EU Environment Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I will attend the EU Environment Council, which takes place on 5 March in Brussels.

Following the adoption of the agenda, the list of “A” items will be approved.

Under non-legislative activities, Council will exchange views on delivering the circular economy action plan, including; a) European strategy for plastics in a circular economy, b) monitoring framework for the circular economy and c) implementation of the circular economy package: options to address the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation.

The following items are currently on the agenda to be considered under “Any Other Business”:

Regulation on C02 standards for cars and vans;

Developments regarding shipping and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO);

21st European Forum on Eco-innovation for air quality (Sofia, 5-6 February 2018);

Global Pact for the Environment;

Implementation of the regulation on invasive alien species.

The UK has additionally tabled an AOB with France calling on the EU and its member states to ban commercial trade in raw ivory within the EU to tackle the current elephant poaching crisis.

Two further AOB items have been added to the agenda on the elimination of deforestation from the supply chain and the 24th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP24, Katowice, 3-14 December 2018).

A lunchtime discussion will then be held on enabling eco-innovation transition towards a circular economy.

Council will conclude with an exchange of views on Greening the European Semester. This will address the integration of environmental considerations of the European Semester with the implementation of environmental policy, linking to the Environmental Implementation Review and Environmental Compliance and Governance Action Plan.

Until the UK leaves the European Union, the UK remains a full member of the EU and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. The outcome of our negotiations with the EU on the future partnership will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future.

[HCWS499]

Anti-Corruption Strategy: Illegal Wildlife Trade

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dr Huq]

I will come on to speak about demand. I agree that we need to stop these ivory products being desirable, especially in south-east Asia. The right hon. Gentleman made a very good speech the other day in the debate on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, with which I agreed wholeheartedly. He has also noticed that the Government seem to have downgraded their ambition. In 2016, we were told that all countries needed to reach a gold standard of public registers of beneficial interest. David Cameron painted himself as a world leader in this and promised action. Now, the Foreign Office says that it expects UK tax havens only to adopt the public register when it becomes a global standard, so I think there has been a bit of slippage, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has done excellent work on this. He is absolutely right that these products should not be desirable at all and people should not be clamouring for them.

The conservation community should be encouraged to work alongside anti-corruption organisations in bringing together anti-corruption strategy and environmental policy. We have an environment Minister responding today, but in a way this covers more than one Department. It is a multifarious issue.

It was good that a much-trailed document recently saw the light of day: the 25-year environment plan. That came out earlier this year and it includes a pledge to bring forward an anti-poaching taskforce. I hope that the Minister will tell us that that will happen well before 2043. We do not need 25 years to do this. We know what the issue is. That plan also includes a taskforce. Sometimes I feel that people can get consultation fatigue. I hope the taskforce has a better appointment procedure than the Office for Students. Perhaps that is something for my constituent, Toby Young, given that he is not serving on the OFS any more. I do not know how transparent the application process is.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

A tiger never changes his stripes.

[Dr Huq]

Right, let us stick to the point. To stamp out poaching would cut off the source, which we need to do so that animal carcases are not exported at all, let alone the body parts. We have spoken about the products at the other end. I think there are some studies that show that only 3% to 5% of income from commercial hunting goes to local communities. The rest goes into central Government, agencies, international corporations, terrorists and all sorts of other destinations.

The consultation on the ivory ban last autumn was very welcome, but it has all gone a bit quiet since it closed last year. We are already in March, so when will the results surface? The ban needs to be more than just virtue signalling. There need to be proper measures for combating the ivory trade at source.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Thank you, Mrs Moon; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on securing this important debate on the anti-corruption strategy and the illegal wildlife trade. I welcome the debate, which is timely because we are preparing for the illegal wildlife trade conference in London in October, as the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) pointed out.

The UK Government’s anti-corruption strategy was published in December. It provides an ambitious framework for tackling corruption to 2022 and includes significant international and domestic commitments. The strategy describes the illegal wildlife trade as the fourth most lucrative trans-boundary crime, with an estimated value of up to £17 billion a year. We recognise that it damages economic growth and undermines state institutions and the rule of law. It relies on and exacerbates corruption, cultivating discontent and undermining security. Seizures of illegally traded species have been recorded in 120 countries and include approximately 7,000 species.

I am very conscious that the illegal wildlife trade threatens some of the world’s most iconic species, such as elephants and rhinos, with extinction, but it is not just those majestic animals that are threatened; birds, flora and invertebrates are also among the thousands of species at risk from illegal trade. For example, tropical hardwoods are illegally felled and shipped around the world, with impacts on forest fauna, water quality, medicines and building materials for local people.

CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—protects more than 35,000 species. The UK is fully committed to its obligations under CITES to act against unsustainable trade that threatens the survival of species in the wild. We are pressing ahead with activities inspired by the aims of CITES to ensure the sustainability of legal trade in wild flora and fauna and to protect species ranging from lions and goshawks to cacti, coral and rare orchids.

The UK chairs the CITES working group on proposals to combat illegal killing and trafficking of rhinos. We take an active role in the implementation and development of CITES controls and are actively involved in working groups on species ranging from great apes to sharks. Our aim is to ensure that the international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival.

International trade in hunting trophies is controlled under CITES. Although there are examples of negative effects from big game hunting caused by poor or inappropriate management, scientific evidence shows that in certain limited and rigorously controlled cases, trophy and big game hunting can be an effective conservation tool, supporting local livelihoods and attracting revenue for other conservation activities. That was confirmed in the report that was prepared for the Government by Oxford University. That said, we will continue to look very carefully at big game imports, to ensure that they do not impact on the sustainability of endangered species in the country of origin.

The UK anti-corruption strategy recognises that countering the illegal wildlife trade requires concerted multilateral action to raise awareness, eradicate markets, strengthen legal frameworks, strengthen law enforcement and—critically—promote alternative livelihoods. While I in no way excuse such activity, if somebody can earn in one night what it would otherwise take them five years to earn, one might understand why people commit these crimes. However, there is no excuse for doing so. We are working with global partners, including the G20 and UN, to achieve the aims that I have outlined.

Progress is being made. UN resolutions, co-sponsored by the UK, recognise the links between IWT and corruption. In 2015, the UN General Assembly called upon member states for the first time

“to prohibit, prevent and counter any form of corruption that facilitates illicit trafficking in wildlife and wildlife products.”

Last year the UK worked successfully with Germany’s G20 presidency to agree high-level principles on combating corruption related to the illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products.

The UK has shown global leadership in tackling IWT, and I thank right hon. Members and hon. Members for their generous comments about that. We hosted the first, groundbreaking London conference in 2014, which secured ambitious agreements from more than 40 Governments to take urgent, co-ordinated action and was hailed as a turning point in global efforts to tackle these damaging activities. We also played a leading role in the subsequent conferences in Botswana and Vietnam.

Previous conferences have achieved an international consensus against IWT, but we recognise that there is more to do. The levels of poaching of many species remain unsustainably high and, as has already been pointed out, organised criminal networks continue to benefit from the proceeds of IWT. That is why urgent, united action by the international community remains vital.

Our work on IWT fits within the four strategic pillars that were agreed at the first conference in London in 2014: eradicating the market for illegal wildlife products; ensuring effective legal frameworks and deterrents; strengthening law enforcement; and providing sustainable livelihoods and economic development. These four pillars are well established and are used globally to focus on IWT.

To help to reaffirm political commitment, we are bringing global leaders back to London this October for another conference. I understand that the invitations have gone out and we want to welcome people from around the world, so that we can come together to focus on tangible outcomes for delivery. In particular, we intend to focus on law enforcement and tackling the corruption that facilitates IWT. The conference will recognise IWT as a serious organised crime that affects people as well as animals, and it will harness the power of the private sector, non-government organisations, academia and technology to strengthen global action.

To support our global leadership on tackling IWT, the UK Government are investing £26 million in practical action around the world to reduce demand, strengthen enforcement, ensure effective legal frameworks and develop sustainable livelihoods for affected communities. We are providing funding to Interpol to expand its work on tracking and intercepting illegal shipments of ivory, rhino horn and other illegal wildlife products.

Also, the four-year Waylay II project starts this year. It will improve awareness and understanding of advanced investigative techniques in Kenya, Uganda, Singapore, Vietnam and China. We have funded the British military to provide tracker training for park rangers in African states. We have also worked with China to deliver joint training to African border forces, and we have committed up to £4 million to the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime—Interpol is one of the five organisations involved in the ICCWC—to help to strengthen criminal justice systems and co-ordinate support at regional, national and international levels to combat wildlife and forest crime. We have already paid £1.6 million of that money this month.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister has touched on this, but I asked in my contribution what help was being given towards training and equipping the rangers. Can she confirm that she has been able to help with that?

[Dr Coffey]

I have already pointed out that we have funded the British military to provide tracker training. I attended a project in South Africa, where we have worked with an organisation involving the Tusk Trust to increase anti-poacher training and the techniques to do that. More than one Member has asked about this, but we are investigating, as the 25-year environment plan said, the feasibility of a more established poaching taskforce. Just last week, I was in France speaking to my opposite number and we will explore options together. This work does not need to solely involve the UK Government or the British military; there should be a collective effort to extend it.

The Crown Prosecution Service has worked with officials in key states such as Kenya and Tanzania to share its expertise and to help to strengthen the enforcement activities in those countries. Part of the UK Government’s funding is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ IWT Challenge Fund. It funds 47 projects around the world and has a value of just over £14 million.

Those projects include training of rangers, border force agents and prosecutors; campaigns to reduce the demand for products in key markets; supporting legislative reform; and helping communities to manage their wildlife and benefit from it, for example through tourism. It also funds projects aimed at tackling corruption, by engaging with Governments, enforcement agencies and the private sector. There is also mapping of one area, as the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton referred to. The next round of the IWT Challenge Fund is expected to open for applications later this year. I am sure that we will welcome any new projects, and I hope to announce the successful applicants to round four of the fund later this spring.

We are also strengthening action against IWT at home. We have consulted on proposals to introduce a total ban on UK sales of ivory, with narrowly defined and carefully targeted exemptions. It was welcome that we received more than 70,000 responses, with overwhelming support for a ban. A response to the consultation will be published shortly.

I know that hon. Members often ask, “What is ‘shortly’? When will it happen?” We want to ensure that any ban we propose will be effective and will not be open to legal challenge. That is why we need to go through, very carefully, every representation that has been made to us. If we did not do that, we would be subject to legal challenge, which could derail the legislation that is already being drafted on some of the big items, where there is no dispute about what we want to take forward. I can assure the Chamber that officials and lawyers are already actively working on this issue.

In the short time I have left, I will again mention the London conference. It will have three main themes—

[Angela Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

Forgive me, but I want to try to get through as many of the points that Members raised as possible.

IWT is a serious organised crime, so one area that we will focus on is illicit financial flows and corruption, which is key, as well as strengthening networks of law enforcement agents and helping frontline countries to co-ordinate across the trade routes. As I referred to earlier, we will build coalitions, including with the NGOs, and we will continue to work on encouraging countries to close markets in this trade.

Quite a lot was said about bagpipes, which I am sure are a key reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recognised the need for musical instruments to have an element of exemption.

In addition, I recognise today the absolute passion shown by the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge asked about the situation post Brexit. I can assure her that our commitment to working with Interpol, and indeed with our friends in the EU, will continue unabated. As for the scientific committee, it is fair to say that our experts from Kew and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee are well regarded. We will need to work on how we take that co-operation forward in future.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) was right to praise and to be proud of the specialist crime unit in Scotland. The hon. Member for Stroud asked a specific question about official development assistance. The Department for International Development already provides funding for the National Crime Agency to tackle corruption specifically; I think there is work in 29 countries around the world. That work will continue.

One thing that it is worth pointing out is that of course we want to tackle poaching but hon. Members will recognise that we also need to do a lot of work to preserve habitat, because the destruction of habitat is also a major challenge.

With regard to the beneficial ownership of overseas territories, in reality progress is happening. The UK concluded an exchange of notes with overseas territories with financial centres and with the Crown dependencies on the exchange of beneficial ownership. That work is moving on. I recognise that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton may want quicker progress in that area, but I can assure her that beneficial ownership information should be available on request within 24 hours, or within one hour in urgent cases.

We are preparing for post-Brexit—the IT systems that we need to upscale and the issuing of permits to support the movement of such elements. I have already said no to meeting Duncan McNair, but I know that officials have agreed to meet him, so that is at least something. As for the historic, artistic and cultural objects test, I am afraid that the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton will need to wait for the response to the consultation. Overall, we are taking action.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the anti-corruption strategy and the illegal wildlife trade.

Draft Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2018 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Criminal activity in the waste industry is having significant and widespread consequences across our country. In particular, illegal activity at waste sites can severely damage the natural environment. Odours, and fly and vermin infestations, blight nearby communities, and fires at these sites can shut down main roads and railway lines, resulting in the public sector spending millions of pounds. The economic cost of waste crime is also significant: in 2015, the estimated cost to the economy in England was £604 million.

The draft regulations are another example of the series of measures the Government are taking to crack down on waste criminals, and we will set out a strategic approach to waste crime later this year as part of our resources and waste strategy. We have given the Environment Agency an additional £30 million over the next four years to target waste crime. Owing to the Barnett formula, the Welsh Government will have further funding to allocate to Natural Resources Wales to tackle waste crime, if they choose to do so.

The draft regulations are a composite statutory instrument, meaning a single instrument with provisions that apply to both England and Wales, but which is made by the UK Government in relation to England, and to the Welsh Government in relation to Wales. The Welsh Assembly is due to debate the draft regulations on 6 March inasmuch as they apply to Wales. The draft regulations set out two new powers to tackle illegal activity at waste sites. We developed the regulations in consultation with the waste industry and others in response to the regulators’ calls for further enforcement powers at waste sites.

One of the most effective ways to prevent issues at waste sites from escalating out of control is to act quickly to stop more waste entering the site. The first power in the draft regulations will enable the Environment Agency to restrict access and the importation of further waste on to a site by physical means, such as by locking the gates or barring access. The Environment Agency will be able to do this where there is a risk of serious pollution to the environment or serious harm to human health as a result of the waste on the site, and where action is necessary to prevent the risks from continuing. The agency will also be able to do this when an offence has been committed and there is pollution or harm to human health from the waste on the site.

The Environment Agency will be able to issue an immediate restriction notice for up to 72 hours. It will also be able to apply to a magistrates court for a restriction order for up to six months. A restriction order can be applied for without a restriction notice being issued first. This power will make a critical difference and will be a significant addition to the Environment Agency’s toolbox, allowing it to act quickly and decisively when the situation requires it.

The second power will enable the Environment Agency and local authorities, in their role as waste collection authorities, to require all waste at a site to be cleared, not just waste that has been deposited unlawfully. The gap in the regulations was exposed when we lost a court case and, as a result, all the waste stockpiled at a particularly problematic site could not be cleared.

The Environment Agency and local authorities can require an occupier or landowner to remove waste that has been unlawfully deposited at a site—for example, waste deposited above the limit specified in a permit. However, they do not have the power to require the removal of waste deposited lawfully at the time, within the conditions specified in the permit or under a registered exemption, but is subsequently unlawfully kept or disposed of. That has led to situations in which, after permit conditions were breached, or waste was kept for longer than the time specified in the registered exemption, or a business went into liquidation, all the waste could not be cleared.

Through the regulations, we are closing that loophole. The new power will enable the Environment Agency and local authorities to require occupiers or landowners to remove all the waste at a site, irrespective of whether it was deposited unlawfully or not. This will be a significant change that will ensure full clearance of waste sites that blight our country. Giving the regulators these two additional powers will enable them to tackle illegal activity at waste sites, and demonstrates our commitment to cracking down on all criminals operating in the waste sector. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Robertson. It must be waste, because all three of us—you, the Minister and I—are here. I welcome the Minister to her seat.

[Dr Coffey]

Waste not, want not.

[Dr Drew]

Yes. At least we know we are not dealing with the bag of black waste; this time, we are dealing with more than that. We will not get into an argument over that.

I will make some general comments to start with and then home in on the statutory instrument, because this is an important issue. For anyone who lives in a rural area such as mine, there are three areas of constant complaint: potholes, dog excrement and waste—largely fly-tipping, because that is growing. I caught a little bit of what the Minister said yesterday—I am sorry that I could not stay longer—and I would love to see the evidence that shows that when local councils impose a charge, it does not lead to more fly-tipping. It is important for us to know what the empirical evidence is, so I hope she will provide it, otherwise she will get a raft of parliamentary questions from me.

The SI puts the onus on the landowner who has had something tipped on to their land to take even more responsibility for dealing with it. In her summing up, will the Minister say what the safeguards are around that? The landowner seems to get hit every which way: they have stuff dumped on their land, and if it is toxic material such as asbestos, which needs specialised treatment and removal arrangements, they have to pay for that, too. That leads us into interesting areas of responsibility and blame.

The problem of stuff being tipped is growing by 7% a year. The figures show that local authorities have dealt with more than 1 million incidents of fly-tipping. Whether that is going to legitimate waste sites or not, that is still dealing with the problem of waste in a way that we do not want. Inevitably, people will find alternative ways to try to dispose of their waste, which is when we see fly-tipping. In particular, people who are on the more criminal side will see an opportunity to open up sites and to take money from people.

Local authorities have carried out 474,000 enforcement actions, which cost them about £16 million. It is great that the Minister is giving £30 million to the Environment Agency, but my big question is: what is she giving to local authorities at the front end? They will only bring the Environment Agency in afterwards because, initially, it is local authorities’ responsibility. There does not seem to be any more money going to local authorities, which is a worry, because it means that there will be a build-up. Once people see a pile of rubbish, they tend to add to it, and it becomes more and more of a problem.

Today’s SI is pretty obscure; one has to like legal documents or like reading what SIs are about to want to read it. It is not even as clear as chucking things from vehicles, which we eventually agreed that we understood. To pick up on specific points, proposed new section 59ZB on page 3 gives a waste regulation or collection authority the power to issue notices where waste is kept or disposed of in their areas. It goes into detail about what they are, and about the notion of 21 days. In some respects, 21 days is far too long, because the waste will mount up if it is not dealt with quickly, but if there is an argument about responsibility, that may end up in the courts and be difficult to resolve in that period.

The explanatory memorandum is the most interesting and clear bit in many respects. On page 2, it states categorically:

“More waste has been diverted away from landfill and put to beneficial use, with clear benefits to the environment and the tax payer.”

The sad fact is that it will not be recycled—recycling is flatlining—but will go to incineration.

The Opposition increasingly question, and look at alternatives to, incineration; to me, sticking stuff into the atmosphere is no better than sticking it in the ground. I know it may be lower down the waste hierarchy, but it is something that we ignore at our cost in the long run. When all this waste is collected, what pressure is on local authorities or the Environment Agency to deal with it appropriately? Clearly, most of us want to recycle what we can, and to avoid waste being incinerated or, dare I say, going into landfill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. I will restrict my comments to the draft regulations, apart from on one or two very specific issues. We do not seek to propose more broadly the concept that the landowner has liability. Of course, we expect any waste to be treated in accordance with the waste hierarchy.

I welcome the support from the hon. Members for Blaydon, and for Bristol North West, not only for the Environment Agency but for the powers in the draft regulations. The Environment Agency is undertaking the consultation on cost recovery. However, I point out to the hon. Member for Bristol East that that is just one of a series of powers we will introduce as a result of the initial 2015 consultation.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol North West on the need for partnership. That is very much in evidence around the country, with the Environment Agency working with other groups. Some of the issues that the hon. Member for Bristol East raises, particularly in regard to waste licences and homeowners, are being addressed and are subject to a separate consultation. Two thirds of fly-tipped waste is believed to come from households.

The 21-day period that the hon. Member for Stroud referred to is to allow an occupier or landowner served with a notice to challenge that notice with an appeal to the magistrates court. That provision is closely linked to the existing provision in section 59 of the 1990 Act. He also talked about funding. The point is that we are giving powers that local authorities and the Environment Agency have asked for. The powers that local authorities will have are not about restricting access, but about a requirement to clear an entire site.

The reason for having a second consultation—it was deliberately short, so that we could make progress—was that the 2015 consultation was somewhat broad. The second consultation allowed us to confirm certain aspects of our approach, and to be prudent in making sure that the draft regulations were correct and effective. It is important to get these things right.

I recognise that quite a lot of the law dealing with waste is complex. However, in regard to the idea about primary legislation, the Committee will be interested to know that the draft regulations are in fact an example of using what is commonly referred to as a Henry VIII power: using secondary legislation to amend primary legislation. I am pleased that the draft regulations have had the scrutiny they have had. They have been subject to extensive consultation, and I hope the Committee will wholeheartedly support the two new powers, which I think will do a lot to tackle a lot of the waste sites around today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018.

Air Quality

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department will take to improve air quality after the High Court ruling on 21 February 2018.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

In July last year, we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Yesterday, the High Court handed down its judgment following a challenge to that plan, and the judge dismissed two of the three complaints that were considered in relation to England. Specifically, he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling NO₂ concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan fulfil our legal requirements. On the five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges—Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds—the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling their exceedances was “sensible, rational and lawful.”

The Court has asked us to go further in areas with less severe air quality problems. We previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. I wrote to several councils in November, and that was followed up by officials who asked them to provide initial information on the action they were taking by 28 February. However, in view of the Court’s judgment, we are happy to take a more formal approach, and I have already written to the local authorities, asking them to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss that information and their plans, and whether they can take any additional action to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits of NO₂ concentrations. We will follow that up in March by issuing legally binding directions that require those councils to undertake studies to identify any such measures. As required by the Court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the outcome of the authorities’ feasibility studies and plans.

As we set out in the 2017 plan, the Government are absolutely committed to improving air quality. We have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year, we will be publishing a comprehensive clean air strategy, which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution more broadly.

[Neil Parish]

Minister, I believe that you are working very hard to improve air quality. This is not just about legislation; it is about practical actions to improve air quality. Are you, as Minister, getting enough co-operation from other Departments, including enough money from the Treasury, to address this serious issue? A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report found that particulate matter pollution costs some £16 billion a year and dramatically affects people’s lives. Does the Minister agree that preventive action would be far more cost-effective?

The High Court did find that the Secretary of State’s approach to the timetable is “sensible, lawful and rational” but not enough leadership is being provided in respect of all the local authorities with illegally high air pollution levels. Does the Minister agree that a new clean air Act will provide proper leadership, while allowing local authorities real autonomy to address the pollution levels they face at a targeted local level?

I welcome that the Government can be held to account through the courts and through Parliament, but does the Minister agree that the judgment is too focused on compliance when what we need is a much more detailed, wide-ranging and practical air quality plan? Clean air should be a right, not a privilege. I believe we need to hear much more from the Government now and we need to speed up the whole operation of cleaning our air.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is important, as he points out, to remember what we have already achieved on air quality, as well as what we are doing with local authorities. To remind the House, air pollution has improved significantly since 2010: nitrogen oxide emissions are down 27%, sulphur dioxide emissions are down 60%, particulate matter emissions are down by about 11%, and volatile organic compounds emissions are down by 9%. That is why we are investing £3.5 billion to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions. Some of that is £1 billion to support the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles. Specifically with regard to the air quality plan, we set aside nearly half a billion pounds to help local authorities to develop and implement their local air quality plans. About £90 million has been given through the Green Bus fund and we continue to try to reduce emissions in other ways.

I remind my hon. Friend that we intend to end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. He talked about a wide-ranging plan. I have been working on that for a while. He knows that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive clean air strategy. In particular, I am absolutely focused on particulate matter. That is why we issued a call for evidence on domestic burning with regard to smoky coal and wet wood. We are looking forward to receiving more responses to that. On money from the Treasury, we have been given substantial funds to try to work this through. I agree with him about prevention in relation to issues such as particulate matter.

With regard to powers in a clean air Act, we need clean air action. Councils and the Government already have a lot of powers. It is about being prepared to make very difficult decisions at times. That is why I urge the leaders of councils, including those I wrote to yesterday, to really grip this issue on behalf of the people they represent and we represent. It really matters that we take direct, effective local action to ensure the future health of our citizens.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I have heard the response from the Minister, but the reality is that yesterday the Government’s plan was ruled unlawful for the third time in three years. Here we find ourselves once again having to take the Government to court and having to summon them to the Dispatch Box for them to take any action on this serious issue of public health.

We know that air pollution is responsible for about 40,000 premature deaths each year, with cardiovascular disease accounting for an estimated 80% of all such premature deaths. Research by the British Heart Foundation found premature deaths and diseases attributable to air pollution in the UK result in over £20 billion in economic costs every year. The UK is currently routinely exceeding the legal pollution limits set out in the 2008 EU ambient air quality directive. That poses the serious question of whether this Conservative Government can be trusted with our environment and to deal with illegal air pollution after the UK leaves the EU, given the kind of ducking and diving we are witnessing now.

As the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated, this situation has escalated into a public health emergency, yet the Government’s attitude and actions do not appear in any way to reflect the severity and urgency of the situation. A press statement released by the Government yesterday appeared to try to spin the Court ruling—we have heard it again today—as some sort of win for the Government and played down responsibility for this incredibly serious failure. It is typical of a Government who provide high talk on the environment but are not capable of demonstrating the leadership and action necessary to make changes on the ground when it really counts.

Given that the matter has effectively been taken out of the Government’s hands, through what is an unprecedented step, does the Minister recognise her Department’s chronic failure to grasp the nettle on this issue? Will she confirm whether the Government plan to appeal the latest Court ruling? I understand that leaders of the affected local authorities have been invited to a workshop on 28 February. Will the Minister outline the purpose of the workshop and, crucially, what support will be made available to support those cash-strapped local authorities in delivering the action we now need?

[Dr Coffey]

As I have said before, I take this issue very seriously. I am not surprised that the hon. Lady failed to mention that the Welsh Labour Government were also a defendant in the judicial review. Welsh Ministers admitted that the Welsh element of the air quality plan last year did not satisfy the legal requirements, which is why they have undertaken to publish a supplemental plan. Frankly, therefore, the issue is not confined to the Minister at the Dispatch Box today.

Present problems with air quality in the UK are a direct result of the EU’s failed emissions testing regime, the actions of certain irresponsible car manufacturers and the rapid increase in the number of diesel cars on the roads since 2001. I should also point out that 21 other EU member states are also breaching legal air quality limits. I try not to take a partisan approach on this, but I am fed up with the Opposition simply not accepting their part of the responsibility. It was the last Labour Government who incentivised diesel cars. Between 2000 and 2010, the sale of diesel cars shot up from 15% to nearly half of all vehicles sold. I am not saying that previous Labour Ministers did not act in good faith, but as we have found out through a freedom of information request, Labour ignored advice that diesel fumes were toxic and pushed on, on the basis of lowering CO₂ emissions.

We do not intend to appeal the ruling because, in essence, the judgment turned on a narrow issue: that areas with shorter-term exceedances ought to be mandated to take action. We had already asked local authorities to do that and are more than happy to say that we will now issue legally binding directions stating that they need to take action. We will work with them. We had already asked them to provide initial information and plans, and we are now asking them to come to London next week so that we can go through those in detail and talk through the kinds of resources they need to ensure better air quality for the citizens we all represent.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend impress upon colleagues across the Government that this is not only an issue of fundamental social justice for many of our poorer citizens but about strengthening the UK economy, given that clean air is a business advantage? We do not want to fall behind Norway, the Netherlands and Scotland, which are looking to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2025, 2030 and 2032 respectively. Let us make sure that England is at the forefront, socially just and globally competitive on this issue.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are working together to try to improve air quality. He will recognise that air pollution has already improved significantly since 2010. That is why we are working with local authorities to devise local solutions to make this happen. He mentions Scotland. Yes, the Scottish Government are also working on the introduction of a low emissions zone, but I can assure him that the situation in Glasgow is very serious, and I am sure that the Scottish Government, with the support of SNP MPs, will work to ensure they have effective solutions for their citizens, too.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

With three High Court cases lost, how critical does this situation need to get before the Government act? I appreciate the Minister’s words, and she mentioned Scotland, where all local authorities with air quality management areas now have action plans. We have set more stringent air quality targets than the rest of the UK and are the first country in Europe to legislate for particulate matter 2.5—a pollutant of special concern for human health. Perhaps I can help her out and meet her, because she will know the work that I have been doing on the aviation noise authority and making sure that it is independent. I wonder whether she would consider ensuring that pollution is taken into consideration and is part of its remit. In my Livingston constituency, I have set up a local noise authority, which ensures that the community can engage meaningfully with airports, airlines and government. Will she commit to ensuring that the aviation noise authority is truly independent and that the monitoring and management of pollution is also within its remit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

We all have the opportunity to breathe clean air in here, thanks to the excellent work of the House. The hon. Lady talked about the aviation noise authority. I am not a Transport Minister, so I am not aware of the issues that she raised, but there is no doubt that we want to continue to want to reduce emissions from aviation. That is why we are already working with other countries; I have instigated some elements on that. With regard to what is happening in Scotland, she will be aware that, in the Glasgow area, compliance with the legal limits is not predicted until 2026, so yet again, the money that we are investing in England has consequences for the Barnett formula. That will help the Scottish Government to achieve some of the outcomes that she wants. I will have to ask her to contact Transport Ministers to discuss the other matters that she deliberated on.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s proactive work on air quality, including in Dudley, and I urge her to work closely with local authorities to ensure that our air is clean and safe.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. Dudley is one of the areas that has been named. I have already been in conversation with Andy Street, the Mayor for the west midlands. He is very ambitious on the plans to make these improvements and I look forward to meeting the leader of Dudley Council next week to discuss further specific issues.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

If the UK leaves the EU, the Commission and the European Court of Justice lose their role in monitoring and enforcing air pollution standards. Back in November, the Environment Secretary told my Committee—the Environmental Audit Committee —that he would consult on a new body to fill that governance gap very early in the new year. When will we see that consultation? Will that body be in place before exit day? Will it have higher environmental standards, which is what the Environment Secretary says he wants, lower standards, which is what the Brexit brigade wants, or full regulatory alignment with the EU, which is what the Prime Minister has promised her EU colleagues?

[Dr Coffey]

The good news is that the House has put legislation in place—we brought this forward—on the targets for 2020 and 2030 on the key pollutants. This Government have already acted and laid the legislation. I am pleased that the House endorsed that approach.

The consultation will be forthcoming soon. I am conscious that people are eager to see it, but, in the meantime, we are not relying on the EU to help with air quality. The hon. Lady will be aware of many measures that we are undertaking, including the new bypass in her constituency, which I and my officials believe will be the solution to improving air quality for the people of Wakefield.

[Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)]

The A6 corridor in my constituency is among the most congested and worst-polluted roads in the country. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Department for Transport on road building to alleviate congestion and therefore improve air quality?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The Department for Transport has been active. The Government have one of the largest transport investment programmes that there has been for many decades. I am not particularly aware of the road to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am confident that my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport will be. One thing that we have done with the clean air fund is make sure that air quality is a key criterion in assessing particular grants in the future.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

In Greater Manchester, as in many other areas, the real issue with nitrogen oxides is from heavy goods vehicles and old buses. We have to begin to think about a bus scrappage scheme and incentives to get old lorries off the roads. How would the Minister respond to that?

[Dr Coffey]

The good news is that we had already invested £89 million in helping authorities to convert their buses, and another £40 million was added. When I visited the councillors involved in Manchester some time ago, they indicated that they are likely to use the powers under the Bus Services Act 2017 to ensure that they can do more on scheduling and requiring buses to be Euro 6 compliant in future. That is why we have been funding local councils right around the country to make that transition.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How much will air pollution be cut by the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040?

[Dr Coffey]

The expectation from the targets that we have legislated for is that the impacts of air pollution will be halved by 2030. One reason for saying that we will end the sale of conventional petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is to give a strong message to the manufacturers. We have seen a response already in that a number of manufacturers are saying that they will stop the production of such cars by the end of this decade. That is good news for people not only in the United Kingdom, but across Europe and the wider world.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

For the last seven years, the UK has been in breach of EU limits on toxic pollutants linked to respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and stunted lung growth in young children. It is no use telling the parents of a seven-year-old that things will improve by 2030. Can we see greater urgency, more resources, more action now, and those responsible holding up their hands and admitting when they have got it wrong?

[Dr Coffey]

I am sure the hon. Lady will be talking to Lesley Griffiths and the Welsh Labour Government, because it is a devolved issue. They contributed a part of the 2017 air quality plan. Just a few months later, they recognised that it was not good enough and said they were going to do more. That is why we have been working with the Welsh Government to make improvements, and why at a national level we are taking measures regarding fleet turnover and incentives to move to the cleanest diesel possible for those people who still want to use diesel cars in the interim. That is also why we are taking measures such as increasing company car taxation on diesel cars. We are taking measures, but it is not usual practice for the UK Government to order the Welsh Government to do something that is devolved. I am sure that the hon. Lady will work with her colleagues in Cardiff to ensure that her citizens are better represented in making the case for air quality with the Welsh Government.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Older vehicles are the most polluting, and they tend to be owned by small and medium-sized enterprises or by people on low incomes. Will my hon. Friend look at the potential for a vehicle scrappage scheme for not only buses, but cars and lorries, so that we get the worst-polluting vehicles off the road more quickly?

[Dr Coffey]

On the air quality plan, we issued a consultation on mitigation measures and a potential scrappage scheme as part of that. We are still considering the responses, and will report back to the House shortly.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Yesterday I sat here listening to the Prime Minister’s response to my question, and I was very surprised at the gap between the briefing that she had been given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—albeit, I accept, at short notice—and what I was reading through the news feeds. Will the Minister apologise to me and to the House for the briefing given to the Prime Minister that implied that the judgment was more a win than a loss, given that, as we now know very clearly, the Government have been found to be acting unlawfully, and so badly that the court is taking over DEFRA’s role in implementing the legislation?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid the hon. Lady is simply incorrect. The judge dismissed challenges about our approach to air quality. I wrote to councils last November asking them about how we can help to improve air quality in those 45 local authorities, and the judge said that urging and encouraging was not sufficient, but that we should issue legally binding directions. That was reflected in what the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, and that is what we will do. I encourage the hon. Lady to work with the Mayor of London, who has already had a substantial amount of funding, which he is using to start deploying cleaner buses and other aspects of modal shift in London. Frankly, he needs to accelerate his programme, and I encourage her to work with him in doing that and building on the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

I welcome the energy and resources that the Government are applying to this issue, particularly the clean bus funds, which will see a fleet of electric vehicles serving Harrogate and Knaresborough. Are all the local authorities that my hon. Friend is dealing with as committed and enthusiastic as she is about solving this issue? That has not been my experience so far.

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend was a Treasury Minister when we were working on the air quality plan, and I know that he is as committed as I am to these improvements. I fully recognise that some of the issues involved are politically difficult, which is why I have been meeting councillors from those authorities to tell them that time cannot wait for effective local solutions. My hon. Friend ensured that we had Government finances with which to tackle the issue, and those finances will be deployed.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her letter and her offer to meet me to discuss the plan for Oxford, which I intend to take up. Will she confirm, however, that it is not just a meeting that she is having with the councils, and that there is also extra money? I know that they have already been trying.

[Dr Coffey]

I did not mention this earlier, but yesterday I wrote to all Members affected by the impact of yesterday’s legal ruling, which binds the councils legally to co-operate with what we were already doing. I have engaged in correspondence with the leader of Oxford City Council, and look forward to meeting her next week. The council is looking at certain proposals, which include widening the pedestrianised area in the city centre, to tackle the challenges. I want to know what resources or powers it may need, but I think that it has powers already, and it may just be a case of working through the details of the plan.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give us more details about what the Government are doing to support renewable technology to secure the future of clean energy in the United Kingdom?

[Dr Coffey]

In addition to the £3.5 billion that we are investing to tackle, in particular, air quality in the context of a modal shift, we are massively increasing the incentives for councils to help to deploy the infrastructure that is needed to support the growth in the use of electric vehicles. There is already a reasonably generous grant for people who wish to buy such vehicles—about £1 billion has been allocated—and, as my hon. Friend will know, legislation that is currently before Parliament will require fuel stations to provide the electric infrastructure that enables people to charge their cars, rather than just filling them with petrol and diesel.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

As chair of my party’s Back-Bench environment, food and rural affairs committee, may I say to the Minister that this is not good enough? We are talking about a national health emergency: according to recent estimates, a million people could probably die by 2040. The Minister must act now, with the manufacturers, with local authorities, and with everyone else.

[Dr Coffey]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the effort to get local authorities working on this. He will, I hope, be aware from the letter that I sent him yesterday that we have been in correspondence. We recently funded a significant number of buses—350, I think—in the West Yorkshire combined authority, and there is clearly an opportunity for those new buses to be deployed in the worst traffic hotspots, so that we can work on air pollution. I look forward to meeting the leader of Kirklees Council and other West Yorkshire authorities next week.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for meeting me a couple of weeks ago to discuss specific Bath issues. She was helpful and pragmatic. I agree that local leadership is needed.

The Minister mentioned the new legislation earlier. I do not think that it goes far enough. May I ask again whether she will consider introducing regulations requiring owners of public facilities such as supermarkets and public car parks to provide electric car charging points?

[Dr Coffey]

I did have a very constructive meeting with the hon. Lady recently. I also visited Bath last year to see at first hand the challenges that it is facing. The hon. Lady will know of the grants that have already been provided to increase electric vehicle take-up. However, I take her point, and I will discuss it with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman).

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Oxford was excluded from the mandated list because only 3% of our monitoring sites were included. Do the Government now accept that that decision was wrong and that, as the first British city to commit itself to a zero-emission zone, we really need the powers and resources that she mentioned?

[Dr Coffey]

Oxford City Council already has those powers. It could have done this years ago. The powers were granted some time ago in the Transport Act 2000. The judge yesterday upheld the fact that our modelling had fulfilled our legal requirements, although I am conscious that the local air monitoring does not comply with the legislation by which we are bound. I am pleased that Oxford is considering wider pedestrianisation in its city centre, and I look forward to discussing that in detail next week. However, it has those powers already. It can get on with this, and I encourage it to do so as quickly as possible.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Although I am grateful to the Minister for the funding she has given to cash-strapped authorities such as Bristol for consultations on clean-air zones, I would like her to move a little further and think of the children who are at school in one of the worst-polluted areas in the centre of Bristol, St Michael on the Mount Without. Will she urgently consider a scrappage scheme for cars and other vehicles, such as taxis and buses?

[Dr Coffey]

I have discussed air quality with the hon. Lady before. She will be aware that I have had direct discussions with Bristol City Council. She will also be aware of the funding that has already gone in to help the uptake of electric vehicles and the buses that are being provided from transport funds. Bristol is making good progress. It is one of the councils that we mandated last year to come forward with action; I believe that it is on track, mainly, with its process and I look forward to receiving its final considerations later this year.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

After eight years of court cases, I find the Minister’s minimalistic approach quite staggering. Why are her Government investing in a new generation of dirty diesel trains, which are a major issue in my constituency, as they idle outside residential areas?

[Dr Coffey]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Rail Minister, said, we are going to end the use of diesel-only trains by 2040. That has given a clear steer to the procurers and operators, on the basis that they tend to invest in 15-year cycles. Our rail electrification programme is considerably greater than that of the Labour Government, who, when in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010, achieved 13 miles, so frankly, it is not for Labour Members to lecture us today about these issues. Since 2010, we have been investing to fix the problems that they left behind.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Three years after the Volkswagen story broke, how are the Government holding the company to account for its emissions scandal?

[Dr Coffey]

We have been holding Volkswagen to account. One of the challenges of how the EU operates in this regard is that it is for the German Government to be the regulator of Volkswagen, and we hold Volkswagen directly to account through the European Commission. I am pleased that Volkswagen has come forward with its wider group to do some of the retrofitting of vehicles in terms of software updates to correct what it did, and I am pleased that that is now being fixed, but frankly, the behaviour of Volkswagen and its chief executives was a disgrace. The way they used money to fund research into the effects of diesel fumes on primates and humans is frankly disgusting. They should hang their heads in shame, but we are now fixing the problems that they created.

Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Clean air is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy environment for us all to live, work, and bring up families. Air pollution has improved significantly since 2010 but we recognise that there is more to do, particularly to improve pollution hotspots in our towns and cities.

Present problems with air quality in the UK are the direct result of the EU’s failed emissions testing regime, the actions of certain irresponsible car manufacturers, and the rapid increase in the number of diesel cars on the road since 2001. Twenty-one other EU member states are also breaching legal air quality limits.

In July 2017 we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations, and said that we will end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. We are investing £3.5 billion to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions.

Yesterday the High Court handed down judgment on the judicial review of the 2017 plan.

The judge dismissed two of the three complaints considered during the case in relation to England. Specifically he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling NO₂ concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan are compliant with our legal requirements.

In relation to five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges, Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds, the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling their exceedances was “sensible, rational and lawful”.

We welcome the fact that the Court has dismissed the complaint relating to these areas with major air quality problems and has found that we are taking appropriate action. We are also pleased that the Court agrees that our evidence in support of the 2017 plan is sound.

In relation to local authority areas which are expected to achieve compliance between 2018 and 2021, Ministers have already offered significant support, and as recognised in the judgment have “urged and encouraged” them to come up with proposals to improve air quality. However, the Court found that the Government should have legally required the local authorities to take such steps, but acknowledged that further action will not be required in 12 areas where compliance will be achieved this year.

We had previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. However, in view of the Court’s judgment, we are prepared to take a more formal line with the other 33 local authorities.

We have already been corresponding with the relevant local authorities to offer them support in identifying measures to improve local air quality. These authorities had already been asked to provide initial information by 28 February on the action they are taking. They have now been asked to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss their plans, and whether there are any additional actions they can take to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits for N0₂ concentrations. We also now intend in March to issue legally binding directions requiring these areas to undertake studies to identify any such measures.

As required by the Court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the findings from local authorities’ feasibility studies.

The Welsh Government were also a defendant in the judicial review. Air quality is a devolved policy area in the UK; each devolved Administration has responsibility for meeting its own obligations under the ambient air quality directive.

The Welsh Ministers indicated that they recognise that the Welsh element of the air quality plan does not satisfy legal requirements. They have undertaken to publish a supplemental plan, following consultation, by 31 July 2018.

As we set out in the 2017 plan, this Government are committed to improving air quality, and we have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year we will be publishing a comprehensive clean air strategy which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution.

[HCWS477]

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 29 January in Brussels.

Council began with a presentation by the Bulgarian presidency, outlining its work programme until the end of June. This set out that discussion on the common agricultural policy (CAP) will be prioritised in Agriculture and Fisheries Council; regular updates on EU agricultural markets will continue, along with a discussion of proposals for strengthening the position of farmers in the food supply chain; and items on a spirit drink regulation, forestry, animal health and veterinary medicines will also feature.

The focus of this Council was an exchange of views on the common agricultural policy post 2020. Member states displayed a variety of positions regarding the future direction of the CAP. The UK committed to working closely with EU colleagues in tackling shared challenges in farming policy, and signalled future efforts by the UK Government to bring together agriculture and environment policy, such as the 25-year environment plan for England.

The Council moved on to EU agriculture markets, and Commissioner Hogan gave an update on the sugar, dairy and pigmeat markets. Alongside this update, the French and Belgian delegations prompted a further discussion with their ideas for releasing EU stocks of skimmed milk powder. The Polish delegation requested further discussion on the EU pigmeat market. Commissioner Hogan then updated the Council on December’s WTO ministerial conference and trade negotiations with Mercosur.

There were four further items discussed under “any other business”:

the German delegation presented the conclusions of the Agriculture Ministers conference 2018 in the context of the global forum for food and agriculture (Berlin, 20 January 2018)

the French delegation presented the conclusions from the ministerial conference on Xylella fastidiosa (Paris, 1 December 2017)

the German delegation presented conclusions from the high-level meeting on African swine fever (ASF) at the International Green week (Berlin, 19 January 2018)

the Czech delegation highlighted the involvement of European research in eradicating African swine fever in the EU.

On 23 June 2016, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until we leave the EU, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.

[HCWS461]

Local Government Improvement: Suffolk

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2018 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

On 7 November and 30 November respectively I told the House that I was minded to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, locally-supported proposals I had received from the respective councils to merge district councils in east Suffolk and in west Suffolk, and I invited representations before I took my final decisions on these proposals.

Having carefully considered all the representations I have received and all the relevant information available to me, I am today announcing that I have decided to implement, subject to parliamentary approval, both proposals—that is to merge Suffolk Coastal and Waveney district councils to become a new single district council named East Suffolk, and to merge Forest Heath District Council and St Edmundsbury Borough Council to become a new single district council named West Suffolk.

I have reached my decisions having regard to the criteria for district council mergers I announced to the House on 7 November. I am satisfied that these criteria are met and that both new district councils are likely to improve local government and service delivery in their areas, command a good deal of local support, and that each council area is a credible geography.

I now intend to prepare and lay before Parliament drafts of the necessary secondary legislation to give effect to my decisions. My intention is that if Parliament approves this legislation the new councils will be established on 1 April 2019 with the first elections to the councils held on 2 May 2019.

[HCWS462]

Leaving the EU: Chemicals Regulation

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on securing this debate and I thank her Committee for its report.

The Government recognise that the UK chemicals sector is vital to the economy and to many other industries, often leading the way in research and innovation. Not only is it our second largest export industry, but it is a key component in almost all our other huge sectors. As the hon. Lady explained, chemicals are in many of the products and processes that we use. I am fully aware of the extent to which they can be in everyday products, and indeed in medicines and elsewhere.

The Committee’s inquiry took place nearly a year ago and we replied to it in July. I note that the Committee invited comments on our response. I have continued to meet the industry, and across Government, engagement with the industry and stakeholders will continue. I recognise that the principal concern of the industry—to ensure that existing REACH registrations remain valid—has not changed.

I also recognise that trade associations and other organisations have continued to call for the UK to stay in REACH. As I have explained elsewhere, given the principles set out by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech, we will not stay in REACH per se but, through the provisions set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, we will bring into law the regulations that put REACH into effect. That is important because the continuity will provide an effective regulatory system for the management and control of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment. It will also minimise any market access barriers for UK companies trading with the EU.

It has been suggested that we are not listening to the voice of business, but I humbly point out that the Government are listening to the voice of the people by respecting the referendum result. It was reiterated throughout the 2016 campaign that a vote to leave was also a vote to leave the single market.

[Angela Smith]

I differ on the point that people voted to leave the single market. Nevertheless, I am sure the Minister just said that the Government will do their best to minimise any lack of access to the European market. Is that not an acknowledgement that there will be some damage to the industry if we leave REACH and have to set up our own regulatory regime?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady will recognise that our future relationship is still a matter for negotiation. Phase 1 has happened and we are moving into phase 2. Having exactly the same regulation the day before and the day after we leave the European Union will minimise market access barriers for UK companies trading in the EU.

We agree that ensuring the continued validity of REACH registrations is a critical issue and fully recognise the investment that UK companies have made in the REACH registration process. We are clear that we want existing registrations, authorisations and approvals to remain valid in the EU and UK markets, which is clearly in the interest of businesses operating in the UK and the EU. That recognises the complex compliance activity that takes place through supply chains. As the hon. Member for Wakefield pointed out, it is not just about sales between companies but about the movement of goods through the supply chain within a company.

We want to avoid the unnecessary duplication of compliance activities undertaken by businesses prior to exit. That was set out in the Government’s position paper, “Continuity in the availability of goods for the EU and the UK”, published in August 2017, which also set out our principles for maintaining the availability of goods after exit.

It is likely that some products will be undergoing testing, registration or authorisation processes at the point of exit. For such cases, given the ambition for a close future relationship, the body carrying out the assessment should be permitted to complete it and the results should be recognised in UK and EU markets. That would be in the best interests of businesses across Europe, and I encourage them to work together to support that pragmatic outcome.

Although it would not be appropriate to pre-judge the outcome of the negotiations, we will discuss with EU member states how best to continue co-operation in chemicals regulation in the best interests of the UK and the European Union. That extends to aspects of knowledge sharing—it would be ideal to continue that work through the negotiations. For example, the EU is highly reliant on the expertise of the Health and Safety Executive in the assessment of chemicals, particularly biocides and pesticides.

I am aware that the guidance that the European Chemicals Agency published on its website about the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has caused concern. That guidance reflects the EU’s view of what would need to happen if there were no future relationship between the EU and the UK. It does not, of course, take into account potential negotiated outcomes and I am pleased to note that that has now been acknowledged on the ECHA website. As hon. Members may be aware, the guidance has recently been updated to reflect issues about the transfer of registrations and authorisations.

We have increased resources within my Department, in the HSE—a body sponsored by the Department for Work and Pensions—and in the Environment Agency to work on chemicals policy and prepare to deliver an effective regulatory regime after we leave the EU. We have established a joint programme of work with HSE to deliver what we need to have in place for day one. I work with ministerial colleagues across Government from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the DWP, the Department for Exiting the European Union, the Department for International Trade and the Treasury.

We are also planning for a non-negotiated day one outcome to have a functioning chemicals regulatory and enforcement system. We are now scoping and designing what such a system would look like, including an IT system to replicate REACH. As the hon. Member for Wakefield pointed out, that includes the budget that has been released so far to scope that system.

On leaving the EU, our regulatory system and laws will be identical to those of the EU. There could be opportunities to consider improving the regulatory system to maintain standards in protecting the environment and human health. That is why we have considered the regulatory approaches of other countries, including those that are largely modelled on REACH.

Although we will not be part of REACH, there is an opportunity to work internationally to strengthen the standardisation of methods that assess chemical safety in support of the mutual acceptance of data to identify and share information on emerging concerns and on new approaches to risk assessments. In a global world where we share chemicals and have several existing chemicals conventions, it makes sense for our regulatory authorities increasingly to share that information to ensure that we have greater compliance and convergence in understanding and recognising the benefits and hazards that chemicals can pose. I do not see any reason why we cannot have that ambition once we leave the EU.

[Dr Drew]

After the dreadful experience of the Rural Payments Agency’s IT system, will the Minister confirm whether the IT system to replicate REACH has already been commissioned? Will it be put out to private contractors or done in-house within Government?

[Dr Coffey]

The system is at the stage where we are waiting for an aspect of the business case to be signed off. I have met the new Minister responsible for the Health and Safety Executive—the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton)—and work is ongoing between our Departments and the HSE.

The most relevant environmental principle to chemicals regulation is the precautionary principle, which is embedded in international conventions relevant to the regulation of chemicals, such as the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, to which the UK will continue to be a signatory in its own right. The Secretary of State has announced that we will consult on how we will incorporate various environmental principles and governance mechanisms, and we are carefully considering our proposals at the moment.

As the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) noted, we recently published our 25-year environment plan, in which we acknowledged that chemicals provide substantial benefits to society, but their widespread use in industry, agriculture, food systems and homes has led in some cases to pollution of land, water, air and food. We will publish a new chemicals strategy to tackle chemicals of national concern. The new strategy, which will build on existing regulatory approaches, will set our priorities for action and will detail how we will achieve our goals. It is intended to support collaborative work on human biomonitoring, address the combination effects of different chemicals and improve how we track chemicals across supply chains. I am not able to set out a timeline, but I certainly do not anticipate that the strategy will be published this year, because our main focus is implementing a smooth transition and continuing existing regulations.

We also need to consider the domestic market within the United Kingdom. REACH currently gives us a consistent framework across the UK, and we would like that consistency to continue. We have already started discussions with the devolved Administrations on a future chemicals framework across the UK.

Let me tackle some other questions raised by hon. Members. Is REACH the preferred methodology for chemicals regulation? In our international discussions, as I told the Environmental Audit Committee, we are not minded to take the United States’ approach. We think that REACH has shown its worth. As has been pointed out, a lot of chemical companies were not necessarily its greatest fans when it was introduced but are now embracing it. When I discuss the matter with Ministers from Brazil and other countries, it is clear that they are trying to get the best of all worlds, which is what we need to ensure for ourselves as we go forward. I have spoken to Switzerland, and I think officials have had discussions with South Korea. A lot of countries are taking a REACH-style approach but may not be replicating it in every detail.

On early warning and horizon scanning, I hope we can set out our approach in more detail when we publish our chemicals strategy. In answer to the question about sufficient expertise, I must point out that the HSE is the responsible authority and there is no reason to doubt its expertise; I commend it for its work in support of the chemicals industry.

I fully understand hon. Members’ concerns about bureaucracy, which is why we are in negotiations. I am afraid that I cannot give hon. Members an update on where we are, because phase 2 of the negotiations is yet to start; I fully understand the uncertainty that that brings. I have engaged with stakeholders. We have seen only representatives becoming part of networks or opening branch offices in different countries or a presence in the European Union. As I told the Committee, from my experience of working in multinational companies, I fully expect them to be contingency planning, but that does not mean that they will be abandoning this country all of a sudden. Far from it: the size of the market in this country, not only for chemicals but—as has already been explained—for many other manufacturing sectors, absolutely means that they will keep a permanent presence in the United Kingdom.

I do not anticipate any new approaches to risk assessment. The precautionary principle is well embedded in what we do. As I have articulated, we will be bringing different regulations into law, as will the devolved Administrations. We sit on committees now and we hope to retain those links in the future, but that is a matter for the negotiations.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raised third-party country status. We still need to consider and negotiate elements of that. The approach set out by the Prime Minister on behalf of the Government, in which not being governed by the European Court of Justice is a guiding principle in what we do, still applies, so some assessment is still needed. Bioaccumulation is among the matters that we intend to cover in our chemicals strategy.

Let me assure hon. Members that ensuring we have a regulatory regime that continues to be effective is a very important part of my portfolio, but my top priority has been a smooth transition. As I am sure hon. Members recognise, I cannot answer questions today about exactly what our future customs arrangements with the rest of the European Union will be. However, I am highly conscious that we want to help business to continue to be successful, and I would like it to get certainty as quickly as possible. I am sure that I have disappointed hon. Members today by not being able to do that, but I will move on to the next phase of negotiations shortly.

I reiterate that we will do all we can to ensure a smooth transition and a successful industry for years to come. I saw the hon. Member for Stroud and members of the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday. I am sure that broad consideration of the environment in different ways and across different industries will continue, quite rightly, to be a key topic for debate in Parliament.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank Environmental Audit Committee members present—the hon. Members for Gordon (Colin Clark) and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally), and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy)—for their support, along with the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I certainly feel that the Committee is waking up, having been a sleeping giant on the Committee Corridor; it is finally finding its voice.

I agree with the Minister that her response was very disappointing. Based on what she is offering the sector, I think the verdict is “Must try harder”. She has told us that the chemicals strategy will not be published this year, which is deeply worrying. She is not offering continuity, as she said, but rupture and multiplication of uncertainty. She is in danger of sounding complacent when she talks about only representatives setting up in other countries. These are the people through whom business flows, so if they leave, the business leaves with them.

[Dr Coffey]

indicated dissent.

[Mary Creagh]

The Minister says no, but we can have a debate about that. She talks about setting up a database with £5.8 million of our money, yet she says that a business case has not yet been developed for it.

[Dr Coffey]

May I add some information? Clearly the system will cost more than £5.8 million. That is part of the release of money.

[Mary Creagh]

How much will it cost?

[Dr Coffey]

We do not have a final estimate for the budget, because the system is still to be finalised. That is why the business case still needs to be assessed.

[Mary Creagh]

This looks like a release of initial moneys to scope out and make the business case for the rest. I wonder about DEFRA’s capacity to deal with this. DEFRA has lost 5,000 civil servants in the past seven years.

The ECHA website states:

“Only a mutual agreement between the EU and UK authorities can change this date”,

meaning 30 March. It also states:

“It is the European Commission that conducts the withdrawal negotiations with the UK Government under a negotiating mandate…ECHA is not party to these negotiations.”

We face the uncertainty of whether there will be a transitional period, how long it will be and what will happen, and then the further uncertainty of what will happen afterwards. Lord Bridges said that the transition period was set to be one of “muddling through” and

“a gangplank into thin air.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1423.]

The Minister says that when people voted in the referendum, they were voting to leave the single market. Daniel Hannan, her Tory MEP colleague, said that only a madman would leave the single market. Well, I am afraid the Minister’s party seems to have been taken over by the madmen. We need a sensible, rooted debate based on the reality of people’s lives and the reality for businesses in this country, not constant reassuring words that give solidity to mere wind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Eleventh Report of the Environmental Audit Committee of Session 2016-17, The Future of Chemicals Regulation after the EU Referendum, HC 912, and the Government response, HC 313.

Draft Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that littering is lazy and irresponsible. Time is running out for litter louts. Roadside litter is particularly problematic. Clearing it from the side of busy roads is a dangerous and expensive job for councils and their employees, and for the legions of voluntary litter pickers who do our communities proud. It also costs a lot of money, and those funds could be better used to provide the range of important services that we rely on our councils to deliver.

Following the first ever litter strategy, which we published last April, we are bringing forward the regulations, as promised, which will make it easier to take action against people throwing litter from vehicles. Littering is a criminal offence, but when litter is thrown from a vehicle it can be hard for council enforcement officers to identify the offender with sufficient certainty to issue a criminal sanction. We have listened to local authorities, which have told us how difficult they find it to take enforcement action against those who throw litter from vehicles.

The purpose of the regulations is to make it easier for councils to take enforcement action to tackle littering from vehicles, by removing the need to identify the litterer and holding the “keeper” of the vehicle responsible. The statutory instrument confers a power on district councils in England, outside London, to require the keeper of a vehicle to pay a fixed civil penalty if there is reason to believe that a littering offence has been committed from the vehicle.

In this context, the term “district council” includes any metropolitan, borough, unitary or other district councils, including the Council of the Isles of Scilly, which has the statutory duty to collect litter—such an authority is also known as the litter authority. I should point out that London borough councils already have similar powers, but I was surprised to learn that Wandsworth is the only borough council to use them. I encourage other London boroughs to include the use of those powers in their armoury for tackling litter on London’s streets and roadways.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree fully with the sentiment behind the regulations, but does the Minister agree that perhaps one reason why many councils that have the powers have not yet used them is that, given the huge scale of local government cuts, they lack the resources to enforce the measures as they would like to, particularly on littering?

[Dr Coffey]

The amount of money spent by councils on tackling the issue could well be used in different ways. We are sending a strong message that powers will be available for councils to use if they wish. Fines can be used, of course, to improve all sorts of refuse, recycling and collection services, to make sure that the focus is on keeping streets clean.

Enforcement officers have to be satisfied to the civil standard of proof—the balance of probabilities—that litter was thrown from the vehicle in question. A penalty notice is a civil fine, which, unlike a criminal penalty, does not carry the risk of a criminal prosecution, and therefore does not require the offence to be proved to a criminal standard of proof. The penalty amount payable is set by the litter authority, and must be the same as the amount of any fixed penalty for littering in the area. Hon. Members will be aware of our recent regulations, under which penalty limits will rise and which are intended to have a deterrent effect. Those new levels are reflected in the statutory instrument.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

In my constituency there is often praise for our clean city centre and parks, but I also get complaints about litter beside verges, particularly down dual carriageways such as the A12. Does the Minister agree that the regulations will encourage motorists to chuck less litter out of cars? Clearly when litter is at the side of motorways and dual carriageways it can only have come from vehicles, as there are no pedestrians. Are the regulations a measure to help everyone have a cleaner environment?

[Dr Coffey]

There is certainly a clear message in raising the issue that councils will have powers to do that. For our highways, and particularly our strategic road network, Highways England has an arrangement with the litter authority, whereby the litter authority is still responsible for clearing the litter from that side. It is perfectly possible for councils to work closely with Highways England once they have these powers, to use the camera footage that will be available to try to tackle and identify those who litter. The key thing we want to do is deter the behaviour in the first place.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

What do the Government propose to do for taxi drivers? If a passenger throws litter out the back of a car, will the taxi driver be fined, or will they try to find the passenger?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady has pre-empted part of my explanation of the draft regulations, which specifically includes that point. Let me first finish the point I was making about the process of issuing fines.

The process for issuing the penalty notice and the payment and appeals process are akin to those for other penalty notices levied by councils, such as parking tickets. A number of grounds for making representations deal with circumstances in which the person was not the keeper of the vehicle at the time, for example because the vehicle had been sold, stolen or was hired to somebody else. In addition, public service vehicles, including buses, taxis and private hire vehicles, are exempt from liability of a civil penalty notice if the offence is committed by a passenger.

To answer the hon. Lady’s point, I suggest that if there was appropriate evidence to show that the litter was tossed from the driver’s window in a taxi, I would expect there to be reasonable grounds to believe that it was the driver of the vehicle. If the litter came from different windows, there would be good grounds to accept that that would be a passenger.

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

Do the Government have any plans to introduce other measures in support of the draft regulations, for instance educational resources for drivers on the economic, environmental and societal effects of littering, or a campaign bringing this to life for all road users?

[Dr Coffey]

We work closely with a number of organisations, and we push litter education programmes. I am very fond of something that the official Government comms do not like: I am prone to using the hashtag #dontbeatosser, which is a slogan that came from Australia and was adopted by my local radio station, BBC Suffolk—I think some people have different thoughts about what it might mean. I am quite keen to escalate the activities, which is why we are working closely with organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy.

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

My hon. Friend may be aware that we tried #dontbeatosser on the Isle of Wight, but the Campaign to Protect Rural England felt that we were a little too genteel for that. Excuse my ignorance about this—I am new to this place and to Delegated Legislation Committees—but what is the process by which councils are informed of these decisions that are taken in Parliament? What does she expect councils to do and how active should they be in getting that message out? Clearly, as she says, this is about public information.

[Dr Coffey]

Councils have been asking us for the opportunity to have these powers. Our estimate is that about one third of councils are minded to take them out. The point is that we are giving the councils the powers to do that. I encourage my hon. Friend to go back to the Isle of Wight and proclaim that from 1 April, if both Houses of Parliament agree, the council will be able to have these powers, and drivers should look carefully, consider their local environments and recognise that other people may be watching them to make sure they do the right thing. At the end of the day, we have to have the kind of behaviour—I think we do generally—where littering becomes unacceptable. We need to keep reinforcing that with positive powers and messaging.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify something? If a driver is informed that litter has come from his vehicle, but it is clear that it was not thrown from his window, and he does not know or is unwilling to divulge who threw it, who will be fined?

[Dr Coffey]

The draft regulations specifically make it the responsibility of the “keeper of a vehicle”. I will not pretend to be a transport lawyer, but it is the registered keeper of the vehicle; one never knows exactly who buys a car and who its registered keeper is. I do not want to go down a cul-de-sac—literally—on that concept. [Interruption.] I have just been passed a note by one of my officials. I should make it clear to the Committee, and to anybody who is listening, that only Parliamentary Private Secretaries are allowed to pass notes to Ministers. I apologise to you, Mr Robertson, and to the Committee for that.

In conclusion, by giving councils the additional power to take action, we believe that the draft regulations will operate as a greater deterrent to those who might be tempted to litter and will reduce the build-up of litter on our roadsides and verges. They demonstrate our commitment to reducing litter and littering behaviour. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

Just to be clear, fly-tipping and littering are separate matters, covered by separated regulations.

[Dr Drew]

But that is the problem, because one person’s fly-tipping is another person’s disposing of litter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The draft regulations have obviously exercised hon. Members. I will not say that a lot of rubbish has been spoken. Far from it; searching questions have been asked, and I shall be pleased to try to provide some illumination.

It is true that the powers granted by the regulations extend from those in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, but that Act amended and clarified the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It identified smoking-related detritus as litter and gave councils further powers. The draft regulations set out the relevant primary legislation that authorises them.

As I mentioned, fly-tipping is a different legal offence. Councils already have separate powers to issue penalties or prosecute for fly-tipping, including powers to seize vehicles. The Environment Agency has thanked us for granting those powers, which certainly act as a huge deterrent. Littering is defined in section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act, while under the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse, any discarded item larger than one black bag should be considered fly-tipping.

A question was asked about the police and criminal enforcement. Frankly, if littering can be identified and there is sufficient evidence of a criminal offence, that evidence can be used to prosecute the alleged litterer. However, the draft regulations do exactly what councils have asked for: they grant civil enforcement powers, and it is up to councils whether to use them. The origin of the legislation for London was the London Local Authorities Act 2007; we had to make some corrections to that Act in 2012, because it was not working as it should, but London already has the necessary powers. I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is a former council leader. It will be for local councils to decide to apply their many statutory powers, including those on littering and fly-tipping. I know that some councils are keen to get on with this, and it will be their choice to do so.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for mentioning local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central said, enforcement depends on funding. It would be wonderful to have a special environment fund for boroughs to really tackle the issue, because there is huge public support. There has been a culture change—the Minister may remember that I did some press work on that when I was chair of London Councils’ transport and environment committee in 2007.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

I have to admit that I do not recall the work from 2007, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will encourage her local borough to think again about how its spending on littering issues balances against the potential for recouping its costs through enforcement. Again, that is a decision for councils.

The reason for citing Plymouth in the regulations relates to the definition of licensed private hire vehicles. Like London, Plymouth licenses its own private hire vehicles, and we wish to ensure that it can continue to do so.

The appeals process is fairly standard. There is a PATROL—parking and traffic regulations outside London—adjudication joint committee of councils that considers traffic regulations. The adjudication process can happen through traffic tribunals. The process is straightforward and akin to the process for parking tickets.

Hon. Members raised hire cars. There are exemptions in cases when it is clear that the registered keeper was not using the car, because it had been hired out to someone else or stolen. I expect that councils will not enforce the measures against hire companies, but as happens when other offences are committed by people who hire cars, it may be possible for the hire car company to provide evidence to the enforcement authorities so that they can pursue the matter.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I have two quick points for the Minister to consider. First, the main enforcement tool for the draft regulations, which I support wholeheartedly, will probably be automatic number plate recognition cameras. Does she have any concerns that an unintended consequence of the regulations might be to push the problem out of urban areas and into rural areas not covered by cameras? Secondly, has she any sympathy for a registered keeper who faces vicarious liability when they may not have been the litterer or even have been in the car when the offence occurred?

[Dr Coffey]

Of course, the registered keeper of a car has to give permission to whoever drives it. There are other matters, such as the use of seatbelts, for which the person in charge of the vehicle—perhaps the registered keeper—is responsible. In essence, they have to be accountable. As we are making clear to the owners of cars, we are giving councils the power to say that they will be held liable. I think that is reasonable.

As the hon. Member for Stroud pointed out, this is a problem. Councils have asked us for these powers because of the challenges in bringing prosecutions. The powers we are giving to councils are sensible and straightforward, and there are appeal processes. There has to be a reasonable balance of belief and proof that the offence has happened. This is sensible legislation that I think our constituents will welcome. My #dontbeatosser tweet, in which I identified the number plate of a litterer’s vehicle, is possibly the most popular I have ever posted. I did not name the driver, because I did not know who they were.

I genuinely hope that councils will take advantage of these powers. Once Parliament agrees to the regulations, it will be down to councils to decide whether they wish to do so. The powers will come into effect on 1 April.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thérèse Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

4. Whether the Government plan to have their proposed ban on ivory sales in place by the illegal wildlife trade summit in October 2018.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

The Government’s consultation closed on 29 December. We had more than 70,000 responses, so we are considering them carefully. We want to act at pace—that is why officials are preparing legislation—but we need to be careful that we give due consideration to all the responses so that we introduce appropriate legislation that will end the scourge of elephant poaching in Africa and other parts of the world.

[Rachel Maclean]

Wildlife crime is a threat to conservation and animal welfare at home and abroad. Wildlife and Countryside Link’s report has revealed that enforcement officers are hindered by a lack of proper recording and reporting processes. As we prepare to host the IWT summit, and considering the progress that my hon. Friend has referred to regarding the trade of ivory products, what assurances can she give me and the all-party group on endangered species, of which I am the chair, about the measures being taken by the Department to address the matter?

[Dr Coffey]

The UK Government have been active in taking practical action to reduce demand and strengthen enforcement. We are investing in schemes around the world to reduce this pernicious trade. DEFRA and the Home Office continue to fund the national wildlife crime unit to tackle wildlife crime here in the UK. Actionable intelligence is key, and I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to make this a priority.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I support the noble aim of both the Secretary of State and the Minister in this regard, but the hon. Lady will be aware of concerns among antique dealers about the ramifications for products that contain historical ivory. Can she offer any assurance to assuage their concerns that the sale of ivory that has been in antiques for generations will be allowed to continue?

[Dr Coffey]

We are considering the matter carefully, but we need to have a comprehensive ban. In the consultation, we put forward a suggestion on several exemptions, and we are looking through the responses to that particularly carefully. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise that having ivory as a valuable object just because it is ivory is something that we simply do not want in this country or around the world, which is why we are taking strong action.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve air quality after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

I am pleased to say that the Government will continue to improve air quality, supported by the new comprehensive clean air strategy that we are developing and will publish later this year. We have already put in place a £3.5 billion plan to improve air quality, with a particular focus on transport, and we have significant targets to reduce emissions of the five damaging air pollutants. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a devolved matter, and the Welsh Government are actively considering how to improve air quality in Wales.

[Nick Smith]

By when does the Minister think that Volkswagen will face criminal charges in the UK for its emissions scandal?

[Dr Coffey]

I am not a Transport Minister, but we all recognise that consumers—including, I expect, people in the House today—will have felt duped by the dodgy practices that took place. Transport Ministers are actively engaged with this issue.

[Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)]

I represent a car-manufacturing constituency. Will the Minister acknowledge that the UK car industry has made significant contributions through its investment in low emission cars, which is a key part of the strategy to improve air quality?

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have been investing in improving and cleaning up transport infrastructure. We have introduced legislation to require the deployment of far more electric charging points. I am pleased that the money we are investing is helping to clean up buses, which is key to improving air quality, particularly in urban centres.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

The Minister will recognise that there is an air quality crisis now, particularly in respect of the impact on children. Some of the problem is down to the most polluting vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles and buses. What will this joined-up Government do to make sure that we get those vehicles off our roads?

[Dr Coffey]

This is why the Government are investing—we have been for several years—to clean up things like the bus vehicle fleet. We have the clean transport fund. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be keen to work with his council and Greater Manchester to work on an air quality plan, because it is important that we have local solutions that tackle the local issues.

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

The Government’s air quality plans are simply inadequate, and they have been taken back to court yet again. With an estimated 40,000 premature deaths attributed to illegal air pollution every year, just how critical does the situation have to get before the Government finally act to comply with the High Court ruling? Will the Secretary of State and the Minister support Labour calls to introduce a new clean air Act to deal urgently with this matter?

[Dr Coffey]

We need clean air action and that is what the Government are delivering. We are working with local councils, and I wish the hon. Lady would encourage Labour councils to get on with it. I have had to issue ministerial directions to get councils to bring forward plans, and that is a real problem. I wish that we could work collegiately on this, because what matters is improving the health of the people we represent. I am keen to do that, and I would welcome the hon. Lady’s support in working with Labour-led councils to achieve that.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What progress he has made on ensuring access to affordable flood insurance for people living in high flood risk areas; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

Before the introduction of Flood Re in 2016, only 9% of householders who had previously claimed for a flood could subsequently get insurance quotes from two or more insurers. By October 2017, availability had improved such that 100% of householders could get quotes from two or more insurers. Costs are down, and four out of five householders who have previously made a flood claim have seen price reductions of more than 50%.

[Rachael Maskell]

It is two years since Storm Eva and, with flood alerts along the River Ouse in York this week, residents living in leasehold accommodation or accommodation built since 2009, along with businesses, have been failed by the Government’s not putting in place appropriate insurance. What recent discussions has the Minister had about this issue?

[Dr Coffey]

I direct the hon. Lady’s attention to the record £2.5 billion that we are investing in flood defences between 2015 and 2021, from which people and businesses in York will benefit, as she knows. The rules for leaseholders are quite specific. After careful parliamentary scrutiny, a certain approach was taken so that commercially required insurance was not included in Flood Re. I continue to meet the British Insurance Brokers Association. Members have raised around five cases with me, and those are the ones that I am pursuing.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Flood Re has really helped to cover residential properties, but what about a guest house? Is that a business or a residence? Can it actually get affordable insurance? Businesses, and small businesses in particular, are finding it difficult to get affordable insurance.

[Dr Coffey]

As I have said, I have taken up the issue of leasehold properties, and I have had the issue of commercial properties raised with me. Flood Re was a big and quite fundamental change in this country. In fact, every householder supports other householders for a limited period of time to help with flood resilience. It would be a massive change for businesses in one part of the country to subsidise other businesses because of their location choices. I recognise that this is not a straightforward issue, which is why we continue to work with the insurance industry to improve cover.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Many in Cumbria who suffered flooding were affected by surface water flooding. Although the Environment Agency’s flood defences must meet a once in 100-year standard, the water companies are obliged to meet only a once in 50-year standard. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that the water companies are held to the higher standard so that homes and businesses are not put at risk of the devastation and misery caused by flooding?

[Dr Coffey]

We are talking about water companies and the protection of assets. Surface water is the responsibility of local councils. We are working on a strategy, led by the Environment Agency, which has overall strategic oversight on this, and we will be doing more on surface water flooding this year.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

As we have already heard, parts of the country, including my constituency, were affected by both flood warnings and flooding again this week. The 25-year environment plan gave the Government the opportunity to think long-term about responding to flood risk. Although I appreciate that the national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy will be updated in 2019, can the Minister explain why the plan itself fails to include any proposals or funding relating to reducing flood risk beyond just the next three years?

[Dr Coffey]

When the Government made the decision to have a six-year plan for funding, they dramatically changed the situation for householders and businesses. The decision allowed the Environment Agency to have long-term plans instead of having a year-to-year hand-to-mouth existence. The hon. Lady should welcome the fact that we have that in place, and we will be working on future budgets at the appropriate time.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to safeguard UK food safety and animal welfare standards in future trade deals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

The 2016 Royal Society for the Protection of Birds bird crime report stated that there were 81 confirmed cases of raptor persecution, yet not one prosecution followed. Can the Minister explain why, and what is she going to do about it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

We take this issue very seriously, which is why it is one of National Wildlife Crime Unit’s six crime priorities. It is important that we continue to get evidence so that we can have appropriate prosecutions. The Government cannot direct the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to launch those prosecutions, but we encourage everybody who cares for wildlife to bring evidence to the police.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Rehman Chishti. Where is the fellow? He is not here—oh dear, oh dear. Never mind. All is well with the world; the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is here.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

T5. Will the Minister come and see what we can do to restore the Avon water meadows?

[Dr Coffey]

I was in Hampshire recently, visiting six different constituencies, and I would be delighted to return to the wonderful New Forest in due course to look at the matter.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

We remember the crew of the Nancy Glen, and the Secretary of State’s words are appreciated.

Farming expects the Secretary of State to continue his support and to maintain standards, of course, but the question for fishing, given all the tonnes he will take from the European Union, is this: where is it going, and when?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the vision for the new 50 million tree northern forest and share my delight that the first tree planting will be at the Woodland Trust’s Smithills site in Bolton West?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Indeed. This ribbon of woodland and forest along the M62 will be welcome, and the Government are kick-starting the project with a £5.7 million grant. We will continue to work with the Woodland Trust and other community forests in making this a reality. I am particularly pleased for my hon. Friend, and I look forward to heading to Bolton to see where the first tree is planted.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

T3. There is strong cross-party and public support for increasing the penalties for animal cruelty to five- year prison sentences. Could that be done forthwith rather than waiting for the draft animal welfare Bill, which is still subject to consultation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

T7. In reference to air pollution, not a single area of London meets the World Health Organisation standards for the damaging type of particle known as PM_2.5, and 95% of the capital exceeds the guidelines by at least 50%. The clean air action to which the Minister referred needs resourcing. When will the Government, instead of passing the buck to local and regional authorities, put some money on these fine words?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

I think the huge amount of investment in improving transport infrastructure and helping local councils has certainly done that. When it comes to PM_2.5, this issue affects everybody, and that is why it is a key part of what we will be addressing in our clean air strategy. I encourage people to do the right things under the strategy—do not burn wet wood, and think about switching to smokeless coal. These are the kinds of things on which we can take immediate action now, as well as acting on the long-term issue of improving infrastructure.

[Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

One reason why our countryside is so admired and so respected by urban dwellers is the way it is looked after and managed by our farmers. When will the Secretary of State be able to build on his Oxford speech this month, and say more about long-term support for agriculture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

How can we be confident of the Government’s intention to be robust on air quality if we leave the EU, when they refuse to introduce a decent scrappage scheme for vehicles and persist in promoting runway 3 at Heathrow?

[Dr Thérèse Coffey]

Air quality is actually improving. We have made good progress and we want to do more, particularly on roadside NO₂ concentrations. The hon. Lady should welcome the initiatives we have taken. Just this week, the House has approved extra powers to make sure that we get rid of or reduce the capacity of diesel generators, which will do a lot to improve air quality right across the country.

The hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—