Environmental Protection

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Straws, Cotton Buds and Stirrers) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 May, be approved.

Before I begin my remarks, I want to address the issue of why the draft regulations are being brought before the House now instead of earlier in the year. Originally, the regulations were laid in March this year and set to come into force in April. However, in light of the unprecedented situation that this country has faced due to covid-19, they were delayed to reduce the burden placed on industry and to avoid adding further to the demands placed on local authorities.

Many businesses should have been prepared for the ban, given that our plans have been widely publicised, but we received correspondence from many stating that supply chains had faced disruption from the widespread outbreak of covid-19, so sourcing alternatives to single-use plastics had been challenging. We were asked to delay entry into force for a short time while at the peak of this crisis.

Delaying regulations was only a temporary measure in response to the crisis. Our commitment to turning the tide on the widespread use of single-use plastics is as strong as ever, and we seek to limit our impact on the natural environment.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I spent my working career supplying food service packaging items, and I see today as a pretty sad day. Having sold many straws and plastic stirrers in my working career, I find it of concern that if I supply a plastic drink stirrer I am guilty of an offence and would be liable on summary conviction to a fine. I think that is a pretty disappointing state to be in. I thank the Minister for the delay, because for many of the suppliers of these products, their customers have not been able to use the products as a consequence of the hospitality sector being shut down. The delay that she has introduced is very welcome.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how much work he does with the packaging industry, which, it has to be recognised, is indeed an important part of our economy. I welcome the fact that he recognises that this measure is much needed. Indeed, we brought the whole industry on board with us, and we listened to it. That is why we are giving this slight extension in bringing in the regulations: it was specifically at the request of the industry.

Turning to the purpose of this SI, the Government are committed to eliminating plastic waste and the terrible effects that can result from plastic being in the environment. Single-use plastic items—products that are made wholly or partly from plastic and designed to be used only once—are increasingly common, and their use and inappropriate disposal continue to raise significant environmental issues. Unlike other materials such as paper or wood, plastic can persist in the environment for hundreds of years. Therefore, if released into the environment, items such as plastic straws can endanger wildlife and damage habitats, and small pieces of plastic items can often be ingested by animals. Furthermore, plastic that escapes into the environment will eventually break down into microplastics, which are permeating our food chain as well as ending up in our soils and the sea. The full impacts of this are still being uncovered.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand exactly the logical reason why the Government are bringing this forward tonight. However, the Minister will realise that many businesses and companies have to find alternatives to plastic. Does she recognise within this SI the need for investment in research and development in emerging technologies that are producing biodegradable, single-use, plastic-type product alternatives?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, which is perceptive, because the Government are definitely encouraging research and innovation in this field. He specifically mentioned biodegradable products. There is a great deal of discussion about that. Consulting and taking advice on it continue to be very important. We have carried out a consultation, because we need to know what even those products break down into before they come into general use. We have to be just as careful.

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not plastic that is the problem, but waste, and we should be doing all we can to tackle that? Will she join me in commending companies like ReNew ELP in my constituency, which is leading the way in chemical recycling?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is all part of the whole new world that we are moving into of creating a circular economy where we research what we are making and design it so that we can reuse it, repair it or make it last longer. That is why the Environment Bill is so important, because it will contain many of the measures to reach this stage through the resources and waste strategy. I must also praise the company in his constituency that he mentioned.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does my hon. Friend agree that plastic is a problem and waste is a problem, but people are also a problem? People are not disposing of these products appropriately and they are getting into the wrong place. Would an education process to get people to put the right product in the right box and get it recycled be part of her endeavour?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just before the Minister replies, I want to make sure that hon. and right hon. Members are paying attention to the remit of the SI, if I can put it that way.

[Rebecca Pow]

I think you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a wide subject and people are generally interested in this whole issue of waste and plastics. Of course, my hon. Friend’s point about people is absolutely right. Even with my own children, I still have to teach them what to put in which boxes for the recycling: it drives me absolutely nuts. In the Environment Bill, we are bringing forward measures to align all the collection services, which will, once and for all, I hope, sort out the situation to which he refers.

The proposed measures in the resources and waste chapter of our Environment Bill will transition us towards a more circular economy—I have mentioned that already—which will change the way we consume resources. However, there is much we can already do to address the issue of single-use plastics, so let us now look clearly at what this statutory instrument will do. It will restrict the supply of single-use plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds to end users in England, helping to reduce the amount of plastic that pollutes our environment. These new regulations will support the voluntary actions being taken by industry, led by the UK plastics pact, while ensuring that all businesses move to more sustainable alternatives. Our current data show that we use a remarkable 4.7 billion straws, 1.8 billion plastic-stemmed cotton buds and 316 million plastic stirrers every year in England, which is a huge quantity. This intervention will drastically reduce the use of those single-use plastics by an estimated 95%. When taken in conjunction with our wider policy approach to move towards a more circular economy, this will be another landmark moment, following our carrier bag charge and our microbead ban.

These regulations will be coming in ahead of the EU’s introduction of such a ban. Taking advantage of our new-found freedom enables us to be more flexible and to have a more tailored approach, which will enable us to bring in our own exemptions—for example, the exemption for those with disabilities. Let us look at those exemptions. There is no doubt that plastic is an incredibly useful and versatile material. Plastic straws can withstand high temperatures, such as for tea and coffee, and can be moulded to bend or fit into a particular shape. That allows people suffering from certain conditions, such as motor neurone disease, who struggle to hold a cup to access hot and cold drinks, and liquid foods. My husband was seriously ill and we had to use straws as he got increasingly ill, so we can see why an exemption such as that is important. That is why we have included exemptions in these regulations for accessibility, forensic reasons, and medical and scientific uses.

Following the introduction of the regulations, plastic-stemmed cotton buds will still be available for purchase by individuals who need them. Plastic straws will be available through pharmacies, without any requirement for proof of need, which means that relatives, friends and carers could buy them on behalf of those who rely on the items. Similarly, we are allowing for catering establishments, such as restaurants and public houses, that supply food and drink ready for visitors to consume to continue to provide plastic straws on request—again, this is without proof of need, for the reasons to which I have just referred. In these instances, it will be against the regulations to display and advertise the fact that straws are being supplied, in order to limit the impulse for people who do not need them to request them.

The regulations allow business-to-business sales, for example, between a manufacturer and a catering establishment, to ensure that businesses can supply items to those who need them. We have also exempted other establishments such as schools, care homes and prisons from these regulations on plastic straws, so that they can be made available for anyone in their care who may need them. Finally, there is also an exemption for plastic straws that are classed as packaging. For example, some medicines in pill form are packaged in straws, to be dispensed one at a time. These exemptions for medical, scientific and forensic purposes will be reviewed and updated as we move forward.

We are determined to get this right, and it is vital that businesses and the public are informed about what they can and cannot do. Local authorities are obliged to ensure that guidance is published ahead of the regulations coming into force, and anyone caught still supplying the items against the rules set out in this legislation could face civil sanctions, such as stop notices or a variable monetary penalty.

Of course, we hope that the enforcement measures will not be necessary. Industry is already making good progress to remove the items from their shelves, and public demand for the items is falling. But the regulations need to have teeth to show that the Government take the issue of plastic pollution seriously. The new regulations send a signal to industry and the general public that we need to think carefully about the products we buy and the materials from which they are made. The regulations will help people to make more sustainable choices, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

First, I must welcome the shadow Minister. I do not believe we have confronted each other yet. I look forward to working with him, on the Environment Bill in particular, and I thank all other Members who have joined in the debate today. That shows how passionate we are about plastic and getting rid of it, and I will address some of the points that were raised.

I was slightly disappointed that the shadow Minister referred to this as a missed opportunity and said he is highly critical of steps being taken. I believe he is unaware of quite how much is under way, and I look forward to working on the Environment Bill with him and exposing to him just how committed the Government are and how much is being done through not only that Bill, but the resources and waste strategy.

We obviously recognise how important this subject is, and I want to touch on a few of the things that are being done: we already have the microbeads and microplastics ban; there is a huge reduction in single-use carrier bag usage; we have launched the Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance, which was referred to just now, to stimulate global action; and we are delivering on our promises through the resources and waste strategy and seeking powers through the Environment Bill. Under those powers, there will be a charge for single-use plastic items, the deposit return scheme for drinks containers will be introduced, the packaging waste regulations will be reformed, and greater consistency in household and business recycling collections will be introduced—I touched on that earlier.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I appreciate the mentions of the Environment Bill; will the Minister ensure that we get back into Committee, because we do not yet have a date for sitting?

[Rebecca Pow]

We are well aware of that and will let the hon. Gentleman know in due course when the Bill will be back, because we are all very keen to get on with it; he is absolutely right about that, and the commitment is fully still there.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned local authorities. Local authorities will inspect the businesses to check that they are following the regulations. They will be able to visit shops or stalls, make test purchases, speak to staff and demand records, and they will be given the full range of civil sanctions in order to ensure compliance, including powers such as being able to issue compliance and stop notices, as well as the ability to impose fines. They will also be obliged to publish guidance, because they will be the regulator, and we will give draft guidance before that comes into force. I hope that clarifies that.

The hon. Gentleman touched on targets, which was a bit naughty, because he moved away from the essence of the statutory instrument. I am surprised that he was not caught out, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he is new, so you were being very lenient. I just wanted to reiterate that, through the Environment Bill, we have put in place a whole process in which the targets are set, checked and then rechecked. I believe the whole system is very strong. We also have milestones in the resources and waste strategy, which sets recycling targets for packaging. All packaging will be recyclable by 2025. The hon. Gentleman talked about bringing back washable cutlery. I washed a spoon today by the way. Perhaps, we should go down that road—good suggestion.

I just wish to touch on a few comments from some other colleagues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who, of course, has done so much work on this agenda, fully understands and appreciates how committed the Government are to this agenda and how we are introducing this strategy to reduce waste, to recycle, to repair and to reuse. I reiterate that all packaging will be recyclable by 2025. In particular, she mentioned the extension to the carrier bag charge. We have consulted, as she knows, on extending the charge to all retailers and increasing the minimum charge to 10p, and the Government’s response will be issued shortly. We have, of course, had a slightly different few months than we expected with the coronavirus, so we have had to allow people doing doorstep deliveries still to use carrier bags, but a charge is still being made in store, if one goes in store to do the shopping. That extension will be coming forward shortly.

I wish now to thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is no longer in his place, for all his work on ocean conservation. He is absolutely right that these things affect Cornwall and its wonderful coast, and he is very passionate about his work. He welcomed the regulations, which I am very pleased about. He touched on sky lanterns, which are regulated by the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 and enforced by local authority trading standards and, as such, the local authorities could ban the release of them. Sky lanterns have recently sometimes been let off to thank our workers in the NHS. We should all be thanking them, but I plead with people not to let off sky lanterns, because they are a danger to nature and wildlife. With it being so dry, we have also had a lot of wildfires.

Finally, I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for his support for the regulations, although I remind him that this and all other environmental issues are devolved. Scotland has banned plastics and cotton buds, but it has not yet decided what to do about straws, and we are waiting to hear what it will do.

In summary, in order for us to leave the environment in a better state than we found it for the next generation, it is essential that we have the right legislation in place that will have an impact on our effect on the natural world. Plastics are causing incontrovertible harm to the marine and terrestrial environment, and we need to act now. These measures are an important part of our wider strategy to tackle plastic pollution. They will serve as an important marker to reduce our reliance on single-use plastics and I commend them to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Straws, Cotton Buds and Stirrers) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 19 May, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will have a three-minute suspension to allow for the safe exit and entry of hon. Members.

Zoos, Aquariums and Wildlife Sanctuaries: Reopening

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What a tremendous afternoon! It takes me back to what I think was the most exciting debate in the Chamber since I have been here, which was about hedgehogs. The House was full, wasn’t it, Madam Deputy Speaker? It shows what a nation of animal lovers we are. This is what gets us out. Our constituents are great animal lovers too, and they galvanise us into action. I think it shows that things can work through Government and we are listening.

I thank everybody for taking part, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for raising the matter. As chair of the zoos and aquariums all-party parliamentary group, which I was a member of as a Back Bencher, he has long promoted the cause of well-run zoos, and I know that he has been actively promoting their cause during the pandemic when they have had to close. I thank him for his passion and determination.

What a wonderful story that was about the blue iguana. I do not know if you were in the Chair for it, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what a great tale that was, and congratulations. I thank all Members from across the House who have taken part and mentioned so many zoos, wildlife sanctuaries and aquariums. Just out of interest, there are 269 licensed zoos in England and 338 if exemptions are included, so it is a lot of enterprises.

I will touch first on some of my own experience. Chester zoo has been mentioned so much in the debate. I was fortunate to go there when I was the Tourism Minister briefly. Although it was a brilliant huge open space, with so much education, the thing that I was so impressed with was the conservation work and how, like many of our zoos, it plays such an important role on the global stage. The zoo does incredible work on black rhinos and the greater one-horned rhinos, on Andean bears and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), on sustainable palm oil. It is about not just the animals but food products, too. That is so important.

I want to thank the other Members who mentioned Chester zoo: my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) and for Warrington South (Andy Carter), as well as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who is no longer in the Chamber. I also thank all the other Members who mentioned other zoos: my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) mentioned Twycross zoo; my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made such a strong case for Whipsnade zoo; we heard about Yorkshire Wildlife Park from my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher); and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) mentioned Shepreth Wildlife Park.

The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) was more of a waxing lyrical about all animals, but we finally got to the aquarium. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) mentioned the enterprises on the Isle of Wight; my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) mentioned Butterfly World, which does sound rather captivating; the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) mentioned Edinburgh zoo; and my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) mentioned Dudley zoo. So many places were mentioned.

I wish to voice the Government’s appreciation of zoos—among which I include aquariums and wildlife sanctuaries if they are licensed as a zoo under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981—and all the work that they do. The Government recognise that as well as providing such high welfare standards for animals—which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford voiced so well—many zoos in the UK contribute to so many other things: the conservation work that is so important on the global stage, with so many species under threat because of the pressures on the environment; the education work; and, of course, getting people out into open spaces and engaging with nature, which has a big health and wellbeing impact. On that note, the Government recognise that zoos are excellent for engaging people with nature—a zoo often might be somebody’s first engagement with wider nature, so plays such a vital role.

I am delighted to support the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday that safari parks and the outdoor parts of zoos will be allowed to reopen from 15 June. It has been necessary, for public health reasons, for the Government to proceed with caution, but we have listened to the many arguments about the benefits of zoos and the access to controlled outdoor spaces that they can provide, which is why we believe now is the appropriate time to allow safari parks and the outdoor parts of zoos to reopen. For the moment, indoor attractions—such as reptile houses and aquariums—at zoos will remain closed for public health reasons. The Government are aware of the work that zoos and aquariums have been doing to prepare for reopening while adhering to the strict social guidance. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with the main industry body, BIAZA, on the reopening guidance.

I wish briefly to set out the Government’s rationale for requiring zoos to close from 1 June, as set out in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020, because colleagues did talk about this. Previously, zoos were not required to close, but given the fact that visiting a zoo was not a reasonable excuse to leave home, zoos took the inevitable decision to shut their doors. Most zoos closed at the end of March, as a result of lockdown. Rather than adding to the number of reasons that people had to leave home, from 1 June the Government switched the focus of the regulations to allow people to leave their homes unless there was a specific reason why they could not. The Government’s primary concern was that we should not open up too many activities at the same time, because the cumulative effect of opening everything up at once would see the number of cases of coronavirus start to increase again. While each zoo can be made safer, it was vital that we did not move too quickly in reopening to ensure that public health is protected. I am sure that all hon. Members understand that step-by-step process. As a result of progress, the announcement on zoos and safari parks was made yesterday. I hope that that reassures the House.

The Government recognise that visitor numbers may not bounce back to the levels zoos would have expected for this time of year. I therefore reassure hon. Members that Government support schemes, which zoos can continue to access, remain in place. Zoos are eligible to apply for VAT deferral, business rates relief, the business interruption loan schemes, the option to reclaim the costs of statutory sick pay, and hospitality and leisure grant funding of up to £25,000. In addition, on 4 May, the Government introduced the £14 million zoo support fund for licensed zoos in England, specifically for zoos in severe financial distress. The fund is open for another five weeks and DEFRA has already awarded grants to many zoos and aquariums.

Some hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Romford, mentioned the rules for the zoo support fund. It has been suggested that they need to be changed so that zoos can access the fund before being at the point of closure. The fund was specifically set up to avoid unnecessary additional euthanasia of zoo animals and capped payments at £100,000. It can be accessed only when a zoo is in severe financial difficulties. However, we are monitoring its operation. Clearly, we are listening to the comments that have been made today. We are keeping the scheme under review in relation to how soon we can provide support when a zoo is running out of funds.

[Bob Seely]

The Minister is talking about the DEFRA fund. It is not necessarily needed now, but it may be needed in a few months, when zoos and charitable entities start to run into worse financial problems.

[Rebecca Pow]

I hear what my hon. Friend says and that has been noted. I also get the message loud and clear that there are calls for a wide range of other wildlife enterprises, including farm parks, and places such as the Cotebrook Shire Horse Centre and Crocodiles of the World near Witney, to open.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s commitment to looking at the matter again. I double underline the urgency for the Green Dragon rare breeds farm in my constituency, where the animals are now getting fed only as a result of the local community’s generosity in making food donations. If the animals do not get that food urgently, I fear that they will be put down.

[Rebecca Pow]

That is noted. The exact scope of easing restrictions is being discussed as we speak. We will consider whether other outdoor animal attractions can open safely in future and at the same time. Clearly, many larger zoos face real long-term issues. Discussion about that is also ongoing.

I thank all the zoos and aquariums that played such a key role in the discussions with DEFRA, particularly in highlighting the crucial animal welfare implications. Thanks must go to BIAZA and our hard-working DEFRA team. I also thank my colleague Lord Goldsmith for all his work. He has kept me fully informed of what is happening.

I want to assure colleagues that weekly meetings will continue with the chief executive officers of the largest charitable zoos and aquariums, so that we are fully aware of the situation. I am also happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Romford to discuss his further thoughts and ideas, which he has clearly been thinking on very much.

In closing, I want to reiterate—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let me just say to the Minister that, although I will have to put the Adjournment again at five o’clock, she can go on speaking after that. It is all right.

[Rebecca Pow]

Oh, I am terribly sorry. I was informed that I had to stop at five. Anyway, I have almost finished, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I just want to end by thanking absolutely everybody involved and to recognise the role that zoos, wildlife sanctuaries and aquariums play in this nation—the huge conservation role, the animal welfare, the getting people out into green spaces, the health and wellbeing impacts, the jobs, the impact on the economy and all of that. I assure Members that we will continue to assess the situation. I would like once again to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romford for his terrific work. We will all be the better for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Water Industry

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the draft Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 April, be approved.

Mr Speaker—no, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got that completely wrong before I had even started. I apologise.

The instrument before the House is a simple amendment to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the sunsetting provision. That would allow the 2013 regulations to continue in force and to be available as part of the regulatory framework of the water industry. Without this SI, the 2013 regulations would expire on 27 June 2020. Before I talk a little further about the Government’s reasons for bringing forward this amending SI, I wish to outline the purpose of the 2013 regulations.

Water and sewerage services in England are provided by companies known as undertakers. The 2013 regulations were designed to help contain and minimise the risks associated with large or complex water or sewerage infra- structure projects, thereby helping to protect undertakers, their customers and UK taxpayers. Containing and minimising risks is likely to reduce the overall cost of borrowing for a given water undertaker and so ensure better value for money for that undertaker’s customers. It also makes sure that delivery of such infrastructure projects will not adversely impact on the existing water or sewerage services provided by undertakers.

The 2013 regulations enable the Secretary of State or Ofwat to specify, by notice, an infrastructure project where either is satisfied that two conditions had been met. The first is that the infrastructure project is of a size or complexity that threatens an undertaker’s ability to provide services to its customers. The second condition is that specifying the project would likely result in better value for money than if the project was not so specified, taking into account charges to customers and any Government financial assistance. A good example of this, just to set this all in context, is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, which meets both of those conditions.

Once specified, an undertaker is required to put the infrastructure project out to tender and a separate Ofwat regulated infrastructure provider is then designated to finance and deliver the project. Such infrastructure projects raise many complex issues, particularly around determining the cost of their financing, coupled with the construction risk that is far greater than that normally associated with an undertaker’s typical capital investment.

Requiring an undertaker to tender competitively for an infrastructure provider for a large or complex project provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of such a project are appropriate and reasonable. Without the tendering process, competitively determining the cost of capital for this type of infrastructure project would not be possible. The ability to create Ofwat-regulated infrastructure providers also helps to ring fence their associated higher risks and should result in more effective risk management for these projects. Creating designated infrastructure providers in this way means that a large or complex infrastructure project will not affect the ability of an undertaker to provide its day-to-day services for its customers and avoids any resultant extra costs that would ultimately be borne by their customers—in other words, the people using the water.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister assure the House that this provision will not be used as a device to prevent the additional provision of water capacity, which is much-needed in the south-east? We have had huge overdevelopment, without the proper additional provision of water. We now wish to see an awful lot more food grown locally and in our country, which will need a lot of irrigation. So will she assure the House that increasing capacity will be an important part of the greener growth that we look forward to?

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly good point. Of course the Government are completely aware of the situation on water supply and dealing with the issues he is talking about is on our top list of priorities, but what we are dealing with here is quite separate. We are talking about big infrastructure projects, some of which will deliver some of the water he is referring to and will be very helpful, but they will be separate projects, as is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, from the general work of the water companies and the smaller-scale projects that they will still undertake to keep our water supply as we need it.

The amending statutory instrument was laid in Parliament following a post-implementation review of the 2013 regulations, carried out in 2018. Eight key stake- holders were consulted, five of which submitted responses —Ofwat, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd investors and the Consumer Council for Water. The review found that the 2013 regulations had been successful in fulfilling all their policy objectives: facilitating large or complex projects; minimising risks to undertakers; providing value for money to customers; and promoting innovation in the sector. Accordingly, the review recommended that the 2013 regulations’ sunsetting provision be removed.

In March 2020, we undertook a further, targeted consultation on our proposal to remove the sunsetting provision in this piece of legislation. Views were sought from Ofwat, Water UK, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, the Environment, Agency the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the CCFW. Water companies were consulted via Water UK and Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd was given the option to consult its investors. Four written responses were received, from Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and Affinity Water. All indicated that they were in favour of this amendment.

Currently, the only project regulated under the 2013 regulations is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, which I referred to earlier. However, Ofwat has identified four large or complex water infrastructure projects currently in development that may benefit from being specified in accordance with the 2013 regulations over the next 10 years, which might be of interest to my right hon. Friend. They are the south-east strategic reservoir at Abingdon, a joint project proposed by Thames Water; the London effluent re-use scheme, a project proposed by Thames Water; the south Lincolnshire reservoir, a joint project proposed by Anglia Water and Affinity Water; and the River Severn to River Thames transfer, a joint project proposed by Thames Water, Severn Trent Water and United Utilities.

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I have been generous in giving way, but I will do so again.

[John Redwood]

I thank the Minister, because she has got to the point that I was hoping she might be making, which is that we need more reservoir capacity urgently. It is crazy that with just one month of dry weather we are already at risk of some kind of hosepipe ban, after the wettest, long autumn and winter I can remember.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. A lot of the issue is that we have been in lockdown and there has been an enormous increase in demand for water because people have been at home, filling their paddling pools and watering their gardens and vegetable patches, as I have. That increased use of water has put on immediate pressure. It is not a drought situation, but he is right: we need to deal with our overall water supply, and that is absolutely on this Government’s agenda.

A decision as to whether the infrastructure projects I have referred to could come within the scope of the 2013 regulations will be made on a case-by-case basis at the appropriate time when the schemes are brought forward. The Government are committed to improving water supply resilience, as set out in our strategic policy statement to Ofwat and our 25-year environment plan. That ambition is made more challenging because of the growing population, increased water demand from agriculture and industry and, of course, climate change.

We also want to ensure that there is sufficient water left for the natural environment. Without any action, many areas of England will face water shortages by 2050. The starting point for action is to reduce water use by reducing leakage from the water distribution networks and reducing our personal consumption. However, even if leaks and personal consumption are reduced, we will continue to need new water resource infrastructure. In our “Water conservation report”, published in December 2018, we set out our progress on promoting water conservation from 2015 onwards.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister responded to an Adjournment debate secured by a Member from England on the decreasing water supply in rivers because of water being taken out by water companies. Is it her intention to ensure that that practice will stop and that river water levels will be retained?

[Rebecca Pow]

The water supply is to be looked at in the round. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with me, I would be happy to tell him about all the things we have in train to deal with that, to ensure that we have enough water for everyone in future and take account of climate change and the growing demands. He raises an important point; keeping the right status for our rivers is incredibly important.

We endorse the industry’s existing commitment to a 50% reduction in leakage by 2050, and we announced a consultation to enable us to set an ambitious target for personal water consumption. We consulted on measures to reduce personal water consumption, including supporting measures on amending building regulations, water efficiency labelling and smart metering. Most of those measures can be taken forward without the need for new primary legislation, and we will publish a Government position on it later this year.

Alongside reducing leakage and personal water consumption, new water resources infrastructure, including reservoirs and water transfers, is needed to provide a secure supply of water for future generations. In the current price review period, Ofwat has made £469 million available to nine water companies to investigate and develop integrated strategic regional water resource solutions, in order to be construction-ready by 2025. That work will be supported by the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, which was published in March this year.

In summary, this statutory instrument enables the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to continue in force, in order that they can continue to be used in the future delivery of large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. Such projects play an essential role in strengthening the future resilience of water resources in England. Retaining the 2013 regulations will help to reduce the associated financial risks of such projects, ensure that water undertakers continue to deliver their existing water or sewerage services to customers and provide greater value for money. I commend the regulations to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the shadow Minister to her place. I believe this is her first time at the Dispatch Box and I very much look forward to working with her on all the exciting issues we are dealing with in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs right now, not least the subject of water. I thank those who have contributed today, and I thank the shadow Minister for her comments.

As we look forward to the challenges of population growth and climate change, and we strive to leave the environment in a better place than we found it in, we know that new water resource infrastructure is going to be required. On that, I believe we are all agreed today. It is essential that we give the regulators the right tools to address those challenges and ensure we have sufficient sustainable water resources into the future.

I just want to touch on a couple of points that were raised by the shadow Minister, one of which was why we had not set another date for the subject we are reviewing today. The answer is that we did not consider it necessary or appropriate to set a further review date, as we expect that the power to specify projects under the regulations will be used infrequently. 

The answer is that we did not consider it necessary or appropriate to set a further review date as we expect that the power to specify projects under the regulations will be used infrequently. We will of course review the regulations as appropriate.

I was very pleased that the shadow Minister actually praised the tideway tunnel project. I have visited it myself and I recommend doing so, if she has not made a visit, when it is safe to do so with all the social distancing. It is an incredible project and a good model for projects of this nature, which is exactly what this SI concerns—projects of this type in future. As I have mentioned, a number of such projects could be coming forward in the next few years.

The Thames tideway tunnel is due to be operational in 2023, and the project as a whole is due for completion in 2024, but obviously we are still assessing the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, because that potentially has had some impact on the working schedule. We are very much keeping abreast of that.

The shadow Minister touched on whether these projects are value for money for customers. The tideway tunnel has demonstrated value for money for customers, being specified in accordance with the 2013 regulations, which has contributed to a lower cost of borrowing for the project. That has resulted in Thames Water customers paying an average increase of £20 to £25 a year, which is a reduction from the £70 to £80 initially modelled.

I reassure the shadow Minister that the whole issue of water supply is at the forefront of my mind as the water Minister. As I outlined in my speech, we have a number of policies going through to help with that and, indeed, that ambition to reduce individual personal water consumption. At the moment, the average water used by a person in a day is 143 litres. It is interesting to reflect on how much one uses in a shower or bath or to clean one’s teeth. We all need to start taking more notice of those things, although the right to water is obviously something we must always provide. There is a great deal in the pipeline to reduce water consumption, and there is also a great deal coming forward in the Environment Bill that will help the whole supply agenda, including measures dealing with abstraction and water and sewerage management plans.

On that note, I hope that the SI, which brings forward something that will be incredibly useful in the future, will be supported by the whole House.

Question put and agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Restoration of Canals

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon talking about canals—a lovely subject on which to end the day. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) on securing this important debate on the restoration of Montgomery canal. He brings personal experience, because I believe he was brought up in the area, and it is one he knows very well. The canal is affectionately known locally as “Monty”, which shows how much people love that canal and the idea of the canal.

I have my own experience with canals, because I grew up near the Kennet and Avon canal. Large parts of that have been restored during my lifetime, and it does indeed bring an enormous benefit to places such as Bath, Bradford on Avon and into Wiltshire. That is not to mention the canal locks. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been to the section of the canal in Devizes, but there are 32 lock gates, if one wants to keep fit.

Over 50% of canals are now restored. A chunk of Montgomery canal has been restored, and there are well developed plans for the next phase of the restoration, with four phases over 19 years. My hon. Friend is talking in particular about a 35-mile stretch that still needs to be restored. I had a look at a map, and it goes up to Ellesmere in Shropshire and then connects with Newtown in mid-Wales. It is a very beautiful part of the countryside. This stretch of the canal goes through a site of special scientific interest, nature reserves and heritage sites, one being Llanymynech lime kiln works. There are some very interesting things to look at all along the way. With my horticultural background, I was especially interested to learn that Monty is home to the largest UK population of floating water plantain, which is a rare aquatic plant. If I ever do get there, I hope my hon. Friend will take me to see that plant, because I would very much like to see it.

The restoration of our disused canals is proving very valuable, enabling an increasing number of people to enjoy the outdoors and get close to water. Being close to water and being outside has much value for health and wellbeing. The Canal and River Trust did a survey recently, and it discovered that life satisfaction and happiness is 10% higher if you live near water, so we can see the benefits of restoring canals.

The responsibility for the management and maintenance of canals in England and Wales rests with the owner and the navigation authority. For the majority of canals, that is the Canal and River Trust, which is the case with Montgomery canal. The Canal and River Trust was set up in 2012, and as part of the transfer of ownership, the Government agreed a grant of around £50 million per year over 15 years to support the trust to develop income- generating strategies and revenues to invest in canal maintenance and regeneration programmes, which have been incredibly effective.

My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about Montgomery canal, which is a great example of a restoration project that is off the ground. The Canal and River Trust is working with the Montgomery Waterway Restoration Trust to manage the project and raise additional funds. With the cost of the first three phases estimated at £34 million, there is clearly much more fundraising work to be done, but if the success of the project so far is anything to go by, I am confident that this will be achieved. It is clear that a broad range of partners have already been found, which is heartening.

The Canal and River Trust, along with other smaller navigation authorities, is reporting increasing numbers of visitors along their canals. Those visitors are both walking and cycling—it not just about being on the water, but using the towpaths, as we have heard—as well as boaters using the waterways. During this pandemic, canal towpaths have reportedly been used even more, as people get out for their daily exercise. We have noticed this in Taunton Deane, where we have a section of canal, and a lot of people have really enjoyed being able to get out there.

Not only do canals bring a great health benefit; they can also make a really important contribution to the economy locally, especially where they go through urban areas and areas that have traditionally been in decline. They have generated money through tourists coming in, and through starting to get freight back on to the waterways. With the move to net zero and to cleaner air, this is actually a huge asset, and we are starting to realise that canals can have a rebirth as transport links.

My hon. Friend mentioned the impacts of coronavirus and its effects on people using the sides of the canals. There has been a knock-on effect on small waterways businesses, which I would like to touch on quickly. I would like to assure these businesses—many of them have contacted me—that I am aware of the challenges they are facing, because a lot of them have not been able to operate their businesses on the canals. I have asked my team in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to work very closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, because it is working up a potential tourism offer for those businesses.

I am very pleased to see that there has been some easing of lockdown restrictions on some of the small businesses on our waterways, and we are looking at more opportunities coming up in future weeks and months. While still keeping to the social distancing guidance, people are now able to hire canoes, kayaks or paddleboards—I do not know whether we have any paddle- boarders here, but one can take out a paddleboard—and to go fishing and enjoy a day trip on a small boat, as well as continuing to use the towpaths. We are working on guidance to enable more of the waterways sector to open, I hope, in the coming weeks; we are working on that as we speak. I hope that that gives a little bit of confidence to the industry. I very much hope that the waterways will play their own part in the recovery as we start to get going again, with people taking holidays on the waterways and canals, day trips and all the things that my hon. Friend suggested that waterways can bring to an area.

In closing, I very much thank my hon. Friend for being persistent in relation to this debate, because it has been postponed previously, and for giving us a little bit of colour about his canal and the restoration scheme. The Government recognise the very considerable benefits our canal network brings in myriad ways, such as providing greater access to the outdoors, enhancing wellbeing, bringing us closer to water, engaging with nature—those water plantains—increasing leisure and recreation, increasing regeneration and bringing value to the economy.

I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet in that I am a convert to canal restoration. I very much forward to walking down that stretch of restored canal— I will not say hand in hand with my hon. Friend, but I would certainly like to walk down it with him—and to enjoying the wider benefits of Montgomeryshire.

Question put and agreed to.

Flood Defences: Tenbury Wells

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I do not know whether I should say I am delighted to be back, but this is the first time, apart from voting, that I have set foot in the Chamber. It is very good to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) on securing this important debate, and indeed on her persistence, because she is right that this has been postponed twice because of the situation we have found ourselves in. I know that Tenbury Wells has suffered extensive flooding on a number of occasions, most recently in November 2019 and February 2020, when the levels were just below those that occurred in the devastating year of 2007, as we have heard. I do appreciate how difficult that must have been for both the residents and the businesses. My hon. Friend has also written to the Secretary of State recently on this matter. She is absolutely assiduous in this respect on behalf of her constituency, and rightly so.

Flood and coastal risk management is a high priority for this Government, and it has continued to be a priority despite the challenges brought by the pandemic. I know very well the impacts that flooding can have on lives and on communities, as I experienced in Somerset in the floods of 2013-14. As my hon. Friend mentioned, a few months ago we saw the same devastating impacts once again. I would like to take this opportunity, as my hon. Friend did, to pay tribute to all the emergency services that helped, as well as the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the Army, government officials, and particularly those volunteers—my hon. Friend referred to them—who stepped in to help during that time of the floods.

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend acknowledges that upwards of £9 million has so far been devoted to flood schemes in her area, and that the scheme for Severn Stoke is now fully funded and progressing through the planning stage. This is heartening, as I hope she will agree. I am sure that everyone will welcome the construction of the earth embankment to reduce flood risk, which could begin later this year.

As my hon. Friend has explained, however, there is still the challenge of delivering the scheme for Tenbury Wells, which is complex, as the community is susceptible to flooding from both the River Teme and the Kyre brook, with direct impacts on homes and businesses. The local economy also suffers indirectly with several transport links and commuter routes through the town being adversely affected when flooding occurs. I understand that a technically viable scheme exists, as we have heard, for this ancient market town of Tenbury Wells to better protect 82 residential properties and some 80 businesses, and that work is currently under way to review and update that proposal.

As I have said, this is a complex problem in the area of Tenbury Wells—there is not just one simple solution—and it needs wide-ranging interventions, which include floodwalls, gates and bunds that can be worked into the fabric of the town. I am pleased to hear that the Environment Agency is continuing to work hard with partners and the local flood action group in Tenbury to further progress this work. I have obviously been in touch with them ahead of this debate to hear what is going on.

I must also recognise the work that has been done so far to reduce flood risk in Tenbury Wells, which includes the property-level flood resilience measures that were installed between 2010 and 2012. This has provided some protection to properties from floods of lesser depths, but I appreciate that this does not offer protection against the larger floods we have seen in recent times. I know that the Environment Agency has considered the provision of temporary flood defences to reduce flood risk in Tenbury Wells. However, as my hon. Friend mentioned in her speech, the variable terrain combined with the flood depths and the length of the barrier required means that temporary barriers would not provide an effective or robust solution for Tenbury Wells.

An economic appraisal of the feasibility of this complex scheme is now complete, and is progressing towards the outline business case stage. This has provided greater certainty on the costs, with current estimates that its delivery would be in the region of £6 million. Early indications suggest that the scheme would be eligible for approximately £1.2 million of Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs flood defence grant in aid under the new rules—I will say a bit more about them in a minute—leaving the remainder of the total cost to come from partnership funding contributions. I can assure my hon. Friend that I do appreciate the challenges that this can bring. The Government are currently investing £2.6 billion in flood defences to better protect 300,000 homes, and that programme of work will run until 2021. However, the twin pressures of climate change and population growth mean that further action is needed. The recent Budget announcement confirmed that the Government will double the amount that they invest in flood and coastal defence programmes in England to £5.2 billion over the six years from 2021, better protecting a further 336,000 properties, which includes 290,000 homes. We understand that the proposed scheme for Tenbury Wells is in the future flood defence programme for after 2021. Although the scheme is eligible for a contribution from Government, I do appreciate that it still leaves a funding gap of £5 million.

In April this year, DEFRA and the EA published an update to the partnership funding policy, which I referred to just now, which included updating the payment rates in line with inflation, changes to better take account of properties that will become a risk due to climate change, the impact on mental health, an additional risk band in what we call the lower return periods—periods when there are smaller floods, not huge ones—and a new approach to encouraging environmental benefits into flood schemes, all of which, I hope my hon. Friend will agree, are helpful additions to how the money is calculated. Those changes will come into effect from April 2021, and early indications from the Environment Agency suggest that that has increased that Government contribution for the scheme from £1 million, which I think my hon. Friend mentioned, to £1.2 million.

At the time of announcing these changes to the partnership funding policy, we also announced our intention to launch a public consultation on floods funding policy, to gather insights from across the country. The Government are committed to ensuring that our approach to funding is fit for purpose, and the recent floods highlight the challenges with the current policy, which we want to endeavour to address. I will be happy to share further details of that consultation with my hon. Friend.

The £5.2 billion capital programme will continue to be allocated in accordance with DEFRA’s partnership funding policy. That policy clarifies the level of investment that communities can expect from DEFRA, so that it is clear at what level a partnership funding project would need to go ahead. Our programme of investment aims to maximise the economic benefits and the number of homes protected, in terms of potential damages avoided as a result of flooding or coastal erosion. Investment also takes account of local choices and priorities, and funding decisions will continue to be made based on a rigorous assessment of local needs and the value for money of proposed schemes. I do have to point out, though, that it would be contrary to the aims of the partnership funding policy for DEFRA to fill funding gaps for individual projects, and we have made no provision to do so.

That said, both the Secretary of State and I are closely monitoring the operation of the partnership funding policy. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are aware of both the advantages and the limitations of the current formulation. Indeed, given the recent dramatic, devastating flooding incidents across the country, it was not long ago that I was in my wellies, with my Barbour and my hat on, out in all those floods, because I wanted to have a close look. I did go, and I did learn a great deal from it, which is now informing some of the things we hope will happen in future.

The Government and the EA remain committed to helping reduce the risk and impact of flooding in Tenbury and increase the town’s resilience, whilst also enhancing the environment and the economic prosperity of the community. I know that the EA has recently met with partners at the National Flood Forum, as well as the wider community, to examine all the options, including those that have gained interest from the Heritage Lottery Fund, in line with the Government’s partnership funding approach. I welcome that aspect, although I must say, sadly—I am sure my hon. Friend knows—that due to the impacts of the ongoing pandemic, heritage lottery funding involvement has been put on hold. The EA is working to demonstrate, though, how the scheme would benefit the economic growth of the town and the surrounding area, and as such, provide an investment opportunity for partners such as the Worcestershire local enterprise partnership.

The EA has also identified businesses that are affected when the road network in Tenbury is flooded. I know that they have plans to work in partnership with local economic growth teams in Malvern Hills District Council and Shropshire Council to engage with those local businesses and build intelligence on the impact of flooding. I fully support my hon. Friend’s suggestions for bringing in all available funding partners. She is clearly doing a great deal of work to try to secure those partnership contributions. I appreciate the clear challenge that that will bring, and I welcome the opportunities that she has identified—for example, the Woodland Trust and its work on a catchment-based approach—and the potential to involve farmers through the forthcoming environmental land management schemes.

There could be much wider opportunities opening up with funding streams for land management and other options. The Government are committed to getting the most for people and the environment from our investment, including securing wider environmental benefits from flood defence spending. We are determined that natural flood management solutions are fairly assessed and supported where they offer a viable way of reducing the damaging impacts of flooding.

My hon. Friend, alongside other local elected representatives, is a keen advocate of the proposed scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) is constantly contacting me about flooding issues, and rightly so. They are all supporting one another. We do this in Somerset—we have to do these things. Both the Environmental Agency and I welcome and encourage all support for these endeavours, and I urge my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire to continue to engage with all interested parties. The Government and the Environment Agency understand the challenges in Tenbury Wells and will continue to support my hon. Friend and local partners in working towards a viable flood scheme.  I am sensitive to the challenges that the partnership funding policy can bring, as I have mentioned, but I hope that the changes we have already made, and the opportunity for engagement through the public consultation later this year, will give some reassurance on the importance of the issues that are being considered.

Finally, my Department is working closely with the Environment Agency and Her Majesty’s Treasury on investment needs and the Government’s role in supporting community resilience, particularly in rural areas such as the one where my hon. Friend lives and the area she represents. I take on board what she has said and thank her enormously for her input. Would it not be great, Madam Deputy Speaker, if perhaps together we could go to the mistletoe festival one day, or to Tenbury agricultural show, when everything opens up again, and visit this ancient market town?

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

What assessment he has made of the effect on air quality of the reduction in the use of motor vehicles during the covid-19 lockdown.

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

It is an absolute pleasure to be taking part today, Mr Speaker, although nothing really makes up for being there in person with you.

DEFRA’s roadside air quality monitoring stations continuously monitor air quality. Between 23 March and 5 May, nitrogen dioxide concentrations were, on average, 46% lower than this time last year, with reductions ranging from 9% to 65% at individual locations. That is largely due to the substantial reduction in traffic levels, although other factors such as weather may also have had some impact. Interestingly, concentrations of other air pollutants, such as fine particulate matter, have not shown similar trends.

[Jeff Smith [V]]

I thank the Minister for her answer. That is some small good news, I guess, out of lockdown. In Manchester’s sister city of Wuhan in China, private car use nearly doubled when the lockdown ended, with the obvious effects on air quality. Is the Minister concerned that the Prime Minister’s statement of 10 May encouraged the use of cars?

[Rebecca Pow]

It has been made very clear in all the guidance and by the Prime Minister that, first and foremost, if people can work from home, they should do so. Those who have to go to work were advised to go by car, and also to cycle and walk. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his question, because he strikes a good note. He will know that the uptake of cycling has surged during this time, especially where businesses are providing a scheme so that their employees can have bikes. He will also know that the Prime Minister has announced that we are phasing out new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2035—earlier, if possible. Lessons will be learnt. The Air Quality Expert Group has been conducting a big survey, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will be interested in the results when they are revealed.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I bring in the shadow Minister, may I just ask Ministers to speed up the answers? We have to get through some more Members.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is my first time appearing opposite the Minister; hopefully we will have many fruitful discussions.

There is growing evidence that deaths due to covid are higher in areas of bad air quality, but lockdown means that right now we are breathing the cleanest air that we have had in generations. We need to do all we can to ensure that many of the survivors of covid, who will have weakened lungs, are protected. Air pollution currently kills 40,000 people each year, with 40 of our towns breaking the World Health Organisation limit. The Government and the Minister dismissed putting targets in the Environment Bill, but surely covid has changed all that. Will the Minister sit down with us and agree a form of wording that will require Ministers to set targets on air quality in order to reach the WHO standard by 2030 and help save British lives?

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman alludes to, the Environment Bill delivers key parts of the clean air strategy and introduces a duty to set an ambitious, legally binding target on PM concentrations of pollutants of greatest harm. I know that he will also be interested in the independent Air Quality Expert Group, which has been analysing the situation so that we can learn lessons from coronavirus, and from air quality and its potential impact on human lives. Air quality is a serious issue for human health.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to ensure that (a) commercial and (b) household waste continues to be collected during the covid-19 outbreak.

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

DEFRA officials are working with local authorities and industry to ensure that commercial and household waste can continue to be collected safely during the coronavirus outbreak. I pay tribute to and thank all those working in local authorities and the waste sector who have ensured that nearly all household waste collections in England are operating as normal. On 5 May, DEFRA published guidance to help local authorities to reopen household waste and recycling centres.

[Mr Mohindra]

Does my hon. Friend agree that waste collection is an integral part of ensuring health and wellbeing during this global pandemic? I know that she has thanked key workers, but would she particularly thank key workers in South West Herts? I am sure that they would appreciate her comments.

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Geraint Davies [V]]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

[Lilian Greenwood [V]]

Tens of thousands of lives cut short every year—that was the UK’s air quality health emergency long before we had even heard of coronavirus. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said, we now know that there is a strong correlation between long-term exposure to air pollution and covid-19 deaths, so clean air zones are needed more than ever. However, Nottingham’s taxi drivers tell me they are worried about their ability to invest in new clean electric vehicles as a result of lost income, and other businesses face similar pressures. As we come out of lockdown, how will the Government support local councils and small businesses to go even faster to protect the public from toxic air?

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Lady will know, we have supported Nottingham City Council to tackle its nitrogen dioxide exceedance through a £1 million investment to support the uptake of e-taxis and £1.7 million to retrofit 171 buses, which means that there is not a need for a clean air zone. Nottingham is also one of the Go Ultra Low cities. My officials will be working closely with and will be very interested to speak to Nottingham City Council to see how the impacts of coronavirus are affecting its plans. They are doing that with all local authorities across the country, just to keep a weather eye on how coronavirus will impact our new clean air zones and our drive to reduce air pollution, which of course is all important.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to tackle the effect of air pollution.

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

Our clean air strategy sets out an ambitious programme of action to reduce air pollution from a wide range of sources. We have also put in place a £3.8 billion plan to tackle roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Our Environment Bill makes a clear commitment to set a legally binding target to reduce fine particulate matter and enables local authorities to take more effective action to tackle air pollution in these areas.

[Sara Britcliffe]

Hyndburn has the highest levels of air pollutants in Lancashire and double the county’s average level of nitrogen dioxide. What work is being done with local councils such as mine to tackle that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question; I see that she is already standing up for her constituency. Air pollution has reduced significantly since 2010. Emissions of nitrogen oxides have fallen by 33% and are at their lowest level since records began, but that is not to say that there is not a great deal more to do. In Hyndburn, nitrogen dioxide concentrations around roads are actually within the statutory air quality limit, though local authorities are empowered to address local air quality concerns within their community. We have put in place a £3.8 billion plan to improve air quality and deliver cleaner transport, and last year we published our world-leading clean air strategy, which focuses on broader emissions beyond road transport and aims to cut air pollution and save lives. That strategy includes new and ambitious goals, legislation, investment and policies to clean up our air.

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

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the more stringent air pollution reduction targets that the Scottish Government have agreed in legislation, and does she agree that the UK Government should match those targets in their Environment Bill?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but actually our clean air strategy has been described by the World Health Organisation as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

With our £3.8 billion commitment, we are definitely leading the way.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

2. When the Government plan to implement their commitment to plant 30,000 hectares of trees per year by 2025.

[Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)]

8. What plans he has to increase tree planting rates.

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

Forestry is devolved, and we are working with the devolved Administrations to increase tree planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares per year by 2025. To drive up planting rates in England, we announced a new £640 million nature for climate fund, and we are developing an ambitious delivery programme. We will seek feedback and evidence on this through our new English tree strategy.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Minister for that response. The Committee on Climate Change has said that we need to plant 32,000 hectares a year for the next 30 years if we are to meet the net zero target, but my understanding is that the Government’s recent announcement was that they would be planting 30,000 hectares in full by 2025, not per year. Can the Minister clarify that? The manifesto commitment was per year, but I think the Government have not now committed to that.

[Rebecca Pow]

Just for clarification, in our manifesto it was 30,000 hectares per year.

[Angela Richardson]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I welcome the investment in our green infrastructure. May I ask how the Government have funded woodland creation?

[Rebecca Pow]

The Government have made major commitments. Chiefly, as I have mentioned, we announced the £640 million nature for climate fund in our manifesto. Ministers are working with officials on policy proposals to increase tree planting in England over this Parliament. We have also kick-started funding for planting the new Northern and Great Northumberland forests. In addition, last year we opened the £50 million woodland carbon guarantee, giving long-term income support to new woodland creation projects, while pump-priming the domestic carbon market, which is obviously something that will grow.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her responses so far. In her statement in answer to the original question, she referred to having been in touch with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the regional Administrations. Northern Ireland lags behind when it comes to tree planting. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that tree planting in Northern Ireland catches up with the tree planting that she mentioned in her statement and answers?

[Rebecca Pow]

Obviously, we are keen for tree planting to expand everywhere, including Scotland. Scotland already does a lot of tree planting, because the nature of its landscape is somewhat different from ours. We have a raft of measures, and our officials will be speaking to officials in Northern Ireland. It is very important that we keep all that contact and do this as a joint thing. Trees work on the atmosphere: they hold the carbon dioxide, and that goes everywhere, so we need to be doing this jointly.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is absolutely right that we vastly ramp up tree planting to help with carbon capture, but may I ask the Minister not to overlook kelp? It absorbs more than six times the amount of carbon as trees. We have vast tracts of seabed available, not least off Sussex. It helps with marine conservation, and it is also a food source. Please could we look at that more closely, and at how we can promote it, as we want to do, in Sussex?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly interesting point. It is something I am personally very interested in. As we speak, there is a project under way to plant kelp and to look at how its carbon capture is going. Mudflats are similarly really important, as are salt marshes. There could be a big future for this on our new horizon of dealing with the land and the landscape. All this carbon capture is a new feature in relation to climate change, and I think kelp will definitely be part of it.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Minister has talked a lot about planting trees, but made no mention of where those trees will come from; in other words, will they be sourced within the UK or will we be importing them, which will have an impact not only on employment but on the importation, as we have seen previously, of pests and diseases? Will the Minister therefore give long-term contracts to the horticultural industry so that it can rapidly ramp up the production of seedlings, for the sake of the British economy and as a health and safety measure ?

[Rebecca Pow]

I forgive the right hon. Gentleman for going on, because it is brilliant to mention horticulture. Horticulture is such an important part of this country, and we are in discussions with nurseries, because he is absolutely right that they have to provide these trees. We would obviously like as many as possible to come from the UK, because that is very important, particularly on biosecurity grounds. I see a great new future in that for those nurseries, and we are in discussions with the industry.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I declare an interest, as a member of Kettering Borough Council, which is increasing its planting of British native trees from 250 to 500 a year and supports plans for 40 hectares of new trees across north Northamptonshire on an annual basis. What more can be done to incentivise local authorities to plant more trees?

[Rebecca Pow]

As ever, my hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for his constituency. Many local authorities are embarking on excellent planting schemes. There will be some big opportunities through the Environment Bill in the biodiversity net gain sector, where lots of people will be able to offset when building a development; they can plant some trees to add 10% more biodiversity. There will be opportunities right around the country through the new nature recovery strategies which my hon. Friend’s local authority will be a part of providing, and that will determine where the trees should be planted.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government are taking to end deforestation in commodity supply chains as agreed in the Amsterdam declaration on deforestation.

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

I feel like a jack-in-a-box, Mr Speaker.

The UK supports a number of initiatives to eliminate deforestation from supply chains in line with the aims of the Amsterdam declaration. That includes establishing UK roundtables on palm oil and soya to help UK companies realise sustainable sourcing commitments and supporting the tropical forest alliance, a public-private initiative with over 160 members. We also convene the global resource initiative, which will shortly recommend further actions that the UK can take to green our supply chains.

[Liz Twist]

In the year when are due to host COP26, the Environment Bill must be world leading and set an example for other countries to follow. How will DEFRA take responsibility for the UK’s global footprint, and will the Minister confirm that there will be action to remove deforestation from UK supply chains in future?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point and our vision is for everyone to benefit from more sustainable production of vital agricultural commodities. We have addressed this within the Environment Bill. Our global footprint is incredibly important, and we are considering the recommendations in the global resource initiative and will be very seriously thinking about how Government can take that forward. We are leading by example in many other areas, particularly our Government’s partnerships for forests programme and the soya programme that I mentioned in my previous answer.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to maintain food supplies for vulnerable people in the (a) North East and (b) UK during the covid-19 outbreak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

7. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that farmers benefit from the Government's proposal to move from land-based to environmental enhancement-based support.

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

Our new environmental land management scheme will reward farmers and other land managers for delivering environmental public goods. We are committed to co-designing the scheme with stakeholders to produce the best possible outcomes for both the environment and our farmers and land managers. We are currently running a programme of tests and trials, which will be followed by a three-year national pilot, commencing in late 2021. The scheme will roll out from late 2024 across England.

[Mr Holden]

Although my upland farmers in Weardale are already working on schemes such as peat restoration and afforestation, my lowland farmers are particularly concerned that they might miss out on some of these environmental schemes. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give me that these schemes will be available to all?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that pertinent question. New schemes will be for all farmers, in all areas and for all types of landscape. At the moment, farmers can enter our new countryside stewardship agreements, which start from January 2021. Those who sign up to the improved scheme and who wish to enter the new environmental land management scheme will be able to leave their countryside stewardship agreements at agreed exit points, without penalty. Lots of farmers were concerned about that issue, but it is now clear that they can do that. Financial assistance under the environmental land management scheme will be available for all farmers and land managers, including lowland farmers in the country who undertake the eligible activities.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

9. When the Government plan to publish the national food strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

There is growing concern in West Oxfordshire about the condition of the River Windrush, and particularly sewage discharge. We urgently need the Environment Agency and Thames Water to work together to clean it up. When the immediate emergency has eased, will the Secretary of State visit to see the river’s condition and help me to work with those two parties to make a real difference?

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

Such incidents are an issue for the Environment Agency, which is the first port of call in a pollution incident. Water companies have water management plans and, under the new Environment Bill, will have to have sewage management plans as well, which will help. Of course I will meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)]

I understand that in 2019, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and FareShare worked on a pilot scheme to make sure that surplus food was diverted to people who needed it. That is still being evaluated. When will Ministers come up with the evaluation? Is now not a good time to put the scheme into practice?

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the additional investment in flood and coastal defences in last week’s Budget. Will the ministerial team continue to work with local authorities such as Calderdale, which was flooded recently, to ensure that existing gaps in flood defence schemes are addressed?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The Government are making a massive commitment to flood spending and they have increased the current programme from £2.6 billion to £5.2 billion between 2021 and 2027. They will be working with all areas that have floods, listening to concerns and considerations to learn lessons from what happened this time and using the current grant system, but I, the Secretary of State and the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government are considering how the whole project might be improved.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Environment Bill (Seventh sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 19th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the Committee’s order of 10 March, the Committee, at the conclusion of proceedings at the sitting starting at 11.30 am on 19 March, do adjourn to a time and date to be fixed by the Chair.

Following cross-party discussions and in the light of recent events, it is appropriate that proceedings in Committee be postponed.

I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee—those here, and those not here today—for the wonderfully positive way in which they have approached their scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee knows that the Bill is landmark legislation, so we take it very seriously. I very much look forward to our resumption at an appropriate point. The motion provides for the Committee to adjourn until a later date, and it is right that we take such action in the light of what is happening nationally.

Environment Bill (Fifth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

I do not suggest that we should put a series of duties into the Bill, but we should look seriously at bringing forward proposals to alter the Bill’s wording as it goes through Parliament. I will not seek to divide the Committee on this point, because it is something that all of us need to take away and think about. I hope the Minister takes this away, thinks about it and comes back with proposals, perhaps on Report, to alter that wording, so that we can have full confidence that the Bill will become the Act that we all want it to be. I shall draw attention to these omissions and shortcomings as the Bill progresses, but the Committee will be delighted to know that I will not make this long a speech every time.

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

We’ll see!

[Dr Whitehead]

But I might do if no consideration at all is given to this particular point.

I hope that the Minister will be able to come at least some way towards me in reshaping the Bill so that the confidence we both want to have in this legislation can be seen by the outside world, and so that we can ensure that what we say in this Committee actually gets done—not just by this Minister, but by subsequent Administrations. With that, I assure the Committee that that is the longest I am going to speak on this subject. I rest my case. I hope that the Minister has something positive on her piece of paper in this respect. We shall see how we go.

[Rebecca Pow]

It is a huge pleasure to have you as our Chairman, Sir Roger. Hopefully we are all going to have a long and fruitful bonding experience over the next few weeks.

I thank the shadow Minister for his opening remarks and for describing this legislation as a “good Bill”; we all welcome that tone. I echo his general comments about wanting to do the right thing for the environment. I believe everyone on this Committee wants to do that, but I do in particular. I also thank him for his personal comments. I must actually throw some similar comments back at him. He and I have appeared many times in the same Committees, environmental all-party parliamentary groups and all that, so I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area. In many respects, we sing from the same hymn sheet. I welcome his involvement, as he brings a great deal of experience to the table.

Let me turn to the detail of the amendment. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire for there to be a duty on the Secretary of State to set targets. However, such a duty would remove the flexibility and discretion needed by the Secretary of State in relation to target setting. The Bill creates a power to set long-term, legally-binding environmental targets, and provides for such targets to be set in relation to any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. It is very wide-ranging, so flexibility is required. It is entirely appropriate to give the Secretary of State flexibility as to when and how the power ought to be exercised. That is the beauty of this power.

As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers, which are “may”, and duties, which are “must”. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister has raised this point, because I have been quizzing my own team about those two words and exactly what they do, and it is quite clear to me that this is the right approach. When the Government are under a clear requirement, the word “must” is used. This recognises that the circumstances, scenario and background to the use of the provision are clear.

In other scenarios, it might not be possible definitely to say that something must be done, due to factors outside our control—for example, if public consultation is still under way, and there will be a great deal of consultation as the statutory instruments are laid before Parliament.

The Secretary of State is already under a duty—that means “must”—to exercise this power to set “at least one” target in each of the Bill’s priority areas. That is in the next few lines of the Bill. They are also under a separate duty to set the PM_2.5 target. That is a legal requirement and the Government cannot get out of that. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting ensures that the Government will take early regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and will be held accountable through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection.

The shadow Minister asked whether the system would be robust. I assure him that it will be—that is its purpose. The need for new targets will be reviewed every five years through the significant improvement test that we will come on to later. That is also a legal requirement, and the Secretary of State will use the review’s outcome to decide whether to set new long-term environmental targets.

The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, with the OEP—the body that will be set up to hold the Government to account—having oversight of the Government’s implementation of the provisions, as it will over all aspects of environmental law. That is my summary of the shadow Minister’s queries.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the Minister not accept that, as I pointed out in my analysis of the Energy Act 2013, if a number of obligations or “musts” in a clause are subservient to a fundamental “may”, they have no independent existence? That was exactly the case in that Act: the Minister had a number of musts to do, but they were all subject to the original may. As the original may turned out to be just a may, all the musts completely fell away. The Minister has given examples of some musts in the Bill, but unless we have a first must or duty—it might not be time-limited, so that the Minister has flexibility over when exactly to do it—those other things are not of any great significance. It is the first may or must that is key.

[Rebecca Pow]

We are muddling a lot of “musts” and “mays” here—it is a good job that Theresa May is not still Prime Minister.

[Dr Whitehead]

It could be Theresa Must.

[Rebecca Pow]

It is clear that there is flexibility in the power to set long-term targets by regulations, but clause 1(2) says that the Secretary of State “must exercise the power”. That brings in the duty, which is a legal requirement to set the targets. If there is a “must” provision—and there is: to set targets in those four key areas—it must be exercised. It is quite clear.

[Dr Whitehead]

Mr Gale, I think you can gather that I am not terribly convinced. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity for a minute. Indeed, I wonder whether, had the Minister been in post during the Bill’s construction—I think this part was originally constructed in 2018—she would have gone along with that particular wording. I appreciate that she has a Bill in front of her with the wording as it is, and she has advice that the wording is as it is because that is how it should be.

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to point out one other thing. The Office for Environmental Protection will be able to enforce against the Government if they do not set the targets. That indicates that the process and structure we are setting up are strong.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you, Dr Whitehead. We will make a note, and whoever is in the Chair at the time that the new clauses are reached will take cognisance of what you have just said.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister for their input, and I acknowledge the input of the Chairs of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I have a great deal of respect for both Committees, having been on both of them myself, as have some hon. Members here.

I thank hon. Members for the interest they have shown in part 1 of the Bill, which genuinely and openly talks about the new framework of environmental governance. I welcome their input and the fact that they want to look at the intention to ensure that the targets, the environmental improvement plans, the environmental principles and the Office for Environmental Protection work together to protect our natural environment.

As this was one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds North West, I want to touch at the outset on driving significant environmental improvement and to reassure him that through the Bill the Government will set at least one new long-term target in each of the four priority areas of water, air quality, waste and resources, and biodiversity by 31 October 2022. Those targets will be set following a great deal of robust evidence-gathering, consultation and engagement with experts, advisers and the public, and they will have to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative process when the statutory instruments are set. People will have plenty of opportunity to engage.

I also want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, since he in particular raised this matter, about other targets. I think the witness from the RSPB raised that in our session last week. I want to offer reassurance that the target-setting process is an ongoing process. It is not a one-off thing, where we set one target and that is the end of that. That is why we will also need to consider what other targets might be needed to ensure that we can significantly improve the natural environment in England—in the area of biodiversity, for example, which he mentioned, because it is complicated and involves all sorts of areas linking into each other.

We will conduct that review at the same time as the first statutory review of the environmental improvement plan, and report to Parliament on its outcome by 31 January 2023. The first environmental improvement plan is the first plan of this Bill; it will help us to deliver what is in the 25-year improvement plan. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that target setting is not a one-off thing, but will be a constant, flowing landscape.

I also want to reassure colleagues that a huge amount of thought has gone into the setting of this framework, so that it is a coherent framework for environmental protection and improvement. I would say to the shadow Minister that it does have an overarching purpose: it has the environmental principles. Those principles will work with all other areas of the Bill to improve the natural environment and environmental protection. It is a huge and wide commitment. The policy statement will explain how those principles will be applied to contribute to that environmental protection and to sustainable development. In my view, we have those objectives right there at the top of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I wonder if the Minister could help me. Let us take the example of a habitat in extremely poor condition and facing further decline. That habitat could be significantly improved simply by preventing further decline and intervening to bring the habitat up to a poor but improving condition. That would be a significant improvement, but it would not constitute a high-quality or healthy habitat. Does the Minister accept that that is a problem with the definition of significant improvement? Or does she think that other elements in the Bill would define significant improvement to make that definition of a poor environment improvement—[Interruption.] I see the Minister has been provided with inspiration. Does she think that other parts of the Bill would make that argument superfluous—namely, that significant improvement would equate to healthy, with the other elements of the Bill being in place? I am not sure it does.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Before I read the inspiration that has been passed to me, let me say that the whole point of the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement—we have other requirements to keep on checking, testing and monitoring targets through the environment improvement plan, which is also checked every five years —is that it is a holistic approach. The shadow Minister is picking one thing, but with the range of targets that will be set, that one thing will be constantly reported on and monitored. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the nature recovery networks and strategy. The point he raises will be addressed through those other measures in the Bill that, on the whole, will be the levers to raise all our biodiversity and ensure nature improvement.

We have a constant monitoring system in place where we raise up the holistic approach. Every five years the Government have to assess whether meeting the long-term targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside the other statutory targets, would significantly improve the natural environment. That is all open and transparent; the Government have to respond to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to close the gap, setting other powers. There are many powers in the Bill for target setting, but also for reporting back. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman some assurances that the things I believe he wants in the Bill will get into it through the levers provided in it.

Clause 22 sets a principal objective for the Office for Environmental Protection. It will ensure that the OEP contributes to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment in exercising its functions. Not only do we have measures for Government, we also have an overarching body checking and monitoring everything and saying what it thinks should or should not happen—whether there should be new targets or whether the targets are being addressed. All those measures are closely aligned; the idea is that they will work together to deliver the environmental protection mentioned in the amendments, concerning improvement and protection of the natural environment as well as the sustainable use of resources.

The shadow Minister said that the Bill had come and gone a few times and has grown a bit; I say it has grown better and stronger, and that we need lots of those measures. The framework now is coherent. I have done a flow-chart of how this all works together, because it is quite complicated. However, if the shadow Minister looks at all the measures together, they knit in with each other to give this holistic approach to what will happen for the environment and how we will care for it.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister mentioned this “healthy environment” wording. Clearly, there are many different views on what constitutes a healthy environment, and the Government could not assess what they needed to do to satisfy that new legal obligation, and nor could anyone else. The Government cannot support an amendment that creates such an obligation. It would create uncertainty to call just for a “healthy environment”, because everyone’s idea of that is different. The Government cannot support such a commitment, because the legal obligations are too uncertain. However, we support the overarching architecture of everything working together to create the holistic environment, and an approach where all the targets work together and we are on a trajectory towards a much better environment. The shadow Minister and I are in complete agreement with each other that that is the direction that we should be taking.

To sum up, the Government do not believe that amendment 103 or new clauses 1 and 6 are necessary. I ask hon. Members kindly to withdraw them.

[Alex Sobel]

I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In the context of those considerations, I hope the Minister will be well disposed towards assuring us, with chapter and verse quoted, that everything is okay, and that we have everything in the Bill that we need to ensure that the marine environment is properly considered and brought into play. Alternatively, she may say, “Hmm, hang on a minute. They might have a point.” She might then think about ways in which we can ensure that those environmental concerns are properly reflected in the Bill.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for amendments 1 and 85, which would include specific reference to

“on land, and at sea”

in clauses 1 and 6. The Bill requires that at least one long-term target is set in each of the four priority areas, as has been explained. That provides clarity and certainty about the areas on which policy setting will focus between now and October 2022.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to set targets is not limited to those priority areas alone and can be used in respect of any matter relating to the natural environment. I give him absolute reassurances that the definition of the natural environment includes consideration of the marine environment. Indeed, I welcome this being raised. The fact that we are discussing it and getting that in writing will clarify the position. He is absolutely right to raise the issue. The marine environment will be included, and it is explicitly highlighted on page 57 of the explanatory notes. The shadow Minister is not alone in calling for that; the Natural Capital Committee also wanted clarification, and we gave it reassurances.

The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects—terrestrial and marine—of England’s natural environment when conducting the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement. That involves assessing whether the natural environment as a whole, including the marine environment, will have improved significantly. Such an approach is aligned with comments made at the evidence session. The Committee may remember that Dr Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that

“the environment has to operate as a system.”—[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]

Of course, the system has to include marine and land—all aspects. Furthermore, the Office for Environmental Protection has a key role, and if it believes that additional targets should be set, it can recommend that in its annual report on assessing the Government’s progress. The OEP could therefore comment on the marine environment specifically, and the Government must publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s report.

The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that provides clarification and reassurance about the word “marine” and references to “on land” and “on sea.” I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

As the Minister said, the fact that we are discussing these matters, and that our words are going on the record, is useful in buttressing what is in the legislation. I am grateful to her for her clarification, which is also on the record. On that basis, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel]

I have signed amendments 76 and 78 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), but not amendment 77—that is an oversight, however, and I also fully support it. I will talk about two specific things relating to our global footprint in the Amazon and West Papua, and it is worth declaring that I am the chair of the all-party group on West Papua, although I have no pecuniary interests.

My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister made excellent cases, but I want to add a bit more detail. Three weeks ago, Chief Raoni, one of the indigenous leaders of the Amazon, came to the House and I met him, and last week, I hosted WWF Brazil’s chief executive here. They also met the Minister’s colleague, Lord Goldsmith, while they were here, and one of their key asks was that the UK Government are very clear about the import of goods from the Amazon. The range of goods is very broad. The dangers in the Amazon are live at the moment, with concerns that in just a matter of months, wildfires could rage in the Amazon as we saw last year, destroying millions of hectares of rainforest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made good points about soya and cattle farming, but there is also extremely widespread mining—not just by large companies, but the wildcat mining, in which the family of the Brazilian President have traditionally been involved —for metals such as aluminium, iron, nickel and copper. The sourcing of the materials for many of the everyday products that people use involves deforestation and mining in the Amazon. That has further effects because activities such as farming and mining require infrastructure, such as roads right through the rainforest. The use of the river and of heavy diesel vehicles creates water and air degradation.

We spoke about biodiversity in the UK, but our biodiversity pales into insignificance compared with the biodiversity in the rainforests of the Amazon or West Papua. It is the Committee’s duty not to forget that the UK is a major importer of goods and a major world centre for resources and raw materials, which are traded in London and imported into the UK. That means that we have a much broader responsibility.

West Papua is a lesser-known area that is part of Indonesia and has one of the world’s largest mines, the Grasberg Freeport mine. There, beyond the loss of environmental habitat and the pollution of water and air, there are also human rights abuses. There is a well-documented history of extrajudicial killings around the operation of the mine. Offshore, BP—a British company—is involved in oil and gas resources. Our global footprint is huge and the Bill must focus on that. If we are to enshrine environmental protections in domestic law, we cannot close our borders and say, “We are doing sufficient things here,” while forgetting our global footprint and the effects of our markets, imports, production facilities and export investment in causing global environmental degradation.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this really key subject. I remind the Committee that the Bill gives us the power to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment.

I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East about the 25-year environment plan, which is of course the first environmental improvement plan under the Bill. That plan talks about “leaving a lighter footprint” and the whole of chapter 6 is about,

“Protecting and improving our global environment”.

That is there in writing and I assure the Committee that the power in the Bill to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment allows us to set targets on our global environmental footprint.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I know that the 25-year plan will be incorporated as the first environmental plan, but my point was that by adding amendment 76 and the fifth priority on the global footprint, we would ensure that the Bill specifies that global footprint targets would have to be set. Simply referring to the 25-year plan is just warm words rather than any clear commitment to action.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I recognise all the work that she is doing on this issue; she speaks knowledgably and passionately about it. However, the amendment would go further by creating a legal obligation on the Government to set targets on our wider global footprint, including human rights aspects, and amendment 77 would require us not only to set a target but meet it by 31 December 2020.

Before accepting such obligations, a responsible Government, which I like to think we are, would need to be confident that we had or could develop reliable metrics and an established baseline for such targets, and a clear understanding of any potential perverse incentives that such targets could create. The proposal sounds very straightforward but, of course, there is a great deal involved in it. We are working to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a global environment footprint indicator, which includes reviewing the existing methodologies of global impact indicators.

We cannot responsibly accept a commitment to set global footprint as a priority area, as that would entail us in setting at least one legally binding target in a timescale that does not reflect the need to build the solid foundations that are needed. However, the hon. Lady was right to draw our attention to the impact that our domestic consumption can have on our global footprint, and the shadow Minister also mentioned that. Indeed, I went berserk with my own children when I found a packet of Kenyan beans in the bottom of my fridge; that was in December, so they were not seasonal for us. Woe betide them if they ever do that again! I put said packet in the bottom of one of their Christmas stockings to make the point. Anyway, I digress.

This is such an important issue and many colleagues have touched on it. That is why it is really important that the UK establishes roundtables on palm oil and soya. Indeed, we have already done a great amount of work on some of these issues. For example, the UK achieved 77% certified sustainable palm oil in 2018, which is—staggeringly—up from just 16% in 2010. The UK has moved very fast on that issue. Eight of the UK’s largest supermarkets, representing a combined retail market share of 83%, have published new sourcing policies to deliver sustainable soya to the UK market. We will continue to work both with those businesses, through these roundtables on palm oil and soya, and with producer countries through our UK international climate finance projects to improve the sustainability of forest risk commodities.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West starkly highlighted the example of the Amazon and the impact that we have; we must take things very carefully. However, that is not to say that, in doing all this work, we should not then harness the power through the Bill to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint. That is something that we have the option to consider.

I will also touch on the Global Resource Initiative, which was set up last year to investigate what the UK can do overall to reduce its footprint. We are awaiting the GRI’s recommendations and we will consider them carefully before responding. Any recommendations for long-term, legally binding targets will need to identify the reliable metrics, baselines and targets that I have mentioned before. However, the Bill gives us the power to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint at any time, so such targets are definitely in the mix.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Our global environmental footprint abroad is very important and the hon. Member for Leeds North West made an interesting point in particular about our footprint in Indonesia. I happen to know about the BP investment at the Tangguh liquid natural gas project very well. It uses two offshore platforms, and there is an absolutely amazing social responsibility programme, which I have seen in detail. It is widely recognised as one of the best in the world, both by the people of West Papua and more widely in Indonesia.

It is worth noting that we have significant renewable energy projects there, including some interest in tidal stream—we brought a delegation from Indonesia to Scotland recently. Through the Department for International Development’s climate change unit, we have worked on making their timber production sustainable and are now looking at how we can help them make the palm oil industry sustainable. The Minister makes an important point about how we can build a strong environmental footprint abroad.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Alex Sobel]

On a point of order, Sir Roger. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester have any interest to declare in relation to the statement he just made?

[Richard Graham]

I am happy to say that my only interest to declare is as an unpaid, voluntary trade envoy in Indonesia for the last three Prime Ministers.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge about worldwide issues, as he always does in the Chamber.

On the grounds of what I have said, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will have to go back and read what the Minister said, because I am rather confused. She seems to be jumping around all over the place. On one hand, she says a global footprint target can be included in the Bill and cites some good things that have happened through volunteer initiatives and through companies—perhaps with a bit of Government pressure on them—to say that such things can be done. On the other hand, she says that we cannot possibly put it in the Bill.

I point out that amendment 77 is designed to ensure that there is an end-of-year target, which was previously a commitment. The Government have said in various different forums that they would achieve that, so it is a bit late now to say, “We need to worry about the metrics, and we need to be working on this, that and the other.”

I tried to intervene on the Minister because I wanted to ask her about the GRI recommendations, which will come forward on 30 March. If it recommends that the provision should be in the Environment Bill, will the Minister commit to table amendments that reflect the GRI recommendations? As she would not let me intervene to ask her about that, she is very welcome to intervene and tell me whether that is the case. It might affect whether I decide to push anything to a vote.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will intervene very briefly. I reiterate that we await the outcome of the recommendations and will consider them very carefully. Getting the metrics right is absolutely crucial, as is every target in the Bill. I said strongly that there is a power in the Bill to set targets on our global environmental footprint. I shall leave it there.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said, I want to revisit that, because I thought the Minister was making an argument against being able to pursue targets. She did not adequately make the case for not having the specific priority of a global footprint target, but we will return to that when we discuss new clause 5, which is a comprehensive clause about due diligence in the supply chain and how we enforce all this. We shall return to the debate then, rather than my pressing these issues to a vote now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Environment Bill (Sixth sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

For the elucidation of the Committee, I confirm that the intention of the Opposition is to get to the end of clause 6 in reasonably good order, so it will not be necessary, I hope, for the Chair to suspend proceedings, because we will already have gone home by then. We will see whether I manage to keep my remarks suitably brief, so that we can achieve that goal.

I barely started my remarks about the amendment this morning. I will first emphasise how important the amendment is to ensuring that the priority area targets are seen as targets with content, rather than targets in theory. That is important because of the frankly rather odd way in which subsection (2) is set out:

“The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set a long-term target in respect of at least one matter within each priority area.”

That might suggest that the Secretary of State will have a lottery choice, and will say, “Well, I’ve got to set at least one target in each area, so what’s it going to be? If I go above my limit of one target per area, I might not be able to get targets in other areas,” or perhaps, “I haven’t got enough targets in this section, so I have to beef them up.”

In reality, targets are not one per customer; they are based on what targets should be set in each area. What are the themes that one would prioritise within each area in which a target might be set? What are the priorities regarding air quality, water, biodiversity and waste and resources that would cause us to say, “Perhaps in this area there should be three or four targets, and in that area two, or more than three”?

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set more than one target, but it at least strongly suggests that it should be one target, and implies that that should be it. I hope we can be clear today that that certainly is not it, and that the Secretary of State will be charged with looking at each area and deciding, on the basis of what is needed, what the targets for those areas should be. They might or might not be numerous.

There is a rumour that there was discussion with the Treasury about how many targets might be allowed in each area, and the Treasury said, “Maybe keep it to one each. That will be okay.” I am sure that is untrue, but nevertheless the drafting of this part of part 1 seems a little odd.

In amendment 178, we have tried to say, “What would be the general priority areas?” One might say that it was our best go at answering that. If we have time to spare this afternoon, having got through our business, we could have a little roundtable and decide whether we think those are the absolute priorities, or whether we should put in others or change them around. It is an attempt, which I think is good enough to go into the legislation, to look at what the main areas are within each priority area that we could reasonably set targets on.

Within air quality, it would be good to have targets on average human exposure to PM_2.5 and PM₁₀, and annual emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, the different PMs and non-methane volatile organic compounds. For water, the targets could be on abstraction rates,

“the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater”

and, importantly, the marine environment, which we touched on this morning.

In the priority area of biodiversity, there could be targets on

“the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species”

and

“the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats”.

Later in the Bill, we will talk about recreating habitats if necessary, and ensuring, through local plans, that habitats join up with each other, so that we do not have a series of island habitants with no relation to each other. Perhaps we should have a biodiversity target on ensuring that those habitats are connected.

In the priority area of waste and resources, there could be targets on

“overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”

As we will see later in our discussions, there could certainly be targets relating to the extent to which things are properly moved up the waste hierarchy. One of the concerns we have regarding the waste and resources part of the Bill is the extent to which there is, rightly, a concern for recycling, but not for going any further up the waste hierarchy than that.

Amendment 178 is the explanation that we would like to see after the very thin gruel served up in clause 1(3). It is by no means the last word, and we state in the amendment that the targets are not limited to those set out in it. Indeed, it would be a perfectly good idea if the Secretary of State or Minister said, “I don’t quite agree with the targets that you have set out here. There are other priority areas in these sectors, and we’d like to set targets on those instead.” We are not precious about that in any way.

I hope the Committee can accept the principle that it is not sufficient to set out single-word priority areas, particularly in clause 1(2). In the Bill, there needs to be some unpacking of the process, so that we can assure ourselves that we will get to grips with the sort of targets that we believe are necessary. That is a friendly proposal. I hope it is met with interest from Government Members, and that we can discuss how we get that right, having accepted the principle. We do not necessarily need the amendment to be accepted in its totality, but if we do not see any movement at all in its direction, we strongly feel that we ought to set down a marker to show that it is important that such a process be undertaken, and would therefore reluctantly seek to divide the Committee.

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

I thank the shadow Minister for seeking to specify the targets that the Government should set within each priority area. He asked if what he said was met with interest. Of course it was. He recognises that the Bill includes a requirement, which I reiterate, to set at least one long-term legally binding target in each of four important areas: air quality; water; biodiversity; and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Those were chosen because they are the priority areas that reflect where we believe targets will drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment, which is the aim of the Bill.

The four priority areas were chosen to complement the chapters of the Bill, to build on the vision in the 25-year environment plan—the first environment improvement plan in the Bill—and to facilitate the delivery of comprehensive measures, with an “s” on the end, across the natural environment; we are talking about not just one thing, but a whole raft of measures. The Bill’s framework allows long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment, or people’s enjoyment of it, beyond the four priority areas in order to drive significant improvement in the natural environment. Of course, all those things will be monitored, checked and reported on to ensure that the significant improvement is achieved, and if more targets are seen to be required, then more targets are what will happen.

I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the Government will be able to determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting process that I referred to this morning. Advice from independent experts will be sought in every case during the process. Stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to give input on targets. Indeed, just now in the Tea Room, one of our colleagues asked about giving input on the deposit return scheme. I said, “Yes, there will be a lot of engagement and a lot of consultation, through the Bill.” Targets will be based on robust, scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis.

We do not want to prejudge which specific targets will emerge from the process, and the Office for Environmental Protection has a role in setting targets. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, it can say what it thinks should be done in its annual report when it is assessing the Government’s progress. It will do that every year. The Government then have to publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s call. Any long-term targets will be set via statutory instruments, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament can scrutinise, debate, and ultimately vote on them, so everyone gets their say. I hope that will please the shadow Minister, because he will very much be part of that. This process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account for the targets they set.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Does the Minister wish to comment on what has just been said before I go back to Dr Whitehead?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly, thank you, Sir Roger.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. He has hit the nail on the head in summing up the flexibility for the targets and the importance of getting and inputting the right expert advice and having the flexibility to move and change with the requirements. The environment is such a huge thing. There is no one thing; it is not a straightforward answer. There will be lots of different targets to consider. Specifically, however, we have a requirement to set at least one long-term target.

To pick on the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West on air quality, we have a clean air strategy already, which the World Health Organisation has held up as an example for the rest of the world to follow. We are already taking the lead on that and have committed £3.5 billion to delivering our clean air strategy and the measures within it. They are already operating and will work part and parcel with the Bill’s new measures to have an even more holistic and comprehensive approach to air quality.

[Dr Whitehead]

If the Bill were just a framework Bill, it would be about a quarter as long as it is. The fact that, in various parts, it has quite a lot of detail about the things that are required within the overall framework indicates that the Bill is more than that. It seeks to set out, guide and secure a whole series of advances in environmental standards and enhancements of the natural environment in a way that hopefully we can all be proud of.

That is why I call this particular section thin gruel. I was trying to see where we can go with the porridge analogy. Although its potential is not thin gruel, the way it is set out in the Bill appears to me to turn out something that is rather more thin gruel than good porridge. Some Government Members, meanwhile, are thinking “How can we make it flower out of its bowl with all sorts of things added to it?”

Our amendment does not stop Ministers coming up with new targets—wide targets, changeover time and so on—and go with the flow of circumstances as they unfold, but it prevents the porridge from being thinner than it might otherwise be. We want to see basic, good porridge with some fruit, raspberries—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to ensure that, when these targets are set, they are based on the highest possible standards of evidence, practice and advice. However, I believe that it is not necessary to make such explicit amendments as the one that we are considering, because we have already committed to setting targets under a robust, evidence-led process. We expect the best available evidence to inform this, including, of course, scientific data, models, historical datasets and assessment of what is feasible from a socioeconomic perspective. I can assure him that absolutely nothing will be conjured out of thin air, as he was suggesting; conducting ourselves in such a way would not be a correct way for Government to operate.

I am sure that the shadow Minister will be interested to be reminded that every two years, we will conduct a review of significant developments in international environmental legislation. I think that that was one of the new additions to the Bill that was inserted during the process that he was outlining earlier, about how the Bill came and went, and fell, and various other things. This is an extra addition that I believe will be useful and will address exactly what he is talking about, because it is right that we consider what is happening across the rest of the world, to make sure that we are aligned, whether we want to be or not, and consider what other people are doing, and make sure we keep abreast of developments in driving forward our environmental protection legislation.

Of course, we will publish that review and make sure that any relevant findings are factored into our environmental improvement plan, and considered with the environmental target-setting process. We will also seek and consider very carefully the advice of independent experts before setting the targets. Additionally, our target proposals will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament; both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ultimately vote on the details and the ambition of the targets. We also expect the Select Committees to take an interest in this process and they will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s target proposals. They might choose to conduct their own inquiries or publish reports, which the Government would then respond to in the usual manner.

Having given that amount of detail, I hope that it provides some reassurance. The shadow Minister is obviously raising really important issues, but I hope that my response makes it clear that we are taking this matter very seriously. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister has said exactly what I had anticipated she might say in the best of outcomes, and that is now on the record; indeed, our purpose principally was to ensure that that kind of statement about these targets was there for all to see. I am grateful to her for setting that out and I am much happier than I would have been if she had not said that. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Rebecca Pow]

I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

This amendment reflects the renaming of the National Assembly for Wales as “Senedd Cymru” by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. Similar changes are made by Amendments 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, and 73.

[The Chair]

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 29, 32 to 36, 67, 37 to 57, 72 and 73, and 58 to 64.

[Rebecca Pow]

Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 renames the National Assembly for Wales as the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru. The changes will take effect from 6 May 2020. As a consequence, amendment 28 would replace references in the Bill to “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru”, and replace references to “the Assembly” with “the Senedd”—I hope I have made that quite clear. This is consistent with the approach that the Welsh Government are taking to their own legislation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Could the Minister clarify whether we are replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” in all legislation or whether we are inserting both, as was implied in part of her statement, by saying, “the National Assembly for Wales/Senedd Cymru”? Does the National Assembly for Wales cease to exist completely, and are we always to refer to it as Senedd Cymru in all future parliamentary debates?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a very perceptive question, which does not surprise me at all—my hon. Friend is always on the ball. The answer is no, the Welsh Assembly will remain. I will just add that the Government consulted the Welsh Government on how the Welsh legislature should be referred to in legislation moving forward, and using the Welsh title ensures there is a consistent approach across the statute book.

[Richard Graham]

For clarification, can I just confirm that we will refer to “the National Assembly for Wales” and to “Senedd Cymru” in the Bill, and that that is the format that Parliament and the Government will adopt for all legislation, and that we are not replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” on every occasion?

[Rebecca Pow]

The answer to the first part of his question is yes.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendment made: 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.

[The Chair]

I am satisfied that clause 1 has been sufficiently debated, and I therefore do not propose to take a clause stand part debate.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Environmental targets: particulate matter

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman saying that they are not connected. The two dates happen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is not like two bodies in different parts of the country. The key thing is that the guidelines for which he calls are there; the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.

[Rebecca Pow]

The Government shares the shadow Minister’s desire to take ambitious action to reduce public exposure to air pollution and ensure that the latest evidence is taken into consideration when targets are reviewed. The Government take fine particulate matter, and air pollution as a whole, extremely seriously, and completely understand public concerns about this very serious health issue. That is why the Government are already taking action to improve air quality, backed by significant investment.

We have put in place a £3.5 billion plan to reduce harmful emissions from road transport. Last year, we published our world-leading clean air strategy, which sets out the comprehensive action required at all levels of Government and society to clean up our air. I reiterate that that strategy has been praised by the WHO as an example for the rest of the world to follow, so we are already leading on this agenda. That is not to say that there is not a great deal to do; there is, but the Government are taking it extremely seriously.

The Bill builds on the ambitious actions that we have already taken and delivers key parts of our strategy, including by creating a duty to set a legally binding target for PM_2.5, in addition to the long-term air quality target. That size of particulate is considered particularly dangerous because it lodges in the lungs, and can cause all sorts of extra conditions. I have met with many health bodies to discuss that. It is a very serious issue and a problem for many people. However, we are showing our commitment to tackling it by stating in the Bill that we will have a legally binding target.

It is important that we get this right. We must set targets that are ambitious but achievable. Last week, Mayor Glanville, the representative from the Local Government Association, highlighted the importance of ambitious targets, but was at pains to emphasise the need for a clear pathway to achieve them. It would not be appropriate to adopt a level and achievement date, as proposed in amendments 23 and 185, without first completing a thorough and science-based consideration of our options.

[Bim Afolami]

Bearing in mind that the Minister has already quoted from last week’s evidence sessions, does she agree that Professor Lewis made it very clear that, once we reached the target level mentioned in the amendment, the United Kingdom would not be fully in control of the target, and it would therefore be dangerous to put such a target in the Bill?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to mention Professor Alastair Lewis. Members will remember that he is the chairman of the UK’s air quality expert group. He gave stark evidence. He is obviously an expert in his field, and it was really interesting to hear what he said. He stressed the technical challenges involved in setting a target for a pollutant as complex as PM_2.5, which he explained is formed from diverse sources—the shadow Minister is right about that—and chemical reactions in the atmosphere. He was at pains to explain that a lot of PM_2.5 comes from the continent, and it depends on the direction of the wind, the weather and the atmospheric conditions. My hon. Friend is right that those things are not totally within our control.

Professor Lewis explained the need to decide how we would measure progress towards the target, and that the process would be challenging and would take time. It is crucial to get it right. When developing the detail of the target, we will seek evidence from a wide range of sources and ensure we give due consideration to the health benefits of reducing pollution, as well as the measures required to meet the targets and the costs to business and taxpayers. It is really important that we bring them on board.

I want to refer quickly to the report that the shadow Minister mentioned. I thought he might bring up the DEFRA report published in July 2019, which demonstrated that significant progress would be made towards the current WHO guideline level of 2.5 by 2030. He is right about that. However, the analysis did not outline a pathway to achieve the WHO guideline level across the country or take into account the full economic viability or practical deliverability.

In setting our ambitions for achievable targets, it is essential that we give consideration to these matters—achievability and the measures required to meet it. That is very much what our witnesses said last week. If we set unrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that are neither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why we are committed to an evidence-based process using the best available science—something I know the shadow Minister is really keen we do—and advice from experts to set an ambitious and achievable PM_2.5 air quality target.

I reiterate that it is crucial for public, Parliament and stakeholders that they have the opportunity to comment on this and have an input in the process of developing these targets. By taking the time to carry out this important work in engagement, we will ensure that targets are ambitious, credible and, crucially, supported by society. We have the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement, outlined in the Bill. It will consider all relevant targets collectively and assess whether meeting them will significantly improve the natural environment of England as a whole. It is intended to capture the breadth and the amount of improvement. It is very much a holistic approach and it encompasses the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment and the associated effects on human health. All these things will be taken into account in assessing the journey to the targets. I therefore surmise that the proposal in amendment 25 is not necessary.

[Dr Whitehead]

The Minister is quite right in pointing out that the report we mentioned did not take into account within a scientific model the full economic viability or practical deliverability of that change. If she were to commission this group to go away and do that, would she commit to the WHO guidelines after that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister knows that I will make no such commitment here. This has to be evidence based. Get the right evidence, then the decisions can be made. That is how this Bill will operate. All the advice we took last week from the experts—the people we have to listen to—very much agreed that this was the direction that we need to take. Reviewing individual targets through the test, as proposed in amendments 26 and 27, would not be in line with the holistic approach of the Bill.

Furthermore, the fixed timetable for periodically conducting the significant improvement test provides much needed certainty and predictability to business and society. We have heard from many businesses that they want this surety. It would be inappropriate to determine the timescale for this test on the basis of one new piece of evidence. However, we recognise that the evidence will evolve as highlighted by amendments 26, 27 and 185. The Government will consider new evidence as it comes to light after targets have been set, as part of the five-yearly review of our environmental improvement plan and its annual progress report. The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, as I have said before, or that an update to a target is necessary as a result of new evidence, it can recommend this in its annual report, assessing the Government’s progress.

--- Later in debate ---

It therefore specifies to an extent what the content of the advice sought by the independent body would look like, and how the body could be sure to shape its advice to be consistent with the intentions of the framers of the legislation. We think both changes would be good for and strengthen the Bill, and we hope that the Government will be interested in proceeding, if not along those exact lines, then along lines similar to those in the Climate Change Act, knowing that that procedure has stood the test of time well. It would certainly be robust for the future.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for amendments 81 and 181. I hope he has already got the impression that we are absolutely committed to setting targets under a robust evidence-led process. Independent experts, the public, stakeholders and Parliament will all play a part in informing the scope and level of target development. The Government will carefully consider advice from independent experts before setting targets.

As the Bill progresses, we will continue to consider how the role of experts is best fulfilled. A number of witnesses last week referred to the need to use experts, and they will be used constantly and continuously. Such experts could include academics, scientists and practitioners within the four priority areas included in the Bill. The expert advice we receive to support the setting of both the target for PM_2.5 and the further long-term air quality target will include that on how targets will reduce the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health. We will rely hugely on that expert advice.

Long-term targets will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and analyse the target proposals. That will, of course, include the shadow Minister, because both Houses will debate the statutory instruments that will set the targets. The Office for Environmental Protection will publish annual reports on the Government’s progress towards the targets, which may include recommendations for improving progress. As I have reiterated a number of times, the Government will be required to publish a response to the recommendations.

I want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection can advise on targets, either through its duties related to environmental law or through its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan. For example, it has a statutory power to advise on changes to environmental law, which enables it to comment on proposed legislation on long-term targets. It also has a statutory duty to monitor progress towards meeting targets as part of its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan, which can include recommending how progress could be improved. So there is already a very strong mechanism.

Environmental law extends to all target provisions of the Bill—for example, procedural requirements on target setting and amendments, and the requirement to achieve targets. In addition, the Government will conduct the first significant improvement test—that is a legal requirement—and report to Parliament on its outcome, three months after the deadline for bringing forward the initial priority area targets.

The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, which is why they will come under the OEP. That means that the OEP will have oversight of the provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law, and will have a key role in making sure that the Government meet the targets.

The shadow Minister rightly drew analogies with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that he recognises the similarities. In designing this framework, we have learned from the successful example of the Climate Change Act—for example, the strong duty to achieve long-term targets, the requirement to report on progress and scrutiny of progress by an independent, statutory body, in this case, the Office for Environmental Protection. That mirrors the CCA. We are confident that the framework is every bit as strong as the CCA framework and that it provides certainty to society that the Government will achieve the targets, delivering significant environmental improvements.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement, expert advice and public consultation will help to inform future target areas, as part of the robust, evidence-led, target-setting process. The Government will, as a matter of course, conduct a wide range of consultations for the first set of long-term targets. I hope that that is clear. We do not need the amendments suggested by the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw them.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is all quite terrific, but it is not quite what it says in the Bill. That is the problem. The Minister has set out a robust and wide-ranging procedure for setting targets and I hope that all the steps she mentioned are going to be followed. If they are, we have a good arrangement. However, if we look at the Bill, there is fairly scattered evidence that that is the way we are going to conduct ourselves. On the contrary, it actually appears to give a great deal of leeway for somebody or some people not to do most of those things in setting the targets, if that is what they wanted to do.

We are perhaps back to some of the discussions we had this morning about the extent to which the Bill has to stand not just the test of time, but the potential test of malevolence. If a well-minded and dedicated Minister, such as the one we have before us this afternoon, were to conduct the procedure, that is exactly how she would conduct it, and I would expect nothing less of her, because that is the frame of mind in which she approaches the issue—but, in legislating, we have to consider that not everyone would have that positive frame of mind. I do not want to divide the Committee, but I am concerned that the procedure in the Bill is too sketchily set out for comfort. Maybe, when we draw up the regulations, we could flesh out some of the things that the Minister said this afternoon, to assure ourselves that that is what we will do, and do properly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Alex Sobel]

I was not expecting to be called quite so soon, so I will move amendment 24 formally.

Amendment proposed: 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out “31 October 2022” and insert “31 December 2020”.—(Alex Sobel.)

This amendment is intended to bring forward the deadline for laying regulations setting the PM2.5 target to December 2020.

[Rebecca Pow]

I could cut my speech short and just say that I am very pleased the hon. Member has withdrawn his amendment.

[The Chair]

He has not withdrawn it; he has moved it formally.

[Rebecca Pow]

I will give my speech then, Sir Roger.

The amendment would undermine the intention to ensure that we set targets via an open consultation process that allows sufficient time for relevant evidence to be gathered, scrutinised and tested. As part of that process, we intend to seek evidence from a wide range of stakeholder interests, carry out good quality scientific socioeconomic analysis, take advice from independent experts and conduct a public consultation, alongside the parliamentary scrutiny of the target SIs that I have mentioned many times before.

It is important that we get that right rather than rushing to set targets, so we do not want to bring the deadline forward from 31 October 2022. We have heard strong support for that approach from stakeholders, who are all keen to have time and space to contribute meaningfully to target development. It is critical that there is certainty about what our targets are by the time we review our environmental improvement plan. That is essential for us to set out appropriate interim targets—the ones that will get us to the long-term target—and consider what measures may be required to achieve both the interim and long-term targets. The review of the plan must happen by 31 January 2023, so to that end, the target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well.

The Committee should also note that 31 October 2022 is a deadline. It does not prevent us from setting a target earlier where we have robust evidence and have received the necessary input from experts, stakeholders and the public.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Can the Minister reassure us that the 2022 deadline does not mean that progress on those issues will not be made or that we cannot have interim targets before we reach the deadline? The whole thing is not being kicked off until 2022; we should still be doing our best to tackle the problem of clean air between now and then.

[Rebecca Pow]

The target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well for us to report back on our first environmental improvement plan three months later. We hope that some consultations will start during the process, so work will be under way to improve the environment, take advice, set targets and so on. Work will be under way to start the ball rolling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I will be very brief. I entirely support what my hon. Friend says about the need for interim targets. We have seen how the carbon budgets work under the Climate Change Act. There is real concern that the timetable might be slipping and that we might not manage to meet the commitments in the next couple of carbon budgets, but at least there is a mechanism.

I know that we have the environmental improvement plans, and that there is a requirement to review them and potentially update them every five years. However, there are so many strategy documents and plans. If we look at peat, for example, my hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the target set in 2010 for ending the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by the end of this year will be missed. I know that the Government have a peat strategy, and there are various other things kicking around that are mentioned every time we talk about peat. But there is a lack of focus, a lack of drive and a lack of certainty as to where the Government are heading on that issue. I feel that if we had legally binding interim targets in the Bill, that would give a sense of direction and it would be something against which we could hold the Government to account—more so than with what is currently proposed.

Regarding my last intervention on the Minister, I was trying to be helpful. I was just asking her to give a reassurance that all the efforts to clear up our air and to tackle air pollution are going on regardless; it is not just about setting this target and whether we set it for 2022 or 2020. That is one particular measure. All I am trying to say is that I am looking for reassurances that the Government will still be focused on cleaning up our air. All she has to do is say yes.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Very quickly, I can give assurances that of course work is ongoing to clean up our air, because we have our clean air strategy. A great many processes are being put in place through that strategy to tackle all the key pollutants that affect air quality. The measures in the Bill come on top of that. I hope that gives the reassurance that was sought.

It is of course critical that we achieve our long-term targets to deliver significant environmental improvement, and this framework provides strong assurances that we will do so. The Bill has this whole framework of robust statutory requirements for monitoring, reporting and reviewing, combined with the Office for Environmental Protection and parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that meeting the interim targets is taken seriously, without the need for them to be legally binding.

Interim targets are there to help the trajectory towards meeting the long-term targets, to ensure that the Government are staying on track. We cannot simply set a long-term target for 2037 and forget about it. Through this cycle—the reporting requirement and the requirement to set out the interim target of up to five years—the Bill will ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and can be held to account. The OEP and Parliament will, of course, play their role too.

To be clear, we have a little mechanism called the triple lock, which is the key to driving short-term progress. The Government must have an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment, and review it at least every five years. In step 2, the Government must report on progress towards achieving the targets every year. In step 3, the OEP will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year it can recommend how we could make better progress, if it thinks better progress needs to be made. The Government then have to respond.

If progress seems too slow, or is deemed to be too slow, the Government may need to develop new policies to make up for that when reviewing their EIPs. They will not wait until 2037 to do that; these things can be done as a continuous process, and that is important.

The shadow Minister rightly referred back to the Climate Change Act and the five-yearly carbon budgets, as did the hon. Member for Bristol East. He asked why, if the carbon budgets were legally binding, the interim targets are not. That is a good question, but of course the targets in the Environment Bill are quite different from carbon budgets. Carbon budgets relate to a single metric: the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. These targets will be set on several different aspects of the natural environment.

As I am sure hon. Members will understand, that is very complicated; it is an interconnected system that is subject to natural factors as well as to human activity. Additionally, aspects of the natural environment such as water quality or soil health might respond more quickly to some things and more slowly to others, even with ambitious interventions. It is possible that the Government could adopt extremely ambitious measures and still miss their interim targets due to external factors.

What is important, in this case, is that a missed interim target is recognised and that the Government consider what is needed to get back on track. I am convinced that the system that is there to recognising that—the reporting, analysis and so on—will highlight it. There will be reporting through the EIPs, the targets and the OEP scrutiny, and the incorporation of any new interim targets or measures; it can all be looked at in the five-yearly review of the EIP. I believe there is a strong framework there already.

Finally, of course, the OEP will have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets. Of course, we cannot reach the long-term targets unless we have achieved the interim targets first. I hope I have been clear on that; I feel strongly that we have the right process here, and I hope the shadow Minister will kindly withdraw his amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

I hope the Minister will not think I am being too unkind if I say that she is describing a triple lock process rather more like a triple bunch of flowers process. Yes, what she says about the process operating under positive circumstances is good. Indeed, if it happens as she has outlined, we will have a good process in place. It may well be that as time goes by and people have more confidence in how the process works, and if the Government of the day play ball with that process in its own right, the outcome will be good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert

“and,

(c) steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken.”

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to do what they have said needs to be done in their report.

The amendment attempts to tidy up the procedures in clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 talks about reporting duties, and it identifies the steps that are taken to make sure the Secretary of State does what they need to do according to their report. At present, the steps identified in clause 5 stand separate from the Secretary of State’s report, and the Secretary of State appears to report in isolation. Various things have to be done, but they are not tied in with the report.

The amendment would ensure that the

“steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken”,

which would mean that the Secretary of State’s report is not only a piece of paper. The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to do what their report says needs to be done, so the report would have real substance for future activity in this area.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment. I am sure he agrees that the most critical thing is the meeting of long-term targets in order to deliver significant environmental improvement, rather than the specific process of getting there. Our target framework provides strong assurance that the Government will achieve them, so the amendment is not necessary.

If a long-term target is missed, the Government’s remedial plan must set out the steps they intend to take towards meeting the missed target as soon as reasonably practicable. The Government will remain under an explicit duty to meet the target. The OEP will have a key role in holding the Government to account on the delivery of targets, both through the annual scrutiny of progress and through its enforcement functions. If a long-term target is missed, the OEP may decide to commence an investigation, which could ultimately lead to enforcement action. We expect the case for enforcement action to increase with time if the target keeps being missed, including if the Government fail to take the steps outlined in the remedial plan. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—

“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”.

The amendment strengthens the Secretary of State’s reporting by including a timetable and analysis.

We now turn to clause 5, which sets out that the Secretary of State must

“set out the steps the Secretary of State has taken, or intends to take, to ensure the specified standard is achieved as soon as reasonably practicable.”

To give the clause a little more robustness, the amendment would add at the end that the Secretary of State’s report should

“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”

That sounds a little routine, but we think that without such shaping, the report could be pretty much anything. We could give the report considerable shape by requiring it to contain a timetable for the adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, to shape and specify them; to set out who will be responsible for doing those things; and to contain an analysis of the options that have been considered and their estimated impact. That might not necessarily be an impact assessment as we traditionally know them in legislation, but a background analysis of those options and how they would affect the delivery of progress against relevant targets would be a good net addition to the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister may think otherwise, but I am interested to hear what she has to say. I am interested to know whether she thinks that such a process, which would give reports a lot more shape, might be considered for future reports. That might be done by further secondary legislation, or by other means—not necessarily those that are laid out in the amendment.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees that missing a legally binding target should lead to clear consequences and next steps. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however, because it does not strengthen the requirements that we are creating. The Bill requires the Government to publish a remedial plan to achieve the missed standard

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

To draw up their remedial plan, the Government would therefore have to assess both what is practicable—feasible —and what is reasonable. That would include how long the chosen measures are expected to take to achieve the missed standard, how and by whom they would be implemented, and what alternatives had been considered. To show that they had met that standard, the Government would need to set out how they had selected the measures included in the remedial plan—I think that is what the shadow Minister was getting at—as part of sound policy making and to ensure transparency.

The OEP would have a key role to play. If, for example, the Government failed to publish a remedial plan that met the relevant statutory requirements, the OEP might decide to open an investigation, which ultimately could lead to enforcement action. There are already very strong measures to back up the remedial plan, and in case standards or targets are missed. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Dr Whitehead]

As I anticipated, I did not have an eager taker for my suggestion. Nevertheless, the Minister put on the record some of the anticipated structure following those reports. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Environmental targets: review

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I welcome the shadow Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Secretary of State looks at whether targets will achieve significant improvement in the natural environment as a whole, as well as in individual areas of it. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, but even in our evidence session of last week, Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that

“the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose one thing to focus on, you end up causing more problems to solve.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]

In line with that, the significant improvement test—a legal requirement in the Bill—is intended to consider both the breadth and the amount of improvement, with the aim of assessing whether England’s natural environment as a whole would significantly improve. It is a holistic approach, and the Bill’s definition of the natural environment is drafted to be broad enough to encompass all its elements, including the marine environment, which we discussed earlier. I believe the shadow Minister and I are thinking along the same lines, as I think he was intimating that he wants this all-encompassing approach, which is explicitly highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes.

The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects of England’s natural environment, both terrestrial and marine, when conducting the significant improvement test. The test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would significantly improve as a result of collectively meeting the long-term targets, which are legally binding, under the Bill, alongside any other relevant legislative environmental targets to which we are also adhering. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw amendment 183.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am interested to know what status the Minister thinks the explanatory notes have in these proceedings. I imagine they are rather more than insignificant, and rather less than completely significant. I read the explanatory notes to any piece of legislation. Sometimes, it occurs to me that they run very close to what is in the legislation, and sometimes they depart a little, yet they come before us in the same form on all occasions. They are a sort of concordance that goes along with the legislation so that we can understand the clauses more easily.

I am not sure whether there is a consistent production line technique for explanatory notes, and whether they have at least some legal significance in terms of seeking the Minister’s intention in presenting a piece of legislation or, indeed, a Committee’s intention in seeking to legislate.

[Rebecca Pow]

The shadow Minister makes a very good point about the explanatory notes, although I always love having a look at them. Explanatory notes can obviously be used in the interpretation of the Bill and in legal proceedings, if necessary, as part of wider evidence.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is a very helpful intervention, and it is what I thought. It means that even if explanatory notes appear to stray a little from what one might read in the legislation, if one took it absolutely at face value, we can rely on them for clarification, for future reference. That is an important point, because this afternoon, in the Minister’s response to my inquiry, she relied on what the explanatory notes said about the Bill, rather than what the Bill said. I take her point. If we are to take on board what the explanatory notes say, then that is not a bad response to my point. I wonder whether it would have been a better idea to put that stuff in the legislation, but hey, no one is perfect. We probably have a reasonably good framework to proceed with, in the light of the Minister’s explanation. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Again, the Minister may well decide that the amendment is not exactly what she wants this afternoon, but she may have information that will allow me to think, “Well, the Government have thought about this, and have a method of making sure that the problems are solved by means other than this amendment.”

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member. If I may say so, he tables slightly tortuous amendments and it is often a case of trying to get one’s head around them. I reassure him that this is not a creaking ship. This is a buoyant ship sailing towards a bright new blue environmentally enhanced horizon. As this is the last amendment today, I feel I can slip that in.

[Dr Whitehead]

Perhaps I can clarify the issue. My understanding of the term “creaking ship” is that it is a ship that is under sail, flourishing and driving through the water, and whose timbers are creaking as it is propelled to new horizons.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I think the answer is, when you are in a hole, stop digging.

[Rebecca Pow]

I feel a bit of backtracking going on here.

Amendment 86 would mean that the significant improvement test could be met only if any targets within the four priority areas that have expired have been replaced by new targets. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government would consider current targets—not expired targets—only when conducting the significant improvement test. That test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would improve significantly as a result of meeting the longer-term legally binding targets. That has taken up a large part of today’s discussion and is set under the Bill, as well as any other relevant legislation relating to environmental targets.

If the test is not passed, the Government must set out how they plan to use their new target-setting powers to close that gap. In practice, that will most likely involve plans to modify existing targets, make them more ambitious, or set new targets. That helps the Government to focus on the most pressing environmental issues of our time, rather than simply replacing targets that have expired. Some expired targets might, for example, no longer be the key issues on which we should focus in our long-term goals.

The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role through the exercising of its scrutiny functions, and it could publish a report if it disagreed with the Government’s conclusions that the existing targets were sufficient to pass the significant improvement test. The Government would then have to respond to that OEP report, and that response must be published and laid before Parliament. That is a clear pathway. The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of their measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that clarifies the situation, and I ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw amendment 86.