliament and the public.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister has talked about the OEP holding the Government to account. How will it do that, as it will be part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? It will be appointed by the Government, and will, surely, be hand in glove with the Department. It is very difficult to say that it will actually be able to hold the Government to account.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not go into a huge amount of detail in my answer, as it was all covered in the early stages, but I could send the hon. Lady a page on how and why the OEP will remain independent. It will be an utterly independent body, and the Secretary of State has to be mindful of the independence of the OEP; that is a crucial part of some of the detail written into the Bill, and, if she wants to be referred to those sections, I am sure that we could clarify those with her.

Clause 26 enables the OEP to assess how environmental law is implemented; it is not simply about compliance with—or deviation from—the law, but will be more about whether the law is effective and delivering its intention. The OEP will seek information from public authorities to undertake this duty but, again, its findings will be addressed to Government, and only Government are required to respond.

This will work as one big machine, and local authorities will clearly play an important part; that is not to say that public authorities cannot implement any of the OEP’s recommendations which are applicable to them, if appropriate. However, this is very different from the suggestion that public authorities must comply with the OEP’s recommendations unless they publish a report justifying an alternative approach.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that we do not entirely go along with all of it, but I appreciate what she has said. Indeed, it may be that her remarks are taken into account when we discuss the next new clause. On that basis, I have no intention of pressing this to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

OEP register

“(1) The OEP must maintain a register of communications between it and Ministers (or government departments).

(2) The OEP may omit from the register communications which it considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest to the public.

(3) The OEP must publish the register.” .—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause requires the OEP to keep a public register of correspondence with the Government.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is an innocuous-looking new clause, but it is potentially quite important. Indeed, we think it should be an important part of the process, precisely because of what the Minister just said in response to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West about the stated and apparent independence of the OEP, as far as the Department is concerned.

The new clause simply states that the OEP should maintain a register of communications between it and Ministers or Government Departments. Obviously, there is a statement in that clause to say that trivial things—such as the Minister ringing up to ask whether they had a spare sandwich—should not be included in the register, but significant communications between the OEP and Ministers should be recorded in the register, and that register should be published.

What that would mean, quite simply, is that there would be on the record a transparent adumbration of the occasions on which there has been conversation between Ministers and the OEP. While obviously it is not suggested that the record should go into detail on what the communication was—it is not a public record to that extent—it would show the extent to which the OEP was acting independently or the extent to which it might be under duress, shall we say, from ministerial quarters in its doings. If the Minister is serious in what she says about the independence of the OEP, despite some of the apparent constraints placed on its independence in the Bill, I would have thought she would welcome the new clause as a pretty good way of enabling us to see on the table what was going on and enabling the OEP, if it needed to, to show that it had been placed under pressure by Ministers. If, indeed, it was placed under pressure by Ministers, that pressure would be in a public place, it would be seen by all and it could therefore be remedied.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for the new clause. I share his interest in ensuring that the OEP acts transparently in the exercise of its functions. That is why we have created, in clause 22, a duty on the OEP to have regard to the need to act transparently. We have also required the OEP, in clause 38, to make public statements when it carries out various enforcement activities. In carrying out the duty in clause 22, the OEP would normally make information about its work publicly available—perhaps the shadow Minister has missed that element.

However, there may be certain situations where it is inappropriate and unhelpful for it to do so. There is a difference between what is in the public interest and what might be of interest to the public or to some members of the public. In particular, the OEP will need to communicate with public authorities, including Departments, in the exercise of its scrutiny and enforcement functions. Those communications will require a degree of confidentiality if the OEP is to engage effectively and productively on sensitive issues with public authorities, and avoid prejudicing possible enforcement action. The effect of the new clause might be to remove that necessary confidentiality from the OEP’s interactions.

The new clause would require the OEP to maintain a continuous running commentary on its communications with Ministers and their Departments, which would be administratively burdensome and a poor use of resources, given the other provisions we have included in the Bill on transparency, reporting and public statements. The hon. Member asked whether ringing up to order a sandwich should be recorded. That is a good point, because it is not at all clear in the new clause what exactly the register would have to contain. Is it the full text of the communication? Potentially, if one was having to record everything, one would have to record those things as well. It is just a small point.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister is making a very good case for the new clause being entirely redundant. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, whose judgment is often very sensible, really considers that creating a register of communications, with all the arguments about what might be considered trivial or not trivial, is a good idea when setting up the very important Office for Environmental Protection. Does the Minister agree that this is another new clause that we should move on from swiftly?

[Rebecca Pow]

I could not agree more. I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point, because he is absolutely on the money—not that the OEP is a fundraising body, of course.

There is nothing in the Bill, of course, to prevent the OEP from setting up a register of significant communications should it choose to do so, but we do not believe that it should be required to do so as a legal obligation. It is, after all, an independent body. To clarify how independent it is, I should say that it will obviously be operationally independent from the Government and governed by the non-executive members appointed through the regulatory public appointments process.

On the question of the OEP potentially deciding it wants to set up a register, I should mention that the Office for Budget Responsibility has a register similar to that proposed by the hon. Member. That is not a statutory requirement; rather, the OBR produces it of its own accord, and we believe it must remain for the OEP to decide how to fulfil its duty to have regard to the need for transparency. The new clause is somewhat inappropriate and unnecessary, and I ask the shadow Minister to consider withdrawing it.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am not sure that I will any more, actually. The Government’s suggesting that the Committee should move swiftly on because they do not particularly like an Opposition new clause does not strike me as full participation in the spirit of what we are supposed to be doing—that is, we, the Opposition, get the opportunity to put amendments forward, they are discussed and answered properly, and then we move on. That is what I hope will happen with this new clause.

I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that, if the OEP thinks it would like to set up a register—sandwiches notwithstanding—of its communications with Ministers and to publish those communications, Ministers would be happy to go along with that and would not in any way seek to impede it. Alternatively, is the Minister saying that because she thinks the correspondence and communications between Ministers and the OEP must take place in an air of confidentiality, she would discourage the OEP from doing that if it wanted to?

The new clause would clear that up; it says there should be a register. Its subsection (2) states that the OEP does have discretion, and the word “may” creeps in:

“The OEP may omit from the register communications which it considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest to the public.”

That is what you might call a sandwich clause. It does not need to put that stuff in; it merely needs to maintain a register to indicate the general degree of communication that is going on and how that communication is working.

[Rebecca Pow]

To clarify, there is nothing in the Bill that prevents the OEP from setting up a register. I cannot reiterate any more than I already have that it is an independent body: if it decides it wants to set up a register, that is purely up to the OEP. I reiterate again that we do not believe that that should be a legal obligation on the OEP—after all, it is an independent body and it will think through these things for itself.

[Dr Whitehead]

That was not quite the question that I asked the Minister. What I asked was: if the OEP did decide to set up its own independent register, what would Ministers have to say about its being a transactional register—not a register of independent actors, but a register of things happening between people, including Ministers?

Would the OEP be encouraged to do that by Ministers? Would Ministers be happy to go along with that if the OEP did it? Alternatively—we would probably never find this out because we would not know what the communications were—would Ministers say, for the reasons the Minister has outlined, “That is a pretty bad idea, OEP. You don’t really want to be doing that. We might say, in theory, that you are able to set up your own register, but we as Ministers seriously discourage you from doing it.”

We would be considerably comforted if the Minister said this afternoon that not only could the OEP set up its own register, but she would positively encourage it to do so, in the interests of transparency and of ministerial communications being as public as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

What I was doing was engaging in a bit of what-iffery. The Minister came back to me and said that the OEP could set up its own register, if it wanted to do. That is not what we want to do in the new clause; we just want a register to be set up—that is quite clear and straightforward. The OEP would have some discretion over what it consisted of, but the register would be there on the table for public record. That system operates in a lot of other legislatures and jurisdictions, to a greater or lesser extent. It does not bring the world tumbling down; it brings transparency.

[Rebecca Pow]

To back up the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth, would the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole point about the OEP is that it is an independent body and Ministers cannot encourage it? That is the whole point of its independence.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is indeed absolutely what we hope will happen and what the new clause is intended to underpin. The Minister, I think, has just made a further point in favour of the new clause—the effect of her words often goes considerably beyond what she thinks. That is very good and positive.

I do not wish to say too much more about the new clause. I have been tempted by interventions to go down particular routes, but I emphasise the simple, central point. This is about fresh air, light and transparency, and actions taken by public bodies, for the public good, being available to the public. It is as simple as that. The fact that there would be a requirement does not put any constraints on anybody’s actions; it simply makes sure that the light of transparency is properly shone, and is guaranteed to be shone. That is what the public would expect to happen in the case of an independent body that nevertheless appears to have close relations with the Government, in terms of its independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Let us see how we get on with this one, Mr Gray. Again, this is a very simple new clause; I thought the last one was simple, but there we go. It places an environmental responsibility on Ofwat—in the same way, I talked a while ago about what does not happen at the moment, but I sincerely wish would happen, with Ofgem.

The new clause sets out that the director general of water services, who is mentioned in the Water Industry Act 1991, which was put in place before modern Ofwat came into being—the director general of water services now works closely with Ofwat on regulation of the water industry—and the Minister, which is effectively Ofwat,

“contribute to achievement of any relevant environmental targets set under the Environment Act 2020.”

It would mean that any targets for water companies would have an obligation attached to them: that Ofwat must work towards those targets.

This is an important point for water regulation and, indeed, any other form of industry regulation. What regulators do is based on a brief from the Government about their overall activities. Even though it is independent, the regulator will, to a considerable extent, ensure that what it does is guided by that overall requirement.

If, for example, the general direction is simply to go for value for money for customers, important though that is, and if that is the guiding light for that particular regulator, it will stick by that at the expense of other considerations that could balance it out in the interests of, for example, environmental targets.

The new clause seeks to balance what the regulator is doing on those targets. It is quite proper that it should have an interest in the targets. Surely that is one of the aims of the targets in the Bill—to ensure that we are working together to get them achieved. If important parts of the water industry are not bound into seeking to achieve those targets, that weakens the overall push forward.

The new clause is not authoritarian. It is not trying to get anything done that should not be done. It simply tries to make sure that everyone is bound together in making sure that the targets work well in the water industry.

[Rebecca Pow]

The Government recognise the hon. Member’s intention that the water industry should play its role in achieving targets set under the Bill, particularly in the priority area of water, but I do not believe that the new clause is necessary, given the legislative requirement to achieve long-term environmental targets.

Clause 4 will place the Secretary of State under a duty to ensure that the targets set under clause 1 are met. At least every five years, the Government must review their environmental improvement plan and, as part of that, must consider whether further measures are needed to achieve its targets. The Government must also periodically review its long-term targets set under the Bill, alongside other statutory environmental targets, to consider whether meeting them collectively would deliver significant environmental improvement in England.

In addition, both the Secretary of State and Ofwat are already placed under environmental duties by section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991, which was referred to by the hon. Member. Section 2A of the Water Industry Act 1991 enables the Secretary of State to set out strategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat, which we have already heard about, as it relates to water companies, wholly or mainly in England, through a strategic policy statement. In preparing that statement, the Secretary of State must already have regard to environmental matters. In future statements, those matters could include targets set under the Environment Bill.

The existing legislative framework, together with provisions in the Bill, are therefore sufficient to ensure that targets, including water targets, will be achieved. While the duty to achieve targets rests with central Government, of course public authorities, including regulators, will have their role to play. As I have pointed out, the legislative framework already in place, plus the provisions in the Bill, should drive us towards ensuring that targets will be achieved. Therefore, I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the new clause.

[Dr Whitehead]

The new clause specifically talks about targets, and in the 1991 Act targets did not exist. While it is true that there are general environmental obligations in that Act, they do not relate to the Bill’s aims in terms of its targets. We have already discussed that. The Minister implies that it is more than conceivable that the general framework relating to environmental considerations could be nudged towards targets, when those are in. To some extent, it is a question of looking at whether Ofwat is doing the right thing, as those targets come in.

[Rebecca Pow]

There are other areas that will help towards this. We need a whole range of levers to meet the targets, but the targets will be set through the Environment Bill. Thinking is already going on about the relevant targets for water and they are priorities for me, so we are moving on that.

A river-based management planning process, which the Environment Agency is currently revising, will also be a key measure and stage in identifying some of the other levers that will be needed to complement the powers over the regulatory stuff, as well as the targets in the Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Dr Whitehead]

Since I have only just heard that, I am not sure I can completely agree with it. The Minister is suggesting that there is a mesh of things there already, which could lead towards moves unpinning the targets. I hope the Minister is right about that process. I am not absolutely sure that they are as strong as we might like them to be in terms of what the new clause suggests, but I am sure that the Minister would be able to review that position, if it turns out that, once those targets are set, the mesh is not strong enough to impel those regulators in the direction that should be taken.

On that basis, and with confidence in the Minister’s powers of persuasion for future arrangements, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 15

Reservoirs: flood risk

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to grant the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies and other connected agencies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”—(Fleur Anderson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I rise very briefly, to my Whip’s dismay, to comment because the points raised by the hon. Member for Newport West have a lot of merit to them, as the Minister will agree. In particular, the hon. Member is not far away from the same river that has frequently flooded my own city of Gloucester, most notably in 2007. It is worth noting that we do have something called the Severn Partnership, which brings together the MPs the whole way along the river—around 40 of us—to work very closely with, for example, Shropshire County Council, the Environment Agency and other important stakeholders. Indeed, it is very important that it is a cross-border partnership, talking closely with colleagues in Wales and the authorities there.

The key point, which I am sure the Minister will touch on, is that I am not convinced the Secretary of State needs to make regulations granting the Environment Agency these additional powers. However, I do think that it is incredibly important for the Secretary of State, and his or her Ministers—the Minister in her place has already done this—to show huge commitment to encouraging and working with all those partners in order to resolve a fundamental problem in this country, which is that half of it has too much water and has floods, and the other half has too little and has droughts. If we could store water high up, in the Welsh or Shropshire hills, and avoid flooding in places such as Gloucester, we could then transfer it by pipe all the way down to Thames Water, and make a turn at the same time, which would be good news for all concerned. I am sure that the Minister will explain why she agrees with the principle but does not necessarily see the point of the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and particularly the hon. Member for Putney for sharing her experiences of flooding. Clearly, my sympathies lie with anyone who has experienced flooding. I saw it for myself at first hand when the Somerset levels flooded.

I want to reassure the Committee that flood risk management is a top priority for this Government. I fully recognise the desire to look at all the options, but this Bill is not the place for new flood management legislation. There are currently over 200 reservoirs operated by the Environment Agency that are used for flood risk management, and that are deliberately kept low in order to maximise the amount of rainwater they can store.

Water company reservoirs have a different purpose and play a significant role in ensuring that we have ready access to water whenever we want and need it. Indeed, water companies have statutory duties, enforceable by Ofwat and the Secretary of State, to maintain secure water supplies, under the Water Industry Act 1991. That is a key point to highlight, because the security of water is so essential. This primary purpose of water companies must be considered first, before any additional duties are placed on them, even if those duties would help with flood risk management.

However, there is nothing to stop a water company using its reservoirs for flood risk management purposes and as a risk management authority. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, water companies have a duty to co-operate with all other risk management authorities, including the Environment Agency. I am aware that some water companies across the north of England have undertaken trials to explore how and where this approach might offer the most benefits. Those trials have shown some positive results, but they have also identified some risks, such as prolonged dry weather, which need to be fully understood.

We should not forget that not many months ago we were facing a potential drought in the north-west, and everyone was on the phone to the water Minister. That was exacerbated by unusually high demands for water, because of the hot weather and changes in people’s behaviour and routines during the pandemic, with more people using hosepipes to fill paddling pools, wash their cars and water their gardens. Similarly, in the summer of 2018 the country dealt with very dry and warm weather, with water companies experiencing high demand. We must pay as much attention to the problem of too little water as we do to too much. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Newport West highlighted, we should expect more frequent extremes of weather as a result of climate change, so that all impacts on this situation.

There is a formal agreement between the Environment Agency and Yorkshire Water in relation to Gorpley reservoir, which demonstrates that, through effective partnership working, such agreements between the different water bodies and organisations can be secured locally. I therefore believe that local agreements and partnership working form the most appropriate approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester highlighted the Severn Partnership, which involves a whole range of bodies working together, including local authorities and all the MPs representing constituencies up and down the valley. That is proving to be something of a model in driving forward the whole issue of water infrastructure, how to get water from A to B, and how to deal with the demand. That has been a voluntary arrangement.

As I have said, flood risk is a top priority for the Government. We have published our flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement, which sets out our long-term ambition to create a nation that is more resilient to flood and coastal erosion risk.

The hon. Member for Newport West touched on funding. From 2021, the Government will double investment in flooding to £5.2 billion in the next six-year capital investment programme for flood defences. That investment will better protect 336,000 properties from flooding. Additional funding of £200 million over six years will help 25 local areas to take forward some much wider innovative approaches to improve flood resilience and coastal erosion. That touches on the whole issue of water supply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I rise to speak to new clause 16 in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge, for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). The new clause is a specific and targeted addition to the Bill, and I do not intend to speak on it for long.

As colleagues will know from our recent discussions on waste and recycling, it is important that we act as comprehensively as possible and that we show real leadership on these important issues. For us to take these matters seriously—actually and theoretically—we need the Bill, when it leaves Committee, to be made up of a comprehensive plan backed by a coherent agenda that will deliver real results now and into the future. I hope the Minister recognises that the new clause will do nothing other than enhance the scope and reach of the Bill, taking it a great deal closer to being fit for purpose.

The Minister and Government Back Benchers will know that we have not sought to divide the Committee for the sake of it in recent weeks. Truth be told, all our amendments are worthy of a vote and of being added to the Bill. Alas, the Minister and her loyal colleagues have put paid to any chance of those additions. I wish to press new clause 16 to a vote, however, for a number of reasons, the most important being that people out there need to know that although efforts to make recycling fit for purpose, to tackle waste and to fight the climate emergency head on in England were on the table, they were all rejected. I would be delighted if the Minister rose to inform the Committee that she will accept the new clause and, even at this late stage, I urge her to scrap her notes and do just that.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that I will not be recycling my notes just yet. I thank her for tabling new clause 16, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must take account of the requirements of the waste hierarchy when considering all matters relating to waste and resource efficiency. Organisations that produce or manage waste in England and Wales are already legally obliged to comply with the waste hierarchy duty, as set out in the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011—the hon. Lady is perhaps not aware of that.

The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcing that in England. Government policy in this area has, for a long time, been developed with the principles of the waste hierarchy in mind, and that commitment was affirmed in our resources and waste strategy in 2018—an excellent strategy that I urge the hon. Lady to read—which sets out our plans to move away from an inefficient “take, make, use, throw away” model, to a more circular economy that keeps products and materials in use for as long as possible. We discussed that at length in many of the earlier waste clauses.

We intend to ensure that waste is prevented in the first place and that we recycle as much as possible once waste is created. Measures in the Bill have been developed with the waste hierarchy as our guiding light. At the top of the hierarchy, clause 50 and schedule 7 allow for regulations to be made about resource efficiency requirements, to drive a shift in the market towards products that last longer and can be reused and repaired more easily, as well as towards those that can be recycled. Those regulations would be used, for example, to require fitted furniture to be easy to disassemble and reassemble, or for parts to be easily repaired or replaced. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: the public are really welcoming of such measures.

Our producer responsibility powers in clause 47 and schedule 4 can be used to help to prevent products or materials from becoming waste. By imposing obligations on food producers, for example, we can hold them responsible for surplus food and food waste. That is a huge step forward: collecting food waste but also urging people not to create so much waste in the first place.

Our other producer responsibility powers in clause 48 and schedule 5 will also help prevent waste by making producers accountable for the full cost of managing their products at the end of life. I honestly believe that that will be a game-changer in terms of the amount of waste created. As I have mentioned before, that will encourage businesses to reduce the amount of packaging that they use and to use reusable and recyclable packaging, so that less waste is produced.

Clause 54 will ensure that we make recycling simpler for households, by stipulating a consistent set of materials that must be collected from all households and businesses in England, which, as I have just mentioned, will include food waste. I can therefore reassure the hon. Lady that we do not need the new clause, having touched on everything that she raised. She said that she intended to press the new clause to a vote, but surely I have convinced her that that really is not necessary.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for those helpful comments and for raising the awareness of the importance of the 2011 legislation and the other relevant legislation which, of course, is compulsory bedtime reading on this side of the Committee.

We have discussed at length the importance of the cyclical nature of recycling, but it is so important that we begin to break it down. As the Minister rightly said, it is not just about the end product, but the starting point and how we ensure that products, when they are first created or built, are designed so that they can be fully recycled. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test spent a great deal of time explaining how car parts can be broken down and used again in different ways, and we all took that on board.

[Rebecca Pow]

Perhaps the hon. Lady did not register the producer responsibility, which will put the onus on the person who invents and designs the product in the first place. They will remain responsible for the cost of that product through its life and where it ends up, so that will make them think, “Goodness, I don’t want to be responsible for that, so I’ll think about how I design it in the first place,” and that will reduce waste. Maybe she missed that.

[Ruth Jones]

I did not miss it, and I am perfectly clear about the producer responsibility. However, I am also clear on the need for public co-operation, because all recycling and waste management begins at home. We must ensure that we have the public on board. Although we are talking about the waste hierarchy, we need to ensure that the public out there in the real world understand fully what is expected of them. We need to make it easy for them, which means that they must have clear instructions—hopefully universal instructions rather than different authorities doing different things, confusing people. On that basis, I am sorry to disappoint the Minister, but I am going to press this new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I feel as though this is the tree strategy support group part two. As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, we talked about it in our discussion of clause 100, which was very disappointing. For anyone reading this debate in Hansard, I recommend that they go back and discover the length and breadth of clause 100, which is headed “Tree felling and planting”, but talks only about tree felling.

New clause 19 is specifically about a tree strategy, tree planting and tree conservation. As I said last week, putting an English tree strategy on a statutory footing is key to delivering the commitments in the 25-year environment plan alongside which the Bill sits. My hon. Friend has been through the many reasons why we need this strategy. It is therefore hugely disappointing to those who have a stake in our woodlands—and knowing how much the Minister is a tree person—that the Bill fails to deliver one. There have been no new clauses from the Government to set right this gap in the Bill. In the previous sitting, I heard several Conservative Members rightly praising and waxing lyrical about the Woodland Trust’s work, about which they were very appreciative. Despite their admiration, however, they have seemingly ignored exactly what the Woodland Trust has called for, which is contained in new clause 19; the new clause has the Woodland Trust’s full support.

I note and appreciate what the Minister said last week, namely that the long-awaited and much talked-about tree strategy is under production and will be launched in the spring of 2021. Given how long this Bill Committee seems to be going on, that feels very close. The tree strategy contains what the Government believe are ambitious commitments, and we all look forward to it. I welcome that, and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to the submissions made to their consultation. However, by refusing to give an England tree strategy a statutory footing, the Government risk seriously undermining their progress.

We know that there is a long way to go. Without a provision such as new clause 19, there is no formal way in England to set targets for a tree strategy. The new clause offers the opportunity to correct this, and it will ensure that the England tree strategy has the status it needs to protect, restore and expand trees and woodland in England. It is amazing; there were almost 3,000 submissions to the Government’s consultation from Woodland Trust supporters, and many wanted an England tree strategy to be put on a statutory footing. Supporting the new clause would ensure that their voices were heard and make the strategy’s targets meaningful, binding and much more likely to achieve their effect. The Woodland Trust has said:

“The amendment is strongly consistent with the Environment Bill’s aims of restoring and enhancing green spaces. It also complements the existing tree clauses, and reflects recent legislation in Scotland, important given the UK wide focus on increasing tree cover as part of the UK’s global climate and biodiversity commitments.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has outlined, this really is a no-brainer.

We can learn from other countries that have put tree strategies into legislation and reaped the rewards. I have been careful, in looking at the Bill, to find out which other countries have brought in similar Bills. Have they introduced environmental legislation, and what have they learned from it? What good practice do we want to take from countries that have gone before us, with similar legislative and regulatory bodies, and what has not worked out very well for the environment? We do not have time for second chances when it comes to the environment.

I will take one example from Norway. We might think of Norway as a massively tree-covered country that does not need any help, but its 2005 Forestry Act was brought up to date to promote sustainable forest management, taking into consideration important environmental values, wildlife habitat, the storage of carbon and other essential functions of forests. Norway’s 2009 Nature Diversity Act ensured that forestry regulation complied with the legislation contained in that Act. Norway put forestry regulation on a statutory footing. It was probably littered with “musts”, and had hardly any “mays”—I can picture it now.

The success of Norway’s model and accompanying legislation speaks for itself. In 1920, Norwegian forests consisted of approximately 300 million cubic metres of standing timber. Today, the volume of standing timber is soon expected to exceed 1 billion cubic metres. It was on a downward trajectory, but it has tripled since the second world war, enhanced by the legislation that Norway has put in on a statutory footing.

New clause 19 is a “no regrets” commitment. I urge colleagues to reconsider their opposition to it, to stand up for trees and to stand up for the ambitious scale of tree planting and conservation that we need to meet our carbon targets, that we need for biodiversity and our own mental health, and that the public overwhelmingly want.

[Rebecca Pow]

I would like to think that the shadow Minister was going to branch out and not press this new clause to a Division.

I share everybody’s desire to deliver on a tree-planting commitment. The Government are mindful of that and are not wasting time. We are working to increase planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025—the figure which has been quoted and which is in line with the CCC recommendations. We are taking those recommendations extremely seriously. Forestry is devolved, so we are working closely with the devolved Administrations to meet that commitment. To increase planting in England, we have announced a £640 million nature for climate fund. In our England tree strategy, which will be published in early 2021, we will set out further plans for how a lot of the money will be used to fuel all the tree planting we need.

New clause 17 would set a UK-wide target, but as I just said, forestry is devolved, so the Bill is not the place to establish targets for the UK overall. The shadow Minister quoted some statistics—from a blog, I think—about 2,300 hectares of planting. That was an England-only figure for 2019; it was part of UK-wide planting of 13,400 hectares. Our manifesto commitment is to a UK goal, but the Bill is not the place to establish UK targets.

The new clause also proposes a specific England-only target, but significant woodland cover targets in legislation would have a major impact on land. Ours is a small island and therefore we have a limited resource for planting. It is not helpful to make comparisons with a country such as France, which is five times the size of the UK and has a much smaller population. I applaud what the Norwegians have done, but they have terrain that is much more suited to growing trees and, to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, they have fewer choices to make about prime agricultural land. We must and will strike a careful balance on where we put the trees.

Extending our 2025 commitment to 2050 would result in 17% tree cover, which is an enormous increase, but the new clause proposes 19%, which would require us to think seriously about the possible extent of woodland cover and how it would affect our prime agricultural land and land for housing and so on. I am sure the shadow Minister is completely aware of that. In a policy paper this summer, we set out our intention to explore whether legislative tree-planting targets would be appropriate under the target-setting procedure in the Bill. Before that process is complete, we should not set specific targets in legislation. Setting potentially unachievable targets, as proposed in the new clause, could lead to trees being planted in the wrong places for the wrong reasons, which could harm food production and sensitive habitats, or even increase carbon emissions. There are lots of things to consider.

New clause 19 proposes a duty to prepare a tree strategy for England and sub-sectoral targets. We know that a major increase in planting is needed—nobody denies that, and it is a manifesto commitment. That is why we have launched the consultation on a new England tree strategy. The strategy will be published in 2021; it will set out a clear vision, objectives and policies for trees in England, covering trees, woodlands and forests. There was great involvement in the consultation and some interesting ideas and proposals were advanced.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I appreciate the Minister’s great enthusiasm for trees. Will she join me in supporting and celebrating tree charter day, which is this Saturday, and congratulate the young plantscapers of Mayfield Primary School in Cambridge, who created a tree hanging especially for me to celebrate it?

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course I would like to celebrate that. I commend the school for its work. It is a brilliant thing to engage young people in nature and everything about trees, including ancient trees. That can only bring benefits to people’s lives. Well done to them for engaging.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister, as she has managed to do on several occasions, presents a powerful speech in favour of a proposition from the Opposition, and then says, “Well, it is not necessary and should not be supported.”

We can all agree that the Minister is a powerful advocate of trees; she has been for a long time and I do not doubt for a minute that she will continue to be so. I hope she appreciates that that is how I characterise myself. However, she also said—we are to take this on trust—that the Government are undertaking a review of trees. I hope they are, and that they will in due course produce something that will, among other things, lead to a considerable increase in tree planting in the way that I have described and the way in which she would advocate. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, none of that is statutory. Now is absolutely the right time to make sure that there is a statutory provision to frame the way forward.

I urge the Government to accept the provisions of new clause 17, which sets out the sort of targets we should adopt. They could be incorporated into a statutory strategy that the Government might produce. I think we are creeping towards agreement not only on how this should be done, but on the imperative to achieve or get close to those sorts of targets—the sort of thing the CCC was talking about—to ensure that we really make a difference as far as trees in the UK are concerned, subject to all the considerations that the Minister mentioned.

We want to ensure that any target is achieved in a sustainable way, without prejudice to other forms of land use in the UK, and in this case in England. Indeed, the Committee on Climate Change discussed in its report what sort of land uses should be maintained in the UK. It was very clear that we should not do something that undermines something else, but should try to move forward with a unified strategy that gives room for crop land, grassland, rough grazing and forestry, and that takes into account the fact that we are an densely populated country—one that, I would add, has succeeded in chopping down pretty much every tree in sight over the past 500 years. We have reflected on the change in land use that has come about as a result.

I recall mentioning a little while ago that the New Forest, which is near me, is a changed landscape. It is called the New Forest, but it is actually a substantially non-tree landscape that has been changed by humans over time, and the habitat has changed as a result. In and around the Minister’s constituency, there was a broad swathe of lowland forest and hilltops without trees on them. That is why a number of the dolmens, menhirs and standing stones are in their positions: they were ways of guiding people across forest areas to get to different places because the country was so heavily forested. We have wiped all that out over successive generations.

I do not think it is a case of trying to fit in a few trees to make enough progress on the margins while the rest of the country remains treeless. We need a wholesale project of restoring the tree heritage that Britain once had, while ensuring that that tree heritage can live alongside the other uses that we have brought about. That is a complicated thing to achieve.

[Rebecca Pow]

Given that the hon. Gentleman wants all this tree planting, does he welcome the great Northumberland forest, which is expanding forestry right across the landscape in the north-east, and the fact that we are kickstarting the planting of the new northern forest with a £5.7 million investment? I think he is agreeing with everything that I have said. We have said that we are ramping up tree planting to meet the advice of the Committee on Climate Change.

[The Chair]

Perhaps you can answer briefly, Dr Whitehead. It has been quite a long debate so far.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

After the drama and passion of the trees debate, I am happy to inform you, Mr Gray, that the next few new clauses are a touch drier and return to issues of environmental law and the philosophical underpinnings of the Bill. They are important none the less.

New clause 18 would introduce a new duty on all public authorities to ensure that all levels and arms of government play their part in achieving the environmental targets. The new clause would give the air quality, water, waste and biodiversity targets we established at the outset real relevance and meaningful drive from day one, and it would bolster the effects of clause 4. Our concern is that, as it stands, the Bill does not require or sufficiently clarify the need for action across all levels of government and other public bodies.

I will give one example, on air quality. Although part 4 of the Bill provides welcome new powers for local authorities and some useful clarification of their existing responsibilities, it does not do enough to ensure that a comprehensive approach is taken across all levels of public decision making; in fact, it rather risks putting the burden of responsibility solely on local authorities. As we know, air pollution does not respect boundaries, and action by local authorities alone will not be enough to tackle all the sources of air pollution. The new clause would help to spread that burden across central and local government and other significant public bodies in this space, requiring them to contribute to providing solutions on a national and regional scale. We fear that, without something like this, progress will be too slow. The same would be true of the other priority areas as well.

We will not push the new clause to a Division, you will be pleased to hear, Mr Gray, but we would like to hear what the Minister has to say about how those targets can be achieved, which we all want, without this kind of wider environmental duty.

[Rebecca Pow]

The legal obligation to achieve the long-term target set by central Government properly rests with central Government, and it is for central Government to create the right natural policy frameworks in which other public bodies can best contribute to our environmental goals alongside their own priorities and legal obligations. We will report annually on the implementation of the environmental improvement plan, on improvements in the natural environment and on progress towards the targets, which will provide an opportunity to identify how these national policy frameworks are contributing to environmental improvement. The Office for Environmental Protection will respond to the Government’s annual report with its own independent report. That covers everything that I have been pointing out from the beginning about the whole process of monitoring and reporting.

Where necessary, the Government could change these national policy frameworks, as we are doing through the Bill by making improvements to the local air quality management framework; the hon. Gentleman touched on air, but this measure, already outlined, will do exactly that. Changes would need to be made, following proper consultation with affected bodies, having due regard to the environmental principles policy statement. Local authorities, as I said, have an important role to play in delivering environmental improvement, including through some of the measures in the Bill. Long-term, legally binding targets will set the trajectory for driving long-term improvements in our natural environment.

Public authorities, in particular local authorities, have an important role to play in delivering these improvements, and measures in the Bill will help to drive that action on the ground. For example, the nature section of the Bill strengthens the existing biodiversity duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Public authorities will have to act to conserve and enhance biodiversity, while taking account of local nature recovery strategies. We have covered all that in great detail. There will be a groundswell from the bottom up; local authorities will be hugely involved.

Clear accountability at central Government level provides clarity and avoids additional burdens on hard-working public bodies. Were the new clause to be accepted, the shadow Minister would be placing many more burdens on local authorities. We are at pains to make sure that we do not overburden them, but what they do is an essential part of the whole system, with the Government up there at the top, being held to account and playing their role. I think the hon. Member for Cambridge said he was not going to press the clause. If that is the case, I thank him for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

After the Government’s majority was slashed at the last vote, I am hugely excited. If only there were a Liberal Democrat bar chart to hand, we could see the swing. I am quite excited about new clause 20 and I am glad the Committee has come back to life. I am so sorry that some hon. Members failed to witness the excitement.

The new clause brings us back to the discussions that the Minister and I had about the state of nature. We think that we need to turn the Government’s rhetoric into reality by setting out a target for reversing the decline of nature, in time to play a leadership role as we head to COP15. COP15 is delayed—it would have been happening about now—and is now set for late spring next year, in Kunming, China. The hope is for a new set of global goals for 2030 to replace the 2020 Aichi biodiversity targets, which, as we all know, the world has sadly not done too well on.

I think we can all agree it is vital that the next decade sees much more success than we have managed collectively to achieve in the recent past. As a driving force of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which commits to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, the UK is in a really good place to be a key advocate for leading on these matters. The Bill contains a framework for setting long-term legally binding targets, but it seems to us that the timeframe does not sit comfortably with the 2030 goal. New clause 20 would require the setting of a state-of-nature target that takes account of what needs to be done domestically to contribute to improving the global state of nature. 

Looking back at the document on environmental targets from late August, we see that, interesting reading though much of it is, it seems almost like at discursive paper. In my city we are familiar with interesting, discursive papers, but this goes back to the may/must argument. There are plenty of fine intentions, such as:

“Natural England is currently working on a programme to improve monitoring of our protected sites”

That is great, but it is not necessarily mean that it is doing something.

The paper also states:

“A legally binding target for Marine Protected Areas could complement and bolster this on-going work.”

And, sadly:

“Trends show that overall, species populations have declined over the last 40 years. Whilst these losses have slowed down, there is still work to do.”

That simply describes a state of decline.

The document continues:

“Our most comprehensive species data is about the abundance of species. Using this, we could set a target”.

They could set a target, or they might not. It continues:

“It will be difficult to predict how species populations will change over time—including as a result of implementing new policies—as we consider whether to develop a target or targets for species.”

That is all worthy stuff, but it is not the stuff of leadership.

On habitat restoration, the paper states that

“the Environment Bill lays the foundation for the Nature Recovery Network that will complement plans for a new Environmental Land Management scheme.”

Again, that is a description of an aspiration. Frankly, we know how difficult it will be to do some of this stuff. The document states:

“We are currently developing an indicator to directly monitor.”

As I say, it is all aspirational stuff and, I am afraid, all too vague.

The section on nature finishes by saying:

“We are currently undertaking the following steps to increase planting in England”—

this goes back to trees—

“developing a new England Tree Strategy…developing plans to deploy the £640 million Nature for Climate Fund”.

That is all part of a wish list, but it really does not add up to a leadership strategy.

We think the strategy needs to be much stronger and more ambitious. New clause 20 would signal the intention to set a target in domestic legislation. That would allow us, in advance of next year’s very important international summit, to set a lead such that we would truly be able to say that we were world leading. Frankly, that section of the paper seems a bit fluffy to me.

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UK is committed to playing a leading role in developing an ambitious and transformative post-2020 framework for global biodiversity under the convention on biological diversity. The UK Government already support a global target to protect at least 30% of the global ocean by 2030, and 32 countries have joined our global ocean alliance in support of the target. We really are forging ahead on this issue. At the end of September, the Prime Minister committed to extend that commitment to land—indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to that.

Together with the European Commission and Costa Rica, the UK was instrumental in crafting the leaders’ pledge for nature, a leader-level voluntary declaration that was launched at the United Nations General Assembly on 28 October. The pledge sets out 10 urgent actions to put biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030. If that is not ambitious, I do not know what is.

Our international aims on biodiversity must be underpinned by credible action at home—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. Indeed, it is something that I keep saying as the Minister. Following agreement of the post-2020 framework, we will publish a new strategy for nature in England that will outline how we will implement the CBD’s new global targets domestically and meet our 25-year environmental goals for nature at the same time. We recognise the importance of setting legally binding targets to support our ambitions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill includes a requirement to set at least one long-term, legally binding target in relation to biodiversity, as well as targets for air quality, water and resource efficiency, and waste reduction. Our recently published policy paper on environmental targets sets out the areas under consideration for targets, including on species and habitats. So there could and will undoubtedly be myriad targets in future years that will affect the space of biodiversity to which he refers.

The Government will determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting, monitoring and reporting process that the Bill sets in train. Advice from independent experts will be sought during the target-setting process, and stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to provide input as to what they think is the right level. Targets will be based on scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis. We do not want to prejudge the specific targets that will emerge from this process. Indeed, scientists and academics very much support this thinking and way of operating. I have made it clear that there is enough in the Bill without the proposed new clause, so I ask the hon. Gentleman—who, as ever, makes an eloquent point—to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On this occasion, I am afraid I will have to disappoint. The Minister has wheeled out a veritable forest of aspirational opportunities, but we think that the Bill needs to be clearer in its ambition. If that were the case, we would be in a stronger position going into COP26 next year. I suspect this debate will continue over the coming months, but in the meantime we would like to put our position on the record by forcing a Division and—who knows?—perhaps a great victory.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The proposed new clause concerns collaboration with the various devolved authorities and Governments of the UK. It sets out a number of things that need to be done, but I suspect the Minister will say that they are already in the Bill. I hope she will give us good reasons for why what is in the Bill allows for that co-operation to take place. If she can do that, I am sure this particular proposed new clause will not go to a vote.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to reiterate this Government’s strong commitment to a strong Union and to strong co-operation among the four nations in respect of the devolution settlements. How the OEP and equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations co-operate will be a prime example of that. Co-operation between the OEP and equivalent devolved bodies is fundamental to ensuring that cross-border issues and matters that concern both devolved and reserved environmental law are dealt with effectively. However, the proposed new clause would not achieve this desirable objective.

First, the proposed new clause would place an absolute, unilateral duty on the OEP to co-operate with equivalent bodies in devolved Administrations. That would be an imbalanced and disproportionate approach, particularly as the specifics of environmental governance arrangements are yet to be confirmed across the Union. Secondly, effective co-operation requires flexibility and agency, something that the proposed new clause’s over-specific definition of co-operation would prevent. The Bill already requires the OEP to consult devolved environmental bodies on environmental governance matters that would be of relevance to them. That is covered and I hope the shadow Minister will welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 22 takes us back almost to the beginning of our deliberations and to environmental principles. The December 2018 policy statement on environmental principles set out five important principles in law: integration, prevention, precaution, rectification and polluter pays. There has been wide discussion in this area, including a lot of work by the Environmental Audit Committee, which came up with about 55 recommendations. Here we are, at the tail end of our discussions about the Bill, going back to some of those points. Concerns have been raised by environmental lawyers through Greener UK. After all this discussion, their view is that the Bill

“does not yet provide an adequate route to ensuring that those important legal principles fully function to achieve”

the aims set out by the Bill.

This is important because, when matters are tested in court, this is what people will look at. Much more learned people than me have pored over these issues and these are some of the conclusions they have come to. They feel that clauses on environmental principles have not changed much since the December 2018 document. Despite discussions in pre-legislative scrutiny and on Select Committees, the expert conclusion is that the Bill

“does not maintain the legal status of environmental principles as they have come to apply through EU law.”

That is, of course, one of the crunch issues of the entire discussion around the Bill.

I will not go through in detail the fine points that they make, but they do say that

“environmental principles have been binding on all public authorities including in individual administrative decisions. This legal obligation on all public authorities to apply the principles, whenever relevant, will be undermined through the bill.”

That is a strong concern, which reflects our continuing worry that, despite the ambitions, rhetoric and optimism displayed by the Minister, when we dig down into the detail of the Bill, we see that it does not provide the same level of protection that we have enjoyed before. Sadly, that takes us back. I am sure the Minister will disagree, and we will listen to the reasons why, but we will not press this to a Division.

[Rebecca Pow]

The Government are fully committed to ensuring that environmental protection sits at the heart of the policies that we will bring forward. However, the new clause would place significant—I would say huge—burdens on Government and public authorities, without adding any additional environmental benefit. Moreover, the Government already implement these considerations in other ways. Central Government develop strategic environmental policies and set the strategy and approach for any key decisions taken by public bodies. It, therefore, makes sense for the new environmental principles duty to sit with Ministers.

To use the example of a planning application for a shed, it seems wholly unreasonable for a public authority to be obliged to prove the principles have been considered, when the strategic framework, in such case the national planning policy framework, should embed these expectations. To be clear, strategies set by central Government, such as the NPPF, will have been developed in line with the principles policy statement. Placing a legal duty on Ministers to

“have due regard to the policy statement”,

as we have done in clause 18, enables the provision of clear guidance to Departments to ensure an efficient policy-making process.

The policy statement will set out the details on the application and the interpretation of the principles. This would not be clear if the duty were directly on the principles themselves, as primary legislation cannot go into the necessary detail. In a similar vein, the proposal to alter the environmental principles duty from “have due regard” to “must apply” would be extremely burdensome and would have unintended consequences.

The new clause would also extend the scope of the principles duty from being limited to policy making to covering all functions administered by all public authorities, which would result in a massive, unnecessary burden. The new clause would create a significant additional and excessive burden on public services, while duplicating existing provisions, without any clear environmental benefit or purpose.

I think the hon. Member for Cambridge touched on the lowering of standards relating to the EU. The EU only has principles and it does not have a policy statement to explain how to use them. We have taken a big step further than that and it is much clearer, I would say. I hope that gives this complicated process a bit of clarity. I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

On this occasion, I am happy to oblige, not least because I suspect we will want to go away and look very carefully at the Minister’s words. I think there is quite an important set of issues here. We are not necessarily convinced that this strengthens our environmental protections. A planning application for a shed was a slightly unfortunate example to give, given that under the proposals in the planning White Paper, there will be whole swathes of the country where no planning application will be needed in future at all. That is exactly the force of our arguments. While we remain concerned, we will not pursue it any further this evening, because 20 minutes to 5 is not the time for this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)

Environment Bill (Eighteenth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 18th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a point of order. However, the point has been made and I am sure it will be appreciated by those to whom it was directed.

Clause 93

General duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity

Amendment made: 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”. —(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his lovely comment on my suit. As I explained to the Chair earlier, it is my lucky suit. I wore it for both Second Readings—we have had two already—and I thought, as we are doing nature, I should wear it today.

Public authorities can and should play an important role in improving our nature. Under the current duty, a number of public authorities have undertaken projects with the aim of conserving biodiversity, such as changing cutting regimes for roadside verges to allow wild flowers to flourish. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned something going on in his own area along those lines, and I am pushing my county council in Somerset to do exactly that.

Such efforts are not consistent across public authorities, nor are they enough when compared with the Government’s wider ambitions for recovering nature and the country’s desire to build back better. They are also not enough to address the drastic decline in biodiversity seen over past decades, which we have referenced several times in Committee. I believe we all agree about the need to address it.

The existing duty was criticised in a House of Lords Select Committee report in 2017, with environmental groups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link giving evidence that the duty was ineffective. We have listened and clause 93 therefore strengthens the biodiversity duty to better reflect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities. It just needs to be part and parcel of everything in the future. We are changing the nature of the duty away from considering biodiversity every time that a function is exercised, when in many cases it will not be relevant or it will be too late in the implementation process to make the most effective change. We want public authorities periodically to take a strategic look over all their functions, identify where they can make a change that will improve biodiversity as they are developing their policies and procedures, and then take action.

Public authorities must also have regard to local nature recovery strategies, species conservation strategies and protected site strategies—I mentioned those in the previous sitting—when they consider biodiversity. That is an important underpinning for the strategies and is crucial to their implementation.

The strengthened duty seeks to embed consideration of how biodiversity can be conserved and enhanced in the overall performance of public authorities’ functions across England. I urge that clause 93 stand part of the Bill.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Let me start by reassuring hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is not suffering undue excitement from the previous sitting, but is on a late-running train from Southampton and will join us soon.

May I also thank you, Sir George, for allowing us to sort out the slight procedural difficulty that we had at the end of the previous sitting? It was a long sitting and finished in a bit of a rush. The Government introduced a whole range of important new clauses relating to clause 93, to which I will now be making reference. A huge set of amendments were introduced about species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. Of course, it was not possible to discuss that provision in evidence sessions, and the Opposition were disappointed that that was not possible. It prompts a whole range of questions, and perhaps the Minister can answer some of them in her reply. We are not clear on why the provision was introduced at such a late stage. Although some of it is welcome, there are some questions of detail, which I will go into. It is not clear to us why the provision was introduced at such a late moment.

I have to say that this goes back to the argument that I have been making—you missed the first half of it, Sir George—as I have questioned who was responsible for, in the Opposition’s view, so diminishing the power of the Environment Bill. We think that there is an interaction with the Government’s planning White Paper, and I ask the Minister just to say a little more about the interaction that she thinks that there will be with these proposals.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a piece in The Planner, which I am not sure she is a regular reader of—I confess I am not. The question was raised over the summer of the interaction between the planning White Paper and the good proposals in this Bill and clause 93. One question raised by Huw Morris, one of that publication’s key writers, is this: in a streamlined planning system, how will local plans be assessed from an environmental and sustainability point of view, and how will individual schemes be environmentally assessed to provide the right mitigation? The point is that in the planning White Paper, we have new categories, including of course the growth category, where none of these things will be done in detail. Huw Morris says that the picture gets murkier in growth zones, where schemes will be allowed automatically. With sustainability appraisal scrapped and environmental impact assessments not carried out at the outline stage, how will a development’s green footprint be judged, if at all?

That is a very big question. I appreciate that the Minister might not want to respond immediately, but I hope that she has some opportunity, in the discussions, to give some reassurance to people, because this potentially, in our view, undermines many of the good points that we have talked about. That is why we were so keen to have an evidence session.

In relation to clause 93 and new clause 25 on species strategies and licensing, we have looked at this provision closely and are disappointed that we were not able to examine it more closely in a proper evidence session, because the interaction between some of these suggestions and existing legislation is quite detailed. Strategic approaches to species conservation are clearly essential. We agree with them. It is vital to preserve biodiversity and enable the recovery of nature. As I think we have already said, that is important because 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018, and many of those species would certainly benefit from a strategic plan resulting in all relevant public bodies taking appropriate actions to save and restore them.

Sadly, this proposal has to be understood in the context of the net-gain offsetting that we have already discussed, and our fear is that there could be unintended consequences. We are advised that the overall result could sadly be to allow the destruction of habitats and protected species in return for new habitat creation elsewhere. A developer could be licensed to proceed with activities that destroy habitats and species in return for contributing to habitats that support the wider population of that species.

It is a complicated point, but I am sure that the Minister knows what we are driving at. Our worry is that it would allow a developer to proceed without protecting every specimen of a protected species and without always undertaking site-specific survey work. The result would be to speed up development and reduce costs, which seems to us—this is the argument that I am trying to build—to be the effect of the planning White Paper. It seems to be the very opposite of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.

If the proposal is implemented well, it certainly could be a positive way to contribute to the conservation of certain species, but if it is managed badly or applied to inappropriate species it could sadly become a shortcut to getting round some of the protected species obligations. The evidence for that is provided by conservation organisations that tell us that the implementation of strategic approaches to species protection, such as district licensing for great crested newts, have not been proven effective. The Minister claimed that they had been, but that is not their view.

The Government notes do not give us cause for optimism. In the fourth bullet point of the notes that were issued alongside the clauses, the Government say that there are

“concerns limiting the development and roll-out of such existing schemes: 1) uncertainty about how effective they are and 2) whether they can be considered to meet the high standard of certainty required by law.”

That is the point that we are seeking to pursue.

We are told by environmental organisations that monitoring has been incomplete, that there is little evidence that it has protected the most important newt populations from development, and that the overall benefits for the species are unproven. That could have been probed and tested in evidence, but sadly we have not been given that opportunity. We are concerned that the Government seek to advance on the roll-out of district licensing around the country, with a duty to co-operate forcing the hand of local authorities, many of which are already saying that they are concerned about the effectiveness of the scheme.

We can see the dangers, and we think that high risks would come from extending that kind of approach to other species that have distinct conservation needs. As far as we are aware, no assessment has been undertaken to establish which, if any, other species would be ecologically amenable to this or similar approaches. Can the Minister tell us whether that work has been done? Again, I do not necessarily expect her to have the answer to hand, but if she cannot tell us today, she could write to us.

We are looking for some serious reassurance that the species conservation strategies will not lead to perverse outcomes. We need to ensure that they are delivering gains for nature rather than gains for developers. This may be slightly tedious, and I apologise, but again because we have not had the opportunity to interrogate these matters we think it is important to put it on the record.

Greener UK has raised several legal details with us that we would like addressed. It asked us why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each species strategy is required to identify priorities for the protection of habitats in addition to the existing priorities of creation or enhancement of habitats. Greener UK’s concern is that purely focusing on enhancements, as is currently the case in the clause, would undermine the planning process by undervaluing the need to protect existing habitats, and it wonders why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each strategy must give precedence to the mitigation hierarchy.

That is an important point because, as we said in earlier discussions, offsetting and licensing through species plans should be the very last option rather than considered earlier in the process. Greener UK is particularly concerned that site surveys should still take place when existing data is inadequate to identify impacts on key species. The worry through all this is that this is an attempt to speed up the process for development rather than to protect species.

Site surveys covering features important to species as well as habitats are particularly important for bats and invertebrates. Bat roosts, which are essential to the species’ survival, and endangered insects on private sites, are easily overlooked and are often detected only in pre-development site surveys.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I rise in support of the objections and concerns raised by the shadow Minister about clause 93 and, specifically, new clauses 25 and 26 on species conservation strategies. The strategic approaches to species conservation are essential to preserving biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. They should include protecting, restoring and creating habitat over a wider area to meet the needs of individual species. The additional clauses, along with shining a light on species conservation, are welcome. It is clear that current rules are not working and—as already mentioned—46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018.

I was concerned, however, to read the reports from Greener UK, which is a coalition of 13 major conservation and environmental organisations. It says that the various strategies may be undermined by the way they are written and the way they are enforced, actually resulting in faster development with lower standards. That cannot be the aim of the clauses at all. Were the strategic powers to be managed badly or applied to inappropriate species, they could become the loopholes that developers would use straightaway to put costs before species protection, and to get away with undermining species protection. That would be as a result of these clauses, which cannot be right.

I am concerned that it has been raised by Greener UK that experienced operators of existing licensing systems are not currently providing protection for animals such as great crested newts, so the district licensing does not work at the moment. Has the Minister met those organisations? Has she talked about these issues and the outcomes on the ground?

I ask the Minister to look again at this clause, which must be amended to explicitly state that site surveys should take place when existing data is inadequate. If the barrier is too high to progress with the site survey, it will not be done, except in abnormal situations or when it is too high a bar. It will not be done in all the places where conservation is failing, which is why we are having this decline. Such an amendment would be vital to this clause so it will be enacted in a way that means we can conserve species.

There is no room for error on this. We cannot wait for 10 years then review this, and find out that lots of habitats have been decimated, and that species have not been conserved and have gone because of this. We need to be on it right from the start. What will be the monitoring of the impact of these clauses? Will the monitoring be fast and rigorous, to ensure that the outcome is conservation and protection of special sites, rather than seeing developers riding roughshod over the regulations and using the rules as a loophole for continuing decimation of our important sites?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for their comments. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, he has raised a large number of points in one go. He has given me a large task, and I will write to him if there are points that I miss out, because it was an awful lot to take in at speed.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be asking these questions because we need to make sure that we have got this right. I give him the assurance straight away that new clauses 25 to 27 will not diminish the Bill, but will add to it. That is what we have in mind and there has been a lot of discussion in order to come to that conclusion. We have listened to a lot of comments. That is why clause 93 strengthens the biodiversity duty, to better effect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a much better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities, so that that is part and parcel of everything rather than being done on an itsy-bitsy, one-off basis.

[Daniel Zeichner]

No one on the Opposition Benches questions the Minister’s commitment to this, but why was it introduced at a late stage? If she can explain that, it would go some way to assuaging some of our fears.

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Bill has been in the making for a very long time. It began long before I came along as the Environment Minister. We have spent a whole year working on it, which has enabled us to strengthen it and to work more closely with all the bodies and organisations, particularly Natural England.

The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about Natural England, with whom we have worked really closely. In fact, it will play a big role in all this and we have had full discussions with it. Indeed, Natural England launched a project about 10 days ago. I would have gone, had it not been for the lockdown, so all I could do was a speech. The project was about how nature recovery networks, which is a generic term, and strategies will be pulled together with the protected sites. The launch went well and about 500 people attended the Zoom event, to show how these things will work as we go forward and make sure that in the future biodiversity is embedded into all that we do.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I will not keep intervening, but my concern is about the section on nature in the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister launched yesterday. There is no mention of net biodiversity gain, which seemed to us to be surprising. That is why we are suspicious. It is difficult, because we have new proposals coming forward from other bits of Government and our worry is that the strength of this Bill has been undermined.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thought the 10-point plan was brilliant. It put a massive focus on decarbonising and the renewable energy sector, which I know the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is particularly interested in. It was addressing other elements of the whole green recovery. We were really pleased that we got the tree mentioned in there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I assure the Committee the going may be slightly lighter for the next period. That was complicated. I appreciated the Minister’s response, but I think there are two takes we can have on this: one is the optimistic take, which she presents, but others are a little more sceptical and suggest that even if the bulldozer is hydrogen-powered, it is still a bulldozer, so we need to be careful.

We welcome clause 94, because it remedies a weakness in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which lacked a reporting duty for public authorities with regard to the biodiversity objective. The world moves on and we want to do better, so the clause is good. Those reports will be important in regularly recording the actions that public authorities take to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

I am grateful to the Minister for her letter referring to the burdens on local authorities. She was very swift in writing to me. I am not certain that my council colleagues will be totally convinced, but apparently there is a new burdens doctrine, which sounds slightly severe. In her letter, she was very specific about some elements that will apparently be funded, but I suspect that, with all these measures, whether it is the reporting duty or anything else, many local authorities will ask where the resources will come from to enable them to do it. Nevertheless, we would like it to be done, because we think that these reports will help to improve information on protected sites, priority habitats and priority species.

The clause could helpfully be amended, to realise the full potential of those reports, so I will continue my theme of trying to strengthen the legislation and achieve the outcome that we all want. Extending the range of public authorities that are required to provide reports, providing more direction on report content and expanding the list of topics that public authorities should report on would be helpful. Currently, the requirement to produce biodiversity reports applies only to local authorities in England other than parish councils, local planning authorities in England and designated authorities. We think that it would be beneficial to extend the range of public authorities required to provide reports, to make sure that all bodies that have influence over the natural environment are properly included. Our amendments 142 and 186 seek to do that.

Amendment 142 would make it a requirement that

“all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functions of a public nature”

have to produce these reports, spelling out how they are meeting the biodiversity objective; and amendment 186 would add Natural England and the Environment Agency to the list of designated authorities required to publish biodiversity reports. We think these amendments would be helpful. We will not pursue a vote, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response.

[Rebecca Pow]

You will be very pleased to hear that I will not speak for as long as I did previously, Mr Howarth.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. Importantly, the addition of a reporting requirement strengthens the Bill. The reports will be a valuable source of information, facilitating the sharing of best practice and providing both transparency and accountability.

Clause 94 designates some public authorities and provides the Secretary of State with a power to designate in secondary legislation which other bodies will be required to report. We are clear that local authorities and other planning authorities have important contributions to make to restoring nature, so we have designated those authorities in the Bill. We will require reporting from other relevant public authorities, including Government Departments with large estates and bodies that undertake statutory requirements, such as the public utility companies.

Amendment 142 would significantly broaden the duty to report on action taken under the biodiversity duty, which would not be appropriate for some public authorities that are small and have few resources. Parish councils, which we have mentioned previously, are a clear example of such authorities, but there will be others for which it would not be a sensible use of their limited resources to produce and publish biodiversity reports. I am sure that they will all want to have their say, but they could feed that in to their local authority.

Under amendment 186, Natural England and the Environment Agency would be named specifically in the 2006 Act as needing to produce biodiversity reports. The decisions on which public authority should be asked to report are best considered in detail as we develop the regulations that will flow from the Bill. All interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to engage with us to make sure we get the list of public authorities right. I think it is important that that is done. Consideration and consultation are important parts of the process, and while Natural England and the Environment Agency undoubtedly have crucial roles in our effort to enhance biodiversity, there are other important public authorities. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I anticipated that response, but I do think there is a missed opportunity here. Part of the problem goes back to the existing pressures on organisations like Natural England and the Environment Agency. They have to prioritise. The danger is that they will not be able to do some of the things we are asking them to do unless we actually specify and lay them out. The worry that has been expressed to me is that they sometimes struggle to carry out their biodiversity duties. Unless we actually press them and make it an obligation, they are not going to report on it or be able to do it. That is not a criticism of them; they are working with limited resources.

It comes back to the very basic point that it depends on how important one thinks any of this is. We think it is really important. I will gently say that, in the lead-up to COP26, where nature-based solutions are going to be a key theme, we could be setting a lead here by showing how we are pushing nature and biodiversity up the agenda—not at No. 9 on the 10-point plan, but much higher up, which is certainly where we would put it. I think it is a missed opportunity.

On parish councils and other authorities, which we will perhaps come on to a bit later, perhaps I am slightly obsessed by environmental land management schemes because of my role on the Agriculture Bill, but it seems to me that an awful lot is being put on these schemes. I said during the discussions on that Bill that there was a clear opportunity for local input, and it would be local knowledge that made these measures work. There is a role for these authorities, and this is exactly the kind of place where we could set that obligation.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have been wanting to intervene and give reassurances on that very point that everything in the Bill will also dovetail with the measures in the Agriculture Bill and the environmental land management schemes. That is essential, I am working very closely with the Farms Minister and the Secretary of State to make sure the Bills work together. The environmental land management schemes will deliver much of the biodiversity and nature enhancement, and public goods including clean water, carbon capture and climate change mitigation, in large part through nature-based solutions. The measures in this Bill will help towards that, and the local authority biodiversity reports will particularly help, as well as the local networks that are developed. They show what nature is where, what needs enhancing where, and how different groups of people can join up through catchment-based approaches. I think what the hon. Gentleman wants to happen is what has been designed. Does he agree?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to say how disappointed we were that the Government did not take the opportunity we offered in our amendment to link the Bills together, not least because they came in the wrong order, being driven by a Brexit timetable rather than an appropriate timetable to do this in the right way. We are not convinced they have been integrated in the correct way. We are only a few weeks away from that new system potentially beginning, and there is a lot of work to do, to put it mildly.

We think that there should be local input from the very beginning, much like the schemes we are losing—economic development, leader schemes and so on—that worked on a local level before. Who knows where the sustainable investment is going? A lot is being lost at the moment. To return to the amendment, we feel that a strengthened reporting obligation would actually help the Government, as we are trying to do, to achieve the outcomes they are seeking more effectively. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 94, page 95, line 43, at end insert—

“(e) an analysis of how actions taken have contributed to delivery of priorities identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategies.”

This is a continuation of the same discussion, in effect, because we are looking at how the biodiversity reports could be improved. In the Bill, in the list of topics that the biodiversity reports should contain, there is no reference to any consideration of local nature recovery strategies. I have already spoken with some passion about the need to link all these things up to make them work. We agree that if we are going to tackle the biodiversity challenge, co-ordination is needed. The local nature recovery strategies are designed to do just that, so tying them into biodiversity reports would help to achieve that core purpose of directing local nature recovery activity.

Our amendment would do that by adding to the clause that biodiversity reports must contain analysis of how the actions of public authorities have contributed to the delivery of the priorities identified in the local nature recovery strategies. Our concern—this is a consistent theme—is to lock in a guarantee that something actually happens. The danger is that often good intentions are parked somewhere within authorities that, quite understandably, have many other things going on, and nothing happens. We need to ensure that things are considered in key decision-making processes and that actions are properly monitored, with decision makers held to account. Again, the amendment is a probing one to tease out of the Government how they think the provision will work. There will be no need to divide the Committee.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment. We intend the biodiversity reports to be proportionate and flexible. Designated public authorities will report every five years on how the measures throughout the clauses dealing with nature and biodiversity deliver the intended improvements for nature. To achieve that aim, we should not be too prescriptive by specifying in the Bill what the reports must contain.

There will be considerable variety across the public authorities designated to report. For many, it might well make sense to frame reports against the context of the relevant local nature recovery strategy. The requirement in the clause to “have regard” to the strategies while determining what action to take will encourage that. Indeed, we anticipate that biodiversity reports will be a valuable source of information for local nature recovery strategies when they are reviewed and republished. This should be a two-way process.

For many public authorities, however, having to specify the contribution to every relevant strategy would be a disproportionate burden. A public authority with national reach would find it challenging to provide a meaningful analysis of its contribution across a very large number of strategies. As I said, the idea is that the report is workable, is flexible, but that people are actually able to do it. A lengthy analysis could prevent the public authority from producing a report that is clear, readable and focused on the most important action that it has taken to help nature recover.

We therefore believe that such detail is best left to regulations and guidance, which allow for greater flexibility and, where suggested, content can be better tailored to individual circumstances. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment—I think he said it was just a probing amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Once again, I might have anticipated that response. My concern continues to be that insufficient leverage is being applied to ensure that such things actually happen. That is the only point at issue. Having heard the Minister’s response, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 94, page 96, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This is our familiar “may” or “must” discussion. In this case, clause 94 currently outlines that the Secretary of State “may” make regulations to

“require biodiversity reports to include specified quantitative data relating to biodiversity”.

I want to say a little about some of the data issues, because we think that this is rather important. Paragraph 846 of the explanatory notes makes a very good case for the amendment. It says:

“This will ensure key quantitative data is reported in a consistent fashion across all reports, thereby making comparisons across the reports easier. Having such data defined in regulations will also allow for it to be updated in the future as required.”

The Minister will say that that means it is good to have it in the regulations, but we think it should be stated up front.

We believe that good data will make a big difference to how effective public authorities can be in improving biodiversity outcomes. This carries over into some of the discussions around the environmental land management scheme, which is why we pressed very hard for an environmental baseline to be established. Sadly, that was not taken up by the Government, but we think that they will probably have to do it at some point anyway. None of these worthy processes will be possible without good data. Of course, the world has changed in that there are many new and innovative ways of scanning, recording and assessing that may not have been possible a decade ago.

The Secretary of State himself said in his speech on environmental recovery in July:

“We want everyone to be able to access an accurate, centralised body of data on species populations so that taking nature into account is the first, speedy step to a”

planning application. That is a laudable ambition, which we absolutely support, but to do that the Government have to get the data in place. I pay tribute to the army of volunteers who gather data at the moment. We have fantastic volunteers in this country. I suspect that many people here watch and count butterflies, bees, birds and so on, which is all helpful. I have been very impressed by the Bumblebee Conservation Trust—I have already mentioned the ruderal bumblebee—which does excellent work in recording what is happening to bumblebees.

All such organisations require support and the volunteers sometimes need training, because is not always obvious how to gather the data. There then needs to be a process of recording, verification and infrastructure, and there are costs to all of that. Although we have some wonderful not-for-profit organisations and there is a good tradition of volunteering, we feel that it is important that the Government provide support to ensure that we get the centralised, accurate body of data that the Secretary of State referred to. That, of course, will then allow the data sharing, the comparison and the mechanisms that are needed to ensure that we get the biodiversity gains that we are looking for.

I have said on many occasions that we think that local authorities are already struggling to fund, resource and support the kind of work that will be needed to make all these good intentions come to fruition. Fewer than a third of them have an in-house ecologist or biodiversity officer, and we fear that Natural England does not even have the required resources, as I have said, to carry out its current statutory duties in some cases, let alone the extra responsibilities. We think that there needs to be an investment from Government in the right data and environmental information infrastructure to ensure that nature conservation can work.

Again, this is not an issue on which we wish to divide the Committee. However, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how she proposes to make sure that that fantastic pool of data is going to be put in place and maintained, to ensure that we can make the progress we are all looking for.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will narrow my comments down because this is a “may” and “must” amendment again. As I have previously explained during discussion of similar amendments from the hon. Member and others, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties. I assure the hon. Member that the Government intend to make the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 96, page 97, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This is one of the most exciting provisions. I do not want to be in danger of getting over-excited, but we think that the set of provisions that we have now reached is very important. That is why I must go back to the ninth of the 10 points yesterday, and say that I found the references—and there is a reference to a local nature recovery network—slightly confusing, as it was in the context of landscape recovery projects.

We are in danger of drowning in a sea of acronyms, I fear, and one thing that we would look for from the Minister is clarity about how all those things will work together. We want a coherent framework that will drive an approach that will reverse nature’s decline across the country. We genuinely believe that that can be done, but we feel that the potential for the local nature recovery strategies is constrained by the current wording and, yet again, we are trying to suggest improvements to help the Minister.

We have already touched on some of the weaknesses of the duty in question, and the need for monitoring in biodiversity reports. The amendment has been tabled to underline the point that the full positive impact of local nature recovery strategies will be realised only if authorities are given clear and effective procedures to follow when they are preparing, producing, reviewing and publishing their local strategies. I am afraid that it is again a may/must issue.

Also, it is a concern of ours that in some instances the affirmative procedure will not be used. There is a strong feeling that, were there to be wider discussion, the legislation would be improved. Allowing third parties, including experts in a sector, to have input into the procedures through public consultation, would be only to the good. We seek the Minister’s comments on whether she can make sure that happens.

We worry, also, about the timing. There is no date to begin the preparation of some of the things in the clause and our worry that they could go on the back burner. Will the Minister give some indication of when she thinks they will be in place and implemented, and when the good work is to begin? Once again, we are trying to find out information. We do not seek to divide the Committee—I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I should like to hear what she has to say.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment, but it will not surprise him to hear that we do not believe it is necessary. The backbone of the local nature recovery strategy clauses is a series of duties on the Secretary of State: first, to ensure that there are local nature recovery strategy areas covering the whole of England; secondly, to appoint responsible authorities to lead local nature recovery strategy preparation; and, thirdly, to provide the responsible authorities with the necessary information. The Government are also seeking the power to create regulations to establish the process for preparing a local nature recovery strategy. That is to enable that process to work smoothly and to create consistency in what each responsible authority produces.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge is aware, but just for information, I point out that five pilots are already running on local nature recovery strategies. One is in Cornwall. There were lots of areas where the pilots on the strategies could have run, but on the whole the areas chosen were those that had already done quite a lot of work in this respect and so had lots of good processes and plans and thoughts. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth probably knows about that initiative, given that it covers her patch. I hope that that explanation gives assurances. The work is ongoing, so the lessons will be learned about all that. That will help for the quick roll-out of these things; others will be able to copy what has been done and put them in process.

We have developed local nature recovery strategies to be an important new tool in delivering a wide range of environmental commitments, such as tree planting, peat restoration, natural flood management and the creation of the nature recovery network, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Cambridge. These commitments for this overarching improvement of nature—that is, the nature recovery network—are set out in the 25-year environment plan. The environmental improvement plan clauses in the Bill will establish duties to monitor and report performance against the commitments—it should be remembered that the first environmental improvement plan is the 25-year environment plan; that is how this all knits together—creating ample incentive for Government to ensure that local nature recovery strategies work effectively to help to meet all our commitments. That will very much be part of it.

I would like to provide reassurance that we intend to waste no time in producing the regulations following Royal Assent to the Bill. It has to happen that we get on with these things pretty fast. Changing this proposed power to produce regulations into a duty to do so would serve no purpose. The Government are clearly committed both to the establishment of local nature recovery strategies and to the role that the regulations will play.

I hope that what I have said gives a bit more clarity on the direction that the hon. Gentleman was asking about and I ask him whether he would kindly withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We still do not feel that there is sufficient speed. That is our concern. Pilots are great, but we have seen with the environmental land management scheme that we can go through pilots and pilots and pilots; the question is whether the crisis is being addressed sufficiently speedily. We would like things to move more quickly, but I hear what the Minister says, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97

Content of local nature recovery strategies

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I understand the hon. Member’s intent in tabling the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. The Government already have ample measures at their disposal to ensure that the local nature recovery strategies play their part in meeting the relevant targets, once those have been determined. As time goes on there will be opportunity for all manner of targets on nature to be set. That link has already been made.

First, as we have discussed, the Bill gives the Government the power to issue regulations setting out how each local nature recovery strategy must be prepared. Secondly, it will enable Government to issue statutory guidance on what local nature recovery strategies must contain, expanding on the detail on the face of the Bill. Thirdly, it will require the Government to provide the responsible authority with information to assist in preparing these strategies. That information includes a national habitat map as well as the location areas that the Secretary of State believes could contribute to the establishment of a network of areas across England for the recovery and enhancement of biodiversity in England as a whole.

In combination, these measures provide the opportunity for Government to set out a national spatial framework for the nature recovery network and to shape how it is reflected in each local strategy. The Bill also introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the long-term environmental targets. All that reporting and monitoring will feed into that, starting from the ground upwards. All these measures will feed into achieving those targets.

The duty will be sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State will use the tools referred to and provide responsible authorities with clear information on how local nature recovery strategies should contribute to achieving those specific targets. It will ensure that the Secretary of State has every incentive to monitor the effectiveness of these contributions. I urge the hon. Member to remember that the framework of reporting, monitoring and being held to account will all be part of making sure that we improve nature. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

Christmas seems to come earlier and earlier.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for the amendment and for his constant endeavour to strengthen the Bill, which we want to be a strong one—he is right about that—but I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and I will set out why.

Local nature recovery strategies will be a powerful new tool to help us take a more strategic approach to how we plan for nature’s recovery and to how we use nature-based solutions to address wider environmental challenges. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about nature-based solutions, but they are very much part and parcel of this new will to deliver for nature and for all those other benefits—flood control, better water quality, carbon capture and sequestration, and so on—so I think we are on the same page on that.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I think the point that the Minister is trying to make, which I reiterate, is that a lot of those schemes are in their infancy. We have just discussed the five pilot plans, one of which my constituency is involved in. If the Bill is too prescriptive, we will be unable to tweak those plans later if they do not work. It is important that we set out the intention on the face of the Bill and let the pilots do their work, so that Ministers and experts in the field have the flexibility to learn from and use best practice moving forward.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that; I could not have put it better myself. That is why we are running the pilots, and it is great that they are already running. The hon. Member for Cambridge asks when we are going to do all this, but we are actually already doing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that each area will be different: Cornwall will be quite different from south Humber or Keighley. Those areas’ requirements and demands will vary and that is why we need to run pilots.

We do not want the pilots to go on forever—the hon. Member for Cambridge is absolutely right about that—and the Secretary of State and I are at pains to say, “Yes, we want all the data and feed-in, but we do need action.” I like to think that we will see action. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we have to ensure that we work to promote actions through the environmental land management scheme and that those actions work with what we are putting into our local nature recovery strategies. The idea is that those will all work together and that we will then deliver our biodiversity net gain, which will also be helped by the strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities in the Bill.

Beyond the Bill, the strategies will support local authorities in protecting and enhancing biodiversity through the planning system, and encourage more collaborative working between the public, private and voluntary sectors, to establish and achieve common goals. We are keen that each responsible authority leading production of a strategy properly understands and considers the different mechanisms through which the net gain and adding to nature could be achieved. The responsible authority will not always have direct control of all those different delivery mechanisms, however, so they will need to work collaboratively with other organisations, as we have proposed.

Simply requiring the responsible authority to give its opinion on processes that it does not control will add little to the strategy and could deter partners from engaging constructively. My intention is instead to use the statutory guidance provided with the clauses to explain how the responsible authority should take account of potential delivery mechanisms when preparing its strategy. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge: he is absolutely right that we are coming up to a crucial year, with COP26. However, I hope he is very pleased that nature and adaptation are part of the COP. That is why it is so important that we demonstrate that we are going to lead by example, with the pilots and all the measures in the Bill, which show that we are taking these issues seriously; it can work and add to nature. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

That was a helpful set of interchanges, but I have to say that we need something stronger than, “I’d like to think that we are going to see some action.” The urgency is much more pressing. There is a danger of ending up with perpetual pilots, and we want to go much more quickly and more strongly. On that basis, we will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 97, page 98, line 23, before “are” insert

“an ecologically coherent network of sites that”.

This amendment clarifies that local habitat maps should contribute to a coherent ecological network.

Obviously, I am very disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my Christmas gift, but we will move on.

Amendment 145 seeks to ensure that local habitat maps, which are included in local nature recovery strategies, are set out in an ecologically coherent way. It is important to get some clarity, because the sites should relate to each other in a coherent way to form part of a wider integrated network for nature’s recovery. We do not want to see local habitats stagnating in isolation; they should relate to one another.

Our understanding is that the intention is for local nature recovery strategies to be produced, as the Minister has already made reference to, in a bottom-up way, to create a nature recovery network at a national level by way of creating corridors of habitat across the country.

I wonder slightly about the national level. As has already been referenced, we have quite clear regions and sub-regions, and it depends on the landscape. Our point is that there should be some coherence. There is a slight risk that there will be a lack of coherence. For instance, we could see a situation where a local authority prioritises a green space for people, quite rightly, but neglects the fact that it could be a crucial stepping-stone between two vulnerable habitats, which could be resolved by creating a corridor of trees that links those habitats.

The basic point we are trying to address is that there should be some integration. By linking strategies together, we believe they can form the building blocks of a national nature recovery network—a joined-up system of nature-rich places, as originally envisioned in the 25-year plan for the environment. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this amendment, but we want to get a sense of whether the Minister shares our aspirations.

[Rebecca Pow]

I have to go back to the last comments from the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that, “I’d like to think” we might have some environmental improvement. I am thinking about it all the time, as my team know. All my thinking will lead to action, through the Bill—I just want to make that very clear.

I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that local nature recovery strategies consider the ecological coherence of any areas that they identify in their local habitat map, and I reassure the Committee that I recognise how important ecological coherence will be in the strategies. The current clauses allow us to publish statutory guidance to set out in more detail what each strategy must contain, so we intend to draw on examples of existing good practice in spatial prioritisation for nature, to ensure that ecological coherence is reflected in the strategies. Quite clearly, “link up” and “join up” are very important, and wildlife corridors are exceptionally important.

Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 19th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 98, page 98, line 45, at end insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network, including a spatial description of the opportunities for recovering or enhancing the environment through actions to protect or restore biodiversity, in terms of habitats and species, in England.

(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines that set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England to confirm the priorities and proposals identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy would contribute adequately to the delivery of a national Nature Recovery Network and relevant environmental targets.”

The amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake the mapping and planning work necessary to carry out their functions in relation to the national habitat map.

We welcome the provisions of the clause. It requires the Secretary of State to assist public authorities in preparing their local nature recovery strategy by publishing a national habitat map for England, and to help identify national conservation sites and other areas of particular importance to biodiversity. Predictably enough, we have one or two concerns and comments about that, which our amendment 146 allows us to address.

If this national habitat map is to be effective in informing the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, it needs to be available in good time for the preparation of local nature recovery strategies. As we touched on earlier, we want that to be done speedily, so the national map needs to be done speedily.

It will not be sufficient simply to present national conservation sites on the map. We will also need critical information—on, for example, the condition of sites and the opportunities for recovery—to help direct public authorities in their important work to improve and restore national conservation sites.

The Government’s proposal is a start—it provides some of the information that authorities will need—but good planning for the natural environment requires more than the identification of isolated patches of nature on a map; it requires a strategy for enhancing and linking sites, throughout urban and rural areas, to facilitate nature’s recovery. What is missing from the clause is provision for the Government to undertake work to identify habitat opportunities. Nor is there any national system of review of the local and national recovery strategies put in place—any quality control to check that each one is making a meaningful contribution. Our amendment 146 would address these omissions by requiring the Secretary of State to

“produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network”;

to

“set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England”;

and to confirm that each one

“would contribute adequately to the delivery”

of the national nature recovery networks that we need. Those requirements would give the Secretary of State responsibility for knitting local nature recovery strategies together, which is what the Minister said she wishes to do, so that they function as a coherent national network.

As this is a good opportunity to help the Minister in her endeavour to rescue and strengthen the Bill, I will give her one last opportunity to accept our assistance; we will seek a Division on the amendment.

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

I welcome the hon. Member’s ambition of providing a national framework to inform the development of the nature recovery network, but the Bill already provides for a framework.

Part 1 of the Bill requires the Government to publish an environmental improvement plan, setting out the steps that they intend to take to improve the natural environment. It also establishes the 25-year environment plan, which, as I said this morning and so many other times, is the first environmental improvement plan. That first plan commits the Government to establishing a nature recovery network, and to publishing a new strategy for nature that includes the network. We have no intention of reversing any commitments made in the 25-year environment plan. Of course, the Office for Environmental Protection will also hold the Government to account on their progress in implementing the environmental improvement plans, including for the nature recovery network.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to provide information that we intend will offer a national spatial framework for the network. This framework includes a national map of areas of existing value for biodiversity, as well as areas where there are opportunities to enhance biodiversity and associated wider environmental benefits. There is also provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on what the local natural recovery networks should contain and regulations on how they should be protected. These mechanisms will allow the shaping of how each responsible authority reflects the information provided under clause 98.

Natural England has a key role to play in supporting the establishment of the local nature recovery strategy, as I explained earlier. We want them to help produce national guidance to support the responsible authority in producing each strategy and to be the responsible authority themselves where needed. These roles are provided for in the Bill. Regulations produced under clause 96 will be crucial for establishing roles and responsibilities. Provisions for local nature recovery strategies in the Bill will form part of environmental law. This means that the Office for Environmental Protection will have oversight of these provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law.

I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that the Bill, as a whole, provides a suitable framework for the nature recovery network, as well as appropriate mechanisms to ensure that local nature recovery strategies contribute to its development. Therefore, I request that amendment 146 be withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to her for reintroducing the OEP at this stage. As she will recall, this side were not entirely convinced of the efficacy of this new organisation, and some of us do worry that it will just be a desk in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the early new year, and we want it to be much tougher than that. I suspect her response on this has been the same as on many of these attempts from our side to strengthen and add vim and vigour to this process. However, I am afraid I am still not persuaded or convinced, but I do thank her for the charm and courtesy she has shown in our exchanges. I would still caution her to beware the bloke on the bulldozer, and we do think there is a danger that this Bill’s good intentions are undermined. We would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I know that I represent millions of people across the country in wanting to speak more about trees and seek more about trees in the Bill. There are some things in these clauses that we can agree on. I know that the Minister is a lover of ancient woodland and that the clauses are close to her heart as a chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am no longer allowed to be the chair.

[Fleur Anderson]

As a former chair, she has said of ancient woodland:

“It is an absolute travesty that only 2% remains and we must ensure that no more is lost.”

We agree on proposed new section 96A(1) of the Highways Act 1980, as inserted by clause 101, in which it becomes statutory for local authorities to

“consult members of the public before felling a tree on an urban road”.

Constituents in Putney will welcome that measure, because in many cases, they do not know why a tree has been felled and they would like to have had a say. It gives our fantastic volunteer tree wardens more power to look at the trees in our urban areas.

We also agree that the Bill is landmark legislation that legislates for urgent action on the biggest environmental challenges of our time. Therefore, it is disappointing that clause 100 is sadly lacking. We will talk about a tree strategy later when we debate new clause 19, but that is where this clause could have come in. Putting an English tree strategy on a statutory footing is key to delivering the commitments in the 25-year environment plan, alongside which the Bill sits.

The 25-year environment plan has targets for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and for planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year across the UK. We need interim and overall targets in the Bill to ensure that we deliver on those targets. Why is that? Trees sequester carbon, support biodiversity, protect against floods, stabilise the soil, improve our physical and mental wellbeing, filter air pollutants and help to regulate temperatures. The Environment Bill seeks to do all of these, and more on trees would enable us to do it better and make it that landmark legislation. However, 53% of UK woodland wildlife is in decline. Woodland expansion is well below the rate necessary for the future. DEFRA has a woeful track record of missing tree planting targets. It cannot be left out of this Bill and just left to happen. History shows that it does not just happen. We really need a statutory England tree strategy.

There is currently no formal mechanism to set targets for protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England. Here is the opportunity to legislate and address the importance of trees in tackling the climate and nature crisis we face. This Bill aims to restore and enhance green spaces, yet it falls short in not containing a necessary clause about a tree strategy. There should be a strategy with the following objectives: increasing the percentage of tree cover in England, increasing the hectares of new, native woodland creation by planting and natural regeneration, and increasing the hectarage of plantation of ancient woodland undergoing restoration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I understand the clarification. I would say that the Woodland Trust is doing fantastic work, but it is also calling for this statutory framework. I put Members on notice that we will return to this issue when we come to new clause 19. Therefore, I ask all Committee members to hastily look that up and, I hope, support it when it comes. Alternatively, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, let us see an actual, whole tree Bill come to Parliament with all urgency. That would be excellent as well.

[Rebecca Pow]

It will not surprise those hon. Members who have spoken that I share their passion for trees and ancient woodland particularly. Indeed, I also praise the work the Woodland Trust does and has done, particularly with young people, schoolchildren and all those who want to get involved with this future environment, as was intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

I wonder whether the Minister will also pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Government, as over 80% of new plantings in 2018-19 were in Scotland. Are there lessons to be learned there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for that intervention. Indeed, it is all credit to Scotland. It has a different, much wilder landscape, where trees are very well adapted to the landscape. I do take my hat off to the tree planting that Scotland does, and we all like to learn from good practice across borders. Forestry is, of course, devolved, and that is why introducing a statutory target for the UK is not appropriate for this stage. I just want to touch on general points about tree planting before I address what the actual clause is dealing with, which really pertains to tree felling.

Yes, we do have an England tree strategy, which does set out the means to protect existing trees and see more planted across the country. We have a massive commitment to more tree planting to the tune of 30,000 hectares by 2025. It is ambitious, but we do have, and we are bringing forward, the measures to make that possible. That long-awaited and talked-about tree strategy will be launched in the spring of 2021. A huge amount of work has gone into liaising on that consultation.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister is quite right to highlight the good work that has already been done. Does she agree that there is a specific opportunity in many parts of the country in recycling centres? As more councils gradually get out of the business of landfill, there is an opportunity to transform the landscape of these existing recycling centres into places that can generate eco-woodland and green energy and fulfil lots of good environmental purposes.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for a slightly off-the-wall intervention. I bet he has a recycling centre in his own constituency in mind. There will obviously be opportunities.

I will not say that the whole tree planting industry has to be kick-started, because there was a brilliant piece on “Farming Today” this morning—I do not know whether anyone was awake that early—about massive tree planting going on in the north. There is a huge private forestry scheme; it is private and has lots of input by Natural England and the Forestry Commission. It feeds into a big sawmill; the sawmills need the wood, and we want to stop the wood being imported, so we need to grow it at home. Although one may not think that the word “trees” is mentioned enough, all the policies we are putting in place to deliver biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery, or a great many of them, will involve tree planting.

[Ruth Jones]

Does the Minister not agree that, although it is great to have the tree planting strategy coming up next year, this is a missed opportunity to put it in the Bill, making it a really good, comprehensive, joined-up piece of work?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for that. While she makes a good point, I point her to the fact that we did a public paper this summer, which explored whether a statutory target for trees in England would be appropriate under the target-setting process of the Environment Bill. Perhaps the shadow Minister missed it, but it shows that all of this work is ongoing. We have this target-setting measure in the Bill, and this will be a prime example of where a target ought to be set.

I would take issue. I do not honestly believe that picking out individual things right now, putting them in the Bill and saying there should be a target on them is the right way to go about it. We need the ability to make the target, but we also need to get absolutely right what that target should be. On those grounds, one could say, “We’ll have a target for reeds, for pennywort and for some corncockle.” That is not the way the Bill works. I hope I am making that quite clear. I hope I am also making it quite clear that we have this massive commitment to tree planting. Indeed, that was outlined in our manifesto, and the Prime Minister made his announcement this week in his 10-point plan linking it all together.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)]

Will the Minister commend Solihull Council, which in line with its commitment to plant a quarter of a million over the next 10 years has linked up with the Woodland Trust to plant nearly 12,000 trees in the first year? It did not need a statutory footing to do so.

[Rebecca Pow]

I absolutely applaud Solihull if it has already planted that many trees. There is a massive amount of voluntary work and other initiatives going on. I will also point out that tree planting will completely dovetail with the environmental land management scheme to deliver lots of those big projects, especially the landscape-scale projects. That will obviously help the climate change, the carbon sequestration work and all the things Members have touched on.

[Richard Graham]

Does the Minister agree that the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy has also played a helpful role? Many of these plantings were done specifically by primary school children.

[Rebecca Pow]

I meant to reference that just now, so I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned it. I believe that all MPs got sent three trees—I cannot remember what year that was, but we were—and I planted my three using the instructions. Some other MPs called me up to say, “Gosh, what do I do with these things that look like twigs? How do I plant them?” I talked them through it, because some of the trees had obviously been in the box for quite a long time. It is a great project to link up these areas and to get children, in particular, planting trees.

I am going to deal now with what is actually in the clause. I would not belittle this clause about tree felling and planting at all. It is very important. We have committed to planting and protecting all these trees, and the clause will help us to protect the trees we plant. Street trees are often the closest green infrastructure to people’s homes—the hon. Member for Putney talked about how much value people in urban areas get from trees.

Clause 101 places a duty on local highway authorities to consult before felling street trees, guaranteeing the local public an opportunity to understand why a tree may be felled and to raise concerns if they wish. That is really important, because we have had issues elsewhere in the country, where it has caused an absolute storm when the council has come and cut down trees and people simply cannot understand why that was being done. It is really important to get the messaging right.

Local highway authorities should have regard to guidance the Government will publish. This will provide certainty on how the duty should be implemented, as well as consistent street tree management across the country. Under certain circumstances, however, trees are exempt from the duty, thereby not impeding action to address trees that might have to be urgently felled—for example, due to a tree disease, which would then make them a danger. The introduction of this duty reflects the Government’s commitment to protecting our urban trees, which people value so highly and which are important in the urban space.

While reported illegal tree felling rates are low, no level of illegal felling is acceptable. We propose to address this through clause 100 and schedule 15. The felling licence system works well, but is now over 50 years old. Since its introduction, the driving forces behind illegal felling have changed, and statutory protections no longer serve as a deterrent to some illegal felling. Our forestry enforcement measures resolve this and support effective enforcement of the felling licence regime.

First, we will increase the penalty for illegal felling to an unlimited fine, addressing the gains that can be made from illegal felling to realise the value of the land. Court powers to compel replanting will also be increased. Secondly, the measures will ensure that potential buyers or new owners of illegally felled land are made aware of their obligation to replant that land. That will ensure that restocking is achieved, regardless of whether that land is sold.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised the issue of restocking and the 10-year issue in the schedule. If a person replants following the restocking order, but then fells the trees again, that is breaking the law. The trees can be felled only with a licence, so a fine could be applied in those circumstances. It is thanks to other changes in the Forestry Act 1967 and the changes that the Environment Bill is making that that will be the case. I hope that clarifies the issue.

The public obviously care very deeply about trees, and clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 will ensure that we have powers to protect and value them. That will allow us to retain the benefits they deliver for us—capturing carbon, providing shade in our streets and homes, creating homes for wildlife and, not least, looking beautiful. When I chose my flat to live in in London with my allowance, one of my chief criteria was that I could see a tree from the window, which I can. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and makes me breathe easy.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sure that the Minister knows this already, but there are many ways of getting rid of trees other than felling them. The issue here regarding proposed new subsection 3(b) relates to the requirement

“to maintain those trees in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry for a period not exceeding ten years”.

Maintenance in terms of the practice of good forestry might include various things, such as making sure that the trees do not get eaten, or making sure that they are sufficiently watered so that they do not die, and various other things that do not involve felling. However, the penalties in the legislation at the moment are for felling. She may want to have further thoughts about this 10-year rule in the light of that particular observation. This issue is not just about felling; it is about a number of other aspects of good forestry management of trees as they grow to maturity.

[Rebecca Pow]

I think I have given a very clear answer about the felling. If someone replants, that is an offence; they will be prosecuted for it. I think I have made that very clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that maintenance is important; quite clearly it is. I also agree that planting a tree is not a simple thing; it has to be planted, watered, maintained and protected from pests, and there is a great deal of work to be done. However, I think there is an understanding of that for anybody who plants trees. Indeed, particularly when we bring forward these bigger schemes, maintenance and all that side of it will be an important part and parcel of those projects and those schemes.

I hope that I have covered this issue quite clearly in my explanation and answered the questions, and I ask the Committee to agree that clause 100 stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 15 agreed to.

Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102

Conservation covenant agreements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 103 to 106 stand part.

Clause 107 stand part.

Government amendments 224 and 225.

Clause 108 stand part.

Clauses 109 to 115 stand part.

That Schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.

Clauses 116 to 120 stand part.

[Rebecca Pow]

Can I just check that I am speaking about all those clauses in one go, because that was a lot to take in?

[The Chair]

Yes.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you. This part of the Bill is based, by and large, on the excellent work done by the Law Commission; I thank the Law Commission for the ongoing support that it has given us.

Conservation covenants are private agreements entered into voluntarily to deliver a conservation purpose for the public good. They can cover conservation of the natural or heritage features of the land; that is set out in clause 102(3). Importantly, they can bind subsequent landowners, giving them the potential to deliver lasting conservation benefits for future generations; that is referred to in clause 107.

Conservation covenants are crucial, because there is currently no simple legal tool that landowners can use to ensure that conservation benefits are maintained when land is sold or passed on. Current workarounds are costly, complex and have limitations, so opportunities to secure long-term conservation outcomes are being lost. Our consultation last year found significant support from a range of bodies, including farmers, landowners, and conservation organisations, for the whole idea of conservation covenants. The covenants will provide a way of giving biodiversity net gain sites and other key areas for nature the long-term conservation management that they need, and will make it easier for businesses and others to fund nature recovery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 121, page 111, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

I will be brief. This is a further clause concerning mays and musts. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will be fascinated by this clause. He will observe that, in the clause, two musts are cancelled out by one may. The clause states that a designated body must make an annual return to the Secretary of State and that the annual return must give any information that is prescribed under subsection (4). However, that subsection states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make that provision in the first place. Basically, clause 121(1) and (3) put in two musts and, indeed, there are further musts below that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to reflect that in his calculations on these matters in the future. Perhaps there will be further opportunities to reflect further as the Bill progresses, but I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. I merely wish to point out that the musts and mays continue in substantial numbers as we progress through the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the conservation covenant, and I am tempted to ask whether it has driven him to excitement.

[Dr Whitehead]

Steady on. I would not go quite that far. I am sort of elevated.

[The Chair]

Order. This is all very entertaining, but it is not getting us any further with the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

Sorry, Sir George. I could not resist it, because we were referring to the hon. Member’s excitement on Tuesday. I thank him for his proposed amendment.

Clause 121 places a duty on responsible bodies to make an annual return to the Secretary of State. The return must state whether they held any conservation covenants during the relevant period, the number of covenants and the area of land that each one covers. As the duty is already on the face of the Bill, in clause 121, no regulations will be needed to require responsible bodies to provide that information. However, conservation covenants are a tool that are intended to be used over the long term. It is therefore important that the Secretary of State should be able to obtain additional information in annual returns, if that proves necessary in the future.

Consequently, the clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations about the annual returns. That power can be used, if needed, to require from responsible bodies more information than that already required by the Bill. I cannot anticipate at this point what such additional information might be, but any information required to be provided must be about, or connected with, the responsible body, its activities, any conservation covenant that it held during the relevant period, or the land covered by any such covenant.

As I have previously explained about similar amendments, it is therefore entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to when and how the regulation-making provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance between powers, which are mays, and duties, which are musts. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw what I think is just a probing amendment anyway.

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 17

Application of Part 7 to Crown land

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 71, in schedule 17, page 222, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 223 and insert—

“Demesne land

3 (1) Where land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown but is not held for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession—

(a) Her Majesty in right of the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land, and

(b) any estate granted or created out of the land is to be regarded for those purposes as derived from that estate in fee simple.

(2) The land referred to in sub-paragraph (1) does not include land which becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land if—

(a) it is land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant related when the estate determined, or

(b) it is not land to which such an obligation related at that time and Her Majesty in right of the Crown has not taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it.

Land subject to escheat

3A (1) This paragraph applies where land becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant relates.

(2) The conservation covenant is not terminated on the determination of that estate, even though the appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation unless and until the Crown—

(a) takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it, or

(b) becomes the holder of—

(i) an estate granted by the Crown out of the land, or

(ii) an estate in land derived (whether immediately or otherwise) from an estate falling within sub-paragraph (i).

(3) If the Crown takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it—

(a) the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple in possession in the land, and

(b) that estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.

(4) If the Crown grants an estate out of the land after having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it, the estate is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as immediately derived from the estate mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a).

(5) But if the Crown grants an estate out of the land without having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it—

(a) the acts of the Crown in granting that estate are not to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as taking possession or control of the land, or entering into occupation of it, and

(b) the new estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.

(6) In this paragraph and paragraph 3B ‘the Crown’ means Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Duchy of Cornwall, as the case may be.

Bona vacantia

3B (1) This paragraph applies where an estate in land to which an obligation of the landowner under a conservation covenant relates vests in the Crown as bona vacantia.

(2) The appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation in relation to any period before the Crown takes possession or control of the land or enters into occupation of it.”

This amendment replaces paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 with three new paragraphs. Paragraph 3A is new and deals with the application of Part 7 to land to which a conservation covenant relates which becomes subject to escheat to the Crown (for example where the land is disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy). Paragraphs 3 and 3B are derived from the current paragraph 3, subject to some minor changes arising from consideration of paragraph 3A.

This amendment ensures that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown through a process known as escheat. Doing so provides consistency in our overall policy on conservation covenants, which is to ensure that they can continue to affect land when it changes hands. The Bill as introduced has the effect that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown as bona vacantia, or ownerless property. Land passes on bona vacantia in various circumstances, such as—in some cases—when a person dies without a will. That actually happened to the house I bought: they could not find who the house was left to in a will, so it went to the Crown and was sold by auction. This Government amendment replicates that effect for land that passes to the Crown by virtue of a process known as escheat. That can happen in a range of circumstances—for example, when a liquidator disclaims freehold land that belonged to a company that is wound up. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in those circumstances, the conservation covenant is not extinguished by the escheat of the land.

Amendment 71 agreed to.

Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 18 agreed to.

Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. His memory was not defective: he has attached his name to new clause 11.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. Like him, I take this whole area extremely seriously. It is imperative that we establish our own independent chemicals regulatory framework for Great Britain, UK REACH, and that we do not diverge in terms of our standards. I must say that EU REACH will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.

We are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards of protection for the environment, consumers and workers, but we want the autonomy to decide how best to achieve that for Great Britain. We will consider the best ideas from both inside and outside the EU, alongside the best evidence within the UK, but there are no plans to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we were instrumental in designing the whole process in the first place, which we kicked off during our presidency in 1990. That should provide some reassurance about how seriously we take this and how there is no intention to regress. I assure stakeholders that our regulatory system will be developed and managed in line with what is best for the UK and reflect our commitment to high levels of environmental protections.

I understand what hon. Members are aiming for in amendments 187, 3, 198 and 174 and new clause 11 as regards not reducing standards of protection, but I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. There are already a number of safeguards in schedule 19. Any changes to REACH must be consistent with article 1, which includes the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. We are not moving away from that and schedule 19 clarifies that.

There are 23 protected provisions—principles that cannot be changed. These include provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH, such as the progressive replacement of substances of very high concern. I think the hon. Member is going to deal with those shortly, so I will not go into any more detail about them yet. The Secretary of State must also consult on any proposed amendments and obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters.

I particularly do not agree with amendment 3 or new clause 11(2). What they seek to do is impose dynamic alignment with the EU going forward. They would lock the UK into the EU’s orbit. We must be able to follow the evidence and have the freedom to adopt approaches that are the most appropriate for us. We should be able to look inside this country and elsewhere in the world, not just in the EU, for the best ideas.

New clause 11 goes further still. It would require the Government to seek to negotiate associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA. We continue to push for a chemicals annex to a free trade agreement to enable data sharing, but the Government have been clear that the UK will not agree to any outcomes that bring with them an obligation to align with EU laws or give jurisdiction to any EU institutions, including EU agencies or the European Court of Justice. Associate membership of ECHA would bring all of those consequences with it.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am loth to give way, but I will be kind and will do so.

[Dr Whitehead]

I want to tease out what the Minister is saying about the fact that there is a proposal to try to get some data sharing under way with the EU. I presume she is referring to access to the wonderful database of 23,000 products that ECHA controls. The Minister appears to be saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we had access to that database, without any of the obligations that go with maintaining the database in the first place?” I would not have thought it likely that anyone would agree to that in a hurry. Would she agree with it, if it were the other way around? I do not think so. Surely that is not a serious proposal and should only go ahead on the basis that some sort of obligation sharing was also part of the offer.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that long intervention.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thought it was short.

[Rebecca Pow]

It was short for the shadow Minister. The Government’s approach to negotiating a future relationship with the EU includes a proposal for a chemicals annex as part of the EU free trade agreement. I thought the hon. Member for Southampton, Test might welcome that. A deal on data sharing with the EU could mitigate the need for industry to provide full-data packages. If that were to happen, we would be responsible for the updating of this as it went along. That is a clear direction of travel.

We continue to push for that, but the EU continues to reject any sectoral annexes. However, securing the chemicals annex is still our preferred outcome. It would obviously be in the interests of both UK and EU businesses, including those that will want to continue selling their chemicals into the GB market. The EU must, though, respect the UK’s position on no ECJ jurisdiction and no alignment.

As regards amendment 198, I recognise the importance of the precautionary principle for each, but I do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable. Article 1 states that REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle: that means that it is firmly bound into the safeguards I have already described. However, emphasising the precautionary principle could also have unintended consequences. It risks creating uncertainty about how to interpret article 1 as a whole. This is because article 1 sets out a series of overarching aims for REACH, as well as underpinning it with the precautionary principle, so I do not believe that such a consequence would be desirable.

Amendment 174 moves on from REACH itself to the UK REACH enforcement regulations. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 19 says that any amendments must be “necessary or appropriate” for the enforcement of REACH. Taken with the protections in paragraph 1 of the schedule, I believe we are already providing what the hon. Member actually wants. There is a lot of detail there, but I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw these amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, the hon. Member is certainly not going to withdraw these amendments, because we think they are crucial to the establishment of any reasonable REACH regime in the UK. In a minute, we will come to some further particularly bad elements of schedule 19, which even allow the Secretary of State to chip away at protected areas that are in that schedule in the first place. What we are doing is laying down a marker that seeks to hold a line somewhere, as far as diminution and dilution of REACH regulations in future are concerned, so it is important that we put these amendments to a Division. We would particularly like to ensure that amendments 187, 198 and 174 and proposed new clause 11 are all recorded as a divided vote this afternoon.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I presume it would be someone at a future date who did not particularly like the idea that we should have high standards of chemical protection, perhaps because they thought we should have a let-it-all-hang-out, free trade, laissez-faire arrangement that would let all sorts of stuff come in from all over the world that was not subject to that high standard of chemical protection—someone who would be quite happy for those items to flood into the country at a future date—and there would be nothing we could do about it, because our protections would have been knocked over by our own Government.

[Rebecca Pow]

Amendment 107 relates to provisions that are listed in the table in paragraph 6 of schedule 19. If I hold up my copy of the Bill—it is slightly disintegrating through overuse—Members will see that I have highlighted the table, which lists different articles relating to the protected provisions. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about the importance of the provisions, which enshrine the fundamental aims and principles of REACH. That is why we have set out a sizeable list of them and they will not change.

It may be helpful if I explain the reason for sub-paragraph (4). An ability to make

“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving”

provisions is a standard provision in legislation. The aim is to make sure we avoid inconsistencies, discrepancies or overlaps developing in the statute book, but it would not enable us to make wholesale changes to the protected provisions. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeing shadows. He is seeing malign opportunities and things that will occur in the future, when they are not there.

Article 1 of the REACH provisions, on aim and scope, sets out the purpose as ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, promoting alternatives to animal testing and the principles that are primarily responsible for the chemicals that are sold and used. REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle.

I want to pick out a number of the provisions—hon. Members may wish to turn to page 231 of the Bill. Article 5 is on the “no data, no market” principle. Access to the market is dependent on registering the chemical with the Health and Safety Executive. Article 25(1) is the principle that animal testing should be carried out only as a last resort. Article 35 covers the right of workers to access information received by their employers concerning the safety of chemical substances or mixtures. Article 55 covers the aim of the authorisation process to progressively replace substances of very high concern. Article 4A covers the principle that decisions that affect devolved matters can be taken only with the consent of devolved Administrations. Article 109 covers the duty on HSE to adopt operational rules to ensure transparency in matters of chemical safety. None of those things is going to change. They are all in there. The annexes are included among the protected provisions, as REACH already contains all the necessary powers to amend them. Duplicating powers in the Bill would cause legal confusion and uncertainty.

I want to give an explanation of where a little bit of tweaking might be required, as an example of how we could use the consequential amendment power, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is worried about. One of the REACH protected provisions, article 35, states that workers and their representatives shall be granted access by their employer to the information they receive on chemical safety under articles 31 and 32. However, articles 31 and 32 apply only to substances such as individual chemicals and mixtures of chemicals—for example, commercial preparations such as paints and cleaning fluids. They do not apply to substances in what are called articles—for example, toxic heavy metals that might have been used in a piece of electronic equipment. The worker does not have that knowledge at this date in time.

If we decided to expand articles 31 and 32, so that information on dangerous substances in items such as electrical products must be sent down the supply chain, we would want to make consequential amendments to article 35, so that workers would have the right to access that information. As we gather more evidence and science moves on, more comes to light about all those different chemicals and whether, for example, something used in my hairdryer, which I use every other day, is damaging me. We want the right to amend that so that the people who produce those items, and everybody else, would know.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. I have been very tolerant of the length of interventions, because I genuinely believe that sometimes an intervention can help to progress the discussion. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I hope that future interventions will be kept to a single point and will be as brief as possible.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Sir George. It was a detailed intervention. I reiterate what I said about the purpose of the consequential amendments and how useful they will be. I will not run through the whole example again, but there are others like it. Those provisions are in the Bill with a view to protecting people, not to undermine or regress.

[Richard Graham]

I was not going to come in on the point about hairdryers, which we do not all use. The general element of scaremongering from the Opposition effectively amounts to a feeling that once we are out of reach of the REACH regulation, we are going to be vulnerable to all sorts of horrors. In fact, pages 187 and 188 of the explanatory notes are clear that the Bill allows the Secretary of State the future power to amend the REACH regulation, but only in very specific ways, and almost everything currently in those regulations will be recreated under a UK banner. Does the Minister agree that we should be more confident of what the future will look like?

[Rebecca Pow]

I wholeheartedly agree. That is what I was trying to get at in the beginning: given that we basically helped to set up those regulations in the first place, we are hardly likely to want to lower standards. Indeed, I would say that we might want to raise them. That will all have to be done on the advice of the experts and the rest. We have no intention whatsoever of lowering our standards.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister says that the Government have no intention of lowering standards, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—has an annual budget of approximately £100 million and 400 staff, while the Government have promised only £13 million to cover those costs. How can that be commensurate with the protection that we need?

[Richard Graham]

By using it better and more efficiently!

[Rebecca Pow]

In the chuntering from the Back Benches, some sensible points are being made. Work is ongoing, but given that we were so influential on this in the first place, we have a lot of specialists and experts who are and will be engaged in setting up the system.

 I am going to wind up now, Sir George. I think I have addressed all the points I wanted to address, and given quite a detailed explanation. I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test if he will kindly withdraw amendment 107, but I am not holding out much hope.

[Dr Whitehead]

We will not withdraw this amendment. The Minister’s attempted explanation has increased our resolve, because I do not think it took account of what is in the legislation. By the way, explanatory notes are not legislation—we ought to bear that in mind.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

These two amendments are what one might call blindingly obvious amendments. They seek to ensure that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State should not only consult with the bodies and persons indicated, but

“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.

Be guided by the science, quite simply. That might be quite important in terms of some of our concerns about other clauses.

That is why we have tabled the amendments. I fear that they will not get a very positive hearing, but I feel sure that the Minister will agree with the sentiments behind them. I would not like us to end up as Trumptown-on-Sea and go in the opposite direction. I offer the amendments for the purpose of elucidation. We think that it is a very important principle, albeit a rather obvious one, and will therefore divide the Committee if the Minister is unable to take the amendments on board. It would be nice if she took some amendments on board, given that they are meant in the best possible way, but I fear that that will not be the case.

[Rebecca Pow]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments 227 and 228. It is obviously really important that decisions in the field of chemicals regulation are based on strong science and robust evidence. That is a no-brainer. That is why any proposals to amend REACH in the future must be subject to consultation, and the agency in particular must always be consulted. We are absolutely in agreement on that. It is up to the agency to decide how to mobilise its various scientific advice mechanisms and then reflect the opinions that emerge in its consultation response. That is the role of the Health and Safety Executive, as it has the necessary expertise and experience. The Government will of course take the agency’s considered advice into account.

To that extent the amendment is necessary, but it goes beyond that, requiring the Government to go back and take those opinions into account directly. That would require the Secretary of State to bypass the agency’s expert assessment and potentially replace it with his own interpretation. Perhaps the current Secretary of State would be quite capable of that, but who is going to come along afterwards? We do not want that to happen, and I do not believe that it would be a desirable outcome or a good use of HSE’s scientific expertise.

Amendment 228 has the same aim, but in respect of the REACH enforcement regulations. Again, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment. Obviously, I absolutely agree with him about the importance of science and the evidence, but the amendment risks the same undesirable consequences as amendment 227. I am sure that that is not really his intention, and therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry to have to do this again, but we do not think that such an obvious addition can be subject to the undesirable side-effects in the way that the Minister describes. We think that the amendments should simply be added to the Bill and we wish to emphasise that by dividing the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I will have to take the further amendments the hon. Gentleman refers to, because they are all on the amendment paper, but if Members do not want to proceed with them, that is relatively easily dealt with—if nobody wishes to speak to them or move them, they effectively fall.

[Rebecca Pow]

I understand why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tabled amendment 229, which I will talk to now. The amendment calls for transparency in decision making, which I completely support, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. There must be consultation on any proposals under these provisions, as set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 19. The timely publication of responses is a fundamental part of the Government’s consultation principles. Any legislative changes as a result of that consultation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which gives the opportunity for explanation and scrutiny, which I know the hon. Gentleman will welcome.

There is an important difference in procedure between the powers in the Bill and decision making under REACH. The Secretary of State’s decisions under REACH are given effect through a statutory instrument using the negative procedure or through Executive action, whereas powers in the Bill are exercised through the affirmative procedure, with the higher levels of explanation and scrutiny that that entails. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am anxious not to overthrow procedure completely, but it might be acceptable to the Committee if we were able to indicate that we would, in principle, wish to divide the Committee on a number of amendments that we feel particularly strongly about, without actually proceeding to divide the Committee. Might the Committee think that that was an acceptable procedure at this time in the afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

The Bill gives the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to amend UK REACH and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008—REACH being the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, for the benefit of those reading in Hansard. However, specified elements of REACH are excluded, as we said earlier, from the Secretary of State’s amending power. We are referred to the table that the Minister mentioned earlier and told, “It is all there and included.” It is not all there and included.

We would like to highlight some articles that have not been included in the protected provisions—specifically, article 13 in amendment 108, articles 26, 27 and 30 in amendment 109 and—an interesting set of articles—articles 32, 33 and 34 in amendment 176, which are highly important to the REACH regulations actually working for consumers and those within the supply chain of chemicals. The provisions refer to everyday products that we and our constituents would all use, including paints, cleaning products, clothes, furniture, electrical appliances and, as already mentioned, hairdryers.

In article 32, which I would argue should be a protected principle, there is the duty to communicate information down the supply chain free of charge and without delay. In article 33, the duty is to communicate information on substances in articles for the consumer free of charge within 45 days. In article 34, the duty is to communicate information on substances and preparations up the supply chain.

There are duties up the supply chain, down the supply chain and to the consumer. That is all protected, and it absolutely should happen to ensure that, as the Minister has said, when more information, science and data come to light as we go along with new products and chemicals, the consumer and all of those in the supply chain have a right to know what that new information is, and what is up and down the supply chain. The consumer should know what is in the products that we consume.

Under article 33, suppliers of articles that contain a substance of very high concern are required to provide sufficient information in response to consumer requests about those products to allow their safe use, including disclosing the name of the substance that is used. However, that will be taken out of a protected requirement. There are substances that, for example, meet the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction and persistent bioaccumulative toxic. This is an essential public policy safeguard, and it is unclear why the Government wish to exclude it from the list of protected provisions. Other things are included in that list. It is seen as beneficial to have a list of protected provisions. Why are those provisions not protected?

That is the question we are asking by tabling these amendments. We are saying that it is important to the whole of the REACH regulation that these things are included and cannot be subject to change by the Secretary of State.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for amendments 108, 109, 176, 110 and 111. I understand the desire to protect further provisions of UK REACH in the Environment Bill. However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary or, in many cases, desirable—shock, horror!

The protected provisions of REACH are intended to ensure that the fundamental principles of REACH cannot be changed, while allowing a flexibility to ensure UK REACH remains fit for purpose. The intention is not to freeze detailed processes. Any proposed amendments by the Secretary of State are subject to consultation, to the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters and to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a full debate in Parliament, which I know Opposition Members will welcome.

Amendment 108 applies to article 13 of REACH, which sets out detailed provisions about alternatives to animal testing, including when animal tests can be waived—I think the hon. Member for Putney was referring to that. She wants us to avoid unnecessary animal testing and to promote alternative approaches. We agree with that aim, but adding this article to the list of protected provisions could make that more difficult. For example, it could prevent us from extending the range of tests for animal testing that may be omitted where there is appropriate justification.

The same objections apply to the articles that would be affected by amendment 109, that is, articles 26, 27 and 30, and by amendment 176, that is, articles 32, 33 and 34. These articles are not just about the principles of information sharing. They also include prescriptive details about how information should be shared with the REACH supply chain and how the agency should deal with inquiries. We should not bind ourselves to these detailed procedures going forward but instead remain free to adopt new ways of working that draw on our experience of applying REACH in the UK. The whole idea is that we will improve and benefit.

Amendment 110 would protect REACH article 40(2). Again, the point is that we do not want to freeze the detail of how REACH operates. Instead, we need the flexibility to amend REACH, to ensure that it works for the UK. In this case, article 40(2) includes specific details, such as timescales for publishing information.

I do not believe that amendment 111 is necessary or desirable. I agree that we may consider it appropriate to amend the REACH annexes to drive the use of non-animal alternatives, but the power to amend the REACH annexes is already within REACH itself, which makes it unnecessary to add an overlapping power to the Bill.

I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to consider withdrawing his amendments.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think I have already indicated that although we do not wish to withdraw these amendments, we will seek—for the purpose of the record, as it were—an indicative division on amendment 108. However, the fact that we will not press all the subsequent amendments to a vote does not mean that we would not ideally like to divide on them. However, we are doing this for the sake of the comfort and sanity of the Committee this afternoon, and I hope that will be appreciated.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 127, page 114, line 11, leave out subsection (1)(b).

I have alluded to this amendment previously. I must admit that, having read the clause on a number of occasions for different purposes, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that subsection (1)(b) is a serious attempt to destabilise what happens before it in the clause. One has to read it differently from common English to conclude that

“different provision for different purposes or areas”

means anything other than that the Minister can do what he or she wants. That should not have a place in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain briefly—I mean briefly—why that is in the Bill. We do not intend to divide the Committee, but we would like to hear something from the Minister to that purpose.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution on this matter. Clause 127 sets out the scope of regulation-making powers as well as the procedures to be used when making those regulations. Subsection (1)(b) makes it clear that regulations made under the Bill are able to make

“different provision for different purposes or areas.”

That is a standard provision that has been used for many years in any Bill that includes delegated powers. It is necessary to provide clarification as to the flexibility of the delegated powers. Different circumstances may require different provisions. The amendment would remove necessary, proportionate and appropriate flexibility from the delegated powers, making it more difficult to deliver the ambitions set out in the Bill, including setting targets, creating deposit return schemes or delivering biodiversity net gain. I hope that was brief enough to clarify what is meant. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Moorland Burning

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for calling me, Mr Pritchard; it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am not sure whether I should say this, but what a fiery, hot topic this is. There are obviously diverse views on all sides, and the debate has been extremely well attended. We have heard some excellent and informed speeches, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing the debate, for her interest in this subject, and for the passion with which she speaks about subjects such as climate change.

I take issue with the comments about biodiversity and the degradation caused under this Government. If the hon. Lady were following proceedings in the Environment Bill—members of that Committee are here —she would realise how committed the present Government are to the environment. It is right at the top of our agenda. Not only do we have measures in the Bill bringing forward biodiversity net gain, conservation covenants and local nature recovery strategies, but we have the £80 million green recovery fund, which the Prime Minister has topped up this week. That provides the green army that the hon. Lady was asking for, and all the jobs that go with it, to deliver the green recovery. We are all right behind that and the 10-point green plan, announced this week. I want to cover that at the beginning, as it directly relates to what we are talking about.

Moorlands are made up of a mosaic of habitat types. One of the habitats of greatest interest is blanket bog, because of its peat-forming habitats. It generates layers of peat that can grow up and be metres thick, and it covers much of our uplands. Such bogs are an iconic and important part of our landscapes, as many hon. Members explained. They are one of our largest terrestrial carbon stores, a haven for rare and common wildlife, and have natural water-holding and water-cleaning properties.

Restoring and better managing our peatlands is absolutely essential for the nature recovery, which I have just referred to, and tackling climate change. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted the particular need to restore blanket bogs, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. That is why we are committed to publishing an English peat strategy that sets out our direction for restoration, protection and sustainable management. We will be providing millions of pounds to kick-start that restoration from another fund of money helping towards biodiversity, the £640 million nature for climate fund.

Among other things in that strategy, we commit to putting our peatland into good hydrological order and condition by restoring it, with a commitment to 35,000 hectares’ being restored by 2025, which is not very far away. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who has great expertise, said, other issues must also be addressed, such as lowland peat and horticultural peat. There are a whole raft of measures in the strategy,

Blanket bogs make up around a third of England’s peatland area. They have formed over thousands of years and have created a massive store of carbon. Currently, only 18% of our protected blanket bog habitat is in good condition. That is a legacy of many things. Members might take issue with me, but it is because of a combination of draining, overgrazing, burning and gradual degradation. While upland degraded peats are responsible for only around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions from England’s peatlands, it is important that we restore and sustainably manage these areas for the other multiple benefits that they provide, as well as the carbon issue.

The impact of rotational burning of vegetation on blanket bog continues to be hotly debated by academics, scientists, land managers and everybody involved on all sides. This summer I received a dossier of the most recent scientific studies from the Uplands Partnership, which includes the Moorland Association and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, an organisation I know a lot about. In my past as an environmental reporter, I often met those organisations and reported on things that they did. I have looked closely at the issue and have met with our chief scientific adviser. I have taken advice from the Science Advisory Council. I have been at pains to analyse all the copious data, much of it conflicting.

At the moment, the scientific data from the experts, from DEFRA and from Natural England is that, on balance and in general, in the UK the burning of vegetation on blanket bog moves the bog away from its original wet state, and risks vulnerable peat bog habitat’s becoming drier and turning into a heathland habitat. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is itching to intervene on me. He was absolutely right about the importance of science, as were others. That is why it is so important to look at all the data, and keep looking at it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) also referred to the need for the correct science; I support him on that, and on his support for bird life and Botham. His life, of course, started in Somerset.

[Mr Goodwill]

We absolutely support any measures to re-wet some of our uplands, but, of course, the Minister needs to bear in mind that if we do make it more boggy, land managers would not be able to cut it with a tractor without getting bogged. The need to burn, combined with having a wetter moorland storing some of that water, is vital. As somebody who has got a tractor bogged on many occasions, I can attest to the difficulties on very wet land.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and I can agree because I, too, was brought up on a farm and drive a tractor, and have got many a tractor stuck. I know what he is talking about.

Since 2015, Natural England has been working with landowners and managers, as he knows, to help phase out rotational burning where possible. That has included a range of methods. Some estates have signed voluntary commitments to suspend burning—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was slightly dismissive, saying that that had not worked, but actually there have been some real successes with that approach. Some estates have agreed to phase out their long-term plans at estate level, and some have consented to try cutting where it is possible.

Natural England has successfully removed 47%— 189 out of 402—of the consents to burn on protected land and, where estates hold long-term consents to burn, many have suspended the practice to enter into new, extended agri-environment schemes. However, that course of action is clearly not protecting every blanket bog site.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to plough on. I am very aware that moorland management communities are concerned about the restriction of burning—it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—not least because of the wildfire risk on the land. Fires sweep through, cause severe damage and release fine particulate matter—I am also the Minister for air quality, so I am well aware of the dangers of fine particulate matter and the impacts on local air quality—and, obviously, we want to mitigate that.

Natural England and DEFRA officials are considering all the evidence around all the different practices in relation to wildfire risk, to try to come up with the most appropriate technique to mitigate that risk. Some of the clearest evidence to date points to improving the resilience of the peatlands to return them to their wet state.

We must also remember that those who farm and manage our uplands have massive opportunities coming their way, through the new environmental land management scheme, to engage in many other projects and undertake work that will keep the wildlife there, will help to keep the moorland wet and will help to drain, control and hold the water to deal with flooding. That was eloquently mentioned by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), and I am happy to meet the hon. Member for York Central at some point to discuss her particular issues around peat and the uplands—apologies if I have not done that yet. I thought I had met her over the summer.

We are watching Scotland eagerly to see what will happen up there and how things go; we will be taking stock of that.

[Rachael Maskell]

On the point about meeting, will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

No, I will plough on. My officials are continuing to work out how and where we might be able to phase out rotational burning, but all these other options must be taken into account.

Next, I wanted to touch on this issue of flooding; winter is coming and we have had a very wet year. Blanket bogs are a natural sponge; they sit at the top of river catchments and are important for holding water, but that is only possible when they are kept in good condition—that is one of the key things. We have done a great project working on Exmoor—not far from me—where the water company is doing exactly that, and it is having really good results. is an important part of flood control, to which we have contributed £5.2 billion—more money than ever before. Nature-based solutions are a big part of the new systems coming down the track.

[Rachael Maskell]

rose—

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

Mr Pritchard, do I have time to take an intervention?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

There are two minutes.

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry, I did not realise the time. I just want to ask the Minister very quickly whether she might have conversations with the likes of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance to gauge the opinion of those who manage the moors, to come up with a policy that everyone can agree on.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you so much for raising that. I do talk to all those people. I have been out with gamekeepers to look at the land. We have to get this right; we do not want to make enemies. We have to work together. There have got to be ways. We will release our peat strategy soon and there will be some detailed information in there. It will cover all things relating to peat and these other sections, as well as the land managers. The Government have made a commitment to do something about this. We do have to do something about climate change, do we not, Chair?

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

I am neutral.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes; sorry. And we have to do something about our carbon storage, our wildlife protection, our clean water and our flood control.

I will wind up now. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for raising the topic and I thank everyone for their input. It is a fiery and a heated topic, and there will be more water coming under this bridge.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

For the purposes of the record the Chair is neutral in all debates, but without telling anybody, of course we need to tackle climate change. I have probably broken the rules.

Environment Bill (Sixteenth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 16th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I want to make a general philosophical point about “mays” and “musts”. We have been talking about this matter a lot over the past couple of weeks. Obviously, our end objectives are the same: we all want a Bill that strengthens environmental protection, and a strong and independent Office for Environmental Protection.

I realise that this clause is slightly different from earlier clauses, but I will make the generic point that when we say that something should be a “must” rather than a “may”, we are often prescribing what the OEP can do. I realise that this amendment is about Ministers, but if we accepted all the amendments on this point, the OEP would end up with a whole list of things that it must do, as prescribed by the Committee, and it would spend all its time ticking those boxes. We would take agency away from the OEP.

As a parent, if I go around telling my children, “You must do this, and you must do that,” they do not feel very independent. If I tell them that they have to be grown up and make their own decisions, they feel more empowered. Throughout this whole process—we have another couple of weeks to consider amendments—it is worth thinking about what being so directive towards the OEP would do to its agency and independence.

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

It is good to be back this week. I welcome the shadow Minister again, and the new member of our Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the amendment. I understand that the intention is to give certainty that Ministers will make secondary legislation about the procedure for preparing and publishing water resources management plans, drought plans and joint proposals, but he is again playing on my sympathies over “may” and “must”. He will not be surprised that I am not going to relent on this one.

I think the hon. Member will agree that the explanation is quite clear. The duties under sections 37A and 39B of the Water Industry Act 1991, which we have already heard about, to prepare and maintain water resources management plans and drought plans remain on statutory undertakers; they are “must” duties on the Minister. This was raised by the hon. Member for Putney. The plans are already on a statutory footing, and the Minister’s power to make regulations about procedural matters, to which the amendment refers, does not remove those duties. Ministers fully understand that water undertakers need to know the procedural requirements for fulfilling their duties in good time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for the good points that he made about independence and his children. It is entirely appropriate to provide Ministers with flexibility on when and how this provision is given effect.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I come from a very dry region, which adjoins the constituency of the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. Some water companies, such as Anglian Water, are already working with other parts of the country, and there are regional plans coming into place. Does the Minister agree that it would be much better to give legal certainty by specifying that as the amendment suggests?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and lots of companies are already working towards that. We will talk later in more detail about how water companies will work holistically together to deal with the whole water landscape.

In the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers to direct future procedure under statutory legislation if he thinks, for example, that more attention needs to be given to what the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are existing powers in section 37B of the 1991 Act to make regulations for procedural requirements, and those are replaced by new section 39F. The existing powers have already been used by Ministers to make the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005.

Water companies’ plans are revised every five years. The plans are prepared at different times within their own five-year cycles. When exercising these powers, Ministers in England therefore need to be flexible and mindful of when to introduce the new planning requirements, so as not to have unnecessary impacts on the preparation of water companies’ plans, many of which are under way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think the Minister knows what my answer is going to be. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a fair point about what would happen if we put in every “must” in every place in the Bill, and how that might constrain the agencies that are responsible for carrying out its business, but that is not what the Opposition has done with our repeated suggestions for the inclusion of “mays” and “musts”.

We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not appropriate for an agency to be constrained in that way if, for example, it may decide to carry out an action relating to an investigation or look at the extent to which it ought to do certain things. In that case, it is not appropriate to use “must”, and “may” is perfectly appropriate. There are, however, other circumstances where it is clear that an agency, or indeed the Minister, ought to do something.

In his analysis, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made reference to parents and children, and I would say that this is on the parents’ side. It is a “must” in the same way as a parent must not leave their child on a bare hillside for the evening to see whether they survive. That is the sort of “must” this is, rather than a stipulation that a parent or a child must do certain things. I would put the Minister in the role of the parent, as far as this process is concerned. If the Minister is, in a sense, the parent of these activities, the Minister ought to act like a good parent. If there is a suggestion in the Bill that the Minister “may” not, that should be recognised.

In answer to the Minister’s question, I will not press this amendment to a Division. I know that this is becoming a little formulaic, but the Minister may want to reflect on whether drafting amendments need to be made at certain places in the Bill, either now or at a future date, bearing in mind that this is not a spray-paint job as far as “mays” and “musts” are concerned. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for this amendment—a probing amendment, as he said. I understand the intention to ensure that those who are likely to be affected by water resource management plans, drought plans and joint proposals be consulted. The Government recognise that planning for water resources is strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders, both individuals and representative organisations, in the development of the plans, as was outlined by the hon. Members who spoke.

The Government intend that stakeholders will be involved in the preparation and delivery of these plans in England. Clause 75 enables Ministers to set out in regulations which bodies are to be consulted on the preparation of plans. Under existing powers, Ministers have set out a long list of relevant consultees in the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005. The Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources in England, which was published in March, already gives further clarity. It sets out how we expect water undertakers in England to engage with stakeholders to prepare their plans in future.

Reflecting on the comments from the hon. Member for Putney, I want to clarify that Ministers in England want to ensure that the process of developing these plans is open and transparent—more so than ever—through these changes and that stakeholders are involved at the right time, so that they can effectively collaborate on the plans. If we are to encourage this more holistic joint-working approach, that is really important.

While the current wording of “persons” is not defined in the Water Industry Act 1991, the Interpretation Act 1978, which applies here, defines “persons” as including

“a body of persons corporate or unincorporate”—

that is, a natural person or a legal person. It includes a partnership, which would include representative bodies. The meaning of “persons” is very broad and would include representative bodies, making the amendment unnecessary. I hope that provides clarity.

The changes introduced by clause 75 will help the plans to deliver cross-sector and mutually beneficial outcomes, which we all want for the wider water environment, as well to secure water supplies. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will see that his probing amendment is unnecessary. He was right to ask those questions, but I hope that I have answered them. I respectfully ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I have, as a result of this debate, begun to feel that this is less of a probing amendment than I initially thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney made an important point, which I neglected to include in my contribution. The Water Industry Act 1991 included these things. At that time, there were specifications about agencies and bodies that should be consulted and involved in the plans. That has all been swept away.

While the Minister makes the possibly important point about the phrase “persons to be consulted” in proposed new section 37F(3), that appears to be a rather feeble replacement for what was firmly in the previous piece of legislation. At the very least, I would like some assurance. The Minister says that the phrase “persons to be consulted” could be interpreted as persons in the collective. By a transfer of reasoning, we might therefore get to the Environment Agency and various other people in the end. I would like the Minister to actually shorten that course and say, “Yes, it will,” so far as the Bill is concerned.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but just for clarity, we can make regulations to specify what persons or bodies must be consulted during the plan preparations, and we plan to use that power. I just wanted to get that on the record.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think we may be getting there. When the Minister says, “we can make regulations”, is she saying that the Government will make regulations that effectively restore that arrangement, in terms of persons, by a regulatory route, as I was trying to tease out? It would be helpful if the Minister said that it is very likely that regulations will come about that include a better definition of persons, so that those bodies can effectively be brought back into the process in a way that the Bill seems to have neglected to do.

[Dr Whitehead]

The hon. Gentleman would like to encourage the Minister to say something else on this.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will intervene one more time, just for clarity. As I said, we made the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007 and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005, which demonstrates that we have already done something like what the hon. Gentleman asks for. I reiterate that we can make regulations to specify what persons or bodies must be consulted during plan preparations, and we plan to use that power.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for that. That is 65% of the way there. On balance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 47, in clause 75, page 67, line 20, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 48, in clause 75, page 67, line 32, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76

Drainage and sewerage management plans

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that on this occasion the Minister can oblige us all and simply say, “Yes, this is a really good piece of work. It ought to be in the Bill.” I do not expect her to say, “Sorry we didn’t put it in the Bill in the first place,” but I expect her to say that we will proceed, either now with the present formulation, or on Report if a slightly different formulation is needed.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for the amendment and for painting such a charming picture of wild swimming in the River Wye, which I should think is quite chilly. I must also refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who has done so much work on this. As my hon. Friend knows, I have met colleagues several times to discuss this very important issue. He quoted some, frankly, fairly ghastly statistics, as did the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. My hon. Friend is right that this matters and he knows, as does our right hon. Friend, that I take it extremely seriously. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that too.

The issue of river health and the impact of sewer overflows is a priority for me. One of my hats is Water Minister. I vowed that I must do something about that while I am in this role, and I am determined to take action. It has been overlooked for far too long. I have discussed that with my officials at great length. I will not say that they thanked me for it all the time, but it is a priority that I believe we have to get right.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that controlled sewage discharge to watercourses from sewage treatment works are tightly regulated by the Environment Agency using powers under the environmental permitting regulations, so we obviously already have that in place. I want to be clear that when we were designing the current provisions in the Environment Bill on drainage and sewerage management plans, in clause 76, it was a prime objective to tackle the discharge of sewage into our waterways better.

Clause 76 specifically requires that each sewerage undertaker must prepare a drainage and sewerage management plan. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a “must”—that got a cheer! The clause also specifically requires that a drainage and sewerage management plan “must” address relevant environmental “risks”—those two words are very important—and how they are to be mitigated. That will include sewer overflows and their impact on water quality.

Although I understand the intention for specific references to address sewer discharges and water quality, it is entirely appropriate in this case to provide a broad definition in primary legislation of relevant environmental risks. The provision needs to stand the test of time and be fit for the environmental challenges of tomorrow, not just of today. I can say unequivocally and can confirm that I and any future DEFRA Ministers will also have a failsafe power to make directions to specify any other matters that a plan must address. In simple terms, that will ensure that if a plan or plans are not adequate, the Government can take swift action. I will not hesitate to use that power to direct companies if I am not satisfied with their performance to address sewer discharges and water quality. They should consider themselves on notice; in the meeting that was referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I pretty much gave that message. I am not messing about.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a powerful point. The Opposition have no problem at all with how diligent she is and how conscientiously she does her job. I am just wondering how she would feel if a successor—obviously in many years’ time—was not quite as diligent. We need to know that the safeguards are in the Bill. We want them enshrined in primary legislation. If the Minister is so keen on the power and so committed to it, what is the problem with putting it in the Bill?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for reiterating my commitment. We believe the measures and steps that are here will ensure that that does happen—the sewerage and drainage management plans will come into use and the idea of that will become normal—but there will be an opportunity for a DEFRA Minister to have a failsafe power to make directions to specify any other matters. We also have the Environment Agency keeping abreast of all this. We even have the OEP, at the end of the day. We have so many checks and balances in the Bill that once we get the system going, it should be failsafe.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister has reiterated her own commitment, which none of us doubts. None the less, as the chair of the Environment Agency has said, despite all the various checks and balances, progress has not been as strong as any of us would have liked. Here is the opportunity to insert the words about

“the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system”.

Even if the Minister believes that the Bill has enough “musts” and enough powers for the Minister to direct, the explanatory notes are not that clear, saying simply that

“The sewerage undertaker is required to set out in the plan what it intends to do to maintain an effective system of sewerage and drainage, and when those actions are likely to be taken”,

then adding, rather vaguely:

“Should other factors become relevant”.

Does the Minister not agree that there is a real opportunity to specify, at least in the explanatory notes, that the water quality and impact of sewerage overflow must be addressed?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is doing absolutely the right thing in checking up on the issues. I have been doing that myself, in fairness. He mentions the EA. As he said, Emma Howard Boyd, the chair, made it clear that much more is expected of water companies, which includes developing, publishing and implementing specific plans by the end of this year, to reduce pollution incidents. The Environment Agency is on the case. Following my meeting, the Secretary of State is meeting with water companies again very shortly. I repeat that “relevant environmental risks” will include sewer overflows and water quality; I said that just now and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was listening. Once that has been established as a risk, it would be very hard for anyone to argue in the future that it was not a risk. That addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West, and I reiterate that point.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister talks about checks and balances, but I am sure she will know that, as far as the checks and balances relating to storm overflows are concerned, more than 60 discharges a year should trigger an investigation by the Environment Agency. Those storm overflows have been released hundreds of times per year by each water company. The Environment Agency relies on water companies to self-monitor their discharges, so the check and balance does not work as well as it should. Does the Minister think that arrangement is sufficient to keep those discharges under control?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that important point; I just want to talk a little bit about the Environment Agency. They are actually part-way through a programme to improve the management of storm overflows. Event duration monitoring gadgets are being installed on the vast majority of combined inland and coastal sewer overflows, and will provide data for the duration and frequency of storm spills by 2025. Approximately 13,000 of the 15,000 overflows will receive this event duration monitoring, so it will make a difference—I am convinced of that. We do, however, accept that there is a great deal more to do.

Let me clarify how important I think the issue is; we do not want to sit around waiting, but to get on and do something about it. In addition to the Environment Bill and the ongoing discussions around making it as strong as possible, I have set up a new storm overflows taskforce to make rapid progress in addressing the volumes of sewage discharge into our rivers. This has been done at speed and very recently, when all of this “stuff”, as they call it, came to my attention. I would like to thank everyone involved for moving so fast on this. I will set a long-term goal on the storm overflows for sewerage undertakers, which I will talk about in more detail later, but the work on that needs to start now. The taskforce is developing actions that will increase water company investment to tackle storm overflows in order to accelerate our progress.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The water companies operate in a tightly constrained regulatory framework, always having to balance bills, investment and shareholder returns. What impact does the Minister think her welcome initiative will have on that, and will she be directing them as to either what they do not do instead, or where that investment should come from?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for that, and of course he makes a really important point. All those things will be in the mix for consideration. The storm overflow taskforce has been set up between the EA, DEFRA, Ofwat, the Consumer Council for Water, Blueprint for Water and Water UK. These are all things they are well aware of and will be discussing, and they will be the ones setting out clear proposals to address the volumes of sewage discharge into our rivers. They are working on that now, at speed, and I anticipate we will have a good idea of their list of actions by spring. The hon. Member might say that that is a long time away, but we are already in November; it is actually only a in few months’ time. I anticipate that this will be really beneficial and really helpful.

The whole thinking behind the taskforce’s action list is to increase the amount of sewage processed at treatment plants, for example through building additional sewage storage capacity, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester might be pleased to hear, and separate surface water connections for the combined sewerage network.

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth for her input; I have met her and others from Cornwall over the issue of surfers, as well as Surfers against Sewage, who do great work highlighting the issues. As I said, the taskforce is looking to all issues to do with water quality and sewerage overflows, which will include bathing water. We are looking into that.

I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who makes a good point—always standing up for her farmers, in that great farming country she is in—and she is absolutely right. We cannot lay all of this at the door of the farmers. There are many causes and they all have to be looked at and tackled, but that is not to say that there is not work to be done with farmers—I believe they know that. Through our new environmental land management scheme, there will be opportunities to work with farmers to reduce pollution. That is coming down the tracks as well and will also help with the whole water pollution issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Interventions must be brief. Minister.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Chair. I thought my hon. Friend would try and sneak in a final go. I do not blame him for that.

[The Chair]

He will have a final go in a moment.

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Mr Gray.

On that note, I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester says about the explanatory notes but I want to reiterate what I said earlier: relevant environmental risks will include sewer overflows and water quality. Once that has been established as a risk, it will be very hard for anyone to argue that it is not a future risk. I shall leave it there.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and other Members for all their work, particularly in raising awareness of this issue. I hope, on the strength of the assurance that I have given today, that my hon. Friend will kindly consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Richard Graham]

This has been a helpful discussion, with Members contributing from all sides. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is even able to detect vibrations from across the room, which perhaps none of the rest of us has been able to do. As for the key issue in the proposed amendment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put it very well in a note to me where he said, “This amendment would require water companies, their regulators and overseeing Ministers to have regard to continuous improvement through these admirable five-yearly plans to ensure our rivers can gradually recover from their polluted state to once again become clear and clean for our children and grandchildren to enjoy.” Members on both sides have highlighted how, in their constituencies, that is relevant.

The Minister has tried to reassure us that that is exactly her own objective. I have no reason to doubt that, as she has confirmed it several times. However, it seems to me that were I to withdraw the probing amendment, it would be on the basis of the words she used, which were that the relevant risks would include water quality and the impact of sewerage overflow. It is great that the Minister has made that statement, but we need to see that in the explanatory notes. If she can give an indication that she would consider that on Report, I would be happy on that basis to withdraw the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate words. I am happy to consider making it clearer in the explanatory notes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

Which I should not do. I acknowledge that, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.

Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 by adding new section 94C. There are a whole rash of “mays”, and we have chosen modestly, and I think correctly, to identify one that should be a “must”. It is in new section 94C(3), which, again, talks about consultation on plans. We have talked about that previously, and it is absolutely vital for ensuring that those plans work and that they tackle the 39 million tonnes of sewage going into the River Thames and the similar incidences across the country. The Bill places obligations on water companies only for something they are already doing; it does not reflect the scale of the challenge from climate change or the fact that drainage is universally recognised to be a shared responsibility with other organisations that are also responsible for managing service water.

Water UK is concerned that, as written, clause 76 will exclude significant bodies that are involved in drainage and will eliminate much of the potential benefits that customers, society and the environment could otherwise gain. It is a fundamental feature of drainage and wastewater planning that water companies cannot do this in isolation, because drainage is shared with other risk management authorities, as defined in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. For example, large numbers of drainage assets are not under the ownership of water companies, the management of which needs to be integrated into the drainage and wastewater management plans. That has been recognised by the National Infrastructure Commission in its recommendation that water companies and local authorities should work together to publish joint plans to manage surface water flood risk by 2020. Ensuring that such consultation is done as a “must” rather than a “may”, which is the aim behind the amendment, is absolutely essential.

As a minimum, all flood risk management authorities should have a duty to co-operate in the production of drainage and wastewater management plans. There should be the ability to require other flood risk management authorities to provide the information needed for the production of such plans. Clause 76 would ensure that that would happen as a directive to the OEP, which is needed to ensure that we have the best sewerage management plans and wastewater management plans that we can.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for the amendment. It is amazing that we have managed to get him excited—for me, that is a massive milestone in the Bill’s passage. I hope he does not mind my saying that.

I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to give certainty that Ministers will pass secondary legislation about the consultations to be carried out by sewerage undertakers on their drainage and sewerage management plans. Under proposed new section 94A of the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakers will have a duty to prepare drainage and sewerage management plans. Ministers understand that sewerage undertakers need to know the procedural requirements for fulfilling their duties in good time. Ministers require flexibility on when and how the provision is given effect so that procedural requirements for plans remain proportionate and current.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 131, in clause 76, page 70, line 6, at end insert

“including persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected”.

This amendment is very similar to amendment 130. It adds the same wording to the end of this clause to ensure that persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected are included. We have effectively discussed this, so I am not very excited about this amendment. [Hon. Members: “Shame!”] By the way, I ought to assure the Minister that, although I am probably among the least excitable Members of this House, I do get excited about quite a few things; I draw a distinction between those two uses of language.

I think that the Minister will probably respond to this amendment in the same way that she did when we tabled a similar amendment to the end of a previous clause, so I do not think that we need detain ourselves very long, other than to say that we still think that such an amendment is a good idea.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for the amendment and his brevity. Clause 76 enables Ministers to set out in regulations which bodies are to be consulted on the preparation of drainage and sewerage management plans—a process that will be strengthened by the involvement of a range of stakeholders. We intend to make those regulations in England to include those persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to be affected, including representative bodies such as the Consumer Council for Water.

I went into some detail about the meaning of the word “persons” previously, so I refer the hon. Member to that. As I also mentioned, this was done in a similar way when the existing water resources management regulatory making powers were used by Ministers in making the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007. The regulations set out a long list of persons to be consulted by undertakers. I hope, therefore, that he will see that the amendment is unnecessary, and I respectfully ask him to kindly withdraw it.

[Dr Whitehead]

In the light of that answer, which I had anticipated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 51, in clause 76, page 70, line 38, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

Amendment 52, in clause 76, page 71, line 6, leave out “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

I will not detain the Committee at great length on this particular clause stand part debate, because I just want to raise an issue that somewhat puzzles me about the wording of the clause.

The Minister alluded to the source of my puzzlement a moment ago in her response to the previous debate. As hon. Members can see, the title of the clause is

“Drainage and sewerage management plans”.

The clause refers repeatedly to such plans, but what we should be talking about are not Drainage and sewerage management plans but drainage and waste water management plans.

Some hon. Members may think there is not much of a distinction, but there is quite a substantial distinction, in that sewerage and waste water are not the same things. Waste water includes all the sources of waste water coming into a particular riverine or estuarial area, which may have a number of sources that are not sewerage-based. Therefore, the definition of these plans as drainage and sewerage management plans narrows what they might consist of—not only that, but the definition narrows who might be involved in these particular plans. It narrows it down to water companies, whereas a number of other companies are indeed involved in waste water management and properly ought to be within those plans, to make a comprehensive arrangement as far as waste water is concerned. What is a further source of puzzlement is that the Department and industry have actually worked on such plans for many years, and they are called drainage and waste water management plans.

The Minister may say, as she did a moment ago, that in the Water Industry Act 1991 the words “drainage and sewerage management” effectively mean a wider issue as far as waste water is concerned, but of course the wording in clause 76 is not what was in the 1991 Act but is actually an amendment to that Act. It would have been easily possible, as far as the construction of the Bill is concerned, to include the words “sewerage and waste water management” in the Bill, with no cost to anybody—no additional amendments; nothing—whereas the less than adequate wording in the 1991 Act has been retained for the purpose of these amendments.

I wondered why that was the case. Is it an omission or is it deliberate?  Other than the rather obscure reference to the 1991 Act, why does not the Bill state what plans the Department has and what the plans should consist of if they are properly to take account of what “waste water” defines and accommodates?

[Rebecca Pow]

How quickly, in the space of 10 minutes, we have gone from excitement to puzzlement. I hope I can, however, assuage some of the puzzlement.

Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 to place drainage and sewerage management plans on a statutory footing to match the status of water resource management plans. The provisions are modelled closely on the existing approach to water resource management plans.

I shall deal with the interesting point about the distinction between sewerage and waste water. The clause amends the 1991 Act, which defines the term “sewerage system” in a way that covers all relevant aspects of waste water, so we have used that wording. This includes facilities to empty public sewers and other facilities such as waste water treatment works and pumping stations.

The term “waste water” is not defined in the 1991 Act. The statutory name is not intended to dictate what the water industry chooses to call the plans as part of its daily operations; it might have some other casual term for it. Drainage and sewerage planning is the only key planning process without a formal statutory status in the water sector. Placing plans on a statutory basis will ensure a more robust planning and investment process to meet future needs, including housing.

Statutory plans will also allow waste water network capacity to be fully assessed and encourage sewerage companies to develop collaborative solutions with local authorities and others who have responsibility for parts of the drainage system. They should also sit with planning for population and economic growth and therefore help to deliver improved resilience in sewerage and drainage sources over the long term.

There is strong cross-sectoral support for the measure. When we consulted publicly on making plans statutory, over three quarters of respondents supported the proposal. The statutory production of the plans will clearly demonstrate how a sewerage undertaker intends to fulfil its duty under the Act to provide, improve and extend the public sewerage system to ensure that its area is effectively drained. A statutory plan will help to set out the actions needed to address the risks that some assess that might pose to the environment or customers.

[Dr Whitehead]

I think the Minister should accept that I am one of the least puzzled Members of the House, but I do admit to puzzlement sometimes. On this occasion, my puzzlement has not been assuaged. The Minister is talking about how good these plans could be, but that does not take us much further in terms of why the wording is as it is when it would have been so easy to put it right when the Bill was introduced. I take on board the Minister’s assurances that, in practice, the word “sewerage” can be used by reference back to the bits of the 1991 Act that have not been amended by this legislation to expand its remit, but it would have been easier to get it right first time round, but I shall not pursue this. It can go into the Minister’s box of things to think about should she wish to clarify this part of the Bill any further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fleur Anderson]

I would like to speak in support of the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister about the long deadlines of this Bill, which would be rectified by amendments 132, 133 and 134.

Clause 80 amends the Water Resources Act 1991 to improve the way in which the abstraction is managed. This additional Environment Agency power, to act on licensing that causes environmental harm, is welcome. However, the timescale proposed in the Bill is too long, as the changes will apply to licenses revoked or varied on or after January 2028. With compensation remaining payable on any license changes opposed by the agency before that time, budgetary constraints will significantly limit its scope to act, which cannot be the aim of this Bill.

The current timescale does not appear to fully grasp the severity and immediacy of the problems facing UK waterways and the poor performance of water companies to date. Four out of nine companies assessed by the Environment Agency require improvement. We cannot wait until 2028 to start revoking licenses and take action, when there is clearly systemic underperformance in the water industry.

Moreover, water companies in England were responsible for their worst ever levels of environmental pollution in the five years up to 2019, leading to condemnation from Ministers and the Environment Agency. In the agency’s annual assessment of the nine privatised water and sewage companies, its chair, Emma Howard Boyd, said that their performance continued to be unacceptable.

Unsustainable abstraction can do serious environmental damage, particularly by changing the natural flow regime. This results in lower flows and reduced water levels which, in turn, may limit ecological health and result in changes and reductions of river flows and groundwater levels. This is about far more than just hosepipe bans.

The Government’s own analysis has shown that 5% of surface water bodies and 15% of groundwater bodies are at risk from increasing water use by current license holders, which could damage the environment. With the Environment Agency recently warning that in 25 years, England’s water supply may no longer meet demand, we will have to clamp down on over-abstraction now. Before becoming an MP, I worked for the aid agency WaterAid, where I saw the result of over-abstraction and how damaging that was for communities around the world. We do not want to face that here.

Abstracters are unlikely to give up these abstraction rights voluntarily and forfeit potential compensation payments. This means that over-abstracted rivers and groundwater-dependent habitats will continue to suffer for at least another eight years under the clauses of this Bill, putting threatened habitats and public water supplies at risk. Further clarification could then ensure that the new date would not impose unrealistic time pressures on water abstractors. 

Variations to licences could then be made, setting out a reasonable compliance period for changes to be put in place before the abstractor would be in breach of the new conditions. That would give fair notice to abstractors, which I understand is a concern for the Minister and is the original purpose of the 2028 date, while also enabling swift action on the mounting environmental harm caused by damaging abstraction. It would put environmental risks in the driving seat, not the concerns of water companies, which is what the Bill does at the moment.

Does the Minister agree that without bringing forward the date from which environmentally damaging abstraction licences could be amended without compensation, we are unlikely to achieve the existing Government targets for the health of the water environment, which require us to bring our waters into good status by 2027 at the latest? Bringing the date forward to 2021 will allow action to be taken within the final cycle of the river basin management plans for 2021 to 2027, and allow us to reduce abstraction damage in line with Government targets set under the water environmental regulations of 2017. The dates need to add up.

In its report, “Water supply and demand management”, published in July, the Public Accounts Committee advised:

“The Environment Agency should write…within three months setting out clear objectives, and its planned mitigation actions and associated timescales for eliminating environmental damage from over-abstraction”.

The Committee wants immediate action and we should, too. Has the Environment Agency yet been able to outline how it will eliminate the environmental damage in line with statutory deadlines, given that this power will not come into effect until after those deadlines have passed?

I support these amendments, in order to put the Government’s own targets in line with each other and make sure that we take action against over-abstraction as urgently as necessary.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Member for Putney has highlighted why we need to control water abstraction, which is why these clauses are so important. The Government would strongly prefer that solutions are found at a local level between abstractors and the Environment Agency, before these new powers are utilised. A lot of work is already going on to look at abstraction licences, to find different ways of working and to reduce quantities of water abstraction. Indeed, the Government’s 2017 abstraction plan sets out the Government’s commitment and actions to protect our water environment, and it is already beginning to have some effect. Since 2014, a total of 31 billion litres of water has been returned to the environment, and a further 456 billion litres has been recovered from unused or underused licences.

The implementation date of 2028 will afford the Environment Agency the time to engage directly with abstractors to resolve situations without the need to use these powers. That is one of the main pieces of work in progress, as I have outlined. It will also allow time for a catchment-based approach to water resources, to produce solutions. There is a lot of catchment-based work going on. Opportunities will come through the new environment and land management scheme and its systems of new environmental management, where farmers and catchments work together, which is crucial in a holistic approach to the water landscape.

Finally, the date allows time for the transfer of abstraction licensing into the new environmental permitting regime. The powers are more of a big stick, but we are hoping that these other things will swing into place before they have to be used.

[Ruth Jones]

Does the Minister agree that 2028 is a long time into the future? By then, small water bodies and wetland habitats, which are an essential but unnecessarily overlooked part of our water environment, may be lost. Something that has already gone cannot be brought back. The year 2028 is far too far into the future and we do not want things to be lost in the meantime.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I hope she realises, as I have just outlined, that we are taking action now. The Environment Agency is already working on reducing abstraction with these licence holders in many cases, and that work must carry on at pace.

I also want to be clear—the hon. Member for Putney touched on this—that these measures do not apply to water company abstraction licences. Following the Water Act 2014, water companies are not eligible for compensation for any revocation variation of their abstraction licences, so it is not the water companies we are actually talking about, but the other abstractors of water.

Environment Bill (Seventeenth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 17th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Before our lunch break, we were discussing clause 81, on water quality and the powers of the Secretary of State. The clause gives the Secretary of State a wide-ranging power to amend the regulations that implement the EU water framework directive, particularly as they relate to the chemical pollutants that should be considered under the regulations and the standards applied to them.

I have some concluding comments to my earlier statement. The amendment would ensure that any changes to water quality regulations would be subject not to the negative procedure, as the Bill sets out, but to the super- affirmative procedure. This would give stakeholders—including UKTAG, the UK technical advisory group, which currently advises on standards and which should retain a lead role in this process—the right to input into any water quality regulations changes. It would also legally require the Secretary of State to have regard to that input, ensuring that standards and targets are altered only in line with scientific advice and following appropriate stakeholder consultation.

A robust, binding legal assurance of non-regression on environmental standards would give further assurance on that point. The Government still have the opportunity to give such assurance through the Bill, and that would be warmly welcomed by the environmental sector and many other stakeholders.

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

I thank the hon. Member for Putney for tabling the amendment. I understand entirely the desire to ensure an appropriate level of scrutiny when this delegated power is exercised. The clause creates a narrow power for the Secretary of State to maintain a list of the most harmful chemical substances that could enter watercourses and sets out measures to monitor and tackle them, keeping pace with the latest scientific knowledge. This is a key aspect of our wider regulations that protect and enhance our water environment. The exercise of the power in the clause is subject to consultation with experts in the Environment Agency who provide scientific opinion and have a statutory duty to monitor water.

I highlight the fact that the Secretary of State will take into account the latest scientific evidence when updating lists. In addition to the EA, a lot of that evidence comes through the UK technical advisory group, a working group of experts drawn from the environment and conservation agencies for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who already derive threshold values for UK-specified pollutants, which are monitored for the purposes of contributing to the ecological status of our surface waters. A statutory consultation requirement could not be placed on the UK technical advisory group as it is not a statutory body, but it offers valued expert advice. The Secretary of State must also consult any person or bodies appearing to represent the interests of those likely to be affected by these provisions.

I understand that the amendment seeks to increase the level of parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of the power by upgrading to the super-affirmative resolution procedure, as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned. As we have mentioned, this procedure is used extremely rarely for statutory instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny—for example, legislative reform orders under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which could be used to abolish, confer or transfer statutory functions or create or abolish a statutory body or office—so we do not feel that that would be appropriate.

The hon. Member was concerned about a lowering of standards, which is absolutely not the case. I know that she has a particular interest in this, and I was so interested to hear earlier that she worked for WaterAid. Lots of Back Benchers engage with WaterAid—I did—when it holds events in Parliament. It does really good work. The wider regulations require the EA to have an extensive and robust monitoring regime for chemicals in the water environment and refer to the priority substances as those that must be used to assess chemical status in surface waters. The EA will monitor for new and emerging harmful substances through an early warning system and, in consultation with the EA, the updates to the list will be based on the latest science and monitoring data, which currently suggest a potential increase in the number of substances of concern, rather than a reduction. An eye will certainly be kept on that, because it is so important.

Although I fully acknowledge the importance of parliamentary scrutiny, a super-affirmative, or indeed a standard affirmative, resolution procedure is wholly disproportionate in this instance. This power can be used only to make relatively narrow changes to existing transposing legislation for the purpose of updating certain water quality standards. The power does not extend to changing the wider regime for assessing and monitoring water quality, which is enshrined in the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations 2017. An update to the list of priority substances involves highly technical discussions, as I have mentioned, around emerging pollutants and their threshold values, measured in micrograms per litre, and sophisticated monitoring techniques, including biota testing.

I hope that clarifies the position, and I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

As the Minster indicated, the name super-affirmative suggests that this is not an everyday procedure. It has been suggested in the amendment because the clause would allow the Secretary of State, albeit on a reasonably narrow basis, to amend or modify legislation, and thereby to degrade or completely remove environmental protections that are already in the regulations. That would essentially be a power to deregulate current regulations, underpinned by the ability to do so by simply notifying the House. We do not think that is good enough.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney emphasised, the super-affirmative procedure would not just allow for greater parliamentary scrutiny but would allow for greater consultation in the process. We think it is an appropriate device to add, although it is a relatively new one. It has been in place, as the Minister alluded to, since 2016.

However, the Minister has given some assurances on the limit of the Secretary of State’s power to degrade or remove secondary legislation. She has also indicated that that would not be the intention of the Government, and that, on the contrary, it is their intention to try to uprate those regulations.

[Rebecca Pow]

Apologies; I was mistaken earlier. It was the shadow Minister who tabled the amendment. In addition to all these matters, the Secretary of State will conduct a two-yearly review of significant developments in international legislation on the environment. That is another prong that will help to keep up the standards of environmental protection. I thought the hon. Gentleman might be interested to hear some of the ways we might use—

[The Chair]

Interventions must be very brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to increase the relevant percentage.

(5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentage after 5 years or sooner.”

This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it can only be increased.

I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continue to hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. I am grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour.

After all the excitement this morning, I hope we can have a similarly exciting afternoon. We are coming to the bit that I have been looking forward to most since I first read the Bill: the exciting part around nature and biodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine a more important and pressing subject when we all know that around the world, the targets we have collectively set ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the same time, we look to find ways out of the economic crisis stemming from covid.

Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I looked at the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread some of the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic, forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of “wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that some of that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route. One of the key things is that somewhere along the line, the planning White Paper came along, and there is an unresolved tension between the excellent ambition of the 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we think this is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. My task this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restore it to the Bill it might once have been. We could see this as a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did the changes creep in? Who did such harm to it, and how can we now help the Government make good? In some of the discussions on this schedule, the Government thought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towards net environmental gain, and we would really like that desire to be addressed.

Much of the schedule is about the planning system. I suspect many Members here have direct or indirect experience of our planning system and know how important it is. For the moment, the provisions for reducing environmental impact in the planning system are focused on preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objective has been embraced in the national planning policy framework since 2012, when it replaced the previous policy objective of no net loss, which sought only a neutral outcome after losses and gains were accounted for. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the net gain objective has been relatively effective in reducing loss of habitats and species without slowing down development, but it has been far from enough to turn the tide in nature’s decline. The principle of taking a more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiring a 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support. That is what is addressed in this schedule.

We know how important that is because, sadly, the UK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. The Government have failed on too many metrics: 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact the Government have begun to address some of the issues, although we think we need to approach this serious issue in an open and clear way. We note the Prime Minister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% of land being protected, but we also gently point out that some 26% of that is achieved through a counting mechanism that includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks. We want to address this problem. We have to be serious about it and not try to play with the figures, and our view is that at the moment the Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However, the new general condition has the potential to be an effective tool to boost biodiversity across the country, and there are many issues we want to address in the amendments to see how the Bill can be improved.

I will touch on several of our amendments, including on the length of time for which habitats should be maintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, too many, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition; the relationship between the new system and irreplaceable habitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guarantee what is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan to ensure it is actually delivered on the ground. To turn to the detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are in danger of being left with a rather unambitious percentage of biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for the Government to decrease if they choose to do so. At first sight, setting the condition for planning permission at 10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing to do, but it is important to note that the impact assessment published alongside the biodiversity net gain consultation in December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowest level of net gain at which the Department

“could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no net loss”.

It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward. Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the current practice of some local authorities. I am told that Lichfield District Council already requires 20% net gain on new development, so although we welcome the Government’s statement and its response to the biodiversity net gain consultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap on the aspirations of developers who want to go further. I was pleased that the Minister reiterated this point on Second Reading. It would be very helpful if she could make a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developers and to help them and local planning authorities, underlining that the aspiration is to go further.

A number of changes need to be made. Under schedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number of powers to make regulations, including a Henry VIII power to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objective and to amend the types of developments the net gain will apply to. The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevant percentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is 10%, and:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraph so as to change the relevant percentage.”

Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended to include a commitment to monitor and review practice, so that the level of gain can be increased in future if evidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. We also need a lock-in so that the percentage can only be increased by the Government, not simply decreased at a later date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill to lower the level of gain; that would seriously undermine the objectives of the system as a whole, and would likely result in little or no gain being achieved in practice.

Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the 10% net gain figure could be changed is by being increased after review by the Secretary of State. It would also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentage is reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, within a maximum period of five years.

I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout, assure us that there is no need for concern. But to return to my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain in my story and Members might be able to guess who some of the contenders might be. Looking back at the Prime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, he did claim—spuriously in our view—that:

“Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity of this country.”

We will discuss newts in more detail later, but when Government policy lurches from one approach to another, we need certainty that the commitment of the current Minister will not be trumped by future Ministers who might take a different view. Unless we get that certainty, we will certainly wish to press this amendment to a Division.

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridge as he takes the floor this afternoon. This is a tremendously exciting part of the Bill, through which we can all be a part in doing our hugely important bit for nature in this country. He is right about degradation—I am not even going to think about denying that—and about how important the Bill is. This is the tool for achieving the measures in the 25-year environment plan, which was the first environmental improvement plan. It is great that the plan is full of optimism because it sets out what we want to do and where we want to go, and these measures will be in this Bill.

Let me turn to the amendment. Responses to the net gain consultation revealed that some developers have already made voluntary commitments to no net loss or net gain and there were calls for both a higher and a lower percentage. It was quite interesting how that came out. On balance and having considered all responses, we believe that requiring at least a 10% gain strikes the right balance between ambition, creating certainty in achieving environmental outcomes, deliverability and costs for developers. It should not be viewed as a cap and the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioned a local authority that has set its sights higher. Many more are doing that and going voluntarily above 10%.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Planning for the future” White Paper, which I think will probably be referred to a lot today. It specifically sets out support for biodiversity net gain and rightly identifies improving biodiversity as one of our most important national challenges. It is important to build the houses people want and all of the developments that we need, but that cannot be done to the detriment of the environment.

That is quite clear in the White Paper that biodiversity net gain and biodiversity more generally are one of our most important challenges. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on the implementation of biodiversity net gain to make sure it is fully integrated into the planning system. I have already said that the 25-year environment plan is the first environmental improvement plan, and all these things will work as part and parcel of one another.

The ambition of 10% net gain represents a significant step forward beyond current practice while striking a balance and meaning it does not have be reviewed as a cap. Restricting the ability to set a lower percentage requirement may force the Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve a 10% net gain, rather than keeping them in scope and subjecting them to a lower percentage requirement. Broader exemptions would be a greater risk to the achievement of the wide policy aims than targeted application of a lower percentage gain.

Limiting the power might therefore compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement, which could compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is making an interesting case for the clause. However, does she accept that it is a particularly egregious example of “first you have it, then you don’t” legislation appearing in consecutive paragraphs? That is to say—a bald statement, as she said—the relevant percentage is 10%, but then the Secretary of State can take that away. Does she have any suggestions as to how one might make that a little less alarming, if she is indeed suggesting that that sort of arrangement needs to be in place?

[Rebecca Pow]

I reiterate how closely we are working with other Departments and on the “Planning for the future” White Paper to make sure that biodiversity remains the significant objective that it needs to be, as has been indicated already.

Other measures in the Bill, such as the local nature recovery strategies that we will come on to talk about, will help with our moving towards biodiversity net gain. There are a lot of measures that will make it much clearer where the net gain is, what the advantages and benefits of it are, and where it should go.

One of the main aims of our planning reforms is to enhance the environment while having the development that we need. We want environmental assets to be protected. We want to provide more green spaces, more sustainable development and new homes that are energy-efficient. Many of these measures have already been announced and are being introduced, such as the measures on houses and on the reduction of carbon-intensive modes of transport. All these things will work together, and measures in the Bill will help that process. We will also work through the White Paper to deliver even further on the net gain.

Let me reiterate that limiting the power might compel future Governments to make other adjustments to the requirement that would compromise environmental and development outcomes more fundamentally than a lower percentage of net gain. What we are trying to do overall is to raise up the whole net gain.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that these amendments are very moderate? We are not looking to limit things down, but to raise things up. The Bill already has the relevant percentage—10%—so to put that as a minimum is surely a very moderate thing. That word is a very important one. As she has already said, she is very ambitious, so adding that word would surely increase the ambition.

[Rebecca Pow]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I still stick to my point that restricting the ability to set a low percentage requirement might force Government to exempt any development types that cannot achieve the 10%. What we are trying to do is to make sure that everyone gets to the 10% mark, and others might go above that voluntarily.

On the final point about the amendment, about compelling the Secretary of State to review the percentage within five years, I offer my assurances that the Government intend to monitor closely the policy outcome of net gain after its implementation. Of course, Members should remember that we have our Office for Environmental Protection; we have a great big monitoring and reporting body. It will be very difficult for anyone not to stick to these measures. They are all in the Bill and they add to the overall enhancing of the environment. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister. I suspect that a theme is already emerging from this discussion, whereby the Minister tries very hard to explain away the differences that have emerged. That is her job and she has made a very good attempt at it. However, it seems counterintuitive to argue that, on the one hand, the Government are going to introduce this level and, on the other hand, they will have the ability to reduce it. As for the argument that that somehow protects the measure, I think that the cat was slightly let out of the bag by the suggestion that there might be exemptions that will allow another way round it. We will come on to that in a moment.

In some ways, this is a strange discussion, because the White Paper on planning emerged in the summer, after this Committee was in abeyance. It seemed to us—we made this point very strongly—that this process is a complicated set of interactions that would have benefited from the detailed interrogation of experts. We will get into some quite detailed planning law issues in the coming hours, I suspect, and many of us possibly do not have the expertise that some of our witnesses might have been able to bring to these discussions. It is a great pity that we are not able to explore that in more detail. But we are where we are and we will have to do our best.

The problem is that a lot of this goes back to the question of trust. Basically, the Minister is asking us to trust the Government. She says that they are introducing the OEP, but the OEP will work to the legislation that we are putting in place today. Inevitably, there is pressure —we know that there is huge pressure and we understand why—from local developers and a Government who want to build, build, build. That is why nature needs a voice: it needs the legislative protection that the Minister is so passionate about. There should not be any loopholes, because we know what will happen: if we leave loopholes, people will use them. That is why—and I will keep repeating this point—I want to understand what changed, who did it and why, because if we get an answer to those questions, we will understand what is likely to happen in future.

This Bill might look lovely and sound great, but when we begin to delve down into the detail and look at the “mays” rather than the “musts” and at the exemptions and loopholes it introduces, we may find that, like on so many other occasions in the past, it is a great disappointment. That is why we want to absolutely tie this down. On that basis, we wish to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

That combination of matters suggests to me that the 30-year limit is just wrong, and it should not be in the Bill. We have suggested “in perpetuity”, and there may be other suggestions for timescales that are long enough to make sure that these effects work. As far as the 30-year rule is concerned, we think it is best simply to say that—with the exception of very specific circumstances, where things can be untangled or undone by other means—the default position is that once it is done, it is done, and it is not to be undone thereafter. We think that that is an important principle that should be enshrined in this Bill, as far as biodiversity gains are concerned.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank both hon. Members for their comments. The 25-year environment plan has been referred to, and I would say that Opposition Members are talking about weakening the commitments on biodiversity net gain in the 25-year plan. The Bill actually takes us further on biodiversity net gain. The plan only included a commitment to consult on a mandatory approach and strengthened policy. We are proposing a robust mandatory requirement with a broad scope of mechanisms for securing gains. I think that is important to register at the beginning.

The schedule states that “any habitat enhancement” within a development site that is considered significant by the planning authority must be

“maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed.”

Respondents to the net gain consultation expressed strong support for a minimum period of maintenance, and Government responded by confirming that they would introduce a minimum period—hence the 30 years.

[Ruth Jones]

I am just seeking some clarification on the definition. The Minister said the amendment appears to weaken the Bill, but “in perpetuity” cannot be weaker than 25 years, because perpetuity is longer than 25 years.

[Rebecca Pow]

My point was that what we are introducing in the Bill is much stronger than what was in the 25-year environment plan. That was the point I was making. I will press on—

[Dr Whitehead]

We did not write that.

[Rebecca Pow]

But it was referred to earlier. It is a commitment we have made, and we are strengthening it. Credit should be given where credit is due. A great amount of work has advanced since the launch of that plan, which I went to in 2018 with the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). We are forging on and doing even more than was promised in that plan.

I welcome the acknowledgment by hon. Members of the importance of long-term maintenance of biodiversity gain sites to ensure that we provide long-lasting benefits for wildlife and communities and for climate change, as was ably referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. There are, however, practical reasons why we should keep the minimum requirement to a 30-year duration. We need to create the right habitats in the right places for wildlife. Increasing the minimum required duration of maintenance might dissuade key landowners from volunteering their land for gains. Agreements made for perpetuity would also risk creating permanent conditions or obligations to maintain particular types of habitat, when future changes in climate or ecological conditions might make a different type of habitat more suitable. The Bill leaves space for flexibility.

I want to give some more detail about what we term conservation covenants. Any conservation covenant used for net gain would be drafted to secure the carrying out of habitat enhancement works and maintenance of the enhancement for at least 30 years. We would expect responsible bodies to respect that purpose when deciding whether or how to modify or discharge a conservation covenant. They might consider whether any flexibility for landowners would better serve that purpose than retaining the conservation covenant unchanged. I have talked to landowners about this, and it is a point they make, so that has to be respected. The Bill leaves the flexibility for that.

There are also a range of existing protections for habitats, which will not be going away. They could apply to biodiversity gain sites even after the 30 years have expired. These are principally of relevance to off-site habitat enhancements, but would still apply to habitats created within developments. We understand from stakeholders that there may, in some cases, be little difference in funding requirements between the minimum 30-year agreement and a longer agreement.

In cases where it is acceptable to a landowner and would deliver greater biodiversity benefits, we would, of course, encourage longer-term agreements. We would do that initially through guidance. Should further evaluation of the policy show that this is not achieving the right outcomes, the encouragement might be adjusted through policy, the biodiversity metric, which has been in existence for about five years and is currently being updated by Natural England, or further guidance. Any future decision relating to the mechanisms of the encouragement will be made by Government on the basis of evaluation of the biodiversity net gain practice rather than speculation, which, I suggest, is what is being done at the moment.

[Dr Whitehead]

First, I think it should be put on record that suggesting that a Government initiative is better than an amendment being proposed, when the comparison is made between two Government initiatives, one of which is better than the other, really should not stand. We did not write the 25-year environment plan; the Government did. If this improves on the 25-year environment plan, fair enough, but it is not to do with us.

Secondly, in law, 30 years means 30 years. It will be found out whether that was the right thing by encouragement only after 30 years. If someone rips everything up after 30 years, they will find the Government’s encouragement was not as good as it should have been. I am puzzled as to how the Minister will find out whether this is working short of the 30-year period. Would it not be better not to have that 30-year period, to ensure that we do not have to find out the hard way at the end of 30 years, when that change is made in law?

[Rebecca Pow]

I take the point that the hon. Gentleman made earlier. I put on record that I hear what he has said. We will not fall out.

Things will not stop after 30 years. For example, while the agreements made for biodiversity net gain might expire, the created habitats will remain subject to a wide range of protections at that point, as I just said. For example, if a woodland had been created, it would benefit from existing protections for woodland and would then fall into the scope of the felling licence and potential environmental impact assessment regulations for forestry. All those other protections would come into play.

I reiterate that people can voluntarily enter into contracts longer than 30 years if they so wish. I am sure that certain people will want to do that. In light of the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw his amendment.

[The Chair]

I call Dr Zeichner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 22, in schedule 14, page 212, line 15 leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 22 would make it a duty for the Secretary of State to provide a clear procedure to planning authorities. Here, again, we come back to the realms of local government. I should perhaps have said earlier that some years ago I was a district councillor in rural Norfolk. I very much enjoyed the experience, and spent many hours—as, I suspect, did many other members of the Committee—on local planning processes. I learned that planning law is lengthy, complicated and sometimes controversial, but very important when it comes to protecting and developing local communities.

This is another one of those “may” and “must” issues. The amendment would strengthen the Bill, which states only that

“The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedure which a planning authority is to follow in determining whether to approve a biodiversity gain plan”.

I fear, yet again, that the devil is in the detail. I remember being quite impressed as a district councillor some years ago that there was an interest in biodiversity. We had a biodiversity committee, which meant that we had some fascinating discussions, but I fear that nothing much happened. That is so often the problem: that there is concern but no means of translating intent into action.

Whether the Secretary of State “may” or “must” make regulations is therefore quite important. I fear that many planning authorities that do not have to engage with this will look at it sympathetically, because people want it, but it will be the usual thing: when they are constrained by so many competing requirements, it is tough to do something unless they have to, which is what we are in this place to ensure.

Regulations may specify the details of the

“time by which a determination must be made…factors which may or must be taken into account in making such a determination”,

and appeals against the planning’s authority’s decisions. I suspect that we are all familiar with the dilemmas that local councillors often face. We give them a huge range of things to take into consideration while trying to achieve balanced outcomes that can withstand scrutiny and appeal, and quite often—and rightly so—they have to take direction from their expert officers who have already made those calculations.

The question is where we balance this issue as a priority against the other things that councillors take into account. My sense is that unless we strengthen the Bill, it will become one more on the list of things that they really ought to take into account. At best, it may become a line on an agenda that gets ticked: “Yes, we have taken it into account, because somebody raised it,” but will it actually be considered among the trade-offs in the decision-making process? I am not convinced.

We also wish to raise the question of how the regulations will be decided here; again, we believe that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure to allow proper parliamentary scrutiny. They should also be subject to proper public consultation; because the issue is complicated, the input of biodiversity and planning professionals through public consultation would strengthen discussion and improve procedures. These are not simple matters—they have significant consequences and significant costs—but in due course such input would improve the overall planning outcomes. Improved procedures could ensure that all planning authorities’ biodiversity gain plans are sufficiently detailed, subject to public consultation, and made available in draft so as to inform planning applications. That is a part of the democratic process that we believe very valuable, although the planning White Paper seems to suggest that, for whole swathes of the country, that process may not be continued in future.

We want to get the Minister’s thinking on this, because it is not clear why she would not want to accept the amendment. We will not press it to a Division, but we would like an explanation.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for moving the amendment. Paragraph 16 of schedule 14 sets out that the Secretary of State may impose further procedural requirements relating to how a planning authority approves a biodiversity gain plan. Paragraph 15 makes it clear that the biodiversity gain objective must be met; it also specifies that other key factors, such as the accuracy of the plan’s ecological information, must be considered by the planning authority. The Government intend to use the paragraph 16 power to ensure that the requirements fit well with the planning system; the hon. Member alluded to that, and obviously it is really important, but we believe that the other considerations in paragraph 15 should provide confidence that approved plans will meet the legislation’s environmental policy objectives.

Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as we have discussed many times. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to how the provision is given effect. Forcing the use of regulations when they might not be needed risks creating unnecessary complication, or even weakening the purpose of the measures. It may not be necessary for the regulations to cover all the areas in paragraph 16; they are set out to give the Secretary of State discretion to address them if it is considered necessary. While we cannot rule out needing to address appeals in the regulations, that may not be necessary. Forcing the Secretary of State to regulate such matters immediately when that may not be a clear necessity would risk adding complexity to a process that we aim to keep straightforward. The addition of undue complexity risks undermining the benefits of the approach for the planning authorities, the communities—which are obviously so important—and the developers using it.

The biodiversity gain plan is simply the document that allows the developer to demonstrate to the planning authority how it has satisfied the biodiversity net gain requirement. A typical biodiversity gain plan will consist of the completed biodiversity metric and some supplementary information. We expect that the consistency of the plans will make their assessment easier for the planning authorities, and reduce the risk of miscommunication. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I listened with interest to the Minister’s explanation. I am not entirely sure that I am convinced by it, because it is not clear to me why making regulations at a later date, rather than making things clear sooner, will make the position less complex. Having the discretion to make them or not does not seem helpful.

The Minister also raised an issue about the biodiversity net gain metric, which is worthier of comment. There is a worry that we are creating yet another algorithm that people will not understand—the phrase “mutant algorithm” has already been bandied about with regard to housing numbers and the planning White Paper. As someone who is interested in data, I am not convinced that it is the algorithm that is mutant, the issue is those who put the data in, or interpret or programme it in a certain way.

Clearly, there is concern that technocratic approaches to making such decisions will take away local input—that those with unique knowledge of the local community and local biodiversity could in some way be excluded. That is a concern. The amendment has the potential to explain to local planning authorities how things should work, so the Minister is missing an opportunity.

An important point was made to me by the Town and Country Planning Association: if there is just a simple metric, where sites have apparently lower biodiversity value, people’s attachment to that local open space and its social values could somehow be lost. There is a big debate to be had about how the metric works, and what parameters feed into it in.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but although he suggests that the metric is a new thing being imposed on people, it has been used for about five years, and is referred to by planning authorities and developers. As I think I just mentioned, Natural England is working on updating it, because it is complicated —it is not a simple thing, but it is a very useful thing. We want to know what is there, what the value is, and what the value could be—all that. We must also remember that all of this will link into the local nature recovery networks, which local communities will be really involved with.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Yes, and we will discuss those local nature recovery networks. The point that I am making is that the amendment was an opportunity for the Government to give direction to local planning authorities. Different planning authorities would do this differently—some would probably not do it at all, some would do it well, and some less well. It is sufficiently important for the Government to give direction. That is the point of our probing amendment.

To some extent, the Minister has clarified things, although I am not sure that has left us any more hopeful about the impacts, but at least we have had clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you, Mr Gray. I escalated from a pen to a hand, but I can escalate to a full body motion, if that is acceptable.

I want to add to the admirable exposition of the two amendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge by drawing attention to amendment 171, which would leave out two lines from paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule, which has the heading, “Exceptions”. I ask members of the Committee to see what has been done here, because I think it is shocking. At the start of part 2 of the proposed new schedule, conditions for planning permission relating to biodiversity are laid down:

“Every planning permission granted for the development of land in England shall be deemed to have been granted subject to the condition in sub-paragraph (2).”,

which is,

“The condition is that the development may not be begun unless”

there is a biodiversity gain plan. That looks terrific. The casual observer would think, “That’s it sorted out. The biodiversity gain plan has to be in place. That’s what the Bill’s about.”

On turning to paragraph 17, we see that there are some exceptions:

“development for which planning permission is granted…by a development order, or…under section 293A (urgent Crown development)”.

That is arguable, but then we have this sentence:

“development of such other description as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”

Put into English, that means that if the Secretary of State introduces a regulation, development is exempted. The whole thing is meaningless from the beginning. All it needs is a regulation, which I presume may well be under the negative procedure, for this to be completely undone.

I know that it is fashionable to blame drafting for these issues, but something as shocking as this has to have had an intention behind it. This cannot arise from someone taking a lax instruction, writing the provision in the bowels of a building, presenting it and no one noticing. How these things are written is instructed by Ministers, who under the Bill can simply remove stuff that the Government do not feel like doing. It refers to all development, not just to some developments—it says “development”. That really is not good enough for a Bill of this kind.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for their comments. The hon. Member for Cambridge asked a lot of questions, so if I do not cover them all, we will put something in writing because I could not keep up with them all.

Paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule introduced by schedule 14 sets out when the general biodiversity gain condition does not apply. Sub-paragraph (b) creates a power to exempt specific types of development through regulations. While I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of keeping exemptions narrow, there are good reasons to use this power, which amendment 171 seeks to remove, to introduce targeted exemptions for more constrained development types.

The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gains, which was something the hon. Member specifically asked about. The power will be used to make narrow practical exemptions in order to keep net gain requirements proportionate. Exemptions will ensure that the mandatory requirement is not applied to development on such a small scale that it could be negligible, and I will go on to talk a bit more about that and about no losses in terms of habitat value. Some development will result in negligible losses or degradation of habitat. Examples of such development might include changes or alterations to buildings and house extensions, for example. Applying the 10% targets to such development would not generate significant ecological gains, and the requirement might result in undue process costs for developers and planning authorities alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister has talked about targeted, narrow exemptions, but that is not what it says in the Bill. I take on board the fact that she is enthusiastic about and fully committed to this, but somebody coming after her—heaven forbid—could use the wording in a completely different way and we would need to follow that is actually in the Bill, rather than what is in an explanatory note.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that and I reiterate my first sentence. The Government will not introduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversity net gain, and we have made that quite clear.

Amendment 170 would undo the exemption for permitted development from the net gain requirement. Permitted development rights play a vital role in freeing up local planning authorities to deal with planning applications that really matter to local communities, and have a wider social, economic and environmental impact. The hon. Member for Cambridge will know that from his time on the planning committee at the district council. Many permitted development rights are for small-scale development or changes of use, such as modest alterations to buildings, small fences or temporary use of land for fairs, where there is little or no impact on biodiversity.

Development undertaken through local planning orders is not exempt from net gain, as we have touched on. Only development under the general permitted development order, such as adding a conservatory, is exempt. It is true that we have extended the scope of the permitted development rights in recent years in order to deliver more homes, but permitted development rights such as allowing office-to-residential conversions and allowing residential blocks to be built up are principally about the use of existing developments and development land, and so are generally outside the scope of biodiversity net gain.

Brownfield sites were mentioned. It is not the Government’s intention to exempt brownfield sites. We absolutely recognise the biodiversity value those sites can have and, indeed, their value to communities—many of them are right in the centre of towns and cities. Any brownfield exemptions will be narrow and will have to recognise biodiversity value. We will consult further on the details of exemptions. For example, brownfield sites will have a set of criteria that would relate to them when these matters were being considered.

Special development orders are rarely used, but it is important to retain the legislative flexibility to make them very quickly to respond to urgent priorities. For instance, in recent years they have been used to secure urgent planning permission for the temporary lorry parks as part of the Brexit preparations, and Members will be able to see the benefit of that and why it is important to do that quickly.

New towns were also touched on, and we are aware that there are extant powers in the New Towns Act 1981 to use special development orders to set out the planning framework for new towns. There are no plans to use those powers at present, and the Government recently consulted on modernising the planning powers of development corporations to ensure that they are fit for purpose. However, we are clear that any new town would need to contribute to biodiversity gain: indeed, one of the great things about new towns is that there is the opportunity and scope to make them wonderful, green, biodiverse spaces in which to live. We have learned so many lessons this year about how important those things are.

We think it is right that the legislation is clear that biodiversity gain should not be included in permitted development rights, and that a clear exemption for development orders is the best way forward. I hope I have given clarity on some of those other areas, and for the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press amendments 170 and 171.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the Minister, and I do think that some of what she said was helpful. However, I have to say that not only was my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test excited this morning; he is now shocked. Being excited and shocked in the same day is a bit worrying, but the Minister will have heard the shocked tones from the Opposition Benches.

I think a close reading of the text gives cause for concern, and I hope that the Minister might, on reflection, look at what she described as “narrow”. One person’s flexibility is sometimes another person’s loophole. There are different definitions of narrow, and some of us can see a yawning chasm—a big gap that anyone who is astride a bulldozer could drive straight through—so we do think there is legitimate cause for concern. Clearly, the permitted development rights extensions have been extremely controversial and a cause for concern, so I am not entirely sure that the Minister’s defence would reassure everyone. Certainly in my part of the world, some huge problems have arisen from some of those changes, and I am not convinced that any concern was given to restoring nature when making those changes. I also have to say that whenever a Minister says there are no plans to do something at present, that is generally a good sign that it may happen sometime soon, so that is also a cause for worry.

I do think this issue needs to be further examined, and I suspect we will be coming back to it. I also suspect that the other place will look quite closely at this, so I do not think today’s discussion will be the end of the matter. However, it is useful to have had it, because if the Bill is not precise, the words that Ministers use become more helpful in defining and limiting.

I suspect that many people will look at the Bill and think that this is too big a loophole, and ask—exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test did—what was the thinking behind doing this? That is the question I keep going back to: why has there been this change from the optimism of a couple of years ago? It may just be that this is what happens in government: officials look at it more closely and say, “You really do not want to do that, because”—and then the Government find that they are losing out on the noble ambition they had at the outset. We are pretty determined to make sure that that noble ambition stays on track.

I hope the Minister thinks we are in being in some way helpful to her; I am sure that is not how it feels at the moment, but she may come to see that in time. With the reset of Government policy, she may suddenly be flavour of the month. Maybe she can feature in a 10-point green plan—who knows? However, we do not need to pursue this issue further at the moment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 172, in schedule 14, page 212, line 32, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would commit the Secretary of State to make regulations excluding irreplaceable habitat from the net gain policy.

I am afraid that we are going to go further into the legalities of the planning system. I apologise: mid-afternoon is probably not the time to be doing this, but it needs to be gone into. This amendment is another may/must one. We are concerned about the provisions for net gain in the Bill, and the relationship between this new system and the irreplaceable habitats that, in many places, we treasure and love. These irreplaceable habitats are very precious places and include ancient woodlands, salt marshes, blanket bog and lowland fen, which, if destroyed, are technically extremely difficult to restore, and it takes a hugely long time to do so. By their very nature, these habitats cannot be properly recreated, so this is not a case of providing a replacement or, in any real sense, a gain.

The national planning policy framework sets out that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats…should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

We need further clarity that provisions on biodiversity net gain will not undermine existing protections for irreplaceable habitats. The amendment seeks to explore the complicated relationship between these new provisions and the existing protections.

Schedule 14 gives the Secretary of State powers to define what is meant by “irreplaceable habitat” and to exclude such habitats from net gain or amend how the legislation applies to them. Amendment 172 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to make such regulations, such that they “must” rather than “may” make them. Any regulations and associated guidance on irreplaceable habitats should make it clear that current legal protections and requirements for irreplaceable habitats are fully retained and take precedence.

That is the problem with the interpretation of the different pieces of legislation. I suspect that the Minister has probably had these conversations. We want to add clarity to the process. If that is not done, we fear that it will be open to dispute in future. Not only that, but people would also be able to do things that they would not have been able to do before. The theme of some of the upcoming amendments is that there is a danger that something that looks good could end up doing harm as a result of unintended consequences. I am not in any way suggesting that that is the intention, but it is the risk, and that is why it is important that this is sorted out.

The Government should also reiterate that adverse impacts from development should be avoided, not just minimised. Our concern is that if the requirements for irreplaceable habitats are less arduous than those for other habitats, a perverse incentive could be created. We do not want the regulations to do that or to end up with the extraordinary situation of developers being incentivised to target irreplaceable habitats instead.

The Bill should be absolutely explicit that the mitigation hierarchy, existing designations, and statutory and planning protections for sites and species are not undermined by any of the new proposals. Net gain should be what happens right at the end of the process, if planners cannot find a way of stopping damage to habitats along the way. These protected sites should remain inviolate and rely on and benefit from the current protections and systems, which we want to ensure are in no way diminished.

Any regulations proposed by the Secretary of State should be taken under the affirmative procedure, and there should be public consultation because there is very real public interest in these issues. We believe that allowing third parties, including experts in the nature sector, to input into those regulations through public consultation would ensure that new net gain conditions would not inadvertently provide the kinds of loopholes that I have been describing. I do not think that the Minister will disagree with this, but in my experience local people invariably know their own locality best, and we should not be silencing them.

I say again that this amendment is an attempt to tease out from the Minister some safeguards and words of reassurance, and that we will not need to divide the Committee.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for looking into this issue and for the amendment. Some habitats include ancient woodland, with which I have a great affinity, having been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees. We did a lot of cross-party work on this habitat. These habitats cannot be recreated and are typically considered irreplaceable. They are of enormous ecological and cultural importance and significance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 91, page 91, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

I am sure you will be delighted, Mr Gray, that we have moved on to another clause, but the previous schedule was a big and important one. The biodiversity gain site register requires another discussion about “may” and “must”. The amendment seeks to tease out the intention behind the measure.

Clause 91 sets out that the Secretary of State may make provision for a biodiversity gain site register to be created. To some extent, this is the last stage of the mitigation hierarchy: it is not something that anyone would want to do, but we recognise that it might sometimes be necessary. It is very important that a register of compensatory habitat sites is publicly available and updated regularly, and that we are able to see how the process works.

All our amendment does is seek to tighten the Government’s responsibility to provide the register by turning it into a duty for them to do so. A register of sites is essential to secure and record meaningful and lasting net gain. I refer to some of my earlier comments: we worry that in some cases there will be not necessarily a lack of will but a lack of capacity to check and monitor. Not only does this have to work, but the message needs to go out that it works, such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said earlier, people will not think, “Well, no one is ever going to check. It’s not going to matter, and after 30 years who’s going to know and who’s going to care?” If that becomes the attitude, clearly this whole process and system will have failed in its intentions.

We do not want a simple tick-box exercise where it looks as if it has been done but no one knows what is happening in the real world. We think the amendment would help check on progress in delivering and maintaining enhanced habitat sites. We think it would help with the checking, monitoring, and enforcement function, even though we worry whether it will actually be done. This is a probing amendment, so we will not seek a Division. The question to the Minister is: why would one not do it? If the net gain system is to be established respective of mitigation hierarchy, it is hard to see why one would not do this as soon as possible.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. It is definitely worth enquiring about this register, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk about it.

Clause 91 makes provisions for the creation of a register of these biodiversity gain sites. The register is necessary for the biodiversity gain condition to work effectively. Without a register, no habitat enforcement outside development sites would be undertaken in pursuit of biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, without the register, a development that is unable to achieve biodiversity net gain within its site boundary may not be able to commence development at all. That would block a significant proportion of new development, so the register is useful in a number of ways.

I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement of the importance of the register and the provisions in this clause, and understand his wish that the powers within it should be exercised in good time. There is a clear need for the Government to design and implement this register before the biodiversity gain condition comes into effect, and I can confirm that, while the hon. Member seemed to suggest that one or may not create the register, it is the Government’s intention to do so.

I want to clarify that this clause provides this power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that will set out the rules and procedures for the operation and maintenance of the new register of biodiversity gain sites. That will include setting fees for applications to add land to the register, criteria for determining eligibility of land to be added to the register, and rules for the allocation of land in the register in relation to developments. The use and nature of the register is likely to evolve, and flexibility will be needed to update its requirements. Before making an order under this power, the Department wants to consult stakeholders. Detailed regulations will need to be in place to provide all parties with sufficient guidance on how the biodiversity gain register will operate. This will help create confidence that the system can achieve the intended environmental outcomes. I hope I am answering all the things that the hon. Member has on his mind.

Primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties, as I have said many times before. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with the flexibility as to how this provision is given effect. I hope that provides clarity. I think it is a probing amendment, and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister. This is a probing amendment, so we will not divide the Committee, but it is extraordinary that it almost seems like a global change has resulted in “shall” or “will” appearing as “may” throughout the Bill. We could do a global change back again. It is clear that the system cannot work without the register, which gives rise to the question: why the delays? The Minister may be slightly nervous, in the sense that she said that we will need to design and implement the register. It comes from a 25-year environment plan from two or three years ago, so how long is this all going to take? She might want to intervene to say roughly how long she thinks it will take, but I suspect she will not want to do so.

Why is there not a greater sense of urgency? To go right back to where we started, it is urgent and crucial that we tackle this crisis, yet in designing the system it appears that there was a presumption that it would take a few months for the legislation to get through and that the register would then need to be designed.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will intervene. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that local authorities in particular will want a system that works, not some flim-flam, half-developed thing that is going to go wrong. That is why it is so important to do it step by step. There is urgency, hence the Bill and all the measures in it. All this has to work with the local nature recovery strategies and the overall nature recovery strategy. The targets and all the rest of it will fit together, and it will come on stream with some urgency. Was that an intervention? Does he agree?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I have clearly touched a nerve. I am delighted to hear that. All I gently observe is that things move rather slowly sometimes. I am sure that the Minister wants it to happen quickly, just as we all want it to happen quickly and to work. I am not entirely sure that those two things have to be mutually exclusive, but I suppose experience suggests that things do not always instantly work smoothly. I appreciate the Minister’s contribution, and having heard what she has had to say, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, we think that subjecting the regulations to parliamentary scrutiny and public consultation, with input from biodiversity experts, would likely improve the effectiveness of the credit scheme and deliver better outcomes for nature. I ask the same question again: will the Minister explain why the Government are not getting on with it? Once again, we will not seek a Division on this probing amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

Clause 92 makes provision for the Secretary of State to set up a system of statutory biodiversity credits. Some developers might find that there are no suitable local habitat enhancement schemes to enable them to achieve net gain, and in such cases, a biodiversity gain requirement might become a barrier even to the most appropriate and sustainable of developments. To mitigate that risk, the Government will sell biodiversity credits, which may be counted towards a development’s net gain. That will allow us to achieve biodiversity net gains through strategic investment in habitat restoration, while reducing the risk of undue delay to development.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s clear acknowledgment that this and the environmental potential of the statutory biodiversity credits system are important. Obviously, there is a clear need for the Government to design and implement the credits system before the biodiversity net gain requirement comes into effect, and I can confirm that that is the Government’s intention. He is right about urgency and about wanting it to happen now, but it all has to happen step by step. The Government have every intention of doing that, because it will be an important part of the whole machine.

The Government will apply principles for setting the tariff rate—that was set out in the net gain consultation—in setting the standard costs of statutory biodiversity units. Although the Government still consider the consultation’s proposed range of between £9,000 and £15,000 for the cost of a biodiversity unit to be broadly appropriate, some respondents raised concerns that it was too low and would stifle habitat creation, while others thought it was too high. Several respondents asked for further evidence and work to refine the cost per unit.

The Government will undertake a review of the rate and seek further stakeholder engagement on this subject before announcing specific costs per unit of biodiversity. That is really important. I have spoken to a whole range of different people, from those who have land and who might want to offer it up for the offsetting, to the agents operating for them. Loads of people in this space clearly need to be consulted. I hope this explanation gives a bit more clarity.

Primary legislation consistently takes the approach, as we have set out in the clause, of balance between powers and duties. Forcing the creation of arrangements that might not be needed risks creating unnecessary complication in the process, or even a weakening of the purposes of the measures. In the long-term, for example, we might no longer need a credit system if sufficient habitat enhancement opportunities were offered by local landowners or conservation bodies. I hope that has given a bit more clarity and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his probing amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 136, in clause 92, page 94, line 5, at end insert—

“(11) In accordance with the biodiversity metric, the Secretary of State or another person, is obliged to carry out such works as necessary to enhance the biodiversity of habitat associated with the sale of biodiversity credits.

(12) The Secretary of State or another person is required to secure and maintain the enhancement in perpetuity after the habitat enhancement has reached its target condition.”

There is concern that biodiversity credits could undermine the biodiversity gains system as a whole. Our worry—to some extent this touches on my previous point—is that it is obviously uncharted territory. We do not entirely know how it will work, but the key thing, in our view, is that it is linked as much as possible to local priorities. The Minister hinted in her previous reply that it may be a touch optimistic to imagine that local alternatives will always be found, which is the reason for setting this up in the first place, but through the amendment we want to press her on how the Government can guard against the long-term pooling of revenue, instead of funds being used to achieve the net gain that we all want. That is our worry.

We also think—this goes back to an earlier discussion—that it would have been possible to make a requirement for habitats created through the purchase of biodiversity credits to be maintained in perpetuity. I suppose our worry throughout is that, for all the good intentions, it is possible that the system could end up not achieving what we want it to. It could be abused, and could, in effect, buy a way through for developers to access habitats that none of us would want to see developed. That is the danger and the risk, and we want to help the Government, through the amendments, to ensure that is not the case.

We also think that there ought to be a reporting function, and that the added value of biodiversity credits to local habitat creation projects and strategic ecological networks should be set out clearly in an annual report. To ensure transparency, habitats created through biodiversity credits should also be held on a register of biodiversity gain sites. That is partly about ensuring that the mechanisms work in an open and transparent way.

We have had strong representations from both the Town and Country Planning Association and the Local Government Association, which are genuinely worried about the possibility that biodiversity credits really will not be reinvested in their own locality. I think that is a reasonable concern. The danger, as those organisations see it, is that communities that accept developments might not see improved biodiversity, which could, in turn, make the process really quite hard to justify to local people. I can see how that could happen.

There is a question about whether credits should be retained by local authorities, so that funding stays in the area where development takes place, and local people can have a say in how the funding can be used to improve the natural environment. What level we should set that at is quite a big question. To some extent, we are trying to tease out from the Minister what she thinks it should be. We think that there is a genuine discussion to be had. I think she has already hinted that she shares my view that the overwhelming priority should be to get new development to achieve net gain onsite and locally, and that offsite contributions and credits should be a last resort. Further reassurance on that would be helpful.

We are placing, through the amendments, two key requirements on the Secretary of State, or any other body charged with using biodiversity credit funds, to ensure that natural sites created or enhanced by biodiversity credit funds are held to a high and lasting standard. I guess one of the running themes through our amendments is the sense of the provisions actually being for the long-term, rather than a mechanism for developers to find a way through to sites that they might not have had access to before.

The first requirement is that all habitat work carried out using biodiversity credits would have to achieve an actual enhancement in biodiversity, as measured by the biodiversity metric. The second requirement is that enhancement be maintained in perpetuity. I anticipate the Minister’s answers, because I think we have heard some of them before, but this amendment is sufficiently significant that, unless she comes back with a miraculous response, we will seek to divide on it.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgement of the importance of the long-term maintenance of biodiversity gains in order to ensure that we provide that long-lasting benefit to wildlife and communities. The Government, too, recognise the importance of those long-term benefits. Indeed, the Government response to the net gain consultation confirmed that through the stated criteria for selecting habitat projects. The response stated that enhancement projects will be selected

“on the basis of their additionality, their long-term environmental benefits and their contribution to strategic ecological networks.”

Obviously, they have to have some real value.

The long-term benefits of habitats are vital, but binding future Secretaries of State to deliver only habitats that can be secured “in perpetuity” risks compromising another of the criteria: that of delivering habitats in strategically critical networks. We would not want to see new habitat creation fail to provide the coherent networks that our wildlife needs because we are bound only to use land that can be secured forever. Where enhancements in perpetuity are an appropriate option, the Secretary of State will have powers under the clause to use payments to purchase land interests in England for habitat restorations, or to secure the enhancements through other means.

With regard to the obligation on the Secretary of State to spend those credit sale funds, I draw the Committee’s attention to the reporting requirement under the clause, which will create a strong incentive for the Secretary of State to spend the funds both promptly and prudently. It was intimated by the hon. Gentleman, I think, that the Secretary of State might be hoarding the funds, but the idea is that this becomes its own trading platform—a bit like the nitrates trading platform, for example. DEFRA would only get involved were the market not working, or potentially just at the beginning when it is getting going. The intention is not that he or she is the banker—that is absolutely not how it should work.

Subsection (6) of the clause should also provide some reassurance. It clarifies that funds may only be used for activities related to habitat enhancement. I think the hon. Member for Cambridge was pressing to ensure that that is what would happen, but that is absolutely what they are for. Furthermore, subsection (10) will ensure that the long-term value of the money received from the sale of credits and the use of biodiversity enhancements can be monitored. That is important as well.

In the light of the reasons that I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I welcome much of what the Minister has said but, as I intimated, the perpetuity issue, and the concern about what might happen with the system not working and the potential for achieving outcomes other than those we are all trying to achieve, mean that we think our amendment would strongly improve the clause. On that basis, we seek to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I beg to move amendment 140, in clause 93, page 94, line 13, after “biodiversity in England” insert

“, including in particular the species and habitats listed in section 41,”.

The amendment clarifies the intent of the duty in relation to the conservation of priority species and habitats.

I am afraid that we are back to some of the interaction with different pieces of legislation. We welcome the change in the Bill to strengthen the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—abbreviated to NERC—so that local authorities have a duty not just to conserve but to enhance biodiversity, as well as to follow the obligations of public authorities to plan for appropriate action in order to fulfil their duty and to report on their actions regarding that duty. That is the good news. That is the bit we support.

However, we have some concerns. Public authorities have a key role to play in turning around the state of nature, and the current duty on public bodies to have regard to conserving biodiversity has been rightly criticised for not being strong enough. A House of Lords Select Committee report on NERC in 2018 clearly outlined that

“the duty is ineffective as it stands, as a result of limited awareness and understanding among public bodies, weak wording and the lack of clear reporting requirements and enforcement measures.”

I cannot help but notice that those are exactly the kinds of concerns that I have been expressing all the way through this Bill as well. I guess what it shows is that there is nothing new about the difficulties that people have had trying to do good things but not necessarily doing them in ways that are clear and specific enough to translate into action.

The Lords Select Committee said:

“We recommend that the NERC Act should be amended in order to add a reporting requirement to the duty; the Government should also consider strengthening the wording.”

The measures taken in the Bill to do so are welcome, but we have concerns about the rewording of the duty of public authorities. We want to probe some of those points with some amendments. We will come to the more serious changes, but the first one is proposed in amendment 140. Currently, clause 93 stipulates that the “general biodiversity objective” be defined as

“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.

Our amendment would broaden that to include the species and habitats listed in section 41 of the NERC Act. In effect, it is a clarifying amendment, as we feel that the provisions in the duty could be seen as being too open-ended to guide everyday action by public authorities.

We think it would be more helpful for there to be a direction that the biodiversity duty clearly requires authorities to act in order to further the conservation of the species and habitats listed under section 41. For those who are not familiar with section 41, it is a list of some of our most precious and vulnerable species, from water voles and otters to particular species of orchids and the short-haired bumble bee. We believe the amendment would provide a closer link between the public duty to enhance biodiversity and the species that need the most attention. Although I will listen with interest to the Minister’s comments, I do not think it is an amendment on which we will seek a Division.

[Rebecca Pow]

I appreciate that the intent behind the amendment is to ensure that action that might be taken under the biodiversity duty is effective and is targeted where it is most needed. At the same time, one of the strengths of the duty is that it is broad, and we want public authorities to consider all functions when determining the best action to take. That could be action on limiting their biodiversity footprint or addressing wider, indirect impacts on biodiversity, such as from transport policy, water use or energy consumption. We would not want to stop authorities considering such action, even inadvertently, by focusing their attention on what can be done for a targeted set of species and habitats. Also, there are some 943 species, some of which the hon. Member for Cambridge named, including the hairy bumble bee.

[Daniel Zeichner]

The short-haired bumble bee.

[Rebecca Pow]

There are some fantastic creatures and 56 habitats of importance on that list, as set out under section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. Interpreting this list and the actions required is likely to require specialist knowledge, which may not be available within every public authority.

In complying with the strengthened biodiversity duty, public authorities must have regard to any relevant local nature recovery strategy. If Government amendment 222 is agreed to, public authorities must also have regard to relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies, which will help public authorities to identify the actions with the most benefits for biodiversity, including for species and habitats listed in section 41 of the 2006 Act. I therefore suggest that the amendment is not needed; indeed, it might constrain public authorities’ actions to conserve and enhance biodiversity. While I think that it was a probing amendment, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.

[Daniel Zeichner]

We will not press the amendment to a Division. While the Minister and I might have a slight difference of opinion, the approaches are legitimately different. I was grateful for her reference to the short-haired bumblebee. Like many Members, I am a species champion. I stand up for the ruderal bumblebee, although I have never had the pleasure of meeting one—I live in hope. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 93, page 94, line 18, at end insert—

“(1ZA) A public authority which has any functions exercisable in relation to England must exercise those functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective.”

This amendment requires public authorities to apply the biodiversity duty in the exercising of all of their functions.

This is a slightly more serious amendment, in the sense that this is a more difficult issue, as we think that the clause has a couple of key weaknesses. Section 40 of the 2006 Act currently states that any public authority must,

“in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity.”

That implies a biodiversity duty in all day-to-day public authority decision making. As it stands, although the new duty widens public authorities’ responsibility to both conserve and enhance biodiversity, the wording narrows the application of the duty. Its current drafting applies only to actions taken in line with specific policies and objectives developed in relation to clause 93(3), which requires authorities to consider from time to time what action they can take to further the biodiversity objective and to take the actions appropriate to do so.

I apologise that this is slightly complicated, Mr Gray, but, yet again, we see the interaction between different forms of wording in various pieces of legislation. The risk is that the Government are changing the duty on public authorities to have regard to conserving biodiversity in all their functions to a duty on conserving and enhancing biodiversity with specific considerations that they must make from time to time. The reach into their everyday functions is not made clear.

This is, I guess, a discussion about how local authority members should make their decisions—what they should take into consideration and when. We fear that a key opportunity is being missed to improve the effectiveness of public authorities’ biodiversity work, namely by requiring them to factor in the need to conserve and enhance biodiversity in all decision making, including statutorily required planning and spending decisions. This is actually quite a big issue.

Biodiversity work is in continual danger of being marginalised. I referred to that when I spoke about my experience as a councillor, and I suspect that others will have had the same experience. This is not a criticism of councils or local government—they are under pressure, and many, many demands are put on them. However, if we have the challenge of restoring nature to a level that every member of the Committee would agree is what we are seeking, and if that is actually going to happen, the agenda needs to be taken up in local government. Embedding biodiversity into all public authority decision making is vital to ensure that we do not miss the opportunities that are available.

During my time as a councillor, I very much enjoyed our discussions but, as I have said, I do not think I could honestly say that I recall, when we came to make big decisions—we did make some quite big decisions, such as when the new Norfolk and Norwich hospital was discussed, which was referenced at today’s Health questions—any discussion around biodiversity, although we tried to take many things into account. It would make a real difference if biodiversity was central to decision making.

It is worth noting that the House of Lords Select Committee identified the “have regard” wording in the current obligation as the main reason, in its view, why the duty has been ineffective. That point has not been properly addressed. “Have regard” is a perfectly innocuous term, but it is just that—have regard in passing, not as a central part of decision making. We would welcome an explanation from the Minister on that point.

The amendment would fix the problem with the current wording of legislation and prevent biodiversity opportunities from being missed by requiring public authorities to exercise all their functions consistently with the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective. That would prevent biodiversity being siloed. It would be rendered as a critical factor to be considered in all public authority decisions, including statutory planning and spending decisions, which can have significant impacts on nature and biodiversity.

[Rebecca Pow]

Our purpose in strengthening the current biodiversity duty is to ensure that public authorities take robust action to drive nature recovery. It is absolutely not the intention for biodiversity to become siloed, as the hon. Member has just said. He referred to the Norfolk hospital planning having no reference to biodiversity. I do not know what year that was—

[Daniel Zeichner]

A while ago.

[Rebecca Pow]

How times have changed. That will change—biodiversity will come into the general parlance. This is an ambitious duty. All public authorities will have to undertake a thorough consideration of what they can do to enhance biodiversity at least every five years, and then take action. As I said before, they will need to have regard to local nature recovery strategies and, if Government amendment 222 is accepted, relevant species conservation strategies and protected site strategies will provide information, data and tools to identify the most beneficial action to be taken in the region.

Clause 93 requires all public authorities to take a broad look across all their functions to identify the action they can take that would be most beneficial for nature. In our view, the strengthened duty in the Bill strikes the right balance by supporting action to conserve and enhance biodiversity while retaining the flexibility for public authorities to balance competing priorities. The amendment risks distorting those priorities by requiring public authorities always to exercise their functions to further the objective of conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Public authorities must retain the power to decide the best use of their resources. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cambridge, having been a councillor, appreciates that point.

We expect public authorities to look across all their functions and prioritise the actions that will have the most impact, in contrast to the existing biodiversity duty, which is a reactive duty. It is intended to be universal but, as we know, in many cases it has not driven action on the ground, as the hon. Member suggests. The amendment risks replicating the reactive nature of the existing duty by requiring a case-by-case assessment of each individual function and decision to ensure that it is furthering the biodiversity objectives. We would thereby lose the advantages of the more strategic view, which allows the most effective measures to be prioritised, so I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says, but the amendment is crucial to tilt the balance in local authorities. On that basis, I wish to divide the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

We tabled these technical but important amendments to interrogate the definition of “public authority” in the Bill as it applies to the biodiversity objective and the local nature recovery strategies—they are linked. Amendment 139 is consequential on amendment 147 and would clarify the meaning of “public authority” under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 by using the definition set out in clause 28(3) of the Bill, as that particularly strong definition would apply well to biodiversity provisions. It would make it clear that the term “public authority” would apply to local authorities or organisations

“carrying out any function of a public nature”,

which would ensure that bodies with key public statutory undertakings, such as water companies or rail providers, would have a responsibility to comply with the enhanced biodiversity duty.

Such bodies might not be included in a narrower definition, and that is important because we know that they have many responsibilities, or a lot of land or many rivers to look after. Keeping them within the ambit of the biodiversity duty would therefore give them a much stronger incentive to do the right thing. Such bodies’ legal status or corporate structures might be different from those of local government authorities, but they still provide key public functions. Amendment 148, like amendment 139, would make it clear that the term “public authority” in relation to local nature recovery strategies applies to planning authorities and all planning functions.

Amendment 147 would amend clause 99, which currently provides definitions of a “local authority” and a “national conservation site”. However, that clause applies only to clauses 95 to 98, which set out provisions for local nature recovery strategies. Our amendment would extend the definition of local authorities and national conservation sites to the Bill’s broader provisions on biodiversity objectives and reporting—clause 93 on the general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; and clause 94 on biodiversity reports. Yet again, our proposals would strengthen the Bill, so my question to the Minister is: why would she not choose to support us on that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendments—I shall rattle through them.

Amendment 139 would change the definition of “public authority” in relation to the strengthened biodiversity duty to that used in clause 28. Taken together, amendments 147 and 148 would have the same effect. Clause 93 does not alter the definition of public authority under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but clause 28 represents a different approach: it is drafted to be UK-wide, and then has carve-outs. Amending the definition to that in clause 28 would not make a significant difference to the bodies covered by the duty, although it would mean that the parliamentary estate would not be captured.

Amendment 147 would apply two additional definitions to the Bill’s biodiversity duty provisions, the first being “local authority”. The definition in clause 99 is very similar to the existing definition in section 40 of the 2006 Act. However, that definition includes parish councils, so the amendment would remove parish councils from the scope of the biodiversity duty—[Interruption.] “Shocking,” says the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.

I accept that many parish councils are very small and have limited resources, but they are likely to make a contribution to local biodiversity and we do not want to exclude them from the duty. I speak from experience: the hon. Member for Cambridge might have been a district councillor, but I was on my parish council for 10 years—I am very proud of it. We did a great amount of work on biodiversity, including by planting a chestnut avenue and creating a village garden out of a piece of tarmac. There is biodiversity if ever I saw it—we walk past it every day.

The second definition, “national conservation site”, is not a term used in the Bill’s biodiversity provisions, so applying it would have no practical effect. On its own, amendment 148 would have no effect. It would insert a new definition of “public authority” into clause 99. The definitions in clause 99 apply to the provisions relating to local nature recovery strategies, which are set out in clauses 95 to 98, but the term “public authority” is not used in a way that has an effect in those clauses.

I hope that that information was helpful, and I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification and I endorse her comments about parish councils. I, too, started on a parish council, and as a district councillor, I diligently attended my five parish councils regularly. They have a hugely important role to play. We were trying to widen the scope of the bodies that would be drawn into the process. That might be something that we need to revisit in order to embrace both points, which would be a good outcome.

The amendments were probing, so we will not need to divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Some strong points have been made about local nature recovery strategies. I think we all agree that they are a good idea. When I was a trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust many years ago, it was working on a similar idea to that which is now coming into legislation. Subsequent Government amendment 222 changes the provision so, if accepted, public authorities will be required to have regard to species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. However, I will speak only to the original purpose of the amendment now.

We want public, private and voluntary groups to engage openly in the development of local nature recovery strategies and for this to follow through into their implementation. That is exactly what the hon. Member for Putney is asking for, so that those hedgehog highways and interlinking runways through fences in towns will stay there. I love a hedgehog as much as she does. I had some rescue ones from the rescue centre sent to my garden. We need to look after our hedgehogs.

Requiring public authorities to have regard to a specific document is an established and effective means of achieving that aim. I have discussed this with the officials. They have convinced me that this is the right terminology. We should also be mindful that public authorities have a wide range of existing duties such as housing, health and social care, which have to be considered. Some flexibility to take these wider considerations into account is important. Similarly, local planning authorities are required to balance a wide range of important considerations when establishing their planning policy for this area. I am keen that we continue to work with the planning system, rather than create complexity by making separate demands on planning authorities. The spatial information provided by the local nature recovery strategies will support the development of local plans.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will continue to work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to set out clearly the role for local nature recovery strategies as part of the ongoing planning reforms. The work has already started, and it has been clear that this must be an integral part of our future going forward. Those five pilots will inform the local nature recovery strategies. They have already been announced and money has been agreed for them. We will learn a lot from those about how these strategies will work.

We want the reformed system to play a proactive role in promoting environmental recovery and long-term sustainability. We have really high ambitions for the local nature recovery strategies in helping to do this. They are a crucial tool towards the whole endeavour of biodiversity from the ground upwards. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for enlivening our discussions late in the afternoon—well past teatime, in some people’s view, which I understand—and for introducing hedgehogs into the discussion. I had a side bet with one of my colleagues as to how long it would take for the Minister to raise a hedgehog highway. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney because that allows me to mention Nora the rescue hedgehog. The Cambridge Wildlife Trust allowed her to escape down a hedgehog highway in my sight. I am not sure where she went, but hedgehogs are very important.

The problem was confirmed by the Minister, who admitted that she had been convinced by her officials that this is the correct terminology. We do not think that it is the correct terminology; it is not strong enough. I invite the Minister perhaps to go and have that conversation again. That point takes us back to the beginning of our sitting, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and I questioned why some of these things are as they are. I am led to conclude, I am afraid, that despite the admirable enthusiasm, there are flaws in the process.

The Minister said that we do not want to put too many demands on planning authorities. Actually, we do want to put demands on planning authorities; that is exactly what this will be about if our goals are to be achieved. We get distracted by the hedgehogs and the bumblebees, but at heart there is a serious question of allocation of resources, effort and money through the planning process. That is often what it is about, and my fear is that, wonderful though much local effort is, sadly if it cannot be translated into action it will go on being just good effort, without the kind of gain that we want to see.

I suggested at the beginning of our sitting that there were some villains in the piece, and I think the Committee has a sense of who I think one villain is, but it is not just about the current Prime Minister. It is worth remembering that in 2011 the then Chancellor, George Osborne, described the EU habitats directive as placing

“ridiculous costs on British businesses”,

and spoke about companies being burdened with

“endless social and environmental goals”.—[Official Report, 29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807-808.]

The point is that there is a view out there that this is all “green crap”, as another eminent former Prime Minister described it. That is why we are worried, why this matters, and why the Bill needs to be strengthened.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 36

Ayes: 5

---

Labour: 5

Noes: 8

---

Conservative: 8

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 222, in clause 93, page 95, line 3, at end insert

“and

(b) any relevant species conservation strategy or protected site strategy prepared by Natural England.”

This amendment requires a public authority to have regard to a species conservation strategy or protected site strategy in complying with its duties under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 25—Species conservation strategies.

Government new clause 26—Protected site strategies.

Government new clause 27—Wildlife conservation: licences.

[Rebecca Pow]

The overall purpose of this group of amendments is to enable better species and habitat conservation in England as part of the Government’s commitment to growing back better, faster, greener. They will allow for the creation of two new types of strategies and will resolve inconsistencies regarding the licensing of development.

New clause 25 will allow Natural England to create species conservation strategies, which are innovative approaches to safeguard the long-term future of species that are at greater risk. The strategies will be developed using up-front surveying, planning and zoning across a wide area. Natural England will then develop measures to mitigate, or compensate for, the impact on species— from building projects, for example. This approach helps to avoid the need for reactive site-based assessments and mitigation.

The legislation is based on the successful district-level licensing approach to the conservation of great crested newts, which have already been mentioned today. An area is comprehensively surveyed in advance and a licensing strategy is developed. Up-front mitigation work is then carried out to cover the creation or restoration of ponds in areas that are known to provide the best habitats for newts to thrive in. Developers then make a conservation payment and can begin work without delays.

New clause 26 will allow Natural England to prepare and consult on protected site strategies. These will enable the design of bespoke solutions for sites that are affected by a combination of different impacts, such as pollution from agriculture and pressure from development. Protected site strategies are also based on existing, innovative schemes such as that in the South Humber Gateway, which has unlocked development on hundreds of hectares of land while creating 275 hectares of new wet grassland for birds, and is held up as something of a model.

For both species conservation and protected site strategies, local planning authorities will be placed under a duty to co-operate with Natural England. They will also be required to have regard to relevant strategies as they carry out their planning functions. These new strategies will deliver better environmental protections through simpler processes, and are therefore fully aligned with the proposals set out in the “Planning for the future” White Paper. The planning reforms will reinforce the implementation of these measures.

Amendment 222 adds an important provision to support the new strategies. Clause 93 strengthens the existing duty under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It also requires public authorities to have regard to local nature recovery strategies as they do so. This amendment extends that duty so that public authorities must also have regard to any relevant conservation strategy or protected site strategy as they consider what action to take, so the three kinds of strategies are designed to work together. The local nature recovery strategies will be a system of strategies covering the whole of England, and will identify where action can be taken to reverse the decline of nature as a whole. Species conservation and protected site strategies are more bespoke, targeted measures to help protect specific species and sites that are at risk, and are intended to ensure public authorities comply with legal protections in a way that achieves better outcomes for nature. It is therefore important to make this amendment, to ensure public authorities have regard to all three types of the new strategies.

Finally, new clause 27 makes three changes related to protecting species licences granted under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those changes are intended to unlock the full potential of strategic licensing for protected species. First, the new clause will introduce an additional “overriding public interest” purpose for granting a licence. Secondly, it will introduce two additional tests that must be met before a licence can be granted if

“there is no other satisfactory solution, and…the grant of the licence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of the species”.

Thirdly, the new clause will extend the maximum permitted licence period from two years to five years.

Taken together, the amendment and new clauses strengthen the nature chapter of the Bill and help to protect and restore species and habitats at risk, while also enabling much-needed development. I have rattled through them, Chair, and there is a lot of detail there, but I commend amendment 222 to the Committee.

Amendment 222 agreed to.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I think I may have missed a point. We discussed all those new clauses, did we?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”.

This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

This amendment makes a small change to section 41 of the NERC Act. The section requires the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publish a list of species and habitats that are of principal importance to conserving biodiversity. The amendment will change the requirement to “conserving or enhancing” biodiversity.

The language mirrors that of the strengthened biodiversity duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, as amended by clause 93. The duty will require public authorities to take action to further the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. The amendment will therefore create consistent language across two related sections of the NERC Act.

When the list is updated in future, the amendment will allow wider consideration of which species and habitats should be included. That is consistent with our intention, as expressed in the 25-year environment plan, to improve beyond merely trying to maintain the status quo—or conserving—and instead recovering and restoring nature. This small amendment further signals our ambitions to enhance biodiversity.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I regret to say that we have some extensive questions about clause 93 as amended, which may not come as a welcome moment for the Government. I get the sense, however, from looking at the Government Whip, that he may think tea has come.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

Environment Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 19 in schedule 7, page 165, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir George, and to serve under your chairmanship. The amendment is in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden).

The schedule gives the relevant national authority the power to make the regulations that set the resource efficiency requirements that products are required to meet. As a Member representing a Welsh constituency, it is a real pleasure to be able to speak to a part of the Bill that applies to all parts of the UK—to all countries. Once again, it is appropriate to remind colleagues that the Bill is important for all our futures. That is why we need to ensure that it is fit for purpose and effective in its measure and scope.

Our amendment to schedule 7 once again looks to the power of language and the subsequent ambition and drive of the Minister and her colleagues. I have never doubted her willingness or commitment to action, but that is why we wanted the Bill to come back sooner, so that all Members could give it the attention and focus that it deserves. For all the commitment and focus, however, we need to see results and actions, not just empty rhetoric that lands up simply being nothing more than words. That is why the amendment proposes to leave out “may” and to insert “must”.

All those of us privileged to be elected to this House, from all parts of the country, come with the support of our constituents behind us. We also come with our party political views and commitments, too. Those views and commitments will, as we all know, change depending on the contemporary political issues of the day, which is why it is so important that we get the wording of the Bill correct now, to ensure that what we mean is enshrined in law for, and clearly understood by, future generations.

The schedule is applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, so it is vital that we make it as strong as possible. We do not need any more “mays”; we need more “musts”. Language, as has been said in previous sittings, is something that we need to get right. We need to ensure that the language used in the final iteration of the Bill is as strong and ambitious as it can be. As this part of the Bill looks at the general powers exercised, we need to ensure that the relevant authorities are empowered to do what is necessary, and are obligated to do so. The amendment will help to do that, and I hope that the Minister will take it in the spirit in which it is intended.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. As with amendment 18 on the resource efficiency information power, it is not appropriate to have a duty to take action on all products or to specify particular products in advance. Our intention is to use the power to set resource efficiency eco-design requirements for products where the greatest benefit can be realised. As I did in respect of amendment 18, I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to approaching the making of any regulations in that way.

It is really important that we have flexibility on setting standards on products that come to light as critical. It is not possible right now to identify products in advance, as it very much depends on industry practice, the environmental impact that the particular group of products being considered might have on the environment, and the feasibility of setting minimum eco-design requirements.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Sir George. The Minister is making a fine speech, but on all the “may” and “must” issues I find myself casting my mind back to children on the streets on Fridays, as they left their schools, to demand climate justice, and huge numbers of people expressing concern about the urgency of it. Would she really feel comfortable standing in front of those groups of people and dithering in this way on issues that need to be dealt with urgently?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his slightly cheeky intervention. We are talking about the Environment Bill. I have outlined the difference between “may” and “must” in great detail. Importantly, we are not stopping it happening, but it has to happen in the right way and on the right products. A great deal of stakeholder engagement has already happened with industry and will continue, because industry has to be able to do such things, and we have to bring industry along with us.

I will give a good example of where we might soon need to use the measures. Evidence has suggested that absorbent hygiene products might be a good place to start. Similarly, we have identified some other waste streams. The powers might be useful on textiles, furniture, electronics and construction materials, so the provision will genuinely be used and it will genuinely be useful.

I believe that the prioritisation approach will also provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable time span. It will also facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise the powers, as the hon. Member for Newport West recognised. For those reasons, I believe it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than a duty on the Government to set standards, and I therefore ask her to kindly withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I think she has made the case for me, because I would hope that the devolved Administrations would insist on taking up the powers. The schedule addresses future circumstances very well with the word “specified”. It is future-proofing the Bill, but the word “must” strengthens it at the beginning. That is why we are pushing for it.

We will not divide the Committee on this matter today; we are content that the wording has been recorded in Hansard. But it is really important that we strengthen the Bill and make sure that people can take the powers when they should do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 7, page 165, line 35, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).

As with a number of other important amendments, I move the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my constituency neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden) —that was a memory test.

As Government and Labour colleagues will know from their preparation for this sitting of the Committee, this is very much a technical amendment. Having done that reading, I know that all Members will agree that amendment 162 essentially speaks for itself. [Laughter.] As a consequence, I will not detain the Committee for longer than is necessary, but I will touch on a couple of important points.

First, our amendment proposes to remove sub-sub-paragraph (a). We tabled the amendment because Labour Members are conscious of the need to use the Bill both now and in the future. We do not want to reduce the scope and reach of the Bill before we know where the challenges facing our environment are, what action may be required and when. Once again, I reiterate the point about language: it is vital that every word, every full stop and every sub-sub-paragraph enhances our ability to protect the natural world and preserve our environment. This amendment will help to do that and I hope that the Minister will accept it in the spirit that is intended.

[Rebecca Pow]

Again, I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment, but I also reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of measures to improve the durability, repairability and recyclability of both energy-related products and products that are not energy-related. The amendment is therefore not necessary, because at the end of the transition period the Government will have powers to set resource-efficiency requirements for energy-related products under the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010. Also, DEFRA is working closely with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in this regard.

In combination with the information power detailed in schedule 6, we could, for example, require that information be provided with electronic devices explaining their expected lifetime, and how to carry out repairs or upgrades. The retained eco-design legislation could be used in tandem to set requirements for the availability of spare parts and upgradeable design.

Lots of us who have our own washing machines, dishwashers and all of those sorts of equipment would probably be pretty much in favour of some of those ideas, so having two sets of powers covering resource efficiency for the same products risks being confusing for businesses and other stakeholders. Therefore, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her words there, including her explanation, and also for setting out the scenarios that could be useful in the future. It is always useful to have practical examples to be able to think about how these measures will be applied in the future.

Obviously, while we are sad that the Minister is not going to take our amendment on board, we nevertheless now have it on the record. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

As we seek to deliver this once-in-a-lifetime legislation, we need to make sure that all our bases are covered and that the impacts of the decisions we take are factored in and covered in detail. The amendment would allow Ministers to demonstrate their commitment to this once-in-a-lifetime legislation actually delivering change, and it would allow colleagues across the House to show that we will put our money and our legislation where our mouths are.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. I share her view that human rights, working conditions, public health and the impact of product manufacture, use and disposal on workers and wider communities—I think those are the things that she was she was getting at—are of the utmost importance. However, the primary focus of the Bill, and the resource efficiency powers that we are currently debating, is improving the natural environment. That will benefit workers and communities who depend on their natural environment for clean air, clean water and a stable climate, as well as improving the durability and reparability of products so that they last longer and provide better value. Going beyond matters of the environment to incorporate social factors—such as labour conditions, as the amendments suggest—and other benefits to communities would be going beyond the scope of this legislative instrument.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the suggested amendment looks like a cocktail of impractical virtue signalling?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly concise intervention. Indeed, the amendment is not necessary, which is the point I am trying to make and what I think he is getting at, because it would be really complicated, if not impossible, to lay down requirements on a product basis that cover these considerations for all exporting countries. Some difference in standards is obviously inevitable, and because of this complexity, such matters are much better dealt with—as I think my hon. Friend is getting at—by other legal mechanisms. That is the remit of the International Labour Organisation’s conventions.

Amendment 164 would remove reference to the material composition of products. This wording is essential to the objectives of the power, as the materials in a product will determine how easily the product can be to be taken apart, recycled and manufactured. Material composition may also determine the amount of pollution associated with these activities.

Finally, I must emphasise the importance of having a carefully defined power within the scope of the Bill. The detriment of seeking to cover too many considerations within these provisions is the risk of making it overly complicated to actually use the powers. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I am glad that the Minister shares our concerns about human rights, public health and fair working conditions. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, it is a cocktail, but to be honest it is a good cocktail, and it is useful, and it will actually assist us as we go forward with this Bill. It will enhance the Bill, because we think that the Bill should cover these important aspects.

[Rebecca Pow]

May I very quickly intervene on the hon. Lady, if that is all right, Mr Chairman?

[The Chair]

Provided that the hon. Member is prepared to accept the intervention, yes, it is all right.

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to highlight that we do not consider that goals such as labour rights are best delivered through setting requirements relating to product standards and information. To add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, action is already under way on those fronts through a number of other routes, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires corporate reporting on supply chains and multi-stakeholder working groups and encourages companies to sign up to the International Labour Organisation’s call for action, which I referred to before.

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for augmenting her comments. I agree it is good that we have the Modern Slavery Act and that is important, but there is no harm in putting an additional belt and braces on this Bill to ensure that human rights are taken into consideration, as are public health and fair working conditions. We have pushed for the minimum wage and the living wage, and it is important that those things are taken into consideration. There is no harm in our having integrated objectives across a number of Bills, because it shows that the Government are joined up and thinking across the piece. That is why we will push this amendment to a Division, because it is such an important one and we think it should be enshrined in law.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The concept of a larger system through which all of this works is key to this whole discussion. Indeed, what we have been talking about, and what the waste strategy document says about the circular economy, means that putting this into a wider frame of how we circulate products through the economy, so that we do not pull virgin materials in and that everything we are using as it goes through the economy is reusable, recyclable or replaceable in one way or another, is essential to a resource-efficient and low-carbon waste and resource economy.

In this part of the Bill, we are essentially replacing elements of the waste framework directive with UK law, but does not seem to me that what we have done allows the sort of processes that I have described to be properly incorporated in regulations so that the circular economy arrangement can be expedited. Does the Minister consider that the regulations that will be associated with schedule 7 are capable of allowing those sorts of changes to be made, to the benefit of the recycled and reclaimed resources industry in the UK; or does she consider that we have missed an opportunity here, and that further legislation and/or regulations may be necessary to ensure that that can be done?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his thoughts. I shall stick to the detail of what the schedule is actually about in my answers, but I want to touch on his general points. Of course, the whole purpose of the waste and resources section of the Bill is to reduce all waste with a range of measures, and to make everything we produce recyclable, repairable and more durable. That is why we are focusing particularly on eco-design.

The hon. Gentleman touched on some issues relating to bones and various things like that. This is a slightly more general comment, but there are many health-related issues that would have to be taken into account. It takes me back to the time of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, when any food waste was banned from being fed to pigs. There were masses of knock-on effects, but as a pig keeper, I was mortified about that. He will know that such things are complicated, so one cannot go down that burrow without discussing a lot of other issues.

I want to get back to the purposes of the schedule, but I will touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West about food waste. I am sure she is pleased that food waste is dealt with in the Bill—that is one of the really positive and exciting things about it. Food waste will now have to be collected from local authorities in the waste collections. Some local authorities already do it, but every one will have to do it. Clause 47 and schedule 4 will require producers that are responsible for food surplus and food waste to take action, and that includes redistributing it. Great work is already done by many people, but that will be a requirement for surplus food.

On the schedule, by applying the principle of eco-design to non-energy-related products, we can drive up resource efficiency by gradually removing the least resource efficient products from the market. That is the very point that the hon. Lady was getting at. Those requirements might relate to durability, recyclability, repairability or the sustainability of products for dismantling and remanufacture. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was getting at that point; products can be taken apart and then the component parts could be reused.

The requirements might also concern the material composition of products and the way in which products are manufactured, and the pollutants emitted or produced by products throughout the full lifecycle. For example—the hon. Member for Newport West said she likes examples—that might include moving and load-bearing parts such as wheels and hinges from items of furniture, because they might wear out first. Making them removable and replaceable could be part of the design. Where that is not the case, the regulations might require that parts can be removed without damage to the rest of the product, and other wheels can be screwed back on, for example. That is the kind of thing we are discussing.

As has been explained in relation to the resource efficiency information power, we have identified priority areas for action, including clothing, furniture and electronic equipment, where we believe requirements such as this are likely to have the greatest impact.

[Dr Whitehead]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am about to conclude, but I see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not particularly criticising or wishing to take away from any of the excellent things the Minister has been saying about the purpose of these provisions. What I am trying to get at is what actually happens now—the way in which things are classified while they are going through the waste stream and before they turn into a resource, and the extent to which the classification under existing legislation hinders the process by which they may be liberated as a resource in exactly the way the Minister has described in her comments. That is what I am concerned about—whether those classifications can be substituted by a system of stewardship, which would enable that passage to be much more straightforward, good intentions notwithstanding concerning how that passage can result in a successful outcome.

[Rebecca Pow]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is overcomplicating the issue. Through the measures in the Bill, every single person who makes something will have to think about what it contains, what it is made of, what is going to happen to it, where it is going to go, who is going to reuse it and how long it will last. I think the issues he is worried about will solve themselves, in a way. If he wants more detail on that, I am sure we can write to him.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to plough on. The schedule considers eco-design. Clauses 49 and 50 and schedules 6 and 7 describe resource efficiency powers, which complement various other powers in the Bill, including the extended producer responsibility—that very much touches on what I have just said. They aim, as a minimum, to ensure that we can be ahead of the curve internationally and, ideally, to enable us to lead the way. Acquiring resource efficiency powers is an essential step towards delivering against the goals of the 25-year environment plan and the resources and waste strategy, and achieving net zero by 2050. I believe that all the things in the schedule will help that work.

We are ahead of the curve even compared with the EU on this matter. Once we have acquired the powers, it will be possible to set requirements for all products, whether they are energy related or not. That is not yet possible for the EU. At present, its eco legislation extends only to energy-related products. On those grounds alone, we are ahead, which I hope my hon. Friends and hon. Members will be pleased about.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

Deposit schemes

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 20 in schedule 8, page 170, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The amendment appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The schedule seeks to enable the national authority, namely the Secretary of State in relation to England, Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations establishing deposit schemes.

I thank those out there in the real world who are working on these important issues. For example, Greener UK is working tremendously hard to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose. I hope that Ministers will take the same approach.

With the powers in place, it will be imperative that the Government promise to deliver the model that will best achieve their aims, as detailed in the resources and waste strategy. Those include changing behaviour to reduce littering on land, in rivers and at sea, and to improve recycling rates. Members of the Committee will remember —I only just remember—the pop bottle schemes, when people would go around with bottles and get 5p. For young people, it was a useful income—for those of us old enough to remember.

All-in deposit schemes—by that, I mean drinks containers of all sizes and materials—offer the best financial return. They achieve the best recycling return, and constitute the clearest system for the public to use. That was confirmed by a series of impact assessments undertaken by the Government in 2019, which found that an all-in deposit return scheme would offer substantial financial benefit and collect a greater proportion of containers when compared with a more limited system that only covered so-called “on the go” drinks containers. An all-in scheme is the most likely to offer opportunities for scaling up to a refill system in future.

Further to that, an all-in deposit return scheme would ensure compatibility right across the UK, by setting out a system for England that would work in harmony with Scotland’s plans. We all have our views on whether the Government are committed to the Union, but as a Welsh MP the lack of respect for devolution and the devolved Government in Wales in recent months has been a matter of huge concern to me and many of my constituents. If the Government are to show that they are serious, they need to show it in letter as well as in voice.

The amendment would allow the Government to do just that. A system that works for and with all nations of the UK would especially benefit those who live near the border between, say, England and Scotland and anyone travelling between the two nations. My Scottish colleagues have highlighted the matter in the House on previous occasions. We want to ensure that the systems are compatible, if not all encompassing, while ensuring that they do not undermine one another financially or environmentally. Likewise, that approach would facilitate a simple roll-out to Wales and Northern Ireland, and so would be a win-win for us all.

The Bill only states that the Secretary of State “may” establish a scheme. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she might be, would actually deliver. Our amendment follows many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting it right by writing it into the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment. We obviously recognise the importance of reducing littering and increasing recycling rates as part of our commitment to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. Our 2019 manifesto pledged to introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.

This power we enable us to establish deposit return schemes for different items, particularly those which are littered—it is important to try to cut those down—where we want to increase recycling, as well as the quality and value of recycled material. That is all part of that drive that this section is about.

A deposit return scheme will allow us to take plastic from drinks bottles and ensure it gets recycled back into a new bottle, reducing our reliance on virgin plastic material. We touched on that yesterday. So many companies would like a regular, consistent supply of the right kind of plastic to turn into other bottles. We are working on developing an evidence base that will include further consultation before finalising the design and scope of a DRS for drinks containers that will be set down in regulations made using this power.

We know that UK consumers go through a shocking 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles a year. Although plastic bottles are fully recyclable, recent packaging recycling rates of 65% demonstrates that there is room for improvement. We consider that a well-designed deposit return scheme for drinks and containers could achieve something like 90% and higher, as countries that have already introduced the scheme are achieving.

This power gives the relevant national authority the flexibility to make regulations to establish deposit return schemes in relation to specific products or materials. It also gives the flexibility to decide which items are to be included in the DRS, to secure an increase in recycling and reuse of materials and to reduce the incidence of littering and fly-tipping.

It is entirely appropriate to be flexible here. It would not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in some circumstances. The discretionary element allows it to be used in a targeted manner for things that are, for example, the most littered items, such as drinks containers, that are often consumed away from the home. This comes out as one of the top lists on the “Keep Britain Tidy” surveys that are constantly conducted.

We need to have a system that allows us to add and adjust as we learn more about how a deposit return scheme works in practice. I have talked to lots of people involved in these types of schemes. Getting the system right is crucial. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, to withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I am slightly anxious that she is talking about further consultation here, because the public just want us to get on with this. They are fed up with being consulted. They have given their views and they want it to happen now. As Greta Thunberg and all the young people, certainly in my constituency, are telling me, “Get on with it. We cannot afford to wait for you. This planet has to be there for us tomorrow.”

[Ruth Jones]

That is an interesting point. As my hon. Friend said, if the Government are serious about this, they need to get on with it and they need to be seen to be getting on with it.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Member for Cambridge has fired me up now. The point is that this scheme must also fit with other schemes, so it also must fit with the consistent collection of items by the local authorities. A great deal of work must be done to ensure that they all fit together. Even the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned that one system must not undermine another; they must fit together. If we could get consistent systems across all the devolved Administrations, that would be useful. We are watching Scotland closely, because it is a little bit ahead, to see how that works. It is important that we bring all those things together.

[Ruth Jones]

Yes, of course we agree with her that these things have to be communicated clearly. We need to make sure that no one scheme undermines another. We do not want people crossing borders with lorryloads of plastic waste or whatever. That is not the intention. We understand that. However, it is important that we have clear communication across all four nations to make sure that that does not happen. The Minister outlined the regulations that will come through—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree and applaud the fact that we consulted closely with the Welsh Assembly Government, and on behalf of Northern Ireland. We are working closely with them on the proposals on exactly the grounds that she proposes.

[Ruth Jones]

I agree that it is important that we continue to make that point and communicate clearly across all four nations, but the Minister mentioned further regulations down the line. How will those be enforced? We want to know the how, the what and the where. How will it all come together? I am still not clear on exactly what will happen, so perhaps in future debates the Minister will outline those regulations.

The Minister talked about flexibility. Again, I hark back to my physiotherapy days: we do not want to be so flexible that we fall over. We need some constraints and guidelines to help us to walk in the right path. We are all in favour of getting this done. It is just a question of how soon, how quickly and how best we can do it. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 8, page 172, line 39, leave out from “scheme” to end of line 40 and insert

“in relation to which the Scottish deposit administrator is exercising functions”.

This amendment modifies the way in which the scheme administrator of a Scottish deposit and return scheme is described, by referring to the administrator “exercising functions” rather than being “designated”. This is consistent with the terminology used in the relevant Scottish legislation. A similar change is made by Amendment 69.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 69 and 70.

[Rebecca Pow]

Amendments 68 to 70 seek to correct a technical error concerning a reference to how a scheme administrator would be established in Scotland. The amendment will enable a scheme administrator to interact, engage and make payments to a scheme administrator established through a deposit and return scheme in Scotland. It was always our intention for schemes within the UK to be able to work together, as I have already highlighted, including being able to make payments between schemes. I think the hon. Member for Newport West asked about that. The measure will help ensure that schemes are easier for consumers to use, will help to reduce the risk of fraud between schemes, and provide coherence for producers and retailers. I hope the Committee will agree to the amendment.

Amendment 68 agreed to.

Amendments made: 69, in schedule 8, page 174, line 20, leave out from “person” to end of line 22 and insert

“exercising the functions of a scheme administrator in relation to a Scottish deposit and return scheme”.

See Amendment 68.

Amendment 70, in schedule 8, page 174, line 24, leave out “that Act” and insert

“the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 12)”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69 and inserts the full name of the Act being referred to.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

I welcome the opportunity to have a brief debate on the schedule, which is all about deposit schemes. As the Minister has set out admirably, the deposit schemes can target things that cause particular problems, including litter, fly-tipping and various other activities. I want to ask the Minister what the deposit schemes might consist of and the extent to which the schedule would facilitate that extent being realised.

When talking about deposit schemes, we usually think about precisely the sort of things that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about, with memories of kids hanging around lidos and swimming pools, nicking Coke and pop bottles from sunbathers to take them back to the shop and get thruppence on them—not that I did that, obviously.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Of course not.

[Rebecca Pow]

That is how his early interest in waste started.

[The Chair]

Order. There is too much muttering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend raises the issue of mattresses, which absolutely are the most difficult thing to properly dispose of. I was going to restrict my point to white goods, but it is absolutely true of mattresses. Even with better regulations in place than previously, we still find substantial fly-tipping, quite often of mattresses, old furniture and white goods—old fridges or whatever. It is not so much the fridges and white goods that could have been taken away when a new item is purchased. If that item has a second life and is reused after it has been taken away, at the end of its life it has no value, and we are lucky if it goes down to the council tip or whatever and back into the producer responsibility cycle.

We still have a considerable problem with fly-tipping of these particular products. One way to deal with that would be to give those items a residual value, like the pop bottles. There is no reason whatever why any hon. Member should remember this, but I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, in about 2001, I think, to introduce a deposit scheme for white goods. That would have meant that, for a small additional outlay, the product would throughout its life have a value attached to it, even when not being used. It would be a tiny proportion of the original cost of the white good—let us say a refrigerator—and as that reduced in value over time, the proportion of the value represented by the deposit would increase. Therefore, by the end of that particular product’s life, even if it had gone through several owners, it would have a value attached to it, which might well impel someone to turn it in rather than put it in a hedge. That is the same principle as the value that was added to vehicles at the end of life.

I am not clear about whether the regulations in schedule 8 are actually generic, or whether they will actually enable that sort of thing to happen in addition to the things that we normally talk about, such as the easier recycling of small items. I think the Minister will agree that it is not just about littering, it is about these large items. We could do the same thing with mattresses. We could require a deposit on a mattress, and provided someone had a certification of the deposit, they could receive the value of the mattress at the end of its life. Mattresses actually have quite long lives in various iterations. Does the Minister think that these regulations could accommodate that sort of arrangement? Although she has said that these regulations should be targeted, does she consider that in the fullness of time, perhaps they could be expanded in ambition and scope to accommodate those sorts of arrangements for the future? Does she think that within the schedule as it stands, regulations can be made that allow that to happen, or does she consider that further work may be necessary to bring it about?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am pleased he raised those points, because it gives me a chance to expand a bit on a genuinely interesting subject by which most of the population are fascinated. As has been mentioned, people do want the schemes. In fact, I am old enough to remember those glass Tizer bottles that could be taken back.

To reiterate, we are talking about schedule 8, which deals with deposit return schemes and the issue of how many plastic drinks bottles we use—14 billion a year, as well as 9 billion cans and 5 billion glass bottles. A lot of them are recycled, but it is still only 65%, so we have a long way to go. That is why the schemes will be important.

We have had a consultation and we are in the process of developing proposals using further evidence and ongoing stakeholder engagement, which is important because we have to involve the industry and local authorities—all the people involved in that whole space. The final scope and model of the schemes for drinks containers, including whether it is all-in or on-the-go, will be presented in a second consultation. We are considering cans and plastic and glass bottles.

In the previous consultation, we also consulted on coffee cups, cartons and pouches, which are one of my bugbears. We seem to be forced to buy our cat food in pouches whereas most of it used to be in tins, which I can hardly find now. That is an interesting subject that we need to go into at some point.

The opportunity will be provided by the schedule, which sets out the framework for deposit return schemes, including what items would be subject to a deposit return scheme, how the deposit amount is set, the requirements that can be placed on scheme participants, and the enforcement requirements under a deposit return scheme. The crucial thing is that a scheme has to be well functioning to make it easy for consumers to use. That is incredibly important, otherwise they will not use it and it will not work.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister raises an interesting point about cat food pouches that I will take away. Obviously it is importantly to address those things, so can she outline the timescale for that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I was going on to say, touching on the important point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the powers will allow us and future Governments to introduce deposit return schemes for other items in future. That is the purpose of them, so they can be expanded in scope, exactly as he hopes. He makes a good point on those grounds.

For example, those schemes could be for batteries, electrical and electronic equipment, and bulky items, including mattresses. The point about mattresses is absolutely right. My family are farmers and they find many mattresses dumped in their gateways on the outskirts of Bath. I know other Committee members’ families are involved in recycling and waste, and they could probably tell similar stories. The schedule will give us that opportunity.

The schemes will work hand in hand with the extended producer responsibility schemes, which will also help to reduce the amount of waste being dumped. Takeaway cups are classed as packaging, so they will come under the extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging. We are committed, as I think I said on a previous day, to consulting on EPR for textiles and bulky household items, so mattresses could come under that category of extended producer responsibility. Thus, exactly as I think the hon. Member was suggesting, it will all be factored into the costs of the mattress, but the manufacturer will have to abide by the EPR system for the mattresses. Other items that we have committed to consulting on for that EPR scheme are construction materials, tyres and fishing gear, so they should all work together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 21 to schedule 9, page 174, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment is another case of “may” and “must”; at the risk of harping on about these things, it is important that we get our language correct. For the benefit of colleagues, I refer them to page 174, line 28 of the Bill, where we want to leave out “may” and insert the word “must”. The reason is that we want Ministers to take to keep their promises and be honest and bold in their promises. Once again, we are looking to strengthen the Bill and make it fit for purpose, and that is why I am asking the Minister to accept this objective and balanced amendment.

This schedule allows for the making of regulations about charges for single-use plastic items. These charges, which we have seen right across the country, with a charge on plastic bags in supermarkets and large stores such as John Lewis and the Link, aim to deliver a reduction in the consumption of single-use plastic items. Our amendment follows on from many others tabled to this Bill and moved in Committee. It is about delivery, it is about action and it is about getting this right.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for her amendment. However, it is appropriate to provide the relevant national authority with flexibility regarding when and how this provision relating to littered plastics is given effect. We have seen similar amendments across the Bill, balancing powers, what “may” be done, with duties or what “must” be done. This amendment is no different.

It will not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in all circumstances: for instance, our extended producer responsibility reforms to the packaging waste regulations should make significant strides towards addressing unnecessary plastic waste in packaging. Adding an additional charge would be unnecessary and unfair to those producers, as they would face an overlap of multiple charges and fees. To avoid that, we must take care when deciding which policy instrument to use in order to bring about the most effective change.

We need to take a measured approach and introduce the charge for items where there is a clear, considered and evidenced need for us to intervene. Imposing a duty for the Government to do so without thorough investigation into which products we should charge for could, for instance, lead to the unintended consequences of driving the market away from a single-use plastic product because a suitable alternative is available. That could risk causing even more serious effects, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions through poor material switches.

The UK is consistently and rightly seen as a world leader in the area of tackling plastic pollution. I recently met a group called Oceana, a global organisation, thinking we were going to pick up lots of tips from them about how they are dealing with it, but they said, “Oh, no, we are watching you, Minister!” That was interesting—we are very much being watched on what measures we are putting in place.

We want to continue to lead by example to ensure that we reduce the plastic pollution entering the environment in the right way to prevent greater issues further down the line. This power will allow us and the devolved Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland to intervene as and when there is a clear need for change. I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. It is always helpful to hear her expand on matters. It is also good to hear that, yes, the Government are being scrutinised by non-governmental organisations out there. It is good to see that they are being held accountable by such people, who are, let us be honest, the watchdogs. They, too, want to ensure that we have action.

The argument about flexibility—that the danger with too much flexibility is that we cannot actually achieve anything—has been made many times, so I will not repeat it, but I am happy to hear about the progress being made in moving matters forward. Again, I press the Minister on timescales. If we are to consult, then how long for and when will action come through? However, I am sure we will discuss that later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 182 in schedule 9, page 174, line 32, leave out paragraph 1(2)(b) and insert—

“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material, and”.

The schedule seeks to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic by allowing charges to be imposed. However, the provision for charges to apply only to single-use plastics risks merely shifting the environmental burden, as alternative materials may be used with equal environmental recklessness. The risks of material substitution are plentiful and well documented by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a Conservative Member. They have also been covered in comprehensive reports from Greenpeace and the Green Alliance, and I thank both organisations for their work on this important area.

The deeper problem lies with the single-use, throwaway culture, not with plastic per se. We need to look at changing hearts and minds, as well as legislation. I am well aware that during the pandemic our progress on getting rid of single-use plastics has been set back, but I hope the Minister will take this serious and urgent issue forward.

To take fly-tipping, for example, one north London borough—I am sure that this is similar elsewhere—spends millions on collecting fly-tipping, because it has an obligation to keep streets clean, and residents complain when it does not. I am sure all hon. Members in the Committee have similar stories about the amounts their local councils have to fork out to ensure that their streets are kept clear of litter and fly-tipping.

It is not the council dumping mattresses, furniture, unwanted goods and so on; it is residents, businesses and the like, and we had a discussion about that, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. To tackle the problem, therefore, we need to get it into people’s heads that enough is enough. It is simply not acceptable to attack, damage and contaminate our environment like that. Similarly, with this amendment, we want to tackle the throwaway culture once and for all, and we can use the Bill to do just that.

The amendment would address that increasing challenge. We need to ensure that charges are possible for all single-use materials, not just the plastic ones. In simpler terms, our amendment would ensure that the Government can successfully tackle our throwaway culture at the same time as tackling plastic pollution. Treating plastic in a policy vacuum is a short-sighted approach that risks changes that could, for example, increase carbon emissions or result in more waste generation.

The amendment follows on from many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting the Bill right.

[Rebecca Pow]

I appreciate the focus on this issue. However, I fear that the amendment has not taken enough account of the bespoke issue of plastics or of how much of the Bill is aimed at tackling our single-use culture. Applying charges to single-use plastic items will be an effective way of reducing the impact on the natural world. The measures are designed to focus specifically on single-use, hard-to-recycle plastics.

In 2019, the Marine Conservation Society recorded that, on average, per 100 metres of beach, more than 150 pieces of plastic were found, which is a shocking revelation. That is more than triple the second most commonly listed item, which is cigarette stubs, which also contain plastic. I do not know whether hon. Members have been to the Keep Britain Tidy events, but that organisation has a big drive on cigarette butts at the moment. They contain a horrifying amount of plastic, not to mention the other toxic chemicals.

The MCS’s work showcases the prevalence of plastics in our environment and explains why this material needs a focused clause in the Bill. As we saw with our ban on plastic straws, plastics still have an important role to play in certain applications, but Government intervention is necessary to tackle unnecessary plastic. Many of our mailbags are full of messages about these items. Public opinion was demonstrated in HMT’s call for evidence on tackling the plastic problem in March 2018, which received an incredible 162,000 responses, with strong support for the use of taxes and charges to tackle single-use plastic waste.

A lot is already being done on single-use plastics. Great work is being done on microbeads and microplastics, which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to. When I was a Back Bencher, I asked the Speaker whether he had had a shower that morning, with the intention to point out how many microbeads were in the shower gel that would have been used. We have brought in one of the toughest bans in the world. There is also the 5p single-use carrier bag charge, which has had a dramatic impact on the number of bags used. A lot of good work has already been done.

The Bill already provides a robust approach towards achieving a more circular economy. Our new powers to reform the packaging waste regulations will enable us to adapt the system to incentivise all packaging, not just plastic, to be more carefully designed and manufactured, with recyclability in mind. The eco-design measures and consumer information powers will enable regulations to be made that set basic standards with sustainability in mind and that require information provision to consumers, to drive the market towards products that are designed to last longer, perhaps through multiple uses, instead of being thrown away after first use. The House of Commons shop is selling some excellent cutlery packs, which are made of bamboo. My hon. Friends and hon. Members should all carry a pack in their pockets or bags, to cut down on single-use items.

Meanwhile, our powers to enable the implementation of a deposit return scheme and introduce consistency in household and business recycling collections will drive the capture of more material and all types of single-use items for recycling.

[Dr Whitehead]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give way quickly, before I wind up.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am slightly concerned that the Minister is not responding to exactly what we said in the amendment. We need to make a decision on what this is about. Is it about single-use items, or is it about plastic items? In this instance, the two have been elided for the purpose of a concentration on plastic single-use items.

Schedule 9 defines single-use items in paragraph 1(3). It does not define them as a plastic single-use item, but simply as a “single use item”. The schedule enables the Government to make specific regulations. Indeed, the regulations “may specify”—that is the correct use of a “may”—single-use items, but only those that 

“are made wholly or partly of plastic”,

which narrows down the range of single-use items.

[The Chair]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his points—[Interruption.] I cannot bring in any other Members until the Minister has resumed.

[Rebecca Pow]

I was literally on my last paragraph. The ability to place a charge on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in our efforts to tackle the issues arising from our use of single-use plastic, while still allowing for their continued use by people who need them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has said, we are not talking about plastics; we are talking about single-use items.

Environment Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 15th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

As hon. Members will recall, before we adjourned we discussed an amendment that sought to place a slightly different emphasis on elements of the schedule; we wanted to emphasise the question of single use in general, rather than just single-use plastic. The argument is that a lot of things other than plastic are single-use.

The idea is not what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire suggested in his intervention—that we would tax everything that was single-use, which would clearly be absurd. Indeed, one would not want to tax some plastic single-use items, given that they may be appropriate in a number of circumstances. That is why, on this occasion, the use of the word “may” is correct.

Schedule 9, it appears, has been drawn narrowly in respect of plastic and therefore narrowly also in terms of single use. To emphasise that, the schedule is actually headed “Charges for single use plastic items”, not “Charges for single use items that may be plastic”. That is unfortunate because the issue is not just about manufacturers seeking to get round a ban or restriction on single-use plastic items by making single-use items from different materials; it is that the whole throwaway culture is based on single-use items in general, which may or may not be plastic.

As those who have had the pleasure of dining under covid restrictions in this building, a couple of floors down, will know, a number of throwaway items are put forward for our use, including knife, fork and spoon sets. Interestingly, those sets are sometimes made of bamboo and sometimes of plastic; that seems to depend on which night people turn up for what meal. The principle is exactly the same: people are supposed to put the knife, fork and spoon set in the bin afterwards. In the particular instance of covid-19 restrictions, I fully understand why. However, although it is the norm in a number of catering establishments to supply a knife, fork and spoon set that cannot be washed and used again, those knife, fork and spoon sets are not necessarily only plastic. They can be made of all sorts of other things; the principle is that something is being made available that is supposed to be thrown away and not used again, when it could very easily be used again, with fairly minor alterations to the spec and how things are done, thereby saving a great deal of resource and upholding the principles of the circular economy.

That is what we were trying to get at in amendment 182. There are clearly various things that fit in that category and that we as a society could do a great deal to sort out, so as not to bring virgin materials into the economy when we do not need to and to circularise things so that they go round the economy. Making the best use of those items when we can is something that should be agreed to. Indeed, we had a debate a little while ago in which the Minister extolled the virtues of recyclable nappies. Of course, a recyclable nappy is what used to be known as a nappy. That is what people did, because Pampers and all the rest of it were not available in those days. However, we now have a culture where the default is to buy a bag of Pampers and get through those, rather than even thinking about using recyclable nappies. Indeed, they are quite difficult to get hold of.

Recyclable or non-recyclable nappies need not necessarily be made of plastic; they could be made of various things. However, the principle is about moving from nappies that are used in one way to those used by default in another way, with the result—which we know, and which I am sure comes across the Minister’s desk every day—that nappies are now a substantial part of the waste stream and potentially part of fatbergs and various other things in our sewers, because of the change over time from multiple to single use.

We do not oppose the schedule, but can the Minister see circumstances in which discouraging but not necessarily removing single use could be incorporated into the schedule or introduced in further regulations, or does she think that that is it for the debate on single-use items? I cannot believe that it is; we need to take it further than just plastic items. I seek suggestions or an understanding for how we can best advance the debate, if not through this schedule, then maybe somewhere else.

In conclusion, I know personally that a number of items—some of which apply to me—including certain medical things, such as sealed eye drops, absolutely need to continue to be plastic single-use items, and it would be inappropriate were it otherwise. My view is not that we should remove all plastic single-use items—or use only single-use items—but we all ought to be seeking to give ourselves the possibility of ensuring between us that the most circularity is achieved. I hope the Minister can give us some guidance and assurances on that.

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

The Government are committed to tackling plastic pollution and moving towards sustainable alternatives. The schedule outlines the various provisions that can be brought forward in secondary legislation to place new charges on single-use plastic items. That will provide the incentive needed for citizens to use reusable alternatives while ensuring that single-use options are still available to those who need them—examples such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The success of the carrier bag charge, which has led to a 95% reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags in the main supermarkets since its introduction, demonstrates the difference that even a small incentive can make.

I want to wind up this debate by being clear that the power in schedule 9 is related to single-use plastic items, with the reason being that single-use plastic items, as I highlighted right at the beginning, are increasingly common in daily life. They are a significant and ongoing environmental problem, in use and disposal, and given that they are not valued, they are indeed disposed of via black bins or littering. They are not commonly recycled. The measure will address that.

Other single-use items will be addressed through the other myriad measures in the Bill, including deposit return and extended producer responsibility. The general ethos of this whole part of the Bill is to drive down waste from the very beginning, and I believe that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, has not fully taken all that into account. When he sits down tonight in bed with the Bill and goes over it and the explanatory notes, he will realise that the problem he is raising is dealt with. That has all been thought about. I am, however, grateful to him that he will not oppose the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 9 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Separation of waste

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

We do not seek to oppose the clause, but I want to ask about food waste, which we may come to when we debate later schedules.

Food waste is clearly an important issue. Indeed, it was highlighted in the resources and waste strategy for England, which came out a little while ago, in a chapter headed, “Enough is enough: cutting down on food waste”. At the time, the White Paper projected that total UK food waste was 10.2 million tonnes. Interestingly, that food waste was broken down by sector. It suggested that households produced 7.1 million tonnes of food waste, hospitality and food service 1 million tonnes, manufacturing 1.85 million tonnes and retail 0.25 million tonnes. The important thing about that particular distinction made in the White Paper is that, yes, there is a large amount of food waste, as we know, and we could have a long debate about the reasons for rising food waste, how we can suppress that rise in food waste and how we can do much better at ensuring that we use what we are producing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is important.

In clause 54(4), immediately after the conditions that are set out on recyclable and food waste, there is a separate amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which talks about the

“separate collection of household waste from relevant nondomestic premises”.

The conditions in that proposed new section are different from those on household waste. We have an issue here about what it means to collect recyclable waste, which may be food waste, in the context of household collection; and what it means to collect food waste that is separate from recyclable waste, and appears to be collectable once a week.

Unless the join is properly made between the different provisions in legislation, it appears to me, the holes will not be completely filled. Can the Minister point me to other parts of the Bill where they are filled? Alternatively, will it be possible to fill those holes in different ways, by regulations? I would be delighted to hear from the Minister what she thinks about the idea in general and how far she thinks the clause has gone towards resolving the problems.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. In the 2018 resources and waste strategy, the Government set out their intention to achieve 65% recycling of municipal waste by 2035. Our current arrangements are insufficient to meet that, so clause 34 will make a big difference. It will make recycling simpler for everybody by requiring the same recyclable waste streams to be collected from all households, whatever their local authority. At the moment, as hon. Friends and Members know, we have myriad different systems across the country, which is clearly not the best way to get the most products collected, recycled and reused. That will include non-domestic premises such as schools, hospitals and businesses.

Through the Bill, no matter where people live in England, they will have their plastic, metal, glass, paper, card, food waste and garden waste all collected for recycling, with food waste being collected from households weekly. The unexpected consequences of leaving food waste longer than that were outlined by the hon. Member for Newport West.

Food waste should be collected separately unless absolutely not technically or economically practical, but there is a requirement for it to be collected every week. At the very least, householders will have a bin for what is called dry recycling, which are the first things I mentioned, and another bin for residual waste, as we do in Taunton Deane already; I do not know whether they have those in Southampton, Test.

[Dr Whitehead]

They do.

[Rebecca Pow]

All the district councils in Somerset join together for that scheme. It works extremely well and it is very straightforward. All other local authorities will follow a similar model, so there will no longer be a postcode lottery with one place where they do collect it and another where they do not.

For the first time, there will also be a requirement, as was raised by the hon. Gentleman, for non-domestic premises and businesses to arrange to have the same recyclable waste streams as households, separately collected, with the exception of garden waste, and for them to present their waste in accordance with those arrangements. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is getting a bit muddled in his interpretation of what he is reading, because what is envisaged is clear.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I do not mean to usurp my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who I am sure will follow immediately afterwards, but I think much of that is to be welcomed—certainly weekly collections. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Local Government Association has caveated its support with a request for funding to be made available to carry those out. Can she point to where in the Bill that guarantee is given?

[Rebecca Pow]

We have made it very clear from the beginning that burdens to local authorities will be covered. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to write to him in more detail about that, we can, but that has been made quite clear.

[Dr Whitehead]

If I am being misled, I look to the Minister to provide clarification, which I hope she is beginning to do—indeed, that is what I want, to inform my understanding of how the clause will work. There are some things that I cannot quite get to the bottom of, however, so perhaps she can point me to exactly how they join together.

I very much welcome the advances on food waste and it is essential that we take action on that, but I remain unconvinced that the clause states exactly that every local collection authority has to provide a food waste collection. If they do provide a food waste collection, it has to be collected once a week, but does the clause mean that every local authority has to provide an unmingled food waste collection arrangement and that that arrangement is not to be mingled with more general recyclable collections?

I am sure that the Minister can appreciate the distinction between putting a whole pile of food waste in a general recycling bin and separating food waste out so that it can be used for specific purposes. If food waste is mingled in with recycling, it is difficult to take it out subsequently, and it cannot be used entirely for the purposes for which we want food waste to be used: anaerobic digestion and various other things.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I should say that I have allowed lengthy interventions on the basis that I think it is for the good conduct of the Committee that people have the opportunity to make these points, so no criticism is implied. However, I do hope people will try to be a bit briefer with their interventions as the Committee proceeds.

[Rebecca Pow]

I think the hon. Gentleman has made his own point, really. He has outlined why we do not want food waste mingled up with all the rest of the waste. That is why through this Bill, no matter where in England a person lives, they will see dry waste—plastic, metal, glass, paper and card—collected, and food, which is not dry waste, in a separate bin. That is all in the Bill. Food waste will be collected from households on a weekly basis—I do not know how much clearer I can be. That will make recycling more straightforward and, with all the other measures in the Bill, will help us to increase overall recycling rates to 65%.

These recyclable waste streams must be collected separately from other waste and separately from each other, except when it is technically or economically impractical to do so or there is no significant environmental benefit. That will lead to higher quality, driving up the value of all recycled materials and, in turn, encouraging more recycling through increased demand. The clause allows us to add additional recyclable waste streams in future, subject to certain conditions. It will provide consistency of recycling for the first time, and help us meet future recycling targets. I therefore commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 55

Electronic waste tracking: Great Britain

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 55, page 41, line 33, leave out “including” and insert “excluding”.

Clause 55 adds new text to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and seeks to set up a new system of electronic tracking for waste. Our amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. colleagues, seeks to secure that new system. I say to the Minister that the proposed new system is very welcome, but although we welcome the proposal, we and many campaigners and experts want to go further. The new system needs to be expanded to track all materials in line with the National Materials Datahub—the same data hub that the Government have previously supported. I hope the Minister will understand the background and motivation behind what we are trying to do here, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I would point out that in the resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to modernising, simplifying and harmonising current regulations relating to the transport, management and description of waste, which have been introduced in a very piecemeal fashion over the past 30 years or so. She will probably agree with me that the current system is in urgent need of an update, and I welcome the fact that she is supporting these general measures.

Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record keeping, which makes it very difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste. In 2018, the independent review into serious and organised waste crime recommended that mandatory electronic tracking of waste should be introduced at the earliest opportunity to address the problems of illegality in the waste sector. In the current system, waste can be fraudulently re-classified and transferred on, or simply illegally dumped, and the paper trail then disappears. That makes it difficult to identify and deal with waste crime, including cases of fly-tipping, which concerns rural and urban areas.

To make essential improvements and create a digital waste-tracking system, amendments may be required to primary legislation or retained direct EU legislation. That does not mean that we are falling behind the EU on standards of waste management—far from it. Instead, we will amend the current legislation to develop a comprehensive system, to ensure that waste can be tracked and regulated more effectively.

The practical effect of the amendment, therefore, would be to undermine and restrict our ability to introduce mandatory electronic waste tracking in a way that works best for our environment, now and in the future, although I know that is not the hon. Member’s intention. I ask her, therefore, to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for her expansion on the situation. We are singing from the same hymn sheet, because electronic tracking is so important, as the Minister said; the paperwork trail is not as accurate as the electronic one. We all want the same thing. I am pleased she has mentioned the EU, because we do not want to fall behind the EU either. That is paramount as we move forward from 1 January. With that in mind, we will not push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 43, in clause 55, page 41, line 44, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56

Electronic waste tracking: Northern Ireland

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 56, page 43, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment, again, is focused on language and the strength of the legislation. We want to replace “may” with “must”. I suspect the Minister is getting tired of hearing these amendments, but we are trying to be helpful and ensure that the Bill is as strong and effective as possible. I will not repeat the benefits of “must” over “may”.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. The introduction of a mandatory electronic waste tracking system will increase transparency in the waste industry, as I outlined earlier, and pose a barrier to organised criminals operating in the sector.

Clause 56 provides the regulation-making powers needed to legislate on how the system is set up and administered in Northern Ireland. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland with the flexibility as to when and how the provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes that approach to the balance between powers and duties. This enabling power should not be converted into a duty.

It should be for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to decide how and when to use the enabling power to bring forward legislation and, in turn, for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether to approve this legislation. The Assembly must be given its proper place in terms of scrutiny when it comes to the commencement and implementation of the powers. The proposed amendment to place an absolute duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs goes against the spirit of that. If the amendment is made, the Department could be subject to a duty to make regulations on waste tracking that it would then be unable to comply with if the Assembly did not approve the legislation. It would also not be appropriate for Northern Ireland to be subject to a duty to make waste tracking regulations that the other nations of the UK are not subject to. I therefore consider the amendment inappropriate and ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw it.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand her reasoning, we want Northern Ireland to be in line with the rest of the UK in being as strong and far reaching as possible on waste and electronic tracking systems. It is important that we enable the Northern Ireland Assembly and the authorities there to do everything they want to. We had a long debate on powers and duties when considering the Agriculture Bill. If it is that important, it should be legislated for, and it should be in the Bill. However, having heard the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 56 agreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.

Clause 59

Transfrontier shipments of waste

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I echo my hon. Friend’s claim that the amendment is very important for how the country is seen to deal with its waste, and particularly for how we are seen by our own population. Hopefully, we are seen in a positive light. All that we have discussed about recycling, single-use plastics and such things is based, to a considerable extent, on the public’s confidence that what is going to happen is actually what does happen. If the public think that none of what is being said to them is true, the chances of them co-operating—by sorting everything into different bins, ensuring that things are returned, and stopping dumping things in hedges—will be undermined.

The fact that we are seen to be dealing with our own waste properly and safely, and that we are not simply using the export of waste as a safety valve for our inadequacies in processing waste fully in our country, ought to be something that should concern us very much. Frankly, that is what has happened over a number of years with our waste exports. We do import some waste, but we export quite a lot more than we import. The waste we import is usually waste that can be used for energy from waste and various other things, such as refuse-derived fuel. The waste we export is not only of a much wider variety, but actually goes to parts of the world where, in many instances, we cannot be sure—and certainly, people there cannot be sure—that the destination for that waste is of the standard we would expect if that waste were disposed of in our own country.

The Minister has said this legislation would ensure that we do not export waste other than to OECD countries. That sounds very reassuring, until we look at membership of OECD countries. It is not, shall we say, EU members and a couple of other states in the world. It is actually a wide variety of states across the world: for example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Turkey are members of the OECD. Therefore, that is not necessarily the quality standard route, as far as safety valves are concerned. The best thing to do is probably to ensure we have sufficient recycling collection, processing and reuse facilities here, so that we can really deal with all our waste in the UK. That is not just a practical thing; it is a moral obligation we have for the future, as far as waste management is concerned.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West mentioned, what we really do not want is repeated scenes—not just repeated scenes, but repeated extremely embarrassing scenes—of bales of waste, mainly consisting of plastic, going to countries we think will quite easily accept them and say nothing, but that are now beginning to say, “This is not good enough. The quality of this material is not right. It is not what we thought it was going to be, so you can have it back.” That is not just one instance—Sri Lanka; we have form on this. This has happened with several countries, including Malaysia, which sent back 27 bales of waste. Indeed, I put a written question to the Minister a little while ago about how that had happened, what was going to happen with that material when it came back to the UK and whether it would be properly dealt with and disposed of.

Part of the reason these things have started to happen is that some of our traditional destinations, in terms of what have historically been fairly lazy assumptions about export of waste, have drawn the drawbridge up themselves. China’s great green wall policy means that the Chinese no longer want to receive anything that looks vaguely usable that we might put in a container back to China, and that we cannot work on the assumption that they can somehow reprocess some of it and will be quite pleased to do so because that will help their economy. They do not want it. They have put a green wall up to stop these things happening.

That has meant that the waste exports have gone to other countries, which it was thought are less particular about what they want to receive and, indeed, probably happy to receive stuff that is not what it says on the tin or on the bale. One issue from this particular return of bales of waste to the UK was that they were claimed to be high-quality waste that could be reused and remanufactured by those countries for recycling purposes. However, they were not. There was all sorts of old stuff, to coin a phrase, in those bales, and it was way beyond the standard that they would reasonably accept. Two questions arise from that. First, what were we doing continuing to export in that lazy way to those countries? Secondly, why did what I thought were our internal checks and balances to ensure the quality of what we export fail to work?

We have potentially considerable work to do. If we are to continue to export waste at all, we have to get our act together and ensure that that waste is as good as it could be and is absolutely not going to the wrong places. The Opposition think that the best way to deal with plastic or mostly plastic waste is simply to say that by 2025 we will stop doing that. Yes, that gives us a challenge, because we currently do not have sufficient good-quality plastic recycling facilities in this country, particularly those that can properly separate the 25 or 26 different kinds of plastic and put them at the right level in the plastics hierarchy so that we do not end up only making traffic cones with the plastic we recycle.

With plastic recycling, the production level of the plastic going into the system needs to be commensurate with the recycling that takes place, so that the plastic can be recycled at that level. For example, food-grade plastic has to be recycled with other food-grade plastic. If it is contaminated with anything else, it stops being food-grade plastic, recycled or not. Indeed, if we are not careful, it all goes to the bottom of the plastic hierarchy, and we get massive amounts of park benches and traffic cones and nothing else.

We need better facilities in this country for recycling and reprocessing plastic that can be recycled properly, according to the hierarchy. That is partly why the amendment says:

“from no later than March 2025.”

That would give us the space to start getting our act together in this country and ensuring that facilities are available to recycle properly. We really cannot accept, and I do not think any of us would want to accept, that exporting waste should in the future be seen as a safety valve for our own inadequacies. It has to be different from that. The amendment underlines why it has to be different, how it can be different and how we can set an example to the world by ensuring that we deal with what arises from our own backyard in our own backyard and do not send it out across the world, for purposes that we do not know too much about and that the people concerned are obviously increasingly upset about when it gets to them.

This is an important amendment that we hope the Minister will accept entirely in the spirit in which it is intended. I know that she is absolutely committed to those high standards in our waste management, and I hope that she will accept it in that spirit.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank all hon. Members who have inputted, although I take slight issue with the “lost decade” for the environment. I think Labour needs to look at its own record prior to that and ask how we have come to this pass. Thank goodness we have a Government who are doing something about it. However, that is not to say that I do not welcome the Opposition’s support; I absolutely do.

Also, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked why people were not more excited about the Bill. I believe they are genuinely excited about it, and it is such a huge Bill. Other hon. Members have probably had this too, but when one meets groups of people who might be a wee bit, what I call controversial, and explains what is in the Bill, they are absolutely amazed. It literally addresses all the things that people write to us about and that fill our inboxes, so I for one am going to be that champion—indeed, I hope I already am. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and promote the Bill, because I think it will do all the things we need for a sustainable future.

Anyway, to the amendment, for which I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and which would prohibit the export of

“waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic”

by March 2025. However, the clause already provides powers to make regulations on a wide range of matters to do with the import and export of waste, including prohibiting and restricting its export. We will use powers in this clause to implement our manifesto commitment to ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries —exactly what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is asking for—as we recognise that some countries have difficulty processing imports of this type of waste. We are committed to dealing with more of our waste here in the UK through the measures I have been talking about today and previously. We will consult industry, NGOs and local authorities on the date by which the ban will be achieved.

[Dr Whitehead]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will, but very briefly, because the hon. Gentleman had a very long go just now.

[The Chair]

I am sure he will be very brief.

[Dr Whitehead]

I will indeed. I just wanted to correct what the Minister seemed to suggest I said about the OECD. I was not saying “Hooray for exports to the OECD!” Rather, I think we should see whether all OECD member countries keep to high standards of waste reception and export. My perusal of the membership suggests that not all do.

[Rebecca Pow]

I too looked at that great list of members yesterday and at non-OECD countries. The OECD countries represent 80% of the world’s investment and wealth. I just wanted to make a point about OECD countries and waste, though. We must not forget that waste is a commodity and that there is a legitimate global market for secondary materials. Exports of waste for recycling between OECD countries are already covered by an international agreement—the OECD decision—which provides the framework for the control of movements of waste.

Where the UK cannot currently recycle materials economically, exports can ensure in some cases that th3e materials are recycled, rather than sent to landfill or for incineration. Not all products sold in the UK are made in the UK. Waste exports can help to increase the amount of recycled materials going into new products we buy that are produced abroad. We must not forget the big picture where waste goes and what it is used for.

Making the amendment before the consultation on the date for stopping the exports of waste to non-OECD countries would pre-empt the result of the consultation. It is important that all stakeholders have a fair and equal opportunity to express their view on when the proposed prohibition should be implemented. The prohibition could have wide-ranging effects on local authorities and our wider waste infrastructure, and it is important to consider these effects fully before we set a timetable for implementing the ban.

I assure all hon. Members that the Government take very seriously the regulation of waste imports and exports, as well as the impact illegal waste shipments can have on the global environment—hence our manifesto commitments. Electronic waste tracking will help this agenda, as we will know what is going where and it will be harder to send the wrong products abroad. I reaffirm that we should be dealing with our own waste right here in the UK wherever possible. I ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for her enthusiasm for this Bill. We are obviously all enthused, and it is important we get the word out about what is going on. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and for Southampton, Test for their eloquent speeches about the need to deal with things at home and not just shove them off into the far blue yonder. People at home have woken up and want to do the right thing. We go on and on about people’s awareness being raised, but we must ensure that they have the ability to do the right thing.

Greta Thunberg has spoken eloquently and young people around the UK especially have taken on board what she says. I was honoured to make my maiden speech on 1 May last year, when she addressed a number of us in Portcullis House. It was the day we declared the climate change emergency so it was important. She is seen as one of the leading lights in engaging young people and encouraging them to lobby those within and outside this room, so that we will do the right thing for them and for future generations.

The nub of the matter is the end result, which is that we are dumping containers in another country. I have seen TV pictures of young people—children—scavenging through waste sites, and the waste has clearly been identified as coming from the UK. That is not acceptable and we know it. We need to make sure we deal with our waste here in the United Kingdom, for the very reason that the Minister has outlined, and with the very mechanisms that she outlined. We make the waste and we must dispose of it properly ourselves though measures including proper processing and proper waste stations. Let us not forget, if we ship waste abroad, it contributes to climate change through the extra emissions from shipping freight.

The Minister has made an eloquent plea for us to withdraw the amendment because the deadline of March 2020 might hinder meaningful consultation, but I argue that the deadline is a helpful way to encourage people to consult and to decide how we can achieve what we want within the timeline. I should say it is a spur—a driver—to help. If the Government are ambitious then, yes, set an ambitious target. That is why it is important that we should push the deadline. That is how we can start to demonstrate that this is about actions, not words. For that reason we shall divide the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that this is essentially a cross-departmental initiative and that all Government Departments understand what is involved in the schedule—that it involves, particularly at local level, local authorities doing something for this specific purpose that another Department might not think is a great thing. Departments have to understand that that is how it must happen. It may even be a question of the Minister asserting her undoubtedly massive power within the Government to get it across to other Departments that they should refrain from casting aspersions on local authorities when they are doing their best. Indeed, more than refrain, perhaps Departments should be active partners in those activities.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Improving the quality of the air we breathe is an absolute priority for the Government. We are taking action to reduce pollution from a range of sources, including a £3.8 billion plan to reduce pollution from road vehicles and our commitment, set out in clause 2 of the Bill, to set a legally binding national target to reduce fine particulate matter, which we discussed a great deal on the very first day of this Committee, a long time ago. The current local air quality management framework places responsibility on local councils to assess local levels of air pollution and to address pollution exceedances. The framework—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I agree with him—is not sufficient for delivering the progress we want to see.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, but, first of all, on cross-departmental working, I can assure him that I, as the environment Minister, am working increasingly across Departments. On air, we work with the Department for Transport in particular; we have the joint air quality unit with that Department and we are also increasingly working with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is really healthy and really important.

However, going back to that framework, local authorities have told us that they need greater co-operation from a range of bodies in order to deliver meaningful action to bring pollution levels to within statutory limits. The provisions in the schedule will drive greater co-operation between different levels of local government and allow the Secretary of State to designate other relevant public authorities that will also be required to take action. I think that is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is really driving at, but it is all in here, and we will consult on which bodies should be designated—actually, we launched a call for evidence on this on 5 October, so work is already under way.

As we set out in our clean air strategy, we also want to provide a quicker and more proportionate enforcement mechanism for smoke control areas, enabling greater local action on domestic solid fuel burning, which is a major contributor to national fine particulate matter emissions. I think the hon. Gentleman touched on funding. We anticipate only a small extra cost to local authorities from the revised local air quality management frameworks —the estimate we have had is around £13,000 per year per local authority.

Returning to the enforcement measures, especially in relation to the smoke control areas and domestic solid fuel burning, we are going to help tackle that, and we will achieve that by replacing the criminal offence in existing legislation with a civil penalty regime, which will allow for the removal of the statutory defences that currently hinder enforcement. This change will ensure that local authorities can avoid lengthy and costly court cases—many of them have mentioned this to us—in enforcing regulations on the smoke emissions, enabling much smarter enforcement. It will be much quicker and simpler for them to deal with an issue as and when they come across it if we make it a civil penalty.

[Ruth Jones]

On that point about enforcement, while we agree that it is essential that local authorities are able to enforce, how does the Minister see that enforcement being undertaken? There are environmental health officers up to their eyes with covid, there are lots of people who are no longer in work because of the cuts the authorities have had to make and the funding is an issue. How will it happen?

[Rebecca Pow]

The main way it will happen is that we will put the measures in the Bill to enable it to happen, so that the local authorities can take the action they are asking for. This is something they have been asking for and it will be made much simpler for them to take the action that they want to take, so they need to take it. We will have all our targets on smoke and fine particulate matter, so there will be even more reason to tackle any issues within one’s particular local authority.

These measures will also require retailers in England to notify customers of the law regarding the purchase of certain solid fuels for use in smoke control areas. These measures will all work together to improve compliance. They will remove the limit on the fine for the current offence of delivering these fuels to a building in a smoke control area. Local authorities will also be able to apply smoke control legislation to boats moored in their area, subject to consultation. Finally, criminal prosecution of serious offenders who repeatedly emit smoke that is prejudicial to health will be made possible by removing an exemption in existing statutory nuisance legislation. That is another thing that will definitely help the local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12 agreed to.

Clause 71

Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 71, page 61, line 25, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the recall of relevant products that do not meet the appropriate environmental standards. I am afraid that this is yet another case of mays and musts. The whole point of the Bill is to deliver real change and to ensure that we seize every opportunity to save our planet.

Do not forget, the Bill disappeared for more than 200 days, so we have lost a lot of time in the fight against climate change—but the fight is why we are here today. We cannot simply report back to the Floor of the House, and to the country, a Bill that is full of mays, ifs and buts. Let us be confident and turn those mays into musts and whens. We can get the Bill through and get on with what we need to do about climate change.

[Rebecca Pow]

We know the harmful effect that pollution from vehicles and machinery has on our air quality and the health of our communities. I am sure that all Members are aware of the difficulties facing many local authorities in bringing down concentrations of dangerous air pollution. Much of that is due to vehicles that emit more pollution on the road than they do in a certification test. The Government therefore set out in our clean air strategy that vehicles that do not meet the relevant environmental standards must be recalled and fixed. The provisions will enable the Transport Secretary to issue a mandatory recall notice if vehicles or parts of vehicles do not meet the environmental standards required of them.

I assure hon. Members that my colleagues in the Department for Transport intend to lay secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure that non-compliant vehicles can be removed from the road. However, it is critical that the vehicle recall regime is fit for purpose. We therefore intend to have a full public consultation on the draft regulations, and we expect the secondary legislation to be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State is provided with the flexibility as to when and how this provision is given effect. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for her words. Obviously, we welcome the clean air strategy. The fact that secondary legislation will be introduced is also welcome but, again, we do not want it to be seen as an excuse to kick things further down the road. Kicking the can down the road is not a good idea, especially when it comes to people’s health. As we know, the lack of clean air can impact directly on people’s lung capacity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and things like that, which are all exacerbated by poor air quality.

My question to the Minister—it is rhetorical, of course—is, again, who will enforce? She has talked about secondary legislation, but who will actually enforce when a vehicle is seen emitting polluting smoke and particles? Who will do it? There is no money and no staff within the local authorities to do it.

[Rebecca Pow]

The measures will impose no additional cost on the motorists. All the recalls will continue to be fully funded by the affected vehicle manufacturers. When enacting a recall, the Government will now be able to impose supplementary conditions on vehicle manufacturers, which could include the requirement that the owner of the vehicle or equipment is compensated for any inconvenience. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that means there is a sound system, including setting it all in secondary legislation.

[Ruth Jones]

That is interesting. I am sure that we will have further debates on this with later parts of the Bill. When I ask who will enforce, I am talking about boots on the ground—who will physically get to the car, lorry or whatever, to pull it in for the assessment it needs in order to impose that secondary legislation? But I am grateful to her for her explanation and, on that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)