Environment Bill (First sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Q You reflected on the independence of the OEP and have suggested that concerns might be raised about its funding and funding cycle. Are there amendments you would like to see to the Bill to establish that independence in a clearcut way? Along with the OEP’s potential independence, would you like to see something specific in the Bill that protects its remit and funding cycle so we can be assured that it will not be subject to the vicissitudes of the Department or the Exchequer?

Signe Norberg: With regards to the specific areas of the Bill, there could be strengthening amendments to schedule 1, which sets out the appointment process. A paragraph in there to specify the role of the Select Committee in appointing the chair would strengthen the Bill, because the OEP’s chair has the power to select the other members. Within that, there is also a funding section, which could establish the five-year process. The important thing is that the OEP, with its formidable remit, will have independence and certainty in the long term. That should go beyond this Government, secure in the fact that successive Governments will deliver on the commitments. It should have a baseline budget to operate from, regardless of economic circumstances. If the funding mechanism in schedule 1 is strengthened, that would be welcome and really bolster the OEP’s ability to do its work.

Martin Baxter: In terms of a specific amendment, paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1 could be changed. It says:

“Non-executive members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State” ,

but you could add to that, “with confirmation from the Environmental Audit Committee and/or Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.” That would give Parliament enhanced power in that appointments process. That is a targeted, small amendment that could enhance independence in the process.

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

Q Thank you so much for coming in; it is really appreciated. I have two points to pick up, one of which was raised by Ms Norberg. I think you suggested that the Office for Environmental Protection, the overarching body that will hold public bodies to account, ought to be more like the Office for Budget Responsibility, but that body does not have the enforcement functions that the OEP will have. Do you have any views about that?

Signe Norberg: The point about appointing the chair is more about ensuring that there is scrutiny around who is appointed as chair. We fully recognise that the OEP will have a different remit compared to the OBR. It is more about ensuring that Parliament has a role in appointing the chair.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q The OBR and what we are proposing for the Office for Environmental Protection are quite different in terms of functions. The Office for Environmental Protection is more like the Equality and Human Rights Commission and very much set up on those lines. Do the others have views on that?

Martin Baxter: Given the importance of the OEP and questions about independence and holding public authorities, including Government, to account, stakeholders feel that that enhanced independence is very important. The model of having a confirmatory vote from the appropriate Select Committee in that appointments process is something that the OBR has in its remit, and we think that could be transferred across to the OEP as well. That is not to say that they do not have very different functions as bodies; we fully accept that.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Could I widen it out a bit? Industry and business have been very engaged in the development of the Bill, which is much appreciated. One of the strong messages we got from your two groups, in particular, was that you wanted legally binding targets and strong direction in the Bill. Why do you feel that is so important? Can you help the Committee understand whether the Bill is strong enough and why you want that?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: You are absolutely right. We have been working on this for about two or three years with a wide group of business organisations. We have got 20 of the main business groups, covering all sectors, from the Federation of Small Businesses to the CBI, Make UK, Water UK and the Home Builders Federation. Consistently across that group, the notion of a long-term framework for the environment is incredibly important.

We did a bit of research looking at the timescales over which businesses take decisions, whether it is project cycles, investment cycles for capital, or whatever. A lot of the investment cycles are very long. Unless you have a long-term framework for the environment, it is difficult to make the kind of improvements that we would all like to see.

In the past, we have often had very short-term decision making on the environment, which makes it difficult for business to adjust. If we are constantly in that cycle of responding very quickly and introducing policies on a one or two-year basis, it is very hard for business. Everyone—human beings—wants to see a clean and good environment. Business supports that as much as everyone else. If they have clarity over the long-term direction of policy and a clear set of targets, they can start designing. Whatever sector you are in, you can start designing.

Let me give you a quick example. We are working with the home building sector on a sectoral plan for all new houses, for the environment, because we have got the clarity of net zero and because we are getting clarity on targets through the Environment Bill. The sector can suddenly sit down and start saying, “Right, these are the long-term things we need to plan for—water efficiency, flood resilience and air quality.” They can start investing in the R&D and driving innovation.

We think that is very important, and we advocated very strongly right from the start. We put together a blueprint for the Environment Bill. We have advocated very strongly to Treasury and others that that long-term framework is important. We think it is a game changer, in the sense that, as soon as you have that, rather than environment being a compliance issue within firms, it becomes a strategic issue within firms, sectors and local areas, where everyone can build this into what they are doing.

In principle, we think targets are fantastic and we really welcome them in the Bill. We also think that there are some small changes that could be made to the target-setting framework that would be win-wins. They would improve the ability to achieve environmental outcomes but also reduce costs and increase certainty for business. I will focus on two—so that I am not hogging the microphone, I might then hand over to colleagues. One is that we would really like to see clear objectives in the Bill. At the moment, there is a target-setting mechanism, but it is not exactly clear. It says that four targets will be set in four areas, but it is not clear exactly what targets would be set. It would give greater clarity to have objectives that consistently show what kind of targets are going to be set and give that long-term clarity for everyone.

We have often made the point that, in the past 10 years, we have had eight different Secretaries of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. If they all set their own targets, depending on what they are interested in, you could end up with a patchwork of targets. We would really like to see clarity on the objectives. This is the kind of thing we are talking about. If the Bill said something like environmental objectives would be to have a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment, an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone, and sustainable use of resources, those would be high-level objectives but would give everyone clarity, as to how targets would be set.

[Rebecca Pow]

May I just interrupt you there for a second? I might bring the other gentleman in from the Broadway group—

[The Chair]

Minister, if anybody brings him in, it will be me. May we please finish hearing what is being said and then you can come back in?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: One thing we did with IEMA is a big survey of about 370 people working in businesses and different organisations. I think 95% of them supported having objectives in the Bill. That is that one.

The other thing is to have a clearer duty right at the start that environmental improvement plans have to enable the targets to be met. At the moment, the targets are legally binding in the sense that if you miss a target, Government have to make amends and take action, and there is a reporting mechanism. What is missing—and is in the Climate Change Act 2008—is what we call a day one duty, something that says there is a duty on the Secretary of State to make sure that they are putting in place the right policies to support this. These two things would underline that clarity and long-term certainty for business and reduce long-term costs for business to achieve the outcomes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. In the light of all of that, are there any final questions from the Minister?

[Rebecca Pow]

Q On a related point, do you think it is important to have an equivalent governance framework to the OEP in Scotland and Wales? Northern Ireland is already committed to joining the OEP, as is set out in the Bill. The other two have close liaison with all the teams and countries, but at the moment they have said they are going to set up their own bodies. How important is it, from a business point of view, that they function in as similar way as possible?

Martin Baxter: In terms of functioning, the really important thing is common standards driving common outcomes. Businesses are working across the UK and beyond, so having a harmonised approach to the environmental outcomes we are looking to achieve is very important.

In terms of the governance mechanisms, the Scottish Government announced last week that they were looking to create an independent body and watchdog. For Northern Ireland, there are obviously the provisions in the Bill. Wales is perhaps on a slightly different track at the moment. I am not entirely sure where it is in terms of an independent body.

There is clearly an opportunity to drive efficiency by having a common framework, maybe for an overarching view. Yes, I agree with common governance frameworks and ensuring that there is co-operation and collaboration, so that where we have shared environments, such as shared catchments, we are managing those and setting targets and objectives for improvement on a common basis. That is very important.

I also think there is the potential within the UK that, if we start to set different standards, we will shift burdens from one place to another. If you end up with very different policies on waste, for example, you might end up shipping waste from one part of the UK to the other, just because it happens to be easier or cheaper. Those overarching mechanisms of co-operation and collaboration are very important.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. Ladies and gentlemen, that brings this session to a conclusion. Ms Norberg, Mr Lockhart-Mummery and Mr Baxter, thank you all very much indeed for coming along and affording the Committee the benefit of your observations. We are deeply grateful to you.

Examination of Witnesses

Martin Curtois, Andrew Poole and David Bellamy gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Finally in response to this point, Mr Curtois.

Martin Curtois: On the point made earlier about plastic, post the David Attenborough programme and others, there was almost an overreaction against plastic, in the sense that people to some extent forgot its value in food preservation and were effectively looking to ban it. One problem we have to take into account, so far as plastics are concerned, is that, as was mentioned, the environmental consequences of using other products can sometimes be worse. That is obviously something that we want to steer clear of.

We also need to be careful about using the right plastics. Moving to a system in which products are manufactured primarily from high-density polyethylene, polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, or from a single-source product—with one plastic used for the bottle top as well as the bottle, for example—would make it a great deal easier to recycle. For example, we have a plant in Dagenham, in east London, where we effectively recycle many of the plastic milk bottles used in London, turning them into plastic pellets. Obviously, from our point of view, that single-source aspect is very important. That element needs to be taken into account.

I can understand why the focus has been on single-use plastic items first, because it has been the biggest element that the public have leapt on, in terms of recycling and in terms of wanting change, so I can see why priority has been given to that. If we can start to get that right and start to make changes that mean—for example, we have developed some kit that recognises the black plastic used in TRESemmé shampoo bottles, because of the pigment within it, which allows us to recycle that more efficiently. Significant changes can be made that could start to reduce the environmental impact quickly, which I think we all want.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Mr Bellamy clearly highlighted the legal requirements already in place on a lot of waste and recycling issues. There is the waste strategy, which has the reuse, recycle, longer-life element to it, which is very strong. Will you give us business’s point of view on how the Bill will move us towards what we call the circular economy? What opportunities will that provide for businesses in particular? Maybe you could give special thought to the Bill aligning all local authority recycling collection services across the country. What sort of opportunities might that, among other measures, offer businesses?

[The Chair]

Mr Bellamy, you appear to be in the firing line this morning.

[Rebecca Pow]

Sorry about that.

David Bellamy: Clearly, the powers in the Bill on extended producer responsibility, introducing a deposit return system and collection consistency—provided these systems are developed holistically together, and are joined up—will, combined, revolutionise our recycling system in the UK. As I say, we need to be mindful of unintended consequences. That is why they need to be developed holistically: so we have a coherent system.

Consistency is an essential piece of this jigsaw that we do not want overlooked in taking these reforms forward. If producers are asked, for example, to label their packaging as either recyclable or non-recyclable in a binary system, it is vital that we bring the public with us on that journey. The collection system needs to be in line with that change, and consistency will need to be in place, ready, in time for this new producer responsibility system. That is vital for the FDF and its members. We support that approach.

We would also like a very early signal from Government that they plan to include plastic film in that core set of materials, for consistency. We may even be able to accelerate that faster than the work of the UK plastics pact, which I think is looking at 2025. We may be able to do that sooner with the right co-operation in the chain. We would like to be ambitious in that regard. By that, we mean mono-material and multi-material films, and we include cartons in that aspiration as well. We would like the Government to be more ambitious on that. Let’s get this right from the start, so the local authorities have the right signals from Government about the consistency in the core set of materials, and develop the infrastructure accordingly from the outset. That is very important to us.

I mentioned earlier that it is important that all the money raised by producers in this new system goes towards improving the system. That is why we have separate issues with the plastics tax; it does not adhere to that principle, because we have a policy of non-hypothecation in the UK. We are not in support of a plastics tax; we are in support of reforming the producer responsibility system through a few modulated fees, which would then be used to improve the system.

One specific issue we have is the exponential cost our members face in buying the packaging recovery notes. You may be aware that these prices have gone up exponentially over the past year or so for plastics and aluminium. There is no evidence that this additional money—our members are paying hundreds of millions of extra pounds in these costs—is going towards improving the recycling system. We are happy to pay the extra money, but we want to see the improvements in the system. We would like a meeting with the Minister as soon as can be arranged to discuss a range of options that we have set out in a written submission to Government about things that can be done in the shorter term to address this PRN crisis, as we regard it, within our membership. We would like the Minister to reconsider our request to have that meeting as soon as possible.

[The Chair]

There is no requirement on everybody to answer every question, but gentlemen, do either of you wish to add anything to that?

Andrew Poole: From our point of view, one of the things that has become abundantly clear over the past few years is that our members as small businesses are saying that they want to do the right thing, and they want to demonstrate to their customers that they are doing the right thing. Talking about the holistic approach to waste and recycling, a lot of these issues are pragmatic. How do we make it easy for small firms to play their role? On local authorities, obviously, small businesses are not allowed to take their waste to municipal sites. They are not eligible for municipal waste collections in the way that many domestic householders are, despite many of them not using many more different types of waste than those households. Again, that is in the spirit of making it as easy as possible for small firms to comply and play their role. That would be one element of it.

Environment Bill (Second sitting)

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th March 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I will come back to you if I can, Dr Whitehead.

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

Q Thank you very much for attending—it is much appreciated. The Government are committed to funding all new burdens on local authorities through the Bill, so I want to get your view quickly on that. I would also be interested to know, in the light of that, what opportunities the Bill offers local authorities, perhaps particularly referencing the fact that lots of local authorities have committed to their own climate and environmental standards, and to tackling the climate crisis. How do you think it might help you to deliver those?

Mayor Glanville: It is a positive Bill in the sense that we all share its ambitions to respond to the climate emergency, uphold the principle of “polluter pays” when we are talking about waste and recycling, and embed high standards for air quality in domestic legislation. Local government shares all those ambitions.

To take waste and recycling, there are some ambitious principles set out in the Bill, especially for dealing with single-use plastics, encouraging deposit and return schemes and improving the way recycling is delivered. Underneath that, however, is the context that I set out of the challenge of local government finance. If we are to move to the type of systems that are set out in the Bill and introduce food recycling everywhere, it would require an uplift in resources.

I welcome what the Minister said about new burdens being met with resources, but often the detail about where those burdens lie comes later. I have some experience of taking part in discussions on measures such as the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. There is normally a dispute later between central and local government about what the new responsibilities are and where they are fully accommodated. You often get transition funding, which allows some adaptation and change, but the picture for long-term revenue for local government is still incredibly challenging. I know that we are all going into a spending review and some of those things might be addressed.

There are huge opportunities for local government, because when it comes to waste and recycling, we are obviously the processors of all our consumer waste. We all want to see less of that waste produced in the first place. As I said, I gave evidence last year. If we just focus on plastics and single-use plastics, that is obviously where a lot of residents and campaign organisations are focusing our minds, but with a true waste reduction strategy consumer packaging would not be produced in the first place and there would be more upstream regulation of the types of materials that go into our waste system.

Some 70% of councils have all seven common forms of plastic recycled in their waste streams, but other types of packaging that local authorities cannot process are still going into the waste streams. Consumers often think that they can recycle them and it can be frustrating for them when they find that they cannot. Those types of packaging obviously increase the amount of residual waste.

As the Bill develops and regulation flows from it, we are hoping not just that we will focus on the work that we all need to do to continue to improve the recycling end but that we will work at the producer end, which, obviously, individual local authorities and the LGA do not have the scope to focus on. That is where we can really add value. We can clarify some of the areas where local government needs to rise to the challenge, but also where industry and consumer behaviour need to change.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q So this is very much what is termed a framework Bill. I get the impression that the local authorities would welcome more public consultation and engagement to get this right for you and for the businesses that we heard from this morning.

Mayor Glanville: Absolutely. As I said, we all face a tremendous amount of challenge from residents, consumers and activists. We all want to play our part in responding to the climate emergency. We as the Local Government Association have been doing a lot of peer-to-peer work. My board has created a climate change emergency action plan, and we are keen to continue that work. Where we would value a greater voice is at the political and officer level, if there is a taskforce linked to the Bill, especially on climate change emergency and action. I am told that there are still some details there to work through in terms of leading that full sector-led response.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Q Can I ask two things? The Minister said that all new burdens would be met. What is the figure that you said initially that local government would need to do the work set out in the Bill?

Mayor Glanville: Just on the area of waste and recycling, to meet the objectives that are set out in the Bill, we have done some internal modelling that said there would be a £700 million gap in local government funding to meet those new responsibilities and burdens. That is in the context of a total amount of around £4.2 billion spent on processing household waste. Of that, £700 million is spent on recycling, so it is a doubling of the recycling and reducing element that is outlined in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. It will not be necessary for every member of the panel to answer every question, but to set the stage and for ease of reference, I will on this occasion simply work from, in my case, right to left—in your case, left to right. Ms Hammond, please.

Judicaelle Hammond: Thank you. Local nature recovery strategies are a real opportunity to make a difference to nature. There are a few things I would like to raise in terms of how they are going to work. First, at the moment, they are just about nature. We wonder whether there is a point to them being more holistic, so that we avoid silos and manage to have a look at how land is used in a way that maximises the various benefit types, including flood management and climate change, not just nature. This is a plea for them to not just be considered in isolation.

Another aspect is the issue of who should be leading on this. The Bill provides for a multiplicity of possible responsible bodies, including local authorities. As we heard from the gentleman from the Local Government Association, local authorities are already overstretched. We have an issue over whether they have the capacity to lead on that.

Another aspect is skills, and that was raised to the Committee. Would Natural England be better placed to do that?

It is important to have clear priorities. There need to be no gaps and no overlaps with regards to local nature recovery strategies, and that needs to be an important driver from national Government. Most of the land we refer to is in private ownership, so it will be important to consult with landowners and land managers on that.

Alan Law: The Bill has the potential to be the most significant environmental piece of legislation since the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. We have worked on conservation in this country for the last 70 years, driven by a focus on looking at the rare and putting in place protection measures for those rare site species: parks. What is exciting about the Bill and its links to the 25-year environment plan is the ambition to go from protecting small parts of the countryside—looking after the rare and the special—to trying to drive wholesale large nature recovery. That ambition around recovery is fundamental. The most important part of the Bill revolves around this nature recovery network and the links between the local and the national.

Will local nature recovery strategies alone deliver the ambition of the nature recovery network? No, they probably will not. That will not happen without further tightening up, either in the Bill or in supporting guidance or regulations. For reasons already articulated, we need to ensure that local nature recovery strategies operate within some form of national framework so that they are coherent. A national framework needs to be in place.

There need to be mechanisms for developing local nature recovery strategies so that they are quality assured and checked to ensure that they actually add up to a part of that coherent network. We need to see clear expressions of the set national targets writ into those local nature recovery strategies. At the moment we have an ambition at the front of the Bill around targets and we have a tool—a delivery mechanism—around local plans, but there is no hard-wired connection between the two. That is not difficult to achieve, so the issue is to tighten up around the links between targets, delivery processes, and some of the accountabilities.

Dr Mitchell: I have some opening words from my perspective on the Bill itself. British farmers are the stewards of our natural environment, and they have a good track record of protecting, maintaining and enhancing our environment. We welcome some aspects of the Bill, but some improvements could be made to ensure that environmental enhancement policies are carefully considered, and that food production and the environment go hand in hand. One of the key themes in the Bill and its various measures will be the need for them to work for farmers and food production as well as for the environment. Setting that context and going on to nature recovery networks and local nature recovery strategies, there is a lot of jargon around. We need greater clarity on these different phrases and how they all fit together.

How local nature recovery strategies may be used is unclear from our perspective. The suggestion is that they may be used to inform planning decisions. That makes us slightly nervous because is it some sort of designation that may be used to identify environmental priorities or opportunities that may restrict what farmers might want to do with their land in future, such as new building requirements? Farmers may want to update and modernise their buildings, but will that be restricted if they are in one of these areas? Or might they have an impact on land values?

Those are some of the questions we have in the back of our minds. Farmers get very nervous when you start drawing lines on maps, particularly when it comes to thinking about how environmental land management schemes may be ruled out in future. If these strategies are used to identify where farmers may be able to enter into one of these ELM schemes, does that mean they will be restricted in their engagement? We recommend that these local nature recovery strategies are confined to areas that are already identified for environmental value, such as sites of special scientific interest.

My final point is that we need to ensure that farmers are properly consulted at an early stage of the strategies, so that food production is considered alongside any environmental priorities.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Thank you for coming in. I want to go back to the local nature recovery network strategies and how they link to national strategies. Clause 98(5)(b) includes a very specific reference, that the local nature recovery strategies

“could contribute to the establishment of a network of areas across England for the recovery…of biodiversity”.

That is newly added since the previous Bill, in response to engagement with stakeholders. I want to know, first, whether you welcome that and what you think about it and, secondly, going on a bit, your view of the overall measures in the Bill in driving us towards this nature recovery environmental improvement.

Alan Law: We welcome the insertion of that clause. I have “could” underlined, rather than a more affirmative statement on the plan to undertake it. The ambition is clearly there to develop local strategies that add up to a coherent whole, but a little bit more in some of the supporting guidance or regulation to tighten up exactly how national standards will be met should be defined, and how those can be used in terms of local strategies. A timeline for production of the local strategies, again, would be great to see coming through while the Bill is in transition.

It will be really important to have some formal mechanism for scrutinising those plans and for advising on how fit for purpose they are. They will go back up to the Secretary of State, who provides that scrutiny. Forgive us for the presumption, but perhaps a body such as Natural England could provide that sort of role.

Dr Young: We were really pleased to see that addition in the Bill, because it makes the link. It is clear in the explanatory notes that it is talking about a nature recovery network. I will reiterate how important a nature recovery network is to tackle the massive declines that we have seen in nature over our lifetimes.

I agree with Alan’s point that the Bill uses the phrase “could contribute”. Certainly, the Bill’s ambition is clear, but there is always a danger of the ambition not being implemented in the way the Government foresee. When resources are tight, organisations will do what they must do rather than what they should do. It would be good to see a change in some of the wording in the Bill from “may” to “must” so it achieves the ambition we really hope it will achieve. The Bill uses the phrase “a network of areas”. It would be really good if the term “a nature recovery network” were included in the Bill rather than just in the explanatory notes, so that we are really clear what we want the Bill to do and what we want people to do.

It will be important to think about how this is implemented. Again, we are really pleased that the duty on local authorities in an earlier section of the Bill has been improved so that it is about local authorities not just having regard to the protection of biodiversity but enhancing it and having regard to local nature recovery strategies. However, in the past, “have regard” has not been a very strong term and has not led to sufficient action to halt the declines. A slight change of wording—perhaps to “act in accordance with local nature recovery strategies”—would really shift the focus from thinking to doing and taking action.

We would like local nature recovery strategies to be more clearly required to be expressed in the planning system. I think local authorities and public bodies having regard to local nature recovery strategies in their decision making about planning and spending would lead to stronger action. It would also help to a certain extent with the point that colleagues have made about consultation, because the planning system provides us with a ready-made administrative system for good consultation.

[Alex Sobel]

Q I just have one question. I think there is general consensus that we do not want a lower standard of environmental protection after the end of the end of the transition and the implementation of the Bill. Do you feel that the Bill replicates our current level of environmental protection—the level as it was when we were a member of the EU—or will it deliver a lower level of environmental protection?

Judicaelle Hammond: There is no reason, given the way the Bill is framed at the moment, that those standards will drop. The CLA is on record as a strong supporter of high standards remaining, not least because that gives us an opportunity to use high standards as a unique selling point both in the export market and internally. These are absolutely necessary, and we need to make sure that we maintain them.

The Committee may want to consider the kinds of issues with trade deals that are being raised at the moment with the Agriculture Bill. They apply in exactly the same way to the need to ensure that we do not get imports that are produced at much lower standards of environmental protection—and, indeed, climate change action—than would be allowed here. That is an element of the Bill on which there could be some really useful reflection.

Dr Mitchell: There are a number of safeguards in the Bill to ensure that our environmental standards are not lowered. The environmental governance aspects around target setting, the embedding of the environmental principles and the introduction of the OEP should ensure that our standards are not lowered.

One of the things that we need to consider alongside our standards is the fact that farmers are doing a lot to maintain our environment as well as creating habitats and enhancing it. We ought to recognise that as well as all the things that we do to improve and enhance our environment, there is a lot of work in terms of good day-to-day management and maintenance that farmers do to maintain our landscapes. At the moment that does not seem to be recognised in the Bill, and we would like that to be recognised a bit more.

Alan Law: There are two aspects here—differentiating ambition from certainty. On the one hand, the Bill provides the mechanism through target setting to go beyond existing standards. That is entirely welcome. As yet, we do not have the clarity around those targets, but it is entirely welcome. The other area is around potential regression. There is a protection in the Bill through clause 19 around primary legislation, but that does not apply to secondary legislation, so conservation regulations in that area could be subject to regression.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Q In the context of recovery strategies, one suggestion is that permissions for, say, residential building could require a target of a specified percentage of canopy cover on developments. As a number of people have said, it is significant that the section in the Bill on trees deals with cutting them down but is silent on planting them. Do you think that a target for a specified percentage of canopy cover on developments might be welcome among builders if it could be incorporated into plans in a clear way?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Ideally, yes. The difficulty is that every site will be very different, so if you specify a particular type of site, it might be quite difficult. In somewhere like London, where you desperately want an increased density, if you specify a particular type of canopy cover, it might be very difficult to deliver that, whereas in somewhere like Cornwall you might be able to deliver increased canopy cover with less concern.

It also depends on the type of canopy cover that you are looking at. If, as part of your biodiversity strategy, you know that you would like to encourage a particular type of species to visit that site, and maybe encourage a nature network to improve, you need to know what species of tree or plant you would like to use. That information is very scant, which is a real difficulty for developers. The majority of the people I represent are small and medium-sized builders, although we have some larger ones, and they win work on reputation, so a good site is vital. That is almost part of the sales pitch in the end, but unless you have that feed-in knowledge it is very difficult.

We work with an organisation called the Trees and Design Action Group, with which we have been partnered for a while. It produces a document called “Trees in Hard Landscapes”. That allows us a better idea about what we can do on sites. That expertise is not necessarily shared across the wider industry and specifically among local planning authorities.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Welcome. Thank you very much for coming. I know that many house builders have already done some really excellent work on biodiversity and net gain, voluntarily, off their own bat. What is your view about mandating it to get environmental improvement? Do you think the 10% specified in the Bill is the right level?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I honestly could not—I do not think anyone could—give an honest answer to that. When we were approached, we welcomed biodiversity net gain because we recognise it is vital. We recognised that 10% might feel like an arbitrary figure, but if it is deliverable, why should developers not go for it?

We are at the start of understanding what we can deliver and how. I can give three perfect examples of that. We have the great crested newt district licensing scheme, which has only really come to fruition in the past few years. We worked with Natural England on that. That eDNA tests newts in a local area, which means you do not have to do a ginormous survey. That is a very new technology and has only just been introduced. Two other ones are bee bricks and swift bricks. Those allow more bees and swifts to visit a site and be part of the network of biodiversity on that site. Those are new technologies. It seems amazing that we could not incorporate those before in developments, but we are really at the early stages.

From our point view—whenever I speak to our members—we will do as much as needs be, as long as there is an industry out there. If you look at ecologists, do we have enough ecologists in local authorities to offer advice and guidance? Do we have the right network of information, so that it is simple and easy to use—so that all developers, whether self-build or building 2,000 homes, can understand what to deliver on site to reduce the burden on professional ecologists, who might want to tailor a scheme to make it unique.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q The Bill is a framework Bill, so the 10% is signalling that this is the direction of travel. I just want to hear you say whether you are pleased about that. Is there a good direction of travel? All the nitty-gritty about exactly what you are asking will be set in the regulations and secondary legislation, and I hope you will put into that. I have met lots of house builders, and my impression is that they welcome this because it signals a paradigm shift in the way our development will go.

Rico Wojtulewicz: Broadly yes, but of course, again, it is site specific. Not every site can deliver. There will still be exemptions, and that is part of the Bill. Small sites have not been exempt, and we do not want them to be. This should be uniform across the whole industry, and we should all be trying to have an ambition. If that ambition is 10%, it is 10%, but Government and partners must do all they can to assist builders to deliver that, preferably on site rather than off site.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before we proceed, Ms Chambers, you indicated that we would not talk about a particular clause today. In so far as we have the time you are entirely within your rights to comment on anything that is relevant.

Ruth Chambers: Thank you.

Ali Plummer: If I could just add something, there are two parts to that question. One is about maintaining the robustness of enforcement mechanisms; what we are really looking for through the independence of the OEP is maintaining that in longevity. It is not necessarily about the intent of the body as it is being set up, but making sure that it maintains that independence and robustness going forward.

I guess a watchdog and enforcement body is only as good as the law it is able to uphold, which comes to the second part of your question. There are lots of welcome provisions within this Bill that should allow us to go much further and to build on existing environmental protections, but we would be looking for much more robust reassurance that that floor—those existing protections—will remain for us to build on. The second part is making sure that we are able to secure existing environmental legislation so that the OEP can continue to uphold that.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Welcome, everyone, and thank you for coming. I just wanted to get some clarification, because there seems to be a view that in leaving Europe we are going to have lower environmental standards, but the whole point of this Bill and, indeed, the OEP is that it will enable us to have higher standards. First, we will roll over all the environmental law; we will then create our own measures, and it is quite clear to me that the Bill enables us to do so. At EU level, the Commission can issue judgments on a breach of law, but they are not legally binding on member states. Do you not think that the court order remedy in this Bill would be stronger than that?

Ruth Chambers: I would go back to my previous answer about the lack of remedies that the tribunal will have at its disposal. It is severely constrained by the clause, if you look at the small print.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q But it can ultimately issue fines if it so desires, and before that, the OEP will try to remedy any problems through discussion, advice, analysis and scrutiny. It will only go to the upper tribunal if it really needs those extra teeth, and that opportunity is there.

Ruth Chambers: We very much support your vision for how the enforcement system would work, where it is front-loaded, if you like, and the OEP acts as a strategic intervener and litigator rather than a serial nit-picker. Nobody wants a busybody poring over every single decision of every public authority; that is nobody’s vision for how this body will work.

However, at the moment when we get to the end of the process, if a public authority is found in breach of environmental law after all of the good work that the OEP will necessarily have done, what we are left with is a statement of non-compliance. It is very hard to know exactly what bite that non-compliance will have, factoring in the upper tribunal not having a very effective or strong set of deterrents. It is helpful to have your reassurance, Minister, that the tribunal will be able to impose a financial penalty if it sees fit. It would be even better to have that reassurance written into the Bill so that there is absolute clarity on it, and stakeholders and public authorities know that there is bite to this process. That will provide the deterrent that we all want, so that things are sorted out early on.

Ali Plummer: It is also worth reiterating that the ability to levy fines is really welcome, but what we are actually looking for is to either prevent environmental damage in the first place or remedy it. Although a fine is a welcome part of that, we are really looking for remedial action, or the ability to ensure that the public authorities or others are taking the actions needed to remedy the environmental damage. While a fine can provide for some of that, it is not necessarily—

[Rebecca Pow]

Q But as I hope I made clear, that is the last step; remedy is the first step of the OEP. I hope it is very clear now that we have left the EU, and as a sovereign nation we will be responsible for setting our own environmental laws. It is then the role of Parliament to scrutinise those laws.

That leads me on to the whole issue of the targets, and what we will be scrutinising in order to improve the environment, which is the focus of the Bill. We have a triple lock within the system, and I just wanted your views on how you think that will work. We call it a triple lock because we have five-yearly improvement plans; we have annual reporting on how those five-yearly plans are going to get to the long-term targets; and we have the Office for Environmental Protection analysing all of that to drive environmental improvement. We think that is very strong, so I wondered what your views on that were.

Rebecca Newsom: The thing that I would want to say about that is that reporting and analysis are really important, but are not the same as interim targets actually having a legal force. It is a top priority from all of our perspectives to ensure that the short-term interim targets that lead towards end goals have that legal bite, so that there is absolutely no wiggle room in terms of the requirement on public authorities to ensure progress straightaway to meeting that long-term goal.

That is really important, particularly also because there is a track record for voluntary targets set by Government not being met or being abandoned—for example the 2020 target of not using peat in horticulture has not been met. Another example is that site of special scientific interest targets have also now been dropped, and they were voluntary. It is really important that we have that safeguard in the Bill, guaranteeing that the interim targets will have that force.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q To get our SSSIs, the 75% in good and favourable condition, is in our 25-year environment plan. The first phase of the Bill is the 25-year environment plan. It is called the environmental improvement plan. That is what I call the second side of the Bill. It is in the Bill. This actually provides all the levers and all the tools to do exactly what I think you all want us to do.

Rebecca Newsom: I think we are agreed to a large degree on the vision. The difference is that the environmental improvement plans are not legally binding. It is good to have a policy document, but it needs to have legal force. That is what is going to guarantee the drive forward of change in the short term.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q But targets will be the legal force; the setting of the targets is the legal duty.

Rebecca Newsom: Long-term targets definitely, but the interim targets will not have that force, as the Bill is currently set up.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q But wouldn’t you agree, on the environment, it is an ever-changing, flexible scene? That is why we have interim targets.

Rebecca Newsom: Yes, absolutely. It is really important to recognise that, in different environmental areas, change towards long-term goals, and progress towards meeting them, does not always happen in a linear way. We recognise that, but that is not an argument not to make the interim targets legally binding. It is an argument for the Government to apply some flexibility in the type of interim targets they might set.

For example, in some areas, such as bird species abundance, you could have an interim target that relates to the planting of wildflower meadows or to particular types of tree planting in certain areas, because there is that flexibility and non-linearity towards the long-term goal. In other areas—for example, pesticide pollution in rivers—it would be much easier to do an outcome-based interim target. In both cases, they need to be legally binding. The Government could apply that kind of flexibility to the type of target, without compromising on the legally binding nature of it.

[The Chair]

Thank you. The Minister invited you to set out your concerns, and you have done so very lucidly, if I may say so. We cannot engage too long, however, in a bilateral discussion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Final questions or statements from the Minister.

[Rebecca Pow]

Q Thank you all for your input. I know that all your organisations have engaged previously, and it is invaluable. We have had a lot of talk today about targets. I partly get the impression that you think we should have much stricter, tighter and more defined targets set in the Bill. We will set legally binding targets in the four areas specified as well as the PM_2.5. Do you feel that the intention is that we fully engage further with NGOs, the public and experts to set these targets as we go through, and potentially learn lessons from other areas where targets have been set but have not worked very well? What is your view on that, in order to help us get the right targets? Do you think that is the right way to do it?

Ali Plummer: I think they are really welcome and vital. This area of the Bill is quite sparse. The targets are difficult. We are trying to tackle some challenging and difficult issues. One of the things that we will be looking for is the welcome conversation that the Government will open with experts, practitioners on the ground and stakeholders to make sure that we are genuinely setting achievable and ambitious targets. We are setting a high level of ambition but we are also clear what we need to do in order to achieve those targets. Those two conversations need to go hand in hand. We cannot set high-level ambitious targets without having a genuine conversation about how we are going to get there. Otherwise, we will end up setting long-term targets and potentially arguing for the next 15 years about how to do it and then have to start the whole process over again.

We are looking to build some of that Government intent into the Bill. We then have certainty and clarity that not just this Government but successive Governments will continue that intent and make sure that the Bill is going in that direction—in particular, on the advisory function, making sure the Government have access to good-quality expert advice. It follows more of the model we see in the Climate Change Act 2008, where there is a “comply or explain” mechanism built in. The Government can take this expert advice, which is public, transparent and clear, and comply with it, or give a good, clear explanation why not. Those are the sorts of things we are looking for. As Ruth reiterated earlier, I think we are as one on this. We totally recognise the Government intent. We are looking for a Bill that will make sure that successive Governments hold that intent. That open dialogue, where we can all have a genuine conversation about what we need to put in place to tackle these issues, is welcome.

Rebecca Newsom: I basically fully agree with what Ali has just said. I am also grateful for the intent; it is about translating it into a robust legal framework. I would add that, alongside getting the advice functions right, it is also about the public consultation through the target-setting process. As you said, continuing this conversation through formal consultation processes is key for the ongoing target-setting framework.

Ruth Chambers: Again, I endorse what my colleagues have said. I want to say two final things. First, we are asking for some of the very good intentions and objectives that we have talked about today to be more explicit, rather than implicit, so that whether we are a business, a member of the public or a future Minister, we have that clarity going forward.

Minister, you helpfully referred to the target development process, which will not form part of this Bill but will nevertheless be an important match to it. It will happen over the next few months, and if the targets in the first tranche are to be set by 2022, although that sounds a long way away, we all know from the way Governments work that it is actually not that far. The sooner that process can start in earnest and the sooner there can be clarity about how stakeholders can be involved, how we can feed in and when the consultation is going to be, the better, so we can make sure that we play a full and meaningful part in that.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. I think that brings the proceedings fairly neatly to a conclusion. As I have said to everybody else and will say to you, earlier this morning the Committee passed a resolution agreeing to accept written submissions. If there is anything that you feel you missed out or wish you had said, please put it in writing and let the Committee have it, and it will be taken into account.

Ms Chambers, Ms Newsom and Ms Plummer, thank you very much indeed, both for your patience and for the information you have given to the Committee. We are all grateful to you, and look forward to a successful resolution.

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

Flood Prevention: Rainwater Attenuation and Reservoirs

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair for these late-night debates.

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing this important debate. As he pointed out, it is very timely, given the unprecedented rainfall we have had and the frequent consequent flooding incidents. It is understandable that attention is now being given to how the impacts might be lessened, including the role that reservoirs might play in our water system. He mentioned that at the end, and I will refer to reservoirs quite significantly in my response.

First, I want to touch on the earlier points raised, which are specifically to do with housing. A great many of the issues raised are linked to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, because planning obviously comes under that Department. However, the hon. Gentleman made some really interesting points, particularly about sustainable urban drainage. When I was a Back Bencher—I would say a lowly Back Bencher, Mr Speaker—it was actually one of my hot topics, and something I particularly spoke about and was encouraging.

Sustainable drainage schemes are now being given a great deal more attention, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. In the hierarchy of the drainage system, developers are required to explore the inclusion of sustainable drainage schemes in all new developments, so we are definitely moving in that direction. The Environment Agency is working on schemes up and down the country, including some with large-scale SuDS. I visited one in Manchester recently; a huge area had been created that could flood, if necessary, to protect the nearby flats in the event of flooding. It has also turned into a lovely wildlife area and a great place to walk around. So there are lots of spin-offs and benefits.

I also want to mention rainwater harvesting. Many developments are now including rainwater harvesting—what we call grey water—and I believe we will see a great deal more of that going forward. Again, it is very much an MHCLG agenda in the planning guidance.

The question of building on floodplains was also raised. The Environment Agency comments on all applications for development on floodplains. It gives advice, but it is the local planning authorities that make the decisions about whether the housing should go forward, so it is very much a local decision and up to the local authority to have its own plans about what it thinks is correct or not. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington raised some good points on that agenda.

[Matt Western]

I totally accept that point, and of course it is an MHCLG responsibility, but if the planning authorities had greater powers—I fear that the power balance has shifted far too far towards the developer—we could be building at far greater densities. That would mean that there was not a requirement to build on floodplains.

[Rebecca Pow]

But it still stands that it is a local planning decision to allow building on floodplains to go ahead, and that is very much an MHCLG agenda.

I want to talk about the reservoir issue that the hon. Gentleman raised. Many people are suggesting that that provides a simple answer to some of our flooding issues and also our water supply issue, but of course they are very complex issues involving a range of stakeholders and they have to be considered in relation to how reservoirs might be managed and operated throughout the year. On that, I must give assurances that flood and coastal erosion risk management is a big Government priority now, with £2.6 billion already devoted to this area in the last spending round up to 2021 and the recent announcement, to be confirmed in this week’s Budget, of funding for flood defences of £5.2 billion. That will be helping a further 2,000 new flood and coastal defence schemes and better protect 336,000 properties across the country.

There are of course reservoirs at the moment that are used for flood risk management. The Environment Agency operates more than 200 reservoirs around the country, especially for flood attenuation. That is their purpose in life and the amount of water in them during non-flood conditions is kept deliberately low in order to maximise the storage available during high rainfall and storm events. Many of those reservoirs have been operated this winter, and, in combination with other flood defence measures in the catchment, have provided protection to a great many people.

[Jim Shannon]

Farmers and landowners are not averse to the idea of setting some of their land aside for attenuation ponds. Might the Minister and her Department incentivise that with some sort of grant for land set aside for that purpose? It is not just the farmer who gains, but the other people in the area, particularly householders.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in the Agriculture Bill that has just gone through its Committee stage, farmers will be paid for delivering public goods. Flood resilience is included, so consideration will be given to a whole range of projects, which could include farmers holding water on their land to help with flood alleviation.

I return to the issue of reservoirs; water company reservoirs in particular were mentioned. Our water company reservoirs have a very different purpose in respect of drought attenuation—we must not forget that only months ago we were facing potential drought scenarios. Over summer 2018, the country dealt with very dry and warm weather, with water companies experiencing some of the highest demand for water for their customers. We have to pay as much attention to the risks associated with too little water as we do to those associated with too much.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Eddie Hughes.)

[Rebecca Pow]

Water supply reservoirs play a significant role in ensuring that our communities, businesses and public services have ready access to water whenever they want and need it. Water companies must operate their reservoirs to meet that need, including making judgments on how much water each reservoir needs to hold at any time.

As we all know, our weather is not predictable: despite what we have experienced over the past month, the rain to refill reservoirs is never guaranteed. That does not mean that potential opportunities to use all our assets—including reservoirs, as I think the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington was suggesting—for multiple benefits should not be explored. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work that has been done so far in this area. I am personally keen to explore it further.

The Environment Agency is working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ofwat, United Utilities and Yorkshire Water on a project to identify reservoirs that might offer flood management benefits, including exploration into the impact on water supply, safety, legal and environmental requirements. This has included Yorkshire Water’s trial of managing the level of the Hebden group of reservoirs above Hebden Bridge at 90%, which did give positive results during the winter of 2017-18. However, the dry summer of 2018 followed and the levels in the reservoir did not recover until the following April in 2019.

The trial builds on work elsewhere, including in Keswick, where Thirlmere reservoir has supported flood mitigation since September 2008 following the development of a partnership agreement between United Utilities, the Environment Agency and Keswick Flood Action Group, which has been very involved. The experience of drought and flood coming so close together underlines that further trials are needed to help to understand the impact of long-term changes to the operation of reservoirs. Any decisions made by water companies to manage water levels to account for flood risk must be based on supporting evidence—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree with me on that—as well as on the effective mitigation of all the risks, including the risks to water supply and the environment. Yorkshire Water has undertaken to continue its trials.

It is not just the risk of drought that might be considered. If we are to use reservoirs for flood management purposes, it is essential that the water levels are managed so as not to add to the flood risk. Drawing down a reservoir ahead of wet weather may make a contribution to the protection of properties downstream, but it is crucial that when that water is released it is done so in a timely and controlled way. We all recognise that timing is everything. To release water when the river levels are already high and the ground is saturated, as it is right now, could have the opposite effect and increase flood risk further down the catchment.

It is true that water companies are not restricted by either current legislation or Ofwat from managing their water resources to provide a range of benefits, including flood risk management. However, as I have already explained, any decision must carefully take into account how a water company can continue to meet its water supply duties as set out in the Water Industry Act 1991. As the regulator, the Environment Agency will have to consider the ability of water companies to continue to meet that duty when making decisions. It is very important to take such considerations into account. They include the funding implications, such as the possible impacts to water companies’ bills in replacing water sources or reducing the security of customers’ water supplies.

The Environment Agency will continue to support and work with the water companies and local partners to further explore this issue, recognising that any opportunities are likely to be very site-specific. I very much look forward to hearing what options might be possible, because we clearly have to think of a wider range of options for all these measures, whether it is about water supply, flood mitigation or trying to achieve both.

Be in no doubt that the Government fully recognise the concern and anxiety of communities affected by flooding, as well as those who might be affected later by drought. We understand why, on the face of it, reservoirs may appear to be an obvious solution for some communities. However, the challenges of using water supply reservoirs to manage flood risk are specific and unique and we should not assume that there are simple solutions to this complex area.

We have changing weather patterns and more frequent incidents, whether they are flooding or drought, together with our growing population and its ever-increasing demand for water—and I absolutely take on board the hon. Member’s comments about the use of water. A consultation has been done recently on water consumption and how much we are all using, with a view to each of us individually cutting down our water usage.

[Matt Western]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I hope that the hon. Member has a brick in his cistern, so that he is using as little water as possible. I have.

[Matt Western]

I do not exactly have a brick in the toilet, I am afraid, but as it happens, I have grey water tanks, which we use. I appreciate the points that the Minister is making. I was staggered when I discovered that consumption figure: 22% of fresh, clean, pure water gets wasted by flushing it down the toilet. It is just ridiculous. Think about the nations around the world that do not have fresh water and here we are wasting 22% of it. Worse than that, 20% of the water supply is lost through leakage. That is staggering, is it not? I appreciate what she was saying earlier and I would very much welcome a meeting with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) to discuss these proposals.

[Rebecca Pow]

We are in agreement on a lot of these things. Down the track, we need to look at the amount of water consumed and indeed, the leakage, which many water companies now have to look at in their water plans. A great deal of work and focus is rightly going on in these areas. The hon. Member mentioned the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has raised issues about the utilisation of reservoirs for flood mitigation and the drought impacts. I hope I have been clear that trials are going on in this area and hopefully some good further opportunities will come out of that. I am very happy to meet the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington to have a conversation about rainwater harvesting, SuDS and all these issues, because they are clearly important to us all—and in agreeing to meet him, I am going to tick a big box with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard).

This has been a very useful debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington for raising these issues, helping to inform the House on this much wider subject. I think it has added a great deal by making us all realise that there is a lot involved in this issue, whether it is flooding, drought or water consumption. It behoves us all to deal with the issue effectively and sensibly. Thank you for being in the Chair tonight, Mr Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Flooding

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Unfortunately, as we all know, flooding does not discriminate, as shown by the many impassioned speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Flooding affects all constituencies, and I thank every single Member who has contributed today.

Before I continue, I will mention the marvellous maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), the granddaughter of a veteran steelworker. She brought to life his world, her world and the world of Scunthorpe. It was vivid and fascinating to hear about the steel industry, toecaps and all. I know she will make a great contribution to this House, and she is very welcome.

At the outset, I add my condolences to those of the whole House to the families and friends of those who sadly lost their life as a result of these storms. I also give my heartfelt thoughts to those who have been flooded.

I have seen the impact at first hand in Bewdley, Worcester and Calder Valley—some of my family live near Bewdley—and I experienced the terrible flooding in Somerset in 2013-14. Some of the impact of that flooding, on both individuals and businesses, is still imprinted on my mind.

Like many others, I pay tribute to all the responders who are managing this ongoing incident and supporting flooded communities, and to the emergency services, the Environment Agency, the local authorities, the Army, Government officials and multiple Departments across Government for their professionalism and relentlessness. Some of them have been working, and are still working, 24 hours a day. Thanks to them all, and thanks to all the communities and charities working on the ground. We have heard so much about their fantastic work.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will not take any interventions, because I want to refer to a lot of Members who have spoken.

I reiterate that this has been an unprecedented time. February 2020 was the wettest February on record in England and, indeed, right across the UK. Some places received over four times the average monthly rainfall, and the Met Office had to create a new scale on its map to show areas receiving over 200% of their average rainfall. Members who saw the map will have seen that quite clearly. It is absolutely staggering.

Although it is devastating for anybody to be flooded, we must remember that one in six properties in England are susceptible to flood risk. The storms flooded over 3,400 properties in February. Yes, that is terrible for the people who are flooded, but it is equivalent to less than 0.1% of all properties at risk in England. I point out to the shadow Minister that that compares with the 17,000 properties flooded in 2015, so the situation is a great deal better.

Thousands of properties have been protected by the permanent and temporary flood defences about which we have heard so much today. More than 128,000 properties have been protected this winter, despite the record river level rises. Many colleagues have shared their experiences to show how flood defences have helped and have worked. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who gave good examples of that.

In addition, people are becoming more aware of their risk of flooding. Digital services, such as the online flood warnings and alerts provided by the Environment Agency, which I hope the shadow Secretary of State has had a look at, because they are rather good—[Interruption.] He gets them himself, which is excellent. They have had 3.1 million hits so far, and this is very important, because individually we need to take responsibility for resilience. On that note of awareness of risk, I wish to respond to comments of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the coal tips. Just to clarify, let me say that the Secretary of State for Wales has met local partners, including the Welsh Government and the UK Coal Authority, and it is the UK Coal Authority that has been collecting and analysing data on the situation. Based on that data, which has been gathered quickly, it will establish a schedule of inspections. That will start with dealing with those areas with the highest risk.

[Chris Bryant]

Just say, “In Rhondda.”

[Rebecca Pow]

I want to point out that this is still a live flooding incident and the outlook is unsettled, although I am pleased to say that in some areas the journey to recovery is beginning.

As the Secretary of State pointed out, the Government have acted swiftly to support those affected. We have supported the authorities by activating the Bellwin scheme. I take the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) about the need for better training and perhaps better information to be disseminated about that scheme. The flood recovery network was activity on 18 February, and that triggered a series of grant payments for affected homes and businesses. The framework was devised from lessons learned from the 2016 floods, and this is only the second time that it has been triggered.

The shadow team called for another review, but yesterday we held a meeting where MPs could talk to the Environment Agency and feed in all their information, data and findings, yet only one Labour Member turned up—all the rest there were Conservative Members, feeding in and reviewing constantly, as is happening all the time with the flood recovery framework. That is what it is there for; people are constantly feeding in from local authorities, from places on the ground, and from flood forums, as are MPs and all the rest.

I wish to touch quickly on insurance, because many Members have raised that issue. In 2016, the joint Government and industry initiative launched Flood Re to improve the availability and affordability of flood insurance for at-risk properties. Before that, only 9% of those households could get hold of flood insurance, whereas now 100% can get quotes from two or more insurers. However, we are looking further at insurance cover through an independent review; the Government are already undertaking a review, so there is no need to have another review into this. We announced that on 27 December and once the information has been gathered in, details will be announced in due course. I hope that that will assuage the concerns of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson), who all called for this. Obviously I wish to reiterate that the Government are absolutely committed to their £2.6 billion of spending on flood defences and £1 billion on maintenance, and we have a commitment to a further £4 billion.

I wish quickly to deal with individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) mentioned that the schemes are taking too long. I will ask Sir James Bevan, from the Environment Agency, to give an update on the progress and what is happening there. I will of course look for the letter mentioned by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), and I apologise, because we are normally pretty fast at responding to people.

On the call for help for Toronto Close in Worcester, the EA will continue to work with the community.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) both mentioned the flood centre, which I am happy to meet to discuss.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) was as ever an enormous champion for his area. The Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for farming are looking at the three-crop rule.

On the funding formula, I must reiterate to all colleagues that money is handed out with regard to the number of properties at risk and the number of people at risk. The value of properties has nothing to do with it, and deprived areas have a special focus.

We will look at what is happening on flood plains, because both the Secretary of State and I agree that planning needs to be looked at. The Government are absolutely committed on tackling flooding and will have a new strategy going forward. We will be holding a summit in Yorkshire and will let the House know the date of it in due course.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Environment Bill

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to see you back in the Chair for the winding up of this most important of debates, Mr Speaker.

Having worked on the environmental agenda in one form or another for pretty much my whole life, it is a huge honour to be the Environment Minister in a Government who are putting the environment at the top of our agenda. Not only are we doing that, but we are demonstrating that we mean action on the environment with this Environment Bill, which will be a game changer.

As I am sure the shadow Minister will agree, the environment should not be about one party or one Government. Party politics should be put aside, which is why I welcome the Opposition’s support in not opposing the Bill tonight, albeit couched in much criticism that I believe is largely unfounded. I very much look forward to thrashing that out in Committee. This is a huge moment for us all as a nation; this landmark Bill will transform our approach to protecting and enhancing our precious environment, and set us on a much-needed sustainable trajectory for the future.

At the outset, I want to applaud all my hon. Friends who have chosen to make their maiden speeches during this crucial debate. They have chosen well, for they realise that this is such an important moment in our history. I applaud them for waiting this long and choosing to make their maiden speeches tonight. And haven’t they been wonderful? They have all been rivalling one another for the best constituency, but we have heard some great things about those constituencies. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) mentioned the singing statue and the statue of Disraeli; I welcome our former journalist, with whom I have a great deal in common, as he is going to add a lot to this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) mentioned her dog, geothermal energy and her wonderful fisherman husband, of whom she is so proud. I was almost moved to tears, because I now feel proud of him too. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), the doctor in the House, will bring so much experience through his knowledge of mental health, and I hope he will link that to the wellbeing of the environment and countryside, and the things we can gain from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) follows in the footsteps of Dame Caroline Spelman, who did so much to champion biodiversity in this House. I loved his “dare to believe” statement and I am so proud. I am hoping that he is daring to believe in this Bill, and I thank him for choosing to speak today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Griffiths) mentioned beer, JCB, fluorinating and, let us not forget, Uttoxeter. She is going to be a great voice here. Similarly, let me welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), the first ever Conservative Member for that constituency and the first ever Marco here. I loved his infectious optimism for his area, which I know extends to this Bill—this is excellent. How brilliant it was to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) about her key making ancestors and to hear her standing up for green space, volunteers and Wolverhampton Wanderers. What a wonderful wealth of talent has come into our Chamber!

Let me get back to the Bill, as that is what I am supposed to be talking about. I have to pay tribute to a few others who are no longer in this House but who did so much work on this Bill: Richard Benyon; Mary Creagh, a great woman who served on the Environmental Audit Committee with me; Sarah Newton; Sir Oliver Letwin; Sue Hayman; and Sandy Martin. They have all been key in the progress of this Bill so far, as have many others on these Benches.

Obviously, I hardly need to reiterate the urgent case for action on the environment, as it is clearer than ever. We are witnessing a shocking decline in nature and biodiversity. Our countryside is increasingly denuded of its wildlife; we have lost almost half of our breeding curlews and so many wonderful species. We are facing climate change, with flooding here and bush fires in Australia. Those things all demonstrate that we need to take action and get on with it now, and that is what we intend with this Bill. I am sure the whole House agrees with me that we need more bees, butterflies and beautiful dawn choruses, and I believe this Bill will bring that about.

I should thank some of my colleagues here, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who was so optimistic about the Bill and praiseworthy in agreeing with it. This is why this Environment Bill is critical: it will drive environmental action across the whole of Government. This is not just about DEFRA; the environmental principles must be taken into account across Government policy making, through the policy principles statements. Policy will have to be pragmatic, balanced and take account of our net zero commitments. The duty on the Government to meet our new legally binding targets will ensure that all Departments and Ministers share responsibility and accountability for driving long-term environmental improvements. The Office for Environmental Protection will be able to enforce all environmental law and it will oversee all public bodies; unlike any EU framework, that will ensure accountability at the right level. The legislation takes a much-needed holistic approach to our environment—that is one of the benefits of leaving the EU. It is so much more holistic than what was happening before.

I have a few minutes to address some of the key points, of which there were many. There were some great and insightful contributions. Many Members raised the issue of non-regression. We have absolutely no plans to reduce our existing level of environmental protection. The existing regulations were implemented during the UK’s membership of the EU and are still in force in UK law now. They are enforceable in UK courts and will remain enforceable in UK courts. That has not changed. Any targets introduced through the Bill will not diminish our environmental protections but add to them.

Indeed, the UK is already at the forefront of environmental protection and a leader in setting ambitious targets to prevent damage to our natural world. We were so influential in this policy area in the EU. [Interruption.] I have a couple of examples for the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), because he is mithering away at me. Last year, the UK became the first major economy anywhere in the world to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The UK’s landfill tax is one of the highest in Europe and is effectively reducing the disposal of waste and increasing recycling. Those are just a couple of examples but there are many more.

Non-regression was mentioned by many Members, including the hon. Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I hope that some of the things I have just said will have reassured them.

All that leads me to the not unrelated subject of targets. I am grateful to Members from a whole range of constituencies, some of which I have already mentioned, but particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for raising issues and concerns in relation to targets. Far from there being no teeth, through the Bill we will put in place a comprehensive system that will set long-term, 15-year targets. There will be interim targets every five years—that is in clause 10—to support the achievement of the long-term targets. On top of that, we will have a triple lock in law to drive the short- term progress. Let me run through those three things—

[Anna McMorrin]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to take any interventions because I want to get through some of the details.

The Government must have a plan on what they intend to do to improve the environment—that is under clause 7. The Government must report on the targets every year—that is in clause 8. The Office for Environmental Protection will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year can recommend how we can make better progress—that is in clause 25. It will all become clear in Committee. It is a step-by-step way of holding us to account and not reducing any of our standards.

The really important thing to mention is the Office for Environmental Protection, which was much mentioned by many in the debate, including the shadow Secretary of State. It was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made an excellent speech, and the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) vociferously described the OEP and summed it up well, because he absolutely gets it. The very existence of the OEP is a clear sign of our willingness to be held to account for our actions. The OEP will have jurisdiction over all parts of Government and will hold regulators to account. Ministers will be under a legal duty to respect its independence—that is in schedule 1.

[David Linden]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not going to give way.

That independence is vital for the OEP to be able to hold the Government to account effectively. It will have multi-annual financial settlements, which were welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and they will run over five years to provide financial stability. That is welcome; even if the Government changes, that will stay in place. Crucially, the OEP’s environmental remit will include climate change to ensure that we play our part in reducing global emissions. In that respect, I truly believe that we will be a world leader.

I will move on now to air quality, because, again, this was much mentioned. Clause 2 includes a requirement to set a new air quality target to reduce concentrations of fine particulate matter—the most damaging pollutant to human health. As a mother of a son who had asthma for many years while he was growing up, this issue is close to my heart. I have heard loud and clear all the comments that have been made today. [Interruption.] I am being disrupted by notes. I thought that the note said that someone was in the bar. [Interruption.] I am being told that Bim is here, but I am not allowed to mention him. [Interruption.] Okay, so he is not in the bar; he is behind the Bar.

Let me turn now to the very serious matter of air quality, which was mentioned by so many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who is very strong on the subject, and also my hon. Friends the Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). This Government are committed to setting an ambitious target, which has the support of all sectors and citizens to drive real change and realise significant health benefits for people everywhere. To do this, we need to ensure that we follow a robust evidence-based process where everyone’s voice is heard and where everyone can play a role. That is why we need time to work together to get this target right, which is why it is not in the Bill. Many Members have called for experts to advise on these targets, and they will. That is exactly how it will work and how the target will be set up.

I will move to nature now, Mr Speaker, which I know is something that greatly interests you. Following consultation, we believe that the 10% net gain strikes the right balance between ambition, certainty and deliverability. If developers and local authorities are able to pursue higher gains—I am confident that many will—Government do not intend to restrict them. Biodiversity net gain will work with the local nature recovery strategies in the Bill to drive environmental improvements, and those strategies will be very much influenced from the ground up by all of those people with knowledge that we so want to get involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) mentioned knowledge and involving people who have that knowledge and expertise working on the ground, and that is one way that we will do it.

I want to touch on trees, because that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the shadow Minister himself. The Government remain absolutely committed to reaching 12% woodland cover in England by 2060 and have reaffirmed that in the 25-year environment plan. The House should remember that the environmental improvement plan of this Bill is the first plan of the 25 year-environment plan. That is what it is; it enacts it. The manifesto committed to planting 11 million rural trees and an additional 1 million urban trees by 2022. We will shortly consult on that.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am really not going to give way, because I have not given way to anybody else. I know that my hon. Friend is a huge tree fan.

We will shortly consult on a new English tree strategy, in which we will set out further plans to accelerate woodland creation to reach our long-term goals, including our net-zero emissions by 2050, and to complement our Environment Bill. I was pleased that Members welcomed the urban measures in the Bill, too.

Members will not be surprised that I simply cannot get through all the comments that have been made. Climate change, by the way, has definitely been included in the Bill. I just want to say that there have been so many tremendous and insightful contributions tonight from right across the House. I am really sorry that I have not been able to answer all of the queries and questions raised today, but we do have answers to all of them. My door is constantly open to anyone who wants to raise these things again or share their views with me and with the rest of our team. Obviously, the Secretary of State is the key here. I really think that, together, we can make this a better world not just for us and for our children, but for our children’s children and all the creatures on this earth. I commend this Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Environment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Environment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 5 May 2020.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Environment Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(1) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Environment Bill (Ways and Means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Environment Bill, it is expedient to authorise:

(1) the imposition of requirements to pay sums in respect of the costs of disposing of products and materials; and

(2) the imposition under or by virtue of the Act of fees and charges in connection with—

(a) the exercise of functions, and

(b) biodiversity credits.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary Priti Patel relating to the Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Maria Caulfield.)

Question agreed to.

Landfill Sites: Odour

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher; I do not think I have had the pleasure of doing so before. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) on bringing this debate to our attention. I know that his predecessor worked hard locally with the Environment Agency and other partners to try to identify a solution for the problems that he raises, and I commend him for standing up vociferously for his constituency. It is absolutely the right thing to do.

I appreciate concerns about material entering landfill, and I have stressed in many other recent debates on landfill and incineration—it seems to be flavour of the month—that the Government’s attention remains very firmly on reduce, reuse and recycle so that we can level up the country and move towards a much more circular economy with greater resource efficiency. My hon. Friend referred to that and acknowledged that we are moving in that direction. The measures set out in our ambitious resources and waste strategy and in our landmark Environment Bill, which will receive its Second Reading tomorrow in the Chamber, will minimise the amount of waste that reaches the lower levels of the waste hierarchy. That of course includes landfill, because that is right at the end of the chain.

[James Gray]

Does the Minister agree that Crapper & Sons Landfill is a classic example of what she is talking about? Of the 280,000 tonnes that arrives on its site every year, only 95,000 tonnes goes into landfill. In other words, 185,000 tonnes is recycled onsite.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point; I thought he was going to make a negative intervention, but it was positive. The example he raises is the direction we are going in, and I commend the company on that figure. By reducing the quantity of waste through using it in other ways—recycling and all those things—we will end up with less going into landfill, and that is the intention.

The Environment Bill contains a whole range of measures, including a deposit return scheme and an extended producer responsibility scheme, and it will stipulate the much more consistent collection of waste, including food waste, by all our local authorities from the doorstep and from businesses. All those things will reduce waste.

[Mrs Miller]

Is the Minister not disappointed, as I am, that biodigesters, which should be part of the future of how we dispose of waste, are also part of the odour problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) has raised today? She has to act on that.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention, but I want to go on about landfill in particular, because we are desperately trying to reduce the amount going to landfill. The Environment Bill wants us to drive towards 65% municipal waste recycling by 2033, with no more than 10% going to landfill. I commend the people of the west midlands for assisting with that aim, because they only send 7.3% of their municipal waste to landfill. Aside from the issue being raised today, the west midlands is doing a good job.

Planning and deciding where landfill sites and waste facilities should go is very much a local decision. It is not a Government decision, but something to be talked about locally. If it is not considered a risk to the environment or to public health, it is very much for the local authorities to decide whether a site will be a statutory nuisance. It is for them to make these decisions when allocating sites.

I will move on to Walley’s Quarry landfill. Obviously, I sympathise with residents who have raised complaints about the odour. No landfill will ever be completely odour-free, but the level and type of odour arising from such operations should not cause offence. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that Walley’s Quarry landfill is operated under an environmental permit. Since 2005, it has been actively managed for municipal and industrial non-hazardous waste. Environmental permits of that type are regulated by the Environment Agency in England; to protect the environment and people, it sets the conditions for the permitted activities.

In response to odour complaints from my hon. Friend’s constituents, from July 2017 to February 2018 and again from January to June 2019, the Environment Agency undertook specialist continuous air quality monitoring, including for hydrogen sulphide: the typical rotten egg smell that we all remember from our chemistry lessons—I am sure you do, Sir Christopher. The monitoring undertaken in 2019 found emissions to be within all relevant health and air quality limits; hydrogen sulphide exceeded an odour limit above which complaints would be expected for just 1% of the monitoring period. Contrary to my hon. Friend’s information, the results of that monitoring are publicly available and were shared with Public Health England, which confirmed that the levels recorded were low and that it would not expect any long-term health consequences.

[Aaron Bell]

There was an initial monitoring period where odour limits were breached for 6% of the time. Residents feel that that measure is not an accurate reflection of what they are experiencing, and they feel that the public health measure is not the one we should be testing against. We should be testing the experience they are having and the effect that is having on their quality of life.

[Rebecca Pow]

I get my hon. Friend’s point, but the permit conditions require an Environment Agency officer to make a judgment about whether the odour is offensive. Enforcement action can be taken only when the odour is deemed to be offensive and the operator is not using all appropriate measures to control the odour.

The Environment Agency can make unannounced visits to the site to check what is going on. To date, it has not taken any enforcement action against the operator, as it considers the operator to be compliant with the permit conditions. For the odour to be deemed non-compliant, an Environment Agency officer would need to detect the odour and certify that the site operator had not taken steps to control it. As I said, it is up to the local environmental health practitioner to take action if it is deemed that the odour is a nuisance. If it is not a health issue or an environment issue under the Environment Agency criterion, it goes to the environment health practitioner—somebody based locally at the local council. That is how the issue is handled.

I understand that Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council has undertaken its own investigations in response to its duty to investigate complaints that could constitute a statutory nuisance. It has stepped in, and the council’s environmental health investigations have concluded that while odours have been detected and are likely to cause annoyance, they do not meet the threshold for statutory nuisance abatement action to be taken. However, in response to local concerns—I am sure my hon. Friend has also raised these—the council has decided to establish a scrutiny inquiry to provide a structured and publicly accessible forum to hear residents’ concerns about how the site is managed and the Environment Agency’s monitoring. I welcome that approach and I would be interested to be kept informed as to what is found as a result of that scrutiny.

While the Environment Agency has found Walley’s Quarry landfill to be compliant with its permit conditions based on inspections and air quality monitoring, we must recognise that local residents are raising genuine concerns. The operator of Walley’s Quarry landfill has taken some action already, which I am sure my hon. Friend knows about. In 2019, it installed an additional 19 gas extraction wells to help extract the gas produced from the treatment, which has helped to reduce the odours. I am told that the wells have made a difference. Given my hon. Friend’s constituents’ concerns, the Environment Agency also attends a quarterly local liaison forum with representatives from Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council and Staffordshire County Council, parish councils, the operator of the site and residents. I am sure my hon. Friend is welcome to go to those as well. They discuss all manner of things, including dust, seagulls, noise and traffic, so it sounds very proactive.

The Environment Agency also runs a citizens information page, which is constantly updated. The details of its air quality monitoring are on there and regularly updated for all to see. It also provides a monthly community newsletter. I think there is a great deal going on, although that is not to say that people do not have concerns. All waste management facilities are required to have a written management system designed to minimise the risk of pollution and reduce the impact on local communities and the environment. Those management systems cover all the topics that I have just mentioned—odour, flies, noise and dust management—so it should be pretty inclusive.

Other commitments in our resources and waste strategy, which I mentioned, include work to strengthen the requirement for those operating permitted waste sites to be technically competent, and far-reaching reforms to the ways in which waste is transported and tracked in the UK. That will improve our understanding of how waste is managed and provide better data on the composition and the destination of waste that could be repurposed or recycled, in order to be sure about what is going to landfill. Measures to enable those reforms and others are included in the aforementioned Environment Bill, which is progressing through the House. I urge my hon. Friend to take part in that tomorrow.

I fully sympathise with my hon. Friend’s constituents who have felt the need to raise their concerns about the odour. I am pleased that the Environment Agency and local partners are taking local action, and I hope that the introduction of additional gas wells demonstrates that the operator is trying to be proactive. I trust that Newcastle-Under-Lyme Borough Council’s upcoming scrutiny inquiry will prove useful. I would be pleased to be kept updated about that, if it throws up any interesting areas that have not been considered.

I reiterate that the Government are committed to reducing the impact of waste in the long term across the board, and for less to end up ultimately in landfill. That is our intention through the waste and resources strategy and the Environment Bill. I know that the Environment Agency is committed to working locally with partners and my hon. Friend. The door to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team is open should further advice be needed. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to our attention.

Question put and agreed to.

Marine Licensing

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

First, I think this is the first time that I have had the honour of speaking while you are in the Chair, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure.

Secondly, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) on securing this debate. He is always passionate about his constituency, and is constantly standing up for his community. I agree that the short film, “Bait”, which I have seen, is an invaluable slice of that iconic life in his part of the world. It is really worth seeing.

Let me take this opportunity to recognise the importance of marine licensing and planning, which are vital tools in managing the use of our marine space and the competing demands placed on it. My hon. Friend’s debate is timely, with the launch of the Marine Management Organisation’s consultation on four new marine plans in January. The delivery of the plans is a key aspect of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. Marine plans inform and guide marine users and regulators across England. The plans will manage the sustainable development of marine industries, such as wind farms and fishing, alongside the need to conserve and protect marine species and habitats. Economic growth will be supported in a way that benefits society while respecting the needs of local communities and protecting the marine environment.

Marine planning enables the increasing and, at times, competing demands for the use of our marine area to be balanced and managed in an integrated way. The Government are committed to ensuring that there is a full set of marine plans in place by 2021, so that we meet the commitment set out in our 25-year environment plan. The plans will be a significant milestone for the Government in ensuring the long-term sustainable development of our seas. Marine development is central to the Government’s ambition. Indeed, everyone seems to want a piece of the blue space right now, so we will keep under review how our approach to marine planning might need to evolve to meet future challenges. I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments because this space will definitely be growing and evolving.

Interested parties have been, and will continue to be, engaged in the process, and will have an opportunity to influence how their marine environment is managed. That is very important. The recent marine plans consultation covers my hon. Friend’s constituency of St Austell and Newquay, where the local sea area is recognised to be vital. The draft south-west inshore plan, which covers a total of approximately 16,000 sq km of sea—a big space—will introduce a strategic approach to inform where activities might take place. The MMO has undertaken extensive public engagement in the development of this plan to ensure that it captures local priorities.

The consultation closes on 6 April, and I have asked the MMO as a matter of urgency to ensure that it writes to the relevant coastal MPs to highlight the importance of contributing to the consultation, just in case they have not done so already—or, indeed, to forward it to people that they think ought to be involved. Likewise, I encourage any body or organisation that has an interest in the local sea to respond to the consultation. The importance of stakeholder engagement in this process cannot be overstated, which is why a statement of public participation is in place for these plans, setting out how and when we will engage with stakeholders during the marine planning process. When these plans are adopted, someone applying for a licence or approval will need to show how they have considered the plan, so this will be an important step in the future of marine planning.

Although marine plans play an important strategic role, the delivery of sustainable development in our seas is underpinned by our marine licensing system. Marine licensing covers a diverse range of activities—from depositing a marker on the seabed, through to significant infrastructure developments. Introduced under the Marine and Coastal Access Act, marine licensing is a process by which those seeking to undertake certain activities in the marine environment are required to apply for a licence. This is to ensure that we can promote the economic and social benefits of the marine environment while minimising the adverse effects on the environment, human health and other users of the sea. Under the Act, in England we have delegated the responsibility for implementing marine licensing to the MMO, and our approach to marine licensing is based on evidence-based decision making through which human activities in the marine area are regulated.

My hon. Friend raised some serious concerns about the licensing regime, and he made no bones about it. Let me highlight the recent improvements made to the marine licensing system. Only last year, the Government exempted certain activities from the licensing process to support those who realise environmental benefit—for example, to enable divers to remove marine litter from a marine area without the need to apply for a marine licence. I know that my hon. Friend has a particular interest in this area. This is just one of many steps that we are taking to ensure that plastic waste does not pollute the ocean. Between 4.8 million and 12.7 million tonnes of plastic enter the global ocean every year; it is absolutely shocking. That is why we have to focus on tackling this flow, and hopefully this is one measure that will help. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we set out how we will minimise waste, promote resource efficiency, and move towards a more circular economy.

The MMO has focused its efforts on improving the public consultation process, including making the process of submitting representations via the online system more user-friendly. This has been to the benefit of parish councils and others who have used the system. Where parish councils or any other party have expressed a desire to be included in a specific consultation, the MMO can facilitate that when it is practicable to do so. The MMO has also designated area liaison leads for coastal development to attend coastal groups and forums at a regional level around the country. Through this engagement activity, the MMO seeks to raise awareness and understanding of the marine licensing process. It is really important that people understand how it works and how they can input into it. I take many of my hon. Friend’s points about how that might potentially be improved.

The Government have a commitment in the 25-year environment plan to ensure that all local authorities with a coastal interest are signed up to the coastal concordat by 2021. The coastal concordat is designed to remove red tape and streamline the consenting process for both regulators and applicants. This applies to the consenting of coastal developments in England. The MMO welcomes feedback on how to improve this service, and it will always seek to implement this where practicable.

In 2017-18, the MMO determined more than 800 applications on variations to licences—in 94% of cases, within a 13-week framework. I specifically asked for these figures prior to this debate because I wanted to know exactly what it is dealing with—and it is pretty significant. The MMO always strives to improve its service. On hearing my hon. Friend’s concerns relating to difficulties with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association’s experiences of the consultation, I will urge it to do more in this area, including the website improvements that he mentioned.

I will now focus on the marine licence consultation for the mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I do love a mussel, with a bit of white wine cream—lovely—and a bit of onion, chopped: very nice. My hon. Friend is right to bring to our attention the concerns of the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association on the marine licence consultation for a mussel farm in Mevagissey bay. I thank him, the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association and the MMO for their efforts to find an acceptable way forward. It is important that individuals can make their voices heard on decisions that may affect them. I note the concerns of the association and others on how the consultation for the marine licence application was conducted. Those concerns focus on the potential impact on the Mevagissey fishermen and other users of the bay, and the perceived lack of consultation regarding the licence application.

I understand that subsequently the MMO has worked with the Mevagissey Fishermen’s Protection Association to try to resolve this, and that the MMO had initially explained that its consultation process gave the fishing industry the opportunity to comment through the inshore fisheries and conservation authority or through public representation. Following further correspondence with the association, the MMO has offered to consult it on any future amendments to the marine licence in question. In the light of concerns raised, though, it may be the case that consideration should be given to providing guidance to the MMO about the circumstances where the IFCA should be offered the chance to be a formal consultee. I shall explore this further.

My hon. Friend inquired whether parish councils can be made statutory consultees in the marine licensing process. The Marine and Coastal Access Act does not name specific persons or bodies that have to be consulted on a particular application, but it provides that the MMO may consult any person or body with relevant expertise about a licensing application, in addition to an obligation to have regard to any representations made by any person in respect of a particular application.

The MMO has considered the points that my hon. Friend makes about parish councils carefully. In many cases, other local organisations are equally, or perhaps better, placed to respond to the consultation. A statutory requirement to engage parish councils, which would require primary legislation, would potentially lead to a slower and more expensive service for the applicants. There is a risk that that approach would achieve the exact opposite of the efficient and cost-effective service that the MMO strives to provide. However, I am keen to explore further how local engagement on marine licence consultation can be strengthened with the MMO and other local bodies. If a relevant parish council is key to a particular application, it seems important to seek its views; that is a good point.

I take my hon. Friend’s point about advertising forthcoming applications in local newspapers. Even though I am a great advocate of our local press and have written for many local newspapers, their circulation is unfortunately declining, so all ways of advertising these things should be considered.

I thank my hon. Friend, who is always an advocate for his area and has put it on the map since he came here. The Government acknowledge his concerns, and I hope it is clear that improvements to our marine planning and licensing are being worked on as I speak. I will write to the MMO to ask it to further consider how it consults fishermen’s associations and parish councils, and I shall report back to him.

Question put and agreed to.

Waste Incineration Facilities

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate. She raised particular concerns around the proposed incinerator at Hillthorn Park in her constituency. The debate has sparked heated interest; one might say it is something of a red-hot topic. I thank everyone who has taken part.

I make clear at the outset that waste and air quality are devolved matters, and stress, as I did on 28 January, that the Government’s intention is focused purely on reducing, reusing and recycling waste and on the whole idea of moving to a circular economy to achieve greater resource efficiency, as many hon. Friends and hon. Members have referred to. Measures that we are introducing will help us to do just that.

Evidence of the Government’s commitment to that aim can be seen in our landmark Environment Bill, introduced on 30 January, which, among other things, contains broad powers to establish deposit return schemes, such as those for drinks containers; provides for consistency in the materials collected from households, including food waste; and sets out services that businesses must take part in. I am pleased that the devolved Administrations joined us in the extended producer responsibility scheme, resource measures and eco-labelling. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned some of those.

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) was clear that businesses making products such as plastic bottles want consistent waste recycling collections —as a Back Bencher, I met Coca-Cola, which reiterated that. People want more consistent collections. The Bill will help us drive towards an ambitious 65% municipal waste recycling rate by 2035 and a minimum 70% recycling rate for packaging waste by 2030.

I point out that it is a Labour-run council in Sunderland, where the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West comes from, and has been since 1974. In 2018-19, its household waste recycling rate was just 27.1%, compared with the national average for England of 43.5%, and its total waste incinerated was 71% of collected waste. It is telling that the hon. Member herself calls for a great deal more recycling and consistent collecting, rather than incineration, which is the direction her council has gone down.

Many other hon. Friends and hon. Members stressed that they would like to move in the direction that the Government are trying to move us, including my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), whom I welcome to her place, and for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn). Interestingly on that note, while the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) was strong in her case against incinerators, it was actually the Lib Dem-led Sutton Council that approved the Beddington incinerator that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington talked about, and a Lib Dem councillor who publicly campaigned against it was expelled from his own Lib Dem group. We need to get our messaging right about what we are calling for.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I really do not believe it is good to play the blame game here. Cash-strapped councils have looked at many areas for affordable alternatives to landfill, because it became very expensive. As a councillor from a deprived area, I know that recycling schemes and enforcing recycling are very human and resource-intensive. Councils need more money from central Government in order to get proper recycling schemes off the ground.

[Rebecca Pow]

I must be clear that local waste planning authorities are responsible for identifying their waste management facility needs and for working out the best direction to take. The hon. Lady will be pleased to hear that the measures in the Environment Bill that will be placed on local authorities will all be costed and funded.

Even after delivering high recycling rates, there is still waste that cannot be recycled or reused because, for example, it is contaminated or there is no end-of-life market for that material. There are choices about how we manage that unavoidable residual waste, and in making those choices we obviously need to consider the long-term environmental impact and the value of the waste resource. Methane is a potential greenhouse gas, and if we landfill biodegradable waste, for example, which is a component of many mixed waste streams, we face the prospect of significant methane emissions and toxic leachates over many years.

The legacy of our reliance on landfill is responsible for around 75% of the carbon emissions from the waste sector. We do not wish that to continue, which is why, as in our resources and waste strategy, we want to reduce the level of municipal waste sent to landfill to 10% or less by 2035, which I think all hon. Friends and hon. Members suggested is a good idea. That is why we are actively exploring policy options to eliminate sending any biodegradable waste to landfill by 2030.

On taxing incinerators—I did not manage to get this point in last time, and I thank the shadow Minister for giving me a bit more time this time—if the wider policies set out in the resources and waste strategy do not deliver our waste ambitions, as laid out in the Environment Bill and the strategy, including higher recycling rates, the Government outlined in the 2018 Budget that we will consider introducing a tax on the incineration of waste, operating in conjunction with the landfill tax and taking account of the possible impact on local authorities.

[Caroline Nokes]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly.

[Caroline Nokes]

I respectfully point out that the Minister has 12 more minutes. This issue is important. We heard the comment in the October 2018 Budget statement, and we have heard the Minister’s comments on it now. Is she prepared to put a timescale on that?

[Rebecca Pow]

No. Processes will be followed. So much of what is coming down the tracks, through the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill, should introduce a paradigm shift in the way we treat waste. The intention is that a tax may never need to be introduced, but one will have to watch the direction of travel and whether we are really cutting down on waste, because that is the intention before we ever have to introduce a tax.

As Members pointed out, incinerating has a carbon impact, but the evidence available is that the carbon impact of most mixed waste streams commonly sent to energy-from-waste plants is lower than if we sent it to landfill. Every day that passes brings new advances in carbon capture, and I am pleased to report that the Government will invest £800 million in this technology to deploy the first carbon capture clusters by the mid-2020s.The technology could potentially be applied to energy-from-waste plants to capture the carbon emissions from incinerating waste, thereby reducing carbon dioxide emissions even further. I point out, because the shadow Minister mentioned this issue, that all municipal waste incinerators are combined heat and power-enabled. Only nine deliver heat, but they all supply electricity.

The Government are clear that energy from waste should not compete with greater waste prevention, reuse or recycling. Currently, England has enough operational energy-from-waste capacity to treat about 38% of residual municipal waste, including a proportion of commercial and industrial waste. The majority of the 40 or so existing plants use conventional incineration with energy recovery, as that is tried and tested, but other technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, could achieve greater efficiencies, reducing environmental impact and delivering outputs beyond electricity generation. This is a changing space, and science is obviously benefiting the sector. Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, conventional energy from waste will continue to have an important role in diverting waste from landfill, and it is the best option for most waste that cannot be reused or recycled.

I mentioned on 28 January that the Government are working to drive greater efficiency of energy-from-waste plants. That is largely through Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy initiatives and it includes encouraging use of the heat that the plants produce, in addition to the electricity generated. The Government have in place other, wider measures that help to draw waste away from landfill and incineration. There is an opportunity to deliver significant greenhouse gas savings by converting the wastes into transport fuel, for example. Through the renewable transport fuel obligation—that is quite a mouthful—the Government incentivise the use of organic waste such as cooking oil and food waste to produce renewable fuels. The Department for Transport is examining the potential to support innovative waste-to-fuel technologies that have the capacity to produce advanced fuels, including even jet fuel.

Many hon. Members touched on regulation. Energy-from-waste plants in England are regulated by the Environment Agency and must comply with the strict emission limits set down in legislation. That includes plants using gasification technology. Every application for a new plant is assessed by the agency to ensure that it will use the best available techniques to minimise emissions and that it will not have a significant effect on local air quality. The Environment Agency will not issue an environmental permit if the proposed plant will have a significant impact on the environment or will harm human health.

[Darren Jones]

Does the Minister agree that the cumulative impact of the number of these facilities in a geographical area must also be assessed and that there must not be just an assessment of the individual application when each application comes forward for consideration?

[Rebecca Pow]

I obviously answered the debate earlier in the year about the incinerator in the hon. Gentleman’s area. He raises an important point. Certainly, local authorities are responsible for their own areas and should be looking to see how they can best deal with the waste in their areas.

Making decisions on planning applications is normally a matter for the local planning authority. They should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless other considerations indicate otherwise. Those would include, among other things, the assessment of the impact of the traffic generated, which has been mentioned. Indeed, when it comes to planning applications for waste management facilities of such a scale as the one that prompted this debate, there is a requirement to undergo an environmental impact assessment.

[Darren Jones]

I am sorry, but will the Minister give way just once more?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am going to plough on, because I want to get some of the points across that I could not make last time.

As the planning application referred to by the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West is subject to an appeal, it is the role of the Planning Inspectorate to consider all the material planning considerations that are relevant to the case, and from all parties, including the local planning authority, the applicant and those who might have made representations on the application—and of course all those people who signed the petition. However, I note the request made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government for him to recover the appeal for his determination. As it is a live planning appeal, I am sure the hon. Member understands that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Once operational, energy-from-waste plants are closely regulated through a programme of regular inspections and audits carried out by the Environment Agency, which also carefully considers the results of the continuous air emissions monitoring that all plants must do to meet the conditions of their environmental permit.

The hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) raised the issue of air quality in particular, but air quality is of course devolved to local authorities, and the Greater London Authority is responsible for what happens in London. However, energy-from-waste plants must report any breaches in respect of emissions to the EA within 24 hours, so there are strict controls.

Health issues were touched on in particular. As part of the permitting process, the Environment Agency consults Public Health England and the local director of public health on every energy-from-waste application that it receives and takes their comments into account when deciding whether to issue a permit. I must point out that our clean air strategy has been commended by the World Health Organisation, and there are aims in it to halve any harm caused to human health by air quality. We therefore have strict controls coming down the tracks, and local authorities are all becoming engaged with them. Hon. Members should note that the position of Public Health England-remains that modern and well run and regulated municipal waste incinerators are not a significant risk to public health. That is what that body itself has said.

[Caroline Nokes]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

Very briefly.

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend appears to have only one page of her speech left, so I am sure we have plenty of time for her to read that out. I am conscious that she has made many comments about municipal waste facilities, but unfortunately the proposal in my constituency is not for a municipal one but for an entirely commercial one. Although I accept her reassurances about current standards and EA monitoring, does she think that that goes far enough?

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course there is a place for commercial waste incinerators, which is what my right hon. Friend refers to. We have in place an entire system of structures, permits, and checks and balances, but it is essential that they are seen to function properly and that they are monitored closely and conducted in the right way.

To conclude, I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West for bringing forward this debate. This clearly is a heated issue, which has raised a lot of concerns, but I hope I have made it clear that harnessing energy from residual waste has its place as part of a wide, holistic waste management system. That will deliver value from waste as a resource. I wanted to be very clear, and I hope it has come out in what I have said, that the measures in the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill will enable a paradigm shift, in relation to reducing, reusing and recycling our waste, that should limit the amount that ever has to go to incineration and landfill. I hope that, from what I have said, hon. Members understand what is happening, the direction that the Government are absolutely committed to, and the move to a circular economy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

2. What recent discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on improving air quality in London.

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

The Mayor of London is responsible for air quality in the capital and has reserved powers under part IV of the Environment Act 1995 to reflect that. Although the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has not had any recent discussions with the Mayor of London on air quality, our doughty DEFRA officials are in regular contact with the Greater London Assembly.

I also wish to welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I know that she is already a strong voice in her area, and is obviously indicating that she will continue to be so.

[Felicity Buchan]

My constituency has some of the worst air quality in London. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Mayor of London needs to do more to improve air quality, given that currently only 2% of London buses have been converted to electric and only 10% of the 2 million trees that he promised have actually been planted?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend’s question demonstrates how strong a voice she will be in this place. I must reiterate that the Mayor of London is responsible for air quality in the capital and has reserved powers under the 1995 Act to do this work. A great deal of money has been committed to help with that work, especially the retrofitting of buses, but I would not underestimate the challenge posed by air quality in our cities, especially London.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on supporting small and medium-sized food producer businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

6. When she plans to introduce a deposit return scheme for (a) glass and (b) plastic.

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

In our manifesto, the Government committed to introducing a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass. We are aiming to introduce that scheme from 2023. The Environment Bill that was published recently includes an important section on waste and recycling, and will introduce powers to establish deposit return schemes. A deposit return scheme would include aluminium and steel cans, alongside plastic and glass bottles. The final details of the scheme, including types of drinks containers to be included, are being developed and will be presented in a second consultation.

[Grahame Morris]

I thank the Minister for her response. I think the whole House welcomes the introduction of the deposit return scheme in the Environment Bill, but the concern is that it is overly prescriptive, specifying two categories of plastic, rather than creating a framework that could be amended and widened in scope to incorporate more materials that could be recycled in future.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am delighted that he is so interested in the scheme. The first consultation had very wide support and we will have a further consultation. The industries wanting to use the collected recycled materials, particularly plastics, want very pure and well-sorted materials so that they can then turn them into the next products. We are thinking about this very seriously. More will be heard in the second consultation and that will come through in the Environment Bill.

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to reduce air pollution.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to improve air quality.

[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 £3.5 billion plan to tackle roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Our Environment Bill delivers key parts of our world-leading clean air strategy and makes a clear commitment to set a legally binding target to reduce fine particulate matter, as well as enabling local authorities to take more effective action to tackle air pollution in their areas.

[Elliot Colburn]

I thank the Minister for her response. She will know that incineration is considered to only be slightly better than landfill when it comes to disposing of waste, but Lib Dem-run Sutton Council seems to think that its Beddington incinerator has no harmful effects at all on my Carshalton and Wallington constituents. Does she agree that the council should improve air quality monitoring near the site, tackle congestion and be much more ambitious as regards tackling air pollution?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am aware that Sutton Council approved the development of the Beddington incinerator as an alternative to landfill, which would have a higher pollution impact. The incinerator is required to operate in compliance with the permit conditions set by the Environment Agency, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows; he has mentioned the incinerator before. We encourage all local authorities, including obviously his Lib Dem-run council, to take action to improve air quality. I urge him to keep pressing it to keep within its commitments.

[Nicola Richards]

Birmingham City Council’s planned demolition of the Perry Barr flyover, which feeds traffic from Birmingham into West Bromwich East, will do nothing to tackle the already poor air quality in the area and cause huge traffic problems for my constituents. Does the Minister agree that local authorities have an obligation to ensure that major roadwork projects, especially on busy highways, improve air quality and ease congestion?

[Rebecca Pow]

Local authorities are required by law to consider the impacts of development on air quality. Local authorities are best placed to take local planning decisions and should take into account a range of factors, including impacts on air quality, the local economy and traffic flow—so my hon. Friend raises a good point—when carrying out roadwork projects. In terms of the wider picture, we are providing financial and expert advice to local authorities to tackle air quality.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Air quality is seen very much as an urban issue, but even in the bucolic rural constituency of Thirsk and Malton we have our problems, including in Malton town centre due to high levels of standing traffic. What support can my hon. Friend offer to the local authority to resolve this issue?

[Rebecca Pow]

The Environment Bill includes measures to improve air quality that will ensure that local authorities, including in Malton, for which my hon. Friend always speaks up so determinedly, have a clear framework and simple powers to tackle air pollution. The DEFRA and Department for Transport joint air quality unit works with local authorities, underpinned by £572 million in funding, to tackle nitrogen dioxide exceedances, and DEFRA provides grant funding and technical support via a dedicated helpdesk.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

If the Secretary of State has read the unprecedented four reports in the last Parliament by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee—chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is sitting behind her—she will know that a lack of power and resources in local government is a real problem, particularly in two-tier areas, as is the chronic lack of joined-up thinking by central Government. When will those two critical issues be addressed?

[Rebecca Pow]

This Government take air pollution extremely seriously. We are investing £3.5 billion in air quality and clean transport. We are helping local authorities to tackle air quality through the implementation fund and the clean air fund, with a £572 million budget and a lot of expert advice. I am overseeing many programmes being rolled out, and the right hon. Gentleman will see a great deal happening this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Two hours of exposure to diesel fumes leads to 24 hours of negative impact upon a person’s health. What is being done to reduce diesel fumes for ordinary people in our communities?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Roadside pollution is a key area. Nitrogen dioxide is one of the serious issues tackled under our nitrogen dioxide plan. Local authorities have a legal duty to tackle high levels of pollution on roadsides, which is why we have introduced a comprehensive system to help local authorities to tackle it. We are also bringing down the rate of diesel cars on the market.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

T2. If the biodiversity gain requirement is to make a real difference, local authorities will need additional strategic planners, ecologist and enforcement officers. What assessment has been made of the human and financial resources required, and will the Secretary of State confirm that those resources will be set out and funded in the forthcoming Budget?

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

Burdens put on local authorities through the Environment Bill will be fully funded. They will play a key role in helping with biodiversity net gain. They will also play a key role—as will other local organisations—in setting up our local nature strategies, which will inform what we do, and I very much look forward to that.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

T4.   In Beaconsfield, we have many hard-working farmers, as well as local environmental groups such as Transition Town Marlow and Wild Marlow, which are leading the way locally in animal welfare and environmental protection. Will the Minister join me in welcoming the new standards that we are going to put in place for environmental protection and animal welfare as we leave the EU, and for the protection of our British farmers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is such a campaigner on this issue. It is a great idea. I believe that one fast-food chain is already considering doing this. It is something I have thought about myself when I am out on my bike and I see all the litter on the verges. Trust me, this Government are doing a great deal on litter, but we need to do more.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

One way to reduce food waste is to rebalance the relationships between suppliers and supermarkets. Will the Government therefore commit to expanding the power of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and amending the groceries supply code of practice to better protect our farmers’ interests and reduce the amount of unnecessary food waste that can occur due to supermarkets’ excessively strict requirements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

As part of her proposals for a deposit return scheme, has the Secretary of State sought to persuade her counterpart in the Scottish Government that the interests of consumers, producers and administrators will be best served by a system that covers the country—the UK—as a whole?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. Scotland introduced its scheme first. We are consulting to ensure our scheme is absolutely fit for purpose. We want ours to completely align and we are very much lining up with manufacturers and processors to get the right system that suits them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

During the debate before the election on restoring nature and climate change, the Minister, who is now in the Lords, told the House that a legislative response to the problem of burning peatlands was being developed. When can we expect to see legislation being published?

Flooding: South Yorkshire

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Davies.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) on securing this debate on flooding in South Yorkshire. She has spoken up passionately for her local constituents about this. I am well aware of the terrible impact that flooding can have not only on communities, homes and businesses, but on individuals—on people and their wellbeing. I have experienced that myself, coming as I do from Somerset and having been very involved in the flooding that happened in 2012-13.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) talked about how the people in his constituency rose to the occasion and set the bar in rallying together. That is also what the people of Somerset did, so I thank all those people for their involvement. That brings me on to say early in my speech that I know the whole House will join me in thanking all those people who have been involved in the emergency services and helping people in those situations: the police, the fire brigade, the Environment Agency and all those who respond at such times. We are very grateful to them.

As the hon. Member for Barnsley East said, heavy rain fell and flooding took place across parts of south Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire from a weather front that was sitting over Yorkshire on 7 and 8 November last year. More than 2,500 properties were flooded, including 850 in Doncaster alone. The autumn of 2019 was the wettest on record in the Don catchment, so it truly was an unusual weather incident.

By the start of November the ground was already saturated, standing water was widespread and river and reservoir levels were extremely high. Further persistent rain fell over the Don catchment area in south Yorkshire, exceeding 150% of the average November rainfall in the area. That rain shed rapidly off the already saturated land and river levels rose in response.

The Environment Agency swung into action, issuing seven severe flood warnings along the River Don, indicating a risk to life. The agency has an exceedingly well-functioning system for such warnings. Rotherham and Doncaster experienced the highest river flows on record, which had a devastating impact on communities, as defences were overwhelmed by the sheer volume of water overtopping on to the surrounding land. As we have heard, emergency responders evacuated 1,200 properties, or around 1,600 people, in Bentley and Fishlake.

I know that this will be of little comfort to those who were flooded, but around 22,275 properties nationwide were protected by flood defences in November, including nearly 7,000 properties in Yorkshire alone. To put that into context, in the previously mentioned 2007 floods in South Yorkshire, which were of a similar magnitude, around 6,750 properties and 1,300 businesses were flooded. That demonstrates that defence work carried out after the 2007 incident made a difference, with fewer people affected and fewer properties flooded. That is not to take lightly at all what happened this time around, but it is to put it in a bit of context, lest people think no action has been taken.

Needless to say, while it was all devastating, I understand that 90% of those people have been safely returned to their homes, although they still face months of disruption. Sadly, I must report the death of one woman in Matlock, who was caught in flood waters in the early hours of 8 November. That demonstrates how flooding is a real threat to life—a threat that we should never ignore.

The Government responded very quickly to activate support for the local areas affected, so I take issue with accusations being levelled against the Government that action was not quite taken quickly enough. I believe it was taken extremely fast and a whole raft of measures were set into place. I will outline them all, because I have time.

The Bellwin scheme was activated to help local authorities with the immediate costs of mitigating the impacts of flooding, including urgent things such as rest centres, temporary accommodation and staff overtime. That particular Bellwin scheme is for just those emergency things, and it was activated here. There were three Cobra meetings, three at official and two at ministerial level, to assess impacts and oversee the Government’s flood recovery role. The flood recovery network was triggered and six grants were made available.

I will outline what the flood recovery network is, because I am not sure that hon. Friends and hon. Members know quite enough about it. It was developed following lessons learned from the 2015-16 floods, which were also severe. The network contains a range of funding measures to enable the Government to be ready to respond to major flooding incidents. I have been asked a number of times about the EU fund, but we are leaving the EU, and we have our own framework for putting into operation a whole raft of measures, which I will touch on in a minute.

The Government activated this framework for the first time in on 12 November, as a result of the incidents that we have heard about today, through collaborative agreement across Departments—it was not just the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—and announced a series of measures to support the recovery of communities and businesses. The November floods triggered the framework by meeting the agreed criteria: the impact must be widespread over multiple locations, with 25 or more houses severely affected in each district. It is worth noting that weather incidents with localised impacts will not usually trigger this very broad recovery support package.

The flood recovery package includes six grants. The first is the community recovery grant, under which those severely flooded are eligible for £500 per household. Secondly, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the cost of a 100% council tax discount for a minimum of three months, or longer if floodwater entered their home or their home was otherwise considered unliveable for any period of time, and for the cost of a 100% council tax discount on temporary accommodation for anyone unable to return to their home.

Thirdly, the Government will reimburse local authorities for the cost of providing 100% relief from business rates for a minimum of three months, or longer if the business is unable to resume trading from the property. Fourthly, the business recovery grant offers financial support of £2,500 per eligible business for recovering local small and medium-sized enterprises. Fifthly, DEFRA triggered the farming recovery fund and announced it would make up to £2 million available to hard-hit farmers in south Yorkshire. That fund had already been applied to parts of north Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.

Sixthly, the DEFRA property flood resilience scheme provides up to £5,000 to help people to make their properties more resilient in future. Eligible local authorities—that is, authorities with more than 25 houses affected—are in the process of working with communities to enable them to make adaptations to their homes and businesses as part of the repairs to protect against possible future flooding. In addition to those funds, the Government are also committed to matching the funds raised by the South Yorkshire Flood Disaster Relief appeal fund up to the value of £1 million, as referred to by the hon. Member for Barnsley East.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I do not want to pre-empt the Minister, because she might be going on to mention this, but the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and I made was about the matched funding. We simply do not believe that it is fair. Can she commit today not to match funding, but to give the money that is required? Is our understanding correct that, if our local residents raise what currently stands at half a million pounds, the Government will match just that, or does the fund have to reach £1 million before the Government pay out? Can she not just scrap the matched funding and give us the money we need?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have listed a very large range of packages that were swung into action. Perhaps her councils are still discussing and talking to our officials about those, and I recommend that they continue to do so. I commend her local people for raising the money, and she can write to me about that afterwards, but I think that at the moment that matched funding stands, as it says, up to the value of £1 million.

[Edward Miliband]

rose—

[Stephanie Peacock]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow]

I will carry on, because I want to talk about Flood Re, which was raised earlier and is an important issue. Flood Re was launched in 2016 to improve the availability and affordability of household insurance for people who live in high flood risk areas, and it has made an enormous difference. Flood Re was set up as a result of learning from what had happened in previous flooding situations, when people reported that they could not get the right insurance. Indeed, many people from my own area of Somerset fed into the setting up and the working of Flood Re.

In the 2018-19 financial year, Flood Re reinsured more than 164,000 household policies, and 250,000 properties have benefited since its launch. Before its introduction, only 9% of householders who had made prior flood claims could get quotes from two or more insurers, as was commonly highlighted, and none were able to get quotes from five or more. However, since October 2017, after the setting up of Flood Re, the availability has improved so that 100% of households could get quotes from two or more insurers, while 93% could get quotes from five or more. By May 2019, 95% of those with flood claims could choose from at least 10 insurers, with 99% receiving quotes from five or more, which shows that the system is working.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North mentioned some people reporting that they are unable to get insurance, and there are anecdotal reports that there was no flood insurance in Fishlake, Bentley and Doncaster. The Secretary of State announced a review into what happened there, why it was not available and all those things, and I look forward to its findings. We want Flood Re to function effectively, so I am happy to meet colleagues to go over issues about how it is working and how to make it work better.

[Edward Miliband]

I welcome what the Minister says about Flood Re, but I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East. I know that the Minister cannot commit to making this money available today, but I ask her to go with us a little bit on the logic of this. If only half a million pounds is raised from local people and businesses, less money will be available for flood victims. It makes no sense, when up to £1 million has been allocated, for the Government to then say that they are only going to give half a million pounds. As I said earlier, that would not be acceptable if we were helping a developing country, and it should not be acceptable here at home. I know the money was originally from Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government resources, so will she go and talk to her MHCLG colleagues about this and about actually getting the money out of the door? South Yorkshire’s Community Foundation has not yet received even the half a million pounds to get the scheme going.

[Rebecca Pow]

I recommend that hon. Members go to MHCLG themselves to raise this issue. I have put my case for the amount of finance coming through in the flood recovery package. I will leave that there, but I am listening to what hon. Members say, and I commend the people raising the money.

The Government have absolutely committed to investing in flood risk, to the tune of £2.6 billion, and continue to play a key role in protecting the people affected. Talking about MHCLG, the right hon. Gentleman raised new houses on flood plains and the increase in flooding risk, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford). Planning authorities are responsible for giving the go-ahead for new housing, and they always seek Environment Agency advice on all these things, but planning also comes under MHCLG.

[Alexander Stafford]

On insurance, the Minister knows that Whiston, in Rother Valley, was affected by flooding in November. Can she guarantee that, under Flood Re, those people affected by flooding will be able to get insurance in the future?

[Rebecca Pow]

I hear what my hon. Friend says about his constituency. I urge all those constituents to go to insurers themselves. A huge number of insurers now offer flood cover. That is why Flood Re was set up. There is a bona fide system, and I urge those constituents to go through it.

While the Government are committing money, partnerships will also form a key part of delivering our flood resilience. Partnership funding is expected to attract more than £600 million of additional investment, as well as funding more than 1,000 flood defence schemes to better protect 300,000 homes. Lots of these partnerships are already demonstrating that they are working well across the country.

Of course, it is not just about urban areas. The Government’s investment will also better protect 700,000 acres of agricultural land, which is really important, too. That will help to avoid more than £1.5 billion of direct economic damage to agriculture, which will then benefit surrounding rural communities.

Lest not spending enough on flood schemes in South Yorkshire is levelled at the Government, of that £2.6 billion, £36 million has been allocated to flood schemes in South Yorkshire to better protect 6,480 homes. To name a few of the schemes, the Environment Agency is investing—over a six-year investment period between 2015 and 2021—£12.5 million in the Sheffield Lower Don valley flood scheme, to protect businesses in South Yorkshire, and £9.7 million in the Bentley pumping station refurbishment, which is currently well advanced. I believe that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North visited it, so he can report back that it is progressing well and is due to complete the summer of 2020, reducing the risk to potentially 1,669 residential properties, which is not insignificant. In addition, £8 million is being spent refurbishing existing defences, with nine locations already completed, reducing the risk to a further 3,772 properties.

[Stephanie Peacock]

The Minister mentioned £36 million, but it is estimated that a long-term strategy across the four boroughs in South Yorkshire will cost in excess of £200 million, so £36 million is clearly not enough money. What can she do to reassure us that that extra money will come forward?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady leads me neatly on to my next point. I am confident that the Environment Agency, working together—it is constantly working with the councils and all the different bodies—with the South Yorkshire lead flood authorities and Sheffield city region, which are, I am pleased to say, using a very wide catchment approach, will find the additional funding needed to secure a strong plan. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley, referred to the need for that, which pleased me. I know that everyone is keen that we have joined-up thinking on this, and I suggest that affected MPs from South Yorkshire meet me to talk about this and see what the overall picture is.

In the meantime, the Government are of course looking at funding arrangements and needs beyond 2021, when this funding window ends. We will continue to work with the Environment Agency and others to consider future investment needs and the role of Government in supporting resilient communities. In addition to what I call conventional flood defence mechanisms, a wide range of other mechanisms are being used, and will increasingly be used, to reduce flooding, using a catchment approach, and particularly nature-based approaches. The right hon. Member for Doncaster North is vociferous on climate change—absolutely rightly; we have done much work together on that front. This is all interlinked with that agenda and will help towards the whole climate change issue.

On funding, we recognise where deprivation is highest through higher payments when flood money is handed out. That is obviously important in urban and rural areas. Obviously, climate change, which will give us more extreme weather events and impacts on the environment, is a crucial national priority, and also a really important international priority. The UK is already demonstrating that we are leading the fight on this, and we are delivering our world-leading target for net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, adapting to the inevitable changes brought about by climate change is vital. We are taking robust action to improve the resilience of our people, our economy and our environment through investment, not least through the commitment of £2.6 billion over six years to better protect communities from flooding and erosion.

This has been an insightful and useful debate, and I thank all the contributors. Thank you, Mr Davies, for overseeing our proceedings. I end by again thanking all the services that swing into action when there is flooding to help to protect us all.