Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Ruth Jones Excerpts

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

At the moment, there are some agreements and controls on planting trees in return for grants for management, stewardship and development, but one would have thought that on planting, the Bill presents an opportunity to put precisely those sorts of protective measures in place to ensure that trees are not only planted, but actually go ahead in their careers and become the best trees that they can be for the purpose of sequestration. Indeed, the Government are drawing up a tree strategy at the moment, but it does not seem to have come anywhere near the Bill. We have no clear understanding of what legislation that strategy might lead to or whether it will end up being entirely voluntary, which would be a terrible idea if we want to ensure that planted trees live their lives in the best way possible.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. After all, page 99 of the Bill includes “Tree felling and planting”, which are the two sides of the coin, but the whole of the next page gives everybody the authority to cut down trees, as he has quite rightly pointed out. Does he agree that that is a rather negative way forward?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone chanced upon the Bill, flicked through it, looked at the contents at the front and said, “There is a section on tree felling and planting; that’s good, because we want to know about tree planting,” and then found that there was no tree planting, that would be rather an odd outcome, yet that is what we have in front of us. I would like to know, at the very least, what the Minister thinks can be done to rectify that omission and whether she intends, when the tree strategy is mature, to amend the Bill or, if this Bill has already gone through the whole of the House, introduce a subsequent Bill that will match up with what will be in the Environment Act, to give whole-life regulation and protection to tree planting, which is absolutely necessary for our ambitions for the future. Although we do not want to amend these clauses, because we accept that they are within the limitations written into the Bill, we give notice that we intend to proceed to rectify at least part of the issue concerning the heading of the clauses as we move on to the new clauses.

There is an indication, certainly in schedule 15, that the problem of maintenance and stewardship for the future is not anticipated, even on the question of felling and restocking trees. Schedule 15, which is an amendment to the Forestry Act 1967, requires restoration orders to be put in place—a good thing in itself—where people have felled trees when they should not have done or without the proper provisions being applied for.

Schedule 15 provides a welcome advance, in that there is clear regulatory guidance on restocking, but that guidance then starts to fall down, inasmuch as the restocking orders last for only 10 years. The precise problem that we have outlined with replanting could arise for the restocking orders. The person who has knocked the trees down might grudgingly replant more under the restocking order, but 10 years later, he or she can pull them all up again.

That is certainly not in line with the sort of stewardship that we think has to take place for trees, both in general and in particular with regard to the restocking orders. I would appreciate it if the Minister could comment this afternoon on whether she thinks the provisions in schedule 15 for the duration of restocking orders are sufficient in the light of our discussion, or whether she might review that for future reference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

As you have indicated, Sir George, amendment 187 is being dealt with alongside a number of other amendments, in my name and those of other Opposition Members, and a new clause, which we fully support, in the names of a number of Members who were on the Committee but are on it no longer.

Hon. Members will be aware that we have now moved away from conservation covenants, trees and biodiversity towards a very important new issue: chemical regulation, imports, exports and trading in this country post January 2021. The amendments, and indeed the schedule that they amend, deal with a particularly perverse decision by Her Majesty’s Government upon leaving the EU. They do not wish to have a negotiation or a discussion with the ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, about associate membership of the agency, under which the REACH regulations—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—sit, and I will come to that in a moment. Instead, they wish to wholly recreate a UK series of REACH regulations to be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive rather than the ECHA.

The REACH regulations are one of the substantial achievements of the EU. They are a series of regulations that comprehensively sort out the transportation, trade, appearance on particular markets, and safety of chemicals across the EU. They also provide a comprehensive regime for identifying chemicals—a sort of institutional memory of what has gone on with chemicals. Companies that deal with chemicals have to systematically provide additions to the European database of chemicals, which now stands at something like 23,000 different chemicals. That database is available to all EU member states to inform their policies relating to what they consider acceptable for chemical trade and chemicals landing in their countries, what they can avoid bringing into their countries, and what safety regulations should be applied to the chemicals. All of that has a tremendously advantageous effect on how we steward our environment.

I would go so far as to say that the REACH regulations have played a tremendous role in protecting Europe from all sorts of chemical harm, chemical malpractice and dumping of chemicals in markets an. It is generally environmentally advantageous to have regulations in such a good form, in such a comprehensive way and available for all to look at.

I might add that the REACH regulations were brought about in the EU substantially through the agency of the UK. It was UK regulations and the advance of the situation that we had in the UK at the time that persuaded those involved and assisted the development of the REACH regulations. What we did for European chemical safety is something we can proud of.

One might think that one threw all that away at one’s peril, but that is precisely what the Government have just done. They have decided that, despite quite strong indications that the UK could have engineered an associate relationship with the ECHA. The EU would have been happy for that to proceed, not least because a close, harmonious relationship in dealing with activities relating to various chemicals across Europe is a great advantage for everybody across Europe. Close harmony on chemical standards is beneficial all round.  Frankly, the Government have made a perverse decision, which I cannot fully understand, to effectively completely recreate everything that was in EU REACH on a free-standing basis, subsequent to the HSE in the UK.

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important point from a safety perspective. Does he agree that it is odd that the Government have yet to provide a single good practical reason or advantage for severing ties with the world-leading EU chemicals system?

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. I have not found anyone who has said what the reason is for doing it. On the contrary, every professional body and every joint industry body in this country—all the bodies concerned with chemicals; there is not one dissenter—has said that a close relationship with the EU and a continuing close association with or within the REACH regulations would be immeasurably to the UK’s advantage, and, indeed, would be an advantage all round.

Hon. Members might say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” because the estimated cost of the industry variously accommodating itself to the new duplicate regulations in the way that is proposed is about £1 billion. That is damaging to our economy, and needless expenditure for a lot of people. Not only that, but it is needless expenditure for what appears to be, in the Bill at the moment, a substantially deficient system in the UK.

Among other things, the suggested system does not take account of a lot of the checks and balances and arrangements in the original REACH articles, which we will come to later. The database that I have talked about, if it is recreated in the UK, will take an estimated six, seven or eight years to get to a position where it will be even remotely comprehensive regarding chemical lists. Again, that is a huge amount of work for no purpose, other than us apparently having a sovereign REACH—now known in the trade as British REACH or BREACH. I think that describes fairly well what it looks like there will be in the UK REACH arrangements as set out in the Bill.

The amendments that we will put forward this afternoon would not on their own make up for the Government’s calamitous decision to go their own way on REACH in the UK, but would at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of that changeover. I will not speak to the amendments in the first group individually, but they seek, in different ways, to try to make sure that the starting point for UK REACH is that we do not, at least consciously, regress from what there was before, so that its starting framework is as close as possible, including those articles, to what REACH consists of at the moment. Yes, that does mean we would be duplicating something, but at least it would be duplicated properly, with a number of safeguards and checks and balances. I will come later to protected and non-protected articles, which, frankly, the Government appear to want to play games with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Richard Graham]

By using it better and more efficiently!