Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again this morning, Sir Gary. What better way to start this late spring Tuesday morning than by talking about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and our collective responsibility to protect our planet and preserve our environment?

The regulations require producers of packaging to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging they place on the market. The data is required to calculate the fees the producers will be required to pay to cover the cost of managing the packaging as part of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, which is planned to start in 2024. The EPR for packaging scheme will be created by the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2023, which will include equivalent provisions on the collection and reporting of data and will replace these regulations.

We will not oppose today’s regulations, but before everyone heads to the hills again, it is important to be clear with Ministers about our concerns, which sit around a failure to show the bold and comprehensive leadership required to really tackle the waste crisis facing our country. Each year, consumers across the UK are estimated to get through 14 billion plastic bottles, 9 billion aluminium and steel cans, and 1.5 billion glass bottles. That is a serious amount of waste, and Ministers need to get a grip on how we tackle it. The current inadequacies in waste collection and recycling systems mean that used compostable packaging ends up in landfill or incineration or messes up recycling plants because some of the materials used can be just as resistant to degrading as conventional plastics.

In preparing for this morning’s discussions, I was advised that delivery of this scheme is running far behind even the relatively modest new proposed targets to reduce residual waste per capita by 50% by 2042 and to raise the current municipal recycling target of 65% by 2035 to between 70% and 75% by 2042. Will the Minister therefore outline what discussions she had with the devolved Administrations ahead of the drafting of this statutory instrument? As she will know, Wales has long been a stand-out performer in the UK when it comes to recycling rates. The Welsh Labour Government’s £1 billion investment in household recycling since devolution has helped see their rates catapult from just 4.8% in 1998 to over 65% in 2020. That shows what ambition and will, together with real investment and focus, can deliver when it comes to cleaning our waters, streets and communities.

In setting up this new system to hold producers responsible for the waste they create, the Government must be careful not to repeat mistakes from the previous system. I therefore have three questions for the Minister. First—I have raised this before—will she take all necessary steps to ensure that all packaging is properly accounted for? She has already outlined the intricacies of this new system and the potential for confusion. Secondly, will she be very clear for the benefit of the Committee that the new system will improve the quality of data, compared with the system it is replacing?

Finally, when we discussed this issue previously, I touched on the impact on small businesses and local government. Will the Minister set out in detail what support there will be to ensure that businesses and producers are ready for 2024 and the new system while they grapple with the new legislation coming in next year? Importantly, what discussions has she had with local government representatives on this issue? I am sure she will be delighted, as I am, that Labour is now the largest party in local government, and my Labour colleagues stand ready to help clean up after 13 years of Tory inaction.

Without clarity, understanding or action, this SI and the issues it refers to will be what we have become used to: more of the same dither and delay. I therefore urge the Minister to take all steps necessary to get this issue sorted.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Labour Minister for supporting this SI. I think she can see that it is just about a couple of much-needed tweaks to the system.

The hon. Lady referred to getting accurate data, and I think the regulations demonstrate that we are completely on that. The system will not work properly if there are anomalies that distort it. Some of the measures I have mentioned relate to about 1 million tonnes of plastic—8% of the total—and without this SI that could potentially distort the system. It is on the data being gathered that the fees will be calculated to pay the local authorities to do consistent collections, so it is important to get the data right. She raised an important point, but that is why we have introduced this SI and why we continue to work with business and industry. We have been doing that very closely since this started. They have fed back as we have been going along, and we have listened to that. We have listened to them from the very beginning because we wanted to ensure that, although the costs are being put on to businesses to deal with the packaging that they put into the market and the taxpayer no longer has to deal with it, we still do not want that to be over-burdensome. As a result, we have worked to reduce the costs that they face.

The hon. Lady asked about what we were doing with buinesses. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has set up a business-readiness forum and also a local authority forum. She asked about local authorities in particular. That is obviously the other end that is really important to keep businesses, producers and local authorities up to date about the changes. They have been meeting regularly since January, which is when we recommended companies to start gathering the data voluntarily. The official legal date for the data gathering was in March. Those conversations are ongoing—

[Ruth Jones]

I just want to highlight the fact that the packaging industry is still anxious about the data it is collecting. Is it the data that, as the Minister has outlined, the fees will be paid on? It accepts and has no problem with the principle of EPR, but is still anxious about the confusion about data collection. Small businesses in particular are really anxious about this.

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, the data is being collected only by companies with a certain turnover and a certain tonnage, so many small businesses are not involved in this. We have listened to them, and the placing of that threshold came out of the consultation. If she would like that in writing, we can clarify the tonnage and where the data is cut off. It is those with a turnover of £2 million and handling 50 tonnes of packaging a year. We thought carefully about where to place that threshold.

On top of the forums, we have delivered a series of information webinars. More will take place, with more engagement through a fortnightly newsletter to business and industry and lots of one-to-one engagement. We are still encouraging that because, if there are still areas to iron out, we need to know about it. There were also a series of eight-week visioning events to consider the long-term future of all those collection and packaging reforms. They involved producers, trade associations, local authorities, waste management companies and environmental non-governmental organisations. I hope that answers the question satisfactorily.

I thank the Committee for its input. I can see other Members thinking about examples of what will be captured through this SI, and I would like to stress that the SI will make crucial changes to the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. It will ensure the proper functioning of the packaging recycling note evidence scheme and that fair producer fees are set, which reflect the true amount of packaging that arises as waste in the UK.

The amendment will also firm up the definition of “brand owner”, ensuring that producers have confidence in where their obligations lie. Finally, further amendments made through these regulations will provide clarification on producer reporting as well as correct minor inaccuracies in the drafting. Once again, I thank all of those on the Committee from both the Government and Opposition for supporting this SI.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Graham. I am delighted to say a few words about chemicals and chemicals regulation as we consider the draft regulations before the Committee. It is important to say from the outset that we will not oppose the SI, but before everyone heads for the hills there are some important points that we need to raise and questions that need to be answered.

The SI pushes back the existing deadlines for the registration of data by three years, all dependent on the tonnage and hazard profile of the relevant substance. The earliest deadline is for substances imported or produced at the highest tonnage band per year—that would be 1,000 tonnes or more—or indeed those that fall into certain hazard categories, such as carcinogens. The SI also extends the deadline for the UK regulator, the HSE, to complete compliance checks for 20% of registrations in line with the new deadlines, as the Minister has outlined.

We acknowledge that in many ways this is a technical instrument, but there is a wider point about chemicals regulation in the UK, and we need to take a moment to look at what the SI means for it. The SI is well overdue, as is a debate on chemicals regulation. I will take the Minister briefly through my concerns, and those of campaigners and stakeholders such as CHEM Trust. I pay tribute to Chloe Alexander and all her colleagues for the brilliant work that they do to keep these matters at the top of our agenda.

This is the second time that the Minister’s Department has pushed back deadlines for companies to submit safety data on substances also registered in EU REACH. The first delay was due to the REACH Etc. (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which extended the deadline from 31 December 2022 to the current staggered deadlines of October 2023, 2025 and 2027, as we have heard. Like the 2020 Regulations, today’s statutory instrument has been drawn to the special attention of the House by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which raised concerns about the deliverability of the new model within current timeframes. There were also important concerns from experts and our partners in relevant NGOs about a potential weakening of protections of human health and the environment, and the HSE’s capacity to carry out its regulatory function in this area. It would be really helpful if the Minister would address those concerns specifically and share with the Committee what she plans to do about them.

Secondly, the Opposition understand the reasons for a further delay, which responds to industry concerns about the cost and practicability of providing the data within the current timeframe, and to allow time to develop an alternative transitional registration model. However, there is uncertainty about the alternative transitional registration model under development and its viability. The vital principle of “no data, no market”, which lies at the heart of good chemicals regulation, continues to get kicked down the road, increasing the risk of unsafe or inadequately assessed chemicals on the market. Does the Minister share my concern that that may provide not only less protection and fewer improvements—which are in the pipeline at the EU level—but less protection than the model it replaces? While we rightly honoured the vote of the British people, Ministers must make Brexit work and, as the SI makes clear, on REACH and chemicals they are missing in action at present.

The impacts on human health and the environment from this delay have not been effectively mitigated. That could be done by adopting risk management decisions during the transition period. Those mitigations would have maintained access to the full data and provided an ability to evaluate the risks properly. Why did we not do that? What discussions has the Minister had with our colleagues in Europe on that?

Another concern on these Benches is the fact that the United Kingdom is already falling behind and diverging from EU protections of hazardous chemicals, due to a lack of data and resources in the UK system. REACH worked and kept us safe, and even now, several years after the British people voted to leave the EU, we still have no plan to match the scale and pace of proper and thorough chemical regulation.

It is clear to me and many campaigners that measures are needed to minimise divergence and close the protective gap to avoid the dumping of products on the UK market that no longer meet the higher EU standards. Thanks to this Government, our waterways and town centres face a waste crisis, but we cannot have a chemical waste crisis too. I would like the Minister to explain in detail what steps she has taken to ensure that the UK does not become a dumping ground. That is very important, and I hope that she will give it some time in her response.

Reviews have been conducted by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee of this House. Both reviews found that a lack of operational capacity and loss of data is having a negative impact on HSE’s ability to assess risks and carry out its work. I am increasingly concerned about regulatory capacity, as UK REACH is selecting fewer substances for control than the EU, which is resulting in the UK falling behind EU protections for the environment and human health. This is not just about our membership of the EU or trying to fight old battles; it is about protecting the health and wellbeing of our people right across the UK.

The lack of capacity in the UK system—of staff as well as data— to match the scale and pace of EU REACH is resulting in the UK considering fewer and weaker protections against harmful chemicals, and at a slower pace. That may be exacerbated by an ideological interest in less or more light-touch regulation, as well as the UK exercising its new ability to take a different or distinct approach because it can—simply put, divergence for the sake of it. That may seem like smart politics, but it is not, because the UK falling behind those protections will have a real impact on the lives of people across the UK.

So far, UK REACH has initiated just two restrictions, which are not yet in force, on hazardous substances since the UK exited the EU, compared with six adopted in the EU and another 20 that have been initiated. Furthermore, the EU restrictions road map, which targets groups of widely used chemicals of key concern, such as bisphenols and flame retardants, would, if fully implemented, lead to an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 chemicals being banned by 2030. Is the Minister happy with that disparity between the EU and the UK?

I will touch briefly on the decision not to match EU classifications to better identify endocrine disruptors unless and until they are agreed at an international level. That important decision was only recently confirmed in answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). It was taken without consultation or an announcement. I gently say to the Minister that measures to improve identification are vital if we are to reduce the impact of endocrine disruptors on our health and environment.

Can the Minister tell the Committee how many hazardous chemicals have been added to the substances of very high concern list since January 2020? In response to questions about the SI, the Department said that it was building up its regulatory capacity. Alas, it has still not responded to an important question about whether its prioritisation of fewer controls on harmful substances is a short-term measure until it reaches capacity, and about the steps that the Department will take to prevent dumping of products on the UK market that no longer meet the highest regulatory standards.

The Government repeatedly promised that protections would be maintained and that we were unlikely to diverge very much, and not for the sake of it. They even said that they would provide a better system, so we await the answer with excitement. The role of the Opposition is to keep Ministers on their toes and hold them to account, so I hope that hon. Members agree that that has been done today.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. First, I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for this SI, although she has given me a raft of questions. If I do not answer them all, we will respond in writing, if that is suitable. However, I will cover as many as I can.

I want to reiterate why we are doing this. It is necessary for extending the deadlines for UK REACH submissions while we make the much-needed changes to the existing transitional requirements for submitting the HSE information. Without the changes, businesses would be forced to expend resources obtaining information and compiling documents, meaning that they could actually waste money. At the end of the day, they will not need to have all this information when we come up with the full model, working with them. It is, therefore, essential that we extend the deadlines before October 2023, which is when the first deadline would have fallen. All of that has been done in discussion with industry, and the consultation took place. Although the shadow Minister has some concerns, many of which came through CHEM Trust, we have discussed a lot of the issues with industry and that is why we have come up with these dates, which, as we have already heard, are satisfactory for our industry.

I reiterate that our endeavour is to keep all protections in place for the environment and human health, as per article 1 of UK REACH, as noted in our consistency statement, and to come up with a much more bespoke approach to the way in which we handle chemicals. The hon. Member for Newport West might be interested to know that the new model takes a two-pronged approach, working with companies and testing how it will work, hence the dossiers looking at cost, meeting the regulations and managing the risks. We are also looking at how we can improve the information to really deal with the issue of exposure to chemicals. That is where we could have a more bespoke system, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working on that alternative model with industry, NGOs, the European Environment Agency and HSE. I reiterate that that is the purpose and it is well under way.

There was some criticism that things may not be working fast enough, or not at all. However, we have already received notification for around 20,000 chemical substances. The UK did, of course, ask for data sharing as part of the EU-UK arrangements, but the EU refused to engage. It could change its position and open up discussions again, but that is the position now.

[Ruth Jones]

To be fair to the EU, I understand that it took its ball and went home with it, but we were not going to pay and we were not going to play by its rules, so that is probably why it did that. On divergence, I am concerned that it is progressing but we do not seem to have a plan in place. Could the Minister address that?

[Rebecca Pow]

I honestly do not believe that there is cause for concern. There might be divergence in terms of flexibility or decisions that might be made at slightly different times. She mentioned various substances. That is more a matter of timing and of when the announcements are made, but there will not be any divergence in the fundamental principles and guarantees that safety and protection of the environment and human health is paramount. That still stands and it will not change.

NGO stakeholders have also raised this issue and said that they want divergence to be kept to a minimum. The EU is also seeking to improve the quality of its information on use and exposure, so our work on the alternative model could serve to reduce the scope of the new divergence. Having our own independent regulatory framework for chemicals allows us to identify the most pressing priorities that best reflect our circumstances in GB. The decisions we take are based on the best available evidence, including looking at approaches taken by chemical regimes across the world, including the EU. The Health and Safety Executive already looks at other sources and will continue to do so, as I think I said in my opening speech.

The shadow Minister asked about the capacity of HSE. Its capacity is increasing all the time. The NAO’s report from May 2022 shows that it increased staffing in its chemicals regulation division by 46% between September 2020 and March 2022. It continues to build on that capacity. In the long term, by 2025 the number of HSE staff working on UK REACH delivery is expected to grow to 50, and the number is around 60 or 70 if we consider the wider support functions. Members might be interested if I break that down. There are currently about 15 toxicologists, with six established and nine promoted or early career scientists. In addition, HSE can call on REACH independent scientific experts—the pool members—and the expert scientists on a whole range of different committees, as well as the eco-toxicologists who work for the Environment Agency, to support its work. I hope that makes very clear that the capacity of HSE has been ramped up, and that it is working alongside the new requirements to get the system absolutely right.

To go back to chemicals and restrictions, a suggestion was made that potentially it is not safe here and we are not banning chemicals that have been banned elsewhere. That is categorically not the case. Work is well under way to address risky chemicals. Upcoming decisions include restrictions on lead in ammunition and on toxic substances in tattoo inks and permanent make-up. I do not know if you have a tattoo, Sir Graham.

[Rebecca Pow]

In April, HSE and the EA published a regulatory management options analysis on PFAS, or “forever chemicals”, and they will be considering the recommendations for restrictions on other regulatory measures. And we are banning PFAS in firefighting foams. I think the hon. Member for Newport West mentioned that, but that is one thing that we have announced. Under the UK REACH work programme, we will be working our way through a whole range of restrictions, obviously with all of the right evidence to inform decisions made.

[Ruth Jones]

I asked how many hazardous chemicals have been added to the register since 2020. I have since been told that the answer is zero. People in the industry will be concerned to know that no additional chemicals have been added since 2020.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am afraid that this is so complicated that, to correct the answer on what the hon. Lady is specifically referring to, I will write to her. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are banning PFAS in fire- fighting foams, and HSE is now scrutinising authorisation applications for a chemical called nonylphenol, which cannot now be used unless a company can justify its use and HSE agrees. That is the way we work through all chemicals. There is a really strict protocol on working our way through these proposed bans and looking at all the evidence.

I reassure the hon. Lady that we will be developing a chemical strategy, pulling all of these things together and setting out a really clear vision for chemical management in the UK, as well as a set of principles to guide policy development and the regulatory decision making that comes with it, providing certainty to key stakeholders, the industry and our direction of travel. The intention is for the strategy to be UK-wide and cross-Government. She will hear more about that in due course.

I will wind up now. I hope I have answered the plethora of questions and given assurances as to why we need this really important SI. We have made these changes to UK REACH without any impact on the high levels of human health and environmental protections, as demonstrated by the consistency statement and the impact assessments that accompanied the public consultation that came with the statutory instrument. On that note, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers; I think this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship. It is good to join with the Minister and colleagues from around the House this evening. I suspect that colleagues of all parties would probably prefer to be out knocking doors as we approach Thursday, but there is no better place to be discussing the policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs than with you, Mr Vickers, and the Minister.

The proposed changes contained in the statutory instrument seek to improve the regulatory tools available to the Environment Agency. We therefore have no plans to oppose the legislation this evening, but before anyone rushes to the door, there are a number of outstanding questions that I want the Minister to address now or in writing after the sitting. As colleagues will know, the regulations make amendments to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 in relation to the management and protection of groundwater quality in England. I note that regulation 3 makes amendments to definitions in regulation 2 of the 2016 regulations and inserts several new definitions in that provision, for example a definition of groundwater mobile plant. Will the Minister outline what engagement took place with stakeholders and experts in the drafting of those new definitions?

Regulation 4 makes amendments to regulation 24 of the 2016 regulations, to the effect that environmental permits for activities relating to hydrocarbon exploration or extraction, or that intersect a hydrocarbon formation, may be surrendered by notifying the Environment Agency. The hon. Member for Amber Valley raised that point earlier. It would be helpful to know exactly what that notification process looks like, and what discussions have taken place with the Environment Agency to ensure that there is a speedy process for receiving said notifications.

Regulation 5 makes amendments to parts 2 and 3 of schedule 3 to the 2016 regulations, which deals with exempt facilities and waste operations to which section 33(1)(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 does not apply. The amendments have the effect that certain closed-loop ground source heating and cooling systems and low environmental risk burials at new cemeteries or new extensions of cemeteries are exempt, so long as the conditions set out in the new provision are met. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for asking a question about that and to the Minister for clarifying the situation. The Committee knows why cemeteries are exempt, but it would be helpful to know what the monitoring process is for those conditions and what enforcement there will be if they are not met.

Regulation 6 makes amendments to paragraph 6 of schedule 21 to the 2016 regulations, which deals with liability resulting from the discharge of sewage effluent from public sewers. The Minister will not be surprised to know that that part of the draft regulations has raised questions, not least with our constituents, who are concerned about the waste in their waters. It would be helpful to hear what recent engagement there has been between her Department and the leadership of Britain’s water companies. Will she also set out what further powers the Government plan to give the Environment Agency to ensure that we can finally clean our water, as Labour will when we are in government?

The draft regulations are broadly technical, so I hope that my questions will allow for a greater dive into the detail. I look forward to a clear, detailed response from the Minister and her officials.

[The Chair]

I see no one else indicating that they wish to speak, so I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Shall I begin, and then I will be delighted to answer the right hon. Member’s question? I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments, and for being helpful and constructive in allowing me to say a bit more about one or two of the items that I mentioned.

The measure will optimise the regulatory tools available to us for managing and protecting groundwater quality. It will not reduce protections; indeed, it will strengthen them, giving the EA a greater range of tools. That is something that business and industry have come to us about in many different areas. The new tools will be more proportionate to the risk. If matters are deemed to be very low risk, the EA will be more generic in its approach. Other more complex areas will continue to be bespoke, as at present with the mines and so forth. Some responses will therefore be less costly, and potentially more speedily delivered. For example, if the EA has to react to a discharge, it might speed up its response. There are an awful lot of positives in improving the hierarchy of regulatory controls for groundwater. Including extra pollutants such as heat will be of great benefit.

On the mobile plant question, again, this is something that business and industry asked for particularly in the consultation. It is a well-recognised term used for waste activities. It is long established, and a lot of discussion went on with industry about it.

Reference was also made to cemeteries. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester described, a new cemetery will not need to get a permit unless there are deemed to be specific reasons for one, in which case the Environment Agency will work with the cemetery operator to ensure that the right conditions are met. A permit might be needed if the cemetery were near a vulnerable aquifer, or if there were a significant number of burials. Say there was a terrible incident, or something like that—no, I will not say that. Also, if a cemetery were in close proximity to vulnerable water users, public water suppliers, private water suppliers or chalk streams, a permit would be considered. I hope that that gives a bit more clarity.

[Ruth Jones]

I am grateful to the Minister for describing and outlining examples, but the question was more about the monitoring process. How is this going to be monitored and what will the enforcement process be?

[Rebecca Pow]

We have a well-established process for the regional monitoring of groundwater. Any long-term trends in quality and in what is found in the groundwater are monitored, and we have research programmes looking into the impact at regulated facilities. I hope that helps to clarify that that is an important part of checking that what is in place is doing the right thing. Just out of interest, areas that might not need a permit are clay areas or areas where there are very small numbers of burials. I hope that that has dealt with the death section of this SI.

The shadow Minister asked about the onshore oil and gas industry’s surrendering of permits. An oil and gas operator can send a notification to the Environment Agency stating that it no longer requires a permit for its discharge. An application to surrender the environmental permit will require evidence to demonstrate that there has been no impact on the environment from that discharge at the onshore oil and gas site. This amendment will ensure that there are no ongoing risks to the groundwater environment at the point of decommissioning, or any future likelihood of pollution occurring. I hope that that answers the question.

Marine Protected Areas

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Sharma. It is good to be back in Westminster Hall to discuss such an important topic, and I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for his interest in this matter and for bringing it before the House. I am pleased to see his progress—I hope that he will continue his journey of enlightenment and that we will see him on our Benches before too long. 

This is a busy week for many across the House who represent communities who will be exercising their democratic right on Thursday. I am sure that if this debate was on at any other time, we would have seen a lot more Members taking part. Mindful of parliamentary convention, and the visit that Parliament received this morning, I extend my best wishes, and those of the Opposition and the people of Newport West, to all those involved in the coronation.

We are an island nation, and our seas, oceans, rivers and lakes have been at the core of what we are as a country for generations. As well as their economic power, our seas and oceans support a range of diverse marine ecosystems. They provide rich biodiversity and act as important carbon stores, as has been made clear this afternoon.

It is a matter of no surprise to anyone sitting here, or any of the millions of people throughout our country, that our marine environment and the creatures and species that call it home now face innumerable threats from human activity. That is made worse by inaction when it comes to cleaning and protecting our waters. We can all see the damage caused by waste and toxins from dredging and dragging the seabed, which also destroys corals, maerls and sandbanks. I suspect that all colleagues across the House will agree that marine protected areas are an important tool in safeguarding our ocean’s future. It is important that we are focused, committed and ambitious in how we protect our natural waters.

In advance of this debate, I received a very helpful briefing from the Marine Conservation Society, and I pay tribute to it for all the work it does to raise awareness and campaign to secure real policy change. In the briefing, it was noted that on the 28 February 2023, DEFRA announced three new highly protected marine areas: Allonby bay in the Irish sea; Dolphin Head in the channel; and the north east of Farnes Deep in the North sea. That is to be welcomed, but, as ever, it is simply not enough. Those sites represent less than 0.5% of English seas, and I urge the Minister to break the 13-year-long habit and show the ambition needed to respond to the climate and nature crises that we see all around us.

Marine protected areas play a vital role in combating climate change. We know that healthy seas enable the sequestration and storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as I touched on and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) expanded on eloquently—I do not propose to go over what she already said. When blue carbon habitats, such as seaweed and seagrass ecosystems, are degraded and the seabed is disturbed, stored carbon is released back into the water column and could re-enter the atmosphere. By protecting and rewilding our marine environments, we can keep carbon locked in the ocean through increased numbers and biomass of marine species and healthier marine habitats.

Marine ecosystems will play a key role if the UK is to meet its ambitions for net zero by 2050, particularly as the UK has one of the world’s largest exclusive economic zones and governs substantially more marine territory than terrestrial. The area of UK MPAs is 27% greater than that of the entirety of the UK land area. As such, by making MPAs rich with life, we will materially help carbon storage on a massive scale.

I would be grateful if the Minister outlined where discussions regarding the UK’s largest undeveloped oil field, Rosebank, are now, as the hon. Member for Bristol East asked. I suspect the Minister will share the concerns that, if approved, a pipeline will be installed right through the Faroe-Shetland sponge belt marine protected area. That would potentially harm an already fragile ecosystem and the creatures within it, such as quahogs—who knew there was such a thing?—a type of clam that can live for hundreds of years. The area is visited by numerous species of dolphin and whales, as well as multiple species of seabirds, and commercial species, such as haddock. The habitat is already assessed as being in an unfavourable condition, and efforts should be under way to recover it as best as possible.

Climate change is already having severe impacts on the world’s oceans, but oil and gas developments can have direct impacts, including: pollution from oil spills; the release of toxic chemicals through exploration, drilling and infrastructure decommissioning; the release of microplastic waste; and noise from seismic blasting. Will the Minister outline what safeguards will be put in place to mitigate any negative impact?

The matter of marine protected areas is an important one, so I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell for bringing it before us today. I want to be clear that Labour wants to see—and we will deliver—a bold and comprehensive plan to protect and clean our waters. We all know that healthy seabeds are home to many species, and we need to see a broader programme of ocean and sea renewal. Will the Minister outline in clear terms her policy on ocean and sea renewal? I am happy for her to write to me, if she would prefer to do that.

I would also be grateful if she could outline what discussions—and when they took place—she has had with the First Minister and the Environment Minister in Wales, the Cabinet Secretary and First Minister in Scotland, and officials in the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland civil service about her proposals for ocean renewal. As all parts of our United Kingdom are bordered by sea, it is vital that comprehensive discussion takes place across devolved Governments.

Globally, saltmarsh and seagrass beds alone can store up to 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That is almost half the emissions of the entire global transport industry. Imagine what more we can do to preserve our planet and protect our environment by doing just a little bit more and going a little bit further, faster. Restoring and protecting key marine ecosystems can lock up billions of tonnes of carbon each year—as much as 5% of the savings needed globally. A sustained programme of ocean renewal must be part of any plan to tackle the climate emergency. It is time the Minister started to implement this plan, and fast.

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

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr Sharma. Although this topic does not fall under my brief at DEFRA, but rather that of my noble Friend Lord Benyon in the other place, I am pleased to represent his responsibilities today and to respond to a real champion for the environment in Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) has spoken on this subject and submitted parliamentary questions many times. I pay tribute to his advocacy for the marine environment in particular.

Marine protected areas are of particular importance to DEFRA because we recognise that they are one of the many tools in the toolkit to protect the wide range of precious and sensitive habitats, which all Members have recognised the importance of. We have created more than 100 MPAs since 2010, and now have 178, covering around 40% of English waters. MPAs protect specific habitats and species within the designated site, so that those features can recover to a favourable condition.

As set out in the environmental improvement plan published on 31 January, we have targets to ensure that percentages reach those favourable conditions. We are focusing on MPAs because we recognise that they are a vital part of the story. It is essential that they are robustly protected, as has been eloquently said today, otherwise they will do no good at all. I hope I can set out how we are protecting them, outline the progress that has been made, answer Members’ points and possibly commit to writing to hon. Members where more detailed responses are required.

The EIP—environmental improvement plan—describes how fisheries byelaws in the first four offshore MPAs came into force last year, providing protection from bottom-towed fishing gear. The Marine Management Organisation is working speedily, has consulted this year on protections for a further 13 MPAs and is now analysing responses to that consultation. We aim to have all necessary byelaws in place in our MPAs to protect them from damaging fishing activity by the end of 2024. Since we are no longer bound by the common fisheries process, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell rightly pointed out, we will be able to make more progress. The Marine Management Organisation and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities have engaged fully with the fishing industry and other stakeholders, and will continue to do so. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly referred to the importance of working with the fishing industry, and all Members agreed.

I will set out some of the financial support that has been given to the fishing sector. We have allocated £32.7 million a year to support the UK seafood sector through to 2024-25. That settlement enables each of the four fishing Administrations of the UK to invest in their industries by delivering financial support schemes tailored to the specific needs of their sectors. In addition, the £100 million UK seafood fund was announced on Christmas eve 2020, following the conclusion of the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. The fund was set up to support the long-term future and sustainability of the UK fisheries and seafood sector.

I will give just a couple of examples of how the fisheries sector is being supported to transition. As I mentioned, the targets set out in the environmental improvement plan are published, and we have a statutory target to have 70% of designated features in MPAs in a favourable condition by 2042, with the remainder in a recovering condition. Our analysis shows that by putting in place by 2024 the MPA byelaws that I have mentioned we will be able to meet our interim statutory target of 48% of designated features in MPAs being in a favourable condition, with the remainder in a recovering condition, by 2028.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for giving way; I am very grateful for her time today. She has talked a lot about the targets, and we all agree that we need to have objectives, but what about enforcement? I am listening carefully to her speech. What enforcement will be done? How will the enforcement be undertaken? I am not clear at the moment how we will protect the MPAs. Having them on paper is great, but we need to protect them.

[Trudy Harrison]

Earlier the hon. Member mentioned a potential oil and gas project. This is one example of how we will ensure that environmental concerns are fundamental to any approval. Clearly, that will be the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but the assessment is being done by OPRED, the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning, which is part of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. In response to the hon. Member’s specific question about the regulation and perhaps any penalties that will be enforced, I would appreciate it if she would allow me or my noble Friend in the other place to write to her. We use a mix of strategies. The MMO ensures compliance by desk-based reviews of fishing vessel trackers and also site-based inspection, but I recognise that the hon. Member really wants to understand the regulatory and penalty process.

Following the work of my right hon. Friend Lord Benyon and the consultation last year, we have announced that we will be designating the first three pilot highly protected marine areas by 6 July and will explore additional sites later this year. These are areas of the sea that will allow for the highest level of protection in our waters and full recovery of marine ecosystems, and will exclude all fishing. For highly protected marine areas to be successful, we will need to work hand in hand with the fishing industry, other marine industries and sea users in designating, managing and monitoring them. I hope that that demonstrates the Government’s ambition to restore our marine environment with strengthened protections.

We need to do all we can in a way that helps to deliver a thriving and sustainable fishing industry alongside a healthy marine environment, as set out in our joint fisheries statement. We recognise that there are growing spatial tensions between industries such as fishing, the renewable energy sector, dredging, and the oil and gas industry, alongside the need to conserve and enhance our marine environment.

“Bottom trawling” is a broad term describing methods of pulling fishing gear along the seabed to catch fish and/or shellfish. Bottom trawls are used by all parts of the fishing fleet, from small day boats to large offshore vessels. It is important to recognise that approximately 30% of the tonnage and 45% of the value of fish landed by UK vessels in 2021—that includes cod, plaice and scallop—came from bottom trawling.

Bottom trawling and other fishing methods will be stopped only where they are having a negative impact on the habitats or species protected by each MPA. For example, netting and potting are allowed to continue in many MPAs, including Dogger Bank—which has been discussed today—given that they do not have the same impacts as bottom trawling. Bottom trawling can continue in parts of the Inner Dowsing, Race Bank and North Ridge MPA, which does not contain protected features such as Sabellaria reefs, which are sensitive to bottom trawling.

A blanket ban on bottom trawling in all MPAs, which some are calling for, has the appeal of simplicity, but in some cases would involve unnecessary restrictions. We are determined to protect our MPAs as properly as possible, but want to do so in ways that will not involve unnecessary impacts on activities such as fishing. Ensuring that all vessels, including those under 12 metres in length, have inshore vessel monitoring systems installed will enable more efficient decisions on local and national management measures and policies.

The Marine Management Organisation and the inshore fisheries and conservation authorities have embarked on a programme of detailed site-by-site assessments of each MPA. Each assessment is informed by scientific advice on what types of fishing can take place. Byelaws are then designed accordingly, restricting those types of fishing found to be an issue in each site. I recognise that this detailed approach takes more time than a blanket ban, but it is well worth it to avoid unnecessary impacts on our fishing industry.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referenced illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. That provides me with an opportunity to provide an update on the situation. We stand proudly on a global stage; my right hon. Friend mentioned the COPs, and a number of global collaborations and agreements. At the 2022 United Nations Ocean Conference, the UK, US and Canada launched the Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Action Alliance, which brings together state and non-state actors to tackle the illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing of which my right hon. Friend spoke. Through committing to implement international agreements, promote active monitoring, control and surveillance, and encourage transparency and data sharing, the IUU-AA—a mouthful, Mr Sharma —is growing in momentum, and it has recently welcomed the EU, Chile, Panama and New Zealand to its membership.

The UK’s blue belt ocean shield aims to tackle the challenges of IUU fishing and unlawful marine activities around the UK overseas territories, using innovative technology. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, that technology will be critical in this fight. Through surveillance techniques, alongside comprehensive compliance and enforcement frameworks, territories are ensuring that over 4.3 million square kilometres of ocean are protected under this measure.

We will continue to work with the industry to ensure it meets the requirements of the regulation and avoids those illegal, unreported and unregulated methods, as my right hon. Friend set out. The Marine Management Organisation and IFCAs have embarked on that programme. The site-based protection does not mitigate potential impacts from these vessels on the targeted, highly migratory stocks. Although most of what those vessels fish is covered by coastal state quota allocations, the Government are looking closely at what our policies for them should be. It is important that those decisions are based on evidence and that we work with the fishing sector.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell also asked me for an update on labelling. I am afraid I do not have specific information on the sustainability of seafood labelling, but will happily write to him on that point. He is correct that we are taking action under the forest risk commodities provisions to ensure that products bought in this country have not contributed to illegal deforestation. That same kind of sustainability must also be in place for seafood and the like, so I will endeavour to provide that information.

We do have seafood labelling that means that seafood must be traceable from catch—or harvest—to the point of retail sale. In England, the MMO is responsible for ensuring seafood traceability from catch to first point of sale. That is currently achieved through a range of controlled measures requiring the submission of data by both fishers and merchants. Traceability provides assurance to consumers and associated benefits to all fully compliant agents within the industry supply chain.

Finally—I hope that I have covered all points so far—we have taken huge strides in protecting and recovering precious marine life. I would like to be able to say more about seagrass and kelp, which the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned, but I am afraid that I will have to write to her because I do not have the information to hand. I was particularly interested to learn about her examples off the shores of Cornwall and Plymouth. When we arrange the meeting I promised a couple of weeks ago—which I will absolutely ensure happens—perhaps she could be bring me further details, as I would certainly like to understand more about the benefits of seagrass and how we can support those organisations.

Highly protected marine areas will ensure that the UK plays its part in achieving the global 30 by 30 target. More broadly, we are also taking steps outside of protected areas, such as our consultation on banning the industrial fishing of sand eels and our progress on our six frontrunner fisheries management plans. I have set out the impressive rate of progress over the 178 marine protected areas, but there is always more to do. For further reading, I always recommend the environmental improvement plan—all 262 pages of it—which covers the 10 goals across DEFRA to ensure that we leave this environment in a better place than we found it in.

Oil Spill: Poole Harbour

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for asking it. In a sense, it is good not to be talking about sewage discharges today, but this oil spill is far too serious a matter for political points to be made about it, so I will confine myself, in the limited time available to me, to highlighting the worries and concerns of local people and businesses in the Poole area.

I realise it is still early days for the investigation, but I hope that it will be thorough and speedy, and that any lessons to be learned will be published and acted on as quickly as possible. We do not want this to happen again and to blight another coastal community. Can the Minister enlarge on her previous responses and, in particular, tell us what work the Department and the Environment Agency are undertaking together to address the impact that this incident could have on the local population and environment in Dorset, not just on the site but in the surrounding area? What are the Government doing to assess the impact on small businesses which rely on the harbour for trade, and what support will be made available to them? Will the Minister confirm that the relevant agencies will have all the support that they need to address this incident, including manpower?

Poole harbour commissioners’ latest oil spill contingency plan appears to be dated July 2021, although the review date was August 2022. Can the Minister confirm that that is the latest version, and that the review was carried out in 2022? If so, what was the outcome?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for recognising the importance of this incident, and for focusing on it specifically. We are taking it extremely seriously. The investigation is under way, and all the right protocols are in place. The Poole harbour commissioners have activated their emergency oil spill response plan, and specialist oil spill companies are assisting the operation. The Dorset local resilience forum has already set up and convened its strategic co-ordination group involving all the relevant bodies, including the commissioners themselves, but also the Environment Agency and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Each of those is contributing its input, as is Natural England, which has set up its south-west environment team to do its own work. All that will feed in the details that we need to ensure that all the necessary measures are taken and we can understand exactly what has occurred. I give the hon. Lady an assurance that the harbour remains open as usual, the ferry service is working and the local beaches are open, although as a precaution the public have been told to avoid using the water in Poole harbour for recreational purposes until further updates are available.

South West Water: Performance

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 28th February 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once more, Sir George. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) on securing it and for raising such important issues in his opening remarks. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) on raising important points, and I welcome him as a new friend to the Opposition Benches.

In a nutshell, we have a water crisis in this country. People up and down England are simply and rightly sick and tired of the impact that sewage discharges continue to have on our streams, rivers, seas and local economies. They are sick and tired of leaks, burst pipes and poor-quality water. It is clear to all of us that Ministers need to get a grip of this crisis—sooner rather than later.

Today, we have had the opportunity to look at and address the evidently poor performance of South West Water. Colleagues will know that Ofwat—the regulator—and the Environment Agency publish annual reports measuring water companies’ performance against their performance level commitments and environmental obligations. In their most recent reports covering performance in 2021, both regulators gave South West Water their lowest performance rating. As we have already heard, that is a matter of huge concern for the hon. Member for East Devon. It is also of concern to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). They who would have liked to have been here but, due to prior commitments, they are unable to attend.

South West Water was also criticised for a lack of capital investment, as has been mentioned. Across the water sector, poor planning, a lack of investment and neglect of our vital infrastructure has left us with a system that leaks more than a trillion tonnes of water every year and spills raw sewage into our natural environment hundreds of thousands of times a year. As a result of Ofwat’s assessment, South West Water will be required to pay a fine of £13.3 million in the form of lower bills for consumers. The repeated and unacceptable failures of water companies are devastating whole regions in England, our coastlines, and the livelihoods and health and wellbeing of our people.

[Richard Foord]

Let me show the scale at which this affects the region. Does the hon. Lady know that there are more than 350,000 hours of dumping in South West Water’s areas, including on to our prestigious blue-flag beaches, three of which are among the 10 most affected beaches in Devon?

[Ruth Jones]

I did know those figures, but I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has put them on the record so that I do not have to.

Last week, we had an urgent question in the House from the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). Again, we had Ministers making empty promises and the same old tired excuses. The failure of Ministers to act means that the water companies know that they can laugh all the way to the bank. Why? Simply because the Government are not stepping up to show the required leadership. All the while, local people are suffering, whether that is because they cannot enjoy their local beauty spots or take a walk down the river, or because of the effect on the coastal businesses that are reliant on seasonal tourism to provide jobs, opportunities and livelihoods.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I can think of 56 billion reasons that show that the Government have acted on this issue: they have required £56 billion of investment from our water companies. I will not be the first to defend water companies, but does the hon. Lady not think that goes further and faster than the action any other Government have taken in the last 20 years, let alone the last 50 years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that there has been 13 years of Tory government.

[Anthony Mangnall]

Is that enough?

[Ruth Jones]

I am just saying to him that it has been 13 years, and what have we seen? We have not seen the improvement we need, which is why we are scrutinising the situation. That is our job and we will be doing that diligently.

Local people are on the frontline. They are the folk who have to manage the effects of Tory Ministers’ inaction, which is important because water shortages are exacerbating over-stressed and polluted water suppliers. The system is creaking at the seams with over 1,235 Olympic-sized swimming pools-worth of water leaks last year alone. Plugging the leaks will require £20 billion of investment and Ministers must make the water companies, including South West Water, act now.

The hon. Member for East Devon talked about what the Environment Agency can do and its need for more resources. I am glad that he has recognised that need because a lack of resources has left the Environment Agency unable properly to scrutinise the practices of water companies. I hope the Minister will to touch on how she thinks the scrutiny of their practices can be improved.

It is unforgivable that rivers in England are essentially being used as open sewers. Not one river is in a healthy condition, with none meeting good chemical standards and only 14% meeting good ecological standards. That is the record of 13 years of Tory government. The people of the south-west deserve action but, more than that, they need and deserve clean water. The Minister’s Department is full of brilliant civil servants, but, with a lack of ministerial direction, no progress has been made on delivering good ecological status in 75% of English water bodies by 2027.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Devon for bringing this matter to the House and I say to him that, in the Labour party, he has an ally in calling for action and real change. Under a Labour Government, we will see the water companies held accountable and services improved. We are watching, and we are waiting for action. If the Tory Ministers will not act, they need to get out of the way, because we will.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership today, Sir George. Of course, I would like to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) for bringing the subject of the performance of South West Water to us today. I know that many colleagues have been waiting to express their views, and we have heard them very clearly from Members today. There are others, I know, who could not make it, but who would very much reiterate some of the things that we have heard. I also must thank my hon. Friend for approaching the issue in an incredibly measured way. It is very serious, so I thank him for that.

As hon. Friends and Members will know, I make absolutely no secret about my disappointment with the poor performance of South West Water and the impact that it has had on the environment. It is very serious, and I met with the CEOs of all of our lagging water companies—basically those with poor performance—back in December, and had a specific meeting with the chief executive officer of South West Water in January. I have made it very clear that we need to see rapid improvement in their performance. We have all the data, whether it is about pollution incidents, storm sewage overflows, leakage, and so forth, so, rest assured, I am in really regular contact over this issue, and I do think we are making some progress.

The data is stark. South West Water has been one of the worst-performing water companies due to its high levels of total pollution incidents, which were, as has been pointed out, significantly above the industry average for total pollution incidents in 2021. It is completely unacceptable in this day and age, and I have made it very clear that urgent steps must be taken to tackle that.

I did want to say, though, that, actually, there are some positive actions being taken by South West Water, and indeed all of our water companies. We need them to be effective, and doing the job they are there for, to provide clean and plentiful water. I must say that I welcome South West Water’s steps to deliver its WaterFit project. That is a £45 million shareholder investment launched in April 2022 to reduce storm overflow discharges, alongside its existing £330 million investment in waste water.

I recognise, also, its success in putting in 100% of its event-duration monitors to track storm sewage discharges in the south west. That is something that we have asked all water companies to put in, but it is ahead of the game, so we will know exactly what is happening. Data is all, in this situation.

I would also say that it is all very well for Members of the Labour party to stand up there, and be seen to be more righteous than others, but, in fact, their record on putting in any kind of monitoring was virtually non-existent. Some 5% of monitoring for storm sewage overflows went in place in 2016, started by this Government. It is 90% covered now, and it will be at 100% by the end of this year, so we will really be able to see what is going on, and then action can be taken.

[Ruth Jones]

I thank the Minister for giving way. While we all agree that data is crucial, there is the “So what?”—never mind the Ofwat—question. With all the data, what are the Government doing about it? It is action, not data, that we need.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that. I was going to mention it later, but what I was going to say was that it is a shame that the Labour party does not actually look at what is going on. It has been referred to by all of our colleagues. In the water industry we have the most significant project and spend that has ever taken place, directed by this Government, to tackle this whole issue once and for all. I am happy to share the very extensive list of things that are taking place and that will set us absolutely on the track we need to be on.

Also, however, I am a little concerned that we do not want to mislead the public. There are some wonderful bathing waters around the south-west and I, too, love swimming off the coast there. Last year, 93% of our bathing waters, which are mostly off the coast, were classed as good and excellent. That is an excellent record, and it has only improved under this Government. We should not forget that. Obviously, we have to make them all perfect, but this Government have a good record.

To go back to the Labour party, it is all very well for Labour Members to spout on about what they would do and what we are not doing, but the EU took the Labour Government to court over the state of water and they still failed to act. We need to look back at others’ records—we are the Government putting things right.

South West Water has now committed to reducing its average number of discharges through overflows to 20 per year by 2025. That is definitely a step in the right direction, but the public clearly want to ensure that that happens, and we will be on its case. I have also been assured that by continuing on its current trajectory, the company will deliver the absolute lowest number of pollution incidents in the sector by the end of this year. Innovative solutions are being brought forward to include drought resilience in the south-west, which has also been touched on. That is clearly very important.

To be clear, we need our water companies to improve in the way that we need them to, and to be successful, because we want them to stand as successful businesses that people want to invest in. We need that huge investment in the industry, so we want to see the companies operating correctly. That is why we have all the strict measures and Ofwat as the competent regulator, which I will get on to in a minute. Where performance does not improve, the Government and the regulators will not hesitate to hold water companies to account, including South West Water.

The Environment Agency is focusing on South West Water permit compliance. It is prioritising high-spilling storm overflows for investigation. South West Water has now installed the event-duration monitoring I mentioned on all its sites, bar six or seven complicated ones, which will be under way. Since 2015, the Environment Agency has brought 56 prosecutions against the water companies more broadly, securing fines of more than £142 million. As the House is aware, following South West Water’s guilty pleas, on 29 March it will be sentenced for 13 criminal offences that took place between 15 July 2016 and August 2020. It is certainly being held to account.

Ofwat, as the economic regulator of the water industry, will play its role in holding companies to account for not meeting their commitments. Rightly, since South West Water has been shown to be such a poor-performing company, Ofwat required it to present its improvement plan setting out steps to improve performance. As touched on today, South West Water will have to return £13.3 million to customers as a result of not meeting water performance commitments, including those on pollution incidents.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) made a blatant comment along the lines of, “Let’s get rid of Ofwat”, but that is too simplistic. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris), we need to ensure that the regulator, too, is functioning absolutely to its right capacity. Given that, in our strategic policy statement last summer, we put the environment at the top of the agenda, Ofwat has to ensure that clean and plentiful water is provided, and to demonstrate that that is not have an adverse impact on the environment. Customer service is obviously right up there as well.

In 2019, Ofwat asked companies to link executive pay to delivery for customers—yes, we might have thought that that was there already, but it is now. Similarly, Ofwat is exploring ideas and other options relating to dividends and pay. That includes changes to companies’ licences or ensuring that fines for misdemeanours come out of dividends and do not impact customers. I think that is what my hon. Friend was getting at. This is all on the radar, and she is absolutely right that it has to be fully functioning.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Indoor air pollution is an increasing problem that poses health risks, but the Tories have no plan to tackle it. But do not worry, Mr Speaker, because help is on the way. Labour will have a standalone clean air Act in our very first King’s Speech. Before we get there, will the Secretary of State share what specific action she has taken to tackle indoor air pollution? What discussions has she had with other Departments, and what other actions will she bring forward in the coming months? In other words, where is the plan?

[Dr Coffey]

The clean air strategy of 2019 specifically identified indoor air pollution. Ongoing ventilation, and advice on that, is the standard approach. That is true of things such as scented candles and cleaning products. Although the chemicals are changing, a lot of the chief medical officer’s fairly recent report is already contained in the strategy. It is important that we tackle air pollution in all sorts of ways, but the best advice to improve indoor air quality is to keep windows open for five to 10 minutes a day to allow fresh air in. That will significantly help to reduce some of the impacts, and that is needed.

Draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 General Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a real pleasure to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Sharma.

I am sure that colleagues will be pleased to know that we will not be opposing the draft regulations; none the less, I have a number of important points to make. First, I thank colleagues in the sector, notably Ruth Chambers from the Greener Alliance, for sharing their thoughts and expertise.

This draft statutory instrument brings in reporting requirements for packaging waste in anticipation of the Government introducing a new system of extended producer responsibility. In other words, packaging producers will be expected to pay for the full waste management costs of the material that they place on the market. We support that aim, but as ever with this Government, the devil is in the detail.

It will come as no surprise to the Committee that the new system has been repeatedly delayed and is now not expected to begin its phased introduction until 2024—possibly at the earliest. It replaces a system relying on packaging recovery notes established back in 1997, which has long been widely regarded as not fit for purpose because producers typically pay for only 10% of packaging recycling and waste management costs, with the public—our constituents—covering the rest. Yes, it is important that a more robust system is introduced and introduced properly, but it is so important that we must take a moment—a small moment, Mr Sharma—to touch on the serious shortcomings in the proposed legislation.

This draft SI sets out that only producers that have an annual turnover of more than £2 million and put more than 50 tonnes of packaging on to the market will be subject to the full reporting and payment requirements. In addition, the SI brings in new requirements for smaller businesses, including producers with an annual turnover of more than £1 million that place more than 25 tonnes of packaging on to the market; they will be required to report data, but not obligated to pay EPR fees. Those that meet neither threshold will remain unobligated to collect or report data for the packaging they produce; nor will they be liable to pay for its management. How will that help to introduce a scheme that is fit for purpose and that can tackle the waste crisis?

The higher threshold resulting in full obligations is the same as in the current, flawed PRN system, which is a higher threshold than any producer responsibility scheme in Europe. The Government have not adequately justified the retention of the same full de minimis threshold, or their introduction of limited reporting requirements for those putting 25 tonnes of packaging on the market. Will the Minister explain that, in simple layman’s terms?

I note that the analysis suggests that about 1,800 more businesses will now face reporting obligations, but does the Minister have a precise number of the businesses affected? The Minister’s own impact assessment suggests that the number could be as high as 15,000, or as low as zero. What is the figure, and what will she do to ensure that the legislation means something?

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that there would have been room in the draft instrument for the Government to make stronger provision to ensure that effective action is taken immediately, in an effort to combat the waste crisis?

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We do not want dither and delay; we want to get on with this. We support the aims, but we are not sure about the method. The right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire expressed the concerns that smaller businesses have about the new scheme; they need clarity.

To ensure that all material is covered by the new system, has the Minister considered eliminating the threshold entirely, as is common in many packaging systems in Europe, or lowering it to 1 tonne, as was recommended by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The Government might with more justification lower the threshold to 10 tonnes, to correspond to the requirements of their own plastics packaging tax, which has just come into effect. This prompts a question about Ministers doing something with one hand and something very different with the other, which confuses people. Choosing to retain a full de minimis threshold that is more than five times as high, and a new limited de minimis threshold that is more than twice as high, as the threshold for another Government policy on packaging seems inconsistent, to say the least.

The shortcomings mean that the new system, like the previous one, will have to deal with uncertainty about the amount of material that is actually placed on the market, and therefore uncertainty about the real recycling rate for such materials, given that recycling rates are likely to be lower than reported if material placed on the market is not captured in the data. We should be ambitious as we seek to protect our planet and preserve our environment, but as ever with this Government, there is more dither and delay.

I gently remind the Minister that, back in 2018, the National Audit Office launched a report that criticised the packaging producer responsibility system for lacking “robust data”. Data is key, but this interim SI indicates a peculiar approach to legislation that is piecemeal rather than wholesale. Given the retention of the same threshold for reporting requirements in the proposals, it is likely that the new system will be similarly and unnecessarily flawed. Will the Minister comment on that?

In setting up this new system to hold producers responsible for the waste they create, the Government must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the previous system. I have two final questions. First, will the Minister take all necessary steps to ensure that all packaging is properly accounted for? Secondly, can the Minister be clear that the new system will improve the quality of data compared with the one it is replacing? Without clarity or understanding of our actions, the draft SI will be what we have become used to: more of the same dither and delay.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the shadow Minister for indicating that the Opposition will support the draft regulations. She has raised some valid points, so I will summarise what we are trying to do.

The measure is intended to get packaging producers to report data on the amounts and types of packaging that they supply this year, 2023. That data will be used to calculate the producers’ recycling obligations for the EPR fees that the producers will be required to pay local authorities from 2023, to cover their costs of collecting the packaging. Previously, that was all subsidised by the local authorities doing the collecting and therefore the taxpayer. I think the hon. Lady will agree that that is the right direction of travel.

There is no dither or delay—one of the hon. Lady’s favourite statements—going on. We are in fact doing exactly what we said we would do. It was in our manifesto and we are introducing the new system. The fees will be decided from 2024—to be clear about that—so there is no dither or delay. The point of the draft SI is to get on with the system, which means that we need to start gathering the data in advance, so that the calculation can be made about which producer needs to pay what, depending on how much they put on the market. If the material is of poorer quality and requires a great deal more reprocessing to recycle it, they will pay more. If they have gone down the right road, and the material in their packaging is of good quality and already recycled or recyclable, they will pay less.

[Ruth Jones]

The Minister and I agree that data is vital. Will she assure the Committee that she will speaking to industry, as well as NGOs and other stakeholders, to ensure that the data is accurately provided, collected and utilised?

[Rebecca Pow]

Of course, because the whole thing hinges on good data. A new digital system is being created to handle it all, which is critical. A lot of the large companies are already used to collecting data, so the system is not completely new to them; they have been running it and they understand it. However, they will be required to collect more detailed data. I mentioned the kinds of things that they will now have to list. That data will help to inform the entire system.

The hon. Lady is concerned that not all packaging is going to be captured. In fact, all packaging will be subject to the obligation. For producers below the £2 million turnover and 50 tonnes threshold that has been set, the cost obligation will be met by their suppliers, so everything will be captured. That has been carefully thought through with a lot of the producers. It was one of the main points. She suggested a £1 million threshold, which is just a random number out of the air. We set it at £2 million after a great deal of consultation.

The hon. Lady also asked how we will know whether the system is working, and what we will do if we need to change it. Of course, it will be reviewed as it gets up and running and the data starts to come in. There is plenty of scope to do that. She also questioned the number of suppliers. About 7,000 large producers will be involved in capturing and recording the data, which is what we require this year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker.

This Government’s targets under the Environment Act 2021 have finally been announced, more than six weeks after the legal deadline. Sadly, they condemn our children and grandchildren to live, learn and play in toxic levels of pollution for another 18 years. Will the Secretary of State, at the very least, pick up the excellent recommendation in the UK100 report to improve data for national and local action, with a comprehensive monitoring network of air quality sensors?

[Dr Coffey]

More air quality sensors are being put in place across the country. The hon. Lady will know that it is a devolved matter in Wales, so that is for them. Local authorities are doing this already. What worries me is that too many local authority leaders, particularly in Greater Manchester and London, are dragging their heels about improving air quality. We need to ensure that all our local authorities have a focused plan on how we make that happen.

Snares

Ruth Jones Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. On this first day of term, I extend good wishes for the new year to all colleagues gathered here today. I hope that one and all, and particularly the staff of this House and those in the offices of parliamentarians, had a happy and enjoyable Christmas with their families and friends, and very happy Hanukkah to our Jewish friends and colleagues.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for introducing the debate in such a measured way. It was very helpful to have the balances that he gave.

We are gathered here once again to discuss animal welfare, and I thank the more than 102,000 people in constituencies across our country who signed the petition. I note that every single one of the top 10 constituencies for signatories is represented by a Tory MP, including some Ministers, and I hope the debate will gently guide the Minister to provide real answers. If we cannot get them here, I would be happy for her to write to me.

It was only a few weeks ago that we were here in this place discussing animal welfare and the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill, or rather the need for Ministers to bring it back to the House. Indeed, anyone who waited and watched out for the Environment Act 2021, all those months ago, may remember my renaming it the “Missing in Action” Bill, but I think we can now describe the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as the “Missing in Action” Bill mark 2. I say that more in sorrow than anything, because the Labour party believes in honouring our animal welfare promises, and we will always push for the strongest possible animal welfare policies. That is why this debate on snares is so important.

Colleagues of all parties will know that the United Kingdom is one of a small handful of countries in our part of the world that does not prohibit the use of snares in our green open spaces and on our farms. I am sure that many Members present have seen the horrific film footage—for example, of badgers becoming entrapped —and that is not to mention the frequent reports, which have already been mentioned, of domestic pets being caught in, injured by, or sometimes killed by snares. While we have left the European Union, it is clear that this Government need to wake up and join most countries in Europe in banning the use of snares.

I make no apologies for my constant references to Wales and the important work being done by the Welsh Labour Government. As the Member of Parliament for Newport West, I can testify to their commitment and hard work. That is why I welcome the fact that, in their programme for government to the Senedd after last year’s election, the Welsh Government committed to ban the use of snares in Wales. Of course, while Cardiff Bay is in the process of delivering, it is a very different picture here in Westminster. His Majesty’s Government have made it clear that they have no current plans to ban snares in England—I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Minister if that is not the case.

Why is this important? As we all know, numerous animal welfare issues arise from free-running snares—I thank Animal Aid for the briefing it sent through ahead of this debate. I want to remind colleagues of the impact of snares, although many colleagues have already explained that impact far more eloquently than I can. We know that the old-fashioned snares may become frayed and rusty, leading to them behaving more like self-locking snares. In their state of panic, animals may not stop pulling when caught, and can die of asphyxiation. Animals can be snared by other parts of their body, including abdomen, leg and shoulder, causing horrific injuries and a slow death.

Non-target animals, such as legally protected badgers as well as cats and dogs, may be caught in snares. In the case of badgers and some dogs, the stop that has been mentioned may have been set for foxes, and is set far too tight for an already panicking animal. Similarly, if the animal is caught by an area that is bigger than the neck, the stop is ineffective and the snare can, and does, cut into the animal, causing injury, pain, distress and even death. Lactating animals may be trapped by a snare, leaving offspring to die of starvation, and ensnared animals may be attacked while still alive by other animals and killed. Additionally, as we have heard, animals might die of hypothermia, dehydration or starvation. The impact of snares is clear, and that list just touches on the examples we could point to.

The current legislation provides insufficient protection for threatened species and the welfare of trapped animals. The Tory Ministers in DEFRA appear to believe that the onus is on trap operators to work within the law to avoid harming protected species or causing unnecessary suffering, but we know that is not working, so we need the Government to step up and take firm action now. At present, as we have heard, the Scottish Government are consulting on potential measures to address snare use, with a ban expected to be among the options they consider. I urge Ministers in Holyrood to be bold and ambitious, and to give their colleagues in Cardiff a call if necessary.

We on the Labour Benches believe that the UK Government should follow the example of the Welsh Labour Government in bringing forward legislation to ban the use of snares. If they do so, they will have our support; if they will not, they should get out of the way, and we will add it to our to-do list when Labour forms the next Government. Our support for action on snares is not new: we moved new clause 16 to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill before Ministers were forced to carry it over, then leave it on the shelf. My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made it clear that we want to see change and action—that was some time ago now. Even before then, in 2016, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) committed that Labour would ban snares.

Back in May 2021, the Department published its action plan for animal welfare, in which it pledged to launch a call for evidence on snaring. The then Minister for Nature Recovery and the Domestic Environment, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), acknowledged that

“snares can cause immense suffering to both target and non-target animals including pet cats and dogs”.

She was correct, but as ever—and as the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), has said—nothing has changed.

A ban on snares has strong backing from the public and the non-governmental organisations alike. I pay tribute to all the animal welfare charities and organisations—Humane Society International, Animal Aid and the RSPCA, to name just a few—that are working to deliver the change that all of us, certainly on the Labour Benches, want to see. It is important to note that a ban on snares was included in the sector’s 2021 “Act Now for Animals” green paper, signed by more than 50 animal welfare charities, and that polling conducted by Survation in 2020 showed that 73% of UK adults support a ban.

I thank all the stakeholders, campaigners and organisations that work day in, day out to fight for the welfare of our natural wildlife, our animals, our pets and this country, to show real and meaningful leadership. We get the importance of action. We care about ensuring that our country leads by example. When we win the next election, we will do what Ministers are not doing: we will deliver.

I have three specific questions for the Minister. When does she expect a ban to be brought to the House? What specific discussions has she had with colleagues in the Welsh and Scottish Governments about their work to impose a ban? Finally, will Ministers work with all of us who want to ensure that the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill comes back, and would they support an amendment to that Bill that bans the use of snares in England? I am happy to be written to with answers, but I would like a response, please.

As has been mentioned, in response to the latest question on snares in May 2022, the Secretary of State stated that the call for evidence on the use of snares would be published “in due course”. We are now eight months on from that and at least two and a half years from the original question. Will the Minister tell us when the Government will finally put out that call? I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley for introducing the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Trudy Harrison]

There have been multiple calls for me to give further confirmation on the call for evidence that was identified in the animal welfare action plan. Although I am not able to provide any further information on that in this debate, what I can say is that the environmental improvement plan is being worked on pretty much night and day—I was certainly working on it over the Christmas period. I have every confidence that that plan will be published on time at the end of January. On the progress that has already been made on the animal welfare action plan, I would be happy to write to the hon. Member with a detailed explanation. I have one in front of me, but as it is 15 pages long I do not have time to go through it in detail now.

[Ruth Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Trudy Harrison]

One final time.

[Ruth Jones]

I will be very quick. The Minister just said that she would issue the call for evidence by the end of this month. I am just checking for correctness—is that correct?

[Trudy Harrison]

That is not correct, no. I was referring to the environmental improvement plan. It was a condition of the Environment Act 2021 to provide such a document by the end of January, and I am confident that that will be the case and am very much looking forward to that plan.