Environment Test From Patch Testing (First sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Monday 16th August 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

[Ruth Jones]

Environment Bill (Twenty Second sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 22nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 26th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Mr Gray, we consider that the aims of new clause 33 have already been aired in new clause 29—we know the result of that—so we do not wish to move it.

New Clause 34

Reducing Water Demand

“(1) The Secretary of State shall within 12 months of the commencement of this Act amend the Building Regulations 2010 Part G to—

(a) require all fittings to meet specified water efficiency requirements; and

(b) introduce mandatory minimum standards on water efficiency.

(2) Standards as introduced under subsection (1)(b) shall be reviewed every 5 years to assess their contribution to meeting government objectives for reducing water demand.”—(Ruth Jones.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ruth Jones]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 34 was tabled in my name and in those of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Cambridge, for Putney, and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. We are seeking to ensure that we build on the Minister’s words and give real effect to the long-term sustainable change that the climate emergency demands.

The new clause is clear in tone and intent. Although we are an island, safe and secure water supplies have eluded us in the past, and with a rising population and increased demand, the existing infrastructure, on which we have relied for many years, needs to be supported. It needs the pressure taken off, which is what the new clause would do.

In preparing to speak to new clause 34, I read Ofwat’s recent report exploring the decisions that can be taken, the options available, and the action required to reduce demand for water in coming years. The report notes that

“on average we currently use about 140 litres of water per person per day in England and Wales, up from 85 litres per person in the 1960s.”

The report’s findings also reveal that

“tackling household leaks and using innovative technologies could help to decrease water use by two thirds—or over one bath per person per day—over the next 50 years.”

The new clause therefore goes some way to giving parliamentary and legal effect to addressing many concerns related to tackling water waste up and down England.

The preservation of our environment is ultimately in our hands and those of the people we represent: working people in all parts of the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that the law in shaped in such a way that we motivate and encourage people to change their behaviour and to adapt to the changing and evolving demands of the climate emergency. The Bill will go some way towards ensuring that we reach out and give the people of England the necessary direction, whether that is through the introduction of mandatory minimum standards subject to a five-yearly review or a set of fittings requirements. If we do not act now—there is no reason for us not to seize this initiative—we cannot expect people in the country to act.

This is a once-in-a-generation Bill, as the Minister said on Second Reading and previously in Committee. Let us ensure that those words mean something. Let us deliver a Bill that is fit for purpose, and that will stand the test of time and the scrutiny of future generations. With the future of our planet in mind, I move the new clause.

Environment Bill (Twentieth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 20th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend about a regime of substantial fracking. All that has happened at the moment is that fracking has been paused. All the infrastructure requirements and legislation allowing fracking on a reasonably unrestrained basis are still in place, so it is more than possible that a future Government, or indeed this Government, might decide that they no longer wish to pause fracking. Everything is ready to go. As she said, this raises the question not only of what happens to the fracking fluid but of the escape of fugitive emissions between the well being produced and the gas being conveyed. Indeed, it is the practice, when fracking has been completed, to have a so-called flare-off to clean the well’s tubes, as it were. Enormous amounts of gas mixed with elements of the fracking fluid are released into the atmosphere and simply flared.

We understand that fracking sites will have multiple wells drilled with a very large amount of transport involved, with traffic coming to remote countryside areas, the levelling of an area several football pitches wide to make the pad, and a host of other things that result in environmental despoliation in pursuit of fracking. There are also the long-term consequences when the well is depleted: will it be re-fracked? If it is depleted, will it be properly capped off? One of the problems in Texas now is that the fracking wells have not proved to be as bountiful as had been thought––what a surprise––and several have simply been abandoned with little done to cap them off. There can be a regime for doing that properly, but in the countryside where the fracking has taken place, there is continuing danger and concern in respect of surface water and water in seams underground.

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that it is the unforeseen consequences that are so dangerous with fracking? We do not know what we do not yet know. In the mining industry near my constituency, we have mountain-top villages that are at risk of subsidence because of the extensive mine workings underneath. We need to be very careful about what we wish on future generations.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is an important point. These things do not appear and simply go away. An example of something that does appear and then go away is onshore wind. When the turbine’s life is up, it can simply be taken away. That is an advantage of that form of power, but this form of power leaves in its wake enormous environmental scars and a substantial legacy of worry for the communities in which it has taken place, even after it has finished its life. If the well is to be properly exploited, there is the potential legacy of re-fracking on several occasions when all that stuff starts again to keep the well producing. It is a grubby, dirty, environmentally unfriendly, legacy-rich business that we surely should not be inflicting upon ourselves in pursuit of something that we should leave in the ground anyway.

In an era when we say that our dependence on fossil fuel will greatly decrease—indeed, companies such as British Petroleum have said that they will cut down substantially the amount of oil that they get out of the ground, and that they will move into different areas—it does seem strange for us to be encouraging an activity that involves trying to locate the most securely fastened bits of climate-damaging hydrocarbons from the soil, blast them out of solid rock and bring them to the surface to use for fossil fuel activities. As far as this is concerned, I think the watchword is, “Just leave it in the ground.”

That is why we have given the Bill an opportunity to include protection against that happening—and, indeed, protection against the conflict that I believe exists between the Infrastructure Act 2015 and this Bill, in terms of which permissions override which protections, particularly as far as fracking is concerned. We have an opportunity to set out in the Bill that no well consents will be given, and that fracking will not take place in this country. The new clause essentially says that the Oil and Gas Authority will not issue well consents, with all the consequences that I have set out; and that permits that have been given should lapse over a period of time and the work should not be undertaken.

This is a serious issue for the future of our environment and for environmental protection, and we have the ability, literally at the stroke of a pen, to put it right in this Bill. We can put it beyond doubt that—no matter whether there is a pause, whether there are concerns about earthquakes, or whether there are concerns about the environmental consequences of wells drilled in particular places—we will grasp the issue firmly by the scruff of the neck and say, “No more. We are not doing this. It is not good for our environment, and we won’t have it anymore.”

I hope that hon. Members across the Committee will join us in making sure that that is part of the clean, safe and enjoyable environmental future that we all want to strive for, by agreeing to add the new clause to the Bill.

Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

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

[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 ---

[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.

Environment Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 15th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important and detailed point. We do need to clarify this issue: what is written in law is written in law, and we must make sure that we fully understand it.

The Welsh Government currently have higher recycling rates than the English rates, because of the way that food waste is dealt with. Food waste is separated by the household; at kerbside, it is separated again by the collection authorities. There is food waste as well as recycling. There is an important point to be made about weekly collections. If food collections are less than weekly, all sorts of contaminations can occur, such as maggots, infestations and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we clarify these points?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is important.

In clause 54(4), immediately after the conditions that are set out on recyclable and food waste, there is a separate amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which talks about the

“separate collection of household waste from relevant nondomestic premises”.

The conditions in that proposed new section are different from those on household waste. We have an issue here about what it means to collect recyclable waste, which may be food waste, in the context of household collection; and what it means to collect food waste that is separate from recyclable waste, and appears to be collectable once a week.

Unless the join is properly made between the different provisions in legislation, it appears to me, the holes will not be completely filled. Can the Minister point me to other parts of the Bill where they are filled? Alternatively, will it be possible to fill those holes in different ways, by regulations? I would be delighted to hear from the Minister what she thinks about the idea in general and how far she thinks the clause has gone towards resolving the problems.

Environment Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 14th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 12th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Would he agree that a good example of this is the supermarkets? In the past, food that had gone beyond its use-by date went to waste, but nowadays, thanks to important communication between supermarkets and homeless people, for example, the latter can utilise this food for their evening meals. One man’s waste is another man’s supper.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is right. We have made considerable progress on food waste, and we will come to discuss some wider aspects of food waste later in the proceedings. Nevertheless, she rightly states the principle: if a piece of waste which would otherwise be taken out and processed in certain ways is stewarded through that process, knowing that the outcome of that process is a good outcome, that process can be much more easily streamlined to ensure that what was waste becomes a resource.

For years, the Environment Agency has been trying to tackle the many instances where something that goes into a waste stream, such as bones residual to animal rendering, carcases and various other things, may well be treated as hazardous and have particular measures apply to them. However, if those bones can be transferred for the making of bone china, that industry can take the bones and steward them through the process of becoming a resource for undertaking what the industry wants to do. That allows what looked like a problem to become a solution. That is just one example—perhaps, not a terribly good example—but there are many examples of that in industry, where one industry’s waste, which may be classified in particular ways, is desperately needed as a resource for another industry, which cannot unlock that resource from it being waste. We have never properly gotten to grips with that in this country.

The concept of stewardship, whereby what is a piece of waste can be certified as being stewarded, ready for the purpose of becoming a resource, has never properly been defined in regulations or in law. Hence, often by the time we have gotten around to thinking that something is a particular resource, it has already been disposed of down a particular waste stream and is lost for that resource purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

Again, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and practical point. When ordering a new washing machine or dishwasher, for example, people have to pay if they want the person coming to fit the new one to take the old one away. That is almost a disincentive to recycle and reuse things. It is similar with mattresses. Does he agree that mattresses are the bane of local councils’ lives? They are dumped on the side of the road. We should make sure that they are recycled properly.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend raises the issue of mattresses, which absolutely are the most difficult thing to properly dispose of. I was going to restrict my point to white goods, but it is absolutely true of mattresses. Even with better regulations in place than previously, we still find substantial fly-tipping, quite often of mattresses, old furniture and white goods—old fridges or whatever. It is not so much the fridges and white goods that could have been taken away when a new item is purchased. If that item has a second life and is reused after it has been taken away, at the end of its life it has no value, and we are lucky if it goes down to the council tip or whatever and back into the producer responsibility cycle.

We still have a considerable problem with fly-tipping of these particular products. One way to deal with that would be to give those items a residual value, like the pop bottles. There is no reason whatever why any hon. Member should remember this, but I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, in about 2001, I think, to introduce a deposit scheme for white goods. That would have meant that, for a small additional outlay, the product would throughout its life have a value attached to it, even when not being used. It would be a tiny proportion of the original cost of the white good—let us say a refrigerator—and as that reduced in value over time, the proportion of the value represented by the deposit would increase. Therefore, by the end of that particular product’s life, even if it had gone through several owners, it would have a value attached to it, which might well impel someone to turn it in rather than put it in a hedge. That is the same principle as the value that was added to vehicles at the end of life.

I am not clear about whether the regulations in schedule 8 are actually generic, or whether they will actually enable that sort of thing to happen in addition to the things that we normally talk about, such as the easier recycling of small items. I think the Minister will agree that it is not just about littering, it is about these large items. We could do the same thing with mattresses. We could require a deposit on a mattress, and provided someone had a certification of the deposit, they could receive the value of the mattress at the end of its life. Mattresses actually have quite long lives in various iterations. Does the Minister think that these regulations could accommodate that sort of arrangement? Although she has said that these regulations should be targeted, does she consider that in the fullness of time, perhaps they could be expanded in ambition and scope to accommodate those sorts of arrangements for the future? Does she think that within the schedule as it stands, regulations can be made that allow that to happen, or does she consider that further work may be necessary to bring it about?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am pleased he raised those points, because it gives me a chance to expand a bit on a genuinely interesting subject by which most of the population are fascinated. As has been mentioned, people do want the schemes. In fact, I am old enough to remember those glass Tizer bottles that could be taken back.

To reiterate, we are talking about schedule 8, which deals with deposit return schemes and the issue of how many plastic drinks bottles we use—14 billion a year, as well as 9 billion cans and 5 billion glass bottles. A lot of them are recycled, but it is still only 65%, so we have a long way to go. That is why the schemes will be important.

We have had a consultation and we are in the process of developing proposals using further evidence and ongoing stakeholder engagement, which is important because we have to involve the industry and local authorities—all the people involved in that whole space. The final scope and model of the schemes for drinks containers, including whether it is all-in or on-the-go, will be presented in a second consultation. We are considering cans and plastic and glass bottles.

In the previous consultation, we also consulted on coffee cups, cartons and pouches, which are one of my bugbears. We seem to be forced to buy our cat food in pouches whereas most of it used to be in tins, which I can hardly find now. That is an interesting subject that we need to go into at some point.

The opportunity will be provided by the schedule, which sets out the framework for deposit return schemes, including what items would be subject to a deposit return scheme, how the deposit amount is set, the requirements that can be placed on scheme participants, and the enforcement requirements under a deposit return scheme. The crucial thing is that a scheme has to be well functioning to make it easy for consumers to use. That is incredibly important, otherwise they will not use it and it will not work.

Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 13th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

Absolutely, and that is what we want to do as well. That is why we want to ensure that it works as well as it should. It appears, I hope, that this formulation, strange as it looks, is capable of being operated in a sound way, as far as the Assembly is concerned for the future, and that people will not be running around corridors asking a building to think, but running around corridors asking the Minister to think, which is what I thought should have been in the Bill. If it works that way round, that is fine. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I have no intention of opposing the schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4

Producer responsibility obligations

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 151, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, even though we are not mentioning that. It is lovely to have the Minister back in her rightful place. The Environment Bill is very important and long overdue, as we have heard. I want to touch on the reason we are here, what we are dealing with, and how we can honour the pledges and promises made to the people of the United Kingdom, primarily in England.

The Bill, according to the Government’s published paper, comprises two thematic halves. The first provides a legal framework for environmental governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test so knowledgably touched on this morning and last week. The second half of the Bill makes provision for specific improvement of the environment, including measures on waste and resource efficiency, which we are discussing today. In the coming days, we will cover air quality and environmental recall; water; nature and biodiversity; and conservation covenants. They will all be discussed. We need to get the Bill right to ensure that we honour the promise to provide a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation—a promise that the Minister and many Government Members heralded at every opportunity, at least until the Bill disappeared back in March. It is so good to have it back.

That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled this amendment. We must not have a Bill that is made up of passive “mays” or “coulds”; we need “wills” and “musts”. Many in this House and across England, and those in the sector, have waited hundreds of days for the missing-in-action Bill. Now that it is back and we are here in Committee, we must not waste—I apologise for the pun—the opportunity to have the strongest possible legislation, so we have tabled the amendment.

Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 12th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is important to recognise that people may not even know of such places. There is a mountain called Twmbarlwm just outside my constituency. On the top, it has a twmp, or pimple, which is an iron age burial mound. People do not even know that that pimple is manmade. They would be affronted if anyone tried to deal with it. They assume it is natural, but it is not, though it has been there for hundreds of centuries. It is important that we make every effort to cover all eventualities. If this Bill is to be groundbreaking for generations to come, we must cover all bases.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That underlines what we know is right in our hearts. If we reduced this to a few lines on a piece of paper, we might have to start making them distinctive in order to define what we are talking about. This amendment tries to ensure that such structures are regarded as part of the natural landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, that is quite right. Perhaps I should have thought of that; it is difficult to do mid-flight.

It was also remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her place this morning. I think she knows that when she was absent last week, we sent her our good wishes for a speedy recovery. Indeed, our wishes have come true as she is with us today. I am pleased to see her in her place and I hope that she has indeed had a speedy recovery and is fully back with us, as I am sure she is. I am sorry that I did not place that on the record earlier, but I was rather preoccupied with Maiden castle and various other things.

The amendment seeks to include a better definition, effectively through a few simple words, in the same clause that we were talking about previously concerning the meaning of “natural environment”. It would mean that subsection 41(c), which begins

“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water”,

had at the end a clarification that that includes the marine environment.

It seems pretty obvious that that ought to be in the Bill. We are a country with a length of coastline that is almost uniquely extensive in Europe, and we are an island. Obviously, in the UK, we also have extensive inland waterways, such as lakes, rivers and, indeed, man-made inland waterways that have effectively become part of the natural environment, as I am sure hon. Members agree, such that they merit the sort of protection suggested by the definition in this clause. When the Minister replies, will she assure us that man-made inland waterways are included in the definition of “water” in the clause?

At no point does the Bill mention the marine environment. To the credit of Members across the House, we have developed sites of special scientific interest and conservation zones in the marine environment and around the coastline, sometimes quite a way offshore. It is not a question of having the land and the foreshore, and then simply the deep blue yonder. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in those zones.

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. During the passage of the Fisheries Bill, we spent a long time considering how to avoid dredgers damaging the marine environment. That should be included in this Bill, so that our legislation is joined up and cohesive, and ensures that the marine environment is as protected as the land.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend’s important point underlines the purpose of our amendment and impels me to highlight that this is not just a theoretical question about the protection of the marine environment, but a practical question about how we approach that. For example, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay has the very practical effect of—among other things—preserving the environment for cold-water corals and various other things in that very fragile ecosystem that require our protection to survive and thrive. Those considerations of the marine environment are absolutely and indistinguishably conjoined.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 43, page 26, line 6, leave out “mainly”.

This amendment ensures that any legislative provision that concerns environmental protection is included in the definition of “environmental law”.

Clause 43 concerns itself with one word, but, as I think hon. Members will appreciate, it provides, as is the case with many Bills, the crucial underpinning of a particular part—namely, those clauses up to clause 43. In other words, it defines the words we have discussed this morning and on other occasions. Although it may appear that a great deal of debate is focused on very small parts of the Bill—on one or two words—it is important to pay attention to them and to get this right. I appreciate that we may appear not to be making the progress we would otherwise want to make, but this is essential for the overall progress of the Bill. I can reveal to the Committee that I have discussed with the Government Whip exactly how much progress we can make today, and we need to ensure that it is commensurate with getting the Bill through in good order overall. I assure hon. Members—and, indeed, you, Mr Gray—that we want to make good progress and get the Bill through in good order and in good time. I hope that what we do this morning will aid rather than impede that progress.

Clause 43 concerns itself with the meaning of environmental law. Subsection (1) states that it

“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and…is not concerned with an excluded matter”.

Subsection (2) defines excluded matters. We are concerned about the word “mainly”. We think that legislation that defines the meaning of environmental law should be “concerned with” environmental protection, not “concerned mainly with” with environmental protection. The use of that word implies that a number of other things could be construed as not being concerned with environmental protection. Logic suggests that the inclusion of the word “mainly” admits the possibility and, indeed, the likelihood that there are things outwith that particular definition.

Subsection (2) refers to excluded matters and I think we will discuss some of those in a future debate. Nevertheless, assuming it stands, it defines what is outwith the concerns of environmental protection. The Bill itself puts forward the things that are excluded from consideration, while subsection (1) uses the word “mainly”, which adds another area of uncertainty regarding what is and what is not excluded.

[Ruth Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the term “mainly concerned” is ambiguous, with no clear legal meaning? Indeed, Dr David Wolfe QC drew attention to this issue in his written evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is a mine of carefully culled information from previous sittings of the Committee, including the evidence sessions, which underline the points we are making this morning. She has set out that this is not just our concern; it is widely shared outside this Committee Room, and for that reason it deserves additional consideration.

Our case is that the word “mainly” should be removed and that the definition of environmental law should be that it is “concerned with environmental protection”. Subject to concerns that we may have about some of the areas listed under excluded matters, the fact that subsections (1) and (2) sit together should provide a very clear line of discussion about the meaning of environmental law as far as legislative provision is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

Elevated indeed, to higher and more august posts in the Opposition ranks. They are therefore no longer on the Committee, but that does not mean that what they put forward should have less consideration by the Committee.

The fact that additional consideration should be given is underlined by the information that we received just before the Committee met, which was that the Government proposed to table amendments that will come up later in the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestation in supply chains and the due diligence to be carried out in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Members will see from the latest marshalled list of amendments that those amendments—a new clause, which we will debate later, and a defining amendment that will be debated a little earlier than that—have now indeed been tabled.

The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial parts of another amendment that was tabled by some hon. Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we will debate much later. This concerns the question of due diligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, for example, and various other elements such as that. I suggest that my amendment was an essential defining part of new clause 5, which has in effect been run with by the Government in the proposals they have just tabled. There is a complete chain of connection between all those.

In that context, what is missing from the Bill is a definition not just of environmental harm, whether direct or indirect, but of what is meant in that context by the global footprint of environmental harm or environmental activity. By tabling their amendments, the Government are strongly indicating that the global footprint of environmental harm is a key element of the Bill.

I am delighted that the Government have tabled their amendments, because they cover an area that a lot of people have been concerned about for a long time. We will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, but the fact that the Government have considered the issue, listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—

[Ruth Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see the Government using the important proposal tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) as a stepping stone to improve the Bill? We should welcome the Government doing that.

[Dr Whitehead]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the constituencies of our hon. Friends who tabled new clause 5, so I may now refer to them.



The amendments that the Government have tabled are important and we welcome them. We would like to add to our welcome the idea that the definition in the clause––which is, after all, as I have emphasised, an interpretation clause to ensure that we know the content, detail and background––should be placed so that it links not only to what we have already discussed in the Bill but to what is in the Government amendments. This will be our only opportunity to discuss this because, by the time we get to the Government amendments, we will have gone past this section of the Bill, so it is important that we decide this one way or the other today.

Environment Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

I beg to move amendment 99, in clause 26, page 15, line 31, at end insert “(including international environmental law)”.

Again, this it is a fairly straightforward amendment. For the sake of clarity and completeness, it would add half a line to the Bill concerning the monitoring under clause 26 by the OEP of the implementation of environmental law. Clause 26(1) states: “The OEP must”—again, “must”—

“monitor the implementation of environmental law.”

As we alluded to earlier in our proceedings, we are simply suggesting adding, “(including international environmental law)”, so that the OEP is required to have regard to what is happening in environmental law not only here in the UK, but elsewhere, for the greater elucidation of what is happening in environmental law in this country. The amendment would make it clear that that is a responsibility of the OEP. We think it would strengthen the position in terms of a light being shone on not just UK environmental law, but environmental law across the world.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I rise to support the amendment. It is all very well having environmental law, but we must take account of international law as well. As we have heard in previous debates, air quality has no boundaries as such. We must also take account of the fact that international law will impact on the way we manage recycling, waste and so on. I therefore stand in support of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I am a bit bemused by the passage that the Minister has just read out. The process here is that the Minister is laying something before Parliament. That is all the Minister is doing, or might be required to do. I really cannot think why that affects the moving nature of the relationship or the question of iterative changes, which the Minister alluded to. It seems to me that that answer has actually dug the hole a bit deeper, in terms of what concerns us about the clause.

The clause relates to advising on changes to environmental law, which it should absolutely be the province of Parliament to have a good look at. If the clause is simply about the relationship between the OEP and a Minister, and the Minister can, at his or her pleasure, decide whether something goes before Parliament, although it is true that Parliament can, in theory, quiz the OEP separately about what it is doing, that requires all sorts of other devices to be put in place. The laying before Parliament of the advice and, most crucially, any response the Minister may make to that advice, would mean that Parliament had a reasonably automatic route to deciding what it wanted to do about those things.

Indeed, taking the clause at face value, we know that under some of the procedures in this place, it would be very difficult for MPs to find out what had gone on, particularly in terms of the Minister’s response to advice that the OEP provided. That response may be in the form of an internal communication, which could be revealed to Parliament only by quite assiduous work to try to get it on the public record. This seems to me a completely unsatisfactory formulation for that reason alone.

[Ruth Jones]

The shadow Minister is making an important point. The wording in the clause is

“if the Minister thinks fit”.

Again, the power is now vested in one person, and we are back in a situation in which, if it is a good Tuesday, the Minister may do it; if it is a bad Tuesday, he may not. This is where we need to take the subjectivity out. The objective advice that must be given by the OEP and published should then make its way naturally to Parliament, to ensure that it can be acted on.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She emphasises that the proper relationship is between the OEP, the Minister and Parliament, not the OEP, the Minister and maybe Parliament. That is what this issue is about.

This is not quite the same as other issues that this Committee has considered, which were about the extent to which the Government may be trying to withdraw or reduce the powers of the OEP. Nor, indeed, is it a question of a simple “may” or “must”, because it goes to the heart of the need for that three-part relationship when it comes to changes to environmental law.

I am getting a little weary of pointing out these lacunae and various other things in the Bill. On this occasion, we do not want to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister has heard what we say about the relationship between the Committee, Ministers and Parliament, which it would be in the Government’s own interest to clarify, because opaque processes can become the cause of quite unnecessary tussles, misunderstandings and opposition. Simply making things open, transparent and clear will prevent those difficulties in most instances. If those difficulties can be compounded depending on whether the Minister has a good or a bad Tuesday, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, the chances of something happening that may not be to the advantage of the Government are also then compounded.

As I say, I am not seeking to divide the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will consider whether an amendment to the Bill at a future date might be appropriate to make matters clear. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28

Failure of public authorities to comply with environmental law

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does he agree that, as various NGOs have also said, without an upper tribunal, the lack of expertise in the High Court could be a problem when determining such scientific, delicate and detailed matters?

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, my hon. Friend makes the point about specialist environmental expertise in a far better way than the Government did to the EFRA Committee. Among other things, the upper tribunal is not adversarial; it is, in effect, inquisitorial, allowing such expertise to come to grips with an issue in an atmosphere conducive to shining light on it, rather than the knock-down, drag-out fight between two sides of the High Court. The Government would be well advised to listen to her point carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitehead]

I hope that, after that plethora of votes, everyone knows where we have got to. I think and hope that I know, but we shall see whether I am speaking to the right amendment.

Amendment 121 would give the OEP’s relationship with the upper tribunal—in this case, the court—a greater amount of leeway over a remedy that could be granted by the court on judicial review. Clause 35(8) states that the upper tribunal—here it is the High Court—

“may grant any remedy that could be granted by the court on a judicial review other than

damages, but only if satisfied that granting the remedy would not—

(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship”,

and so on. The amendment would delete the second part of subsection (8), thereby enabling a remedy to be granted without that caveat on its operation. We think that would strengthen the proceedings. Similarly, amendment 80 would allow the upper tribunal to issue financial penalties where it thinks fit.

Amendment 184—this is important; I am particularly concerned about it—would allow remediation requirements, so that the net environmental position would be returned to where it was before the action took place. One important principle regarding environmental damage and various other activities is that such damage should not go unnoticed or be left by the wayside, and those who cause it should be required to put things back to their original state. If bodies undertake planning activity that causes environmental disturbance, they should be required to put something else in place or remedy the damage. The amendment would allow remediation requirements to be introduced, so that the offending body would be required to put the issue right. That important principle ought to be in the Bill.

[Ruth Jones]

Does my hon. Friend agree that although financial penalties are important, remediation is even more important? For instance, where trees with tree preservation orders have been cut down, contractors have decided to take the fine on the chin, while not doing anything about the trees. The remediation aspect is so important.

[Dr Whitehead]

Once again my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In many cases a contractor, or someone who has decided to undertake an action, may make a cold calculation about what they can achieve by cutting down a row of trees, or sawing branches off a tree, or whatever. Although they might face financial consequences, the net result could be to their advantage, so they will take that on the chin. However, the tree is gone, and the other things have not been remedied. The idea of having a remediation clause that a person who is thinking of doing something must take into account before they do it is an important step forward. As my hon. Friend says, that remediation requirement should be in the Bill and a power of the upper tribunal or the court.

Environment Bill (Tenth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move amendment 157, in schedule 1, page 124, line 40, at end insert—

“12A (1) At the start of each five-year period, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an indicative five-year budget for the OEP.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) ‘five-year period’ means—

(a) the period of five financial years beginning with the financial year that begins after the commencement of this Schedule, and

(b) each subsequent period of five financial years.

12B If the OEP requests additional funding, due to a change in the nature or extent of its functions, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement responding to the request.”

This amendment requires the OEP to be given a five-year indicative budget, and allows it to request in-budget increases.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Before we start, I note the Minister’s absence this morning. I understand that she is unwell. I hope to convey the wishes of us all, and particularly of the Opposition, for her speedy recovery and return to her full powers, which are considerable, in the business of guiding the Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I appreciate that her absence has meant that we have had to slightly rearrange how we proceed today. The Opposition fully support those changes, and hope that we can get through today in a useful and amicable way and be out in good time this afternoon. That is certainly our intention.

We tabled amendment 157 on the basis of the need to underpin the independence of the Office for Environmental Protection as far as its financing is concerned. The Bill effectively states that the Minister can provide funds for the OEP from time to time, as he or she directs. I do not have the exact wording in front of me, but that is essentially what it states. That is not good enough; independent bodies associated with Departments need a clear line of sight of the money that they will receive for their activities.

In the case of another departmentally associated independent body, the Environment Agency, the combination of the Government hugging it closer, in terms of the agency’s activities, and substantially reducing its funding has created a real problem with its activities. We therefore suggest that the procedure for funding the OEP should be that, at the start of each five-year period, the Secretary of State publishes and lays before Parliament an indicative five-year budget, which we anticipate would be maintained for the life of the Parliament. We suggest that that be done not just for the first five-year period, but for each subsequent five-year period, so that at the beginning of each period the OEP has a clear remit in front of it, knows what its budget is and what it can and cannot do, and cuts its cloth accordingly, with a clear line of sight as far as financing is concerned.

That would mean, among other things, that in each Parliament the OEP has guaranteed independence for its activities. I reflect, in parallel, on the experience of Select Committees, which we were talking about in Tuesday’s proceedings. Following changes made a little while ago, Select Committee members are selected at the beginning of each Parliament, and their membership continues independently of the wishes or interference of bodies such as the Government Whips Office—heaven forfend that it would ever do such a thing—or of suggestions that people ought or ought not be on Select Committees because of their views about supporting the Government. Select Committees are proof that that works. Not only are their memberships selected and agreed at the beginning of each parliamentary Session, but their budgets come from a parliamentary vote, not from Government sources.

We are trying to set up a procedure that is reasonably close to that, in that the budget is set. It would not be limitless, but it would be known and secure for a five-year period—the lifetime of a Government. It would not be possible for it to be diluted, diverted or whatever during that period. We think that is an important principle in setting up the OEP, and we hope that the Minister for the time being—I am not sure how to refer to him—will come at least some way towards meeting that principle, perhaps by accepting this amendment. I hope he will at least indicate that he will think seriously about it. If we are not able to get that very clear assurance, we will seek to divide the Committee to put that principle on the record.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech about the funding. Let us be honest: if we do not have the correct funding in place, how can the OEP be impartial and carry out its job effectively? Does he agree that it would be a concern if the OEP did not have separate estimates from those of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? How else will it maintain its impartiality?

[Dr Whitehead]

That is absolutely right. We need to make sure, as we go through each element of the OEP’s formation and operation, that it is not only thought to be independent, but seen to be so in its activities. This is an important part of the OEP being seen to be independent. I await the Minister’s thoughts on how we might proceed.

Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Ruth Jones and Alan Whitehead

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Dr Whitehead]

The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are important in the wider context of the Bill. They explain why we are finding it difficult to easily track what the various parts of the Bill are against each other. As my hon. Friend says, we will return to that in the next amendment. It is beholden on the Minister to explain a bit better how these things fit together—or indeed do not—than she has this morning. We legislate today not just for those who might be well-disposed towards the Bill and have its architecture well-embedded in their heads, and would therefore hopefully be able to move about within the Bill to put its bits together in terms of future directions. I refer to Ministers and those who are well-disposed towards its ideas—in this instance biodiversity reports. We are legislating for future circumstances where those required to carry out the terms of the Bill might not have the same enthusiasm, dedication and support for the issues as the Minister does. I am sure she will have a long reign as Minister, but she is nevertheless the present Minister.

It is important that we ensure as best we can that the legislation is malevolence-proof and that what we decide in respect of future Governments’ duties, both in this Committee and when the Bill goes through the House, really happens. The amendment is an example of something that could be included in the Bill. I accept what the Minister said about there being some measures that, with some good will, can ensure that those things happen, but they are far from the sort of long-term assurances we want. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, I am afraid that what the Minister has said laid out this morning is very much dependent on her good will towards the Bill.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

The shadow Minister is making a powerful point—we are future-proofing for generations to come. To my mind, it is important that legislation is easy to read and understand, and it must be secure and tight. Future generations will be looking to us to set an example, which is why that is so important. A year ago, nobody knew about covid, so we cannot always read the future, but we must set things down tightly in legislation. That is why amendment 201, which was withdrawn, focused on the use of “may” and “must”—wording is so important. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make the legislation as future-proof as possible.

[Dr Whitehead]

That is precisely my view of what we should be doing in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether the clause is really tight enough to ensure that the provisions work, not just for her purposes but for the purposes of people in the future, and that she will look over the legislation at her leisure—there is plenty of time on Report—to see whether anything more needs to be done to ensure that that point is properly taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.