Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the Opposition for the constructive way they have leaned into this debate today. I would immediately say, “Yes, we need to work together on this.” I think the majority of those in this House see the huge opportunity we have here.

“The emergence of genome editing is a significant moment, as it represents a possible step change in introducing a new generation of potentially transformative biotechnologies into the food and farming system.”

Those are not my words; they are from the Nuffield report.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I welcome this Bill, which will hugely enhance our future food security. May I draw the Minister’s attention to pioneering new genetic editing techniques being developed at the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus, and invite her to join me on a visit there to see that groundbreaking research in action?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is an alumna of that august institution, as indeed am I, so I would be delighted to visit it. That intervention raises a key point that, because of the limited time, I will address in a general sense.

We do have some of the finest institutions, and many of them are lodged in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute and the Roslin Institute are beyond good in this space. They need to be supported. They do not need to wait for others to follow. Our door is open. We want to get this right. We want to work with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Professor Colin Campbell of the James Hutton Institute has said that it is right. Professor Helen Sang from the Roslin Institute has given evidence to say that this is what we need. She is working on ensuring that we can beat avian flu, which attacks both animals kept inside barns and those kept outside.

We have the opportunity to improve animal welfare here, and I would like to address that point full on. Animal welfare is currently of a high standard in this country, and it is not true to say that this Bill will affect it. Our animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, passed by Labour. These provisions help to reinforce the fact that the welfare of animals is a key priority, and it is simply not true to say that the Bill will lead to a diminution in those standards.

The Bill allows us to take the opportunities that have been presented to us through leaving the European Union. It is important to celebrate our country’s strengths at Rothamsted, James Hutton, John Innes and Roslin, all of which I have visited, and I hope to go to Aberystwyth soon. It is important that we move on this as a country. By encouraging greater research and development in the use of precision-breeding technologies, we are supporting that drive. Innovation is key to enhancing the sustainability and resilience of our agricultural systems by harnessing the benefits of precision breeding to eradicate disease, as we have discussed.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer addressed the issue of section 3. The Bill provides the Food Standards Agency with an opportunity to build from scratch a tailor-made framework that is proportionate for the UK. This will allow swifter progress for businesses wishing to market precision-bred organisms while still ensuring the safety of our food.

I could not agree more that safety, transparency, proportionality, traceability and customer confidence is what we are building here. The EU is currently reviewing its systems and has acknowledged that its current system is not fit for purpose. I would indeed be happy to share that documentation, which is publicly available, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It is important that we move ahead in this area, and our scientists, farmers and researchers all want us to do it. It is simply not true to say that this will allow multinationals and conglomerates to drive forward in this space. Actually, in the countries that have already driven PBOs into their system, we see democratisation, with a greater proportion of precision breeding patents being held by smaller and local businesses.

In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, I agree that food security is a top priority. We have taken account of the Nuffield report and public concerns, and we are constantly in dialogue with our stakeholders. On Monday, we met animal welfare stakeholders to talk about the declaration and how they can feed into that. I agree that consumers need clear labelling, but the FSA will authorise products for sale only if they present no risk to health and do not mislead customers.

As this technology brings no safety risk, labelling will not be required to indicate the methods used in breeding. It is unnecessary because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is the same as traditional breeding. The countries that are already in this space—Canada, Japan, the United States, Brazil and Argentina—do not do that. A public register will be available on gov.uk to ensure further traceability.

There is a great deal more that I could go into on the particular things that were brought up, but I want to finish by saying that this is a huge area of advantage. We need to go forward as a country making sure that we take our scientists with us, enhance our research and breeding practices, and enable consumer confidence. Ultimately the key aim of the Bill is to ensure that precision-bred plants, animals, food and feed products are regulated proportionately to their risk so that we can fully embrace the benefits and advantages of scientific progress that has been made over the past 30 years. The Bill is good news, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

What Works Network: Centre for Food

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the addition of a centre for food to the What Works Network.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I have brought today’s debate to bring attention to what would be a terrific addition to the What Works Network and a significant opportunity for the Government to help make the national food strategy report a success. I suspect that the Minister might be glad that for once I am taking a break from pressing her on fish mawl, although I am grateful for all the work she has done in that area. So we will move on to food more generally.

The agrifood sector is a crucial part of British life. It is a major driver of our economy. In 2018, the wider system employed 4.3 million people and contributed £121 billion—nearly 10%—to our national gross value added. It is an anchor sector in our economy and it touches all of us every day. However, we are living in a challenging period when it comes to food.

People are struggling to meet their living costs, of which food is a major part. According to the Food Foundation, 4.9 million adults, or 9% of the population, are affected by food insecurity. In comparison, 5.6% of the population experienced food insecurity five years ago, based on the threshold set by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. At the time, the FAO also considered that 2.5% of the UK population would be considered undernourished, with 1.8% facing severe food insecurity.

We know from global trends, as stated in the food strategy report, that the food we eat and how we produce it can damage both the planet and our health. Globally, 37% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the food system. Here in the UK, the sector engages 70% of our land, contributes 45% of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our rivers and creates 2.2 million tonnes of plastic packaging every year, less than half of which is recycled. Turning to our own bodies, 80% of processed food sold in the UK is unhealthy and we get 57% of our calories from processed foods rich in fat, salt and sugar, with 35% of the population overweight, 27% obese and nearly 5 million people suffering with diabetes due to the over-consumption of processed foods.

Market factors end up turning this into a vicious circle—the junk food cycle. The market for processed foods makes them cheaper and more accessible, which makes them more desirable. All the while, we get unhealthier and unhealthier, and the planet suffers. I am a sinner in this regard, so I do not cast the first stone on policing my constituents’ diets—I do not feel that that is my role, and I am not sure that I would have complete credibility—but it is hard not to see that we live in an obesogenic environment.

We owe our constituents leadership that tackles the situation and gives them true, informed choice and a range of options. We see elements of that in the Government’s obesity strategy. I was keen to support that strategy as shadow Public Health Minister, but it remains quite modest and what I am suggesting today could turbocharge that approach. The incredible contribution the sector makes to our economy, as well as some of its challenges, shows both positively and negatively why it is vital that we have an understanding of the best developments in food, so that we can harness them to improve the system. That is why I am enthusiastic about a What Works centre for food.

The network of nine independent What Works centres, three affiliate members and one associate member currently cover policy areas that account for more than £250 billion of public spending, to allow decision making to be supported by an evidence base worthy of the decisions that have to be made in this place and will be made, going forward, across the country. As gov.uk puts it:

“What Works is based on the principle that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If evidence is not available, decision-makers should use high quality methods to find out what works.”

That is a very noble principle that commands cross-party support.

Examples of such centres include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. The current network of What Works centres has transformed the use of evidence in public services across medicine, policing, schools, hospitals, GP practices and care homes. The Government have been wise in listening to them in the way that they have.

I feel that I am in good company, because the Early Intervention Foundation is also part of the network, and my predecessor, Graham Allen, was instrumental in its development, so we are perhaps re-establishing a tradition for Nottingham North MPs today.

The networks follow the six impact principles: they are independent, methodologically rigorous, practical, accessible, capacity-building and transparent. Those are noble pursuits that would enhance our food policy.

As with most ideas, I have stolen this one from someone else: the Government’s own food strategy report recommended that the Government establish two What Works centres, modelled on the Education Endowment Foundation, to collect and analyse evidence on the effectiveness of food-related policies and business practices. One would focus on diet, and the other on farming methods. Although my instinct and preference would be to have a single centre, I am concerned not with minutiae today but with the wider importance of the principle of establishing such a centre.

People far more qualified than me are already working on the details. Academics from the University of Nottingham, the University of Leeds and the University of Newcastle, led by Professor David Salt of the University of Nottingham’s School of Biosciences, have recently proposed a project to blueprint such a centre, in line with the recommendation. There is significant interest in this space. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board is also working on some of these ideas in a farming context. The Food Standards Agency is thinking about a What Works centre in the diet space. That shows the traction that the idea is getting, and that there is great interest in it across academia, business and industry. My view is that it should be under one roof.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for giving way. He mentioned the University of Nottingham, which is doing fantastic research into food sustainability, and its Sutton Bonington campus, where lots of that work takes place, is in my constituency. He makes a compelling argument for evidence-based policy that gives us healthier food and is better for our planet. I am sure he will extend an invitation to the Minister to visit, and I will take this opportunity to second that invitation and to invite her to see the fantastic research and work being done at Sutton Bonington.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely endorse such a visit. I went on a half-day visit to the Sutton Bonington campus to meet David Salt and colleagues and to hear about all sorts—it was a kind of speed dating with different academics to hear about their research. It was absolutely fascinating. I extend such an invitation to the Minister and I hope she will feel able to accept it. I know that the hon. Lady wants to be there, and I am more than happy to be there myself. My first visit to Sutton Bonington was 19 years ago, when I went to play football. It is an agricultural mechanical school so they were bigger than those of us from the school of history and politics, funnily enough. I nearly had my head taken off by a centre back who was about 10 feet taller than me, but I can promise the Minister that that will not happen to her.

This is probably a good moment to reference the work of the University of Nottingham’s Future Food beacon, which is led by Professor Salt. It is a cross-discipline programme to bring together the highest-quality academics from across the world, working with industry, to resolve the thorniest problems in our food systems. The research themes include future-proofing agricultural systems, which is so important in the context of climate change; food for sustainable livelihoods, which I think we in this place are all concerned about, at home and abroad; food for health, which as I have mentioned is a major area of public policy interest; and smart manufacturing for food. That is not the sort of stuff that gets the newspaper headlines, but it is really fascinating. As I said, I spent half a day there and it was great, so I really hope the Minister will do the same—she would really enjoy it. I will not go off on a tangent about my love of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, but that beacon project is an example of where we want Nottingham and Nottinghamshire to be: at the forefront of crucial development to change our world. Our two universities do a great job in that, and I am proud to have the chance to showcase that.

I am conscious of time, so I will use the remaining time to align what I have said with what I think the Government also want in the broader context of the national food strategy. The report was a massive wake-up call to fix our food system. The Government’s reaction to it should be to make sure that every family can afford a healthy hot meal for their children every day, protect our high food and farming standards in law, make our food system environmentally friendly, deliver a radical obesity strategy that ensures that families can access healthy food, support access to local leisure facilities and tackle rising child poverty. What we are talking about today is a really good part of being able to do that. This is an area of significant change, so staying ahead of some of the trends is really valuable.

The Government commissioned the national food strategy, which provided key recommendations to fix the food system, reduce food inequality, make the best use of land and improve health. I have no doubt that in those endeavours the Government will have Opposition support. I hope that the Minister will clarify that ideas on the recommendations in the food strategy report, and perhaps a White Paper in that area, will be brought forward soon.

The report’s 16 recommendations broadly fit into four areas: escaping the junk food cycle, reducing diet-related inequality, making the best use of land and creating a long-term shift in our food culture. I have picked up on one recommendation, recommendation 11, which is a lynchpin for fulfilling all those strategic objectives, increasing the pace of change towards fixing our food system and going a long way towards protecting our health and our planet.

We know that consumers are the key to driving change, and a shift in consumer behaviour to more plant-based foods and fewer foods from animals will be beneficial for both our health and our environment. I am on my own journey on that, as I know other people are. We have shown in the past that, when we lean into public policy changes that we know will have a positive impact on health—such as the sugar tax or changes to smoking laws—they can have great success. Consumer behaviour will perhaps not be an area for significant legislation; rather, saying that the policies need to follow the evidence will have the greatest impact. We know that consumer behaviour does not exist in a silo. There are three factors to be considered: dietary change, sustainability, and social and economic priorities. All of those have to work together for people to be able to sustain the changes that they wish to see.

In changing consumer behaviour, there is a really big place for food and agriculture. The centre or two centres—whatever the preferred model—would provide precisely the scope needed for food, as well as the ability to gather, assess and synthesise the evidence needed to develop the right policies, practices and standards, which would pull all that together and subsequently drive the required food system change towards more healthy and sustainable diets.

I mentioned the work of Professor Salt and his colleagues earlier. At the moment, they have a project proposal awaiting review from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The proposal provides a blueprint for how a centre will work, and I hope it will be successful. Obviously, I am not asking the Minister to intervene on that individual project, but I hope to hear that there is support and a keenness to bring in experts and academics on a What Works model. They are doing great work and can make a really significant difference.

I end with a really important point. A What Works centre for food is something that academics want. It is something for which there is growing political support. It is something that business and industry are really into—they want to be part of this partnership too. There is a really exciting partnership growing behind the concept, and as such we can make a big difference. I look forward to welcoming the Minister, if she is minded to visit, and I hope to hear a little more about her views on a What Works centre.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 4th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) in congratulating our hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and thanking him for all the work he has done over his career to further the cause of animal welfare. I also echo his remarks about our late colleague Sir David Amess and all the hard work that he did to protect animals during his many years in this place.

I am delighted to welcome the Bill back to the Chamber, because it is an important part of our reforms to strengthen the protection of animal welfare across the full spectrum of offences. At the most serious end, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 has increased the maximum sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years. That covers, for instance, dog fighting, illegally cropping a dog’s ears, and gross neglect of animals. This Bill addresses offences at the other end of the spectrum, toughening penalties for less serious offences by creating a system of fining offenders up to £5,000. I welcome that approach: I welcome the toughening of laws at the less serious end of the spectrum, and hope that those tougher laws will serve as both a deterrent and an educational tool for many.

As the common agricultural policy payments wind down and cross-compliance is phased out, we have opportunities to improve and strengthen enforcement mechanisms by introducing a range of proportionate enforcement measures and by providing new, more consistent penalties by extending penalty notices to all kept animals—or, rather, to all those who keep animals. As I mentioned last time the Bill was debated in the House, it does not address the issue of errant animals. On that occasion, I recounted the escapades of our pig Andrew and our donkeys Sergeant Wilson and Godfrey, who staged a break-in at the chicken run. I am sorry to say that, in the month since we last debated the Bill, things have not improved.

Just a few weeks ago, we had another break-out. This time it was the alpacas, Florence, Vera and Wilbur. It was a lovely, peaceful, sunny Saturday morning, we had just enjoyed a nice breakfast and we were sitting down for coffee when my husband looked out of the window, did a double-take and said, “Where are the alpacas?” I said, “I don’t know—perhaps they have gone out of that gap in the hedge that you confidently assured me they would never escape from.”

So into the car we piled, still in our pyjamas, now in our wellies too, and bombed down our drive at about 100 miles an hour in our Land Rover—which is shaking and falling apart—scanning the horizon and the fields for a ginger head, a black head and a white head grazing peacefully, but no, we could not see them anywhere. On to the main road we went; there was no sign of them. In the village we accosted the startled-looking postman, asking, “Have you seen our alpacas?” “No, not since I came to deliver the mail; they were in the paddock then.” “Great! They can’t have gone far.” So back we went. We tried going the other way, and drove around a few more fields. Finally we found them, munching happily away, completely unaware of the drama and excitement they had caused to our Saturday morning. Life would be so dull without them, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am proud to support this excellent Bill, which offers the protections that they deserve.

I know that the Bill is welcomed by the NFU, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home and Blue Cross. It is fantastic to see that huge spectrum of support. I appreciate that the NFU has raised some questions about the appeal mechanisms, as flagged up by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith). I am interested to hear from the Minister what recourse there is for appeal in the case of genuine misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the facts.

Our country is a world leader on animal welfare. There is no place for those who mistreat animals and I welcome the part this Bill will play when it becomes law.

Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 29th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I think it is customary to start by congratulating the Bill’s promoter, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) will bear with me for one moment while I join him in congratulating Vivienne on her victory in yesterday’s Westminster Dog of the Year contest. I am sure that Sir David Amess would have been extremely proud of her.

My hon. Friend was, of course, right to say that Sir David was one of the leading advocates for animal welfare—but so, of course, is my hon. Friend. I congratulate him hugely on bringing the Bill to the House. I know he has been working on the issue for many years. Thirteen years ago, when we were still in opposition, I was the researcher on the shadow Home Affairs team for my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). My hon. Friend the Member for Romford had the shadow animal welfare brief and I remember his work on dogs. The other day I was particularly recalling his work on tortoise microchipping because I was pursuing our tortoise Geoffrey across the garden. It is very unfair that tortoises have this reputation for moving slowly, because they do not; they move at incredible speed, especially Geoffrey. He has this determination to try to eat pebbles the size of his head, which would be incredibly bad for him, so we have to keep an eye on him. Probably a GPS tracker might have been better than a microchip. My husband has suggested a strobe. Any other suggestions are most welcome.

Geoffrey is not the only adventurous animal in our care. We have two donkeys: Sergeant Wilson and Godfrey. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. The other week, I had to extract them from the chicken run. We have two entrances to the chicken run: the little entrance is for the chicken and the big door for the humans. They had managed to open the big door and walk into the run because they wanted to raid the chicken feed. I arrived to find two donkeys guiltily munching in there.

The prize for the best animal adventure has to go to our pig, Andrew. This was when my husband and I lived on his small holding in Wales and Andrew staged a break-out from the new pig pen we had built. Andrew is jet black and he wandered into the maintenance cupboard, trod in a tin of white paint and gave himself a beautiful white sock on one leg. He then trod on the back of a tube of silicone sealant and gave himself a beautiful Santa Claus beard to match his white sock. He then decided to do his bit for the environment. He managed to encounter a bag of recycling, but he did not quite get the hang of it because he proceeded to redistribute that round the farmyard. Then he managed to break into the boot room and get himself shut in the downstairs loo.

However, the penalties in this Bill are not for errant animals; they are for humans who are not treating their animals properly. I am really proud of the work that the Government are doing to protect animal welfare. We have the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which received Royal Assent earlier this year and raised the maximum prison sentence from six months to five years. We have the new offence for pet abduction, again championed by Members on all sides of the House. The Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, which had its Second Reading earlier this week, tackles puppy smuggling, the export of live animals for slaughter, and livestock worrying. It expands the definition of animals to include alpacas—our alpacas will be very pleased to hear about that—and includes a ban on keeping primates as pets.

My hon. Friend’s Bill fills an important gap here, toughening sentences for offences that do not qualify for criminal prosecution but that are too serious to receive a warning. I was shocked to hear that the RSPCA received 57,000 complaints of animal cruelty last year. It is so important that we have tougher penalties to tackle that kind of behaviour at a very early stage and, hopefully, to act as an educational tool and to prevent things from getting much worse.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford again. I am pleased to be supporting this Bill and proud that the Government are, too. As I have said before, pets in our house are people, not property. They are our friends, our companions and they deserve nothing less.

Environment Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tony Lloyd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I hope that the Minister does listen. Although the Government recognised that there was no need to use the exemption this year because of the weather conditions, that may not apply next year or the year after, so we need to follow the experts in a way that they most certainly were not followed by the Government.

Amendment 43 is not partisan; it is in the interests of everybody. I hope the whole House will seriously think about supporting its retention.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

There is a lot covered in this group of amendments, but in the interests of time I will limit my remarks to the three Ps of pollinators, pesticides and poo. We are beekeepers at home. As I speak, my husband is processing the honey from our seven hives in our kitchen. For reasons I have never fully understood, this seems to involve coating every single implement in said kitchen in honey, so I am quite resigned to going back on Friday evening to a kitchen that resembles the aftermath of a house party thrown by Winnie the Pooh. Wish me luck.

Starting with pollinators and pesticides, the UK already has legislation that regulates pesticides that was transferred from the EU. It takes a tougher, hazard-based approach to regulation rather than the risk-based approach that many other countries use. The Bill requires that pesticides have no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to its impact on non-target species, which of course includes all pollinators, not just bees. Amendment 43 would replicate part of this existing framework, which sounds to me like a recipe for confusion. It also seems to be jumping the gun on the new national action plan for sustainable use of pesticides, which I look forward to seeing before the end of this year.

So, on to poo. Storm overflows designed for emergencies are now being used as a daily method of sewage management. In Rushcliffe in 2020, Severn Trent recorded storm overflows at three points in the village of Radcliffe-on-Trent alone, totalling 6,854 hours, while in the village of East Leake, the sewage treatment works there discharged 58 times for a total of 715 hours. Yet Severn Trent has still not acknowledged the need for a new pumping station. I welcome the measures in the Bill that will require water companies to publish data on storm overflows both on an annual basis and in real time, especially because it took my team months to extract the data that we needed from Severn Trent.

The Bill also puts a duty on water companies to produce comprehensive statutory drainage and sewerage management plans, including how storm overflows will be addressed. Those plans will cover a minimum 25-year horizon, which is crucial, because much of the problem in Rushcliffe comes from investment in drainage and sewerage not keeping pace with development and new homes.

The Bill also puts a duty on Government to produce a statutory plan to reduce discharges from storm overflows next year. I believe that is the right approach, because it acknowledges two things. First, it acknowledges that reducing storm overflows is the responsibility of a wider range of actors than just water companies. As the Rivers Trust has said, delivering a plan will require contributions from the whole of society, and in particular landowners, developers, highway constructors and homeowners, to divert surface water away from sewers. I am concerned that proposed new section 141A of amendment 45 covers only sewerage undertakers, leaving other significant stakeholders off the hook. We need a comprehensive strategy that addresses the problem from all angles.

Secondly, as implied by the first point, and as has been discussed today, this is going to cost a lot of money. Initial estimates, as the Minister said, range between £150 billion and £650 billion, and it will probably require some fundamental changes to how we do things. Neither of those is reason not to tackle the problem. I firmly believe we should do so, and the Bill makes a first, important step towards doing that, but we need to ensure that we understand the costs, the likely customer bill increases and the trade-offs against other areas that we want to see water companies investing in. While I support the aims of the amendment, and I acknowledge and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for all his work in this area and in strengthening the Bill to date, I will not be voting for the amendment tonight. We need to go further, but we need to make sure that is based on data.

The final thought I offer is that although debates such as this naturally focus on what is not in the Bill, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) in recognising all the great things that are in the Bill and the huge, fantastic job that the Minister has done, including on strengthening protection for ancient woodlands, the conservation covenants, the scrutiny of forest risk products in the supply chain and a legally binding target to halt species decline by 2030. That is just in the part of the Bill we are discussing now, and I think those things are worth celebrating.

[Tim Farron]

I want to say very briefly that I am deeply concerned that the Government have chosen to disagree with Lords amendment 43. We recognise that there is a gap in the authorisation process for new pesticides, which does not look at the long-term impact of pesticides on bees and other wild pollinators. Others have spoken about the vast importance of bees and wild pollinators to biodiversity and, frankly, to our capacity to feed ourselves as a country. I am yet to be convinced that the Government are acting in the wisest long-term interests of our environment and our agricultural economy by refusing to accept that entirely reasonable amendment from the other place.

Like others, I am about to talk poop—not for the first time, as I am sure others would add, and nor for the last. Lords amendments 45 to 48 are a collection of reasonable amendments that seek to add pressure on the water companies and Ofwat to ensure that we do not see the dumping of untreated or poorly treated sewage into waterways and lakes without significant penalties or the possibility of local communities getting action quickly to rectify those matters.

In my community in south Cumbria, we suffered as a consequence of Storm Desmond. We saw the River Kent polluted so very badly by a storm overflow from the Wattsfield treatment works just outside Kendal, and it basically killed the entire fish population of that river. That was Storm Desmond, which, by the way, was meant to be a one-in-200-years event. I can tell the House that in a 10-year period, we had three at least one-in-100-years events. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the idea that storms are the only time there are sewage overflows is absolute nonsense and the water companies hugely abuse that loophole.

Environment Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The environment is the bedrock of our economy and our wellbeing. It is not something separate from ourselves; it is in the food we eat and the places where we live. I know this, as do my constituents in Feltham and Heston. Whether they are emailing me about biodiversity, badger culling, air pollution, habitats, parks, clean and green streets or everything in between, it is clear that they care about the environment and about the other creatures that we share nature with. Indeed, I was a member of Friends of the Earth before I joined the Labour party as a teenager.

As we prepare to host COP26 in November and as we leave the EU’s regulatory frameworks, now is the time to create positive, impactful, long-lasting environmental protections. Unfortunately, the Government do not seem prepared to strengthen our legislation fully on environmental protections, instead seeming to give the Secretary of State too much discretion and refusing to implement too many of the changes that we need. Lockdown highlighted more than ever the importance of nature for our nation’s health and our wellbeing, but under the Tories, wildlife has been on a downward spiral, with 44% of species in decline over the last 10 years and tree planting targets being missed by over 50%. I want to see nature protected, which is why I am also supporting new clause 25—along with others I have signed that are in the name of the Opposition Front Benchers—to ensure that we are focused not just on planting new trees, but on protecting and maintaining existing woodlands. Hounslow Council’s work on this has been inspiring, and I am proud to also be an environmental champion.

I want to speak briefly about plastics, because the pandemic has also vividly illustrated the scale of waste created by single-use and throwaway packaging. Public, political and corporate concerns over plastic pollution are strong. We have a real opportunity to reduce the volume of single-use plastics that are harming our environment, our oceans and our health.

In March 2018, the Government first confirmed that they would introduce a deposit return scheme in England for single-use drinks containers, including plastic, glass and metal. This went out for consultation in February 2019. Respondents to the consultation overwhelmingly backed a deposit return scheme, which is also very much supported by Heston Action Group, Cranford Action Group and many others across west London and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).

The Government were going to introduce a deposit return scheme from 2023, but two months ago, a consultation document confirmed that it would not now happen until late 2024 at the earliest. There is a clear case to proceed, so can the Minister explain why they need to explore whether there is a continued appetite for a deposit return scheme in a post-covid context? This is an excuse, not a reason. We should be introducing a deposit return scheme well before late 2024. Although proposals to establish a DRS are contained in the Bill, it does not say what materials will be included within a scheme, nor the deposit price.

World Environment Day is on 5 June, just next week. We need to be engaging young people on the importance of our natural world. I recently held an environment photography competition inviting young people aged 18 and under to send in a drawing or photo that represented nature to them, so we can see the environment through the eyes of young people. The entries have shown how much young people in Feltham and Heston care about the environment and about the importance of reducing, reusing and recycling. We cannot let these young people down. It is their futures that this Bill will affect, and it is this Parliament’s responsibility to protect our environment for the generations to come. This needs a serious long-term plan and the political will to deliver it.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]]

Many of us will be glad to see the back of endless Zoom calls that merge into one another. One that will always remain with me was the first time that I met Des, the brown long-eared bat. It was the first time that I had seen one of these remarkable creatures close up, and he did indeed have the most spectacular ears, almost as long as his body. I was meeting Des because I am the Bat Conservation Trust’s species champion for brown long-eared bats—a species that are quite common in Rushcliffe and across Nottinghamshire, but whose numbers are in decline owing to habitat loss. Sadly, Des and his fellow bats are not alone. In the UK, there has been on average a 13% decline in species abundance since 1970, with a steeper decline seen in the past 10 years. Species extinction is a very real danger for one in 10 species here in the UK. That is why the provisions in the Bill are so important. I strongly welcome the requirement for all new developments to have a biodiversity net gain of over 10%.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

What steps he is taking to prevent deforestation.

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

Recognising that commodity supply chains are a major driver of deforestation, the Government established the global resource initiative taskforce. Following the taskforce’s recommendations, we are currently consulting on proposals for a new world-leading due diligence law and working to forge an international alliance on supply chains at COP26. UK international climate finance is also used to protect the world’s most biodiverse forests, with £5.8 billion committed between 2016 and 2021.

[Ruth Edwards]

I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, and I welcome the Government’s consultation in this area. May I urge her to make our landmark Environment Bill even more world-leading by including legislative measures on due diligence?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for being on the ball about the Environment Bill in particular, which will be back before the House very soon and will deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver the most ambitious environmental programme of any country on earth. We understand the eagerness about measures in relation to due diligence, but we do not want to anticipate the outcome of the consultation. Any decisions on the next steps on these measures will be confirmed in the Government’s formal response to the consultation, which will be published after the consultation closes on 5 October, but we are very positive about it.

Environment Bill (First sitting)

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

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

[The Chair]

Before I come back to the Front Benchers, are there any other questions from either side?

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Q I am interested in the witnesses’ views on the whole system of environmental governance and how well it works together, including the targets, the environmental protections and the Office for Environmental Protection. Do you think that it works together holistically? Are there any gaps? It would be good to get your views on that.

Martin Baxter: We have touched on the issue of coherence, which is fine. The key elements of a national framework are there, at least for England, because the governance aspects do not stretch into all parts of the UK. It is important to recognise that. There is a certain rhythm between the process for setting targets and the development of an environmental improvement plan, which is aligned to achieving the targets. Then there is a process of implementation and reporting by the Secretary of State, and commentary and reporting by the Office for Environmental Protection. That is good.

There is potentially a question from our perspective over the transmission mechanism from national policy, targets and plans down to what this means in the spatial context. That has not been brought forward in the Bill. We have local nature recovery strategies, which are in the nature chapter. We have requirements on water management plans, which are in the water chapter. But there was the potential to bring together, at a local level, more coherence to environmental improvement strategies in places, which can be contextualised to local environments and provide the basis for local people to be able to engage in democratic processes in helping to set priorities. That is where we would look at completing a full governance framework. That is the direction of travel that we would like to see.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Q You referred to objectives earlier. Is there not a risk that you could look at these objectives and set targets a little too early —putting the cart before the horse—before we have had a chance to delve into the detail and heard everybody’s expert advice?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I take your point. Like many organisations that we work closely with, we argued strongly not to have set targets on the face of the Bill, because it is really important that there is an inclusive discussion about what the right targets are, which targets will build on what people already do, how quickly we can meet targets and how much they will cost. We think that having a target-setting process in the Bill is the right way to go, and then there can be a discussion about what targets are appropriate.

If you do not have something guiding what you are trying to achieve from those targets, then it is not clear what the targets are for. We would not support two pages or 10 pages setting out in detail what you are trying to achieve. We need something saying that it is about a healthy environment, the health and wellbeing of people, and sustainable resource use. We think that is the right level of detail to guide target setting.

I have worked in environmental policy for 20 years. Those three things are always the purpose of environmental policy. That is not second guessing or putting the cart before the horse, because we know from experience that those are things we are trying to achieve. If we put those on the face of the Bill, it will be clear.

Having knowledge of all the Secretaries of State over the past 10 years, any self-respecting Secretary of State would have wanted to put a target in. However, if a Secretary of State was really interested in butterflies or single-use plastics, you would end up with targets all over the place. What you want is clarity about what you are trying to achieve through targets, and we feel that something high level would be helpful.

[The Chair]

On the assumption that it is on the same subject, I call Ms Edwards.

[Ruth Edwards]

Q You talk about having a healthy environment as an objective. How would you legally define a healthy environment? If it is on the face of the Bill, we need legal certainty about what the concept means. Otherwise, are we not just creating legal confusion and vagueness?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: It is something that has precedent in Welsh law. There would need to be a process of defining in more detail what it means. There are other terms in the Bill that need to be defined, such as the significant improvement test for the targets. There would need to be a process. I would argue that that would be quite a helpful process, because then we would have a public conversation about what we mean by “healthy”. Is it that people going about in their daily lives and going to school should be able to do so without dying? What does it mean, and what is the proportionate, sensible definition for that? You are right that it would need to be defined in this context, but the process of defining it is probably an important step towards achieving the outcome.

[The Chair]

We are nearing the end of this session, I am afraid. In the context of what we have heard this morning, Dr Whitehead, do you have any further questions?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Graham, I am sorry, but I going to take a brief, final question from Ruth Edwards. I have tried to get everybody in. This will be the final question.

[Ruth Edwards]

Q Thank you. I will be very quick. I want to return briefly to the issue of public consultation. How important will that be in determining the type of deposit return scheme that would be delivered by the Bill through the secondary legislation that it will bring in?

Martin Curtois: I believe that in Scotland, they are planning to go for an all-in deposit return scheme in April 2021. We will see how that works in practice. It seems that in Scotland they have decided that is the way they will go. It will be interesting—because they have proposed an all-in scheme rather than an on-the-go scheme—to see whether they can cope with the number of materials that will involve, as far as a DRS is concerned.

There was, perhaps, some merit to an on-the-go scheme. It would perhaps have had the advantage of primarily focusing on the plastic bottles and cans that are collected, which currently go into high street refuse bins and are virtually unsorted. We could go from 60% to 95% recycling of plastic bottles, if we have an on-the-go system that works and that focuses strictly on the bottles and the cans. It will be interesting to see what happens in Scotland and how that evolves. That will be the biggest and best test.

[The Chair]

Q Mr Poole, I assume the FSB’s members will have an interest in recycling.

Andrew Poole: Absolutely. Coming back to recycling or the deposit return scheme, I think it is important to understand local issues. Locality-based solutions may be required. The solution in one area, for example, on a busy high street, will be different from that required for businesses in the middle of the countryside. The importance of consultations is to bring out the granularity of different options for the different types of businesses and different types of locations. As has been said on this panel, a one-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work.

Environment Bill (Second sitting)

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

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

[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.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Q My question is particularly directed at Dr Young and Mr Law. Do you believe that 10% is the correct level of improvement for the biodiversity net gain targets?

Alan Law: I would reframe the question to say a 10% minimum. The work that we have done with stakeholders around those thresholds suggests that many are indeed willing to go higher than that, but there is a sense that applying a mandatory higher level at this stage would be counterproductive. We are content with it, but we apply it as a minimum. I would also say that it is 110%, of course, rather than 10%—it is 10% on top.

[The Chair]

You are saying that 10% is the minimum but also the maximum.

Alan Law: No, 10% is the minimum.

Environment Bill

Ruth Edwards Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

I am going to make some progress.

The Bill will improve how we hold to account those who litter, so we can tackle the waste crime that costs our economy over £600 million every year. It will put pressure on businesses to waste less food and get more of the surplus out to those who really need it.

Part 4 deals with air pollution—the greatest environmental risk to human health. Fine particulate matter is the most damaging pollutant, so the Bill makes a clear commitment to set an ambitious, legally binding target that will drive down particulate levels and improve public health. The Bill will give the Government the power to ensure that polluting vehicles are removed from our roads, and it will give local authorities greater capability to improve their local environment, from green spaces to healthier air for everyone to breathe, so that we all lead longer, healthier lives wherever we live and work.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I greatly welcome the ambitious proposals in this Bill, and of particular interest to my constituents in Rushcliffe are the measures on recycling. The proposals to standardise which recyclable materials are collected door to door and to include glass and food waste in that list are particularly welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to enact these measures as quickly as possible? Can he give me an idea of the timeframe for these proposals becoming a reality on people’s doorsteps?

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will be consulting on when to deploy the powers in the Bill. It is important that we have greater consistency on recycling and on what local authorities are required to do, so that people play their part and know exactly what is required of them.

Part 5 will facilitate more responsible management of water, so that we have secure, safe, abundant water for the future, supporting a more resilient environment. We know that nature needs our help to recover.