PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES · 2020. 11. 27. · PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee ENVIRONMENT BILL First Sitting Tuesday 10

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATESHOUSE OF COMMONS

OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES

Public Bill Committee

ENVIRONMENT BILL

First Sitting

Tuesday 10 March 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

Programme motion agreed to.

Motion to sit in private agreed to.

Written evidence (Reporting to the House) motion agreed to.

Examination of witnesses.

Adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021

No proofs can be supplied. Corrections that Members suggest for thefinal version of the report should be clearly marked in a copy ofthe report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor’sRoom, House of Commons,

not later than

Saturday 14 March 2020

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020

This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence,

which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/.

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairs: †SIR ROGER GALE, SIR GEORGE HOWARTH

† Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)

† Ansell, Caroline (Eastbourne) (Con)

† Bhatti, Saqib (Meriden) (Con)

† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)

† Edwards, Ruth (Rushcliffe) (Con)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)

† Morden, Jessica (Newport East) (Lab)† Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead)

(Lab)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Sobel, Alex (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)

Adam Mellows-Facer, Anwen Rees, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Witnesses

Signe Norberg, Public Affairs Manager, Aldersgate Group

Edward Lockhart-Mummery, Project Convenor and Principal Investigator, Broadway Initiative

Martin Baxter, Chief Policy Adviser, Broadway Initiative

David Bellamy, Senior Environment Policy Manager, Food and Drink Federation

Andrew Poole, Deputy Head of Policy, Federation of Small Businesses

Martin Curtois, External Affairs Director, Veolia

1 210 MARCH 2020Public Bill Committee Environment Bill



Morning

[SIR ROGER GALE in the Chair]

Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.Ordinarily, the public would be invited in for the initialbrief announcement and then have to go out again, sowe thought we would save them the effort. There are acouple of preliminary points. Please turn off your mobilephones. I have a tendency to send Members to theTower if they allow their phones to ring. I am checkingmy own, as well. I am afraid that tea and coffee are notallowed, so those who want a tea or a coffee will have togo outside to have it.

We will consider the programme motion and themotion on reporting written evidence for publicationand then have a quick chat in private. It is easier thanyanking people in and chucking them out again. Wewill try to take the motions without too much debate.

Ordered,That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at9.25am on Tuesday 10 March) meet—

(a) at 2.00pm on Tuesday 10 March;

(b) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 12 March;

(c) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 17 March;

(d) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 19 March;

(e) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 24 March;

(f) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 26 March;

(g) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 31 March;

(h) at 4.00pm and 7.00pm on Tuesday 21 April;

(i) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 23 April;

(j) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 28 April;

(k) at 11.30am and 2.00pm on Thursday 30 April;

(l) at 9.25am and 2.00pm on Tuesday 5 May;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance withthe following Table:

Table

Date Time Witness

Tuesday 10 March Until no laterthan 10.30 am

Aldersgate Group;Broadway Initiative

Tuesday 10 March Until no laterthan 11.25 am

Food and DrinkFederation;Federation of SmallBusinesses; Veolia

Tuesday 10 March Until no laterthan 2.30 pm

Local GovernmentAssociation


Natural England;Wildlife Trusts;Country Land andBusinessAssociation; NFU


National Federationof Builders


Greener UK;Greenpeace; RoyalSociety for theProtection of Birds

Table

Date Time Witness

Thursday 12 March Until no laterthan 12.15 pm

Asthma UK andBritish LungFoundation;UNICEF; AirQuality ExpertGroup; ClientEarth


Water UK; Blueprintfor Water; MarineConservation Society


George Monbiot;Wildlife andEnvironment Link


Keep Britain Tidy;Green Alliance


Chem Trust;Chemical IndustriesAssociation; Unite


ScottishEnvironment LINK;EnvironmentalProtection Scotland;Law SocietyScotland

(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committeeshall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 21; Schedule 1;Clauses 22 to 45; Schedule 2; Clause 46; Schedule 3; Clause 47;Schedule 4; Clause 48; Schedule 5; Clause 49; Schedule 6;Clause 50; Schedule 7; Clause 51; Schedule 8; Clause 52;Schedule 9; Clauses 53 to 63; Schedule 10; Clauses 64 to 69;Schedule 11; Clause 70; Schedule 12; Clauses 71 to 78;Schedule 13; Clauses 79 to 90; Schedule 14; Clauses 91 to 100;Schedule 15; Clauses 101 to 115; Schedule 16; Clauses 116 to 122;Schedule 17; Clauses 123 and 124; Schedule 18; Clause 125;Schedule 19; Clauses 126 to 133; new Clauses; new Schedules;remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded)be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 5 May.—(LeoDocherty.)

Resolved,That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence

is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until thewitnesses are admitted.—(Leo Docherty.)

The Chair: Written evidence will be made available inthe Committee Room. I take it that the Committee ishappy to receive it.

Resolved,That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence

received by the Committee shall be reported to the House forpublication.—(Leo Docherty.)

9.27 am

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Signe Norberg, Edward Lockhart-Mummery and MartinBaxter gave evidence.

9.30 am

The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.Thank you for joining us. We shall now hear oralevidence from the Aldersgate Group and the BroadwayInitiative. Before we start, I would be grateful if youwould be kind enough to identify yourselves for thebenefit of the record.

Signe Norberg: I am Signe Norberg. I am the publicaffairs manager at Aldersgate Group.

3 4HOUSE OF COMMONSPublic Bill Committee Environment Bill

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I am Edward Lockhart-Mummery, convener of the Broadway Initiative.

Martin Baxter: I am Martin Baxter, chief policyadviser at the Institute of Environmental Managementand Assessment. We are home to the Broadway Initiative.

The Chair: Thank you—and thank you for givingyour time this morning. We have limited time, as you areaware, before I will have to draw the sitting to a close.Concise answers—I have already urged my colleaguesto ask concise questions—will help us to get throughthe business.

Q1 Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab):Good morning. I would like to start with some thoughtsabout the Office for Environmental Protection. You willhave seen from the structure of the Bill that the officewill be set up by the Government, essentially, and willhave certain powers, but many people say that, in otherareas, it lacks independence or teeth. What is your viewof the structure of the OEP?

Martin Baxter: I might as well go first. I think wewould share some of the concerns around independence.I think there is an opportunity for greater independence,particularly on the appointment and removal of thechair. The Office for Budget Responsibility has aconfirmatory vote for the appointment of its chair, andI think a similar mechanism could be put in for theOEP. It has a wide range of powers and duties. Potentially,some of the powers could become duties, particularly ifthere are changes to targets, but, largely, it is a body thatcould have strategic effect in helping to drive improvementsin environmental performance.

Signe Norberg: We would agree that the OEP willhave a wide remit, and some of its powers are reallywelcome. We share the view that there are some aspects,with regard to its independence, that we would likestrengthened, particularly on matters explicitly to dowith funding and the commitment that the Governmentmade previously, in the pre-legislative scrutiny on theprevious draft Bill, to having an explicit five-year budgeton the face of the Bill, to make sure that there would belong-term certainty. We also support calls for Parliamentto have a role in the appointment of the chair of theOEP—making sure that the relevant Select Committeewas involved in the appointment process.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: I would just make awider point, from a business perspective. I think thatthe OEP has an important role to play because it givesconfidence in the overall system. That is why independenceis important. I just wanted to fill in that gap as to whybusiness thinks that independence is important in termsof having a really credible body. That can also beachieved in the way that it operates. I found this withthe Committee on Climate Change. One of the importantthings is the appointment of the first chair—and, actually,the second chair. The chair can determine how a bodylike that works in practice—its credibility, the things itchooses to pursue, how it gives strategic advice, andthings like that. So I think it is also very much the way,and the type of person who is the chair, that areimportant.

Q2 Dr Whitehead: You reflected on the independenceof the OEP and have suggested that concerns might beraised about its funding and funding cycle. Are thereamendments you would like to see to the Bill to establish

that independence in a clearcut way? Along with theOEP’s potential independence, would you like to seesomething specific in the Bill that protects its remit andfunding cycle so we can be assured that it will not besubject to the vicissitudes of the Department or theExchequer?

Signe Norberg: With regards to the specific areas ofthe Bill, there could be strengthening amendments toschedule 1, which sets out the appointment process. Aparagraph in there to specify the role of the SelectCommittee in appointing the chair would strengthenthe Bill, because the OEP’s chair has the power to selectthe other members. Within that, there is also a fundingsection, which could establish the five-year process. Theimportant thing is that the OEP, with its formidableremit, will have independence and certainty in the longterm. That should go beyond this Government, securein the fact that successive Governments will deliver onthe commitments. It should have a baseline budget tooperate from, regardless of economic circumstances. Ifthe funding mechanism in schedule 1 is strengthened,that would be welcome and really bolster the OEP’sability to do its work.

Martin Baxter: In terms of a specific amendment,paragraph 2(1) of schedule 1 could be changed. It says:

“Non-executive members are to be appointed by the Secretaryof State” ,

but you could add to that, “with confirmation from theEnvironmental Audit Committee and/or Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee.” That would giveParliament enhanced power in that appointments process.That is a targeted, small amendment that could enhanceindependence in the process.

Q3 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow):Thank you so much for coming in; it is really appreciated.I have two points to pick up, one of which was raised byMs Norberg. I think you suggested that the Office forEnvironmental Protection, the overarching body thatwill hold public bodies to account, ought to be morelike the Office for Budget Responsibility, but that bodydoes not have the enforcement functions that the OEPwill have. Do you have any views about that?

Signe Norberg: The point about appointing the chairis more about ensuring that there is scrutiny aroundwho is appointed as chair. We fully recognise that theOEP will have a different remit compared to the OBR.It is more about ensuring that Parliament has a role inappointing the chair.

Q4 Rebecca Pow: The OBR and what we are proposingfor the Office for Environmental Protection are quitedifferent in terms of functions. The Office for EnvironmentalProtection is more like the Equality and Human RightsCommission and very much set up on those lines. Dothe others have views on that?

Martin Baxter: Given the importance of the OEPand questions about independence and holding publicauthorities, including Government, to account, stakeholdersfeel that that enhanced independence is very important.The model of having a confirmatory vote from theappropriate Select Committee in that appointments processis something that the OBR has in its remit, and we thinkthat could be transferred across to the OEP as well.That is not to say that they do not have very differentfunctions as bodies; we fully accept that.


Q5 Rebecca Pow: Could I widen it out a bit? Industryand business have been very engaged in the developmentof the Bill, which is much appreciated. One of thestrong messages we got from your two groups, in particular,was that you wanted legally binding targets and strongdirection in the Bill. Why do you feel that is so important?Can you help the Committee understand whether theBill is strong enough and why you want that?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: You are absolutely right.We have been working on this for about two or threeyears with a wide group of business organisations. Wehave got 20 of the main business groups, covering allsectors, from the Federation of Small Businesses to theCBI, Make UK, Water UK and the Home BuildersFederation. Consistently across that group, the notionof a long-term framework for the environment is incrediblyimportant.

We did a bit of research looking at the timescalesover which businesses take decisions, whether it is projectcycles, investment cycles for capital, or whatever. A lotof the investment cycles are very long. Unless you havea long-term framework for the environment, it is difficultto make the kind of improvements that we would alllike to see.

In the past, we have often had very short-term decisionmaking on the environment, which makes it difficult forbusiness to adjust. If we are constantly in that cycle ofresponding very quickly and introducing policies on aone or two-year basis, it is very hard for business.Everyone—human beings—wants to see a clean andgood environment. Business supports that as much aseveryone else. If they have clarity over the long-termdirection of policy and a clear set of targets, they canstart designing. Whatever sector you are in, you canstart designing.

Let me give you a quick example. We are workingwith the home building sector on a sectoral plan for allnew houses, for the environment, because we have gotthe clarity of net zero and because we are getting clarityon targets through the Environment Bill. The sector cansuddenly sit down and start saying, “Right, these arethe long-term things we need to plan for—water efficiency,flood resilience and air quality.” They can start investingin the R&D and driving innovation.

We think that is very important, and we advocatedvery strongly right from the start. We put together ablueprint for the Environment Bill. We have advocatedvery strongly to Treasury and others that that long-termframework is important. We think it is a game changer,in the sense that, as soon as you have that, rather thanenvironment being a compliance issue within firms, itbecomes a strategic issue within firms, sectors and localareas, where everyone can build this into what theyare doing.

In principle, we think targets are fantastic and wereally welcome them in the Bill. We also think that thereare some small changes that could be made to thetarget-setting framework that would be win-wins. Theywould improve the ability to achieve environmentaloutcomes but also reduce costs and increase certaintyfor business. I will focus on two—so that I am nothogging the microphone, I might then hand over tocolleagues. One is that we would really like to see clearobjectives in the Bill. At the moment, there is a target-settingmechanism, but it is not exactly clear. It says that fourtargets will be set in four areas, but it is not clear exactly

what targets would be set. It would give greater clarityto have objectives that consistently show what kindof targets are going to be set and give that long-termclarity for everyone.

We have often made the point that, in the past 10 years,we have had eight different Secretaries of State at theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.If they all set their own targets, depending on what theyare interested in, you could end up with a patchwork oftargets. We would really like to see clarity on the objectives.This is the kind of thing we are talking about. If the Billsaid something like environmental objectives would beto have a healthy, resilient and biodiverse naturalenvironment, an environment that supports human healthand wellbeing for everyone, and sustainable use of resources,those would be high-level objectives but would giveeveryone clarity, as to how targets would be set.

Rebecca Pow: May I just interrupt you there for asecond? I might bring the other gentleman in from theBroadway group—

The Chair: Minister, if anybody brings him in, it willbe me. May we please finish hearing what is being saidand then you can come back in?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: One thing we did withIEMA is a big survey of about 370 people working inbusinesses and different organisations. I think 95% ofthem supported having objectives in the Bill. That isthat one.

The other thing is to have a clearer duty right at thestart that environmental improvement plans have toenable the targets to be met. At the moment, the targetsare legally binding in the sense that if you miss a target,Government have to make amends and take action, andthere is a reporting mechanism. What is missing—andis in the Climate Change Act 2008—is what we call aday one duty, something that says there is a duty on theSecretary of State to make sure that they are putting inplace the right policies to support this. These two thingswould underline that clarity and long-term certainty forbusiness and reduce long-term costs for business toachieve the outcomes.

The Chair: Ms Norberg, do you wish to add anythingbefore I go back to the Minister?

Signe Norberg: I would like to add that our businessmembers, who represent around £550 billion of globalturnover, do support the Bill. They really want to see arobust environmental regime, because they fundamentallybelieve that environmental policies make clear economicsense for them. It is also better for the overall environment.

On why businesses want to see that happen, it doesnot just make clear economic sense; it also provides astable environment in which they can invest in theirworkforce and in green products and services, andinnovate their business model. If the Bill clearly sets outwhat is expected and by when, and what the targets arein the intermediate term to meet these objectives, it willhelp businesses to adjust their business model, whereneeded, but also to go beyond the targets.

We would certainly support some of the points thatEd has made about objectives. We would also like to seethe interim targets strengthened further, because whenyou have certainty about what is going to happen in thenext five years, it helps you also to look at the long-termtargets that are 15 years ahead. If there is also something


around remedial actions—so that when it looks like theintermediate targets are going to be missed, action willbe taken—that will give businesses certainty aroundwhat is expected of their sector, but also about how theyfit within the overall environmental framework.

Q6 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Leading onfrom what you were saying about the interim targets,how do you strike the balance? At the moment, youhave very long-term targets of at least 15 years. I acceptwhat the other witnesses were saying about how thatgives business certainty, because decisions are made ona long-term basis, but if your target is way into thefuture, the danger is that you do not drive progress inthe interim. The Aldersgate Group clearly supportsinterim targets.

Signe Norberg: Certainly, and that stresses the importanceof the interim targets, with the long-term targets being,as they should be, long term and indicating the directionof travel. The interim targets help to drive progress inthe intermediate term, but also help us to see where weare and what we need to do to put us back on track. Ifwe strengthen the interim targets, that will certainly besomething that we know our businesses would welcome,because it not only provides the direction of travel buthelps them look at their own model.

Martin Baxter: We fully support long-term targetsbecause they give the strategic predictability and confidencefor business to invest over the long term. The importanceof interim targets is that they determine the pace atwhich we need to make progress, hence the need for arobust process for setting the long-term targets andinvolving businesses in the interim targets, to ensureabsolute clarity about the likely investment needed toachieve progress at the rate we need. If we want to speedup progress, the question is, “How much will it cost andwhere will the cost fall?” We have to make sure thatbusinesses are part of owning some of these targets,because they are the ones that will have to make theinvestment to deliver them. They have to understandwhat changes will be needed and what policy mechanismsmight need to be introduced to ensure that that can allbe achieved. That is where the role of interim targetsand their link to environmental improvement plans, andthe robustness with which those interim targets will beset, is really important.

Q7 Kerry McCarthy: Mr Lockhart-Mummery, youalso spoke about objectives. I am interested to knowhow those objectives would fit with targets and interimtargets, and how that would pull the whole purpose ofthe Bill together. Perhaps in your answer you could saya little bit more about that as well?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: Absolutely. The objectiveswould guide how the targets and interim targets wereset. The Secretary of State, when setting targets, wouldhave to think how those targets would contributeto meeting the long-term objectives. That would bethe legal mechanism. When stakeholders were havingdiscussions with Government, everyone would understandthe purpose of those targets and that would temper thediscussion, because everyone would have a clear visionfor what they were.

Objectives could also determine how principles andenvironmental improvement plans are applied in theBill, so that when you are developing environmentalimprovement plans, you are also thinking, “What are

we trying to achieve through this Bill?”, when you areapplying principles and when the OEP is exercising itsfunction. Thus, everyone is clear on the purpose of allthose processes in chapter 1 of the Bill, which is thegovernance framework, and those objectives link tohow the Government applies those processes, so that itis clear externally what we are trying to achieve. Thenbusinesses, local authorities and other organisationsknow what we are trying to achieve through the Bill andknow that when Government pull all those levers, it isall trying to go in a particular direction.

Q8 Kerry McCarthy: But you would also supportinterim targets further downstream?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: We definitely supportstrengthening the targets. This is something we havediscussed a lot in our group, and there are slightlydifferent views of exactly how you do it. Some peoplewould support the targets’ being legally binding, andothers say that the final targets should be legally binding,but on the interim targets there needs to be moretransparency. Then, if an interim target is not met, itcould be that it triggers more of a reporting process,where the Government say, “We have missed the interimtarget. This is why, and this is what we’re doing aboutit,” rather than their being legally binding.

Potentially, if you made those interim targets legallybinding, it could have perverse effects. Governmentmight be a little less ambitious in setting interim targets,because it is always harder to know exactly what you aregoing to be able to do in the shorter term, particularlywhen some things require a lot of capital investment. Ifthe target is to increase recycling rates, that requires alot of capital investment or whatever.

There are some questions about exactly how youwould set those interim targets. Because they are nearerterm, it is more likely that the same Government will bein power when they are met, so what you do not want isfor them to end up being very unambitious in settingthe targets. A transparency mechanism would certainlybe very good.

Q9 Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Can I comeback to Mr Baxter first? In the brief you gave us beforethis sitting began, you mentioned two ways that youthought the Bill could be improved. Although youraised earlier the importance of the selection or electionof the OEP chairman and so on, your focus in thewritten evidence was more on structural issues. Couldyou flesh out what you meant by

“enhancing the coherence between the different governance elementsso they are mutually supportive and aligned to drive environmentalimprovement to a common purpose”?

That sounds like management-speak. Can you try tobring it alive and explain what you really have in mindand what the benefits of it are?

Martin Baxter: Certainly. There are three key elementsin the governance section of the Bill. First is the processfor setting legally binding targets, and underpinningthat is the significant improvement test in the naturalenvironment. The environmental principles have a slightlydifferent objective, on environmental protection andsustainable development. The Office for EnvironmentalProtection has a different set of objectives as well. Wethink there is a real opportunity to set a commonpurpose in terms of clear objectives, as Ed has outlined,


and to point all aspects of the governance process intoachieving those. That is where we think you could getfar greater coherence and cohesion between the differentelements.

Q10 Richard Graham: Can I just explore that a bitmore? On page 13, in part 1, the principle objective ofthe OEP is pretty clear:

“to contribute to—

(a) environmental protection, and

(b) the improvement of the natural environment.”

Page 1 of the Bill is about making provision to improvethe natural environment and environmental protection.Those two seem to be very closely aligned, are then not?

Martin Baxter: In part, they are, but they could befurther brought together. The real test of the targetsand the EIPs is whether significant environmentalimprovement is being met. It is that test that underlieswhy we are setting targets and it forms the basis onwhich environmental principles will be applied, potentially,and also the role of the OEP. We think that couldprovide greater cohesion, via all things pointing to thatcommon purpose.

Q11 Richard Graham: Mr Lockhart-Mummery, yousaid early on that the Bill needed clear objectives at thebeginning. Given what Mr Baxter has just said, do Itake it that you want to see a fleshed-out openingparagraph that talks about not just improving the naturalenvironment but what the benefits that we are lookingfor from that should be?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: Exactly. Improving thenatural environment is a good start. That could beclearer. For example, improving health is not thereclearly in “improving the natural environment”, yetquite a lot that we would want to do—improving airquality, nature and so forth—is about health. Beingreally clear that this is also about health and wellbeingis important. Then there is sustainable resource use. Atthe moment, there is a big focus on single-use plastics,very rightly. If, in the very short term, we only thoughtabout single-use plastics, we would not necessarily driveholistic sustainability overall. We might rush out ofplastics into aluminium or other things, whereas whatwe really want to know is, right at the top, that this isabout using the resources that we have sustainably. Ifthat is clear at the top of the Bill, everything drives that.We do not take siloed short-term decisions, but we areclear that when we are setting targets we are looking touse our resources sustainably overall to contribute to ahealthy, resilient, biodiverse natural environment, tohealth and to wellbeing for everyone. Those three objectivescapture almost everything you could want to do throughthis Bill, alongside decarbonisation, which is the territoryof the Climate Change Act 2008, but both are mutuallysupportive.

Q12 Richard Graham: That sounds as if what both ofyou are saying is that you want to see an introductoryparagraph that lays out, before the stuff that is quiteprocess-y, the benefits that we are trying to drive outthrough this Environment Bill a bit more clearly.

Ms Norberg, your earlier statement was slightly different.It was less on the ambitions of what the output wouldbe and more on further improvements to strengthen the

regulatory framework and the target-setting process.There is quite a lot of detail in terms of the targets andinterim targets, is there not? How much more processcan a Bill really have?

Signe Norberg: I would begin by saying that we alsosupport Broadway’s ask around an objective. We thoroughlysupport that because we think it gives the long-termdirection—which is set out here, but an objective wouldprovide a little more detail. In terms of the processesaround interim targets and the target-setting process,this is not so much about adding in more process—asyou say, what we have is already quite a heavy processdocument—but more about clarifying some aspects,which would be quite welcome. We have touched a littletoday on the interim targets. It is not about changingthem but about maybe clarifying that when intermediatetargets look to be off track, there is recourse to putthem back on track or the Secretary of State looks athow we will get back on track by updating them. Thereis a little bit there, but this is about adding furtherlanguage to clarify a point like that. This is not aboutadding further process; it is more about adding clarification.

Q13 The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Graham, Iam conscious of the fact that there are a number ofother Members who want to come in. I cannot allowone Member to dominate the entire proceedings.

I am going to do something now that I should havedone at the beginning—I apologise for this. Before Ibring in Deidre Brock, will Ms Norberg and one orothers of you gentlemen, very briefly, identify whoseinterests you represent?

Signe Norberg: We represent an alliance of businesses,non-governmental organisations and academic institutions.They cover several different industries, work acrosseconomies and have scale. We look at their specificindustries. All of that comes together to create a holisticenvironment for businesses and the natural environmentalflow.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: The Broadway Initiativebrings together the mainstream business organisationsacross sectors from the Federation of Small Businessesto the CBI, as well as groups covering each importantsector that touches on the environment. That is our coregroup. We also work with professional bodies such asthe IEMA and academic bodies, and we work closelywith environmental groups. We are committed to theoutcomes committed to by the Government throughthe 25-year plan and net zero. We are keen to explorehow we can really make that work through the economy.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I apologise; Ishould have asked that at the beginning for the record,and because there are people in this room who may notread everything that they should have read into just thebald titles.

Q14 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):Returning to the OEP, what are your thoughts on therelationship between the OEP and the environmentalgovernance bodies, including the Committee on ClimateChange, the Environment Agency and Natural England?Major budget cuts have clearly been made at NaturalEngland recently, and the organisation has expressedconcerns about its ability to monitor environmentalbreaches. What are your thoughts on how that works,or does not work, in the Bill?


Martin Baxter: We support the creation of the OEP.Its role in ensuring that public authorities fulfil theirduties under environmental law is important. That remitis quite different from the role of the EnvironmentAgency, Natural England and the Committee on ClimateChange. That committee has an advisory role; it does alot of analysis and a lot of fantastic work, but it doesnot have a role in holding public authorities to accountfor the delivery of net zero commitments. That is animportant distinction to make between the OEP andthe Committee on Climate Change.

Ideally, the OEP will be a strategic body able to lookat where our governance system might either need to bestrengthened or become more effective, and then makerecommendations. It has an important monitoringand scrutiny role that extends into progress towardsachieving long-term targets and looking at environmentalimprovement plans, so at least we will have a transparentand independent view of that, which is important. Wewelcome that.

The OEP also has an ability to advise on theimplementation of environmental law. That implementationrole is critical, because the effectiveness of environmentallaw is often in the extent to which it might be properlyenforced. In terms of monitoring the implementation ofenvironmental law, the OEP has the power to commenton whether there are sufficient resources in place forthose laws to be properly implemented, enforced anddelivered. There are the right hooks in the Bill, in termsof the OEP’s role and remit, to allow that to go forward.

The Chair: Ms Norberg, do you want to come in?

Signe Norberg: Martin summarised it fairly well.There is a recognition that these bodies will have to havesome level of co-operation. That will be important interms of the practical aspects of these bodies.

Q15 Deidre Brock: You sound a wee bit equivocal ordubious about whether the OEP has sufficient powersto enforce this properly. That is the impression I amgetting; correct me if I am wrong.

Martin Baxter: No, it has the powers to be able to doit. The question is how it chooses to use its powers. Insetting up the OEP, one of the first things it has to do isdevelop its strategy, which will be absolutely crucial indetermining the direction that it sees for itself, in termsof implementing the powers and duties that it has. If itchooses to utilise those powers to help to drive systemicchange where there may be weaknesses in our system ofenvironmental governance, that would be really welcome.That is what we expect it to be able to do.

Q16 Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con):Ms Norberg, in the event that, in the future after thepassage of the Bill, the British Government—for whateverreason—do not perform very well and do not do thethings that we believe they should, who should be themain accountable individual or group of individuals forthat?

Signe Norberg: Within Government?

Q17 Bim Afolami: I am trying to say that you presumablywant the Government to be accountable for this, throughParliament and, ultimately, to the electorate in ourelections. Do you agree?

Signe Norberg: Yes.

Q18 Bim Afolami: So, going back to what we weretalking about at the beginning around the Office forEnvironmentalProtection,andthinkingaboutaccountability,what is your sense of giving more power to Parliament,as opposed to the Government? My reading is that thatmight actually impact on that accountability.

Signe Norberg: I am not entirely sure that I agreewith that. The Bill gives a lot of powers to the Secretaryof State to provide an overall framework to meet targets,working with the chair of the independent OEP. Withregard to having Parliament as part of that, that is justan additional mechanism to give further authority tothe OEP. It is not necessarily to act as a hindrance; it ismore about the Bill giving Parliament a role in theOEP’s setting up, to make sure that it is truly independent,because it is meant to be for the ages. As you rightly putit, we do not know what will happen in the future, sothis is more about ensuring that the setting up of theOEP, and particularly the chair, because of the essentialrole of the chair, is robust enough.

Q19 Bim Afolami: You mentioned independence. Doyou think there is a danger that if you were to increasethe distance between the OEP and the Secretary ofState and the Department, you might end up in asituation in which the Government are trying to do onething and the OEP is trying to do something else?Obviously, in all government there is a natural tensionall the time, but I suppose my point is: do you not feelthat, in our parliamentary system, we should hold theSecretary of State to account fully for all the decisionsthat get made, including those relating to the chair andthe nature of everything we are talking about? Do younot worry that if you were to increase that distance, youmight reduce accountability for that individual, becausethey may say, “Look, the Office for EnvironmentalProtection did this, but I did not agree”?

Signe Norberg: The purpose of the OEP is to hold publicauthorities to account. Because of that, it should have alittle bit of distance from the Secretary of State. That doesnot mean that it is completely separate. Through itsannual reporting and so on, it should be able to criticisethe Government where appropriate. Surely they shouldalso work together. I am not necessarily sure that I agreethat it would limit the effectiveness of the system itself.The OEP should be a critical, independent friend of theGovernment, to achieve that natural improvement.

Q20 Bim Afolami: So it should be a bit like anenvironmental National Audit Office, which is the way Ilike to think about it?

Signe Norberg: Yes, I would not disagree with thatcharacterisation.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: There is a relationshipbetween Government and the electorate every five years.The OEP has an important role in making transparentjust what is going on in the interim period so that theelectorate has the right information every five years andcan see transparently what has been going on, what theGovernment have been doing, how that has affected theoutcome, whether the Government have been pullingthe right levers and that kind of thing. That is a rolethat the CCC plays very effectively on climate change,because people are increasingly aware of how theGovernment are performing. There is a role. The CCCis playing that role with probably less independencethan the OEP currently has.


I take your point that there is a question. You do notnecessarily want to go to an extreme on independence.Somehow you need to get the balance right. The questionof Parliament having a say over appointments is quiteinteresting, partly because when a Secretary of State isappointing a chair, they are thinking, “Is that a chairthat the EFRA Committee and the EAC across allparties will accept?”. I think that is quite an interestingdiscipline. It removes any fear that it might just be theSecretary of State appointing their chums, if they knowthat it will be properly scrutinised across parties. Thatdegree of independence would be quite effective, but Itake your point.

The CCC is not particularly independent, but puttingforward the advice on net zero was a bold thing to do. Itwas able to do that. The role of transparency andmaking clear to the electorate what is going on could bethe body’s most important function.

I would also expect that an effective body would nottake Government enforcement action all the time. Whatyou do not want is a body constantly doing that. Whatthe OEP might effectively do is make clear from thestart, “These are the types of cases we are going to takeand why.” That would send a clear signal to Governmentand then you would hope that there would not be loadsof enforcement cases, with the OEP taking public bodiesto court.

Q21 Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op):Following on from that question, clearly the duties ofthe OEP in investigation and enforcement are veryimportant. We have a regulatory environment that finishesin December this year. The OEP will not be up andrunning in January next year. Do you have concernsthat there will be a governance gap in the interim? Howdo you feel about the independence of enforcement,investigation and action that is taken on potential breachesin that interim period?

Signe Norberg: From what I understand, there is aGovernment ambition to prevent that being the case,and that is why we have seen the inclusion in the Bill ofthe interim chief executive officer. In so far as that is asafeguard to ensure that we have the OEP set up by1 January, I think that is welcome. It stresses the importanceof ensuring that this is robust enough and that you geton with appointing the permanent chair and the permanentexecutive directors of the OEP as quickly as possible.

Martin Baxter: If you look at the role of the EuropeanCommission, which is where in part the OEP comesfrom in terms of its functions and that watchdog role,the Commission moves very slowly. It does not takerapid action. It does not instigate infraction proceedingsagainst member states. There is a build-up of a processby which you can start to see the Commission givinga warning shot across the bows, where there might be amember state that is not in a position to achieve everything.I do not see a huge challenge in terms of a governancegap with the OEP becoming set up in the timescales thatare being discussed. I do not think that is a materialweakness.

Q22 Alex Sobel: This is a different subject, but somethingyou alluded to earlier was the need for a broader strategicaim. Other countries have an overarching environmentalobjective as part of their environmental legislation.The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for

Southampton, Test, has tabled an amendment that atthe start of the Bill there should be a clause stating anenvironmental objective. Do you think that would improveand strengthen the Bill?

Martin Baxter: Definitely; I think we made that clearin our earlier comments. We see that internationally.The Dutch Environment and Planning Act has a clearset of objectives that frame the purpose of the legislation.I think you also see that in the Environment (Wales) Act2016. This is not without precedent in the UK andinternationally. It provides that direction of travel andthe opportunity to think about the different parts of theBill as a coherent whole.

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

Q23 Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con): I am interestedin the witnesses’views on the whole system of environmentalgovernance and how well it works together, includingthe targets, the environmental protections and the Officefor Environmental Protection. Do you think that itworks together holistically? Are there any gaps? It wouldbe good to get your views on that.

Martin Baxter: We have touched on the issue ofcoherence, which is fine. The key elements of a nationalframework are there, at least for England, because thegovernance aspects do not stretch into all parts of theUK. It is important to recognise that. There is a certainrhythm between the process for setting targets and thedevelopment of an environmental improvement plan,which is aligned to achieving the targets. Then there is aprocess of implementation and reporting by the Secretaryof State, and commentary and reporting by the Officefor Environmental Protection. That is good.

There is potentially a question from our perspectiveover the transmission mechanism from national policy,targets and plans down to what this means in the spatialcontext. That has not been brought forward in the Bill.We have local nature recovery strategies, which are inthe nature chapter. We have requirements on watermanagement plans, which are in the water chapter. Butthere was the potential to bring together, at a local level,more coherence to environmental improvement strategiesin places, which can be contextualised to local environmentsand provide the basis for local people to be able toengage in democratic processes in helping to set priorities.That is where we would look at completing a fullgovernance framework. That is the direction of travelthat we would like to see.

Q24 Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con): You referredto objectives earlier. Is there not a risk that you couldlook at these objectives and set targets a little too early—putting the cart before the horse—before we have hada chance to delve into the detail and heard everybody’sexpert advice?

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


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

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

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

The Chair: On the assumption that it is on the samesubject, I call Ms Edwards.

Q25 Ruth Edwards: You talk about having a healthyenvironment as an objective. How would you legallydefine a healthy environment? If it is on the face of theBill, we need legal certainty about what the conceptmeans. Otherwise, are we not just creating legal confusionand vagueness?

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: It is something that hasprecedent in Welsh law. There would need to be aprocess of defining in more detail what it means. Thereare other terms in the Bill that need to be defined, suchas the significant improvement test for the targets. Therewould need to be a process. I would argue that thatwould be quite a helpful process, because then we wouldhave a public conversation about what we mean by“healthy”. Is it that people going about in their dailylives and going to school should be able to do sowithout dying? What does it mean, and what is theproportionate, sensible definition for that? You are rightthat it would need to be defined in this context, but theprocess of defining it is probably an important steptowards achieving the outcome.

The Chair: We are nearing the end of this session, Iam afraid. In the context of what we have heard thismorning, Dr Whitehead, do you have any further questions?

Q26 Dr Whitehead: One thing we have not heard thismorning, in the context of how the OEP and the targetsthat are to be set might work, is the fact that all this istaking over from the environmental protections thatwere there through the European Union when we weremembers. Do you think the Bill allows for the transitionof those protections to a UK context to be sufficientlyenforced and, ideally, enhanced? Or do you think thereneeds to be anything else in the Bill that can perhapsensure that there is no regression in standards as wemove forward with these new arrangements?

Signe Norberg: With regard to whether or not itwould sufficiently transfer protections into a UK context,it is important, as Martin pointed out earlier, tonoteeb;normal;j that the Bill itself predominantly applies

to England. There must be processes through which thedevolved Administrations set up their independentsupervisory bodies, but they also all need to worktogether. Through that, the Bill has the right buildingblocks; it will be about how those bodies co-ordinateamong themselves.

In and of itself, the Bill does not inherently preventfuture regression from standards, but there could bemechanisms within the Bill to clarify that. For instance,if you had strong language in the objective aboutmaintaining high environmental standards, that wouldclearly set out that it should not be a regression. Werecognise that there is not an intention for a regressionto take place, but that could be an example of how youwould potentially safeguard against that.

Edward Lockhart-Mummery: On day one, of course,we roll over all existing standards, and then we have theOEP in place to enforce. That gives us the startingpoint. With a few tweaks, this governance frameworkensures that we at least maintain and improve, becauseyou have that process of setting targets that always haveto improve, and because the governance process is setout with the environmental improvement plans andprinciples, with the Office for Environmental Protectionoverseeing everything.

If that works, we are in a better position and we canreally think creatively here. What are the structures,what are the plans, what are the partnerships that areneeded to achieve those objectives? I would put a“potentially” in front of that, because potentially wehave a better basis for achieving, but there are probablysome tweaks that can be made to the Bill during itspassage. Implementation, and how everyone works togetheron achieving the outcomes, is also important.

The transparency mechanism that was inserted intothe Bill between its first and second iterations is helpful,because it allows proper, transparent consideration ofwhether we are doing something that regresses and howwe look compared with international standards. That isa useful way of driving transparency within Parliamentabout what is happening. Clearly, the Government havemoved quite a distance on this. We are driving from theprivate sector perspective to try to make all of this workand support the direction of the Bill. We are doing it inhope, to some extent.

The Chair: Thank you. In the light of all of that, arethere any final questions from the Minister?

Q27 Rebecca Pow: On a related point, do you think itis important to have an equivalent governance frameworkto the OEP in Scotland and Wales? Northern Ireland isalready committed to joining the OEP, as is set out inthe Bill. The other two have close liaison with all theteams and countries, but at the moment they have saidthey are going to set up their own bodies. How importantis it, from a business point of view, that they function inas similar way as possible?

Martin Baxter: In terms of functioning, the reallyimportant thing is common standards driving commonoutcomes. Businesses are working across the UK andbeyond, so having a harmonised approach to theenvironmental outcomes we are looking to achieve isvery important.

In terms of the governance mechanisms, the ScottishGovernment announced last week that they were lookingto create an independent body and watchdog. For Northern


Ireland, there are obviously the provisions in the Bill.Wales is perhaps on a slightly different track at themoment. I am not entirely sure where it is in terms of anindependent body.

There is clearly an opportunity to drive efficiency byhaving a common framework, maybe for an overarchingview. Yes, I agree with common governance frameworksand ensuring that there is co-operation and collaboration,so that where we have shared environments, such asshared catchments, we are managing those and settingtargets and objectives for improvement on a commonbasis. That is very important.

I also think there is the potential within the UK that,if we start to set different standards, we will shiftburdens from one place to another. If you end up withvery different policies on waste, for example, you mightend up shipping waste from one part of the UK to theother, just because it happens to be easier or cheaper.Those overarching mechanisms of co-operation andcollaboration are very important.

The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. Ladies andgentlemen, that brings this session to a conclusion.Ms Norberg, Mr Lockhart-Mummery and Mr Baxter,thank you all very much indeed for coming along andaffording the Committee the benefit of your observations.We are deeply grateful to you.


Martin Curtois, Andrew Poole and David Bellamygave evidence.

10.30 am

The Chair: Once again, good morning. We now hearoral evidence from the Food and Drink Federation, theFederation of Small Businesses and Veolia. We haveuntil 11.25 am when the House will sit. For the benefit ofthe record, I would be grateful, gentlemen, if you identifiedyourselves and the nature of the organisation you represent,starting with Mr Curtois. I hope I have pronouncedyour name correctly. If not, please correct me.

Martin Curtois: Sure. Good morning, everyone. It isMartin Curtois. I am executive affairs director at Veolia.We employ 15,000 people and are heavily involved inboth the collection and recycling and treatment ofwaste, and very much involved in resource efficiency.

Andrew Poole: My name is Andrew Poole. I am deputyhead of policy at the Federation of Small Businesses. Weare a membership organisation representing 160,000 smallbusiness members and, more broadly, small businessesright across the country.

David Bellamy: I am David Bellamy. I am seniorenvironment policy manager at the Food and DrinkFederation, the principal trade body for the UK foodand drink manufacturing industry, which is the largestmanufacturing sector in the UK.

The Chair: Thank you, gentlemen. We are grateful toyou for coming along and giving us the help that we arelikely to need. We will start with Dr Whitehead.

Q28 Dr Whitehead: Good morning, gentlemen. TheBill is generally recognised as having some good bits, onrecycling materials and end-of-life concerns about materials

in the part on waste and resources, but it has beenwidely criticised because it concentrates on those particularelements of the waste hierarchy rather than looking atways in which the waste hierarchy could be driven up, asreflected in the waste and resources White Paper. Doyou have any views on that? Do you think that there areany ways in which the Bill could be strengthened toemphasise the point that, actually, recycling is not theend of the road, as far as waste is concerned, and thatother things—reuse, redesign and minimisation—havean equally important part to play?

Martin Curtois: In terms of the Bill, the resourcesand waste strategy that DEFRA devised is very strong—youare absolutely right—because what it does, in a numberof different ways, is try to improve the whole process. Itincorporates things such as “polluter pays”, so it putsthe onus on manufacturers to design better. The inclusionof modulated fees in the extended producer responsibilityputs a clear onus on manufacturers and producers todesign for recyclability, and that will ultimately reducewaste, which is what we all want. Obviously, it involveselements including better segregation, for example, offood waste, which should reduce the carbon impact. Ittalks about taking the burden away from local authoritiesand putting it more on manufacturers.

You are therefore absolutely right to say that that is astrong element of the Bill, but I think possibly thereshould also be other things. As you say, at the top of thehierarchy are elements such as reuse. We operate manysites across the UK where we have voluntary arrangements,for example in Southwark with the British HeartFoundation, where there are various items that can bereused and that is done for charitable benefit. It maybe that that ought to be looked at, possibly in the detailof the Bill, just to see where it can be done, becauseobviously it ultimately is the best way forward. It shouldat least get some consideration, because everythingfocused around the resources and waste strategy isprimarily, as you say, on the recycling side. There is notmuch emphasis on residual waste, which obviously weneed to avoid because we need to avoid landfill. Itherefore think there could be some consideration interms of reuse.

I also think that one of the best ways in which youcan reduce waste right at the outset is by designingbetter. The Bill reflects that element of the resourcesand waste strategy, which we see in a very positive way,because so many manufacturers and producers havecome to our site—some from not far away in south-eastLondon—to see how they can design their productswith perhaps less composites, in a better way, which willensure that they are at least recyclable at the outset.That is the very start of the process, which we have toget right if we are to make significant change.

The Chair: Mr Bellamy, does the FDF have a view onthis?

David Bellamy: Yes, we do. I think what we wouldargue is this. As the previous contribution outlined, weobviously expect the extended producer responsibilityreforms and the accompaniments to that in terms ofconsistency, and the focus much more on producerspaying full net costs for the end-of-life management ofpackaging, to focus minds a lot more on the preventionside in itself. Having said that, we must not lose sight ofthe fact that it is a legal requirement, for those who


handle waste and convey it to another person in thewaste transfer system, to have regard to the wastehierarchy. That is a legal requirement; it is in the law asit stands at the moment. It is also a legal requirement inrespect of packaging waste and packaging under theessential requirements regulations that producers whopack food products must have regard to using theminimum amount of packaging to maintain the necessarylevels of safety, food hygiene, etc., and consumer acceptance.That is also a legal requirement that is enshrined in thelegislation. In that sense, there are already legal requirementsaround maintaining a focus on prevention, in the senseof how we regulate the waste hierarchy. While it is rightthat there is a lot of focus on recycling in the resourcesand waste strategy, we feel that that is part of a biggerpicture.

We should not lose sight of voluntary activity aroundthis space. Our members’ commitment to reducing foodwaste has been documented in some figures that theWaste and Resources Action Programme recently publishedthat show that the food and drink manufacturing sectorhas reduced food waste by 30% since 2011. Half thatreduction has been achieved between 2015 and 2018.That is on a per capita basis measured against the targetof the sustainable development goal of the UnitedNations. So there is a focus on source reduction, whetherthrough legal mechanisms that are already in place, butalso in terms of the voluntary work that our membersare engaged in.

The Chair: Thank you. Does the FSB have a view,Mr Poole?

Andrew Poole: I agree with the assertion that reuseand reduction are equally important to recycling. It isworth bearing in mind the sheer diversity of the smallbusiness audience, which operates across myriad differentsectors and in very different ways from one another. It isalso worth bearing in mind that many small businessesoperate as both producers of materials and consumers.It is worth understanding the very different issues thatthey face. For many, particularly those operating asconsumers within the parameters set by the business, itis clear that recycling will be some low-hanging fruit.When we compare our recycling rates with other countriesin the world, clearly some rapid improvements shouldbe made. However, I take the point that it is equallyimportant to look at reuse and reduction as well.

Q29 Dr Whitehead: Clause 52, in the context ofrecycling and minimisation of waste, provides for chargesfor single-use plastic items. Do you think this clauseclarifies its purpose sufficiently? Is it about minimisingsingle-use items, or is it about reducing the role ofplastic in single-use items? First, do you think that aclause such as this would work in reducing single-useitems in the food and drink industry, for example? Doyou consider that it might be prudent to concentrate onthe fact that single-use items can be made of morethings than plastic and that amendments to the Billmight make that clear in terms of how the single-useenvironment might develop?

The Chair: Mr Bellamy, food and drink have beenmentioned, so perhaps you might like to have the firstcrack at this one?

David Bellamy: Our comments are framed aroundsingle-use plastic packaging items, which is our interestin terms of plastic. Basically, our view is that a betterway to achieve this kind of outcome would be to dealwith this within the refinements to the extended producerresponsibility system and the reform programme, in thesense that you could do this through modulated fees, asa much better way of achieving the same sort of outcome.In that way, we would be sure that the money raisedfrom such an approach would be used to improve thesystem. That is a vital principle of FDF: that themoneys we raise through increased producer fees areused to improve the system of recycling and that thosemoneys do not get channelled off into other expendituredemands. That is a very important principle that wehold dear in FDF. We have to be mindful that alternativesto plastic materials may also have an impact; it is notonly plastics themselves. If you switch to some othermaterials, you have to look at their life cycle, includingperhaps at how they are mined. They all have impactsthat we need to consider.

In terms of the clause in the Bill for this, we suggestthat any introduction of a charge should be subject tosome form of public consultation. We are a little bitconcerned that this could be taken forward in a way thatdid not involve any public debate or allow interestedstakeholders to make representations.

Andrew Poole: It is really important for the Government,through the legislation, to make clear the objective ofrequirements such as this and what they want smallfirms to do differently from what they are doing already.When looking across environmental legislation, I willtalk a lot about pathways to change. We want to set outnot only the reasoning behind the legislation but whatbusinesses should be doing differently, and how theGovernment see them doing it differently.

In terms of single-use plastics, we can compare thatto the carrier bag charge, which has worked fairlysuccessfully. Businesses, on the whole, were quite happyto adopt that. It was clear that the outcome was to be areduction in those bags. There were also some obviousways of doing things differently that could have achievedthe same outcome. It is just about making clear whatthat outcome needs to be and what businesses should bedoing differently to achieve the same thing.

The Chair: Finally in response to this point, Mr Curtois.

Martin Curtois: On the point made earlier aboutplastic, post the David Attenborough programme andothers, there was almost an overreaction against plastic,in the sense that people to some extent forgot its valuein food preservation and were effectively looking to banit. One problem we have to take into account, so far asplastics are concerned, is that, as was mentioned, theenvironmental consequences of using other productscan sometimes be worse. That is obviously somethingthat we want to steer clear of.

We also need to be careful about using the rightplastics. Moving to a system in which products aremanufactured primarily from high-density polyethylene,polypropylene or polyethylene terephthalate, or froma single-source product—with one plastic used for thebottle top as well as the bottle, for example—wouldmake it a great deal easier to recycle. For example, wehave a plant in Dagenham, in east London, where weeffectively recycle many of the plastic milk bottles used


in London, turning them into plastic pellets. Obviously,from our point of view, that single-source aspect is veryimportant. That element needs to be taken into account.

I can understand why the focus has been on single-useplastic items first, because it has been the biggest elementthat the public have leapt on, in terms of recycling andin terms of wanting change, so I can see why priorityhas been given to that. If we can start to get that rightand start to make changes that mean—for example, wehave developed some kit that recognises the black plasticused in TRESemmé shampoo bottles, because of thepigment within it, which allows us to recycle that moreefficiently. Significant changes can be made that couldstart to reduce the environmental impact quickly, whichI think we all want.

Q30 Rebecca Pow: Mr Bellamy clearly highlightedthe legal requirements already in place on a lot of wasteand recycling issues. There is the waste strategy, whichhas the reuse, recycle, longer-life element to it, which isvery strong. Will you give us business’s point of view onhow the Bill will move us towards what we call thecircular economy? What opportunities will that providefor businesses in particular? Maybe you could givespecial thought to the Bill aligning all local authorityrecycling collection services across the country. Whatsort of opportunities might that, among other measures,offer businesses?

The Chair: Mr Bellamy, you appear to be in the firingline this morning.

Rebecca Pow: Sorry about that.

David Bellamy: Clearly, the powers in the Bill onextended producer responsibility, introducing a depositreturn system and collection consistency—provided thesesystems are developed holistically together, and arejoined up—will, combined, revolutionise our recyclingsystem in the UK. As I say, we need to be mindful ofunintended consequences. That is why they need to bedeveloped holistically: so we have a coherent system.

Consistency is an essential piece of this jigsaw that wedo not want overlooked in taking these reforms forward.If producers are asked, for example, to label theirpackaging as either recyclable or non-recyclable in abinary system, it is vital that we bring the public with uson that journey. The collection system needs to be inline with that change, and consistency will need to be inplace, ready, in time for this new producer responsibilitysystem. That is vital for the FDF and its members. Wesupport that approach.

We would also like a very early signal from Governmentthat they plan to include plastic film in that core set ofmaterials, for consistency. We may even be able toaccelerate that faster than the work of the UK plasticspact, which I think is looking at 2025. We may be ableto do that sooner with the right co-operation in thechain. We would like to be ambitious in that regard. Bythat, we mean mono-material and multi-material films,and we include cartons in that aspiration as well. Wewould like the Government to be more ambitious onthat. Let’s get this right from the start, so the localauthorities have the right signals from Governmentabout the consistency in the core set of materials, anddevelop the infrastructure accordingly from the outset.That is very important to us.

I mentioned earlier that it is important that all themoney raised by producers in this new system goestowards improving the system. That is why we haveseparate issues with the plastics tax; it does not adhereto that principle, because we have a policy of non-hypothecation in the UK. We are not in support of aplastics tax; we are in support of reforming the producerresponsibility system through a few modulated fees,which would then be used to improve the system.

One specific issue we have is the exponential cost ourmembers face in buying the packaging recovery notes.You may be aware that these prices have gone upexponentially over the past year or so for plastics andaluminium. There is no evidence that this additionalmoney—our members are paying hundreds of millionsof extra pounds in these costs—is going towards improvingthe recycling system. We are happy to pay the extramoney, but we want to see the improvements in thesystem. We would like a meeting with the Minister assoon as can be arranged to discuss a range of optionsthat we have set out in a written submission to Governmentabout things that can be done in the shorter term toaddress this PRN crisis, as we regard it, within ourmembership. We would like the Minister to reconsiderour request to have that meeting as soon as possible.

The Chair: There is no requirement on everybody toanswer every question, but gentlemen, do either of youwish to add anything to that?

Andrew Poole: From our point of view, one of thethings that has become abundantly clear over the pastfew years is that our members as small businesses aresaying that they want to do the right thing, and theywant to demonstrate to their customers that they aredoing the right thing. Talking about the holistic approachto waste and recycling, a lot of these issues are pragmatic.How do we make it easy for small firms to play theirrole? On local authorities, obviously, small businessesare not allowed to take their waste to municipal sites.They are not eligible for municipal waste collections inthe way that many domestic householders are, despitemany of them not using many more different types ofwaste than those households. Again, that is in the spiritof making it as easy as possible for small firms tocomply and play their role. That would be one elementof it.

Q31 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): I want to follow up on the Minister’s questionabout a more collaborative, joined-up approach. Obviously,Andrew, local authorities will be your key partners, andyou touched on small businesses and the challenges thatthey may face. Can you go into detail about yourresourcing, and the support needed to deliver on therecycling targets?

Andrew Poole: Businesses do not have access to wastecollection services provided by local authorities, whichmeans that they have to arrange the collections themselves.That incurs a cost, but one thing that is often overlookedis the opportunity cost for small businesses; the issue isnot so much the waste collection service itself. How doyou identify a trustworthy waste collector? How do youknow what they are doing with that waste? Do theyprovide all the different types of recycling that youneed? Will that come at an additional cost? Do theycollect on the right days, when you need it? All of thosethings that businesses need to think about could be


made easier. Giving them access to more domestic-focusedwaste collection would be one way of looking at that forcertain businesses below a certain threshold.

Another thing is pragmatism. If you are talkingabout a deposit and return scheme, for instance, withwhich many of our businesses will be involved, do theyhave the space to do it? Is there practically and pragmaticallyenough space? Those issues could easily be got over, butthey need to be thought about. It comes back to thetheme of what we can do, within the existing infrastructure,to make it easier for businesses to comply, even beforewe start to think about what new things are required. Alot of things could be done today to make it easier forbusinesses to recycle more, in particular.

Martin Curtois: Owing to the emphasis in the resourcesand waste strategy on domestic infrastructure and buildingfacilities here, so that we can treat our waste and recyclingwithin the UK, the industry estimates that there is a£10 billion business opportunity for investment in theUK, because there are gaps in regional infrastructure. Itis important that we treat as much of both our recyclateand residual waste as possible in the UK. To be honest,some of the borders are closing in terms of waste beingtreated overseas in northern Europe. Obviously there ispublic demand for more plastic reprocessing in the UK,because that is best from an environmental point ofview. That is really important.

Consistent collections will make things easier forhouseholds, because whatever part of the country youare in, you will essentially have the choice to recyclepaper and card; plastic bottles; pots, tubs and trays,which at the moment many councils do not recycle; andsteels and aluminium. There will also be separate glassand food waste. That will make it easier to recycle andeasier, to be frank, to generate revenue from thosematerials, because they are collected separately. You canimagine that for the anaerobic digestion industry, separatefood waste will be beneficial—or if it is food and green,that is used for in-vessel composting. There is a logicin that.

As for individual businesses, as my fellow witnesseswill know, there will be mandatory collection of foodwaste above a certain limit. That is another good way toreduce carbon impact. In terms of the commercialcollection schemes that we run, sometimes you can haveeconomies of scale if you collect within a certain commercialtrading estate and offer a service to all businesses withinthat estate. The obvious point, which really I shouldhave made at the start, is that everyone thinks aboutmunicipal recycling and what everyone leaves outsidetheir property, but business recycling is just as, if notmore, important; there might be more waste involved.Anything we can do to simplify the system for businesses,so that it is less onerous and allows us to reduce ourcarbon impact quicker, has to be the right move.

The Chair: Mr Bellamy, do you want to add anythingto that?

David Bellamy: I agree with Martin Curtois aboutthe importance of developing the infrastructure in theUK. This goes back to the point I raised about the PRNcrisis. It would be helpful to have an early signal fromthe Government about their export policy and the factthat we want to gradually reduce exports over time andbuild up the UK’s capacity to recycle materials. Weshould also look at how we can work together much

more on quality standards for materials; ex-MRFsare another way to help the situation and develop moreend markets. Those sorts of things should be lookedat. Plus, of course, an early signal on our approach tocollection consistency would be helpful. We do notnecessarily need to wait until 2023. The earlier we canget signals from the Government about the direction ofpolicy, the more it will help the market to invest, and itwould provide certainty going forward.

Q32 Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): We have talkeda little bit about recycling this morning, but I aminterested in the steps taken by the food and drinkindustry and the small business sector to reduce the useof plastics. From your perspective, what are the unintendedconsequences of reducing plastic use, and how will theBill support you with those unintended consequences?

David Bellamy: On reducing plastic use, there is apresumption there that plastic can be substituted byequivalent materials; that is the challenge. Obviouslythe industry is happy to look at alternative materials,but they must provide that equivalent functionality.Plastic is a very efficient material for getting productsthrough the supply chain. The issue really is plasticwaste, not plastic per se. An element of responsibledisposal comes into this discussion as well.

We support the work of the UK plastics pact, whichlooks at not only phasing out non-essential plasticitems, but how we can make plastic more recyclable,compostable or reusable, and generally reducing thatwaste. This is a combination of things, and looking atpotential alternatives to plastic, where there are equivalentmaterials that provide equivalent functionality. We mustnot end up with unintended consequences, either forfood safety or for food waste. It is about finding thatsweet spot and functionality.

Also, we need to look at how we improve plastics asthey are used now, perhaps moving towards alternativetypes of plastic and looking at how we can increase therecyclability of existing formats. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach; it has to be evaluated in the round,and we have to make sure we do not move to unintendedconsequences. Also, we need to keep focused on the factthat plastics per se are not the issue; it is plastic waste. Itis about keeping plastics in the circular economy andout of the environment. The measures in the Bill to giveproducers full responsibility for the system, at full cost,will make it a lot easier to deliver change.

Andrew Poole: I back up what David said. On theunintended consequences, it is worth looking at associatedopportunity costs. Presumably one of the unintendedconsequences relates to not putting businesses out ofbusiness. Coming back to the point about carrier bags,a cost was put on bags, and the business community asa whole welcomed that, but one issue was really hard tocommunicate, it seemed. It was not that businesses didnot want to charge for the plastic, because they couldmanage that; they could swap and do alternatives. However,one unintended consequence, particularly for smallerretailers, was the reporting requirements on top. Weneed to look underneath the physical changes that thebusinesses have to make, and examine the bureaucracythat underpins those changes, such as any onerousreporting burden that is not balanced or proportionate.That is often quite hidden, but so often, the opportunitycost for businesses outweighs the up-front cost.


Martin Curtois: Most major brands have focus groupsbased on consumers—you and me—and there has beena significant change in how brands are responding tothe issue of sustainability, because they understand thatthe public get it and want us to improve environmentalperformance. We can see that in supermarkets: we nowhave refill options, which are great ways to encouragereuse and reduce waste from the outset.

We have agreed on most things so far. However, froma reprocessor’s point of view, the great benefit that I seearising from a plastics tax that insists that productscontain 30% recycled content is that it gives certainty toinvest in more plastics reprocessing facilities. That willultimately mean that the plastic is more sustainable atthe outset, because you are using less virgin plastic andmore recycled content. Before this Bill has even comeon to the statute book, brands that always thought ofsustainability as a nice-to-have—likely with a smallfinancial incentive as well—now think of it as a must-have.That is significant and positive, because it will mean weare getting it right at the start of the process, whichreduces the carbon impact.

It has even been shown through research that if thepublic are offered a water bottle with clearly labelledrecycled content that costs £1.24, as opposed to a bottlewithout it that costs £1.20, they will pay the little bitextra to have a sustainable container. We have to makesure we exert the influence that the public want us tohave when it comes to performing better in this area.

Q33 Alex Sobel: I will speak to two areas. First, whenI engage with people in both the food and drink industryand the waste compressing industry, one issue is thelack of reprocessing facilities, but the second—andusually more important—issue is the quality of thebales of material. When they show me a bale fromFrance and a bale from the UK, the French bales aremuch cleaner than the UK ones. Are the provisions inthe Bill going to improve that so we can have betterrecycling?

Secondly, you alluded to the market in waste pushingup the cost of these bales, which is a disincentive toinvest in reprocessing. Do you think that the provisionsin this Bill will pull that back? As an adjunct, there isthe issue of transfrontier shipments of waste—that is,waste being sold overseas. Again, do you think theprovisions in this Bill will help us end that practice andengage in reprocessing in order to create a circulareconomy in the UK?

Martin Curtois: There are a couple of elements thatwe have to bear in mind. First, due to the changes inChina and many other markets, the emphasis in thosecountries is on a race to the top. They are insisting onpremium quality, and if we provide premium-qualitybales it is much easier to have a market, so the way thathas changed has actually been beneficial to some extent.Also, the overall value of these commodities has fallen,as with many others, so it is even more important thatthe product you are producing is of a premium quality.It is very important that we get that right at the start.

The Bill’s emphasis on encouraging more investmentwithin the UK was one of the very clear signals that wasoutlined in the strategy. To give you an example, withplastic pots, tubs and trays, it is currently inconsistent.Part of that is that they are of little value as thingscurrently stand, but if they were being collected separately

under a formalised approach, it would be easier togenerate value from them. That is the case with allelements of recycling. If you can collect clean product—thisis why DRS may be advantageous as well—in sufficientquantity, it is easier to make a high-grade product forreprocessing.

There are a number of principles within the Bill thatare pointing us in the right direction. From the sector asa whole, if the Bill becomes a reality and, as a result, wemake it easier for the reprocessors to produce a goodproduct, and if they have confirmation that the legislationis there and they are not investing in something that,10 years down the line, will no longer be a Governmentpriority, the money is there to go in. There is a benefit tothe UK economy as a whole, because these facilities areneeded throughout the UK. It is just where people areand where the waste is, so there can be a knock-onbenefit nationally to the economy.

David Bellamy: On the issue of quality, the powers inthe Bill around EPR reform will help the situation.They will change the dynamic, in the sense that producerswill be in the driving seat in terms of how payments aremade to local authorities for collection. Those paymentswill only be handed over against agreed quality standards,so there will be a much bigger drive towards qualitycollections, which is what we need. Combined withthe consistency approach, that will help the situationconsiderably.

We have also not mentioned the DRS, which will alsohelp the quality of collections as far as particularlypolyethylene terephthalate plastics in drinks bottles areconcerned. That will also have a positive impact onquality. There is still an issue, as I suggested earlier,about the option of the industry working more withGovernment to develop quality standards and ex-MRFfor bales and such. In many places on the continent,they have much higher standards for accepting materials,and we ought to be doing something similar here.

Q34 Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con):I am interested to see that the Bill provides a balancebetween the detail and the direction of travel. Myquestion is to do with how much of a carrot or stickapproach the industry needs from Government. Theindustry has come on in leaps and bounds in thisdirection in recent years, but in terms of consistentlabelling and practices between different local authorities,how much of a stick or carrot approach do you thinkthe industry needs from Government? Or is industryable to take charge on this?

Martin Curtois: Consistency of labelling could beone of the most significant changes in the right direction.At the moment you have this awful phrase, “widelyrecyclable”, and no one knows what it means. It couldapply to one local authority and not to another. Wewould advocate literally a simplified traffic light system,whereby green is recyclable and red is not. I think theshock, for a retailer or producer, of having a red dot onits packaging would be such that it would want to avoidit. At a stroke, you would be improving recyclabilitystraightaway.

That is one key element of it. It also drives peoplemad that they just do not know whether a product isrecyclable or not, so you would get an improvement notonly at the front end in terms of the manufacturers’production, but in the materials we receive at the processing


facilities. As you can imagine, we receive thousands oftonnes of materials a year. Anything that can be doneto ensure that people are sorting it more efficiently atthe outset will make our job of reprocessing it morestraightforward.

Andrew Poole: For me and for small businesses, a lotof this legislation is generally about trust. The problemis that, if we do not get these things in place, everyoneknows that the stick will come. There is an opportunityat the moment to be on the front foot. A lot of ourengagement around the Bill has been about keepingbusinesses on the front foot and steering the legislationin a way that is beneficial to everyone. It is a case ofgiving all of these things a consistent approach, includinglabelling, for example. It is about trust in the outcomesof the legislation, and about making the right decisions.It is about trusting what they can see and seeing that thedecisions are the right ones. It is important to have thattransparency around the whole Bill.

Q35 Kerry McCarthy: Can I ask the FDF about foodwaste? It is mentioned peripherally in the Bill in termsof the separate collections and so on, but there isnothing more. There is a food strategy being worked onby Henry Dimbleby and others, which may have stuff init. Is there scope for more specific provisions in the Bill?For example, Courtauld is still voluntary. Progress isbeing driven by the good guys rather than there beingan obligation on everyone. You referred to the figuresproduced by WRAP. Could the Bill do more on that?

David Bellamy: We have not identified any shortcomingsto date. Obviously, there are voluntary approaches. Youmentioned WRAP, and there is also the UK food wastereduction road map. Companies are signing up to thatin increasing numbers and manufacturers are makinggood progress. We are expecting a consultation on foodwaste reporting from the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs soon, and there is no need forprimary powers in the Bill to do that. There was talk ofthe potential for powers on setting targets down thetrack. I am not sure where the Government are on thatat the moment.

We have not identified any shortcomings as such. Theinertia is there with the UK food waste reduction roadmap, and knowing that food waste reporting is going tocome in as planned as a legal requirement in line withthe road map.

Q36 Kerry McCarthy: Is that the mandatory foodwaste audits? When you refer to reporting, are somecompanies such as Tesco already doing audits of keyitems at least? Do you mean that at least the bigcompanies report on the amount of food waste in theirsupply chain?

David Bellamy: Yes. It is defined in the consultation,but certain companies of a certain size will be requiredto report their food waste. The idea is that they woulddo that in line with what they report under the roadmap, or what they do under Courtauld currently continues,so that there is no disconnect.

Q37 Kerry McCarthy: So basically it is makingmandatory what some companies do on a voluntarybasis.

David Bellamy: Yes. That is my understanding of theGovernment’s proposals.

Andrew Poole: Making it mandatory would be a signof failure potentially at a certain level, in the sense thatwe can encourage them to do it voluntarily. I come backto the idea of making it easy for people to do it. Oncewe get to the mandatory stage we would then be arguingabout issues. We picked on the reporting requirementsof things like that. If it was risk-based and proportionate,that would be the way to go. We would hope thatbusinesses in particular would be doing this voluntarily,to begin with.

Q38 Kerry McCarthy: What often happens, though,is that some companies do it. There has been an issue inthe past over things being reported in aggregate ratherthan identified specifically, and there has been no namingand shaming of individual supermarkets. Anecdotally,some supermarkets are clearly driving down those foodwaste figures while others are not doing their bit. Thatis always the problem with the voluntary approach.

Andrew Poole: It is quite important with those bigproducers that many of these requirements are notpushed down through the supply chain. If you are asmall supplier supplying a big supermarket, one of therequirements is to deal with a proportionate and risk-basedreporting mechanism. That has to be borne in mind ifyou are targeting big supermarkets such as Tesco. Theyhave to report everything, and the burden is passeddown through those that supply them as well.

Q39 Kerry McCarthy: Are you saying that it is not agood thing?

Andrew Poole: I am saying it would have to belooked at quite carefully, so that the requirements wereproportionate and the supply chain was taken intoconsideration as well.

Q40 Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con): Mr Poole, youspoke a lot about trust and transparency, and the Billhas a careful balance between detail and direction, but alot of details will be prescribed through secondarylegislation. I just wanted to garner your opinions on theimportance of public consultation, so that we can garnerexpert views to develop detailed policies through secondarylegislation.

Andrew Poole: I come back to the point I keepmaking, which is that small businesses are signed up tothis—in the broad concept. They want to do the rightthing for the environment. They are human beings.What is increasingly important is that they want todemonstrate to their customers that they are doing theright thing. They are aligned with the broad concept ofthe Bill.

When it comes to those granular details, that isobviously what is going to make or break the Bill.Government must see small businesses as a partner fordelivery at every stage where those decision have to bemade. I suggest that the outcomes of this Bill will not beachieved without a fully engaged small business communityplaying a very active role in it. It is a plea to policymakers and legislators that small business views aretaken into account fully when those decisions get made,at each stage.

Q41 Richard Graham: Can I come back, Mr Curtois,to your earlier point that you thought there was massesin the Bill in terms of recycling, but less on residualwaste and how that should be treated. What would youhope to see in the Bill that would cover that?


Martin Curtois: The situation in the UK in terms ofresidual waste is that it is virtually impossible to exportrefuse-derived fuel now in a viable way, because particularlyin mainland Europe the cost of that is making it prohibitive.For obvious reasons, landfill is at the bottom of thewaste hierarchy, and from what I can see from theresources and waste strategy the overall aim is to preventwaste where possible, recycle more and landfill nextto nothing.

So we have got to recognise that even though recyclingwill hopefully continue to go up—ultimately I think theaim is to get, possibly, to 65%—there is something thathas not yet really been covered in depth in the resourcesand waste strategy, which is that we need to do somethingwith the residual waste. We operate 10 energy recoveryfacilities within the UK, three of which have districtheating. Bearing in mind the plans that the Departmentfor Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has for aheat road map, which I think is proposed for June, thereis a role, which we need at least to recognise, for energyrecovery, preferably with heat decarbonisation.

We are addressing the issue that the waste has to gosomewhere. The landfills are running out. Therefore weneed to do something with it that will also help us withgenerating electricity, given the fact that there will beeven more intense pressure on the grid because of thenumber of electric cars that we obviously hope for, toreduce our carbon impact. There should be at leastsome recognition that it is an important component ofthe overall mix.

Q42 Richard Graham: Can I ask Mr Bellamy a separatequestion? It is really about your members and theirattitudes to eliminating avoidable waste of all kinds. Doyou think the introduction of charges for any single-useplastic item will incentivise a shift towards the directionthat the Government want to go in, or do you thinkyour members will resist that?

David Bellamy: The question of avoidable waste is alittle bit open to interpretation, in our estimation. Itmay warrant a definition in the Bill. We suggest thatthat material might not be recoverable in any shape orform, or it might not be replaceable by something else.

Q43 Richard Graham: Would you support the trafficlight system, which clearly identifies for every consumerexactly which bit of plastic can be recycled and whichcannot?

David Bellamy: We support a binary labelling systemto that effect. We have not looked at a traffic lightscheme as such. The current proposal is more of adescriptor-based labelling system, which basically saysthat something can or cannot be recycled. We stronglysupport the concept of a binary system.

Q44 Richard Graham: Andrew, can your membersrespond to the challenge with the speed that is neededto achieve these net carbon targets?

Andrew Poole: The truth is that some will, and somewill not. We have tried to highlight, across the piece, interms of these environmental challenges, the requirementto understand the business audience in more detail.Small businesses are very different. There are myriaddifferent types of organisation. We consistently challengepolicy makers on that requirement to understand inmore detail the business audience that is being affected.

If there are any requirements or opportunities to providesupport to small businesses, that support should betargeted to those businesses that are least able to adapt.The more time that businesses are given to adapt andchange the way they do things, the more likely they areto achieve those changes.

Richard Graham: In one way—

The Chair: Mr Graham, I am sorry, but I going totake a brief, final question from Ruth Edwards. I havetried to get everybody in. This will be the final question.

Q45 Ruth Edwards: Thank you. I will be very quick. Iwant to return briefly to the issue of public consultation.How important will that be in determining the typeof deposit return scheme that would be delivered bythe Bill through the secondary legislation that it willbring in?

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

There was, perhaps, some merit to an on-the-goscheme. It would perhaps have had the advantage ofprimarily focusing on the plastic bottles and cans thatare collected, which currently go into high street refusebins and are virtually unsorted. We could go from60% to 95% recycling of plastic bottles, if we have anon-the-go system that works and that focuses strictly onthe bottles and the cans. It will be interesting to see whathappens in Scotland and how that evolves. That will bethe biggest and best test.

Q46 The Chair: Mr Poole, I assume the FSB’s memberswill have an interest in recycling.

Andrew Poole: Absolutely. Coming back to recyclingor the deposit return scheme, I think it is important tounderstand local issues. Locality-based solutions maybe required. The solution in one area, for example, on abusy high street, will be different from that required forbusinesses in the middle of the countryside. The importanceof consultations is to bring out the granularity of differentoptions for the different types of businesses and differenttypes of locations. As has been said on this panel, aone-size-fits-all approach will not necessarily work.

Q47 The Chair: A final word, Mr Bellamy.

David Bellamy: Just to say at the outset, we support aco-ordinated approach to DRS, introduced on a GB-widebasis, and based on best practice, particularly in theNordic countries, where it has already been implementedfor some time. We are, obviously, mindful of the potentialimpacts on local authorities. We fully understand whythey might be sensitive to a DRS. We feel that there willbe savings to be made for local authorities. There will beless material for them to collect, potentially, and lesslitter for them to deal with.

With the introduction of EPR reforms alongside theDRS, we think there will be opportunities to refine theservice provision of local authorities and deal with any


potential economic impacts in that way. We think that

local authorities right now might be thinking about

their contracts and whether they need to be reviewed in

the light of the DRS coming along. We think it might

be reasonable for the Government to consider some

support for local authorities to help them do that at this

stage. All in all, we support the DRS. We welcome a

second consultation, which is important.

The Chair: Thank you Mr Curtois, Mr Bellamy andMr Poole. The Committee is indebted to you. I amafraid that brings us to the end of this morning’sproceedings. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm.

11.25 am

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Questionput (Standing Order No. 88).




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Second Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS


Adjourned till Thursday 12 March at half-past Eleven o’clock.

Written evidence reported to the House.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: † SIR ROGER GALE, SIR GEORGE HOWARTH






† Edwards, Ruth (Rushcliffe) (Con)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)



State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Sobel, Alex (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)



Witnesses

Mayor Philip Glanville, Mayor of Hackney, Local Government Association

Dr Diane Mitchell, Chief Environment Adviser, National Farmers Union

Alan Law, Deputy Chief Executive, Natural England

Dr Sue Young, Head of Land Use Planning and Ecological Networks, The Wildlife Trusts

Judicaelle Hammond, Director of Policy, Country Land and Business Association

Rico Wojtulewicz, Head of Housing and Planning Policy, House Builders Association (housebuilding division ofthe National Federation of Builders)

Ruth Chambers, Senior Parliamentary Affairs Associate, Greener UK

Rebecca Newsom, Head of Politics, Greenpeace UK

Ali Plummer, Senior Policy Officer, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds




(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Examination of Witness

Mayor Philip Glanville gave evidence.

2 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.For the benefit of the record, I shall ask our councillorguest to identify himself in a moment. I am advised thatthere may be a Division on the Floor of the House.That is probably slightly private information, but I donot see any reason why the public should not knowwhat is going on. If the Division bell rings, it will notmean that an inmate has escaped; it means we will allhave to go over the road and vote. There will be injurytime; whatever we have to take off for the vote, whichwill be 15 minutes, we will add back on again.

We have half an hour for this session with therepresentative of local government. By the way, theother thing I have to mention, in case anybody isconcerned, is that we have endeavoured to let somedaylight into the room by opening the blinds. Apparently,that interferes with the broadcasting quality, so if I haveruined the picture it is entirely my fault. We felt we wereenough like mushrooms as it was without having completedarkness in here.

Without further ado, the Local Government Association.Councillor Glanville, would you like to introduce yourselfand explain, for the benefit of the record, what yourepresent, please?

Mayor Glanville: Thank you, Chair. I am Phil Glanville,the elected Mayor of Hackney and a representative ofthe Local Government Association. I serve on the relevantpolicy board covering the Bill.

The Chair: We are most grateful to you for coming in.

Q48 Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab):Good afternoon, Mr Mayor. What consultations on theBill have taken place while you have been a representativeon the Local Government Association committee thathas been dealing with Bill? Where have been the maindisagreements with regard to local government interests?

Mayor Glanville: There has been extensive engagement.Obviously, the original Bill dates back to last year. Ourcommittee has been looking at various aspects of theBill and we have submitted our package of evidenceto the Committee. We are seeing new powers andresponsibilities for local government. I appeared beforethe waste reduction investigation that was conductedlast year. There has been extensive engagement andinvestigation into some aspects of the Bill. The challengefor all of us is that the Bill is very ambitious and sets

new targets. In some areas, such as biodiversity and airpollution, the relationship with local government andwhere responsibilities lie are less clear.

On areas such as waste, recycling, plastic pollutionand single-use plastics, the engagement has been moreextensive. It depends on the areas of the Bill we aretalking about and the responsibilities that are in focus.The areas of disagreement are common to those thatarise when local government takes representations. Wherewe take on new responsibilities, we need adequate timeto prepare and adequate funding in order to do that.

We have a track record of delivering improved andinnovative recycling services during a decade of fundingchanges as a result of austerity. We have continued toimprove our recycling services, investing more than£4.2 billion of resources. If we were to move towardsthe types of changes suggested in the Bill, the burdencould be increased by up to £700 million. We willprovide further information as the LGA on that. Withoutthat increase in resources, council tax payers will have tomeet that uplift in our duties around waste and recycling,or other services will have to be cut.

Those sorts of challenges go across different parts ofthe Bill, whether it is the work on biodiversity andplanning or the clear ambition to deal with air pollution.Some of those responsibilities do sit with local authoritiesand we are ready to rise to that challenge, but wholeindustries will see changes in regulation as a result ofthe Bill. We believe we can rise to that challenge, inpartnership with Government and industry. I am surethat over the course of the next half hour we willexplore some of those areas more specifically. The mainareas of disagreement relate to having the right powersand funding to match our duties.

Q49 Dr Whitehead: That is very clear, certainly interms of the ability of local government to deliver onthe challenges set by the Bill. Are there particular areasthat relate to the powers that local government has atthe moment to do things that may be within, or possiblyoutside, some of the particular asks that the Bill will puton local government? Are there areas where localgovernment may not have powers at the moment, forexample on planning, in terms of biodiversity gain, andso on, and where further work will be needed shouldsuch aspirations be placed on local government as aresult of the Bill?

Mayor Glanville: Biodiversity and how the planningsystem could lead to the net gain that is the prioritywithin the Bill is one of the key areas. We have a systemof local planning authorities that is well established.The system has accommodated various changes relatingto energy, carbon and sustainability over a number ofyears, and we have adapted to those changes and adoptedthem within both our local plan development and theway our committees regulate development.

The planning context is really important, before Icome to the detail on biodiversity. We have seen 2.6 millionhomes consented to in the past six years. A million ofthose have yet to be built, in the context of a 40% reductionin funding for local planning authorities. We have seensome improvements. We can set fees that allow us torecover the costs of fulfilling our planning responsibilitiesas local authorities, but there is still a £180 million gapbetween the cost of fulfilling our responsibilities andthe funding that we receive from planning fees.


If we introduce new responsibilities for biodiversity,the challenge is whether we will close the existing gapand ensure that a new gap does not develop. We need toensure that local authorities have the expertise to meetthose new biodiversity responsibilities. That could beaddressed either through the wider financial settlementfor local government, or through a fees regime. As it iswritten at the moment, the Bill does not suggest thatlocal authorities will be pre-eminent in collecting anyadditional resources if a development does not meetbiodiversity standards.

Many Members who are involved in constituencycasework, as I am as a council leader, will know thatplanning is always contested. People see the impact of anew development very much in their local community.If we are saying that the impact of new developmentson biodiversity will be fully recognised, which we welcome,we want to ensure that any compensation is either heldwithin that development, and the development contributesto a net improvement in biodiversity, or, if not, thatlocal planning authorities can use those resources forthe local community. That could be by placing extrarequirements on a development, or by using our expertisein tree planting, and improving diversity and greeninfrastructure in the local area. As things stand in theBill, we fear that there may well be a levy, but the levywould not be recycled back into the planning system, orwould not result in the net improvement in biodiversitythat we all want to see.

The Chair: I will come back to you if I can,Dr Whitehead.

Q50 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow):Thank you very much for attending—it is much appreciated.The Government are committed to funding all newburdens on local authorities through the Bill, so I wantto get your view quickly on that. I would also beinterested to know, in the light of that, what opportunitiesthe Bill offers local authorities, perhaps particularlyreferencing the fact that lots of local authorities havecommitted to their own climate and environmentalstandards, and to tackling the climate crisis. How doyou think it might help you to deliver those?

Mayor Glanville: It is a positive Bill in the sense thatwe all share its ambitions to respond to the climateemergency, uphold the principle of “polluter pays”when we are talking about waste and recycling, andembed high standards for air quality in domestic legislation.Local government shares all those ambitions.

To take waste and recycling, there are some ambitiousprinciples set out in the Bill, especially for dealing withsingle-use plastics, encouraging deposit and return schemesand improving the way recycling is delivered. Underneaththat, however, is the context that I set out of thechallenge of local government finance. If we are tomove to the type of systems that are set out in the Billand introduce food recycling everywhere, it would requirean uplift in resources.

I welcome what the Minister said about new burdensbeing met with resources, but often the detail aboutwhere those burdens lie comes later. I have some experienceof taking part in discussions on measures such as theHomelessness Reduction Act 2017. There is normally adispute later between central and local government

about what the new responsibilities are and where theyare fully accommodated. You often get transition funding,which allows some adaptation and change, but thepicture for long-term revenue for local government isstill incredibly challenging. I know that we are all goinginto a spending review and some of those things mightbe addressed.

There are huge opportunities for local government,because when it comes to waste and recycling, we areobviously the processors of all our consumer waste. Weall want to see less of that waste produced in the firstplace. As I said, I gave evidence last year. If we justfocus on plastics and single-use plastics, that is obviouslywhere a lot of residents and campaign organisations arefocusing our minds, but with a true waste reductionstrategy consumer packaging would not be produced inthe first place and there would be more upstream regulationof the types of materials that go into our waste system.

Some 70% of councils have all seven common formsof plastic recycled in their waste streams, but othertypes of packaging that local authorities cannot processare still going into the waste streams. Consumers oftenthink that they can recycle them and it can be frustratingfor them when they find that they cannot. Those typesof packaging obviously increase the amount of residualwaste.

As the Bill develops and regulation flows from it, weare hoping not just that we will focus on the work thatwe all need to do to continue to improve the recyclingend but that we will work at the producer end, which,obviously, individual local authorities and the LGA donot have the scope to focus on. That is where we canreally add value. We can clarify some of the areas wherelocal government needs to rise to the challenge, but alsowhere industry and consumer behaviour need to change.

Q51 Rebecca Pow: So this is very much what istermed a framework Bill. I get the impression that thelocal authorities would welcome more public consultationand engagement to get this right for you and for thebusinesses that we heard from this morning.

Mayor Glanville: Absolutely. As I said, we all face atremendous amount of challenge from residents, consumersand activists. We all want to play our part in respondingto the climate emergency. We as the Local GovernmentAssociation have been doing a lot of peer-to-peer work.My board has created a climate change emergencyaction plan, and we are keen to continue that work.Where we would value a greater voice is at the politicaland officer level, if there is a taskforce linked to the Bill,especially on climate change emergency and action. Iam told that there are still some details there to workthrough in terms of leading that full sector-led response.

Q52 Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Can I asktwo things? The Minister said that all new burdenswould be met. What is the figure that you said initiallythat local government would need to do the work setout in the Bill?

Mayor Glanville: Just on the area of waste and recycling,to meet the objectives that are set out in the Bill, wehave done some internal modelling that said there wouldbe a £700 million gap in local government funding tomeet those new responsibilities and burdens. That is inthe context of a total amount of around £4.2 billion


spent on processing household waste. Of that, £700 millionis spent on recycling, so it is a doubling of the recyclingand reducing element that is outlined in the Bill.

Q53 Jessica Morden: Waste crime is obviously a bigproblem, with organised criminals dumping vast amountsof waste. What powers, duties and resources does localgovernment already have, and what does it need? Doesthe Bill address that issue adequately?

Mayor Glanville: The challenge when taking enforcementaction is the cost of bringing cases to court or issuingcivil penalties. Local government has a lot of powers inthat area, but it can sometimes be challenging to prove acost-evidence base for implementing them, so anythingto improve not just our powers but the ability to ensurethat the polluter pays will help. That is the element thatis always the challenge for local government.

Q54 Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Many localauthorities have declared climate emergencies. How willthe Bill help local authorities to address those self-declaredclimate emergencies?

Mayor Glanville: Local authorities across the countryfrom Hackney to Hull have declared climate emergencies.The Local Government Association itself has. Localauthorities are doing a lot of work outside the scope ofthe Bill on energy, and there is some detailed workgoing on at the LGA. The challenge with air pollutionand some of the aspirations in the Bill is that many ofthe elements are reliant on industry and consumerchange. There is a lot of work on clean air zones in localgovernment. There is experimentation in places aroundNottingham on levying parking charges in workplaces.Wider investment in sustainable and public transport isneeded to ensure that our aspirations on air pollutioncan be met.

In the Bill, there is some positive work on the contributionof motor vessels on our waterways and improving regulationof them. The Bill strengthens elements relating to domesticpollution and domestic fuels, which we very much welcomeas well.

We are very keen, as local government, to ensure thatwe do our part in responding to the climate emergency.There are some of those upstream, “producer pays”principles around waste and recycling—for example,the car industry switching to a more electric fleet, and Iknow there have been announcements on bus funding—butif we are talking about the types of shift that we aregoing to need in consumer behaviour in the way thatwe travel, further work will need to be done togetheron that.

Q55 Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op):First, I am particularly concerned with the new duty inclause 54 that local authorities are going to have tocollect food waste every week. Most local authoritiesnow have bi-weekly collections. Many do not collectfood waste at all, so that would be a big investment invehicles and staffing and then in anaerobic digestionfacilities. You said that there is a £700 million gap forrecycling. Is that inclusive of food waste or is anotherfigure needed for local authorities to be able to fund thefood waste duty that the Bill puts on them?

Mayor Glanville: That is inclusive of food waste.You identify one of the challenges. Typologies changeacross the country. What is required to collect food

waste and the density of infrastructure in a boroughsuch as Hackney can be very different from what isrequired in large rural authorities. We are nervous abouthaving duties that do not recognise those challenges anddifferences. Different local authorities have set differentregulations around how often they collect residual waste.Some local authorities are still doing that weekly, someare doing it bi-weekly and some every three weeks, andthey vary how often they collect recycling and foodwaste alongside that. Many inner London boroughsthat have the challenges of density and flats are stillcollecting waste more often than areas where there aresuburban typologies where people can store more wastein their homes. In a typology such as Hackney, where allof the residential growth has been around flats, it isoften impossible to do that, given the size of flats.

We hope to see the work on the Bill and regulationrecognise some of those differences and challenges andget to the position where food waste is available foreveryone, but makes sure that it is done in the right waywith the right change in industry and the capacitywithin industry to roll it out. Rolling it out everywhereweekly is part of the £700 million figure. Obviously,some local authorities have invested already. One of thechallenges around burden is whether authorities thatare already delivering on a weekly basis receive extraresources or will they only go to those authorities thathave yet to make that investment? It is an equity,fairness and transparency question across local government.

Q56 Alex Sobel: I have a second question on airquality. The Mayor of London has committed to reachWorld Health Organisation standards by 2030. The Billfails to set legally binding targets. What steps shouldlocal and national Government take to meet that ambitionto meet WHO air quality limits by 2030? Do you thinkthe Bill could be amended to make that happen?

Mayor Glanville: Local government has not come toa position on the 2030 target. Speaking from the LGAperspective, we recognise that we need to have ambitioustargets. We need to have a pathway to get there, whichwill require quite a lot of action around industry. It isnot local government that is producing the transport—weare dealing with the consequences. While you can introduceclean air zones and have the work that combined authoritiesand the Mayor have done around ultra-low emissionzones, investing in disabled transport, walking and cleanbus fleets, all that will not get us to the 2030 targetunless industry moves as well. If that target were putinto the Bill, we would need to have a clear pathway ofgetting there and the resources for doing that. Manyorganisations, such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeacewant to get to that 2030 target. I think targets are reallyimportant, but only if you have a plan to get there. Werisk setting targets that we will not meet if we do notmaintain the confidence of that wider coalition—that isthe challenge.

The Chair: Four people still want ask questions andwe have fewer than eight minutes in which to do that, soshort questions and short answers, please.

Q57 Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con): You spoke aboutthe Bill being ambitious, and legislation such as thisshould be ambitious. You talked about opportunities.Local councils up and down the country are doing


things to be environmentally friendly. How does the Billenhance the current activity? Are you looking at thingssuch as procurement to assist in that?

Mayor Glanville: It can provide an excellent framework,especially on the waste and resources piece, introducingmore of those principles around producer- paying depositand reuse schemes. Setting out a clear regulatory frameworkfor that backs up the work that local government isalready doing. As I have answered in response to otherquestions, we cannot just look at the waste and recyclingend. We need national Government to make a clearerask of industry.

Industry also welcomes having frameworks that wecan all work to. I do not think it wants to put labels onconsumer products that suggest that local recyclingstreams can accommodate that recycling and then findout that they cannot. That confusion is something thatboth local and national Government want to see resolved.As long as the balance between rights and responsibilitiesbetween local and national Government are right,something like the work on biodiversity can be a realimprovement to the planning system. It has to be donein the right way and work with local government andresidents’ expectations of local government. While weas a sector are representing ourselves, it is often thethrough the expectations of our residents that we willhave some control and influence around implementingthese policies. If the legislation is not drafted in theright way, we will not have that and people will say:“Why, if it is supposed to be improving local biodiversity,is it not contributing to it?”.

In the areas around tree management, we want to beclear about the role of, say, the Forestry Commissionand what new statutory powers it is going to have anddoes it interact properly with the local planning andregulatory system?

Q58 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): Clauses 95 to 98 seek to create local naturerecovery strategies across England. How will that helplocal authorities provide a more effective and joined-upnationwide strategy for nature recovery? We heard evidenceearlier from Veolia, which has a number of refuse andrecycling centres in your patch.

Mayor Glanville: Can I clarify what Veolia said?

Abena Oppong-Asare: It was were talking about howit would like a more joined-up approach with the counciland, along with others on the panel, about how businessesneed more support to be able to deliver their recyclingand waste strategies.

Mayor Glanville: In terms of setting those strategies,it is making sure that if we have a duty to set themlocally, and they are backed up within the planningsystem, we recognise the context of where local governmentis at the moment with resourcing.

There were questions earlier about how local governmentis rising to the challenge of the climate emergency. We,and many local authorities like Hackney, are investingin our agriculturalists and in the people who work inour parks. We have ambitious targets around plantingtrees and green infrastructure. We are resourcing thatthrough our planning gain, within the existing planningsystem, and using policies around section 106 and thecommunity infrastructure levy.

If local government is going to be doing even more,either the system that exists at the moment is going tohave to accommodate that or those new duties aregoing have to be explored as well. Not every localauthority is going to have tree specialists or still have abiodiversity officer. Over the period of austerity theyhave all too often been seen as back-office functions.There are real pressures within the planning system andpressures to make sure that we continue to deliver thehousing numbers within our local plans.

It is right that we refocus on green infrastructure,biodiversity and a net increase, but without resourcesbeing in place we will either have to get them from theplanning system or from some other settlement, tomake sure we are able to deliver on those ambitions.

The Chair: I fear this is likely to be the last question.

Q59 Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con):I will make it quick. Putting aside the specific issue offunding, which I believe has already been addressed thisafternoon, can you tell me what else is important to ensurethat local authorities can effectively deliver this Bill?

Mayor Glanville: It is a continuing engagement.Obviously, as we have said, it is a framework Bill, whichhas advantages and disadvantages. There is a highdegree of discussion around the Bill at the moment,including about what should be in it and how far itshould move into clearly engaging on those ambitioustargets and regulations. There is an opportunity in theengagement process with a Bill to engage with localgovernment, with industry and with campaigners.

As you move towards regulations and statutoryinstruments, some of the focus and the ability for scrutinyin Parliament can be lost, along with local government’sability to influence. We are keen to make sure that thereis clarity in both those positions and that there will stillbe opportunities to engage around some of the specifics,as we move into further discussions about waste andrecycling, air pollution, how we interact with the planningsystem, the work around flooding and water, and otherkey areas. There is still a huge amount that we can do.The Local Government Association is committed torising to that challenge and contributing to making surethat this not just ambitious but implementable legislationat a national and local level.

TheChair:Thankyou,MayorGlanville.Ratherthanchopyou off mid-flow, I will terminate this session now. You areprobablyawarethattheCommitteehasauthorisedthereceiptof written submissions, so if there is anything that occursto you that you wish us to have on behalf of yourassociation then please put it in writing and let us have it.

Mayor Glanville: Thank you, Chair.

The Chair: Thank you for joining us this afternoon.Please could we now change over as swiftly as possibleas I will try to start the next session at 2.30 pm, when itis supposed to begin.


Dr Diane Mitchell, Alan Law, Dr Sue Young andJudicaelle Hammond gave evidence.

2.30 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.We are now going to take evidence from Natural England,the Wildlife Trusts, the Country Land and Business


[The Chair]

Association and the National Farmers Union. We haveone hour, I am afraid—and that is all—to accommodatewhat I am sure will be a very great deal of interestinginformation. Without further ado, Dr Mitchell, pleaseidentify yourself and give us a flavour of what theorganisation you represent does, for the benefit of therecord.

Dr Mitchell: I am Diane Mitchell and I am the chiefenvironment adviser at the National Farmers Union ofEngland and Wales, representing about 50,000 farmersand grower businesses.

The Chair: Before we go any further, for some reason,we have a problem with these microphones. Pleaseproject if you can, and if we can crank up the sound,that would be helpful as well. Mr Law, please.

Alan Law: Alan Law, I am deputy chief executive atNatural England. Natural England is Government’swildlife adviser. We are an arm’s length body, a non-departmental public body in the DEFRA group.

Judicaelle Hammond: I am Judicaelle Hammond. Iam the director of policy and advice at the CountryLand and Business Association. We represent about30,000 members who own or operate businesses basedon land in rural areas in England and Wales.

The Chair: Dr Young, by a process of elimination,you are—

Dr Young: I am Sue Young. I work as head of landuse policy and ecological networks at the Wildlife Trusts.The Wildlife Trusts is a federated organisation of46 charities, it covers the whole of the UK and providesadvice on nature issues and looks after nature reservesand manages land.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I should have saidthis at the beginning and I will say it now: if anyMembers and, indeed, any guests for that matter—itseems to be a bit fetid in here—wish to take their jacketsoff, you are welcome to do so.

Q60 Dr Whitehead: A particular issue that concernsall of you in different ways is the nature recoverynetwork, and it is the Bill’s intention to lay the foundationfor that. Do you think that local nature recovery strategiesactually do provide that mechanism to secure nature’srecovery on the land?

Dr Young: A nature recovery network is a reallyimportant part of the solution to the ecological crisisthat we are facing. It is a joined-up system of placesneeded to allow nature to recover. To be effective, itmust extend across the whole of England, includingrural and urban areas, and connect to similar initiativeselsewhere in the UK. The section on local nature recoverystrategies in the Bill is really good and sets an ambitiousagenda that would enable us to tackle nature’s recovery.It needs to be clearer how the local nature recoverystrategies will contribute to a national network andtargets for nature’s recovery.

That seems to be missing in the Bill at the moment;there is not a clear description of how the componentsthat are set out in that part will add up to a system thatworks ecologically. The Bill says that the strategies will

identify areas that could be good for biodiversity in thefuture, but that really needs to be based on ecologicalprinciples, rather than being an ad hoc set of sites wherehabitats could be created. That will ensure that theambition contained within the Bill to secure nature’srecovery is realised. That could be achieved with somerelatively small amendments to clause 97.

The Chair: Thank you. It will not be necessary forevery member of the panel to answer every question,but to set the stage and for ease of reference, I will onthis occasion simply work from, in my case, right toleft—in your case, left to right. Ms Hammond, please.

Judicaelle Hammond: Thank you. Local nature recoverystrategies are a real opportunity to make a difference tonature. There are a few things I would like to raise interms of how they are going to work. First, at themoment, they are just about nature. We wonder whetherthere is a point to them being more holistic, so that weavoid silos and manage to have a look at how land isused in a way that maximises the various benefit types,including flood management and climate change, notjust nature. This is a plea for them to not just beconsidered in isolation.

Another aspect is the issue of who should be leadingon this. The Bill provides for a multiplicity of possibleresponsible bodies, including local authorities. As weheard from the gentleman from the Local GovernmentAssociation, local authorities are already overstretched.We have an issue over whether they have the capacity tolead on that.

Another aspect is skills, and that was raised to theCommittee. Would Natural England be better placed todo that?

It is important to have clear priorities. There need tobe no gaps and no overlaps with regards to local naturerecovery strategies, and that needs to be an importantdriver from national Government. Most of the land werefer to is in private ownership, so it will be importantto consult with landowners and land managers on that.

Alan Law: The Bill has the potential to be the mostsignificant environmental piece of legislation since theNational Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.We have worked on conservation in this country for thelast 70 years, driven by a focus on looking at the rareand putting in place protection measures for those raresite species: parks. What is exciting about the Bill and itslinks to the 25-year environment plan is the ambition togo from protecting small parts of the countryside—lookingafter the rare and the special—to trying to drive wholesalelarge nature recovery. That ambition around recovery isfundamental. The most important part of the Bill revolvesaround this nature recovery network and the links betweenthe local and the national.

Will local nature recovery strategies alone deliver theambition of the nature recovery network? No, theyprobably will not. That will not happen without furthertightening up, either in the Bill or in supporting guidanceor regulations. For reasons already articulated, we needto ensure that local nature recovery strategies operatewithin some form of national framework so that theyare coherent. A national framework needs to be in place.

There need to be mechanisms for developing localnature recovery strategies so that they are quality assuredand checked to ensure that they actually add up to a


part of that coherent network. We need to see clearexpressions of the set national targets writ into thoselocal nature recovery strategies. At the moment we havean ambition at the front of the Bill around targets andwe have a tool—a delivery mechanism—around localplans, but there is no hard-wired connection betweenthe two. That is not difficult to achieve, so the issue is totighten up around the links between targets, deliveryprocesses, and some of the accountabilities.

Dr Mitchell: I have some opening words from myperspective on the Bill itself. British farmers are thestewards of our natural environment, and they have agood track record of protecting, maintaining and enhancingour environment. We welcome some aspects of theBill, but some improvements could be made to ensurethat environmental enhancement policies are carefullyconsidered, and that food production and the environmentgo hand in hand. One of the key themes in the Bill andits various measures will be the need for them to workfor farmers and food production as well as for theenvironment. Setting that context and going on tonature recovery networks and local nature recoverystrategies, there is a lot of jargon around. We needgreater clarity on these different phrases and how theyall fit together.

How local nature recovery strategies may be used isunclear from our perspective. The suggestion is thatthey may be used to inform planning decisions. Thatmakes us slightly nervous because is it some sort ofdesignation that may be used to identify environmentalpriorities or opportunities that may restrict what farmersmight want to do with their land in future, such as newbuilding requirements? Farmers may want to updateand modernise their buildings, but will that be restrictedif they are in one of these areas? Or might they have animpact on land values?

Those are some of the questions we have in the backof our minds. Farmers get very nervous when you startdrawing lines on maps, particularly when it comes tothinking about how environmental land managementschemes may be ruled out in future. If these strategiesare used to identify where farmers may be able to enterinto one of these ELM schemes, does that mean theywill be restricted in their engagement? We recommendthat these local nature recovery strategies are confinedto areas that are already identified for environmentalvalue, such as sites of special scientific interest.

My final point is that we need to ensure that farmersare properly consulted at an early stage of the strategies,so that food production is considered alongside anyenvironmental priorities.

Q61 Rebecca Pow: Thank you for coming in. I wantto go back to the local nature recovery network strategiesand how they link to national strategies. Clause 98(5)(b)includes a very specific reference, that the local naturerecovery strategies

“could contribute to the establishment of a network of areasacross England for the recovery…of biodiversity”.

That is newly added since the previous Bill, in responseto engagement with stakeholders. I want to know, first,whether you welcome that and what you think about itand, secondly, going on a bit, your view of the overallmeasures in the Bill in driving us towards this naturerecovery environmental improvement.

Alan Law: We welcome the insertion of that clause. Ihave “could” underlined, rather than a more affirmativestatement on the plan to undertake it. The ambition isclearly there to develop local strategies that add up to acoherent whole, but a little bit more in some of thesupporting guidance or regulation to tighten up exactlyhow national standards will be met should be defined,and how those can be used in terms of local strategies.A timeline for production of the local strategies, again,would be great to see coming through while the Bill is intransition.

It will be really important to have some formalmechanism for scrutinising those plans and for advisingon how fit for purpose they are. They will go back up tothe Secretary of State, who provides that scrutiny. Forgiveus for the presumption, but perhaps a body such asNatural England could provide that sort of role.

Dr Young: We were really pleased to see that additionin the Bill, because it makes the link. It is clear in theexplanatory notes that it is talking about a naturerecovery network. I will reiterate how important a naturerecovery network is to tackle the massive declines thatwe have seen in nature over our lifetimes.

I agree with Alan’s point that the Bill uses the phrase“could contribute”. Certainly, the Bill’s ambition isclear, but there is always a danger of the ambition notbeing implemented in the way the Government foresee.When resources are tight, organisations will do whatthey must do rather than what they should do. It wouldbe good to see a change in some of the wording in theBill from “may” to “must” so it achieves the ambitionwe really hope it will achieve. The Bill uses the phrase “anetwork of areas”. It would be really good if the term“a nature recovery network” were included in the Billrather than just in the explanatory notes, so that we arereally clear what we want the Bill to do and what wewant people to do.

It will be important to think about how this isimplemented. Again, we are really pleased that the dutyon local authorities in an earlier section of the Bill hasbeen improved so that it is about local authorities notjust having regard to the protection of biodiversity butenhancing it and having regard to local nature recoverystrategies. However, in the past, “have regard” has notbeen a very strong term and has not led to sufficientaction to halt the declines. A slight change of wording—perhaps to “act in accordance with local nature recoverystrategies”—would really shift the focus from thinkingto doing and taking action.

We would like local nature recovery strategies to bemore clearly required to be expressed in the planningsystem. I think local authorities and public bodieshaving regard to local nature recovery strategies in theirdecision making about planning and spending wouldlead to stronger action. It would also help to a certainextent with the point that colleagues have made aboutconsultation, because the planning system provides uswith a ready-made administrative system for goodconsultation.

Q62 Alex Sobel: I just have one question. I thinkthere is general consensus that we do not want a lowerstandard of environmental protection after the end ofthe end of the transition and the implementation of theBill. Do you feel that the Bill replicates our current level


[Alex Sobel]

of environmental protection—the level as it was whenwe were a member of the EU—or will it deliver a lowerlevel of environmental protection?

Judicaelle Hammond: There is no reason, given theway the Bill is framed at the moment, that those standardswill drop. The CLA is on record as a strong supporterof high standards remaining, not least because thatgives us an opportunity to use high standards as aunique selling point both in the export market andinternally. These are absolutely necessary, and we needto make sure that we maintain them.

The Committee may want to consider the kinds ofissues with trade deals that are being raised at themoment with the Agriculture Bill. They apply in exactlythe same way to the need to ensure that we do not getimports that are produced at much lower standards ofenvironmental protection—and, indeed, climate changeaction—than would be allowed here. That is an elementof the Bill on which there could be some really usefulreflection.

Dr Mitchell: There are a number of safeguards in theBill to ensure that our environmental standards are notlowered. The environmental governance aspects aroundtarget setting, the embedding of the environmentalprinciples and the introduction of the OEP shouldensure that our standards are not lowered.

One of the things that we need to consider alongsideour standards is the fact that farmers are doing a lot tomaintain our environment as well as creating habitatsand enhancing it. We ought to recognise that as well asall the things that we do to improve and enhance ourenvironment, there is a lot of work in terms of goodday-to-day management and maintenance that farmersdo to maintain our landscapes. At the moment thatdoes not seem to be recognised in the Bill, and we wouldlike that to be recognised a bit more.

Alan Law: There are two aspects here—differentiatingambition from certainty. On the one hand, the Billprovides the mechanism through target setting to gobeyond existing standards. That is entirely welcome. Asyet, we do not have the clarity around those targets, butit is entirely welcome. The other area is around potentialregression. There is a protection in the Bill throughclause 19 around primary legislation, but that does notapply to secondary legislation, so conservation regulationsin that area could be subject to regression.

Q63 Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con): My question isparticularly directed at Dr Young and Mr Law. Do youbelieve that 10% is the correct level of improvement forthe biodiversity net gain targets?

Alan Law: I would reframe the question to say a10% minimum. The work that we have done withstakeholders around those thresholds suggests that manyare indeed willing to go higher than that, but there is asense that applying a mandatory higher level at thisstage would be counterproductive. We are content withit, but we apply it as a minimum. I would also say that itis 110%, of course, rather than 10%—it is 10% on top.

The Chair: You are saying that 10% is the minimumbut also the maximum.

Alan Law: No, 10% is the minimum.

The Chair: Any advance on 10%, Dr Young?

Dr Young: It is important that 10% should not be acap on the ambition for net gain. Net gain can make areally good contribution to nature’s recovery and wecertainly welcome seeing it in the Bill and that it ismandatory. Having quoted 10%, however, we would notwant to limit the ambition of those developers and localauthorities that would like to go higher.

Dr Mitchell: Net gain provides an opportunity forsome farmers who can be the deliverers of it, which isimportant to consider, but we should not forget thatfarmers can be developers themselves. They may wantto replace a farm building, which may require them tomeet the net gain requirements.

We are pleased to see in the Bill that there is anexemption from the need to provide net gain for permitteddevelopment. That is really helpful and important, especiallyfor smaller developments on farms that farmers can dothrough the permitted development rights. We have toremember that in some areas of high environmental value,going beyond 10% might be quite difficult for the farmers,because they are doing 110%, which means that they mayhave to contribute quite a lot or they may have to getsomeone else to do the biodiversity credits for them.

We are conscious that in some areas, permitteddevelopment rights may not apply for some reason—forexample, in national parks. In those areas, farmerswould be disadvantaged. Not only would they have theadditional costs of applying for planning permission,but they may have additional specific design requirementsto meet in that national park area, and they would haveto meet the net gain requirements on top of that, sothey are already possibly at a disadvantage. One suggestionwe have is to broaden the exemption that I just talkedabout to deliver the net gain to areas where the permitteddevelopment rights do not currently apply.

Q64 Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I want tocome on to the thorny issue of conservation covenantsand potential abstraction compensation. May I startwith one question to Mr Law of Natural England?From your point of view, what could conservationcovenants deliver on the ground? If you could be asconcise as possible, that would be great.

Alan Law: At the moment, we have a range of toolsavailable to us to deliver conservation outcomes. We candesignate sites, we can offer incentives and we canengage through the planning system to try to deliverplanning gain. Conservation covenants would provideanother tool we could use that would be between someof those existing tools.

Q65 Richard Graham: You clearly see it as a positive.Can you give us one example of what could be delivered?Bring it alive for anybody watching this great programme.

Alan Law: We could have conversations with landownersabout new agri-environment agreements. Our ambitionis to see public investments in public benefits in perpetuity.We could explore the desirability of a covenant with theagreement of the landowner to secure the long-termvalue of that investment. We could alternatively use acovenant as a different means of ensuring an area isprotected in the long term, as an alternative to designation.

Q66 Richard Graham: That is not quite a specific example,but it gives us some structural ideas. Ms Hammond,you welcomed the idea; you are in favour of it. Can yougive us an idea of how your members would benefitfrom conservation covenants?


Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, as you say, we welcome theidea. Depending on how they are set up, we think thatcovenants are a flexible way to ensure that conservationaims are advanced. They enable two parties to enterinto a contract for the long term, which my membersvalue, because most of them will think of their businessin multigenerational terms. This is an opportunity forour members to deliver some of the ambitions.

Q67 Richard Graham: And access to an enhancedenvironment for members of the public, as well.

Judicaelle Hammond: Yes.

Richard Graham: Thank you. Dr Mitchell—

The Chair: Just a moment, before we move forward,you are quite entitled to ask specific questions of specificpeople, but does anybody else want to comment on theissues that have been raised so far? Yes, Dr Young.

Dr Young: I think conservation covenants provide areally useful tool for securing long-term environmentalgains. Our concern about the effectiveness of this is thatnet gain, for example, which they could work well with,ought to be secured in perpetuity. It should not be tooeasy to discharge a covenant and risk the loss of biodiversityand other public goods. The terms used in the circumstancesfor modifying or discharging them ought to be clearenough to give that confidence.

The Chair: Right, Mr Graham, if you would like tocarry on.

Q68 Richard Graham: Dr Mitchell, in your writtenevidence you expressed, as did Ms Hammond, considerableconcern about the powers to amend or revoke licencesfor the abstraction of water. As I read it, the changesrecommended in clause 80 are all about where themodification is to protect the environment. For example,you might have a member who owns land high up in theWelsh hills, and it may be thought helpful for peopleliving in Shropshire, Worcestershire and Gloucestershireto have a catchment area or enlarged reservoir for water,to avoid people being flooded downstream. In thatsituation, is it right that your members should becompensated?

Dr Mitchell: Yes, we do have concerns about theprovisions in the Bill to revoke or amend abstractionlicences. I think that is the clause we are talking about.

Q69 Richard Graham: It is very specific about thesituations. The Bill spells it out clearly:

“No compensation where modification to protect environment”.

It then goes on to specific issues and I gave you anexample of one. Surely, in the situation I gave you, itwould be wrong to expect the taxpayer to compensatethe farmer?

Dr Mitchell: What we are concerned about is notonly the fact that the abstraction licence can be withdrawnor amended without compensation, but if you look atthe tests to assess harm or impact on the water environment,there is a low evidential bar. They are broadbrushproposals, so there are dual concerns about this.

Q70 Richard Graham: So it is a general concernrather than a specific issue.

Dr Mitchell: It is a general concern.

Richard Graham: Is that the same for Ms Hammond?

Judicaelle Hammond: We share some of the NFU’sviews, particularly about how the reason for the necessityof the variation or removal is framed. In the Bill, it isvery broad and it is not clear that it will be evidencebased. That is certainly a concern that we share. I wouldadd that abstraction licences are a business asset andthere are property rights, so from our perspective removingthem without compensation is an infringement of propertyrights.

Richard Graham: Okay, point understood.

Q71 The Chair: Are there any wildlife implications,Dr Young?

Dr Young: This is not an area that I work on, but I amhappy to consult colleagues and provide information tofollow up.

The Chair: That is fine. I just want to make sure youare not missing out on something.

Dr Mitchell: To add to what Judicaelle said, if theproposals go ahead as currently drafted, they will createa lot of uncertainty for some of our members. Theycould potentially undermine business liability andproductivity for some of our members.

Q72 Richard Graham: I understand, but that is ahypothetical risk. You have not given a specific exampleof one, although I gave you a specific example where Ithink the public interest would be at stake.

Dr Mitchell: Yes, but they are clearly broadbrushproposals and the evidential bar is low. Abstractionlicences are important for business security and certainty.Years’ worth of investment has gone into some businessesto ensure that people have access to water. That investmenthas been made in the knowledge that they have permissionto abstract. It could create a lot of uncertainty for anumber of our members.

An additional aspect that we are concerned about isthe excess headroom provisions, because we are unsurehow you could develop an equitable system to assess theunderuse of water. There are various reasons why youmight not use your licence, including the weather orcrop rotation.

The Chair: It is a significant issue, but we are going tohave to move on.

Q73 Jessica Morden: The Bill loads lots more powersand responsibilities on bodies such as Natural England.Given the big cuts you have faced, how much more doyou anticipate you would need to take on the newresponsibilities?

Alan Law: Fortunately, there is a spending reviewcoming up. We are looking at refocusing our organisationin a way that aligns closely with the ambitions of theBill and the 25-year plan to focus on nature recovery.That means looking to operate at a larger landscapescale and to use our statutory powers at a local authorityscale, rather than solely focused at the end-of-pipedevelopment control scale.

We welcome the powers and the ambitions set outhere. I was being slightly flippant about the spendingreview, because wherever that money goes it goes, butour ambitions will be to refocus our organisation to useour incentive, convening, statutory advice and regulatoryfunctions in ways that allow us to build larger-scalenature recovery.


A point was made earlier about whether we shouldfocus on existing areas of high value for nature or widerareas. The point I want to emphasise is that we know—basicecology tells us—that trying to protect small isolatedsites over time does not work. Over the last 50 years, wehave been exercising a regime that is effectively holdingback the tide, stemming species extinctions on thesesites. Unless we extend beyond those sites, it is inevitablethat we will see losses of further species interest on thesesites as the pressures from the environment and people’sactivity continue to grow. This is something that wehave to do and it is about rebalancing our focus to whatthe challenges are for the environment right now, ratherthan what they were 50 or 60 years ago.

Dr Young: I do not want to repeat what Alan justsaid, but I totally agree. I want to stress how importantwe feel Natural England’s role is in developing andhelping to deliver the local nature recovery network andlocal strategies. It is able to convene partnerships, it hasa wealth of knowledge and we really think it shouldplay a central role.

Q74 Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con):Dr Young, what role could local nature recovery strategiesplay in targeting funding under the environmental landmanagement scheme? How could those two things interact?

Dr Young: There is a real opportunity to integratepolicy delivery where there is a need for action to begeographically targeted. Some of the options that willbe developed under environmental land managementwill be much more effective for the delivery of publicgoods and for nature if they are targeted in particularplaces and form a connected network. Local naturerecovery strategies have a mapping element that showsopportunity areas, so they can be used to help withtargeting and alignment with other policy areas, such aswater policy, so that we can see multiple benefits fromdelivering particular actions and therefore get morevalue for money.

Alan Law: Your question is absolutely fundamental.It is imperative that local nature recovery strategiesprovide an effective mechanism for drawing togetherdifferent funding streams into a coherent delivery patternon the ground. Whether it is ELM, net gain or potentiallywater company investments—a whole range of sources—weneed to be able to target coherently. To do that, we needa degree of consistency of standard in place aroundthose local strategies, because how could you offer—

Bim Afolami: Otherwise it would be apples and oranges.

Alan Law: Absolutely; farmers in one part of thecountry would be operating under a totally differentregime from those in another part. It is really importantthat that consistency is put in place and that we have anetwork of local strategies.

The thing I want to emphasise, though, is that I amnot advocating national prescription. This is not aboutsome ivory tower in the centre coming up with a landuse map and saying, “There you are—that is what hasto take place on the ground.” It is about standards andprinciples and applying those locally, because for theseplans to work, they have to be owned by local people,and particularly by the land management communityon the ground.

Q75TheChair:DrMitchell,doyouwanttosaysomethingon farms operating under different regimes?

Dr Mitchell: I think I mentioned this before. Myquestion is whether it is appropriate for local naturerecovery strategies to be used to target funding forenvironmental land management. I say that because ifthe local nature recovery strategies had been set up for adifferent purpose—say, for a special planning purpose—andELM is being bolted on, do we have the same principlesand an underlying objective behind the strategy? As Ithink I said before—I hope I did—farmers get verynervous when lines are drawn on maps, and they getvery nervous if there is a postcode lottery and they maybe excluded from taking part in a future scheme.

Q76 Bim Afolami: On this point, let us think aboutfood production. Without making the point too bluntly,I think everybody is thinking a lot more about foodproduction now than they were six months ago, andthat is a good thing. On food production—you mentionedthis earlier—what difficulties are there, or what questionsare still open, around farmers producing food, theenvironmental land management scheme and the localnature recovery strategies? From the CLA’s perspective,how do you think of that network of things? It is quitecomplicated, and I want to get a sense of how you seeall those things, particularly in relation to food production.

Dr Mitchell: From the NFU’s perspective, we thinkthat the ELM scheme will be really important in future,but it has to work hand in hand with food production.The measures that are developed need to consider farmers’views, alongside protecting and enhancing the environment.Those things need to be considered together.

As I understand it, from a recent document thatDEFRA has published, there will be three tiers to afuture scheme—or that is what is proposed. Designingthose different tiers will be really important in ensuringthat the scheme remains accessible to all farmers andthat the payment rates act as an incentive or areencouraging. As I say, they need to be designed alongsidefood production and they need to work for farmers aswell as for the environment.

Can I add a point on conservation covenants? I thinkit came up in relation to ELM previously. We haveconcerns about conservation covenants. We have noobjection to—indeed, we support—farmers workingcollaboratively, but we have a number of technicalconcerns about covenants. We have talked to variouspeople, including non-governmental organisations, andI do not think our proposed changes are very controversialor change the objective of the Bill.

First, we think there ought to be clarity in the Bill toensure that landowners do not sign up inadvertently toa conservation covenant, which I think is a danger. TheBill, as drafted, says that an agreement only needs tomeet certain tests or criteria for it to be a covenant, butit does not need to state explicitly that it is a covenant.We think that ought to be addressed in the Bill. Farmersneed to be aware of the seriousness and significance ofsigning up to a covenant. It is not a contract; it bindssuccessors in title, and farmers need to be aware of that.

Secondly, the design of covenants needs to be sufficientlyflexible. Specifics such as the length of the agreementand modifications or variations that can be made to thecovenant need to be considered by the landowner andthe third party. The points are quite technical, buthopefully they are not controversial and would notchange the objective of the Bill.


Q77 The Chair: Ms Hammond, you are nodding.Before we move on, do you want to comment?

Judicaelle Hammond: Yes, thank you for that. We agreethat such a clarification would be helpful. The Bill couldbe tightened in that regard. The one thing I would addon conservation covenants before I answer Mr Afolami’squestion is that we have reservations about covenantsbeing de facto, by default, in perpetuity, not least becauseof climate change and the fact that what you do with apiece of land, given the topology and given what weknow is going to happen with climate change, regardlessof our success in containing it, might mean that in 30years’ time it might make sense for nature to do somethingslightly different with it because the habitat has moved.That is something we need to continue being flexibleabout.

As for your questions about—this is my way ofrephrasing Mr Afolami’s question, I hope I get it right—howwe knit together food production and the environment,we do not see a divergence between the two. This Billand, indeed, the Agriculture Bill give us the opportunityto bring the two together. There are three critical elementsif this is going to work. First, clear standards andlong-term targets will be provided by the Bill. Thesecond element is advice—something that perhaps weare not talking about enough in farming and theenvironment. That reflects the findings of the reviewthat Dame Glenys Stacey carried out into the future offarming inspections and regulation. Advice is the firststep to improvement. It might well be that advice anddifferent technologies work together really well. Forexample, precision farming is a case in point where, ifyou are looking at how to use your inputs as effectivelyand efficiently as possible, it is good for food production,it is good for your costs as a business and it is good forthe environment. The third element is to make sure thatthe incentives work right, in the way the market is goingin terms of labelling and expectations, but also in termsof public policy where there is a market failure.

Q78 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):In your view, is there sufficient clarity in the Bill regardingthe OEP and its role, particularly its relationship withenvironmental governance bodies, including NaturalEngland, the Environment Agency, the Committee onClimate Change and so on? If you do not think thereis sufficient clarity, what would you suggest might beincluded to make that happen?

Alan Law: From our point of view, we think there is.The Environment Agency is a regulator. What the OEPbrings is a body that looks at the operation of publicbodies in relation to our environmental ambitions andduties. We do not see an inherent tension. I think therewill be areas where we both have a legitimate interest inproviding advice to Government. When the nationalplanning policy framework is revised and revisited, wewould probably both have inputs to make around that,but we would seek with the OEP to set out under amemorandum of agreement where our respectiveboundaries lay and avoid any duplication. That is certainlythe intention.

Dr Mitchell: I want to add a quick point on the OEPbecause I think the Bill largely addresses some of theconcerns we had about how the new regulator wouldwork with the existing regulatory bodies. I think thatis largely sorted out. We think that the OEP should be

required to act proportionately. At the moment, theOEP is required to act objectively and impartially, andwe think that ought to be extended to proportionately.At the moment, it only has to have regard to actproportionately. It seems to be an omission, so that isone of our asks.

Q79 Deidre Brock: Given the experiences of NaturalEngland and, so far, little detail around the setting up ofthe OEP and its funding—I know there is a commitmentto multi-year funding, and so on, but little real meat toflesh it out—are there safeguards is the Bill to ensurethat the funding will be protected?

Alan Law: The Bill has provisions for the OEP toadvise on the adequacy of funding. I am not sure thereis much more I can add to that. Clearly, there is arequirement on the Secretary of State to report regularly.

Q80 Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con): My questionis for Dr Mitchell. To clarify a point you raised earlieraround covenants, as I understand it, the Bill suggeststhat these are voluntary. That for me is the key point.You raised a concern about farmers inadvertently signingup. Do you have any further thoughts about that? Iassume that they will be advised by the legal professionabout what they will be taking up in that respect.

Dr Mitchell: Yes, you are right; they are voluntaryagreements, and they have to be between a third partyand a landowner. Our concerns are based on the factthat you could be signing up to a covenant, but it doesnot have to state expressly that it is one. So long as itmeets certain tests or criteria, it could be considered tobe a covenant, but if it does not state expressly that it isa covenant, farmers may not actually know that it willbe a covenant.

I realise the Bill is not in place yet, but we had arecent example where farmers were being asked bya charity to put in ponds and to maintain them over acertain period of time. To all intents and purposes, ifyou looked at that letter of agreement, it could beconsidered to be a covenant. We are concerned that,unknowingly or unwittingly, farmers may sign up toone. Clearly, they are quite serious; they could be inperpetuity, but they certainly bind successors in title.We want to make sure that farmers are absolutely clearabout what they are signing up to. A small amendmentto the Bill, setting out that if something is a covenant ithas to state that, would be really helpful.

Q81 Robbie Moore: I want to return to nature recoverystrategies to clarify a point that was made earlier. Doyou agree that nature recovery strategies are only partof the picture when it comes to ensuring biodiversityrecovery? For example, biodiversity net gain, tree-plantingmeasures and so on will all be key. It was mentionedearlier that clause 98 contains the word “could”. Doyou agree that it is appropriate to use “could” ratherthan “should” because this is part of a wider range ofmeasures to reach the end goal?

Alan Law: Yes, to be absolutely clear, not all wildlifewill be in a nature recovery network or a nature recoverystrategy, but what we are looking for in the naturerecovery network and local expressions of those plansare the skeleton and vital organs of a healthy organism.We would still expect, of course, to see wildlife and


other environmental features beyond that, outwith thenature recovery network itself, but we are trying todesign something on a scale that can be healthy andresilient—that can deal with pressures, variation, pollution,climate change and so on—and that cannot be done ona small scale on its own. However, that is not at all tosay that we are designing everything into this networkand that everything outside the network does not needto be worried about.

Judicaelle Hammond: To add to that, nature recoverynetworks are certainly one really important and veryuseful element, but they are not the only one; forexample, what is being set up under the ELM scheme isanother way, and covenants are another way. This givesus an opportunity for a more consistent and betterjoined-up way of delivering what is in the Bill.

We are really strong supporters of the Bill, but ifthere is one thing that is probably missing from it incomparison with what is in the 25-year environmentplan, it is any reference to heritage. I mention that nowbecause for me it is part of thinking about land issues inthe round and not just looking at nature, climate changeor other things. Heritage is the sixth goal in the 25-yearenvironment plan, but it does not appear anywhere inthe Bill. If you think about it, heritage is part of thenatural environment; it contributes to making placesdistinctive and has a lot to do with wellbeing andpeople’s enjoyment of the natural environment, butthings that do not have an obvious economic use arenot necessarily paid for.

People want parkland, stone walls and archaeologicalfeatures, but they are not necessarily prepared to pay forthem, and they can be quite expensive. We have alreadylost about half the traditional farm buildings. If theyare not in the Bill, they will not be measured. If they arenot measured, will they be reported on? If they are notreported on, will they be funded? That is an issue wehad under the common agricultural policy regime andwe are quite keen on avoiding that being the case underthe post-Brexit regime.

The Chair: We are expecting a Division in about twominutes.

Q82 Saqib Bhatti: I will try to be quick. We startedthe discussion by talking about more clarity on localnature recovery strategies. As the discussion has evolved,it has become clear how complex these things are. Mychallenge is that the Bill is not the place to have furtherclarity; it is in the secondary legislation where you willhave public consultation and contributions from experts.

Dr Young: We would like to see local nature recoverystrategies as a holistic response to the current biodiversitycrisis. I agree that there is provision in the Bill for someof the things we have talked about in terms of aconsistent strategy for nature. [Interruption.]

The Chair: Order. Ladies and gentlemen, you willhave noticed that there is a Division in the House.Because we are within two minutes of the end of thissession, I invite witnesses to submit any written evidencethat you may feel you have not aired. Thank you foryour attendance. We will resume after the vote, withinjury time added.

3.27 pm

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

Examination of Witness

Rico Wojtulewicz gave evidence.

4 pm

The Chair: I apologise for the delay, which was due toDivisions in the House. I am afraid there may be aDivision on Third Reading as well, but we will crossthat bridge when we come to it. Good afternoon,Mr Wojtulewicz. For the benefit of the record, pleaseidentify yourself and the organisation that you represent.

Rico Wojtulewicz: My name is Rico Wojtulewicz. Iam head of housing and planning policy at the NationalFederation of Builders and the House Builders Association.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I apologise againfor keeping you waiting.

Q83 Dr Whitehead: Good afternoon. Before ourbreak, we were talking about local nature recoverystrategies. There is obviously a requirement in the Billto have regard to such strategies in planning, but not aduty to use them. Do you feel that that is likely totranslate into clear requirements on developers, or mightthere need to be some clarification in the Bill about howthat might proceed?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Clarity would be very helpful.Developers really struggle with wishy-washy commentsfrom planners and local authorities that perhaps do nothave an established strategy that they can follow. That isdefinitely one of our concerns about this sort of approach.It is really important that developers can be part of thestrategy and are not asked to deliver somebody else’sstrategy. That is vital going forward.

Q84 Dr Whitehead: In the context of recovery strategies,one suggestion is that permissions for, say, residentialbuilding could require a target of a specified percentageof canopy cover on developments. As a number ofpeople have said, it is significant that the section in theBill on trees deals with cutting them down but is silenton planting them. Do you think that a target for aspecified percentage of canopy cover on developmentsmight be welcome among builders if it could beincorporated into plans in a clear way?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Ideally, yes. The difficulty is thatevery site will be very different, so if you specify aparticular type of site, it might be quite difficult. Insomewhere like London, where you desperately want anincreased density, if you specify a particular type ofcanopy cover, it might be very difficult to deliver that,whereas in somewhere like Cornwall you might be ableto deliver increased canopy cover with less concern.

It also depends on the type of canopy cover that youare looking at. If, as part of your biodiversity strategy,you know that you would like to encourage a particulartype of species to visit that site, and maybe encourage anature network to improve, you need to know whatspecies of tree or plant you would like to use. Thatinformation is very scant, which is a real difficulty fordevelopers. The majority of the people I represent aresmall and medium-sized builders, although we havesome larger ones, and they win work on reputation, so agood site is vital. That is almost part of the sales pitchin the end, but unless you have that feed-in knowledge itis very difficult.


We work with an organisation called the Trees andDesign Action Group, with which we have been partneredfor a while. It produces a document called “Trees inHard Landscapes”. That allows us a better idea aboutwhat we can do on sites. That expertise is not necessarilyshared across the wider industry and specifically amonglocal planning authorities.

Q85 Rebecca Pow: Welcome. Thank you very muchfor coming. I know that many house builders havealready done some really excellent work on biodiversityand net gain, voluntarily, off their own bat. What isyour view about mandating it to get environmentalimprovement? Do you think the 10% specified in theBill is the right level?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I honestly could not—I do notthink anyone could—give an honest answer to that.When we were approached, we welcomed biodiversitynet gain because we recognise it is vital. We recognisedthat 10% might feel like an arbitrary figure, but if it isdeliverable, why should developers not go for it?

We are at the start of understanding what we candeliver and how. I can give three perfect examples ofthat. We have the great crested newt district licensingscheme, which has only really come to fruition in thepast few years. We worked with Natural England onthat. That eDNA tests newts in a local area, whichmeans you do not have to do a ginormous survey. Thatis a very new technology and has only just been introduced.Two other ones are bee bricks and swift bricks. Thoseallow more bees and swifts to visit a site and be part ofthe network of biodiversity on that site. Those are newtechnologies. It seems amazing that we could notincorporate those before in developments, but we arereally at the early stages.

From our point view—whenever I speak to ourmembers—we will do as much as needs be, as long asthere is an industry out there. If you look at ecologists,do we have enough ecologists in local authorities tooffer advice and guidance? Do we have the right networkof information, so that it is simple and easy to use—sothat all developers, whether self-build or building 2,000homes, can understand what to deliver on site to reducethe burden on professional ecologists, who might wantto tailor a scheme to make it unique.

Q86 Rebecca Pow: The Bill is a framework Bill, so the10% is signalling that this is the direction of travel. I justwant to hear you say whether you are pleased aboutthat. Is there a good direction of travel? All the nitty-grittyabout exactly what you are asking will be set in theregulations and secondary legislation, and I hope youwill put into that. I have met lots of house builders, andmy impression is that they welcome this because itsignals a paradigm shift in the way our developmentwill go.

Rico Wojtulewicz: Broadly yes, but of course, again,it is site specific. Not every site can deliver. There willstill be exemptions, and that is part of the Bill. Smallsites have not been exempt, and we do not want them tobe. This should be uniform across the whole industry,and we should all be trying to have an ambition. If thatambition is 10%, it is 10%, but Government and partnersmust do all they can to assist builders to deliver that,preferably on site rather than off site.

Q87 Abena Oppong-Asare: Currently, the Bill is notexplicit enough about irreplaceable habitats. There issome concern about unique habitats, which can bepaved over, as long as developers can show net gainoverall. How well founded are those concerns?

Rico Wojtulewicz: As far as I understand it, protectedhabitats will remain protected. The work we have donewith Natural England identifies that. They have beenvery keen for us to ensure that that occurs. Smalldevelopers will typically be the ones who are deliveringon those sites more often than the larger house builders,because they might lose one particular site within alarger site. A lot of the larger developers specifically willbe delivering on agricultural land. It is on those smallerplots of land that there perhaps may be more danger ofthose protected wildlife sites being lost. We think thatNatural England will put the right protections in placeso that it cannot just be offset.

Q88 Saqib Bhatti: Following on from the Minister’squestion, I would like a bit more clarity. I understandthat the biodiversity net gain concept is being embraced,and you welcome that. It is a minimum of 10%, so thereis potential, if a developer wants to go higher than 10%,that they can do that. As a federation, you are notagainst that; you are embracing that. Am I clear aboutthat?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Yes, absolutely. If we can go higher,we will. Help us to get there.

Q89 Alex Sobel: The Bill creates space, as you said,for local nature recovery strategies, which can be used inboth the planning and development phases. Duringthose phases, who will have responsibility for ensuringthat those strategies are being followed?

Rico Wojtulewicz: We assume it will be the localauthorities, with their guidance and local plans. Wehope it will be. All developers really want is clarity.

Q90 Alex Sobel: And you are not finding it in the Billas yet?

Rico Wojtulewicz: No, we are not. The difficulty isthat you need to ask yourself whether a local authorityreally knows what it wants to deliver and how it wantsto deliver it. The Bill can say whatever it likes if localauthorities cannot deliver it and do not understand howto deliver it. We do not even have the right information;for example, we do not know what migratory flightpathcertain birds might take. How can you deliver all thatwithout having all the information first? That is wherethe Bill has to be a developing document that changes,because at this stage it is the first step to understandinghow we can deliver something really special.

Q91 Cherilyn Mackrory: On that point about theimportance of clarity, as an ex-councillor myself Iunderstand the differences between local authoritieswhen it comes to the planning process, although thereare guidelines, such as the national planning policyframework and so on, that they can refer to. This is aframework Bill, as the Minister has already said, and itshows the direction of travel. One important point isthe consistency that will be established between localauthorities, and the mandatory net gain. Will that behelpful for developers? Can you outline the opportunitiesthat you think your sector can gain from that directionof travel?


Rico Wojtulewicz: The duty to co-operate betweenlocal authorities will be vital. You cannot control wherea particular species will be migrating, moving or living,so that is really important for the development industry.If we look at something such as a wildlife corridor,which could stretch across a few local authorities, somepeople would perhaps say we should not build on any ofthat wildlife corridor, but we do not necessarily takethat view.

We think that, depending on the species that utilisethe wildlife corridor, we could be part of improving theopportunities for them to utilise it, such as by undercuttinghedgerows or raising hedges so that hedgehogs cantravel across the entire site. Perhaps there is a particulartype of bird that utilises that corridor. How can youencourage more of that biodiversity in the plants youplant? Is it food? Is the right type of lighting used toattract them? Maybe you have a particular type of batthat does not like a particular type of lighting.

Developers can be part of that and encourage it, toensure that we are delivering a better network. Thedifficulty always is that the minute a developer is announcedas being part of any wildlife stretch, corridor or site—evenjust an agricultural piece of land that perhaps does nothave strong biodiversity—the automatic reaction is,“This is going to be damaging for biodiversity.” It doesnot necessarily have to be.

Q92 Cherilyn Mackrory: Does that mean that there isan opportunity there for the sector to up its game a littlebit in how it demonstrates, particularly to people at aparish council level, how they can enhance the naturalenvironment? I am thinking particularly of more ruralareas, where you have developments going up on theedge of a village. That can be very contentious, as I amsure you are aware, but if developers were given theopportunity to say, “Because of this legislation, we arenow going to do this,”do you think that would potentiallyhelp those relationships?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Yes, in a perfect world, but notalways, because local parish councils perhaps becomeset in their ways in believing that a particular thing willdamage their area. A great example that you mentionedthere is building on the edge of a village. We would loveto be able to build on the edge of a village. Unfortunately,opposition from parish councils is so strong that manydevelopments end up going quite far away from theparish. Then people say, “Now we don’t have the rightinfrastructure in place.” That is because if you arebuilding, say, 20 homes in a community, you may getmore opposition than if you are building 200 on theoutskirts.

So, yes, while that could be the case, it has to be aboutaccepting that developers are trying to do the bestthing, and not simply about having extra regulations orextra ideas put on top of them. When you go back tothe beginning of the planning process, we already havethe issue whereby 30 homes can take three years to getpermission, and 500 homes three miles away might takesix months. You think to yourself that you want thehomes and you want more dense communities so youcan use these bus services, and maybe even train services,and you get better commercial opportunities, but youare not really understanding the process for that. So,yes, hopefully.

Richard Graham: Mr Wojtulewicz—if I have pronouncedyour name correctly.

Rico Wojtulewicz: Perfect.

Q93 Richard Graham: Thank you for joining thissession. For all of us, housing and planning is such amassive constituency interest and concern. My experienceof the past 10 years as MP is that, time and time again,developers appear to have been behind the curve. Whenyou look at the provision of broadband, so often houseswere built without it. When we look at solar panels, thesame thing. Electric charging, the same thing again.

There are outstanding exceptions to that. For example,a housing association called Rooftop based in Eveshamhas done some things in my constituency that arelargely social and affordable housing that have solarpanels and electric charging points. However, it is notalways the norm and the Bill seems to me to open theway for house builders and developers to think proactivelyabout what sort of contribution they can make to a netzero carbon future. How do you think this Bill mighthelp house builders and developers adopt that approachand come up with creative ideas that deliver the homeswe want while boosting the goals of this Bill to protectand improve the environment?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I will take each one of thoseindividually. If you are trying to put broadband into asite, you may ensure that you can have high-speedbroadband throughout the whole site. It is not your jobto be the BT or the Openreach of that world. Youcannot connect that site, typically. It is more difficult todo that and, especially in rural communities, there aresmaller groups living there. You can make sure your siteis broadband ready but somebody else has to connect it.

We had the same issues with electric charging points.Many of our members have had to pay for substationsto be put in when, effectively, the energy companywas making money in perpetuity. Mr Graham saidcontributions: it is not contribution, it is cost. It isincreasing the value of the property and increasingdelays. We need a strategy for local authorities to do abetter job of understanding where those areas will beconnected and why.

Q94 Richard Graham: Just to be clear, that does risksounding a bit like “Well, we’re not going to do that sortof thing because it all costs us a little bit of money andour profits will be reduced slightly.” Looking at thesalary of Persimmon’s chief executive, one wonderswhether all of that story is necessarily accurate. Don’tyou think there is a case for house builders to get aheadof the curve and do things that everybody wants to seeand people expect in their houses now, and if they havegot it already, their houses would be more popular andsell for more money?

Rico Wojtulewicz: In essence, you may be correct, butif you have built a site that is high-speed broadbandready and Openreach cannot come in to connect thatsite for two years, and they are the only provider available—

Q95 Richard Graham: That is a separate issue, isn’t it?

Rico Wojtulewicz: It is a key issue.

Q96 Richard Graham: What we are talking about isretrofitting on developments that were not ready.

Rico Wojtulewicz: No, it is not retrofitting, it is connectingthe initials.


Q97 Richard Graham: I am encouraging you,Mr Wojtulewicz, to look at the positive opportunitiesfor your members and for you to identify what they are,rather than complaining about the additional cost thatmight be involved.

Rico Wojtulewicz: You cannot separate the two becauseit is not necessarily about the cost. The cost is also indelay. It would be great in a perfect world, but if youhave to connect that site up and nobody can move intothat site unless it is connected up and you have to waitfor somebody to connect it up for you, that is a delaythat ends up being a cost. You may have to pay counciltax on each one of those properties until it is inhabited.The cost—you cannot separate the two. It would begreat if we could. It would be great if we had all theright opportunities in place.

I will pick on solar panels as a great example. Manyof our members install solar panels. It is easy forhousing associations to do that because they maintainthe site themselves. When a developer does it, we haveno issue about putting in solar panels, but when we lookat it, we say: “Wouldn’t it be better for that money to becontributed to a district scheme where the maintenanceis either done centrally by the developer or the localauthority takes it over, so that in five or 10 years’ time,those solar panels are maintained and can also bereplaced?”. If it is a homeowner’s choice to do that, wefind that they do not get replaced or maintained and arenot part of the fabric of the building. That is why in thepart L regulation on energy efficiency, we encouragedusing the money that might be used to enforce solarpanels to be used on a district system, because solarpanels themselves are an add-on, not part of the fabric.If they are part of the fabric, absolutely, but this is not acost. What you are asking is: “How can we retrofit solarpanels in the future?” We need to have an energy systemthat works for that neighbourhood so that we have localenergy generation.

Q98 Richard Graham: Do you want to have one lastgo very briefly at identifying what opportunities you seefrom the clarity of the Environment Bill on housebuilding or carry on with a series of negative comments?

Rico Wojtulewicz: If you accept the realities of what Ihave said, absolutely. The opportunity also needs to bestrategic. If local authorities can play into the strategyof their neighbourhood, there are many opportunitiesto deliver cleaner air by having electric chargers; toensure that broadband is better connected; and that wehave local energy generation because house builders areplaying their part. Those are the fantastic opportunitiesthat we need to have a conversation about and how wedeliver them, and not simply put it on the developer,because it is not as deliverable as you might think it is.

Q99 Richard Graham: We will interpret that as meaningthat your members are ready to play their part.

Rico Wojtulewicz: To play their part, yes.

Q100 Dr Whitehead: On a slightly different topic, thequestion of building waste wood in the waste streamhas been a live issue for quite a while, and the extent towhich legislation should be introduced to ban wastewood from the waste stream—that is, other things needto be done to it higher up the waste hierarchy. That issue

particularly involves wood that has been used in building.Very often builders just put their wood in waste streamswhen they have finished building the property or properties.Do you have a view on that? Do you think legislation isrequired, possibly in this Bill, to ensure that that wooddoes not go into the waste stream and is used higher upthe hierarchy or are there things the building industrycould do to make sure it does not happen?

Rico Wojtulewicz: It is definitely not my expertise, butif it is a real concern, the industry would supportmeasures to ensure that that does not occur.

Q101 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): To goback to the 10% target, I thought you were being quiteenthusiastic about quite a lot that could be done fromthe house builders’ side of things. As parliamentaryspecies champion for the swift, I was glad that youmentioned swift boxes, which are great, but there hasbeen a 57% decline in swift breeding pairs since 1995,according to the RSPB. That is just one example, but ifyou look at biodiversity loss across the board, somepeople would argue that 10% is only really keepingthings at a standstill. Do you feel that if you werepushed to do more, you would be able to respond andtry to meet a higher target? If a 20% target was in theBill, what would be needed from your point of view toenable you to help with that?

Rico Wojtulewicz: Guidance on what we could do toincrease the swift population, such as on what trees andfood they might like and what lights do and don’tattract the food that they enjoy eating. All these littlethings actually make a big difference. If that knowledgeis there, it feels quite isolated. I think we are veryenthusiastic about the things we can do, which willeffectively make our sites better at delivering what peoplewant.

The difficulty is that sometimes politicians perhapsdo not understand the development process and whatoccurs. We in the development industry need to ensurethat we have a greater understanding of what we can doon site. Perhaps you would have a particular target in anarea that you know would encourage more swifts. Perhapsyou could issue specific guidance for that local authority,as part of the network.

Kerry McCarthy: I think Brighton and Hove has justdone it, and Exeter. I am working on Bristol.

Rico Wojtulewicz: They have. I am from Brighton.

Q102 Kerry McCarthy: On the skills side, it is onething for a developer to bring in an ecologist or someoneto advise on these measures at the smaller scale ofthings. To what extent is any of this taught at constructioncollege? Should it be? Should we teach builders aboutbiodiversity and things that grow, instead of just teachingthem about bricks and mortar?

Rico Wojtulewicz: I think that is a really good point.The majority of our members are small and medium-sized,where someone might be a bricklayer one day and a sitemanager the next. They are trained to a high level—typicallylevel 3, with more of them taken on than level 2. This isabsolutely an opportunity to ensure that the educationis there, not only because it would allow for betterbuilding approaches but because it would reduce theburden on a local authority always to have an expert.


The more that the development industry can do todeliver what we can, the better. That means that localauthorities can be certain that what is being delivered iscorrect and right for their local area. That is a greatidea, and it would absolutely have the support of theNational Federation of Builders.

The Chair: We will have one final, brief questionfrom Saqib Bhatti.

Q103 Saqib Bhatti: Building on whether it is 10% or20%, the fact of the matter is that, whether for thehouse-building industry or other industry, the tier 1suppliers and operators lead innovation and set thestandards that trickle down through the industry. Certainly,if a single small business of constructors achieves a netbiodiversity gain of 10%, that will not trickle upimmediately. It will take time. Is it not better to have aminimum of 10%, letting those who want to do more todo so and letting the skills from tier 1 guys, like BarrattHomes, who have been doing this, trickle through andbecome the industry standard?

Rico Wojtulewicz: No, I think you actually have thatthe wrong way around. It is the small and medium-sizedcompanies that push this information up. We see thatwith bricks such as swift bricks, which were not developedby Barratt but by some smaller organisation that thought,“Can we utilise these on site?” Many of our membersare now considering how to use a SUDS—sustainableurban drainage systems—pond to encourage better wildlifeand better sites.

A lot of innovation comes from the bottom. BerkeleyHomes is a great example of a company that reallypushes to innovate. However, look at—I mentionedpart L earlier—the use of air source heat pumps, whichis a great way to decarbonise our grid. The majority ofpeople using them are small and medium-sized developers.Many of our members use them. They have perhapshistorically not been used as much on the very largesites.

There is a part to play for both, but we typically getinto this idea that it is always the big boys helping therest, whereas I actually think it might be the other wayround. Having more education for builders is a goodexample. Four or five construction apprentices could betrained by a small or medium-sized developer. If theytake on more level 3 apprentices, they would probablyhave a better knowledge than the level 2s. Already youcan see that the skills element is filtering up, not down.

The Chair: Mr Wojtulewicz, thank you very muchindeed for enlightening us with the information youhave given the Committee, to enhance our understanding.Thank you also for your patience in staying with usduring the Divisions. We are most grateful to you. Canwe now have a swift change of team, please, for the finalsession of the afternoon?


Ruth Chambers, Rebecca Newsom and Ali Plummergave evidence.

4.30 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies. I apologise forstarting half an hour late, from your perspective, but wewill finish at 5.30 pm on the dot. For the record, may Iask you to identify yourselves and the organisation forwhich you work, and its purpose?

Ruth Chambers: I am Ruth Chambers, and I representGreenerUK,whichisacoalitionof thebig13environmentalnon-governmental organisations in the UK, includingGreenpeace and the Royal Society for the Protection ofBirds. We have come together to ensure that Parliamentand Government hear from the sector in a united way,so that our asks our presented with clarity and purpose.

Rebecca Newsom: My name is Rebecca Newsom. Ihead up the political affairs unit at Greenpeace UK. AsRuth said, we are a member of the Greener UK coalition.

Ali Plummer: I am Ali Plummer. I am a senior policyofficer at the RSPB.

The Chair: Thank you all very much indeed forjoining us.

Q104 Dr Whitehead: I know that there has been aconsiderable amount of discussion among environmentaland green groups about how the Office for EnvironmentalProtection will work within the Bill, and to what extentit will be sufficiently independent to carry out thefunction that is widely regarded as the function that itshould carry out on environmental protection overall.How do you think the OEP could be strengthened inthe Bill, and do you think that the Bill has it rightregarding the teeth that the OEP will need to hold theGovernment and public authorities to account?

The Chair: It is not necessary for every member of thepanel to answer every question, but in answer to thisfirst question it may be helpful for you to set your stallout a bit as well.

Ruth Chambers: That is a very important question.There are three ways in which the independence of theOffice for Environmental Protection will be ensured.The first is through the legal foundations provided bythe Bill. The second is through its culture, which we willnot talk about today. The third is through its organisationaldesign, and the initial budget that it will get. Again, thatis not relevant to the Bill, but it is a very important issueto ensure that we get the OEP off to a good start, sothat it is not hampered from the get-go.

In terms of the legal foundations, there are two mainways in which the independence of a public body can beassured through law: how it gets its money and where itsmembers come from. At the moment, although therehave been some welcome strides forward, the Billunfortunately falls down in both those regards. In termsof where it gets its money from, we welcome thecommitment that the Government made around Octoberthat the OEP will have a multi-year annual fundingframework for five years, ring-fenced in each spendingreview. That is very helpful. We see no reason why thatcould not be enshrined in the Bill, to give those guaranteeson an enduring basis. The route by which the OEP getsits money is also very important. We have argued that itshould be able to submit its own estimate directly toParliament in the way that other public bodies, such asthe National Audit Office, can.

Secondly, where the body will get its chair and othermembers from will be entirely at the discretion ofGovernment Ministers at the moment. For a body ofthis import, which is meant to be independent not justat the start but for the duration, we think that greaterinvolvement from Parliament would be very helpful. We


are not asking for something unprecedented. Indeed,there are very good models where that is the case inpractice. The National Audit Office and the Office forBudget Responsibility have already been flagged beforethe Committee. They are two examples of how youcould crack the same nut in a slightly different way.Either way would be better than what the OEP has atthe moment.

In terms of teeth, finally, we think that the way theenforcement functions are configured at the moment iscertainly a step forward but there are some seriousflaws, particularly in clause 35. One example is theupper tribunal being constrained in the types of remediesthat it can issue and grant, should a public authority befound to be in breach of environmental law. We think itshould have more freedom to impose the remedies as itsees fit.

Rebecca Newsom: I echo everything that Ruth justsaid. From Greenpeace’s perspective, we have concernsaround the OEP’s independence, funding and enforcementpowers, which definitely need to be closed. The scale ofpublic concern for getting this right is such that over20,000 Greenpeace supporters have been in touch thisweek with their MPs about this and other issues relatingto the target-setting framework.

Ali Plummer: We share the concerns Ruth has outlined.I would add that part of getting a robust watchdog inplace is the likeliness of its acting at its most effective.We welcome the escalating processes in the Bill, andthere are opportunities to look to resolve issues beforethey get to full enforcement. To our mind, the way thoseremedies and escalating processes work most effectivelyis when you have a robust stop at the end, whichencourages action before you have to get to that point.We welcome and share everything Ruth said in terms ofstrengthening the OEP in respect of both its independenceand its ability to act as a true deterrent. We need tomake sure that we are remedying any environmentaldamage or failure to comply with environmental law.

Q105 Dr Whitehead: Following on from that, theOEP is substantially seen as the guarantor, as it were,that the standards of environmental protection thatexisted when the UK was a member of the EU will notonly be continued but will be enhanced. Do your concernsabout the OEP’s independence and other such mattersrelate to ensuring that we have that proper standard ofenvironmental protection following the UK leaving theEU? Or do you have other concerns about the questionof regression or otherwise in terms of environmentallaw, as we are now on our own in environmental lawrather than substantially under the carapace of EUdirectives?

Ruth Chambers: That is an important question.Independent accountability and oversight will definitelybe crucial in ensuring that our environmental laws arenot only maintained but enhanced in the future, as theGovernment have said they want. That is an importantelement, but so are environmental principles—there areclauses that embed those principles in law, but againthere are flaws in how that would be done. We can comeon to those later.

There are also some potential loopholes in the Billwhere standards could be weakened, almost accidentally.We will not talk about it today, but clause 81 in relationto chemicals in water is a good example of that. We feel

that there are a lot of good work and good standards inthis Bill but there is a lot of wriggle room as well. Wehope that the conversations we will have today andthroughout the passage of the Bill will enable some ofthose loopholes to be closed.

An example of where there could be some wriggleroom is in the section on the REACH regulation andchemical standards. It is a wide-ranging power, andextra oversight and accountability could ensure that thepower is exercised in a faithful way. We are clear thatclauses 19 and 20 are not tantamount to a bindingcommitment to non-regression. They are welcome andimportant transparency mechanisms, but that really iswhat they should be seen as. There are modest, pragmaticways in which they could be improved. For example, wethink that clause 19 is modelled on human rights legislation,but the way in which the Human Rights Act 1998ensures that human rights are factored into new legislationand new policy is a little bit more stringent and strategic.There are ways in which those clauses could be tightenedas well.

The Chair: Before we proceed, Ms Chambers, youindicated that we would not talk about a particularclause today. In so far as we have the time you areentirely within your rights to comment on anything thatis relevant.

Ruth Chambers: Thank you.

Ali Plummer: If I could just add something, there aretwo parts to that question. One is about maintainingthe robustness of enforcement mechanisms; what weare really looking for through the independence of theOEP is maintaining that in longevity. It is not necessarilyabout the intent of the body as it is being set up, butmaking sure that it maintains that independence androbustness going forward.

I guess a watchdog and enforcement body is only asgood as the law it is able to uphold, which comes to thesecond part of your question. There are lots of welcomeprovisions within this Bill that should allow us to gomuch further and to build on existing environmentalprotections, but we would be looking for much morerobust reassurance that that floor—those existingprotections—will remain for us to build on. The secondpart is making sure that we are able to secure existingenvironmental legislation so that the OEP can continueto uphold that.

Q106 Rebecca Pow: Welcome, everyone, and thankyou for coming. I just wanted to get some clarification,because there seems to be a view that in leaving Europewe are going to have lower environmental standards,but the whole point of this Bill and, indeed, the OEP isthat it will enable us to have higher standards. First, wewill roll over all the environmental law; we will thencreate our own measures, and it is quite clear to me thatthe Bill enables us to do so. At EU level, the Commissioncan issue judgments on a breach of law, but they are notlegally binding on member states. Do you not think thatthe court order remedy in this Bill would be strongerthan that?

Ruth Chambers: I would go back to my previousanswer about the lack of remedies that the tribunal willhave at its disposal. It is severely constrained by theclause, if you look at the small print.


Q107 Rebecca Pow: But it can ultimately issue fines ifit so desires, and before that, the OEP will try to remedyany problems through discussion, advice, analysis andscrutiny. It will only go to the upper tribunal if it reallyneeds those extra teeth, and that opportunity is there.

Ruth Chambers: We very much support your visionfor how the enforcement system would work, where it isfront-loaded, if you like, and the OEP acts as a strategicintervener and litigator rather than a serial nit-picker.Nobody wants a busybody poring over every singledecision of every public authority; that is nobody’svision for how this body will work.

However, at the moment when we get to the end ofthe process, if a public authority is found in breach ofenvironmental law after all of the good work that theOEP will necessarily have done, what we are left with isa statement of non-compliance. It is very hard to knowexactly what bite that non-compliance will have, factoringin the upper tribunal not having a very effective orstrong set of deterrents. It is helpful to have yourreassurance, Minister, that the tribunal will be able toimpose a financial penalty if it sees fit. It would be evenbetter to have that reassurance written into the Bill sothat there is absolute clarity on it, and stakeholders andpublic authorities know that there is bite to this process.That will provide the deterrent that we all want, so thatthings are sorted out early on.

Ali Plummer: It is also worth reiterating that theability to levy fines is really welcome, but what we areactually looking for is to either prevent environmentaldamage in the first place or remedy it. Although a fine isa welcome part of that, we are really looking for remedialaction, or the ability to ensure that the public authoritiesor others are taking the actions needed to remedy theenvironmental damage. While a fine can provide forsome of that, it is not necessarily—

Q108 Rebecca Pow: But as I hope I made clear, that isthe last step; remedy is the first step of the OEP. I hopeit is very clear now that we have left the EU, and as asovereign nation we will be responsible for setting ourown environmental laws. It is then the role of Parliamentto scrutinise those laws.

That leads me on to the whole issue of the targets,and what we will be scrutinising in order to improve theenvironment, which is the focus of the Bill. We have atriple lock within the system, and I just wanted yourviews on how you think that will work. We call it a triplelock because we have five-yearly improvement plans; wehave annual reporting on how those five-yearly plansare going to get to the long-term targets; and we havethe Office for Environmental Protection analysing allof that to drive environmental improvement. We thinkthat is very strong, so I wondered what your viewson that were.

Rebecca Newsom: The thing that I would want to sayabout that is that reporting and analysis are reallyimportant, but are not the same as interim targetsactually having a legal force. It is a top priority from allof our perspectives to ensure that the short-term interimtargets that lead towards end goals have that legal bite,so that there is absolutely no wiggle room in terms ofthe requirement on public authorities to ensure progressstraightaway to meeting that long-term goal.

That is really important, particularly also becausethere is a track record for voluntary targets set byGovernment not being met or being abandoned—forexample the 2020 target of not using peat in horticulturehas not been met. Another example is that site ofspecial scientific interest targets have also now beendropped, and they were voluntary. It is really importantthat we have that safeguard in the Bill, guaranteeingthat the interim targets will have that force.

Q109 Rebecca Pow: To get our SSSIs, the 75% in goodand favourable condition, is in our 25-year environmentplan. The first phase of the Bill is the 25-year environmentplan. It is called the environmental improvement plan.That is what I call the second side of the Bill. It is in theBill. This actually provides all the levers and all the toolsto do exactly what I think you all want us to do.

Rebecca Newsom: I think we are agreed to a largedegree on the vision. The difference is that the environmentalimprovement plans are not legally binding. It is good tohave a policy document, but it needs to have legal force.That is what is going to guarantee the drive forward ofchange in the short term.

Q110 Rebecca Pow: But targets will be the legal force;the setting of the targets is the legal duty.

Rebecca Newsom: Long-term targets definitely, butthe interim targets will not have that force, as the Bill iscurrently set up.

Q111 Rebecca Pow: But wouldn’t you agree, on theenvironment, it is an ever-changing, flexible scene? Thatis why we have interim targets.

Rebecca Newsom: Yes, absolutely. It is really importantto recognise that, in different environmental areas, changetowards long-term goals, and progress towards meetingthem, does not always happen in a linear way. Werecognise that, but that is not an argument not to makethe interim targets legally binding. It is an argument forthe Government to apply some flexibility in the type ofinterim targets they might set.

For example, in some areas, such as bird speciesabundance, you could have an interim target that relatesto the planting of wildflower meadows or to particulartypes of tree planting in certain areas, because there isthat flexibility and non-linearity towards the long-termgoal. In other areas—for example, pesticide pollution inrivers—it would be much easier to do an outcome-basedinterim target. In both cases, they need to be legallybinding. The Government could apply that kind offlexibility to the type of target, without compromisingon the legally binding nature of it.

The Chair: Thank you. The Minister invited you toset out your concerns, and you have done so verylucidly, if I may say so. We cannot engage too long,however, in a bilateral discussion.

Q112 Deidre Brock: I would like to direct this to RuthChambers. In your submission to the Committee, GreenerUK points out that the requirement to have due regardto the environmental principles policy statement doesnot apply to decision making but is also subject towide-ranging exemptions. I am speaking specifically ofthose mentioned in clause 18 regarding the Ministry ofDefence and HM Treasury. It specifies“the armed forces, defence or national security”


and

“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.

Could you elaborate a little more on your concernsregarding that? Perhaps Ms Newsom and Ms Plummerwould have something to add.

Ruth Chambers: I think the environmental principlesclauses are really important and, in many ways, are aslightly overlooked part of the Bill, because everyone isinterested in the OEP, and many people are interested intargets. The principles have become a little bit forgotten,so I am really pleased that question has been askedtoday.

They should be the bedrock of the Bill going forward.We were pleased to see the Government and the Ministersay that they are intended to place environmentalaccountability at the heart of Government. That is ashared vision for what they should do. Unfortunately,we do not think that the framework as configured in theBill will do that, for a number of reasons. You havehighlighted one very important reason, which is thatthere are lots of carve-outs and exclusions. For example,the duty will not apply to the Ministry of Defence andwill not apply to decisions like resource allocation andspending and so on. Already, we seem to be absolvingquite a large part of Government from the principles.

Secondly, the duty is quite weak. It is to have dueregard not to the principles themselves, but to a policystatement. The trouble is that none of us has yet seenwhat the policy statement says. Ever since it was firstmentioned, we have been asking to see what it is, so thatwe can have some comfort that it will be a helpful toolfor policy makers and for stakeholders. The sooner thatit can be published—ideally, that would be during theBill’s passage—the better.

The third reason is that this part of the Bill will applyto England only. We have questions as to what willhappen to the principles in the rest of the UK and howtrans-boundary decisions will be guided by the principlesin the future.

Finally, on the policy statement, if you look atcomparable arrangements for how policy statementson, say, national energy projects are endorsed and approvedby Parliament, you see that they are subject to a motionthat is voted on by Parliament. There is no such thingfor this policy statement. We think that, if it really isthat important, there should be some tighter parliamentaryoversight of it.

Q113 Robbie Moore: I want to turn the conversationback to the OEP. Can you explain why the Committeeon Climate Change and the Equality and Human RightsCommission have similar independence, if not slightlyweaker, to the OEP? Have those bodies not clearlyshown that the independence of the OEP set out in theBill is credible?

Ruth Chambers: It is an interesting question aboutthe EHRC. We recently came across something that, ifit would help the Committee, we could provide a shortnote on. I think that last year the Government undertookwhat is called a tailored review of the EHRC. In itsevidence to that review, the Equality and Human RightsCommission itself was arguing for greater independence,more accountability to Parliament and a slightly differentmodel, but the Government said that they did not thinkthat that was appropriate for that body. So even a body

that the Minister this morning was drawing somecomparison with is saying that it feels that it is notsufficiently independent from Government.

We would not say that, for us, in the NGO sector, thatis the best comparator. The two bodies that we think aremore comparable in this space are the National AuditOffice and the Office for Budget Responsibility—notnecessarily in terms of their form and function, but interms of how their independence is delivered via laws,both now and in the long term.

Ali Plummer: It is worth saying that what we arelooking for here, ultimately, is that the OEP will holdthe Government to account on meeting their environmentalobligations, so building in some independent safeguardsjust to make sure that there is that gap between what theOEP can do, in terms of holding Government to account,and how it is set up is really important. As Ruth said,there are clear examples of that happening in otherplaces, so what we are calling for is certainly not uniqueor unheard of in other places. I think that it wouldmake sense to apply it to the OEP as well.

Q114 Kerry McCarthy: Could I ask about the globalfootprint issues? As you may have noticed, I have tableda couple of amendments: 76 and 77. There are twoaspects to this. One is our consumption—the consumptionof commodities, how they are produced overseas andthe fact that we are contributing to climate change,environmental degradation and deforestation as a result.The other side of the coin is that we are financing,British companies are financing or UK Export Financeis financing quite a lot of this work as well. Do youthink that there is a case for going global in terms ofthis Bill? I am trying not to ask too leading questions,but my view would be that there is not much point inputting your own house in order at home and talkingabout planting trees here if the Amazon is being razedto the ground because of British consumption or Britishfinancing. I think that Greenpeace put something aboutthis in its note to the Committee.

Rebecca Newsom: Absolutely—we totally agree withwhat you have just said. We have to think about ourglobal impact, as well as getting things right here. Thereis a major problem with the UK’s global footprint at themoment. A lot of the products that we consume on theUK market often, when it is related to meat and dairy,are somehow connected, through the supply chain, todeforestation. For example, 95% of chickens slaughteredin the UK are farmed intensively in a way that meansthey are fed on soya, and half of Europe’s globaldeforestation footprint is in relation to soya. We knowthat it can be tracked back, but, at the moment, there isnot that kind of transparency.

The way to deal with this issue is twofold: first,reduce how much meat and dairy we are consuming inthe UK, because we need to be freeing up agriculturalland globally to give back to nature and allow abundanceto be restored. We know the Government are very keenon nature-based solutions for climate change, and a keypart of the puzzle is giving land back to nature. Thatrequires a shift in our consumption habits. A globalfootprint provision in the Environment Bill to allowtargets for this would enable that to happen.

The other piece to the puzzle is sorting out oursupply chains and putting a requirement on corporationsto clean up the supply chain and conduct due diligence.


That can be delivered through the amendment youtabled on enforcing the 2020 deforestation deadline; theGovernment have backed that previously, but it needslegal enforcement, and also the establishment of duediligence legislation in six months’ time, which wouldset up that framework to enable it to be delivered.

Ruth Chambers: Can I add one thing to that? Again,this is a vital issue. If we take a step back and thinkabout the journey of this Bill, it has been on a journey,and we have been on a journey with it. Its existencecame from draft provisions from the European Union(Withdrawal) Act 2018, which were intended to closethe environmental governance gap I have already talkedabout that arose as a result of EU exit. Then theGovernment took a very welcome step and decided totake the opportunity to enshrine domestic ambition inlaw through the Environment Bill, which came out inOctober and was re-published in January. This is themissing piece of that trilogy.

We totally understand that the Bill has been on a fasttrack—rightly, because nature’s decline cannot wait amoment longer. We understand why it has not beenpossible until this point in time to include measures inthe Bill, but we hope the Government will do all theycan to ensure these important issues are addressed,whether substantively or by using the Bill as a veryimportant springboard ahead of the international summitlater this year.

Q115 Bim Afolami: I want to ask our visitors aboutregulatory complexity when it comes to environmentalregulation. I do not know how many bodies there are,including Natural England and this new OEP. I wouldlike you to describe how you feel it works. Do you thinkwe need fewer? Do you think the OEP can help bringtogether some of this work? I am interested in yourviews on that.

Ali Plummer: From my perspective, one of the thingsthe OEP can do is help bring a strategic overview ofhow some of this is working, to really drive and makeregulation work a bit better in this country. One of thethings regulation suffers from is underfunding and under-investment, to be honest; that applies particularly tobodies such as Natural England and the EnvironmentAgency. Natural England has suffered huge budgetcuts, and when it comes to its ability to properly regulatethe things it is supposed to, it is struggling to fulfil someof its statutory duties. As a result, one of the things theOEP can do is take a much more strategic overview andhopefully provide a bit of insight and guidance—andenforcement, when needed—to make sure regulation isworking effectively. It is not the OEP’s role to step inand perform the roles of these regulators, but it can takea much broader view and make sure the regulators aredoing what they are supposed to be doing, and areproperly upholding environmental law.

Q116 Bim Afolami: That makes sense to me, but doyou not fear, as a lot of businesses, landowners andfarmers do, that there are so many different types ofenvironmental regulator that it is difficult to keep up? Itcreates its own inefficiencies. Might it be easier if wehad a more simplified structure? That does not meanyou regulate more or less; it means you regulate moresimply. Is that something you think would benefit theenvironmental outcomes? It is my contention that it

would, because it would be clearer and easier for everybody,from Government to individuals, to follow what needsto happen.

Ali Plummer: For the most part, when we have seenreviews of existing regulators and of implementation ofenvironmental law, what tends to be lacking is properimplementation. It is not necessarily a question of rewriting,simplifying or restructuring stuff; it is making sure thatthere is access to the information and guidance thatbusiness and industry need in order to comply. I am notsure that simplifying and trying to bring those bodiestogether would resolve that issue. We need up-frontinvestment in regulators and to ensure that everyonehas access to information and understands what theyneed to do to comply.

Ruth Chambers: To my mind—again, it is an importantquestion—the clarity and shape of the future deliverylandscape are very important. That seems beyond thescope of the Bill and the provisions that we are talkingabout. The Bill does include how the OEP can andshould relate to some of the bodies in the existinglandscape. There are provisions relating to how theOEP and the Committee on Climate Change shouldco-operate to ensure that there is no duplication andoverlap, so that they operate seamlessly. We welcomethe Government amendments in that space, too.

We spoke earlier about the UK. The OEP will be abody for England and potentially Northern Ireland.The Scottish and Welsh Governments are bringing forwardtheir own legislation with their own versions ofenvironmental governance. We hope that some of thoseproposals will be live at a time when this Bill is still live.There would be considerable merit in looking at themside by side, to see how they work across a UK-widedelivery landscape.

Q117 Bim Afolami: You have anticipated my nextquestion on the UK. Do you think it would be simpler,from a regulatory perspective, and more effective, ifthe Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland devolvedGovernments worked with the Office for EnvironmentalProtection that we are setting up, rather than setting upduplicate versions of their own?

Ruth Chambers: It might well be, but that ship hassailed, unfortunately. The Scottish and Welsh Governmentsare now making their own devolved governancearrangements. I think the Scottish legislation will be comingshortly. It is less clear when Welsh proposals will be out,but we hope that will be shortly. It is important to lookat them side by side, to ensure that they interrelate onthings such as transboundary issues. There is a clause inthe Bill that requires future environmental governancebodies to co-operate and share information. I think thatis very important.

To go back to Northern Ireland, if I may, we spokeabout environmental principles being a slightly forgottenpart of the Bill; we also feel that way about the NorthernIreland clauses in part 2. Again, we talk about the OEPand principles, but the Northern Ireland environmentalgovernance provisions are a game-changer for NorthernIreland. We should not underestimate their importance.We hope that they get due consideration in the Committee,either in the oral evidence sessions or when amendmentsare proposed. They are vital; we cannot stress that enough.

Ali Plummer: On the issue of co-operation acrossfour governance bodies, it is really important for citizensto be able to access complaint mechanisms. It should be


clear that if they make a complaint to one body, andthat is not the right place, it will be shared with the fourcountry bodies. If there are four mechanisms, they needto work in co-operation, because they will all be upholdingdevolved environmental legislation. It is important thatif a citizen makes a complaint to one point, they canhave confidence that it will be looked at, no matterwhere in the UK they made it, and that it will get to theright place, without them necessarily needing to understandthe interaction between these systems.

Q118 Abena Oppong-Asare: I want to go back to thebrief conversation about the interim and long-termenvironmental targets, which you touched on, Rebecca.As you know, provisions on that will be in the Bill. Doyou think the clauses give a sufficiently clear directionof travel on the sort of targets that will be set?

Ali Plummer: Not currently, the way the Bill is written.The provisions to set targets in priority areas are welcome.We are looking for slightly more clarity and reassurancein two areas: first, on the scope of targets that will beset, to ensure there are enough targets set in the priorityareas, and that they will cover that whole priority area,and not just a small proportion of it; and secondly, onthe targets being sufficiently ambitious to drive thetransformation that we need in order to tackle some bigenvironmental issues.

While there is a welcome duty to set targets—on, forexample, the priority area of biodiversity—I think weare looking for more confidence that the Government’sintent will be carried, through the Bill, by successiveGovernments. I am not sure that that sense of directionis there. While there is a significant environmentalimprovement test, I do not think that quite gives us theconfidence that the Bill will really drive the transformationthat we need across Government if we are to reallytackle the issues.

Q119 Abena Oppong-Asare: I am putting you on thespot here, and the Bill is quite broad, but are there anyspecific, target-related things that you want to see in it?

Ali Plummer: If I can look at the biodiversity provisionsfor a bit longer, we really want targets that drive therecovery of biodiversity across the board. With the waythe Bill is drafted, we have concerns that you could seequite narrow targets set in some areas to do withbiodiversity. For example, you could see targets setaround habitat extent that would not necessarily speakto the quality of that habitat. They might not necessarilydrive the improvement that we need in order to not justhalt the declines in biodiversity but drive recovery.

We would want broad targets around species abundance,populations and the quality of habitat, as well as theextent of the habitat. I appreciate that the Bill is frameworklegislation, but we want to make sure that when targetsare set and revised, it is within a strong and ambitiousframework, with a clear vision of what we are trying toachieve, which, ultimately, is recovery of our naturalworld and our environment more broadly.

Abena Oppong-Asare: Thanks. Rebecca?

Rebecca Newsom: I echo everything that Ali hassaid. In terms of the target-setting framework andmaking sure that the long-term and interim targets arecomprehensive enough, that really comes down toamendment 1, which would require an appropriate numberand type of targets to be set in each priority area. Also,

amendment 81 is about requiring the taking of independentadvice, and full public consultation, which will inform thetarget-setting process. Finally, there is the one on ensuringthat global footprint is included in the list of priorityareas, so that there is a holistic view of the environmentnationally and internationally, and improvement acrossthe board is being pushed through that target-settingframework.

While those changes are absolutely vital, there are twoareas where, in our opinion, such is the sense of urgency,the evidence base and the public demand for action inthe short term that two short-term targets need tobe put in the Bill. The first one is the 2020 deforestationtarget, which I have already touched on. The secondwould be a 50% plastic packaging reduction target by2025, which is basically about providing a level playingfield for retailers and suppliers, off the back of thevoluntary commitment that Sainsbury’s has made, butno others have, and off the back of calls that retailershave made to us. They say they would support a plasticpackaging reduction target in law, to allow the drivetowards reuse as a level playing field in that sector.

Abena Oppong-Asare: That is really helpful.

Ruth Chambers: Very briefly, because I think mycolleagues have covered the position extremely well, allI would add is that what we are seeking is not a differentpolicy objective from the one that the Government areset on. We very much agree with the policy objective,which is to ensure that ambitious, enforceable, legallybinding targets are set to drive environmental improvement;there is nothing between us on that. I think our differenceis on how the framework is configured to achieve that,and whether what is written in the Bill is sufficient andgives the right signals, not only to business, as you heardthis morning, but the public, and future Governmentsin which current Ministers may not have such an activerole. It is about that clarity and the clear direction oftravel, which we do not think is there, for the reasonsthat my colleagues have explained.

Abena Oppong-Asare: That is very helpful; thankyou.

Q120 Alex Sobel: I have just one question—I knowwe have had a long sitting, because of the vote. Theclauses on environmental principles have been widelycriticised for being creatures of policy, with many carve-outsand exclusions. Do you agree with those criticisms, andif so, what would your recommendations be to improvethe Bill and ensure that we do not have carve-outs andexclusions?

Ruth Chambers: As we discussed with Deidre, thecarve-outs are not helpful, because they absolve muchof Government from applying the principles in the waythat they should be applied. The most simple solutionwould be to remove or diminish those carve-outs. We donot think that a very strong or justified case has beenmade for the carve-outs, certainly for the Ministry ofDefence or the armed forces; in many ways, it is the goldstandard Department, in terms of encounteringenvironmental principles in its work. There seems to beno strong case for excluding it, so remove the exclusions.

There are also proportionality and other limitationson how the policy statement should be taken forward.Again, we do not see a strong case for those beingembedded in the law. As I mentioned, we should strengthen


the duty, so that it is not just a duty to have due regardto a policy statement, which is a next-step-removedduty, but a duty in relation to the principles themselves.To repeat the point, it would be brilliant if we could seethe policy statement soon, so that we can help theDepartment and the Government shape it into a reallyhelpful vehicle for everybody.

Q121 Robbie Moore: How important do you think itis that businesses are brought on board throughout theprocess in relation to meeting the global footprint targetand in relation to the due diligence requirement?

Rebecca Newsom: It is really important. There havebeen indications from companies that they are interestedand support the idea of a due diligence framework.Again, it is about setting up a level playing field. Therehave been voluntary commitments over the last decadethrough the consumer goods forum to deliverdeforestation-free supply chains by 2020. Thosecommitments have not been met or delivered on, basicallybecause it has been a voluntary framework and themechanisms have not been in place to deliver on it. TheBill is an opportunity to do that, and to set it in law andgive the direction of travel. There is business interest indoing that because it means that the companies thatwant to move ahead and be progressive are not going tobe at a competitive disadvantage.

Ali Plummer: More broadly, getting business on boardacross the whole Bill is really important. As we havetalked about quite a lot, it is a bit of framework legislation.An awful lot will need to be delivered through actionstaken elsewhere—for example, actions coming throughthe Agriculture Bill and through house builders. Youhad a session earlier on planning. It is about gettingbusiness on board and getting understanding. This willneed to be delivered across society. It is beholden on usall to contribute to delivering the ambition of the Bill.

Getting understanding and input from business,particularly in the target-setting framework in terms ofwhat will need to be in place to deliver that, is reallyimportant—not just for the global footprint bit but forthe Bill more broadly. Finding that coherence and narrativebetween the first and second half of the Bill, andin other Bills including the Agriculture Bill, is alsoreally important, so that they work together to deliverthe Government ambition on environmental restorationand recovery.

Ruth Chambers: Again, this is a really importantquestion. From our engagement with businesses acrossthe piece—our members have many contacts with allsorts of businesses—we do not detect that business isopposed to such measures in any way. Of course businesseswant to know the detail and the nature of the measuresand any particular mechanisms that are proposed. Theeasiest way to do that is to set out a policy propositionand then consult on it. We would encourage theGovernment to do that as quickly as possible. Thatconsultation can be done at the same time as the passageof the Bill. That is not unheard of. Certainly, we wouldwant to see that. I worked on the Modern Slavery Act2015, which did a similar thing in relation to atransparency-in-supply-chains requirement. That wasdone with the consent and help of businesses.

Finally, there is a group called the Global ResourceInitiative, which is a taskforce that has been looking atthe questions that we have been talking about. We hope

that it will publish its report while the Bill is still live.If it does, we would encourage you to look at thoserecommendations as well.

Q122 Dr Whitehead: Turning to another part of theBill, as you know there is a section concerning single-useplastics and proposals to raise a tax on them to discouragetheir use. Is the emphasis on plastics in single use theright way round in the Bill? Should we perhaps thinkabout single use, which might include plastics, andlegislate for that? What are your thoughts on that? Arethere ways to legislate to take that view into account?

Ruth Chambers: In our evidence we very much recognisedthat point. Our preferred position would be not tointroduce charges just for single-use plastics, becausealthough it sounds really good, it could have unintendedconsequences. If we really want as our policy objectiveto drive down single-use cultures and practices, we needto look at including a broader range of material. Wewould suggest an amendment to that part of the Billthat related not just to single-use plastics, but to allsingle-use materials.

Q123 Dr Whitehead: I will try not to take too long; Iknow that people want to get home. One part of theplastics concern in the Bill is about transfrontier exports.As a result of the powers that could be in the Bill, it issuggested that restrictions could be placed on the exportof plastics to non-OECD countries, but there are potentialproblems even within OECD countries as far as receivingexports of plastics is concerned. One view is that wemight resolve the issue simply by setting a date for thebanning of plastic exports, provided we have the resourcesand plant to recycle and reprocess plastics within theUK. Do you have a view on that? If so, what date doyou think that a ban might properly be introduced,taking into account what we would need to do in themeantime to accommodate that ban within the UK?

The Chair: Ms Newsom? You are nodding.

Rebecca Newsom: I do not have a specificrecommendation on a waste export ban date, but it isimportant to remember the big picture. Plastic productionglobally is set to quadruple, at the same time as a lot ofcountries across the world are due to enforce their ownplastic waste export bans, coming from the UK. Theonly way to deal with the problem without causing amassive spike in incineration is to reduce how muchplastic is used in the first place. That is why we haveplaced the emphasis on the reduction side of things. Weneed to emphasise the waste hierarchy. Reuse needs tobe at the top of that, without emphasising as much onthe recycling side because of course we need infrastructurethere. But there is no way that the UK’s recyclinginfrastructure, even with a lot of extra investment, willbe able to cope with the anticipated rise in productionand with the waste export bans, so we need to turn thetap on the production at source.

Q124 Dr Whitehead: So you might favour somethingin the legislation that requires attention to the wastehierarchy, for example, in terms of the passages onwaste and resources.

Rebecca Newsom: Definitely. As Ruth said, we wouldsupport making sure that there are reduction targetsstemming from the waste priority area across all materials.Such is the urgency specific to plastics that Greenpeace


would support a plastic reduction target for packagingin the Bill in the short term, with an emphasis on reuseto avoid unintended environmental consequences.

Ruth Chambers: I definitely agree with all of whatRebecca has just said. Certainly one of the schedules inthe Bill talks about disposal costs, which does not seemto sit readily within the strategic framework thatDr Whitehead has outlined. I do not have a view on thedate, but you should certainly put that question to mycolleague Libby Peake when she gives evidence on Thursday.

Finally, to reinforce a point that was made in thediscussion, a key to ensuring that such a ban is to beenforced effectively is resourcing—the resourcing ofbodies such as the Environment Agency. That point hascome up a few times now in the discussion. It is obviouslynot an issue that the Bill has much ability to direct—it isan issue of much broader import than that—but itkeeps coming up. If the Bill is to matter and to bedelivered and implemented successfully, the resourcingneeds to be there to match that over the long term.

The Chair: I need to bring the Minister back in.Ms McCarthy, do you want to come in briefly?

Kerry McCarthy: We are having a sitting on Thursday,when we may be looking at things such as the wastehierarchy, so I can probably save my question for that. Itwas mentioned earlier today that, because there is alreadytechnically a waste hierarchy that is enforceable in law,we do not need anything here. I would like to return tothat, but I think we can do it at the Thursday sitting. Iam flagging it up now in case Thursday’s witnesses arelistening.

The Chair: Final questions or statements from theMinister.

Q125 Rebecca Pow: Thank you all for your input. Iknow that all your organisations have engaged previously,and it is invaluable. We have had a lot of talk todayabout targets. I partly get the impression that you thinkwe should have much stricter, tighter and more definedtargets set in the Bill. We will set legally binding targetsin the four areas specified as well as the PM2.5. Do youfeel that the intention is that we fully engage furtherwith NGOs, the public and experts to set these targetsas we go through, and potentially learn lessons fromother areas where targets have been set but have notworked very well? What is your view on that, in order tohelp us get the right targets? Do you think that is theright way to do it?

Ali Plummer: I think they are really welcome andvital. This area of the Bill is quite sparse. The targets aredifficult. We are trying to tackle some challenging anddifficult issues. One of the things that we will be lookingfor is the welcome conversation that the Governmentwill open with experts, practitioners on the ground andstakeholders to make sure that we are genuinely settingachievable and ambitious targets. We are setting a highlevel of ambition but we are also clear what we need todo in order to achieve those targets. Those two conversationsneed to go hand in hand. We cannot set high-levelambitious targets without having a genuine conversationabout how we are going to get there. Otherwise, we willend up setting long-term targets and potentially arguingfor the next 15 years about how to do it and then have tostart the whole process over again.

We are looking to build some of that Governmentintent into the Bill. We then have certainty and claritythat not just this Government but successive Governmentswill continue that intent and make sure that the Bill isgoing in that direction—in particular, on the advisoryfunction, making sure the Government have access togood-quality expert advice. It follows more of the modelwe see in the Climate Change Act 2008, where there is a“comply or explain”mechanism built in. The Governmentcan take this expert advice, which is public, transparentand clear, and comply with it, or give a good, clearexplanation why not. Those are the sorts of things weare looking for. As Ruth reiterated earlier, I think we areas one on this. We totally recognise the Governmentintent. We are looking for a Bill that will make sure thatsuccessive Governments hold that intent. That opendialogue, where we can all have a genuine conversationabout what we need to put in place to tackle theseissues, is welcome.

Rebecca Newsom: I basically fully agree with whatAli has just said. I am also grateful for the intent; it isabout translating it into a robust legal framework. Iwould add that, alongside getting the advice functionsright, it is also about the public consultation throughthe target-setting process. As you said, continuing thisconversation through formal consultation processes iskey for the ongoing target-setting framework.

Ruth Chambers: Again, I endorse what my colleagueshave said. I want to say two final things. First, we areasking for some of the very good intentions and objectivesthat we have talked about today to be more explicit,rather than implicit, so that whether we are a business, amember of the public or a future Minister, we have thatclarity going forward.

Minister, you helpfully referred to the target developmentprocess, which will not form part of this Bill but willnevertheless be an important match to it. It will happenover the next few months, and if the targets in the firsttranche are to be set by 2022, although that sounds along way away, we all know from the way Governmentswork that it is actually not that far. The sooner thatprocess can start in earnest and the sooner there can beclarity about how stakeholders can be involved, how wecan feed in and when the consultation is going to be, thebetter, so we can make sure that we play a full andmeaningful part in that.

The Chair: Thank you very much indeed. I think thatbrings the proceedings fairly neatly to a conclusion. AsI have said to everybody else and will say to you, earlierthis morning the Committee passed a resolution agreeingto accept written submissions. If there is anything thatyou feel you missed out or wish you had said, please putit in writing and let the Committee have it, and it will betaken into account.

Ms Chambers, Ms Newsom and Ms Plummer, thankyou very much indeed, both for your patience and forthe information you have given to the Committee. Weare all grateful to you, and look forward to a successfulresolution.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

5.25 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 12 March at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB01 49 Club

EB02 Coca-Cola European Partners

EB03 Local Government Association

EB04 Society of Independent Brewers (SIBA)

EB05 The Royal Town Planning Institute

EB06 Cycling UK

EB07 Building Engineering Services Association (BESA)

EB08 Girlguiding

EB09 United Kingdom Onshore Oil and Gas (UKOOG)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Third Sitting

Thursday 12 March 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS



PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 16 March 2020





Chairs: SIR ROGER GALE, † SIR GEORGE HOWARTH






Edwards, Ruth (Rushcliffe) (Con)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)






Witnesses

Sarah MacFadyen, Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Asthma UK and the British Lung FoundationPartnership

Liam Sollis, UK Head of Policy and Advocacy, UNICEF

Katie Nield, UK Clean Air Lawyer, ClientEarth

Professor Alastair Lewis, Chair, Air Quality Expert Group

Stuart Colville, Director of Strategy, Water UK

Ian Hepburn, Chair, Blueprint for Water

Chris Tuckett, Director of Programmes, Marine Conservation Society




(Morning)

[SIR GEORGE HOWARTH in the Chair]

Environment Bill

11.30 am

The Committee deliberated in private.


Sarah MacFadyen, Liam Sollis, Katie Nield and ProfessorAlastair Lewis gave evidence.

11.32 am

The Chair: Good morning. I thank the witnesses forattending. This is an important Bill, and it is importantthat we have the opportunity to hear expert evidence.You are probably aware that members of the Committeehave already received the briefings that you issued, so Ido not propose to request that you go through yours;you can assume that people have read it, so we will gostraight into questioning. I ask each witness to introducethemselves for the record, from left to right—purelytopographically—and to say which organisation yourepresent.

Liam Sollis: Hi everyone. My name is Liam Sollis. Iam the head of policy at UNICEF UK.

Katie Nield: Hello. My name is Katie Nield. I am aclean air lawyer at a charity called ClientEarth.

Sarah MacFadyen: I am Sarah MacFadyen. I am thehead of policy and public affairs at the British LungFoundation.

Professor Lewis: Hello. I am Alastair Lewis. I am aprofessor of atmospheric chemistry. I am here as thechair of the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs advisory group on air pollution—the airquality expert group.

Q126 Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab):Good morning. This may be a bit of a challenge, but forthe Committee’s edification, could you—between you,or one or two of you—give us a little scene-setting aboutthe impact of air quality on human health, with regardto asthma rates, disability, causes of death and so on,and then briefly set out for us where you think we arewith Government action in this area? That is particularlyimportant for what we may put into the Bill.

Sarah MacFadyen: I will start on health impacts. Airpollution is absolutely a risk to everybody’s health. Ourunderstanding of the evidence base on how it relates todifferent health conditions is growing all the time. Weknow for sure that air pollution is a carcinogen, and it isabsolutely linked to the development of lung cancer,including in people who do not have other risk factorssuch as smoking. We know that air pollution is also acause of heart disease. There is also evidence that is notquite as strong, though definitely emerging, suggesting

that air pollution could be a cause of asthma and awhole range of other health conditions, including thingslike diabetes and dementia. It is a really rich area ofresearch at the moment.

As well as causing ill health, air pollution has a hugeimpact on people living with a long-term health condition,especially respiratory conditions such as asthma or chronicobstructive pulmonary disease. There is really strongevidence that breathing polluted air will make people’ssymptoms worse and could trigger an attack or anexacerbation—in some cases even hospitalisation.

Professor Lewis: It is worth unpacking that air pollutionis not one thing; it is a whole range of different chemicalsand entities. We may get into more detail on that.Broadly speaking, in the UK we are concerned aboutparticulate matter, which is the small, fine, respirableparticles—small droplets or small solids—that can getinto your lungs and cause irritation. The health impactshave been described.

There is also a gas, nitrogen dioxide, which is brown—yousee it as a haze. That has been covered a lot arounddiesel engine emissions, and it has similar effects. Thethird gaseous pollutant is surface ozone, which causesharm and irritation to the lungs and causes damage tocrops and plants and reduces agricultural yield. Each ofthose has its own effect and each needs its own solution,so it is always worth breaking air pollution apart tounderstand which of the pollutants we are talkingabout, and which actions will bring about improvements.

Liam Sollis: Infants are likely to breathe as much asthree times as much air as adults, because they breathefaster, and for other reasons, so children are particularlyvulnerable to the impacts of air pollution. We haveheard about some of the health impacts of that. Thereis growing evidence every single day about the impacton lung health, the propensity for risk of cancer, andhow air pollution can affect a child’s lung development.There is new evidence that suggests it may have animpact on child brain development as well. When it isseen through the crystal clear lens of the impact onchild health, we see it really needs to be prioritised.

I say that partly because about a third of children inthe UK—4.5 million children between the ages of zeroand 18, and 1.6 million children under five—are growingup in areas with unsafe levels of particulate matter.Those are huge numbers. When we reflect on the Bill,and the extent to which we should push for high levelsof ambition on what we can achieve, in relation to thetargets set and the implementation plans that follow, weneed to keep the impact on the most vulnerable peoplein our society right at the front and centre of our thoughts.

Katie Nield: To add to that, and hopefully bring thisback to the opportunity that is on the table through theBill, all that makes it really clear that we need a legalframework that sets a meaningful ambition to protectpeople’s health, as well as requiring action to achieveand deliver on that ambition. We already have legallimits for air quality and the emission of certain pollutantsin law, but what we have does not achieve them.

Most specifically and starkly, the legal limits we havefor particulate matter pollution—one of the most harmfulpollutants to human health—are not strong enough toprotect our health, and the health of children andvulnerable people. Those limits are more than two timeshigher—that is, two times less strong—than the guidelines


that the World Health Organisation set back in 2005.That is why we are really keen for the Environment Billto provide the opportunity for setting a higher level ofambition when it comes to protecting people’s health,and the opportunity to commit the Government toachieving those World Health Organisation guidelinelevels of particulate matter, and to putting a plan inplace to show how they will do that.

Q127 Dr Whitehead: I guess you were surprised thatthe Bill does not require legally binding targets to be setuntil October 2022 and does not go any way towardsensuring that the UK meets World Health Organisationclean air emission limits, for example. Are there particularmeasures that you think should be put in the Bill toenable those things to be addressed properly? Howmight we ensure that the limits are properly reflected inthe legislation?

Professor Lewis: I will comment on the setting of targets,which is obviously an area in which a lot of people havean interest. It is worth understanding that there arequite a few components to what setting a target means,and there is more to that than simply crossing out anexisting 20 or 25 and writing in 10. Although there isprobably universal agreement that we want to head fora limit value of around 10, from a scientific perspective,we have to be absolutely sure that we have all the otherparts in place at the same time, particularly the meansto assess progress. It is no good setting a limit if we arenot confident that we can measure progress towards it.That is considerably harder than picking the numberthat you would like to shoot for.

I have some sympathy about the timescales, if thetimescales are to allow us to get the assessment frameworkright, because I suspect that will take a bit of time. TheUK is potentially going into a place, in terms of thelimit value, where no other large developed country hasbeen before, so we are likely to need infrastructure,methodologies and so on to assess progress towards that,for which there is no blueprint. The WHO does not tellyou how to do the assessment side. If all that is wrappedup in the discussion of what is a target and setting atarget, we need to be a bit cautious about trying to dothings too quickly, in case we do not get the assessmentpart of the equation right.

Katie Nield: I mentioned that the existing legal limitfor particulate matter is too weak. It is great that the Billacknowledges that, because it is the only target that isspecifically required by the Bill—a new binding targetfor PM2.5 pollution. It is really positive that the Bill, inthat respect, recognises the current weaknesses.

What the Bill does not do and does not tell us,however, is how that target will actually be set to betterprotect people’s health. As you alluded to, the decisionon that is kicked down the road for another two and ahalf years. Issues around finding out exactly how it willbe assessed aside, we are frustrated because we knowthat we need action to tackle this pollutant now. Wehave heard from the other panel members the impactsthat it is having on people’s health now. We do not wantthe ambition to take urgent action to tackle this pollutantto be stalled for another two and a half years.

There is evidence that it is possible to achieve theWHO guidelines for this pollutant by 2030. The Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs released areport last year that concluded that. London is arguably

the city in the country with the largest-scale problemwhen it comes to particulate matter, but it is also said tobe possible in the capital too. With all the evidencethere, despite the ins and outs of exactly how the targetwill be assessed, and the fact that it might be set out insubsequent secondary legislation, the Bill provides areal opportunity to set out the Government’s stall now,and show that they are committed to real ambition toprotect people’s health now, rather than delaying actionany further.

Sarah MacFadyen: We fully understand that theGovernment’s intention with the legislation is to allowthem to consult with the right experts on the environmentand health to set the right targets, but we feel that, withair pollution, the World Health Organisation has madeits recommendation very clear, and it is the expert onthis. There is a really strong case for taking that guidelineand committing to it in the legislation, in addition todoing the work around that to set out exactly how wewill reach it and monitor our progress.

Liam Sollis: The logic that underpins the WHOrecommendation is to set a benchmark that says, “If thePM2.5 levels exceed this level, you will be doing irrevocableharm to people’s health.” We need to make sure that wetarget below that, because it has been designated byhealth experts as the very maximum that we can legitimatelysee as permissible. That level of ambition needs to befront and centre, because health is the common purposethat underpins the air quality component of the Bill.

On the timing of the targets, some important pointshave been made. We want to make sure that the processof setting the targets and the assessment processes thatwill follow will not stall action and implementation andhold things up any longer than they need to. We needaction now, because people are falling ill and dying now.The more impetus there is, and the quicker we can movetowards that, the better for people’s long-term health.

The Chair: I shall bring in the Minister responsiblefor the Bill, Rebecca Pow.

Q128 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of Statefor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow):Thank you all for coming in. I want to pursue thissubject a little further. It is clear that we recognise howdamaging PM2.5 is to human health, as we have made itthe only legally binding target in the Bill. I hope youwelcome that.

I want to address Professor Alastair Lewis first, froma more scientific perspective. While the WHO has saidthat it might be possible to get to that target quicker, itdid not say how to do that or what the economicimpacts were. I would like you to go into the detail ofwhy that is so difficult to do right now. One key aspectof the Bill is that experts will be involved in consultationright the way along the line. How important is it that wedo not rush into something, but take important guidanceand expert advice?

Professor Lewis: There is quite a lot in there. The firstissue is what the WHO is really telling us. One technicalpoint that we need to be clear about is that harm fromair pollution does not stop magically at 10 micrograms,and it does not say that it does. That is set as abenchmark that we should all aim for, but harm continuesbelow that. If someone lives in a house and their


exposure is 10.1 and someone else lives in a house whereit is 9.9, the health impacts are basically the same. Wehave to think about continuous improvement everywhere,not just the limit values in isolation. The WHO is notsuggesting that if we all got to 9.9, we should stopthinking about air pollution. We have to think aboutthat component.

The reason it is particularly challenging the loweryou get is that less of the pollution comes from obvioussources. Most of us visualise air pollution as somethingcoming out of a car exhaust or a chimney. In terms ofparticulate matter, we would consider that a primaryemission—you can see it coming from the source. Moreand more particulate matter that we will breathe in in2025 and 2030 will be secondary particulate matter.Those are particles formed in the atmosphere fromreactions of chemicals from the wider regions aroundus. It becomes harder because we cannot just work onthe sources in the cities themselves and go to the bogeymensources we have gone at before; we now have to workacross a much broader spectrum of sources. The chemistryof the atmosphere works against you because, often,that is non-linear chemistry. You have to take a lot ofpollution out to begin to see relatively small benefits.None of those are reasons not to have action now, butthere are some underlying fundamental issues aroundreducing particulate matter.

Q129 Rebecca Pow: Some of it comes from Europe,doesn’t it?

Professor Lewis: Europe will be a significant component.You cannot reduce particulate matter without theco-operation of your neighbours, because it is quitelong-lived in the atmosphere and it blows around. It isparticularly significant in the south-east and London.Other sources come in from suburban areas, fromagriculture and so on.

There are a lot of areas that will need to be workedon simultaneously. It is rather different from how wehave dealt with air pollution in the past, where youcould get a really big hit from closing down somecoal-fired power stations or working on one particularclass of vehicle, which is what we have been doing fornitrogen dioxide As we look over the next decade forparticulate matter, we will have to have actions all theway across society, from domestic emissions—what wedo in our own homes—to how we generate our food,how industry operates and so on. This is about notunderestimating the scale of the task.

Your final point was on how achievable this is. TheWHO does not tell you whether 10 micrograms isachievable in your country or not. In fact, in manycountries in the world, it will not be achievable, becauseof natural factors—forest fires and so on. In the UK,whether it is 100% achievable—meaning that every squaremetre and person in the UK can be brought under thatlimit—is probably questionable. If you ask me whetherthe vast majority of the UK could be brought underthat limit value, the answer is probably yes.

That has implications on how you choose the righttargets to set. The limit value is one, and it very muchfocuses the mind on what you are trying to achieve.However, we have seen perversities around only havinga limit value, because it means that more and moreattention is placed on to a smaller and smaller numberof places, which does not necessarily always deliver the

largest health benefits. The Bill sets out the headline ofpotentially 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but alongsidethat we want to see a long-term target around continuousimprovement, measured across the population as a whole.We do not want to see pollution simply smeared out alittle bit, to artificially get underneath the limit values. Ihave said quite a lot, so I will probably stop there.

Q130 Rebecca Pow: Just to encapsulate that, is itright to have the legally binding PM2.5 target and to setthe other targets when we have more evidence, giventhat we all want to be really ambitious for the healthaspects?

Professor Lewis: Obviously we will need this targetaround population improvement. However, even whensetting the limit value now, we have to be quite clear abouthow we will assess that. It is technically quite a challengingthing to do. Nobody would want to set a target, discoverthat we came up with the wrong way to assess progress,and then potentially argue in the courts over whetherprogress had been made. Having real clarity now abouthow we will measure progress towards the specific10 microgram per cubic metre limit value is reallyimportant, and we will want to take quite a lot of expertadvice on that, because nobody has done this before.

The Chair: There is no obligation to do so, but if anyother witnesses want to add anything to that, they arevery welcome to.

Katie Nield: I will take a step back and think aboutthe purpose of the targets. Obviously, we already havelegal limits and emission-reduction commitments withinexisting law, and we are hearing that the Governmentare committed, quite rightly, to improving on those,which is great. However, I am concerned that the actualarchitecture of the Bill does not provide us with thatcomfort.

There is a requirement for the Secretary of State toreviewthetargetsperiodically,butonlyagainstarequirementthat a change would significantly improve the naturalenvironment. There is a huge omission in that statement:there is no mention of human health or of the need forthese targets to be there to protect human health. Thatseems to be a really stark omission that could be quiteeasily fixed within the Bill. Surely the whole purpose ofthese air quality targets is to protect people’s health. Atthe moment, there is not enough comfort in the Bill tomake sure that that is the case.

We are talking about long-term targets. There willdefinitely be a need to review and change things asevidence and the means of assessing things go forward.We need a Bill that constantly requires those things tobe the best that they can be, to protect people’s health.At the moment, the Bill is kind of silent on that point,which is a major concern.

We also talked about the importance of expert evidence.The Bill requires that the Secretary of State obtainsexpert evidence before setting targets, but it could providethat mechanism in a much more transparent andmeaningful way. There is no requirement for the Secretaryof State to take that advice into account, for that adviceto be published, or for the Government to respond to orto explain why they are doing things contrary to thatadvice. To set a meaningful, long-term framework, tyingup those gaps within the Bill is really important.


The Chair: Thank you. Diedre Brock, do you haveany questions?

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):Not particularly at this time.

The Chair: In that case, I call Robbie Moore.

Q131 Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Professor Lewis,what sorts of measures would you expect the Governmentto have to implement to meet the World HealthOrganisation levels by 2030?

Professor Lewis: The Government have a clean airstrategy. It is quite a lengthy document, and necessarilyso because of the problem with needing to reduceemissions effectively all the way across society’s use ofchemicals and so on. We have made significant progresson reductions in emissions from vehicles, but there isstill some way to go on that. One area that we will haveto look at is, even when the vehicle fleet is electrified—by2030, the majority of passenger cars may be electric—vehicles will still be a source of particle pollution frombrakes, tyre wear, road wear and so on. Althoughelectrification has huge benefits for air quality and willhopefully completely eliminate nitrogen dioxide, simplybuying electric cars in isolation will not completelysolve their contribution to air pollution. We will needmeasures to try to get cars out of city centres and so on,even if they are electrified. That is one thing.

A major component of particulate matter forms fromthe chemistry that I have talked about, involving ammoniafrom agriculture. That has been a persistently difficultsource of pollution to reduce; it is very diffuse andcomes from all sorts of agricultural processes. That is asector that has not seen many declines. There will haveto be substantial reductions in agricultural ammoniaemissions to meet that target. That is the one area whereI have some concerns, because historically we have notmade an awful lot of progress on that.

Another contributor to the formation of particles inPM2.5 is our consumption of chemicals. A lot of the reactivechemicals that we use and consumer products that theindustry uses go on to react in the atmosphere and formPM2.5. We will all collectively have to work to reduceour consumption of those.

Then we get to sources that are very hard to reduce.That is why we may be left with some very stubborn areas.You cannot completely remove PM2.5, because in theend it is generated from friction, and it is very hard tolive a life that does not involve some form of friction andthe wear of surfaces. Food and cooking are sources—itwould be hard for any Government to commit to banningfood.

I have touched on a few contributors, but I couldprobably have listed 15 more. Individually, they allsound quite small; in combination they have a largeeffect. We will be facing some that will be very difficultto reduce, just because they are so integrated into ourlifestyles, particularly in the most densely populatedcities, where the sheer volume of people and activity isin itself a generator of PM2.5. I would not want anyoneto go into setting a target without being very clear thatthere are some activities that we undertake where youcannot totally eliminate emissions. But as I say, the vastmajority of the UK could, you would hope, be broughtunder a 10 micrograms limit.

Liam Sollis: To build on that, there are so manydifferent areas that potentially contribute to air qualityin the country, so it is all the more important that thereis a cross-governmental duty to ensure that differentDepartments of Government and different areas of lifeacross the UK are all working towards that commonambition. We must think through how that can bearticulated in the Bill, making sure that there is co-ordinatedaction that is not led just by DEFRA, but that bringstogether a whole number of different Departments tomeet those common aims.

There is mention in the Bill of the environmentalimprovement plans—that is very welcome. I do notthink that there is any explicit mention that air pollutionneeds to be included within those EIPs. Ensuring thatair pollution is a priority throughout all elements ofcross-governmental co-ordination on the environmentis definitely something that we would like to see.

The Bill contains emphasis on local bodies and localgovernment action to make sure that we reduce airpollution. That will become a reality only if there is anational action plan ensuring that there is co-ordinationand adequate levels of support and funding. I know thatsome money was announced in the Budget yesterdaythat links to this issue. We would welcome more informationon how that is being focused and prioritised to make surethat the allocation of that money is linked to where thegreatest health impacts are across the country and to makesure that the most vulnerable people are being protected.

The only other thing I would add to that in this broader,more holistic approach to tackling air pollution is theimpact from European countries, which the Ministermentioned. As we get further along the line and reduceair pollution more, that will become an increasing factoron air pollution in the UK. We have the opportunity ofCOP 26 later this year—a real marker in the sandwhereby the Government can take leadership and startto bring other countries along with it in relation to airpollution.

As we get further down the line and get closer to2030, we are trying to get much further along with theair pollution targets. It will become increasingly importantthat we are able to galvanise action from our Europeanpartners as well. This year is a really important momentfor that. The signing of this Bill and the follow-on plansthat will come afterwards are a really important way ofgalvanising that action, so we should prioritise that.

The Chair: I am going to start taking questions intwos because we do not have a lot of time left, but isthere a follow-on question specifically on that?

Q132 Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Howdoes what the UK does to tackle air pollution compareto other countries?

Professor Lewis: It depends how you want to measuresuccess. We do quite well in terms of the concentrationsthat people are exposed to relative to other Europeancountries, but we have the great advantage of a massiveAtlantic ocean upwind of us, so that is probably not afair measure of success. We have some natural geographicadvantages.

Another measure of success is national emissions.There are a basket of air pollutants with which we havetargets under both the Gothenburg protocol and the


national emission ceilings directive. They set the tonnages,effectively. On those, the UK meets its targets reasonablywell. It does not stand out as being an overperformer,but it is not a laggard either. Most of the large Europeaneconomies have seen their emissions reduced broadly atthe same rate, but we do slightly better in terms ofconcentrations and exposures just because of geography.

The Chair: Thank you. I will take two questions now.Perhaps the witnesses will decide between them who isthe most appropriate person to respond in each case. Iknow that might be asking a bit much, but try and thinkabout that.

Q133 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): I want to ask about the respective contributionsto air pollution made by road, air and sea transport andother emission sources such as energy from waste,incinerator plants, wood burning and ammonia fromfarming.

Q134 Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con):Professor Lewis, I was very interested when you talkedabout the different chemical reactions and the effect ofagriculture upon the PM2.5 particulates in the air, andhow we should be fully aware that it is not just carexhaust fumes. Bearing that in mind, would you becautious about putting into law something that theGovernment would not necessarily have control of orthe ability to fully manage themselves, and might potentiallyend up as a big problem?

Professor Lewis: I can answer that directly now. Youcertainly would not want to put in promises to controlthings that are outside your control. There are thingssuch as natural emissions. For example, there are chemicalsemitted from trees that contribute to air pollution whenthey mix with other things. You certainly would notwant to commit to controlling those.

If you are alluding to ammonia being an uncontrollableemission, I do not think it is. Ammonia is somethingthat can be controlled. There are a lot of interventionsthat can reduce those emissions. There is probably aminimum level of ammonia that you would argue isuncontrollable, but we are way away from that at themoment.

On each of those pollutants and each of the ones thatcontribute to the chemistry, you do need to sit downand think very carefully about which bits are underyour control and which bits are not.

Bim Afolami: And indeed the interaction betweendifferent bits.

Professor Lewis: It is a lot of detail, but the contributionfrom ammonia, for example, comes when it mixes withsome of the end products of emissions from car exhausts.So you have two completely dissimilar sources that arenot even geographically located together, but when theatmosphere brings them together, the acid and thealkaline react. That is why you need to look right acrossthe emissions sources and not be too focused on justdealing with one.

The Chair: And on Abena’s point?

Professor Lewis: I can answer on the contributions,because this is the sort of thing that is reported in thenational atmospheric emissions inventory; there is a lotof detail on the individual contributing sources. This iswhere the world will change in the next 10, 12 or 15 years,

because at the moment we have a huge contribution tourban air pollution from vehicles, and particularly nitrogendioxide, but that will slowly move out and we will see themix change. With other transport sources, such as trainsand aeroplanes, we imagine that train contributions willdecrease and aeroplanes will probably stay the same. Itwill evolve over time.

Katie Nield: It is worth stressing that although therecould be many, many different sources of particulatematter pollution, so many of them are controllable. Asyou were saying, emissions from road transport arecontrollable, as are those from agriculture and domesticburning. There is a huge amount left to be done tocontrol those emission sources. The concern I have withthe Bill is that, although there are environmentalimprovement plans and it is great to have something topoint to show what the Government are doing to achievethe targets, I do not have enough comfort from the Billthat that is what those plans will achieve for air quality.

I have two main concerns with respect to those plans.First, there is no mention of the need to protect humanhealth. Again, the requirement in the Bill is to set outsteps to improve the natural environment. There isnothing about the need to protect human health as partof that. Again, that seems to be a stark omission.

Secondly, although the plans must include steps toimprove the natural environment, there is nothing upfront that requires that those steps are sufficient to belikely to achieve the targets that the Government committo. It seems that the plans should be the vehicle forachieving the targets, so I do not see why the law doesnot recognise that.

From an air quality point of view, the Bill representsa bit of a step back from what the law says at themoment with respect to current air quality targets,because the plan-making provisions that we have in thecurrent law to meet targets are much stronger thanthose that the Bill provides for. That is a major concernfor us.

Sarah MacFadyen: Regarding the mix of sources andwhere the emissions are coming from, the British LungFoundation is generally most concerned with emissionsfrom transport, because that is the primary source inbusier towns and cities, which is where the majority ofpeople are living, working and breathing. That is whythat partnership between national and local governmentis so important on this issue, because the situation willlook different in different places.

We have quite a lot of patient groups based in citiesand towns along the south coast, for instance, who arevery concerned about air pollution. Obviously, shippingis a big contributor when you are on the coast. We needto be able to look at this issue in local areas and seewhat the biggest contributors are there. We need boththe national strategy and the support for local governmentto tackle what is going on in their areas.

The Chair: I will take two more questions. We reallyare pushed for time, so if Members could make theirquestions as concise as possible, that would be reallyhelpful. We will start with Kerry McCarthy and then goto Cherilyn Mackrory.

Q135 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): My questionis specifically directed at ClientEarth. You have takenthe Government to court over their failures on air


pollution three times now. Do you feel that the Bill givessufficient powers to take action against the Governmentif there are future failures? Also, my concern is aboutthe buck being passed to local authorities to a largeextent. In the wider picture, I have just heard thatBristol has finally got its directive from the Governmenttoday, but unless funding is released for transport,housing and all the things that go with it, it will be verydifficult for local authorities to do what is required, sowhere is the balance? Who should be held to account,and can they be held to account under the Bill?

Q136 Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con):I suppose that my question follows on from that. I amlucky enough to represent a coastal rural community.My confusion is about how we measure these targets. Ido not know what success looks like where I live,compared with London, for example. We might also settargets in the Bill, but where I live might have met themalready while London has not. Who are we setting thetargets for? I find it a bit too complex, which is why I amleaning towards using secondary legislation to managethat. Following Kerry’s question, I would also like tohear a little more about the role of local authorities.

Katie Nield: I will go first, given that the first questionwas directed at ClientEarth. The cases that ClientEarthhas taken against the UK Government have been keyboth to driving action to meet the legal limits wealready have and to highlighting this as a serious issueand highlighting Government failures so far. It is reallyimportant that the Bill allows people to continue to dothat against these new binding targets. They need to bemeaningful, and that means that the Government needto be held to account against them. That is key.

What is also key is that we should not have to rely onorganisations such as ClientEarth or individuals to takeaction. That is another reason why it is really importantthat the Office for Environmental Protection—the newenvironmental watchdog set up by the Bill—has adequateteeth to do that job and scrutinise Government actions.I assume you heard in previous evidence about theshortcomings of the Bill in that respect, so I will notrepeat that.

In terms of action from local authorities, what has comeout in the discussion so far has been clear: air pollutionis a national problem and there are a huge number ofdifferent sources that need to be dealt with. It is not alocalised issue with just a small number of hotspots thatneed to be cleared up. What we are concerned about ispushing the burden of responsibility on to local authoritiesto deal with this problem—that will not be the mosteffective way to tackle this national public health crisis.We need the Bill to reflect that, and we need theenvironmental improvement plans to reflect that.

At the moment, the Bill provides some new powers tolocal authorities, and those are very welcome, but itrisks putting the burden of responsibility on them. Thisgoes back to the point Liam was making earlier aboutthe opportunity to introduce a broader ranging duty onall public bodies across different levels of Governmentand different Departments from the central level toensure that they are doing their bit to contribute tothose targets.

Professor Lewis: I would like to comment on assessmentin a rural environment, because that is really important.Most people potentially live in places that will not be

anywhere near a measurement point. It has been possibleto bring action on nitrogen dioxide because there was avery good way of assessing it: we knew where thepollution was—at the roadside—and there was a networkof measurements and, crucially, an ability to predict,model and fill in the gaps in between, where everybodyelse lived. That provided you with the evidence basewith which you could say, “These areas exceed; theseareas don’t.”

It is harder with PM2.5 because it does not come justalong the roads, although there are sources there; itcomes from many places. You might rightly ask, “Howwill I know if it is getting better in my constituency?” Theanswer is that if we do adopt things like a 10 microgramtarget and continuous improvement, we will have to domore measurements, because we will not have the evidenceto present to say whether it is getting better or not.There is a fundamental difference as you go lower andlower: the challenge in proving that things have gotbetter, and particularly in places that historically wewould not have thought of as pollution hotspots, ispretty hard. People should go in with their eyes openthat there will be more of a burden in demonstratingthat progress is being made.

Katie Nield: I suppose setting am ambition for thattarget also provides an opportunity for us to betterassess it and better understand the impacts it is havingon our health, so it is an opportunity.

The Chair: I am afraid we have time for only onemore question, and I am not sure that we will haveadequate time for all the witnesses to respond. AlexSobel, please be very brief.

Q137 Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op): Iwill try. My city, Leeds, has some of the worst airquality in Europe. We are getting a clear air zone, but itis nine months late due to Government methods. ADEFRA fact sheet says that NOx—nitrogen oxides—emissions fell by only 33% between 2010 and 2018, andPM

2.5by only 9%. The NOx limits are the same for the

EU and the WHO, but the WHO’s PM2.5 limits aremuch lower than the EU’s. How can we get to a safelevel by 2030, given where we have got to at this pointand what we can do with the Bill?

The Chair: Very quickly.

Sarah MacFadyen: I think we have covered a bit ofthat already, but the actions laid out in the Government’sclean air strategy are going in the right direction. Weneed to look across all sources. Within Leeds, a hugepart of that will be road transport, but it is not the onlypart. We know that clean air zones are a step in the rightdirection, and that the modelling around them showsthat they will reduce nitrogen dioxide and some particulatematter. To reduce PM further, we will need to considerhaving fewer cars on the road—not just newer or electricmodels—and look at investing further in clean publictransport and in walking and cycling. We will also needto look at wider sources, such as fuel burning, industryand agriculture.

The Chair: Order. I am afraid that brings us to theend of the time allotted for the Committee to askquestions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank thewitnesses for their forbearance. I know it has been


[The Chair]

difficult to squeeze in all the information, but I am surethe whole Committee has found it very informative andhelpful in shaping our views.


Stuart Colville, Ian Hepburn and Chris Tuckett gaveevidence.

12.17 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon. We will now hear evidencefrom Water UK, Blueprint for Water and the MarineConservation Society. We have until 1 pm, but it hasbeen very difficult to get through all the questions in thetime allocated. As Members of the Committee do notseem to understand what “concise” means, I ask themto condense their questions. Our witnesses are verywelcome. Do not feel that you have to answer everyquestion if you do not have anything to add to what theothers have already said.

Q138 Dr Whitehead: Good afternoon. I want to startwith some thoughts about water efficiency, and specificallythe extent to which it is widely thought that the Billperhaps misses the opportunity to strengthen waterefficiency targets and encourage homes and businessesto reduce their water usage. Do you think there shouldbe powers and targets included in the Bill to enablethose efficiency measures to be expedited?

Stuart Colville: My name is Stuart Colville and I amfrom Water UK. The position of the water industry isreally clear on this. Looking at the second half of thiscentury, we are starting to see projections of waterdeficits in every part of England, and water efficiency isclearly part of the toolkit for dealing with that. We wouldlike to see some of the Bill’s resource efficiency clausesused to bring forward a scheme to label water-usingappliances—dishwashers, washing machines and thatkind of thing—coupled with minimum standards. Wefeel that is really important. The modelling shows that ifyou do not do that kind of thing, you end up having tobring forward a lot of supply-side measures, such asstrategic transfer schemes or desalination plants, whichare not only very expensive, but quite carbon-intensive.That is the kind of measure we are looking for from theBill.

Ian Hepburn: I am Ian Hepburn of Blueprint forWater, which is part of the Greener UK coalition. Weentirely support and endorse the view that there shouldbe opportunities for water consumption reductions inthe Bill. We have identified a couple of parts of thewaste and resource efficiency element of the Bill thatcould allow for the relevant reduction opportunities tobe put in, in the form of mandatory water efficiencylabelling and setting standards. There is an absence of atarget, and if this Bill could be used to produce a targetfor water efficiency, we would be very supportive of that.

Q139 Dr Whitehead: I want to touch on the otheraspect of water that we have heard rather a lot aboutrecently, namely flooding, and observe that the Billlikewise holds no powers or duties on flood defence orwork on drainage of waste water to reduce flood risk.

Do you think that is an omission in the Bill, or are thereother ways in which such measures could be reliablyincorporated into legislation?

Stuart Colville: From a water industry perspective,the most serious omission, or the thing we would mostwant addressed, is a recognition in statute of thesethings called drainage and waste water or drainage andsewage management plans. There is no adjacent duty onthose others in the water industry to co-operate andcollaborate in the development of those plans. Thoseplans are slightly technical, but we see them as fundamentalto our long-term ability to deal with increased rainfallpatterns, climate change and so on, to ensure that thereis enough capacity to meet that.

At the moment, the onus is placed on water companies,which is correct because they are at the heart of thatplanning process, but there is an absence of any requirementon other operators of drainage systems to be part ofthat. In practice, we are already seeing that leading tosome variability across the country in the quality ofco-operation, whether with strategic road operators orlocal authorities. The most serious omission for us isthat lack of obligation on others to be part of thatprocess, to be around the table and to think about howthese very long-term plans will work.

Ian Hepburn: If I could add briefly to that, one of thebig opportunities missed in this Bill is to provide for astrategic catchment-scale management of water. Withoutthat, we have lots of little piecemeal bits of mechanisms,bits of legislation, the flood and coastal erosion riskmanagement strategy, the resource management plansthat are coming in—a whole host of different elements,none of which are joined up. That join-up cuts across tothe Agriculture Bill and the opportunities there underthe environmental land management scheme to generatenatural flood management opportunities.

If none of those are joined up and it is not dealt within a strategic way, we will still be doing things using avery piecemeal, bitty approach, and that is not the waywater works. Water falls, it moves, it goes into the sea;that is what you have to manage. You are managing theissues that we will increasingly face, too much water andtoo little water. We have to manage for that. We have tomanage that so that we are able to take out water forour own communities and purposes, while having enoughleft for the environment.

Chris Tuckett: I am Chris Tuckett from the MarineConservation Society. I entirely agree with what Iansays about the connectivity between different parts ofthe environment. Yes, if you are managing the environmentin terms of waste water and drainage, that also meansthat potentially preventing things such as bathing waterquality impacts down at the sea. It is about looking atthe different aspects in a more integrated way. Some ofit is in the Bill—certainly in part I, which is quitegeneral and integrated—but the connection is quiteoften missing. It should not be missed; in thinkingabout the Bill, we should think about the connections inour environment.

The Chair: Minister, would you like to add to ourproceedings?

Q140 Rebecca Pow: I would love to. I want to be clearabout resource and water efficiency, which was mentionedearlier. That is catered for in clause 49. I take the pointsabout needing to look at the wider issues of all water


resources. We have to set a water target in part 1 of theBill. I am interested to know your thoughts on whatsort of target you would like to see, because we havethat opportunity in the Bill.

Chris Tuckett: First of all, I am delighted to be here. Iam quite surprised I am here, because the Bill does notactually mention marine—it mentions the Marine andCoastal Access Act 2009, but it does not talk about themarine environment.

Rebecca Pow: But it mentions the natural environment,and to be clear, that includes marine. That is why youare here.

Chris Tuckett: Yes, which is great, and I really appreciatethat. We would really like a little bit of clarity, and forthe Bill to mention marine, because 55% of our territoryin England is under the sea, yet the Bill does notmention the words “sea” or “marine.” There are somesimple changes and a few amendments that I know havebeen agreed that can fix that very simply.

As far as targets go, it is incredibly difficult to look atthe different parts of the environment—water, biodiversity,land and air—and put one target on them. For themarine environment, the best we have at the moment isgood environmental status. That is to be achieved by theend of 2020. We are pretty certain that it will not be.Following the assessment at the end of last year, 11 outof 15 indicators of good environmental status are not atgreen; they are failing. There is a lot of work to be done.

In terms of the target for water, good environmentalstatus is probably as good a measure as we can get. Thatneeds to be there. It will not be met by the end of 2020.Thinking further about the value of the environment,particularly the marine environment from a climatepoint of view, do the indicators to achieve goodenvironmental status need to be upped a bit more, tomake sure we take account of climate change and therole that the marine environment has in that? For water,we need a basket of measures.

Ian Hepburn: I cannot argue with any of that. It isquite difficult to pick one target, because there aremany targets for the water environment that we wouldwant to see. The most obvious target is the waterframework directive target for good ecological status orpotential for all waters by 2027. I seriously doubt wewill meet that; most people think we will not. That isonly one part.

I would like someone to invent a target that integratesall needs for the water environment. I have not seen ityet. I could not pick one particular target right now thatI would like to see. There is a need for a multitude oftargets. Picking one will not be sufficient.

Stuart Colville: Do you mind if I add two quickthings? First, it is clearly right to have more than onetarget for water in the Bill. My personal preferencewould be to have a distribution input target, which is atechnical thing that simply measures the amount ofwater taken away from the environment, whether forresidential or commercial purposes or so on. Placing atarget aimed at the ecological outcome—or the impactmost associated with the ecological outcome, the removalof water—would drive a bunch of incentives and behavioursby water companies and others that would promotegood ecological outcomes. There is something therearound abstraction that is quite interesting.

There is clearly also something on ecological statusor ecology. The targets we inherited from the waterframework directive will expire in 2027. We are notreally having a debate yet about what should comeafterwards. However, if you look at the investment leadtimes of the water industry, for example, you are talkingabout 10 or 15-plus years, so we really need to have adebate now about what comes after 2027, regardless ofthe percentage compliance that we actually achieveunder that. We already need to start planning thoselonger-term investments.

The third area, which is perhaps more difficult, becauseit is newer, is the idea of public health. All the existinglegislative framework around protecting waterways, andthe environmental outcomes around waterways, arepredicated on the protection of invertebrates and speciesand biodiversity. If you look at the water frameworkdirective, the urban waste water treatment directive andso on, that is the outcome that they aim at. We areincreasingly seeing society expecting to have the abilityto bathe, swim and paddle in inland rivers, or to godown to the local pool of water and splash around witha dog or whatever. The gap in how we—the industryand Government regulators—react to that is betweenwhether we take that inherited legislation, which isclearly based on environmental parameters, or whetherwe think about protecting public health in that environment,because that will trigger a lot of investment and money,and a lot of carbon—

Q141RebeccaPow:CanIquicklyfollowuponsomething?In the light of what you have all said, we already have apretty heavy legislative framework for water and the waterspace; we already have water management plans, catchmentplans—a raft of information—which is why a lot of thatis not reiterated in the Bill. The message I am gettingfrom you is that there are myriad targets that we couldset. I would say that the Bill offers the opportunity laterto set any targets that we want. Do you agree that itis good that a water target will be set in the beginning? Ithink our marine lady particularly welcomed that. Thisshows how complicated setting targets is, and that wewould need to take a great deal of advice in the secondarystage of the Bill in order to do that. This is what the Billoffers us the opportunity to do. Do you welcome thatgeneral approach?

Stuart Colville: Yes, I completely agree.

Chris Tuckett: Yes. If I could add to that, the additionalthing that the Bill will potentially bring is teeth to someof those targets. The water framework directive target isfor 2027. Who knows whether we will get there; we havemissed a number of points along the way. It is the samewith the marine strategy framework directive. When Italk about good environmental status, that is related tomarine strategy. The targets are there—there is a reamof targets—but the regulatory bite and the consequencesof the targets not being achieved is missing. If we couldbring that through, that would be great, and a hugeimprovement.

Ian Hepburn: I would add very quickly that theopportunity for interim targets to be set and managedover a shorter timescale than the one global targetought to be taken advantage of.

Q142 Deidre Brock: I have been doing quite a lot ofwork examining issues around munitions dumps aroundthe coast of the UK. In fact, I called for an environmental


[Deidre Brock]

audit—on both land and sea—of the Ministry of Defence’sactivities. Clause 18 excludes“the armed forces, defence or national security”

and“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”

from the scope of the policy statements. I am interestedto hear your thoughts on that.

Chris Tuckett: I have to confess that it is not somethingthat I have scrutinised; I should have. Munitions dumps,disused landfill sites, unclaimed landfill sites are potentiallya risk to the environment in the round. Where there iscoastal erosion, they are absolutely a risk to the marineenvironment. If there are loopholes in the Bill in relationto those sorts of risks, and there is the opportunity todeal with those loopholes here, we absolutely should.But we must look at it in the round, because there are anumber of different sorts of sites that are like that.

Ian Hepburn: I do not see a reason for having gaps interms of responsibility. There is a potential impact onthe environment. They may be treated slightly differently,perhaps because of their special positions, but I do notsee a reason why there should be a gap.

Q143 Deidre Brock: You think a blanket exemption isnot appropriate.

Chris Tuckett: The environment does not see anydifference, does it?

Q144 Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con): Mr Colville, youspoke about the water industry. Do you agree the Bill isa step forward with respect to the regulation of thewater industry? Obviously, the current process can constrainwater companies and increase uncertainty about regulationand so on, but bringing the process in line with othersectors can strengthen Ofwat’s ability to improve the waywater companies operate and the information they receive.

StuartColville:Youarereferringspecificallytothechangesto licence amendments and the process around that.

Saqib Bhatti: Yes.

Stuart Colville: This is clearly an area that needs to beapproached with caution, because the licences that watercompanies hold are extremely important to the way thatthey operate and for attracting investment, essentially.We think the Bill broadly strikes a reasonable balancebetween the powers that the Government and the regulatorfeel that the regulator needs, while maintaining protectionsfor investors and continued investment.

Q145 Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con): I aminterested in the panel’s views on the role of localgovernmentand,morebroadly,ontheregulatoryframeworkonce we have decided what the medium and longer-termtargets may be. As I observe the water economy—if Icould use those terms a little loosely—it seems veryfragmented. We have water providers, water treatment,marine, canals, x, y and z. How do you see the regulatoryframework, as that develops, once we have decided whatthose targets should be? I just want to make sure that wedo not put the cart before the horse, if that makes sense.

Stuart Colville: I think the role of local authorities iscrucial. We are seeing an increasing move towardscatchment-based planning across the UK. Local authoritiesbring a sort of accountability that industry and regulators

cannot. Involving local authorities more in the medium-termor long-term plans around some of our most importantriver catchments is really important—bringing theminto the partnerships that are being constructed tothink about how best to maintain and improve waterquality, flood resilience and so on.

I do not necessarily see a role for the Bill in promotingthat. I think it is already happening to some extent, andwe are seeing work quite well in particular areas. Itrequires a proof of concept and a scaling up of what isalready happening.

Chris Tuckett: Absolutely, it is complicated. The Billis huge. The governance framework is also huge.

Q146 Marco Longhi: It follows on from Mr Hepburn’scomments earlier on integrated thinking. Given thefragmentation of the whole environment around water,it is a complicated equation.

Chris Tuckett: The systems thinking around governance,aswellas theenvironmental systemitself, is really important.There is a specific example I have around local government.The inshore fisheries and conservation authorities thatoperate around England, at six or 12 nautical miles—theinshore area—get their funding through local authorities.We know that due to the situation local authorities arein, someof that funding is lostalongtheway. It justhappens.

The funding position there is pretty dire, so from amarine point of view, to regulate the inshore and to dothis job properly and recover our marine environment,we need the regulators to be in place to have the powerand, bluntly, to have the funding to be able to do thejob. That goes for the Association of Inshore Fisheriesand Conservation Authorities and for the MarineManagement Organisation.

With local authorities, you of course also go on tothe waste and resources side of things, which I thinkyou will be talking about later. It is important to thinkabout their role on such things as deposit return schemesversus what would happen within a new system that isset up. I am sure DEFRA is absolutely on the case withthinking about governance arrangements, the flow ofmoney and how all that works as part of this, but it isvitally important.

Q147 Kerry McCarthy: Can I just ask a quick questionabout chemicals in the water supply and whether theBill does enough to increase the monitoring of pesticidesand other pollutants in the water? You are all nodding,but nobody is answering.

Ian Hepburn: It is not something I have looked at indepth, but certainly there seems to be concern—this isfrom other organisations that support and work withGreener UK—that there is a large number of substancesout there that will be risky as far as human health isconcerned, let alone the health of the environment.That will need to be regulated. I do not see within theBill that there is necessarily the right framework to dothat monitoring.

It is also probably worth touching on the fact that ifone puts that responsibility on the Environment Agency,which has had fairly significant depletion of its resources,it may be that there is no capacity, even if you includethat responsibility in the Bill, to get that monitoringdone. I think that is something that we need to bear inmind when developing something that will help us


watch these novel substances, both alone and in howthey operate together in the environment, because theydo pose risks.

Stuart Colville: I would just observe that regulatorsand the water industry itself have a programme ofresearch into what I suppose you would call novelcontaminants or novel pollutants within watercoursesand water bodies. That is funded at a reasonably highlevel and will continue. In fact, the next round, between2020 and 2025, is about to start. That looks at thingssuch as microplastics, antimicrobial resistance and exoticchemicals that may be leaching into watercourses fromvarious forms. I suppose the question is whether thereneeds to be some duty or obligation through legislationto formalise that somehow. My sense is that the currentsystem, which is overseen by the Environment Agency,is reasonably effective at keeping an eye on those substancesand trying to work out what is actually in the environment.

Chris Tuckett: Clause 81 of the Bill, which relates towater quality, gives the Secretary of State powers tolook at the substances that are regulated through whatis now the water framework directive. That is good, andwe do need flexibility on the sorts of chemicals that aremonitored. It is slightly different for pesticides, but it isimportant to adapt as new chemicals come on to themarket. What we would say about that clause is thatthere should be absolutely no regression on standards.Those standards that are there should not be reduced inany way.

Stuart Colville: Just to be clear, we would agree withthat.

Q148 Abena Oppong-Asare: There are a few requirementsfor consultation on water quality in the Bill, but theyare only to ask the Environment Agency. If any changesmade under this section of the Bill are subject to thenegative resolution procedure, do you feel that that levelof scrutiny is enough, or do you think it should beextended? I just wanted to hear your general thoughtson that.

Ian Hepburn: This is on clause 81?

Abena Oppong-Asare: Yes, I should have been clearer.

Ian Hepburn: It is an important issue. There is nooverall requirement for non-regression, so changes couldoccur in either direction; they could reduce the standardsand they could remove substances. We consider thatthat is highly inappropriate. There must be a degree ofprotection in there. We would certainly want to see ageneral improvement in the way in which any move toalter the substances or the standards is addressed. Itwill need to have specialist advice. There is an obligationto consult the Environment Agency, as you say, but itneeds to go beyond that; it needs public consultation,and it needs an independent organisation like the UKtechnical advisory group—UKTAG—which currentlyadvises on the water framework directive. That wouldneed to be incorporated, and I believe it would need theaffirmative procedure and proper parliamentary scrutinyalongside that.

Abena Oppong-Asare: You said parliamentary scrutiny.

Ian Hepburn: Yes.

Stuart Colville: I completely agree with all that. Theclause gives quite a lot of power to the Secretary ofState in ways that we cannot really predict, sitting here

today, so we want to see a bit more structure or a fewmore checks and balances within that. The affirmativeprocedure is one way of doing that. Consultation and arequirement to talk to the experts are all helpful in thatcontext.

Chris Tuckett: The scope of the water frameworkdirective goes out to 1 nautical mile, so it goes into thesea. When you are talking about chemicals and wherethey are going, it is going to impact there as well.

Q149 Alex Sobel: The River Wharfe in my constituencyand in Robbie’s has significant sewage outflows when itrains, with E. coli levels 40 to 50 times the EU bathingwater limit. Only 14% of our rivers are, by EU standards,in a good ecological state. Considering that track record,do you think the Bill will improve the quality of ourrivers? Chris alluded to this earlier, so perhaps shewants to respond.

Chris Tuckett: Absolutely; it needs to be managed asa system. The targets need to be there and need to bite.You talked about E. coli and bathing waters. To be fair,good progress has been made on bathing water quality,but absolutely, there are some exceptions, like the oneyou talk about. Stuart mentioned the temptation to usebathing waters year-round in different places—swimmingin rivers and all that sort of thing—so the need is there,from a recreational point of view, to do more. Thebiting part of the Bill around targets is pretty crucial.

The measures around waste water management andthe need for planning for waste water management arealso really welcome. Obviously, Stuart will come in onthat. For a long time, there has been a requirement toplan around water resources, but not around wastewater management. It is necessary to plan ahead onthat, and to understand what the volume of water islikely to be under climate change conditions. It willincrease. Having a sewerage system that works and cancope with that kind of capacity is a big ask, but it needsto be planned for. So yes, I think there are things herethat will help.

Stuart Colville: Perhaps I could add two things. Iagree with all that. First, on E. coli, that speaks to myearlier point that the legislation is aimed at ecologicaloutcomes, not public health outcomes, which is whythat issue is there. For me, there is the long-term questionto address—probably through the target-setting process—ofwhat we as a society and legislators feel about that.

The second point I would make is that one of theprincipal causes of spills of sewage into rivers at themoment is blockages, and the main cause of those iswet wipes congealed with fat, oil and grease within thesewerage network. One of the things we are calling for isfor some of the producer responsibility powers in theBill to be used to do something about that. We know itis an increasing problem. It costs £100 million a yearand it is a direct cause of several pollution incidents wehave seen across the country. That is why we hope thisframework will at least address that element of thecause of what you describe.

Ian Hepburn: You have alluded to the fact that wehave not done desperately well in terms of achievinggood ecological status for water bodies. In England,61% of the reasons why water bodies are failing aredown to agriculture, rural land management and thewater industry. I believe that the Bill does a lot to


address the water industry aspects; it does not seem todo very much on the agriculture and rural land useaspects of the pollution. Of the 37% of reasons forfailure that are attributed to agriculture and rural landmanagement, 85% are down to, effectively, diffuse pollutionfrom farm land and rural land use. It is a big issue, andhas been for a long time. We have not got around todealing with it. We need join-up between the EnvironmentBill and the Agriculture Bill to ensure that we deal withthat sector.

We have been talking about clause 81 and the need tohave it framed in a way that does not allow regression.There must be a temptation somewhere down the line—notnecessarily in this Parliament, but in future—to lowerthe bar because of the levels of failure. We need to resistthat, and ensure that under the framework, that isunlikely to happen.

Q150 Robbie Moore: I have a question for the MarineConservation Society, although I am happy for theother witnesses to comment. How important do youthink that the waste and resource efficiency measures inthe Bill are as a means of tackling pollution in themarine environment?

Chris Tuckett: They are really important. As I saidearlier, it is about systems thinking. What is happeningon land, what is happening at source, and where doesthat go through the environment? Ultimately, quite a lotends up in the sea. We welcome the waste and resourcesclauses. I think you have a session this afternoon inwhich you will go into more detail on the ins and outs ofwhat is needed.

The clauses are absolutely welcome, particularly theenablement of deposit return schemes. That needs tohappen as soon as possible, please. That would be great.A lot of other countries have done it, and there arefigures of up to an 80% reduction in litter as a result ofhaving deposit return schemes in place, throughimprovements in recycling. That is really important.

We also very much welcome extended producerresponsibility. The emphasis within the waste and resourcesportion of the Bill should be very much on the wastehierarchy—reduce, reuse and recycle—but very muchon the “reduce” bit to start with. Obviously, there hasbeen a lot of discussion on marine plastics—the “BluePlanet” effect—and some measures have come in as aresult of that, but not an awful lot. The Bill takes all ofthat forward, which is great and we welcome that. Thesooner it happens, the better.

For the deposit return schemes that the Bill enables,we really hope that the legislation will be passed as soonas possible. It will be a comprehensive system thatincludes all types of containers—drinks containers—andall sizes. We at the MCS have been picking up litterfrom beaches for more than 25 years. It is not getting alot better. We really hope that it will do soon as a resultof the Bill.

Q151 Cherilyn Mackrory: I believe clause 81 sets outthe same powers that we already had under the EuropeanUnion with regard to ensuring that water quality ismaintained. The only way is up, in my opinion, on that.I wanted to come back to the run-off from agriculturalland. I believe that that is covered more in the AgricultureBill than in the present Bill, with incentives given forgood stewardship of land, and so on. I wanted to getyour feelings on that. It does not change the wider

regime for assessing and monitoring water quality thatis enshrined in English law under the 2017 environmentregulations. Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently sets outthe direction of travel on leaving the European Union?As I say, the only way is up. Does it give you sufficientcomfort that there will no regression?

Ian Hepburn: The problem is that we do not seenon-regression. The way could be up or down, given theway the Bill’s provisions are set out. There is nothing tostop the Secretary of State from changing the substanceslisted or the standards for those substances in the sameway that there would have been had we been part of theEU and, alternatively, had we had a non-regression clausewithin the withdrawal Act. Again, that has gone. As mycolleagues have made clear in earlier sessions, we considerthat clauses 19 and 20 do not amount to non-regressionobligations. That is the risk that we see. We think thatsome amendments to clause 81 could soften the impactof the risk and of going in the wrong direction.

Q152 Cherilyn Mackrory: To my mind it feels asthough the Secretary of State is able to leave that opento do things differently from before, and that it is not anintention to regress.

Chris Tuckett: I absolutely would like to think that. Ireally would, and I think we all agree this is a significantpiece of legislation under this Administration. I am surethis Administration would absolutely think that thiswas about non-regression, but for the future, for thecontinuity of the Bill and what happens under the nextAdministration and the one further on, making thatvery clear would be extremely helpful.

Stuart Colville: I will make one quick comment onagricultural run-off, if I may. Incentives being put inplace through the Agriculture Bill, which are reallyimportant, need to be coupled with a decent regulatorybaseline. At the moment there is mixed evidence aboutthat baseline. One option might be to set a targetthrough the Environment Bill, not just on water andsome other sectors, and to think about how that workswith agriculture. That refers back to the integration pointthat we discussed.

Rebecca Pow: We have a couple more minutes. This isnot a question, but an observation. The whole purposeof the Bill is to significantly improve the naturalenvironment; that is why the targets are set there. Theyshould achieve what has just been referred to. We havenot touched on water abstraction, on which there is ameasure in the Bill.

The Chair: We will have to be very quick.

Q153 Rebecca Pow: Do you agree that amending thewater abstraction licences regime will help us to bettermanage our water resources? Perhaps our water companyspecialist might comment.

Stuart Colville: Our view is that it will help a bit. It isa necessary but not sufficient condition for managedabstraction in the long term. Ultimately we will needinvestment to develop the abstraction sources, as well asin potential projects to move water around and store itin different ways, but it is helpful.

Ian Hepburn: My very quick point is that it is good. Itis essential. We need to keep it, accelerate it and bring itforward. The issue is with things like chalk streams.


Abstracting from the aquifers has been going on for solong that it needs action now. You could easily build inmechanisms through minor amendments to the Billthat would allow a 2021 date to be set, and then anegotiation period to be set for the individual organisationsthat would be affected. We must remember that this willnot happen everywhere; it is only for the habitats andsites that are most threatened by abstraction. The bottomline is that for the sake of some of these scarce habitats,we just need to get it done, to borrow from an overusedphrase, really quickly.

The Chair: Order. That brings us to the end of thetime allotted for the Committee to ask questions. Onbehalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for thevery thorough and informative way in which they haveresponded to the questions.

1 pm





OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Fourth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS


Adjourned till Tuesday 17 March at twenty-five minutes past

Nine o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: SIR ROGER GALE, † SIR GEORGE HOWARTH

Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)








State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Sobel, Alex (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)



Witnesses

George Monbiot, Journalist and Environmental Campaigner

Dr Richard Benwell, Chief Executive Officer, Wildlife and Countryside Link

Libby Peake, Head of Resource Policy, Green Alliance

Richard McIlwain, Deputy Chief Executive, Keep Britain Tidy

Dr Michael Warhurst, Executive Director, CHEM Trust

Bud Hudspith, National Health and Safety Adviser, Unite

Nishma Patel, Head of Policy, Chemical Industries Association

Lloyd Austin, LINK Honorary Fellow and Convener of LINK’s Governance Group, Scottish EnvironmentLINK

Alison McNab, Policy Executive, Law Society of Scotland

John Bynorth, Policy and Communications Officer, Environmental Protection Scotland




(Afternoon)


Environment Bill


George Monbiot and Dr Richard Benwell gave evidence.

2 pm

The Chair: We now come to the first panel of witnessesthis afternoon. We will hear oral evidence from Mr GeorgeMonbiot, a journalist and environmental campaigner,and Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of theWildlife and Countryside Link. Welcome. I have alreadyintroduced you, but can I invite the two witnesses to saya few words about who they are and what they bring toproceedings?

George Monbiot: George Monbiot; I have a long-standinginterest in wildlife, environmental and countryside issues.Many of those wildlife issues are covered by this Bill.

Dr Benwell: Wildlife and Countryside Link is a coalitionof 56 organisations working to improve the naturalenvironment, animal welfare and people’s access to ahealthy environment.

The Chair: We have until 2.45 pm before we reach theend of this session. I will call Dr Alan Whitehead toopen up with one or two questions and then go to theMinister.

Q154 Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab):Good afternoon. A pretty direct, straight initial question:do you think this Bill is up to the task of protecting theenvironment in its own right? If you do not, what doyou think is missing from the Bill that would enable it todo that job better?

George Monbiot: There are several areas that areclearly missing, because of the scale of the impacts anda long-standing failure to engage with them. One is theunlicensed release of game birds. They amount at sometimes of year to a greater biomass than all the wild birdsput together and have a massive ecological impact, yettheir release is unregulated and uncontrolled.

The Chair: Sorry to interrupt, but the acoustics arenot brilliant in this room. If people could speak up alittle, it would be helpful.

George Monbiot: I am so sorry. Associated with thatis the widespread use of lead shot. It is completelyincomprehensible and unacceptable that in the 21st centurywe are still allowed to spray lead shot all over thecountryside with, again, significant environmental impacts.We have also, as a nation, completely failed to get togrips with phytosanitary issues; as a result, we are in asituation where just about every tree will eventuallymeet its deadly pathogen, because we are so successfullymoving tree and other plant diseases around the world.

A previous Environment Minister, Thérèse Coffey,said that one dividend of Brexit would be that we couldset much tighter phytosanitary rules. Well, I think weshould cash in that dividend and see how far we can

push it. There might be an option to say, “No live plantimports into the UK that are not grown from tissueculture.” At the moment, ash dieback alone is likely tocost around £15 billion in economic terms. The entirelive plant trade has an annual value of £300 million, soin raw economic terms, let alone ecological terms, itmakes no sense to continue as we are.

A fourth issue that I would like to introduce asmissing from the Bill is the release of the statutoryenvironmental agencies from the duty imposed on themin section 108 of the Deregulation Act 2015: to

“have regard to…promoting economic growth.”

Doing so might be appropriate in some Governmentagencies, but when you are meant to be protecting thenatural world and ecosystems, that should come first.Very often, promoting economic growth is in directopposition to the aims of protecting the living world, soit seems perverse to me that agencies such as theEnvironment Agency or Natural England should have aduty to promote economic growth.

Dr Benwell: I would like to start by saying that this isnot a run-of-the-mill Bill; it is a really, really excitingpiece of legislation that has the potential to be amazing.It has a huge job of work to do. The latest “State ofNature”report found that 44% of species are in long-termdecline and that 15% of species here in the UK are atrisk of extinction.

The trend of the decline of nature has been going onfor a very, very long time. To put a Bill before Parliamentwith the aspiration of finally bending that curve toimprove nature is a really big aspiration, and this Billhas many of the building blocks to start doing thosethings. It is really exciting; in particular, the promise oflegally binding targets for nature is a tremendous stepforward from where this Bill started—we really welcomeit, so thank you for that. I hope that the Committee isexcited about the prospect of considering a Bill that,hopefully, people will talk about for a very long time.That said, of course, I think that improvements need tobe made to realise that ambition. If we were able to talkabout two areas of improvement and one area of missingprovisions, I would be very grateful.

Two areas really need improvement. The first is thetargets framework. Although we have that promise oflegally binding targets, at the moment the duty in clause1 could be satisfied by setting a single target in each ofthe priority areas of air, water, waste and wildlife.Consequently, I think the first thing that we need tothink about is how to shore up that provision, so thatenough targets of the right ambition are set to deal withthat whole natural environment improvement.

The second area that I would like to turn to ifpossible this afternoon is the nature chapter, in whichthere are, again, some really positive provisions. Thesystem of local nature recovery strategies has the potentialto start directing how we spend our natural environmentmoney with much greater efficiency. At the moment, wespend our environment money in separate silos in themost inefficient manner imaginable—we spend our floodmoney here, our biodiversity money there and our airquality money there, and all that is usually tagged onafter the end of the development process. In those localnature recovery strategies, we have the chance to aligndevelopment planning and environmental spending in away that can really up value for money and improve theway we use our cash.


The second bit in the nature chapter that really hasgood potential is the promise of net environmental gainin development. I have always thought of this as a sortof Jekyll and Hyde policy: if it is done badly, it can be alicence to trash, but if it is done well, it can be extramoney from development to internalise some of thatenvironmental cost that at the moment is not factoredinto the damage of development.

Again, those areas need a couple of improvements.Particularly on net gain, we need to ensure that it is properlycovering the whole of development. At the moment, majorinfrastructure projects—nationally significant infrastructureprojects—are not included. That is a big lacuna.

On local nature recovery strategies, the things that weneed to tighten up are the duties to use those strategies.At the moment, there is a duty to do five-yearly planningand policy making, but that does not necessarily feedthrough into day-to-day planning and spending decisions.Focusing in on that duty, which is the one that alsooperationalises the local nature recovery strategies, isanother really important way to fix the Bill.

If that can be done, not only can we start to thinkabout bending that curve here in the UK—it is reallyimportant to remember that some big internationalnegotiations are coming up this year: in Glasgow inNovember and before that, in autumn time, in Kunming,for the convention on biological diversity, where theworld will come together to set biodiversity targets.

If we can fix this Bill and make it one that genuinelysays, “Here in the UK, we will have a legal commitmentto restore nature and the tools to do that”, not onlycould we start to bend the curve here but we could onceagain set a model for improving nature around the world.

Q155 Dr Whitehead: Thank you for that; it very muchcoincides with my general thoughts about the Bill. Iguess that, as part of your homework for your appearancethis afternoon, you may have had the misfortune ofhaving to read through the entire Bill, from end to end.

I wonder whether you have any thoughts on how theBill, though its various clauses and powers and permissions,actually does the task that it needs to do betweenAdministrations and different stages of the process ofprotecting the environment, which will take place over anumber of years. I am talking about how the Bill reallydoes the job of surviving between Administrationsand perhaps doing something like the Climate ChangeAct 2008 is doing—not necessarily binding futureAdministrations, but standing there as something thathas to be done, so that an Administration must havevery good reasons why they should not do the thingssubsequently, even if they are not as well disposedtowards environmental improvement as the one we haveat the moment.

Dr Benwell: I will make three points on that: twoabout the targets framework and one about the Officefor Environmental Protection.

We want the targets framework to be a legacyframework—one that will keep having statutory forcefrom Administration to Administration and ensure thatthe suite of targets can work for the natural environmentas a system in place over time. That is why, even if thisGovernment intend to set a really strong set of targets,we need to ensure that the duties in the Bill are strongenough so that when we come to a period of reviewlater, any gaps that emerge are once again filled.

We talked earlier about the marine strategy frameworkdirective targets, which end in 2020. We talked aboutthe water framework directive targets, which end in2027. We have thought about the ambient air qualitydirective targets, which end in 2030. The Bill needs to dothe heavy lifting of ensuring that when those targetscome and go, future Governments are obliged to revisitthem and see which need to be put back in place.

I thought the Minister started a really fun game earlierof, “What’s your favourite target?”

Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con): You should chip in!

Dr Benwell: Thank you; I could do a little list now.

On biodiversity, we would have species abundance,species diversity and extinction risk. On habitat, youwould have habitat extent and quality. On waste andresources, you would have resource productivity andwaste minimisation. On air quality, you would haveSOx, NOx—sulphur oxides and nitrogen oxides—ozoneand ammonia. And on water, you would have biologicalquality, chemical status and abstraction. There is agreat set there, but some of those exist in law at themoment, so we do not need them now. What we do needis a framework that will ensure that when they comeand go, future Governments have to fill that gap.

There are several ways to do that. You have heardabout the options in relation to an overarching objectivethat could be a touchpoint for setting targets. You couldsimply list those targets in the Bill and say that they allhave to exist somewhere in law. Alternatively, you couldlook at the significant environmental improvement testin clause 6 and make it clear that it needs to achievesignificant improvement for the environment as a system—not just in the individual areas listed, but across thewhole natural environment. That is so we know that wewill have a strong set of targets now and in the future.

I will be briefer on the next points, but that was pointone. Point two would be about ensuring that actionactually happens. The environmental improvement plansshould link to targets. There should be a requirementfor environmental improvement plans to be capable ofmeeting targets and for the Government to take thesteps in those plans. And the interim targets to get youthere should be legally binding.

Point three—I promised I would be faster—is aboutthe Office for Environmental Protection and ensuringthat it has the independence and powers to hold theGovernment to account on delivery.

I have just remembered one thing missing from the Bill,in response to Dr Whitehead’s first question: the globalfootprint of our consumption and impacts here in theUK. Adding a priority area for our global footprint anda due diligence requirement on business would be areally remarkable step, again, to show our leadershiparound the world.

George Monbiot: All I would add to that brilliant andcomprehensive review is that there has been an extraordinaryfailure on monitoring and enforcement of existingenvironmental law in this country. We see that withEnvironment Agency prosecutions and follow-ups, andsimilarly with Natural England.

You can have excellent laws in statute, but if theresources and the will to enforce are not there, theymight as well not exist. At every possible opportunity inthe Bill, we need to nail that down and say, “That money


will be there, and those powers will be used.” That isparticularly the case with OEP, but it also applies to theexisting statutory agencies.

Q156 Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con): Thankyou so much for coming in. How lovely to have someenthusiasm! I will build on that enthusiasm for a second.I know there are probably lots of things that peoplethink ought to be tweaked. Overall, can you sum upwhat you think the opportunities from this Bill willpresent to us?

Given that we have left the EU, I personally see thisbeing a much more holistic system. I would like yourviews on that. You might also touch not only on theopportunities for improving the overall environment,but how this will touch on our society and business; wehave to bring those people along with us.

George Monbiot: I think there is a fantastic opportunityin clause 93, which inserts the words “and enhancebiodiversity”. That is something we can really start tobuild on. We find ourselves 189th out of 216 countriesin terms of the intactness of our ecosystems. We haveseen a catastrophic collapse in wildlife diversity andabundance, yet for far too long our conservation mindsethas been, “Let’s just protect what we have”, rather than,“Let’s think about what we ought to have.” I would loveto see that built on.

We can further the general biodiversity objectiveby saying, “Let’s start bringing back missing habitatsand species to the greatest extent possible,” with thereintroduction of keystone species, many of which wedo not have at all in this country, others of whichwe have in tiny pockets in a few parts of the country, butwe could do with having far more of.

We could re-establish ecosystems that might in someplaces be missing altogether, such as rainforests in thewest of the country; the western uplands of the countrywould have been almost entirely covered in temperaterainforest, defined by the presence of epiphytes—plantsthat grow on the branches of the trees. There are onlythe tiniest pockets left, such as Wistman’s wood onDartmoor or Horner wood on Exmoor. Those arestunning, remarkable and extraordinary places, but theyare pocket handkerchiefs. They would have coveredvery large tracts.

We need to use this wonderful enhancement opportunity,which the Bill gives us. There is a lot to build on inclause 93. We can say, “Okay, let’s start thinking big andlook at how we could expand that to a restoration dutyand, hopefully, a reintroduction and re-establishmentduty.” That harks back to clause 16, where we have fivevery good environmental principles; I think they havebeen introduced from international best practice. Butperhaps we could add one more to those, which wouldbe the restoration of damaged or missing habitats andecosystems and the re-establishment of nationallyextinct native species. We will then not only be firefightingwith the Bill, but looking forward to a better world,rather than a less bad one than we might otherwise havehad.

Dr Benwell: That is a lovely way to put it: starting tothink about restoration and improvement, rather thanclinging on to what we are missing. That is the opportunityprovided by the Bill.

Q157 Rebecca Pow: It does say “significantly improved”.That is the purpose of the Bill.

Dr Benwell: I am with you. I am saying that is a verygood thing. Ensuring that we do that at a systemic levelrather than improving one or two cherry-picked areas issomething that we need to lock down in the targetsframework.

You are right: the approach of doing things in aholistic manner, rather than just choosing one or twofavourite options, is so important. It is the core insightof such a broad swathe of environmental thinking,from James Lovelock’s Gaia theory, on the one hand, toDieter Helm’s theory of natural capital on the other.The common insight is that the environment has tooperate as a system. If you choose one thing to focuson, you end up causing more problems than you solve.Think of tree planting. When that is the only, myopictarget, we end up planting trees on peatlands andmaking things worse, or doing what was proposed theother week: planting trees on beautiful, wildflowermeadowland. You have to think about the system. Thatis the promise here.

There are two other big opportunities, if you areasking where we could get excited about with the Bill.We need to think about the benefits of the environmentfor human health. If we could get a handle on theWorld Health Organisation target regarding the 40,000premature deaths from air pollution a year, and demonstrateto the Government that there are wide-ranging benefitsfrom environmental improvement, that would be thrilling.

On the business point, it is such a cliché but itremains true that what businesses really want is certainty.In the natural environment sector, they have neverhad anything more than fluffy aspiration. So manyenvironmental policies of the past have said, “Ooh,we’ll do nice things for nature and we might see someimprovement.” If we nail it down with a strong set oflegally binding targets, businesses will know that theyneed to start changing their practices and investingmoney, and we will see some change on the ground.

There are lots of particular provisions in the Bill thatcould work well for businesses, such as net gain—at themoment, it is a patchwork from local authority to localauthority, but we can standardise that now—and localnature recovery strategies, where we will know abouttargeting business investment in the future. There arebig opportunities. We just need to tighten up those fewprovisions.

George Monbiot: To pick up on Richard’s second pointabout health and connectedness, almost all Governmentshave always agreed that outdoor education is reallypositive, yet nobody funds it. There is a massive loss ofcontact between schoolchildren and the living world,and I hope the Bill might be an opportunity to put thatright. That is another thing that I would add to theshopping list.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you very much, gentlemen. The25-year plan is being enacted through the Bill, and theplan does touch on the area that you mention, butthank you.

Q158 Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith)(SNP): I will ask two questions that I put to previouswitnesses. The first is about clause 18, and the exemptionsfor the armed forces, defence or national security, and


for taxation, spending or the allocation of resourceswithin Government, and whether you think that isappropriate. I have been doing some work on munitionsdumps around the UK coast. I have also called forenvironmental audits to be done of the Ministry ofDefence’s activities—for example, on land and sea—soI would be very interested to hear your thoughts onthat.

On clause 20, and the requirement in the Bill for theSecretary of State to report on international environmentalprotection legislation every two years, do you think itmight be more appropriate for the OEP to do that, andto decide what international legislation is really important,rather than the Secretary of State?

Dr Benwell: On the exemptions from the principlespolicy statement, it is important to think about theweaknesses in that section as a whole. It is unfortunatethat the legal duty attached to the principles is to havedue regard to a principles policy statement, rather thansome sort of direct duty on the principles themselves. Iam hopeful that the principles policy statement, when itcomes out, will do some beneficial things, if it reachesinto all Government Departments and sets a clear processfor the way the principles should be considered. I hopethat the Department will be able to share its thinking onthe principles policy statement as we go. Engagementhas been very good, on the whole, with the Bill, but itwould really help to see that principles policy statementin public.

The exemptions are very wide-ranging. It perhapsmakes sense for certain activities of national security tobe exempt. However, there is no reason to exemptMinistry of Defence land, for example, which includesareas of extremely important biodiversity. In fact, thatis probably one area where we will see net gain creditsgenerated on public land under the net gain clause, so itis strange that that is exempt.

Perhaps the weirdest exemption is the one that essentiallytakes out everything to do with the Treasury. When weare thinking about things like the principle of “theprovider is paid and the polluter pays”, it is very strangethat nothing to do with taxation or spending will beconsidered in the principles policy statement.

As for clause 20, I think you could do both. It wouldbe perfectly possible for the Government and the OEPto consider international examples, and I think it wouldbe very useful to benchmark both primary legislationand secondary legislation, in terms of non-regression.The Bill as a whole can make sure that we never have torely on that if it is strong enough and brave enough.

The Chair: Mr Monbiot, do you have anything toadd?

George Monbiot: No, that was a lovely answer.

Q159 Caroline Ansell: Dr Benwell, thank you forsharing your favourite targets and your points. I want topick up on two points that you made. One was aroundoperating as a system, and the other was aroundopportunity. Clearly, through the Bill, the Governmentare looking to lead on this, but I think it is widelyacknowledged that it is going to take everybody. Interms of local nature recovery strategies and theirproduction, what role and opportunities do you see aspart of that system for your organisation and for thewider partnerships?

Dr Benwell: The opportunities are to align spendingin a much more targeted manner and to build inenvironmental thinking at a much earlier stage indevelopment and other decision making at the locallevel. At the moment, there is no real strategic planningfor nature above the local authority level. This is anopportunity for local know-how to combine with nationalpriorities in a way that will help to bake in the environmentright at the start. That should explicitly link to policiessuch as environmental land management, so that farmerswho invest in measures that make sense for the localenvironment will be paid more. That is a very sensibleway to target agri-environment schemes and a verygood way to target things such as net gain spending.

The problem is that, at the moment, the duty to uselocal nature recovery strategies is a duty to have regardto local nature recovery strategies in the exercise of thenew biodiversity duty, which itself is a duty only tomake plans and policies. There are several levels beforeanybody actually has to use a local nature recoverystrategy. The worst-case scenario is that we put a newobligation on local authorities to come up with theseplans.

Q160 Caroline Ansell: Is that where your organisationmight step in? How will your organisation and thewider partnerships contribute to that production?

Dr Benwell: We hope that all sorts of stakeholderswill be involved in the production. We hope that NaturalEngland will sign off the plans, to show that theyare ecologically rational, and that non-governmentalorganisations will come together with water companies,developers and local businesses to make it happen.However, all of those need to be sure that the plans willactually be used in day-to-day planning and spendingdecisions; otherwise, they will waste a lot of time andmoney putting together things that will just sit on theshelf. The duties to actually use them are not quite thereat the moment.

Q161 Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): I musthave revised the questions I was about to ask about20 times, Richard, because you just kept saying, “Andanother thing,” so I was like, “That one is gone.” Thereare a couple of things that you both touched on, but notin that much detail.

We heard from one witness that the Bill is slightlylacking an overarching vision, which they thought couldbe addressed by having not just environmental objectivesbut objectives on health and wellbeing—I see that theyare debating that in the Lords today—a bit like in theWell-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015.The other issue mentioned was resource use, becausethere is stuff about reducing single-use plastics but notabout consumption patterns overall. Decarbonisationwas mentioned as well. Do you feel that the Bill couldencompass those things without being unwieldy?

The other thing, which is slightly connected, is theglobal footprint, and I have put down some amendmentson that. I entirely agree that there is not much point indoing things here if you are buying in stuff that causesenvironmental degradation elsewhere, or if we are fundingit. I wonder whether you can say a bit more. George, onthat point, one of my amendments would add to thefour priority areas of the global footprint. What wouldbe the sort of targets that we would be looking at? Whatwould be the first things that we would address on thatfront?


George Monbiot: Of course, footprinting is now quitea technical and well-documented field, in which we cansee what our footprint is as a proportion of our biologicalcapacity. In land use, for example, we are using roughly1.7 times as much as the agricultural land that we havehere. A fantastic objective—it would be a long-termone—would be bring that down to 1. If we were to lookat living within our means as far as key ecologicalresources are concerned, that would be a wonderfuloverarching objective for anyone.

Dr Benwell: On global resources, we should set outwith an aspiration to deal with the UK’s entireenvironmental footprint eventually, including embeddedwater, embedded carbon and all those sorts of things,but for now it is very difficult to come up with reliablemetrics for everything, so we should start where we can.One of the most straightforward ways is dealing withproducts in the supply chain that cause deforestation. Itis basically the point that George was making. We knowwhat those products are—it is things like leather, beef,soya, cocoa—

George Monbiot: Palm oil.

Dr Benwell: Palm oil, of course. It is perfectly possibleto measure that footprint and set a target for reducingit. Businesses themselves came up with a voluntarycommitment back in 2010, and it has had no real effecton the UK’s impact on global deforestation in some ofthe most amazing areas of the world. It is time to backthat up with a regulatory commitment, and that wouldbe good for the businesses that have shown a lead. Atthe moment, the only ones who properly investigatetheir supply chains, disclose what they find and takedue diligence are the ones that are trying really hard.Unfortunately, it makes them look bad when the onesthat are doing the worst and most damaging practicesare just not bothering to report.

We should start off with a priority area for the globalfootprint being a metric for deforestation. Then weshould have a due diligence duty that requires all businessesto look across their supply chain for deforestation risksand, crucially, to act to reduce those risks where theyfind them. That would be a massive step forward. Itwould be such an unlocker in international negotiations,where the refrain is always that developed countries arenot doing their bit, but are just exporting their harm. Ifwe show that we are not going to play that gameanymore and are actually going to take responsibility,that would be an amazing thing to lay on the table ininternational talks.

George Monbiot: To Richard’s list of commoditieswith very damaging impacts, I would certainly add fish.We currently import all sorts of fish with devastatingby-catch rates. The Fisheries Bill aims to improveperformance within UK waters, although it is prettyvague at the moment. It would be profoundly hypocriticalif we were to carry on importing fish from places withvery poor environmental performance.

Q162 Kerry McCarthy: On the health and wellbeingpoint, it was mentioned as a possible objective, but wetook evidence this morning about air quality and waterquality, and witnesses in both sessions suggested thatwe were ignoring the impact on the human population.Should there be something in the Bill that talks aboutpeople, or should it be a Bill that talks about theenvironment? Should we bring people into it as well?

Dr Benwell: It should definitely be in there. I thinkthere is full potential for that to be covered in the Bill. Ifthere is not, it should be broadened out. Yes, definitely,we should think of our approach to the natural environmentas serving wildlife and people. Setting an overarchingobjective is one way to do it, or you could deal withspecific areas.

George Monbiot: And specifically listing children andfuture generations as people for whom there is a particularduty of care in terms of protecting the natural environment.

Q163 Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con):Thank you for your evidence so far, which has beenreally informative. I want to take you back to thediscussion on targets—we are hearing about these thingsquite a lot from different stakeholders—and to yourexample of Dartmoor, if I may. You might know moreabout this than I do, but it is my understanding thatabout half a millennium ago Dartmoor was actually anancient woodland, and they cut down the trees to makethe ships to build Henry VIII’s navy. I do not knowwhether I am right about that, but that is what I haveheard. I do not know whether the target for somewherelike Dartmoor should be to keep it as moorland or toregenerate it to woodland, if that was case.

I feel that the Bill is the overarching framework for apositive way forward, and that were we to try to lock inall sorts of specific targets it would lose what it is tryingto achieve, because there would be so much going on.What is your opinion on taking the matter to secondarylegislation in the future so that we could listen toexperts? I do not know what the experts would sayabout somewhere like Dartmoor. They might have differingopinions, and then how would we know what successlooks like?

George Monbiot: You raise the fascinating issue ofbaselines. What baseline should we be working to?Should we be working to an Eemian baseline—theprevious interglacial, when there were elephants andrhinos roaming around, with massive, very positiveenvironmental effects, and there was an identical climateto today’s? Should we be aiming for a Mesolithic baseline,when there would have been rainforest covering Dartmoor;a Neolithic one, when it would have been a mixture offorest and heath; or a more recent one, which is basicallyheath and grass, with not much heath left?

The truth is that baselines will continue to shiftbecause we will move into a new climatic regime. Allsorts of other environmental factors have changed, sowe will never be able to recreate or freeze in time anyprevious state. That is why I think that a general legislativeaim should be restoration and the re-establishment ofmissing species, without having to specify in primarylegislation which ones they will be. The restoration ofmissing habitats, as well as the improvement andenhancement of existing habitats, is the bit that ismissing from clause 93. We could add in habitats thatwe no longer have but could still support. However, weshould not lock it down too much.

A big problem with existing conservation, particularlywith its single-species and interest-features approach,has been to lock in place previous instances ofenvironmental destruction. You will go to a site ofspecial scientific interest and it will say, “The interestfeature here is grass no more than 10 cm high.” Why isthat the interest feature? Because that is the condition in


which we found the land when we designated it as anSSSI. Is it the ideal condition from an ecological pointof view? Certainly not.

We need flexibility, as well as the much broaderoverarching target of enhancing biodiversity and enhancingabundance at the same time. We could add to that atarget to enhance the breadth and depth of food chains:the trophic functioning of ecosystems, through trophicrewilding or strengthening trophic links—“trophic”meaningfeeding and being fed upon. Having functioning foodwebs that are as deep as possible, ideally with toppredators, and as wide as possible, with as many speciesat every level, would be a really great ecological objective.

Dr Benwell: You are right: we would not want to setdetailed targets for the condition of Dartmoor in theBill. That would not make sense. Nor, indeed, do wenecessarily want to set numerical targets for anythingelse. What we need is the confidence that the suite oftargets will be comprehensive and enough to turn aroundthe state of nature. In the Bill at the moment, that legalduty could be fulfilled by setting four very parochialtargets for air, water, waste and wildlife. I do not thinkthat that is the intention, but when it comes down to it,the test is whether the target would achieve significantenvironmental improvement in biodiversity.

You could imagine a single target that deals with onerare species in one corner of the country. That couldlegitimately be argued to be a significant environmentalimprovement for biodiversity. Unquestionably it could,but what we need—I think this is the Government’sintention—is something that says, “We are not going todo that. We are going to treat the natural environmentas a comprehensive system and set enough targets todeal with it as a whole.”

I can think of three ways of doing that. You could setan overarching objective that says what sort of end stateyou want to have—a thriving environment that is healthyfor wildlife and people; you could list the differenttarget areas, as I had a go at before, on the basis of expertadvice, and make sure that those are always there; oryou could look again at the significant environmentalimprovement test and make it clear that it is not justtalking about individual priority areas but about theenvironment as a whole, on land and at sea. It does notmatter how the Government do it. I think that is theirintention. However, at the moment, we are not convincedthat the legal provisions in the Bill would require thatnow or in future iterations of the target framework.

Q164 Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead)(Lab): I wanted to follow up on your earlier commentsabout the target framework, when you said it needs tohave more teeth—I agree about that. You specificallytalked about how environmental improvement shouldbe linked to targets. As you know, when it comes totargets, this Bill hangs a lot on significant improvementtests. Can you tell me more about those tests, andwhether you think they are appropriate metrics?

Dr Benwell: The test is not really a metric; it is asubjective opinion of the Secretary of State. Of course,that will be an informed opinion, but the significantimprovement test is, “In the opinion of the Secretary ofState, will a significant improvement be achieved througha particular target?” I am sure the Secretary of Statewill take advice on that, but it is a fairly loose test at themoment, and one that does not necessarily guarantee

that sort of overarching improvement. I will leave it atthat, because I am hopeful that in 3.5 minutes, we mightreturn to net gain.

Q165 Abena Oppong-Asare: George, do you have anycomments on that?

George Monbiot: No, I will leave the space for—[Laughter.]

Q166 Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con): Buildingon what you said a few moments ago, do you feel thatthe Bill sufficiently empowers all Government Departmentsto protect and improve our environment?

Dr Benwell: “Empowers”, possibly; “requires”, notquite yet. We are hoping that the environmentalimprovement plan will be cross-departmental, and thatit will contain specific actions that are demonstrablycapable of reaching a target, just as we do with carbonbudgets. That environmental improvement plan shouldset interim targets that are binding, and it should say,“These are the steps we are going to take to get there inthe Department for Transport, in the Ministry of Housing,Communities and Local Government, and in theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.”That will give us the confidence that stuff is going tohappen, rather than waiting 14 years and then realisingwe are going to miss it.

George Monbiot: To add one small and specific thingto that, clause 86 contains what appears to be a veryheavy reliance on internal drainage boards and a potentialenhancement of their powers. Those drainage boardsare not accountable to any Government Department,so there is a remarkable democratic deficit there. If yougo ahead with clause 86 in its current form, you areeffectively letting go of governmental control over a veryimportant and large area. They are a quite extraordinary,almost feudal set of organisations; for instance, there isa property qualification for voting in internal drainageboard elections. They really are effectively a law untothemselves, with appalling environmental credentialsand very poor flood prevention credentials as well. Ifyou want departmental responsibility, I would disbandthe internal drainage boards—as they have done inWales—and bring their duties into the EnvironmentAgency or another statutory agency.

The Chair: I am afraid there will not be time for anyfurther questions; we have to move on. [Interruption.]Well, I am afraid we have a very tight timetable. I willtry to make it up subsequently to those who were unableto get in, but we have to conclude this session by 2.45,and it is now 2.44 and 35 seconds. Anybody who askeda question would be unlikely to get anything like acoherent answer in the time available, so we have toclose this session.

I thank our two witnesses for the benefit of theirexperience and the advice they have given. We are verygrateful. It has been useful and helpful to our deliberations.

Dr Benwell: Thank you.


Libby Peake and Richard McIlwain gave evidence.

2.45 pm

The Chair: We will now hear evidence from KeepBritain Tidy and the Green Alliance. We have until3.15 pm for this session. I ask our witnesses to brieflyintroduce themselves and their organisation.


Richard McIlwain: I am Richard McIlwain, deputychief executive of the charity Keep Britain Tidy. Wework on issues of litter, resource and waste consumption,sustainable living and the improvement of quality places.We ultimately want to see a zero-litter and zero-wastesociety.

Libby Peake: I am Libby Peake, head of resourcepolicy at Green Alliance, which is a charity and think-tankfocusing on ambitious leadership for the environment.To achieve that, we work with other NGOs, includingthrough the Greener UK coalition, as well as businesses,to identify the most resource-efficient policies.

Q167 Dr Whitehead: The framework I am lookingfor, particularly in the waste and resources section ofthe Bill, is something that encompasses all the stages ofthe waste hierarchy, and particularly reflects how thatwaste hierarchy is put forward in the waste and resourcesWhite Paper, which is supposed to be taken on board aspart of the Bill. Do you have any thoughts about theextent to which the Bill focuses on the design, reuse andminimisation stages of the waste hierarchy? If youthink that it does not fully do that, are there ways that itcould be made more useful in that respect? Do you haveany particular thoughts on how the Bill might be pointedmore in that direction?

Libby Peake: I think you are absolutely right. We wouldcertainly welcome the framing in the resources and wastestrategy, which is trying to maximise resource use andminimise waste—we think that is the right strategy. Thereare some things in the Bill that would lead in that direction.The resource efficiency clauses could be very useful.One of our concerns is that these are enabling measuresand we are not entirely sure how they will be used.

In terms of what has been talked about and debated,the focus has overwhelmingly been on municipal wasteand plastics. To give a bit of perspective, it is worthremembering that plastics make up about 10% of municipalwaste; municipal waste makes up about 12% to 13% ofall waste; and waste is the final stage of the materialcycle. Looking at the overall material impact that theUK is responsible for, 81% of the materials that meetfinal UK demand occur outside the UK. In terms ofmeasures that we would like to see in the Bill, which wethink could improve things, it would be really useful totake greater account of the global material footprint.That would send a powerful signal.

There are some simple measures in the Bill that couldpotentially be changed quite easily. The extended producerresponsibility clauses are welcome. The clauses themselveslook at things such as preventing material becomingwaste and products becoming waste. The overall framingof it, however, is still on end of life and disposal costs,which does not necessarily point people in the rightdirection in terms of preventing waste and respectingthe hierarchy.

I am sure that we will come on to the single-useplastics charge, which is also potentially worrying becauseit applies just to plastics. There are lots of other materialswith impacts that could be avoided if the Bill took abigger view towards that sort of thing.

Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. In many respects,all the key words and phrases are in the Bill, but it isabout looking for the joined-up flow from a wastehierarchy perspective.

To go back to clause 1, where it sets the idea oflong-term targets at 15 years-plus, it is very brief aboutwaste and resource. I wonder if there, in terms ofpainting a picture, it could outline the sorts of issuesthat we are looking to push targets towards, such asbecoming more resource efficient, reducing the amountof waste we produce overall, and improving our recyclingrates across the whole range of wastes.

As Libby says, when we talk about recycling rates, weoften talk about household waste and municipal waste,but a lot of inert waste and soil still go to landfill. Thereis an opportunity there to look more broadly across thewhole piece.

Libby touched on a number of points, including thespecific detail about extended producer responsibilityand charges for single-use plastics. There are opportunitiesthere to frame the language a bit more and, as Libbysaid, to be specific when we are talking about thingssuch as charges for single-use plastics. We should notget hung up on the issue of plastic. Plastic pollution isan issue, but plastic itself is a valuable material. Wewant to reduce consumption of it but keep what is inthe system going round and round as far as we can.That is where the targets that look at resource use, wasteminimisation and recycling will be key.

Q168 Dr Whitehead: Those are excellent succinctresponses. The circular economy directive already exists,but we are not now bound by it, as we are not an EUmember. Do the measures in the Bill reflect the UKmoving on from that directive—capturing what is in itand moving ahead of it? Are there things that could bedone in the Bill to ensure that that happens?

Libby Peake: The Government have said that they aregoing adopt the measures in the circular economy package,but we have not determined yet whether we are going toexactly match what the EU does in future. Yesterday,the EU published a circular economy action plan, whichwe will not be bound by. It is really welcome that theGovernment have said on multiple occasions that theywant to at least meet, and preferably exceed, what theEU does, but there are some ways in which the documentthat was released yesterday is potentially more ambitiousthan the measures laid out here.

One of the things in that document is that the EU isplanning to regulate and tax single use and plannedobsolescence, and it is not focused specifically on plastics.If the UK wants to get a jump on the EU, there is anopportunity to do that by simply changing the languagein the Bill so that we are tackling single use, rather thanjust single-use plastics.

Richard McIlwain: I agree that the EU has alreadytalked about an ambition, even by 2030, to halve wasteproduced. That is very ambitious, granted, by 2030, butthat is the level of ambition it is looking at.

As is always the case with enabling legislation, primaryActs, the devil will be in the detail of the statutoryinstruments, but there may well be some framing to doin the Bill to set the level of ambition about where weare ultimately trying to get to on the materials weconsume, the amount we recycle, and the amount ofwaste we produce.

Even in the circular economy package, there are sometargets that have been talked about in the resources andwaste strategy, such as 65% household waste recycling.We are currently bumping around 45%, so we have


some way to go, but Wales is up above 70%. Perhaps weshould be looking across at Wales as a leader, as muchas we look to the EU.

Libby Peake: An earlier leaked version of the circulareconomy action plan that was released yesterday includeda much more ambitious target, which was to halveresource use—not just halve residual waste. That didnot make it into the final version, but it would havebeen revolutionary. It was widely applauded by theenvironment sector. It has not made it into the EUlegislation, but that does not mean that the UK cannotaim for that and up its ambition. That is certainlysomething that we would like to see in the targets.

Q169 Rebecca Pow: On that point, one of the ideas isthat we can do our own thing on our environmentaltargets. We do not have to do what Europe says, andpotentially our targets could be better.

Yesterday, we had some business interests explaininghow the measures in the Bill would help them changethe design of their products so that they are morereusable and recyclable, longer lasting and so forth.What are your views on measures in the Bill that wouldhelp consumers to take more considered actions towardsreducing waste and recycling? I am thinking particularlyabout the requirement for local authorities to be moreconsistent in their waste collections.

Libby Peake: I would say that, in terms of recyclingcollections, a lot of the things that the Governmenthave proposed will certainly correct some of the long-standing shortcomings of the system we have had in theUK. We have a postcode lottery, because people do notnecessarily know what can be recycled and it is quiteconfusing.

In terms of getting people to feel responsible for theirdecisions and the materials they create, the main mechanismin the Bill that does that is the deposit return scheme,because that is the one thing that will indicate to peoplethat the material they have actually has a value; it isnot just a waste material that you need the council totake away. We would certainly encourage the Governmentto come forward as quickly as possible with plansfor an all-in deposit scheme that can encourage suchthinking.

Richard McIlwain: I completely agree. There hasbeen an awful lot of focus over the last few years onhow we incentivise business to do the right thing. Often,that is about economics and the bottom line, and wesometimes forget that that is equally important for thecitizen. We often come up with campaigns and ways toraise awareness—they involve pictures of dolphins andwhales—and we appeal to people’s sense of moralityrather than making it cheaper for them to do the rightthing.

Libby mentioned a deposit return scheme, whichworks brilliantly in over 40 countries and regions aroundthe world. We should absolutely be doing that on time,by 2023; we should not be delaying. Charges on single-useitems, not just single-use plastics, is another economicnudge for people. On recycling, there are twin sides ofthe coin. We need to extend producer responsibility andsimplify the types of packaging material, which willhopefully all be recyclable. On the other hand, having aharmonised collection system that allows people tocollect those at home will make a big difference.

One further step that could ultimately be consideredis whether you could place an economic incentive in thehome through a scheme such as “save as you recycle”.Once you have harmonised people’s collection systems,you would make waste a separate chargeable service, sopeople pay for what they have taken away—in the sameway that, if you are on a water meter, you pay for whatyou use. That would really focus minds. There is a realrelationship between the producer’s responsibility andthe citizen’s responsibility, but we need to incentiviseboth—not just business.

Libby Peake: That is a logical extension of the “polluterpays” principle. It is great that that is part of the Billand that part of Government thinking is that the pollutermust pay. At the moment, however, you are tacklingonly one side: the producers. People’s decisions producewaste as well, and not having “save as you recycle”variable charging, or what is traditionally called “pay asyou throw”, puts people off a bit. Not having that doesnot necessarily carry through the logic of producerresponsibility and “polluter pays”.

Q170 Rebecca Pow: I have a quickfire question. Wehave our resources and waste strategy, which sets ourlong-term targets for reducing waste and for sendingzero biodegradables to landfill by 2030. Overall, do yousee the measures in the waste and resources section ofthe Bill, which is large, as a big step forward in puttingall this together?

Libby Peake: I think it is a really big step forward insorting out the long-standing problems of the recyclingsystem. It is not yet clear how it will deliver theGovernment’s commitments and aspirations on wastereduction and resource use reduction. In a way, it isslightly unfortunate—not that I would want to thedelay the Bill—that this has come out before the wasteprevention plan update, which was due last year andwhich I understand will be consulted on soon. Hopefully,that will set out some more ambitious policies for howresource use and waste will be minimised before we getto recycling.

Richard McIlwain: That is a fair point. Absolutely,from a Keep Britain Tidy perspective, we welcome themeasures in the Bill. The extended producer responsibility,DRS and charging for single-use items—we hope it isnot just single-use plastic items—are big steps forward.As Libby says, in terms of extended producer responsibility,it talks about promoting not just recycling but refill.You would hope that the modulated sums applied toeach piece of packaging would be far less if an item canbe refilled or reused rather than simply recycled.

There does not seem to be much in there in terms ofhow we reduce our material footprint overall and howwe reduce our waste overall. That is probably an areathat we need to consider.

Q171 Deidre Brock: I want to ask about the targetstimeframe. In the Bill, the targets do not have to be metuntil 2037. Does that date reflect the urgency of thesituation we find ourselves in?

Richard McIlwain: In a word, no.

Q172 Deidre Brock: What do you think might be arealistic but slightly more ambitious target?


Richard McIlwain: The Bill allows for five-year plansand for interim targets within that. I do not believe theyare statutory targets. We should be looking at statutorytargets that are within a parliamentary cycle.

It is all very well having long-term, 15-year targets—thatis absolutely the right way; the Climate Change Act 2008is a classic example of that—but having statutory targetsthat are agreed at the beginning of each Parliament andthen enforced through that Parliament will be key, notjust in terms of arriving at the 15-year target, but interms of giving investors, business and others confidencethat they can invest in things that are not ultimatelygoing to be stranded assets.

Libby Peake: It is quite difficult to say, because we donot know what the targets are going to be. Obviouslywhatever the targets are, we want them to be as ambitiousas possible, and we want to have interim statutorytargets to make sure that we are meeting them, like youget with the Climate Change Act.

The Chair: We have 14 minutes left and six peoplewho want to use up that time. It is highly unlikely that Iwill get all six people in, but those who do get theopportunity to ask questions, please be as rapid aspossible.

Q173 Marco Longhi: Do you feel that sufficientconsideration has been given to the impact the Bill hason local authorities?

The Chair: That is exactly what I mean by a well-targetedquestion.

Richard McIlwain: I guess it depends what you meanby the impact on local authorities. If extended producerresponsibility transfers the costs of dealing withpackaging—whether it is in the recycling stream, theresidual waste stream or as litter—and if that is a100% net transfer and is fairly apportioned, that is a winfor local authorities.

I do think there is a transition period; we need tolook at how we transition from the systems we havetowards the systems that we may well need, for instancein terms of harmonising waste collections. There is arole for the Government in looking at where they canovercome some of those transition needs, such as incontractual matters—for example, if local authoritieslook to break contracts early to comply with the harmonisedsystems, because some of them will be in longer-termcontracts with the waste providers—to ensure that thecosts do not fall unfairly on local authorities.

Ultimately, what I say in my role—we work a lot withlocal authorities—is that local authorities should lookat this very positively. There are a lot of benefits comingdown the line, not just in terms of the cost transfer butin terms of the service that they can provide to citizens,such as allowing people to recycle more and better, aslong as those material cost considerations are ironedout early on.

Libby Peake: We know that local authorities areconcerned about the impacts of the Bill, but as Richsaid, what they need to remember is that the extendedproducer responsibility reform could really help them.We are moving from a system where local authoritiesand, ultimately, taxpayers pick up about 90% of thecosts for our recycling system to a system where theproducers pay 100% of the costs.

Certainly, in terms of how DEFRA officials havebeen looking at it and the consultations we have seen sofar, they are very aware that they do not want tonegatively impact local authorities. If you look at thingslike the commitment to bring in universal food wastecollections, which is an incredibly important bit of thislegislation, they have said that that will be fully funded.That is really important.

Q174 Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op):The Government have brought forward legislation toban certain types of single-use plastics, including straws,cotton buds and stirrers. Last year I ran a campaign inmy constituency called “Sachet Away”, which reducedthe use of single-use sauce sachets. How do you thinkthe Bill could help in that? You mentioned charges,Richard. What do you think the effects of the Billwill be?

My second question, quickly, is that on theEnvironmental Audit Committee we had a lot of evidence,including from Zero Waste Vietnam, that our waste thatwas being exported was not being recycled or reprocessed,but was literally being dumped. Do you think that theBill can raise people’s confidence that that that will nolonger happen?

Richard McIlwain: Yes, that is ultimately what weshould strive for the ambition to be. When we talk aboutsingle-use plastics, we must also remember cigarettesand cigarette butts, which are a form of single-useplastic. By count—by the number of them—they arethe most widely littered item across the country. Thereis no reason, for instance, that an extended producerresponsibility scheme could not be applied to the tobaccoindustry as much as to the packaging industry. Let usget some money in to sort that issue out, and planprevention campaigns to stop that sort of littering.

Evidence from Cardiff University, Wouter Poortingaand others suggests that citizens respond more stronglyto the idea of a loss than a benefit. I would argue that iswhy there is single-digit use of refillable coffee cups, ascompared with paper cups. The discount is not attractiveto people, and not many people know that if you turnedthat into a charge, every single person buying coffeewould be subject to that charge, and it would get homemuch more quickly.

We did some YouGov polling—it is two years oldnow—which suggests that once you get to a 20p or25p charge, not many people say that they would like tocontinue paying that for the benefit of having a papercup. If we get this right and we look across the spectrumof single-use items, plastic items and cigarette butts,and apply extended producer responsibility chargingand deposits correctly, those economic incentives couldmake a big difference, and we could take the publicwith us.

Libby Peake: I would like to add to the bans andcharges point. Bans on stirrers, cotton buds and strawsabsolutely make sense, because those things are likely towind up in the ocean. In advance of those bans comingin, we have seen lots of shifts to other equally unnecessarysingle-use items made from other materials. McDonald’sis now switching from plastic straws to 1.8 millionstraws a day that are made out of paper and are notrecyclable. We know that bans will cause environmentalproblems down the line that could be avoided if we usedforesight now. It would be great if the Government took


that stance and did not simply look at plastics. They cananticipate the perverse outcomes that we know arecoming, and that can be prevented right now if weintroduce the possibility of charging for all materials.

In terms of waste dumping, it is important to rememberthat it is absolutely illegal for the UK to send pollutingplastic and polluting waste abroad. We are an independentsignatory to what is called the Basel convention, whichobliges wealthy countries such as the UK to ensure thatwe are not sending any material abroad if we havereason to believe that it will not be reprocessed in anenvironmentally sound manner. It is welcome that theGovernment are saying that they want to stop thepractice, but what really needs to be done to stop it ismuch better resourcing of the Environment Agencyand the other sorts of regulatory bodies. The EA’sfunding went down by 57% from 2010 to 2019, and thathas had the knock-on effect of not allowing it to carryout the necessary inspections and ensure that this sortof waste crime, or this sort of contamination, is notleaving our shores. In 2016-17, it only carried out aboutone third of the targeted inspections of recyclers andexporters. In 2017-18, it only carried out three unannouncedinspections. There is a vanishingly small possibility thatpeople who are deliberately exporting contaminatedwaste are going to get caught. I think that speaks to theimportance of properly regulating and resourcing allthe regulators and the Office for Environmental Protectiongoing forward.

The Chair: We are really running short of time now,so I am going to take two questions and put them to thewitnesses. First, Richard Graham, and then JessicaMorden.

Q175 Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): My questionswill be very quick, but they are separate ones for youboth, if that is all right, Chairman, and please—swiftanswers.

Richard, you have said how important it is to havethe cost of collecting waste separated, so that peopleknow what they are paying for, are incentivised and soon. Do you think that those opportunities are actuallyin the council tax? That is what people are really paying,is it not?

Richard McIlwain: Yes, they are under council tax,and because they are under council tax—

The Chair: Sorry, I did say that we would take twoquestions first. Jessica Morden.

Q176 Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab): Veryquickly, as a Welsh MP, thanks for pointing out thatthere are lessons to learn on recycling from Wales, asthe fourth best recycling nation in the world. Are theprovisions in the Bill effective in tackling fly-tippingand organised waste crime?

Richard Graham: My question was only for Richard.

Richard McIlwain: It is within the council tax—absolutely.People sometimes think that they pay an awful lot forwaste disposal, when actually it is quite small as anoverall approach to council tax. I would perhaps like tosee local authorities being more obvious about the waythat council tax breaks down. I know that sometimesyou get a letter with your council tax bill and a nice little

pie chart, but I think we could be more active inexplaining to people exactly what that tax does, whichwould then allow us at some point to break out waste asa chargeable service, as people would be used to it bythen and would see the cost. Also, potentially, theywould see the benefits of reducing their waste andhaving a smaller residual waste bin, because it will savethem money.

Do you want me to say more, on fly-tipping?

Q177 Jessica Morden: Yes, fly-tipping and organisedwaste crime.

Richard McIlwain: The Bill touches on elements offly-tipping. I think the electronic waste tracking will bea big step forward, but again there are some people whosimply do not bother with a written transfer or anelectronic system, no matter what. I think it will makethe system more effective and more efficient, but I alsothink that there is work to do to think about how wedrive down 1 million fly-tipping incidents every year.

What we need to do, in my opinion, is reform thesystem of carriers, brokers and dealers, so that it ismuch harder to become a registered waste carrier. Iwould then have a big national campaign that makespeople aware that if they give their waste to anyone whois not a registered waste carrier, they can receive a£400 fine, or potentially a criminal conviction, becausefar too few people are aware of that. Make the systembetter and more robust, and make people aware thatthey should ask about the system, and I think you couldcut off the source of waste to fly-tippers at the verybeginning.

Richard Graham: Next, for Libby, if I may—

The Chair: Sorry, is this an additional question?

Q178 Richard Graham: Yes, I had one question forRichard and one for Libby.

Libby, clauses 49 and 50 spell out in huge detail theopportunities for businesses to consider redesigningtheir products in a more environmentally friendly way.The Bill also talks about food collection, not only fromhouseholds but from businesses. What encouragementdo you think that gives to businesses to redesign products,and also to local councils to get stuck into anaerobicdigesters?

The Chair: Before you answer that, can I bring inAbena Oppong-Asare to ask a very quick question, andthen it will be the final two?

Q179 Abena Oppong-Asare: Mine will be very quick,Chair. What powers, duties and resources does the Billneed to clean up litter on highways and road verges?

Libby Peake: The resource efficiency clauses are welcome,and they are very broad. They are deliberately broad,and they can affect lots of things throughout the materialslife cycle. At the moment, it is really difficult to say whatsort of impact that will have on businesses, becausethere is no clear timeline yet for implementing any ofthese powers; they are enabling powers, and we do notknow how they will be used.

One thing that is slightly concerning, which I hopethe Government can clarify, is whether or not thesesorts of powers and this sort of ambition will also apply


to energy-using products—to creating resource-efficient,durable, repairable electronics. That is one of the fastestgrowing waste streams. Those are the areas that youwould most likely think would be useful. They havebeen deliberately left out of the Bill, on the grounds thatthose powers are coming to the UK through the withdrawalAct, but I do not think it is yet clear whether theambition on energy-using products matches the ambitionand the potential in the Bill to change how materialsand products are used and made.

The Chair: Can we have a 10-second answer to Abena’squestion, if possible?

Richard McIlwain: Very quickly, roadside litter is anabsolute disgrace. Most people agree on that. I wouldlike Highways England to be given the powers andresources to enforce against littering. Local authoritiesneed more resource to undertake the necessary work,because it is a very transient crime. A deposit returnscheme, given that lots of cans and bottles get thrownout of cars, may damp down littering. Picking litter upis one thing; preventing it from being thrown in the firstplace is another.

The Chair: Thank you very much.


Dr Michael Warhurst, Bud Hudspith and Nishma Patelgave evidence.

3.16 pm

The Chair: We will now hear oral evidence from theCHEM Trust, the Chemical Industries Association andUnite. We have until 4 pm. I ask the three witnesses tointroduce themselves briefly and state which organisationthey represent.

Dr Warhurst: My name is Michael Warhurst. I amthe executive director of CHEM Trust, which is anenvironmental charity that works on chemicals healthand pollution at UK and EU levels.

Bud Hudspith: My name is Bud Hudspith. I am thenational health and safety adviser for the trade unionUnite.

Nishma Patel: I am Nishma Patel, policy director atthe Chemical Industries Association.

Q180 Dr Whitehead: Good afternoon. My reading ofschedule 19 to the Bill is that it enables the Secretary ofState to change REACH—the registration, evaluation,authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—although there are a number of protected areas withinit. However, the schedule does not appear to requireconsultation with the chemicals industry or wider publicbodies that might have an interest, or that any consultationresponses be made public. Are you, like me, concernedabout that omission, or do you think that the way theBill is structured regarding the possibility of changeand consultation is adequate given the importance ofthe issues?

Nishma Patel: For us, it is—

The Chair: Sorry, may I stop you there? The acousticsare very bad in this room, so may I ask our witnesses tospeak up a little?

Nishma Patel: Okay. For us, it is about the detailbehind how the schedule will be implemented. At themoment, there is no clarity on consultation and howthat will take place. We would like to know the policybehind UK REACH, how it will be implemented, andexactly how it will work—not just the protected parts,but the entire UK REACH regime. We, as industry, seea number of issues—perhaps others see them as well—onwhich further consultation will probably be required.For us, it is about clarity on the process behind it.

Bud Hudspith: I think there are some broad requirementsin the Bill to consult, but they are very broad, andspecify something like “other possible stakeholders”.We would like to see much more formal and arrangedconsultation. In the area I largely work in, health andsafety in the workplace, we are used to being consulted.We think it is a very useful way for Governments to findout what is actually going on on the ground, so wewould welcome that. I agree with you: we would like tosee a slightly tighter indication of who should be consultedand when.

Dr Warhurst: The CHEM Trust position is that weagree with that. The consultation is limited, and theconsultation on this measure as a whole has been limited;for example, there was no consultation on which protectedarticles should be in there, and there has been norationale as to why those are protected and others arenot. We are very involved in EU-level work on chemicals,and we find that process is a lot more open and consultativethan the UK process.

Q181 Dr Whitehead: On the subject of protectedarticles, I share your view: I am somewhat mystified asto how those have landed on the Bill in this way, andabout what is protected and what is not. Are thereparticular areas that you consider ought to be in the Billas protected articles, in addition to the ones that wehave at the moment, and are there any ways in whichyou think the protection element of REACH regulations—securing proper standards, inter-trading of chemicalsand so on—might be better reflected in the Bill, or doyou think the protected articles that there are at themoment fulfil that requirement?

Dr Warhurst: On the protected articles, REACH is ahuge piece of legislation. You could decide to protecteverything, but that might cause some problems. One ofthe things we particularly noticed is that article 33 ofREACH is about consumers’ right to know about themost hazardous chemicals in the product, and article 34is an obligation on the supply chain to report problemswith chemicals up the chain. Those would certainly beadded to what we would view as protected.

However, it goes beyond that; as you said, it is aboutthe level of protection for the public. The problem withchemicals regulation is that we are dealing with tens ofthousands of chemicals in millions of different products.It is a very complex area, and it has been very challengingover the decades as Governments and regions have triedto control them. EU REACH is the most sophisticatedsystem in the world, but it still has a huge amount ofwork to do. There are a lot of chemicals to be gotthrough, because when one chemical gets restricted, theindustry moves to a very similar one. Our worry is thatsome of the decisions around that require huge amountsof work and data, and are subject to legal challenge byindustry. We do not see any way in which the UK can


replicate that system. In many ways, it would be morestraightforward—although possibly not in terms of legalchallenge—to be more focused on following what theEU does, rather than trying to create another systemthat to some extent may be a bit of a hollow shell, becausethere is not the resource to really control new chemicals.

Bud Hudspith: I pretty much agree with that. I do notthink I need to add much to it.

Nishma Patel: Again, this comes back to the processand detail behind the Secretary of State being able toconsult, who the consultation is with, and how it wouldtake place. One point to consider is that anything thatwould be changed under UK REACH overall—anyarticle—would have tso be in line with article 1 ofREACH, which is about providing the highest standardof environmental protection to consumers, as well asreducing testing where possible. It is not about theprinciple of “Is there a possibility for the regulations todigress, because a justification needs to be provided?” Itis about how that will be consulted on, and how thatinformation will inform policy making in the UK throughvarious stakeholders.

Q182 Rebecca Pow: Thank you very much for comingin to talk to us. Obviously, exiting the EU provides uswith opportunities for industry, such as integrating themost current scientific knowledge into the decisions wemake concerning chemicals. In the Bill, we have theflexibility to amend REACH while retaining its aimsand principles; I just wondered whether you couldsummarise what you thought the right balance was.

Nishma Patel: From an industry perspective, if welook at the trade of chemicals leaving and coming backto the UK, 50% of our trade goes to the EuropeanUnion and 75% comes to the UK. To work from twopieces of legislation, which go in the same direction,communicate with each other and co-operate, makessense from a commercial perspective, as it does from anenvironmental perspective.

The opportunities are there, in terms of doing somethingdifferently or making amendments. As it stands, however,we see that the need to stay close to the Europeanchemicals regulations far outweighs the opportunities.

Bud Hudspith: I think we are coming from a similarposition. We start from the basis that alignment is oneof the most important things. We have interesting problems.We have members in the south of Ireland as well as inthe rest of the UK. It would be pretty unacceptable tous if there were different protections, in terms of chemicals,for those two groups of people. That extends from abroader view across the whole of Europe among peopleat work.

I would agree with Nishma that alignment is mostimportant. We accept that in theory there could beimprovement made through the UK position, but Isuppose I am a bit cynical about whether that is likely tohappen. Therefore, we would be supportive of—I thinkan amendment was proposed—making it clear that theMinister needs to improve on what is there. Clearly,however, consultation about what we believe is animprovement and what is not is quite important, becausean improvement to someone may not be seen by othersas an improvement.

Q183 Rebecca Pow: So do you welcome the requirementin schedule 5 for consultation?

Bud Hudspith: Yes, we welcome that. That was thepoint made before. Parts of it are fairly vague and wewould like it to be much clearer as to who should beinvolved. There should be clear consultation with thechemical industry—the people who work in the chemicalindustry and the people who represent them.

Dr Warhurst: The principles sound good, but thepoint of principles is how they are interpreted—not justthe political decisions about interpretation, but thesecapacity issues. The problem we see is that it is verydifficult for the UK to be in a position, even if it wantedto, to go ahead of the EU, which we have not seen asvery likely. In parallel areas, such as chemicals and foodcontact materials, where the UK could have gone aheadof the EU, it has not, even though countries such asGermany, Belgium and France have.

I will give a practical example. Perfluorinated chemicalsare in all our bodies. They are in our blood. They weretalked about in a recent film, “Dark Waters”. They arein food packaging, ski wax and textiles. The EU isproposing to do a general restriction on these chemicalsfor non-essential users. This is thousands of chemicals.That will be a huge job for the 600-person ECHA andmember states around the EU. There will be challengesfrom industry. We know that Chemours is alreadychallenging a decision on one of the chemicals in thegroup.

We do not see it as credible that a UK-only agency,which will have to spend a lot of time just administeringthe registration system that is set up or the applicationsfor authorisation, will really have the potential to copythat. But we would obviously like the Government tomake a commitment that they will follow this and banthese chemicals.

Q184 Kerry McCarthy: I want to pursue the questionabout whether we would be better off in or out ofREACH. Do you think there are concerns that the newregime would not provide the same level of consumerenvironmental protection? There is a particular issueabout keeping pace with changes in the EU and whetherour standards would fall below it. Do you have concerns?

Bud Hudspith: I would follow on from Michael’spoint. We have concerns about the resources availableto the Health and Safety Executive and the technicalability of people in the HSE to mirror what has gone inthe European Chemicals Agency, its size and extent,and the amount of work that has gone on over manyyears to get to the position that it is in now.

It seems as though we will be in a situation where wewill start again from scratch. Even if we achieve whathas been achieved in ECHA, it will take us many yearsto get there. We are worried, especially about thatintervening period. Where will we be? I do a lot of workwith the HSE, and I am aware of the kind of pressuresit is under. It is easy to say that the HSE will do this, orthat the HSE will do other things, but unless it is giventhe resources and people to do that, it is words ratherthan action.

Q185 Kerry McCarthy: There is a balance betweengetting up to speed dealing with current regulations andkeeping pace with innovation, which presumably willhave an impact on some of the industries that youmight be involved in.


Bud Hudspith: Yes. The position with the EU—ECHA—is that it has come an awful long way. We aregetting to the stage where it is probably working betterthan it has before, and I do not want to wait anotherfive years to get to that position in the UK. It may takemore than that—I do not know whether or not it will befive years.

Q186 Kerry McCarthy: This is part and parcel of thesame question—

The Chair: Sorry, Kerry, but we are a little short oftime.

Kerry McCarthy: I was trying to clarify what I wasasking about.

The Chair: Very briefly.

Kerry McCarthy: The UK, in “The Future Relationshipwith the EU” document, talks about“the separate regulatory requirements of the two markets”.

What impact would that have on the chemicals industry,if there is that level of divergence—or is it about tryingto keep up?

Nishma Patel: Following on from what Bud said,REACH has been there for 10 years, and a big chunk ofthe work under REACH has been done in the past10 years. The UK contribution has been second in that,in terms of registrations and in providing the databehind the chemicals. To start that process again wouldput us on a behind path on EU REACH and REACHin general.

The annex, in what we see of the UK position at themoment, allows for the two regulations to co-operate,to talk to each other, if that is the way the negotiationsgo. It might also allow a mechanism to share data,evidence, on the input put into the European ChemicalsAgency database. It is not completely negative. Thedoor is still open in terms of starting from the sameevidence base and regulating chemicals; it is just howUK REACH will work—that will depend on what isnegotiated in that annex on chemicals, and the extent ofthe co-operation.

Dr Warhurst: We would agree with many of thepoints that have been made. We have to remember that,at the beginning of the process, the UK will essentiallyhave an empty database and will be asking for materialto be submitted to it from industry. There are already alot of complaints from industry about the new coststhat that will generate—for the chemical companies thatare used to doing it, and then for all the people whoimport substances registered in REACH in a differentcountry, who will suddenly have to register as well.There is a lot of cost to get a database that, even when itis full—in two years or however long—will be much lessdetailed than the EU one.

It is worth saying that the UK is already not good atenforcing chemicals laws at the moment. We talk a lotabout the risk-based approach in the UK regulations,but we did a survey a couple of years ago of howcouncils were enforcing the laws on the safety ofconsumers—toys with illegal levels of phthalate chemicals,for example—and we found that large numbers of councilsdo no testing at all, and that even the ones that do sometesting do not do much. Yet, when they do testing, theyfind lots of failure. We know that banned chemicals are

on our high streets and in our markets, now. That reallydoes not give us confidence that somehow there will bethis amazing leap in UK capacity to implement andenforce these laws.

Q187 Marco Longhi: What are your views, please, onthe safeguards in the Bill to protect against deteriorationof chemical standards?

Bud Hudspith: I must admit that I was not clear whatthe safeguards were. Broadly speaking, we are supportiveof the Bill and the things that it is trying to do. Ourdoubts lie with how deliverable that is and what resourcesand expertise the UK is able to apply. As I saw it, theredid not seem to be too many safeguards. I was aware,again, of the amendment whereby at least there is someeffort to institute safeguards.

Clearly, large parts of the REACH regulations arebeing transferred into the UK position. An example isthat the stuff on data sheets, which is currently heldwithin the EU REACH regulations, is going to betransferred into the UK REACH regulations, and thatis fine. There are lots of things that we are happy with inrespect of the change. I suppose that, on a broaderlevel, we would like to see huge improvements to thespeed at which things are done and the way things areregulated, but whether that is going to happen is, Ithink, questionable.

Dr Warhurst: We would back that position. Theproblem is that the Bill is so much about a process, andthe process itself has no targets and timelines. It doesnot say, “You will assess this many chemicals each year.You will check this many chemicals.” This is a problemat EU level. There has been pressure, and now it has setits own targets and is doing much more.

The danger is that you end up with this sort of hollowsystem here. It exists in theory, but if the system doesnot say, “Actually, this chemical is not adequately controlledso we are going to restrict it,” it could essentially just sitdoing very little, dealing with all the things that it needsto exist, and you end up with something that is hollow.

We are already in a situation where you can have achemical such as bisphenol A in till receipts; you banthat; and then the industry moves to bisphenol S. This isdemonstrated with tonnage data. That is what hashappened in the EU, and the EU has not yet restrictedbisphenol S; it is just going to define it as a reproductivetoxin, hopefully in the next few months. These thingsare happening. Movement is happening. The market ismoving from one chemical to another. Will the regulatormove? We have no evidence. There is no obligation inthe Bill for the regulator to actually do new restrictionsor new authorisations.

The Chair: I think that this might be the last questionto these witnesses.

Q188 Richard Graham: There has been quite a lot ofdiscussion about the value of creating a UK REACH,but in a sense the principles behind those decisions havealready been established, so the key thing now is reallyall about implementation. I welcome the fact, Mr Hudspith,that you are broadly supportive of schedule 19, which isreally all about—

Bud Hudspith: We are broadly supportive of thewhole Bill. We have lots of interest in other aspects ofthe Bill as well.


Richard Graham: Good. But you are supportive of it,I think you said.

Bud Hudspith: Broadly.

Q189 Richard Graham: So what is there in schedule 19that causes you concern, other than the greatest fearbeing fear itself ? You have made a huge contribution toREACH. It has not always been popular with UKbusinesses. There have been plenty of complaints overthe last decade. REACH has not done anything andeverything perfectly, as we all know, so surely you haveconfidence that, with the range of businesses that wehave in this sector, we can create a regulatory body thatcan do a good job—or do you think that we are now soincompetent that we cannot?

Bud Hudspith: In principle, REACH has been morepopular with people such as Unite and various tradeunions than it has with many parts of the UK chemicalbusiness. What is interesting is that, in spite of all thecomplaints in the past about REACH, once REACHwas under threat it was clear that industry was muchmore supportive of its continuance. We support verymuch what people such as the Chemical IndustriesAssociation are saying and what the chemical businessis saying. Obviously, we have members who work in thechemical industry and we want a strong, thriving chemicalindustry, because we want it to employ people whatever.

On a secondary level, we are also concerned aboutsome of the things that Michael was raising about thehazards of various chemicals. Although REACH ispredominantly environmental, that has a knock-on effectfor workplace requirements. If you have a chemical thatis on the list or is banned—those things need to happen—itaffects our members.

Q190 Richard Graham: I get that, but I am interestedin why you think that will be more dangerous under UKregulations than the existing REACH ones.

Bud Hudspith: Predominantly because of the resourcesand the expertise.

Q191 Richard Graham: But the resources, in terms ofthe councils that Dr Warhurst was just describing, havenot been there as it is. Why will it suddenly deteriorate?

Bud Hudspith: Do we accept a position where thingsare massively bad and say, “We’ll carry on with thingsbeing bad”? That is nonsense.

Q192 Richard Graham: No, but you could take theview that this is an opportunity to increase and dothings better.

Bud Hudspith: I think I have already said that, intheory, that is the case, but we are very doubtful aboutwhether that will actually happen.

Q193 Richard Graham: Dr Warhurst, what is yourposition? You have said that you are worried that thereare chemicals on the high street that are not great,because we do not have people from the council wanderingaround having a look at them and so on. What is yoursolution to that?

Dr Warhurst: There are two different issues. There isthe enforcement of the laws, which is about what thecouncils are doing and the fact that there is no real

national co-ordination of that. That has been entirelythe UK Government’s decision, inasmuch as it has beenan active decision. That is different from the broaderregulatory system. The councils example shows that theUK has not been very effective in this area so far.

On the broader regulatory system, you can put a lotof people in an agency, but they will start with an emptydatabase, and we are dealing with more than 20,000chemicals in many applications. It is also wrong toassume that there is no opportunity for close collaborationwith REACH. The UK currently talks about some sortof memorandum of understanding. Our view would bethat it needs to go further up from the countries that itis mentioning at the moment that do not have access.

Q194 Richard Graham: That is a lobbying opportunity,effectively, for you in the chemicals sector, with thenegotiators and so on. At this stage, in terms of what isin schedule 19, is there anything that gives you concern?

Dr Warhurst: Yes, a lot of it gives us concern, becausewe are not convinced that it will provide the protectionof public health. The consultation is very limited. Theidea that you can replicate REACH—

Q195 Richard Graham: How many UK officials arethere in REACH at the moment?

Dr Warhurst: I do not have the figures. I know thatECHA is about 600 at the moment. It was said, a yearago, that the EA and HSE would have something like£13 million a year in full operation. You are dealingwith 23,000 chemicals and however many registrations.

Q196 Richard Graham: Nishma Patel, in your view—itis the easiest thing, and I understand it, for everyone tosay, “We’re very worried it won’t turn out quite as wellas the Government hope it will,” and, “What’s in theEnvironment Bill looks fine, but how’s it actually goingto work?”. What is the opportunity, rather than just theconcern?

Nishma Patel: In terms of UK REACH in particular?

Richard Graham: Yes, in terms of UK REACH, theEnvironment Bill and the measures in it.

Nishma Patel: We think the measures in the EnvironmentBill are adequate and appropriate, primarily because wehave article 1 in REACH, which protects the regulationitself. In terms of opportunities, the biggest opportunityfor UK REACH is essentially to try to look at what thenational issues are, in terms of environmental protection,and to look to address them. That could potentially bein the UK chemicals strategy that is being developedand is under consideration.

The Chair: I think this will be the last question.

Q197 Alex Sobel: It is interesting that this is the firstpanel where we have had representatives from the ownershipand the workforce of the industry. The chemicals industryis huge in this country, with a turnover of £32 billionand more than 100,000 workers. It also has a lot ofworkers who are highly skilled and on good wages andterms and conditions, as I am sure Bud would agree.Does the Bill go far enough, first, to protect jobs andworkers in the industry and, secondly, in terms of thebusiness and the potential additional costs to businessthat could affect the industry?


Nishma Patel: For us, the Bill and some of theamendments that we have seen so far are doing what isintended around environmental protection. The onlyother thing that I would ask to be considered is theother justified reasons, for which, as we have seen underEU REACH and under UK REACH so far, regulationshave had to be amended. For example, the EuropeanCommission put forward regulations around data sharingand cost sharing to ensure that there is a level playingfield on the cost of data between different businessesand how that has all been shared.

Some of the changes that may come forward under aUK REACH may not just be environment-related. UKREACH has itself been amended twice to help itsimplementation and workability, so there are otherreasons for that regulation to be changed, particularlybecause we have not yet implemented. Fair enough, it isa transposition of an existing regulation, but we arealready doing it slightly differently to EU REACH.

The Chair: We do not have any further questions, so Ithank the three witnesses. It has been a really usefulsession, and we are very grateful for the expertise thatyou brought to our deliberations. Thank you very much.


Lloyd Austin, Alison McNab and John Bynorth gaveevidence.

3.47 pm

The Chair: I welcome the three witnesses. Thank youfor taking the time and trouble to come and act aswitnesses before the Committee. I hope that startingslightly earlier has not inconvenienced you too much.The session has to conclude by 5 pm, although it doesnot have to go on until then if there are insufficientquestions. We will open the questioning with Dr AlanWhitehead.

Q198 Dr Whitehead: Good afternoon, ladies andgentlemen. The Bill contains many sections that run onfrom a central theme and have what looks like prettycomprehensive legislation for the Scottish Government,the Welsh Government and the Northern IrelandAdministration. I appreciate that you may have to act asa proxy for everybody rather than just for Scotland.

One of my concerns, about which I do not knowenough, is the extent to which we are putting things inthe Environment Bill and expecting everything to happenin the same way in all the different Governments andAdministrations within the UK, which all clearly havequite different practices. Are you confident that the Bill,certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, will enable usto have UK-wide environmental protection standardsthat are good for everybody, bearing in mind thatspecies, waste and various other things do not worrytoo much about borders and are of particular concernto the whole of this part of the world? Are you happythat the Bill does that job, or are there things that couldgo into it to better reflect the particular circumstancesin different parts of the UK, particularly for the ScottishGovernment?

The Chair: Before anybody answers, I neglected toask people to introduce themselves, so would you perhapsmake up for my deficiency by introducing yourselves asyou go along?

Lloyd Austin: We are all looking at each other to seewho goes first. My name is Lloyd Austin. I am anhonorary fellow of Scottish Environment LINK andconvener of Scottish Environment LINK’s governancegroup.

My answer to the question is that it depends. Differentparts of the Bill work in different ways. It is clear thatenvironment has been devolved for the whole time.Lots of environmental regulations and, as you say,practices differ between the Administrations already,and they will continue to do so. On the other hand,there is also a need, as you rightly say, for properco-ordination, co-operation and joint working, so wewould encourage all those things. In a way, it is not forus to comment on whether the devolution settlement orany other constitutional arrangement is right or wrong;we simply try to encourage the Administrations, inwhatever arrangement there is, to try to achieve the bestenvironmental outcome.

There are different ways of doing that for differentthings in the Bill. On the EU environmental principles,we have a question mark about how they are applied inScotland and Wales in relation to reserved matters; thatseems to be a gap in the Bill. We understand that theScottish Government are bringing forward their ownlegislation in relation to the EU environmental principles,which will apply, obviously, to devolved matters. That ispositive and welcome, but we would encourage theAdministrations to work together to try to agree someform of statement about how those principles, whichare the same at the moment because they are in theLisbon treaty and therefore apply to all Administrations,will operate coherently across the piece and how theywill replicate, in a sense, the way they work at themoment. We believe there are discussions between theAdministrations about that at the moment, but it wouldbe useful to stakeholders for such a thing to be consultedon before the different bits of legislation get finishedoff.

John Bynorth: I am John Bynorth, policycommunications officer at Environmental ProtectionScotland. Certainly, devolution is one of the main challengesfacing the UK legislation that is coming in. It is importantto ensure that standards are common between the differentcountries. There is no point having one set of standardsin England and not having the same standards in Scotland.Ministers and civil servants in London, Edinburgh,Cardiff and Northern Ireland should talk to each otherto ensure consistency, so we do not end up with twodifferent types of air quality policy, for example, whichcould be quite damaging, and just in general, as Lloydsaid, in respect of environmental standards.

The SNP Government launched their environmentalstrategy for Scotland last month. They have made itvery clear that they will retain or even try to exceed theEU standards that we have just left behind by leavingBrussels. They have been a lot clearer on that. We donot see so much of that in the UK Environment Bill.Those are important distinctions. On the clampdownon domestic burning—the sale of solid wood fuels andwet wood—you cannot have two different policies inEngland and Scotland, for example, because somebodywould just sell something across the border that wasillegal in England. We need to have a look at things likethat and to ensure that people are talking to each otherand that the links we have are maintained.


Alison McNab: I am Alison McNab. I am a policyexecutive with the Law Society of Scotland. We are theprofessional body for solicitors in Scotland and have aninterest not only in representing our own members butin acting in the public interest.

Your question raises an interesting point. It is important,of course, to bear in mind that deviation is a naturalconsequence of devolution. Equally, I agree with thecomments by both Lloyd and John that there is merit inconsistency and coherence in the approach. We knowthat, in attempting to avoid regulatory tourism, thereare aspects where Scotland may be said to be slightlyahead. In Scotland, we have seen regulations on theintroduction of a deposit and return scheme.

In terms of the Bill, Lloyd made a point about theenvironmental principles, and how reserved functionsof UK Ministers in Scotland will be dealt with. Weanticipate Scottish legislation in the coming weeks. Thatmay give some clarity around that. There may beopportunities where the consistency of the work of theOffice for Environmental Protection can be strengthened.There are provisions in clause 24 of the Bill about arequirement for the OEP to consult, and an exemptionfrom the restriction on disclosing information in clause 40.There is potential scope for strengthening those provisions.

In relation to everything else in the Bill and commonframeworks around environmental matters more generally,the extent to which consistency is sought is somewhat ofa political matter for the Joint Ministerial Committee togive consideration to. At the moment, it appears clearthat there is a desire to achieve consistency on at least anumber of environmental matters.

Q199 Rebecca Pow: Thank you for coming. We havehad extensive consultation already with all the devolvedAdministrations, which you welcome. Each of the areasis choosing to opt in or out of different parts of the Bill.The Scottish Government have opted in to some areas.How do you think being part of the Bill would benefitcitizens of Scotland?

John Bynorth: Obviously, there are different laws inScotland, particularly regarding regulation. They shoulddefinitely work more closely together, liaising betweenthe Office for Environmental Protection and the bodythat has just been announced by the Cabinet Secretaryfor Environment in Scotland, Roseanna Cunningham,which will be set up as a similar sort of regulatory andenforcement body. It will be good to have the twotalking to each other, so they can learn from eachother’s experiences. We should not have two distinctbodies that do not pick up the phone and talk to eachother between Edinburgh and Bristol, or wherever theOEP will be based. We can see closer co-operationbetween the two, just to ensure that the whole of theUK is covered.

Things such as air pollution do not respect boundaries—itis a bit like the coronavirus, except it does not evenrespect inequality: it affects the poorest and those withunderlying health conditions more than anyone else.Anything that is learned or being put into place by theUK Government should be taken up by the ScottishGovernment and vice versa, because they are doing alot of work to improve air quality through air qualitymanagement areas. There are 38 in Scotland; they areintroducing four low emission zones for the main citiesin Scotland, to reduce the amount of transport pollution.

I see a lot of opportunities there. Politics should notcome into it; whether there is an SNP Government, or aConservative Government here, should be disregarded,because air pollution and the environment affect people’shealth. We are talking about it more from an air qualityperspective. There are other views as well.

Rebecca Pow: Potentially, water would be the same.

Lloyd Austin: First of all, I agree with John about theneed for the OEP and the Scottish body, whatever it iscalled, to have stronger powers and duties to co-operateand liaise. If a citizen of Scotland wishes to raise anissue and they go to the wrong body, it is very importantthat that body is able to pass on their complaint orconcern. That relates to my earlier point about reservedmatters. It is obvious that the citizens of Scotland willlook to the UK Government and the Bill to address anyreserved matters that fall within the definition ofenvironmental law under the Bill.

It is not for us to say whether a matter should orshould not be reserved. We would like what is reservedto be more transparent. There are quite a lot of discussionsabout which areas of environmental law are reserved.That is not very clear to citizens at this stage. The OEPwill be responsible for reserved matters under the Bill asdrafted, but as I indicated there is a lack of clarity aboutthe application of the principles to them. The Committeemight want to look at that, to see whether that gapcould be filled.

As was commented on earlier, devolution leads todifferences. There were differences between Scotlandand the rest of the UK before devolution, when we hadthe Scottish Office and administrative devolution, andthat has continued. From an environmental point ofview, we would like those differences to lead to a race tothe top rather than a race to the bottom. The more thateach of the Administrations can lead the way andencourage others to follow suit, the better.

For instance, you indicated, Minister, that the ScottishGovernment have opted in to some and not other partsof the Bill. I think that is fine. It is very welcome thatthey are moving faster on a deposit return scheme. Onthe other hand, it looks as though there is agreement onextended producer responsibility, and all Administrationswill move together. I hope that the race to the top willencourage all Administrations to move faster. The factthat the Scottish Government have moved faster andfurther on a deposit return scheme will encourage theother three, and vice versa. In relation to England, theBill does some very positive things regarding biodiversityand the recovery of nature, and the setting of targets. Iwould argue that the Scottish Government could learnfrom that and then go beyond it.

Q200 Rebecca Pow: I am sure we will learn somelessons from watching your deposit return scheme. Thatwill prove useful.

Alison McNab: I echo the comments made by Lloydin relation to the OEP. I suppose the key thing is thatthe benefit to consumers may come in clarity on who isdealing with what, where they seek assistance, wherethey take complaints, and so on. It is important that thelaw is clear and that people are able to guide theirconduct based on a clear understanding. That will beimportant to achieve in the context of the Bill and allthat comes from its enabling provisions in particular.


Q201 Rebecca Pow: Will you welcome as much alignmentas possible through your version of the OEP? We havemade it clear who comes under that and where peoplego to report. Would you like to see a similar body?

Alison McNab: What is important is that whatever isset up can work well alongside the OEP. Perhaps there isscope for strengthening provisions in the Bill for the OEPto work alongside bodies in the devolved Administrationsto ensure good working relationships, consistency, thesharing of information, and so on.

Q202 Deidre Brock: Good afternoon, and thank youfor coming down. The Bill leaves a number of thingsout of its scope, including tax and spend and allocationof resources by the Treasury, and MOD activities, amongothers. Do you think that is a sensible way to go aboutthings? Perhaps I should not say sensible. What are yourthoughts on those exemptions?

Lloyd Austin: From the point of view of environmentalNGOs, we agree. Greener UK colleagues made thisclear earlier in the week, and we support those comments.The definition of environmental law is perhaps toonarrow. We are interested in policies and measures thathave an impact on the environment, because we areinterested in environmental outcomes and achievinggood environmental objectives. That is the key thing. Ifany policy or piece of legislation has an effect, whethergood or bad—many things are good, and many maynot be so good—it should come under the remit orgamut of somebody considering the impact on theenvironment. Therefore, the definition should be asbroad as possible.

In reality, we accept that there will be exceptions.Those exceptions should be based not on the kind ofbroadbrush things indicated, but on a degree of justificationfor why—reasons of national security or whatever—theenvironmental issue has to be overwritten. Nobodythinks the environment will always trump everythingbut, on the other hand, where the environment is trumped,there should be a good reason, and that reason shouldbe transparent to citizens.

John Bynorth: The question of exemptions may befor the military. I understand that they currently applythe principles of environmental law, but why shouldthey be exempt? They use a huge amount of machineryand there are air quality issues there. It seems that theSecretaries of State will have the final decision on whichtargets are implemented, so there are concerns aboutthat. It is a bit arbitrary and unjustified that the military,for example, should not be subject to the same conditionsas everyone else.

Alison McNab: Without touching on the specificexemptions, it strikes me that there may be scope forgreater specification within the Bill about what theexemptions are to be. If memory serves me correctly,when the Bill was consulted on at draft stage in late2018 and early 2019, there was an additional exemptionaround anything else that the Secretary of State consideredshould be exempt. We have come some way from thatview. There may also be greater scope for scrutinywithin the Bill on the exemptions, which the Committeemay wish to consider strengthening. Essentially, thereare opportunities for more specification and more scrutiny.

Q203 Caroline Ansell: While recognising that devolutioncan mean deviation, and that that can have some positiveeffects, some of those opportunities can also turn into

risk because the environment is transboundary andbusiness is transboundary too. What do you see as therisks if the Scottish body took a fundamentally differentapproach to that of the Office for EnvironmentalProtection?

Alison McNab: I referred to environmental regulatorytourism earlier on—call it whatever you wish. Therewill always be issues around people trying to beat thesystem, and that is a risk if there are varying standards.However, on the flip side, there are opportunities todrive improved performance or improved outcomes.There may be commercial interests that need to betaken into account, so it may not be viable to do adifferent thing in one jurisdiction from another.

Q204 Caroline Ansell: Do you think that is a problemof clarity? It is incredibly important for people tounderstand exactly what the protections, standards andtargets are, in order to be compliant.

Alison McNab: Absolutely. I referred earlier to clarity’sbeing key for both individuals and businesses in determininghow they conduct their business.

Q205 Caroline Ansell: Could that difference be confusing,if there were different standards and different targets?

Alison McNab: There is the potential for it to be. Isuppose what is important is that there are clear routesfor people to be directed to—not only legislation, butguidance and other information on how to take thingsforward. It is important to bear in mind that there maybe opportunities to support businesses in how theywork cross-boundary, and opportunities in the contextof the Bill to think about the functions. One thatsprings to mind, for example, is the function of the OEPto advise Ministers. Of course, it may be advising onmatters that relate to English or reserved matters, butthat may have a cross-boundary effect, and it is importantthat that is considered.

Q206 Caroline Ansell: On that risk, what do you seeas the most important areas for both Administrationsto work most closely on together?

Alison McNab: Do you mean in terms of specifictopics?

Caroline Ansell: No, areas within the Bill.

Alison McNab: The OEP is probably key. Theenvironmental principles raise an interesting issue: atthe moment, the Bill provides for them to apply inEngland and it is not clear how reserved functions ofthe UK Ministers that apply in Scotland will be covered.We do not yet know the detail of the Scottish legislation,but is there potential for a gap there? I suspect yes, butwe do not know the detail of that yet.

REACH is an area that the Committee has alreadyheard about this afternoon, and there are powers withinschedule 19 for the devolved Administrations to makesome regulations on that in terms of the enforcement.Given the wider scope of REACH in the reservedissues, that is perhaps something that would meritcollaboration.

John Bynorth: Certainly, there is no point in havingtwo sets of rules, two sets of penalties and two sets ofpunishments for each part of the country. In a multinationalworld, there are UK-wide operators such as haulage, oilrefineries and petroleum companies. We have a problem


at the moment in Scotland with Mossmorran in Fife, anExxonMobil-owned company, which is having problemswith flaring that are affecting local communities. TheScottish Environment Protection Agency is trying todeal with it, but it keeps happening again and it iscausing terrible problems for people living in the area,with noise and other issues. You need to have consistencyin dealing with that between the different parts of thecountry.

The other issue is that if penalties in Scotland weredifferent from those in England, companies might upsticks and move their business completely to England,which would affect the economy. Consistency is vital.The same applies with emissions: we have clean airzones down here, but low emission zones in Scotland.The types of restrictions on bringing petrol and dieselvehicles into cities, and on haulage companies, need tobe very similar—I think that is happening—so that oureconomy is not damaged, but the rules and penalties aremade clear to people and are UK-wide.

Maybe there should be a joint memorandum ofunderstanding between the new protection body thatwe will get in Scotland and the OEP, once they are upand running. That could be a key part of what they do,with the civil servants from each body talking to eachother and ensuring that they set out what our principlesare, what we have in common and where the differencesare, so that people, and businesses in particular, areclear on that.

Lloyd Austin: To follow on from the last thing Johnsaid, some kind of agreement about how the new bodieswork together would be very useful. In terms of the Bill,that could be an amendment included within the clausedealing with the OEP’s having to set its strategy. Italready sets out various aspects of what should be inthat strategy, and a simple line indicating that, as part ofdetermining its strategy, it must set out how it plans towork with similar bodies in Scotland and Wales wouldbe very useful.

Regarding your generic question about risks, thebiggest risk is the race to the bottom, as I described itbefore. We must try to prevent that and to encouragethe race to the top.

Regarding specific issues, the scale of the risk dependson the mobility of the risk. John mentioned the issue ofbusinesses moving waste and Alison mentioned regulatorytourism. Those are risks, and waste tourism is another.If the two Administrations are too different in terms oftheir waste management policies, it is very easy forbusinesses to stick the waste on a lorry and take it overthe border, and that sort of thing. It therefore dependson mobility.

From an environmental perspective, one of the keythings is specific environments that cross borders. Wehave a very good system of cross-border river basinmanagement plans, which is reflected in the water partof the Bill for, in our case, the Tweed-Solway area. Thatis a shared environment, where the Scottish EnvironmentProtection Agency and the Environment Agency haveto work together, and the plan is jointly signed off byScottish Ministers and the Secretary of State. There isa similar model for the cross-border areas betweenEngland and Wales, and between Northern Ireland andthe Republic of Ireland. Those types of cross-borderarrangements should be continued for those cross-bordertypes of environment; that is a good mechanism.

Having mentioned Northern Ireland, when we talkabout these devolution issues within the UK, it is importantthat we remember that we also have a border betweenthe UK and the Republic of Ireland and the EU on theisland of Ireland. The issues that you are asking usabout—regarding the difference between Scotland andWales—apply equally between Northern Ireland andthe Republic of Ireland. That is a challenge that needsto be addressed.

Equally, in relation to our marine environment, all ofour marine environments have borders with other nationstates—some with EU nation states and, to the north,with Norway and the Faroes. In managing our marineenvironment, we must work through mechanisms suchas OSPAR to ensure that we have good co-ordinationwith Governments outside the UK, in exactly the sameway that we need good co-ordination between Governmentswithin the UK. The environmental issues—I alwayscome back to focusing on the environmental outcomes—arein principle much the same, irrespective of whether theborders are national borders or sub-national borders, ifyou see what I mean.

Q207 Jessica Morden: It is getting quite complicated,isn’t it? I know that you cannot speak for NorthernIreland or for Wales but, as far as you can answer this,are you aware that there has been strong collaborationso far between interested bodies and the Governmenton the Bill? If you are, do you think that has beenworking well so far? How effectively do you thinkco-operation on nature recovery networks might be?

Lloyd Austin: We cannot really answer in terms ofco-operation between the Governments; we are not theGovernments. We speak to all four Governments,and sometimes we hear signs of good co-operation andsometimes we hear signs of challenges—shall I put itthat way?—whereby different Governments give us differentindications of the nature of the discussion.

One thing that I am certainly aware of is that throughour Greener UK and Environment Links UK network,there is good co-operation between the NGOs across allfour countries. I am speaking as the co-chair of theGreener UK devolution group as well; that is how I amfamiliar with some of the work going on in Wales andNorthern Ireland, as well as Scotland. There are examplesof good co-operation; equally, there are challenges.

In relation to nature recovery, one of the key challengesis that the Bill requires the Secretary of State to set atarget on biodiversity, and it is unclear whether that isfor England or the UK. If it is for the latter, what will bethe role of the devolved Administrations in deliveringthat target? Will they agree the UK target, and whatproportion of it would be for England and would bedelivered by the English nature recovery network? Thereis scope for greater thinking and clarity on how theAdministrations might agree some kind of high-levelobjective, to which each of their individual targets andrecovery processes would contribute.

Perhaps as a precedent, I would point you to adocument that all four Governments agreed prior topassing separate marine legislation back in 2005 or2006. The four Governments all signed a document onthe high-level objectives for the marine environment.Subsequently, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009was passed by this Parliament, the Marine (Scotland)Act 2010 was passed by the Scottish Parliament and the


Marine Act (Northern Ireland) 2013 was passed by theNorthern Ireland Assembly. However, each piece oflegislation contributed to the agreed high-level objectivesdocument.

It would be beneficial to environmental outcomes ifthe four Governments could sign up to similarly generic,high-level environmental objectives. It would not involveone Government telling another what to do; the documentwould be mutually agreed in the same way as the one onmarine legislation. The Secretary of State’s targets wouldindicate what the English contribution to those high-levelobjectives would be, and Scottish Ministers would havetheir own process for the Scottish contribution—likewisefor Wales and Northern Ireland.

John Bynorth: Anecdotally, I hear that the ScottishGovernment and civil servants talk quite regularlyto DEFRA and other UK organisations—it would bestupid not to.

On air quality, we have two different strategies. TheUK Government have the clean air strategy and Scotlandhas the “Cleaner Air for Scotland” strategy, which iscurrently subject to a review and will be refreshed andrepublished later this year. Within that, you have differentsources of air pollution. The Scottish Government will betalking to DEFRA and there are continuous conversations,particularly about indoor air quality. Whether you arein Scotland or England, that does not change. Havingdifferent types of properties might affect indoor airquality, but it is fundamentally a national issue.

There is concern at the moment about the rise inammonia from agriculture, particularly in Scotland.That is an issue where they will learn from what ishappening down south with DEFRA. It is not justDEFRA; even though we have now left the EU, weshould not shut the door. We have to keep the dooropen to the EU. There is a lot of really good work goingon in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe thatwe can learn from. We need to keep the door open,although we have now gone and cannot do anythingabout that. Just keep the door open and learn from it.

There is close working, but it could always be better.Hopefully, the Environment Bill will improve that, aswill Scotland’s environment strategy. We need to keepthose conversations going.

Alison McNab: I do not have much to add to thecomments that have been made already. There are perhapstwo things that strike me, one of which relates to theJoint Nature Conservation Committee—perhaps thereis a role there. It demonstrates quite good collaborationacross the UK.

Looking a bit more widely, Lloyd touched on marineissues as an example. The joint fisheries statement setup in the Fisheries Bill has the four agencies—theSecretary of State and the devolved Administrations—coming together to talk about how they will achieve theobjectives. That perhaps presents quite a good modelfor thinking further about other things in the environmentalfield.

Q208 Rebecca Pow: I found this really interesting,actually. My general observation is that you are verykeen on close co-operation, which is clearly somethingthat this Government are very keen on, because thereare no boundaries in the environment—in the air, asyou have clearly explained, and water and all of thosethings. Would I be right in surmising that you wouldlike as close co-operation as possible?

Lloyd Austin: You would be right, as long as it isco-operation. It is not for us to say where the boundariesof devolution or other constitutional arrangementsshould be.

Rebecca Pow: No, I understand that.

Lloyd Austin: The marine examples that I quoted andthe fisheries examples that Alison quoted are areaswhere things are mutually agreed, and as I tried to sayearlier, that applies beyond the UK as well as within it.

As John indicated, we should not forget our Europeanpartners, both those within the EU and those such asNorway, the Faroes and Iceland to our north that arenot in the EU, but interestingly are all in the EuropeanEnvironment Agency. In terms of data collation, datareporting and environmental science, we would verymuch like to see some continued association with thatagency, which goes well beyond the EU members. Norway,Iceland, Switzerland, Turkey, Belarus and lots of countrieslike that are partners in the EEA, engaging in simplesharing and publication of environmental data. It seemsvery short-sighted to pull out of the EEA when it hasnothing to do with EU membership, so that is anotherform of co-operation that we would promote.

John Bynorth: Being in the EEA would be very goodfrom an information and data sharing point of view,and for maintaining consistency of standards, so Idefinitely agree with that and support it. I go to a lot ofconferences south of the border, just to find out what isgoing on down there regarding air quality and otherenvironmental issues. Everyone is talking about similarthings: transport emissions in urban areas, domesticburning—how we deal with wood-burning stoves andthe problems they are causing with air quality—agricultureand industrial emissions. Those are all common issues,and there are nuances about the way you deal withthem, but we can all learn from each other.

The Scottish Government might not be doing thingsright all the time, and the UK Government might notbe doing things right. We should come together regularlyto discuss these things and find out how we can improveand work together. We are still part of the UK, and it isvery important that we do that.

Alison McNab: Strong collaboration between the UKGovernment and the devolved Administrations is essential.You have highlighted the transboundary effects of theenvironment, which are well recognised. Back in 2017,the Cabinet Office published a list of areas where EUlaw intersects with devolved powers. The revised list,which is from April of last year, highlights 21 remainingareas in which it is hoped that legislative commonframeworks will be achieved. Seven of those 21 relate toenvironmental matters, so it is going to be crucial forthere to be good collaboration between the UK Governmentand the devolved Administrations to achieve the desiredaims regarding those matters.

Q209 Marco Longhi: Given what you know about theOEP’s governance framework and the concerns you havehighlighted about divergence and risks—race to thebottom and that type of thing—I am trying to gaugewhat importance you would place on there being astructure in the devolved Administrations equivalent tothe OEP here in England.


Lloyd Austin: From my point of view, I would say it isvery important that the governance gap, as we called itsoon after the referendum result, applies everywhere inthe UK, and it should be filled everywhere in the UK,whether that is for devolved or reserved matters. Wevery much welcome the recent announcement by theScottish Government that they will be establishing someform of body. We are yet to see the detail; we understandthat detail will be published later this month. We areless clear on the proposal for Wales. Of course, this Billaddresses Northern Ireland in schedule 2. Wales is thearea that still has the biggest question mark, but wewould want the Scottish body to be as good as or betterthan the OEP.

John Bynorth: I would totally back that up. TheScottish Government’s environment strategy, which hasonly just been published, says that there will be robustgovernance to implement and enforce laws for theirequivalent body. We do not know the detail of that—whowill be leading it, and what sort of people will be on itand how they will be appointed, but it has got to betotally independent. You cannot have a body for therest of the UK that has a different standard; they haveto have the same standard and the same quality ofpeople involved, and the same toughness to really crackdown on people and organisations that breach the law.Our job as an independent and impartial organisationis to ensure that they are held to account on that, soonce it is published and we know more details, we willbe able to push on that.

I certainly think that having a strong figurehead forthe two organisations is important—the OEP and whateverit will be called in Scotland. Personally, I think JohnGummer, Lord Deben, does a brilliant job at the Committeeon Climate Change. He has vast experience as a formerEnvironment Minister, right at the top level of the UKGovernment. You need figures like that, who are alsoindependent of politicians, so they can actually makedecisions. Those sort of people inspire others to comeon board. You need a strong staff who will stand up toorganisations that flout the law—they have got to bevery strong. It is up to us to ensure that whatever theScottish Government produce is to that sort of standard.Hopefully, organisations similar to us down here will dothe same with the OEP.

Alison McNab: I agree with the comments that havebeen made. It is clear that there is going to be agovernance gap once we reach the end of the transitionperiod, and it is important that there are provisions putin place to mitigate that. Whether that is done by way ofa single body, as in the OEP, or by different bodiestaking different roles, is a matter up for grabs. TheScottish Government have announced their intention tohave a single body, which we presume will be similar tothe OEP. I think what will be crucial is the way thatthose bodies work in terms of how they set their strategy.The OEP requirement to consult on the strategy is agood thing and will enable stakeholders to contribute todevising how that body is going to operate. I hope therewill be similar opportunities for the body that is createdin Scotland in terms of what direction it is going to takeand how it will undertake its functions.

Q210 Deidre Brock: With a view to trying to learnfrom the possible mistakes of others, there is a provisionin the Bill that would prevent public bodies from makingcomplaints to the OEP. We could find ourselves with

the possibility that one public body could be aware ofanother committing a breach of the law without havingthe option of raising that complaint with the OEP, orperhaps one council being aware of another councilbreaching the law and not being able to take action withthe OEP about it. Should we be looking at amendingthat in the Bill?

Alison McNab: I would have to go away and give furtherconsideration to that. On the one hand, there are laudablereasons for having that provision, but, equally, we recognisethat there is a potential for something like a race to thebottom, where bodies are perhaps not subject to thesame degree of scrutiny that they might be.

Q211 Deidre Brock: Sure. I like the idea of the race tothe top that you mentioned, Mr Austin. I noticed inyour briefing, John, the air quality issues and the morestringent standards that we have in place in Scotland,for example. Hopefully, folk will learn from that.

I want to ask you, Ms McNab, about clause 19. Inyour Law Society of Scotland briefing paper, you raiseda couple of concerns that I am keen to hear a littlemore on.

Alison McNab: Absolutely. The clause you refer torelates to statements about Bills containing environmentalprovisions. It provides some degree of scrutiny. However,it might be somewhat limited in its scope. There is norecourse provided in the Bill if, for example, Parliamentor external stakeholders felt that a matter had not beengiven proper consideration. Also, there is a questionaround how that is tested. How is the statement testedand how is it subject to scrutiny?

Lloyd Austin: On your first point, like Alison I needto think about it a bit more, but I see that there is somedegree of logic in one public body not being able tocomplain about another. Public bodies should haveexisting mechanisms to raise concerns with centralGovernment.

From the point of view of NGOs and our members,ordinary citizens, the really important thing to makesure exists—this applies to the OEP and the Scottish orWelsh bodies—is a mechanism that enables ordinarycitizens to raise concerns with the OEP. That is in thereto some degree. There are ways in which that could bestrengthened, but it is vital that that exists in the otherbodies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, with,as I said earlier, an ability for the OEP and the Scottishand Welsh bodies to pass one citizen’s complaint toanother if that is necessary. If the citizen has inadvertentlycomplained to the wrong body, it should be able to passit on, and in some cases bodies maybe should be able towork together in a joint investigation. Some issues thatcitizens might be concerned about may be caused byboth a reserved and a devolved matter, or may becaused by, as we discussed earlier, the Scottish and UKGovernments not working together very well. The twobodies working together to encourage better co-operationmight be one form of remedy that they would haveavailable to them. We represent ordinary members ofthe public who are members of our organisation, and itis those citizens’ right to complain. Most public bodiescan normally find a citizen if they want to.

John Bynorth: There is an increased awareness of theenvironment. A poll last week showed increased awarenessof climate change impacts, and the poll was taken evenbefore the recent flooding in south Wales, Shropshire


and the midlands. People are increasingly taking aninterest in these things. Communities in Newcastle, forexample, and even in Edinburgh, have low-cost monitoringcentres to check air pollution in the towns and streetswhere they live, so there is huge awareness of that andclimate change as well. People will want an outlet wherethey can complain if they think something is wrong.The office will need to be aware of that and will need torespond to that. It is a changing environment: people’sattitudes are changing all the time.

Deidre Brock: Good points. Thank you.

Q212 Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con): I welcome yourcomments on closer collaboration. Are there any partsof the Bill that you like and think should be adopted inScotland?

John Bynorth: Obviously, if the Office for EnvironmentalProtection had teeth, clout and the ability to fine peoplein the rest of the UK, I would want to see that inScotland, too. In other respects, certainly the Governmentswork together. There are differences, as I say, but if theycould work together, that would be one of the bestthings.

Lloyd Austin: From my point of view, the varyingextent of different parts of the Bill is appropriate,because it tends to reflect the arrangements that havebeen agreed between the Scottish Government and theUK Government. For instance, the deposit return schemedoes not apply to Scotland, and that is because theyhave already got their provisions in place. Those otherareas, such as extended producer responsibilities, areincluded and, as the Minister said earlier, they haveopted in. I think the different extent is a consequence ofdevelopments to date; it reflects those developments.

The biggest gap is the issue of reserved areas, or theapplication of EU environmental principles to decisionsby UK Ministers relating to reserved matters in Scotlandand Wales. Those are excluded from the Bill, and it is agap. It may be—as stakeholders, we do not know—thatthe Governments have agreed to legislate for that insome other way, through Scottish legislation or subsequentWelsh legislation. However, because we have not seenthat, we do not know, and there has been no statementto that effect. As far as observers are aware, that gapstill remains. It may be filled by an amendment to theBill, or by Scottish legislation with the agreement ofUK Ministers or whatever—we do not know—but wewant to keep highlighting that it is a gap that does needto be filled.

Alison McNab: The Scottish Government have joinedwhere they have felt that they can, or where they havefelt that to be appropriate. Certainly RoseannaCunningham, the Cabinet Secretary for Environment,Climate Change and Land Reform, made the statementbefore the relevant Committee in the Scottish Parliamentback in October that an agreement had been reached inrelation to the extended producer responsibility. Theremay be other areas where harmonisation can be achieved.

As Lloyd says, there is potential for a gap in theenvironmental principles. There is also some uncertaintyaround reserved matters and the OEP, and what thosematters are; there may be some matters involved thatappear in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. Productlabelling and product standards spring to mind; thereare certain exceptions there. There may be some issuesthat still need to be considered. REACH is another

example where there is quite a complicated mix ofreserved and devolved issues. What is important ishaving clarity on those things. Where collaboration canbe achieved, that is good, but you need to ensure that nogaps are left.

The Chair: I think this may well be the final question.Robbie Moore.

Q213 Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Carrying onwith the theme of collaboration, do you think that thebenefits of the Bill outweigh the risks associated withhaving separate bodies? In my view, there are potentialrisks that follow from having separate legislation andbodies.

Lloyd Austin: If I could borrow a term that mycolleague Ruth Chambers used earlier in the week, Ithink that boat has probably sailed. Two years ago, Iremember, we had discussions with Governments northand south of the border, and east and west of Offa’sDyke. We encouraged a discussion about which is thebest route—separate bodies or one single body thatwould somehow be collectively owned by all theGovernments, if you see what I mean. The challengewould be creating that sort of body that had the meansto respect the devolution settlement, so that in relationto devolved matters it was accountable to the ScottishParliament, and in relation to reserved matters it wasaccountable to this Parliament.

Creating a single body that is somehow accountableto different legislatures is a challenge, although I do notthink it would have been impossible, because there aremeans of creating joint committees, and that sort ofthing; but I think, given the way in which the devolutionsettlement is arranged, that kind of thing had to bemutually agreed. With the way in which the variousGovernments have proceeded, for their own differentreasons, that was not possible. Therefore we are now ina situation where we have one body for England, reservedmatters and Northern Ireland, because of circumstancesover the years in Northern Ireland, and other bodies forWales and Scotland. In a sense it is not for us toquestion the reasons why we arrived at this position. Weare in this position, and the best way of addressing it isto ensure that the bodies work together in the way thatwe have described. I think you could answer that questionwith, “I wouldn’t start from here”—but we are here.

John Bynorth: There is not much we can do about it,I think. The Environment Agency and the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency work together. Thereare common areas—noise policy, for example—and thebodies feed off the World Health Organisation, andthings like that, in policy areas. With devolution, you dohave to have an organisation that is accountable toMSPs in Scotland, but there is no reason why the newOffice for Environmental Protection cannot work veryclosely with whatever is going to be set up in Scotland.You would have to have that accountability, under thedevolution settlement, to the Scottish Parliament, however.I do not know whether there is much more we can do orsay about that, but that is the situation. I think you aregoing to end up with two bodies, really.

Alison McNab: I agree with the comments made. As Ireferred to earlier, I suppose the extent to which consistencyis achieved is really a political decision. The reality is


that it appears that we will have the OEP and a separate

Scottish, and potentially a separate Welsh, body as well.

What is important is looking at how that can worktogether now—the practicalities of that, and how therisks can be overcome. Probably the greatest way to dothat is to ensure that there are strong provisions in eachof the relevant pieces of legislation for the bodies towork together. That may be a requirement to worktogether, strengthened from what at the moment is arequirement to consult on relevant matters.

The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. It was reallyimportant for the Committee that we got a Scottishperspective on this. I think we got that very thoroughly,and we are very grateful for it.


4.49 pm

Adjourned till Tuesday 17 March at twenty-five minutespast Nine o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB10 Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside

Link

EB11 Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT)

EB12 CHEM Trust



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Fifth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this day

at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than





















(Morning)


Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.Before we start, a couple of housekeeping matters.Please make sure that your electronics are turned off.No tea and coffee, I am afraid; you will have to gooutside if you want that, as it is not allowed during thesittings. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.

We now begin the line-by-line consideration of theBill. The selection list is available on the table if you donot already have it. We had a discussion on this duringthe evidence-taking sessions, but I repeat that amendmentsare generally put into groups on the same or similarissues for debate. Amendments are decided on notnecessarily in the order in which they are debated, but inthe order in which they come up in the Bill. You willfind yourselves debating matters that are not immediatelyvoted on, and there is sometimes a tendency, particularlyon the part of the Opposition, to panic and say, “We wantedto vote on that.” You may well be right that we havemissed something, and if we do, please remind us, butbear in mind that the vote happens at the right place inthe Bill, and not necessarily because of where theamendment appears in the group. If that does not makesense, ask me and I will try to clarify it.

My policy—Sir George may have a different one—isthat it is often helpful to have a fairly broad-rangingdebate at the start of a group of amendments on aclause. I have no problem with that; it tends to facilitatethe discussion, but—and it is a big but, for the benefit ofthe new Members—at the end of consideration on eachclause, we have a debate on whether the clause shouldstand part of the Bill. There cannot be a stand partdebate at the beginning and the end of proceedings on aclause, so if you choose to talk a lot at the beginning,you will not get two bites at the cherry. The Chair willdecide whether there will be a stand part debate.

I hope that is clear. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom;if you have any cause for concern, or you do notunderstand what is going on, please ask, and someonewill endeavour to provide you with a tolerably intelligentanswer.

Clause 1

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I begto move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leaveout “may” and insert “must”.This amendment seeks to ensure the power given in this Bill to theSecretary of State to set long term targets is exercised.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship thismorning, Mr Gale, as it will be, I anticipate, for many moremornings and afternoons. I will not say it is a pleasureevery time I speak, but please take it as being one.

I would like to say a few things about how theOpposition intend to pursue matters in this Committee.As hon. Members will see, a substantial number ofamendments have been tabled, and we will go throughthose in Committee. I hope that upon scrutiny of thoseamendments, hon. Members will conclude that everyone is an attempt to make a good Bill better. They arenot in any way intended to be subversive of the Bill’spurposes, to wreck the Bill’s outcome, or to divert theBill from its intended outcomes. Rather, they are intendedto make the Bill as good as it can be. I echo thesentiments of one of the star witnesses in our evidencesessions last week, Richard Benwell of Wildlife andCountryside Link, who said that this could be a brilliantBill. I hope that it will be by the time we finish ourconsiderations in Committee.

I am fully dedicated to making sure that when the Billgets on to the statute book, it has the purposes that weall, I think, agree on, and is a serious marker of whatthis country has to do to develop environmental biodiversityand a healthy environment—a healthy environment inwhich nature recovers, and we have clean water and,in the context of the climate change emergency, everythingthat will allow our natural environment to be in ahealthy state for the future. I want the Bill to mark thisHouse’s contribution to that process.

I am completely at one with the Minister in that aim;I know that is what she wants to achieve. I know fromher environmental commitment and credentials, whichshe has worn on her sleeve ever since she has been in thisHouse—she has a fine, nature-friendly outfit on today—thatshe is completely dedicated to getting the Bill passed inthe best possible way. I hope that our discussions inCommittee, and our amendments, will be viewed in thatlight. Regardless of party affiliation or other considerations,I hope they will be looked at based on one criterion: dothey or do they not make this a brilliant Bill? I hope thatis how we will judge our proceedings; I will certainly tryto conduct myself in that spirit.

That brings me to my concerns about what is inclause 1—and a number of other clauses throughoutthe legislation, as we will find as we go through the Bill.In addition to being a potentially brilliant Bill for now,this has to be a brilliant Bill for the future. The House,and this Committee in particular, has to turn it intolegislation that will really last—that will commit futuregenerations of parliamentarians and Governments tothe actions it sets out. It has to be very robust in theinstructions that it sends to those future generations,but we are particularly concerned that it simply is not,in a number of respects.

The Bill derives in substantial part from the Government’s25-year nature plan. There is a clue there about howlong its provisions are supposed to last. The things weconsider today have to be robust and relevant for tomorrow.The Bill has to work in that way, and we have to knowthat it will work across Administrations. However, clause1 demonstrates that it may not easily do so.

In the clause, and a number of others, the Secretaryof State is given the option of implementing, by regulations,a particular part of the Bill. Throughout the Bill, a numberof provisions are couched in terms of not “may” but“must”. For example, clause 92 states:

“The Secretary of State must publish information…The Secretaryof State must publish reports…A report must relate to a period”,


and

“A report must set out”.

Those provisions are all clear about what has to happen,but the same is not true of clause 1 and a number ofother clauses.

There is an even more worrying double lock—ordouble unlock—regarding the Bill’s way of doing things.When I look at a Bill, I always turn to the end. It israther like looking at the last three pages of a novel tosee what happens before starting to read it. I do notrecommend doing that for a novel, but I do recommendit for this particular Bill.

Clause 131, the commencement clause, is clear. ForMembers who are less familiar with how such clauseswork, the commencement clause sets out a number ofdates on which clauses in the Bill should be taken ascommencing—that is, become live legislation. Clause 131states that a number of provisions in the Bill come intoforce on the day that it becomes an Act. A number ofother provisions come into force two months after theBill becomes an Act. Part 1 of the Bill, which containsclause 1 and is probably the most important part of theBill, comes

“into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulationsappoint”.

There is therefore a double lock on the clause. TheSecretary of State “may” decide to make it live—or not.If they decide not to make it live, it simply does notbecome real, and what is set out in the clause does nothappen. Even if they decide in principle that it will happen,and the clause is live, its wording means that the Secretaryof State can decide that what it sets out will not takeplace, and need not implement the regulatory process.

Hon. Members may be thinking, “He protests toomuch. This doesn’t happen in real life, surely. This is justhow things are set out in legislation,” but I assure themthat this does happen in real life; it has happened on anumber of occasions. The statute books are not exactlylittered with, but are substantially populated by, thingsin Bills that simply have not happened because ofthe way the legislation was constructed. I can give theexample of the Energy Act 2013. I happened to sit onthat Bill Committee. Part 5 is on the construction anddesignation of a strategy and policy statement, whichwould set out imperatives that would bind authoritiesand bodies dealing with low-carbon energy. When thatBill was passed, I really thought that the statementwould happen; I considered that really important—andstill do—in making sure that Ofgem would be guided bya low-carbon imperative.

The wording on that policy and strategy statementwas couched in the same way as the provision in thisBill. The 2013 Act said:

“The Secretary of State may designate a statement as thestrategy and policy statement for the purposes of this Part”.

The 2013 Act was stronger than this Bill. Part 5 of theAct became live two months after the Act became law.However, the Act was passed during the Conservative-led coalition of 2010 to 2015, and in a subsequentAdministration, a Minister decided, because they could,that there was no need for a policy and strategy statement,and that it would not be produced. I have asked anumber of questions about why that statement has notappeared. The situation does not help at all to ensurethat Ofgem does what it should on its low-carbon

commitments and imperatives. But the Minister in thatAdministration decided that they were not going toproduce the statement, and that was it. I hope that thisAdministration will take a different view and finallyintroduce such a statement, which I think is essential.

9.45 am

The point of that little diversion is that we are talkingabout not just words on a piece of paper that need notbe taken seriously. This is serious stuff that relates tothe viability and credibility of the Bill when it becomesan Act of Parliament. Bear in mind that many peopleout there are looking to the Bill to provide exactly thatcredibility on the natural environment, biodiversity andmany other things. They are looking to the Bill forrobustness and sincerity on all the things that they holdso dear about the environment and all the things that gointo it. If we pass a Bill that does not have that robustness,a number of people will rightly say, “How serious areyou about this? Are you as serious you should be aboutwhat the imperatives should be, and about the targetsand other things in the Bill?”

My reading of the Bill is that if the Minister decidesthat there is no need for targets, the Minister just doesnot implement this clause. I am absolutely certain thatthis Minister, who is the right Minister in the right placeat the right time, with the right intentions, has absolutelyno intention of doing anything other than making surethat the Bill proceeds as speedily as possible through itsstages and into implementation. However—I know thisis difficult to envisage—the Minister may not be thereforever. A future Administration, or a future Minister,may look at the legislation and think, “Hmm, I don’thave to do that. That’s a bit onerous and a bit difficult.Maybe we will put it to one side,” just as happened withthe Energy Act 2013.

It would be a good idea to consider replacing “may”with “must” in a number of instances in the Bill. Some“mays” are perfectly good; sometimes it is the rightword, because of the choice that people will have as towhat kind of regulation they want to put in or whatever.However, “may” is not appropriate for this clause andfor a number of others. In the Climate Change Act 2008,to which the Bill has often been compared, there is nosuch messing about with wording. The beginning of theAct quite straightforwardly stated:

“It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the netUK carbon account for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower thanthe 1990 baseline.”

That is quite clear. There is no messing about or resiling.

I do not suggest that we should put a series of dutiesinto the Bill, but we should look seriously at bringingforward proposals to alter the Bill’s wording as it goesthrough Parliament. I will not seek to divide the Committeeon this point, because it is something that all of us needto take away and think about. I hope the Minister takesthis away, thinks about it and comes back with proposals,perhaps on Report, to alter that wording, so that we canhave full confidence that the Bill will become the Actthat we all want it to be. I shall draw attention to theseomissions and shortcomings as the Bill progresses, butthe Committee will be delighted to know that I will notmake this long a speech every time.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): We’ll see!


Dr Whitehead: But I might do if no consideration atall is given to this particular point.

I hope that the Minister will be able to come at leastsome way towards me in reshaping the Bill so that theconfidence we both want to have in this legislation canbe seen by the outside world, and so that we can ensurethat what we say in this Committee actually gets done—notjust by this Minister, but by subsequent Administrations.With that, I assure the Committee that that is the longestI am going to speak on this subject. I rest my case.I hope that the Minister has something positive on herpiece of paper in this respect. We shall see how we go.

Rebecca Pow: It is a huge pleasure to have you as ourChairman, Sir Roger. Hopefully we are all going to havea long and fruitful bonding experience over the next fewweeks.

I thank the shadow Minister for his opening remarksand for describing this legislation as a “good Bill”; weall welcome that tone. I echo his general commentsabout wanting to do the right thing for the environment.I believe everyone on this Committee wants to do that,but I do in particular. I also thank him for his personalcomments. I must actually throw some similar commentsback at him. He and I have appeared many times in thesame Committees, environmental all-party parliamentarygroups and all that, so I know that he has a great deal ofexperience in this area. In many respects, we sing fromthe same hymn sheet. I welcome his involvement, as hebrings a great deal of experience to the table.

Let me turn to the detail of the amendment. I understandthe shadow Minister’s desire for there to be a duty onthe Secretary of State to set targets. However, such aduty would remove the flexibility and discretion neededby the Secretary of State in relation to target setting.The Bill creates a power to set long-term, legally-bindingenvironmental targets, and provides for such targets tobe set in relation to any aspect of the natural environmentor people’s enjoyment of it. It is very wide-ranging, soflexibility is required. It is entirely appropriate to givethe Secretary of State flexibility as to when and how thepower ought to be exercised. That is the beauty of thispower.

As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, primarylegislation consistently takes this approach to the balancebetween powers, which are “may”, and duties, whichare “must”. I welcome the fact that the shadow Ministerhas raised this point, because I have been quizzing myown team about those two words and exactly what theydo, and it is quite clear to me that this is the rightapproach. When the Government are under a clearrequirement, the word “must” is used. This recognisesthat the circumstances, scenario and background to theuse of the provision are clear.

In other scenarios, it might not be possible definitelyto say that something must be done, due to factorsoutside our control—for example, if public consultationis still under way, and there will be a great deal ofconsultation as the statutory instruments are laid beforeParliament.

The Secretary of State is already under a duty—thatmeans “must”—to exercise this power to set “at leastone” target in each of the Bill’s priority areas. That is inthe next few lines of the Bill. They are also under aseparate duty to set the PM2.5 target. That is a legalrequirement and the Government cannot get out of that.

The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning andreporting ensures that the Government will take earlyregular steps to achieve the long-term targets and willbe held accountable through regular scrutiny by theOffice for Environmental Protection.

The shadow Minister asked whether the system wouldbe robust. I assure him that it will be—that is itspurpose. The need for new targets will be reviewed everyfive years through the significant improvement test thatwe will come on to later. That is also a legal requirement,and the Secretary of State will use the review’s outcometo decide whether to set new long-term environmentaltargets.

The significant improvement test provisions of theBill will form part of environmental law, with the OEP—the body that will be set up to hold the Governmentto account—having oversight of the Government’simplementation of the provisions, as it will over allaspects of environmental law. That is my summary ofthe shadow Minister’s queries.

Dr Whitehead: Does the Minister not accept that, as Ipointed out in my analysis of the Energy Act 2013, if anumber of obligations or “musts”in a clause are subservientto a fundamental “may”, they have no independentexistence? That was exactly the case in that Act: theMinister had a number of musts to do, but they were allsubject to the original may. As the original may turnedout to be just a may, all the musts completely fell away.The Minister has given examples of some musts in theBill, but unless we have a first must or duty—it mightnot be time-limited, so that the Minister has flexibilityover when exactly to do it—those other things are notof any great significance. It is the first may or must thatis key.

Rebecca Pow: We are muddling a lot of “musts” and“mays” here—it is a good job that Theresa May is notstill Prime Minister.

Dr Whitehead: It could be Theresa Must.

Rebecca Pow: It is clear that there is flexibility inthe power to set long-term targets by regulations, butclause 1(2) says that the Secretary of State “must exercisethe power”. That brings in the duty, which is a legalrequirement to set the targets. If there is a “must”provision—and there is: to set targets in those four keyareas—it must be exercised. It is quite clear.

Dr Whitehead: Mr Gale, I think you can gather thatI am not terribly convinced. I do not doubt the Minister’ssincerity for a minute. Indeed, I wonder whether, had theMinister been in post during the Bill’s construction—I thinkthis part was originally constructed in 2018—she wouldhave gone along with that particular wording. I appreciatethat she has a Bill in front of her with the wording as itis, and she has advice that the wording is as it is becausethat is how it should be.

10 am

Rebecca Pow: I want to point out one other thing.The Office for Environmental Protection will be able toenforce against the Government if they do not set thetargets. That indicates that the process and structure weare setting up are strong.


Dr Whitehead: The Office for Environmental Protectioncan intervene against the Minister, but the Minister willsee later on in the Bill that not even the office has to beset up under these circumstances. The word “may” is sopervasive in the Bill that a number of the things that canact to do what the Minister wants to do are contingent.That should give the Minister some concern, as wellas me.

The Minister makes the strong point that once themechanism is up and running, arguably it will be quiterobust. We would like the mechanism to be a little morerobust. However, if the whole thing depends on the ideathat a Minister may or may not decide that it will beimplemented, the rest of it does not necessarily followstrongly. I urge the Minister to please go away and thinkabout this, despite what she said this morning, and seewhether a formulation—not necessarily exactly theformulation in the amendment—can be arrived at thatwill give us and the outside world a much better seriesof assurances about the Bill’s robustness overall. I mayspeak on this matter again later in the Bill, but I havedone my best this morning and we will see where we gofrom there.

The Chair: The hon. Gentleman did not make therequest, but I think he indicated that he wished towithdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: For the time being, yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op): I beg tomove amendment 103, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, atend insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power insubsection (1) with the aim of establishing a coherent frameworkof targets he or she considers would, if met:

(a) make a significant contribution towards the environmentalobjectives, and

(b) ensure continuous improvement of the environment asa whole.

(1B) Where the Secretary of State considers that a target isnecessary but the means of expressing the target is not yetsufficiently developed, he or she must explain the steps beingtaken to develop an appropriate target.”

The amendment aims to bind the target setting processes into theenvironmental objectives.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussthe following:

New clause 1—The environmental objective—

“(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain ahealthy natural environment.

(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remediesand procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowedand followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement ofthe environmental objective.”

This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying togetherseparate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between thetarget setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus deliveryon targets.

New clause 6—The environmental purpose—

“(1) The purpose of this Part is to provide a framework toenable the following environmental objectives to be achieved andmaintained—

(a) a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment;

(b) an environment that supports human health and wellbeingfor everyone; and

(c) sustainable use of resources.”

The new clause is intended to give clear and coherent direction forapplying targets and the other governance mechanisms contained in thefirst Part of the Environment Bill.

Alex Sobel: I am afraid that my level of expertise doesnot match that of the shadow Minister, but I will do mybest with the time, space and knowledge that I have todo justice to the three amendments.

Amendment 103 is listed in the names of the hon.Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who isChair of the Select Committee for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs; the Chair of the EnvironmentalAudit Committee; and myself, as vice-chair of the EAC.It is therefore clear that these are not partisan amendments.We took it upon ourselves to table them as a result ofthe prelegislative scrutiny we undertook. The scrutinyapplied by this Committee last week underlines theneed for the amendment.

I will speak to amendment 103 and new clauses 1and 6, and will then refer to some of the things thatwere said my our expert witnesses last week, whichunderline the need for the amendments to be includedin the Bill. All three are complementary, although theyall provide something slightly different to strengthenthe Bill. I say to the Minister that these proposals willstrengthen the Bill and give it clarity; I do not intend towreck the Bill or change its intent.

Amendment 103 would give the Secretary of Statethe power to look at environmental objectives holistically,and would ensure that the overarching goal of the Billand of the Department is the continuous improvementof the whole environment. It would also make thetargets richer, as the Secretary of State must explainwhy targets are being set at that stage and the necessityfor them.

The amendment links target setting with environmentalobjectives. Evidence from last week’s expert witnesssessions explains why that is important and why the Billmay not yet be strong enough to ensure it. I am notsaying that the Minister or Secretary of State wouldnot do such things, but we have to legislate for futureAdministrations that may not be as committed as thecurrent one.

Last week, we took evidence from Ali Plummer ofthe Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My hon.Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked her:

“Do you think the clauses give a sufficiently clear direction oftravel on the sort of targets that will be set?”

The amendment relates specifically to that matter.Ali Plummer responded:

“Not currently, the way the Bill is written. The provisions to settargets in priority areas are welcome. We are looking for slightlymore clarity and reassurance in two areas: first, on the scope oftargets that will be set, to ensure there are enough targets set inthe priority areas, and that they will cover that whole priorityarea, and not just a small proportion of it; and secondly, on thetargets being sufficiently ambitious to drive the transformationthat we need in order to tackle some big environmental issues.”

The amendment speaks directly to that evidence—forme, not strongly enough, though it takes us a long waytowards the goals that Ali Plummer set out.

Ali Plummer also said that“on, for example, the priority area of biodiversity…I think we arelooking for more confidence that the Government’s intent will becarried, through the Bill, by successive Governments.”


[Alex Sobel]

We will come back to that. The amendment is not aboutthe aim of the present Government, but about successiveGovernments and setting a long-term framework. Shewent on to say:

“I am not sure that that sense of direction is there. While thereis a significant environmental improvement test, I do not thinkthat quite gives us the confidence that the Bill will really drive thetransformation that we need across Government if we are toreally tackle the issues.”––[Official Report, Environment PublicBill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 75, Q118.]

The point about transformation being needed acrossGovernment, not just in the Minister’s Department,brings me on to a question that I asked of Ruth Chambersof Greener UK, regarding the carve-outs and exclusionsin the Bill. She responded that they“absolve much of Government from applying the principles in theway that they should be applied. The most simple solution wouldbe to remove or diminish those carve-outs. We do not think that avery strong or justified case has been made for the carve-outs,certainly for the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces; inmany ways, it is the gold standard Department, in terms ofencountering environmental principles in its work. There seemsto be no strong case for excluding it, so remove the exclusions.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020;c. 76, Q120.]

The amendment provides a framework to do that, althoughnot wholly.

I will move on to new clause 1, and return later tosome of the expert witness statements. I was honouredto table the new clause with my hon. Friend the Memberfor Southampton, Test; hopefully he will not be dissatisfiedwith the way I speak to it. The intention of the newclause is to enshrine an environmental objective in theBill. The new clause complements amendment 103,because it is about achieving and maintaining a healthynatural environment. That goes very well with the pointthat we need continuous improvement of the environment.

The new clause also says:“Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies

and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowedand followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement ofthe environmental objective.”

It would give all those powers—or duties, shall we say,as “powers” are one of the things listed—to the Secretaryof State and would give the Bill an overall coherencethat it lacks. It would tie things together and giveconfidence that there is a single unitary aim, and wouldstart the process of tying target-setting to the aim.

That was underlined by the excellent evidence that wehad from Dr Richard Benwell of Wildlife and—

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Countryside Link.

Alex Sobel: I thank my hon. Friend—Wildlife andCountryside Link. We also heard from George Monbiotin that sitting. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouthasked last week—I am sure that it relates to her constituency—how far back we would need to go in terms ofpreserving Dartmoor, and they gave a good answer.Parts of their answers are useful with reference to thenew clause. George Monbiot said:

“We need flexibility, as well as the much broader overarchingtarget of enhancing biodiversity and enhancing abundance at thesame time. We could add to that a target to enhance the breadthand depth of food chains: the trophic functioning of ecosystems,through trophic rewilding or strengthening trophic links”.––[OfficialReport, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121,Q163.]

That, again, is a broad aim, which is included in the newclause.

Dr Benwell said in answering the same question:

“In the Bill at the moment, that legal duty could be fulfilled bysetting four very parochial targets for air, water, waste and wildlife.I do not think that that is the intention, but when it comes downto it, the test is whether the target would achieve significantenvironmental improvement in biodiversity.”

I do not think that the Minister or the Secretary of Statewould set very parochial targets in those four areas, butperhaps a future Minister or Secretary of State would.That is why I think that not only would a much broaderenvironmental objective, as in the new clause, be welcome,it is necessary.

Dr Benwell continued:

“You could imagine a single target that deals with one rarespecies in one corner of the country. That could legitimatelybe argued to be a significant environmental improvement forbiodiversity.”

For instance, our entire biodiversity target could relateto red squirrels, which now mainly reside in Cumbria.That would be our whole objective. If a future Secretaryof State were obsessed with red squirrels, and did notcare for any other aspect of biodiversity, that mighthappen. I know that the current Secretary of State doesnot have those views, but while I have been in Parliament,and sat as a member of the Environmental AuditCommittee, there have been four Environment Secretaries,so they come and go fairly often, although I hope thepresent one stays longer in his role.

Dr Benwell said:

“You could set an overarching objective that says what sort ofend state you want to have—a thriving environment that ishealthy for wildlife and people”.

That is what new clause 1 would do. My hon. Friend theMember for Southampton, Test does not seem to beshaking his head, so I assume I am getting that right.Not much later in the sitting, the hon. Member forDudley North asked whether the Bill sufficiently empowersall Departments to protect and improve the environment.Dr Benwell said:

“‘Empowers’, possibly; ‘requires’, not quite yet.”––[OfficialReport, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121-22, Q163.]

New clause 1 responds to Dr Benwell’s response, andgoes from “not quite yet” to now. That is why it is anecessary improvement to the Bill.

Many of the amendments and new clauses that weshall talk about later and during the passage of the Billwill bring us back to new clause 1, which is an anchoringpoint from which to improve the Bill. Even if theMinister does not accept it today, I hope that through inCommittee and on Report she will consider taking amuch broader environmental objective as part of theBill, to help us improve it.

10.15 am

Finally, I will move to new clause 6, which has beentabled in my name and that of the hon. Member forTiverton and Honiton. I am sure that in quieter times itwould have attracted many more names, but since it wastabled, one or two other things have emerged that havetaken up the attention of hon. Members across theHouse.


This clause is complementary to new clause 1 andoverlaps with it. Again, it applies targets and mechanismsto the overarching aim of the Bill, and provides a bitmore clarity about them. It states that a frameworkshould be established

“to enable the following environmental objectives…(a) a healthy,resilient, and biodiverse natural environment; (b) an environmentthat supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and (c)sustainable use of resources.”

I probably covered the biodiversity point when I wasspeaking about new clause 1, but this clause takes careof that point, which I will call the red squirrel issue.

New clause 6 also talks about human health andwellbeing. We heard a lot of evidence, for instance,about the issue of air quality. Air quality does notnecessarily relate to biodiversity or climate objectives,but it is exceedingly important to human health andwellbeing. We know that places such as London andmy constituency in Leeds have some of the worst airquality in Europe, and many deaths result from that.I do not think the Bill is sufficiently strong to bemindful of that fact, or empowered to take the necessaryaction.

I do not want to have to remind the Minister thatunder the EU regulations we are leaving, the Governmenthad to be taken to court three times by one of thewitnesses from ClientEarth in order to strengthen theiractions. I do not think that the clean air zones implementedin my constituency—although they are nearly nine monthslate—would have been introduced without that action.This Bill takes over from those EU regulations, and toset it on the right foot we need these targets andmechanisms to be front and centre, otherwise we mayfind ourselves unable to take the actions that have beentaken in the past to safeguard and improve our airquality. I will now draw to a conclusion, and thank you,Sir Roger.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend has made a powerfulcase for these amendments to be included in the Bill,and has said most of the things that I wanted to sayabout them. What I will add for the clarification of theCommittee is that, as hon. Members can see, new clause1 is very similar to new clause 6, which has the supportof the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment,Food and Rural Affairs. The purpose of these newclauses, particularly new clause 1, is—as the title of newclause 6 suggests—to add an overall clarification of theenvironmental purpose of the Bill, and to draw togethera Bill that, for all its merits, has in many ways turned upvia a process of iteration.

The first two sections of the Bill originally surfacedat the end of 2018, and it was then amended to someconsiderable extent and appeared as part of a larger Billin 2019. That Bill did not get through all of its stagesbefore the election was called, although it passed onSecond Reading. Significantly, between the original Billand the 2019 Bill appearing, no less than six parts hadbeen added, including the Office for EnvironmentalProtection part. As a result, the Bill does not have acoherent overarching principle that applies to all itsparts. Historically, that has been done in some instancesby what is called a preamble clause, which is prettyobscure and has fallen into disuse when writing Bills inthis country. I would have preferred a preamble clauseto do the job, but an environmental purpose clause doesthe job just as well. Indeed, there are numerous examples

in different pieces of legislation. In health and safetylegislation, for example, there is a purpose clause to pulleverything together.

The clauses differ only very slightly in their definitions,so I would be happy with any of them. New clause 6brings together the purposes of the Bill within a statedframework that enables,

“a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment”

and

“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing foreveryone; and...sustainable use of resources.”

It defines the overall purpose of the Bill, which isimportant. It keeps the different elements of the differentparts of the Bill’s metaphorical noses to the grindstone.It makes sure that all the things we are thinking ofdoing in the Bill have an overall purpose behind them: ahealthy, natural environment. The Minister might saythat that is a bit of a free hit for environmental lawyerswho might come in on the environmental purpose andsay, “You are not putting forward a healthy, resilientand biodiverse natural environment with what you aredoing.” I might say that that is precisely the purpose ofthe amendment, which is to enable the overall objectiveof the Bill to be judged against the actions of parts ofthe Bill as they fall for individual action in any clausesthat we might pass.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds NorthWest has said, that is the idea of these clauses. I thinkthey would add considerably to the robustness of theBill—a theme we began to talk about seriously thismorning—because of the way in which they wouldgather everything together under an umbrella of purpose.That point is arguable. Some might say there is sufficientpurpose in the Bill, and there is indeed plenty of purposein the Bill. It is just a question of whether it is fullygathered together in the relationship between the partsof the Bill on biodiversity, water, air and waste, andgathered together into the fundamental purposes of thefirst part of the Bill and put together as an overallwhole.

I hope the Minister will think about what I have saidcarefully. As you have reminded us, Mr Gale, the clauseswould not come up for a vote until the end of ourproceedings, so they will not be voted on today. However,we feel strongly about this, and I think we wouldconsider dividing the Committee when they come up, ifthere is no reasonable response to the intent put forwardin these new clauses.

The Chair: Thank you, Dr Whitehead. We will makea note, and whoever is in the Chair at the time that thenew clauses are reached will take cognisance of whatyou have just said.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for LeedsNorth West and the shadow Minister for their input,and I acknowledge the input of the Chairs of theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee andthe Environmental Audit Committee. I have a great dealof respect for both Committees, having been on both ofthem myself, as have some hon. Members here.

I thank hon. Members for the interest they haveshown in part 1 of the Bill, which genuinely and openlytalks about the new framework of environmentalgovernance. I welcome their input and the fact that theywant to look at the intention to ensure that the targets,


[Rebecca Pow]

the environmental improvement plans, the environmentalprinciples and the Office for Environmental Protectionwork together to protect our natural environment.

As this was one of the specific points raised by thehon. Member for Leeds North West, I want to touch atthe outset on driving significant environmental improvementand to reassure him that through the Bill the Governmentwill set at least one new long-term target in each of thefour priority areas of water, air quality, waste andresources, and biodiversity by 31 October 2022. Thosetargets will be set following a great deal of robustevidence-gathering, consultation and engagement withexperts, advisers and the public, and they will have to beapproved by Parliament through the affirmative processwhen the statutory instruments are set. People will haveplenty of opportunity to engage.

I also want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, since hein particular raised this matter, about other targets. Ithink the witness from the RSPB raised that in oursession last week. I want to offer reassurance that thetarget-setting process is an ongoing process. It is not aone-off thing, where we set one target and that is theend of that. That is why we will also need to considerwhat other targets might be needed to ensure that wecan significantly improve the natural environment inEngland—in the area of biodiversity, for example, whichhe mentioned, because it is complicated and involves allsorts of areas linking into each other.

We will conduct that review at the same time as thefirst statutory review of the environmental improvementplan, and report to Parliament on its outcome by 31 January2023. The first environmental improvement plan is thefirst plan of this Bill; it will help us to deliver what is inthe 25-year improvement plan. I hope that reassures thehon. Gentleman that target setting is not a one-offthing, but will be a constant, flowing landscape.

I also want to reassure colleagues that a huge amountof thought has gone into the setting of this framework,so that it is a coherent framework for environmentalprotection and improvement. I would say to the shadowMinister that it does have an overarching purpose: ithas the environmental principles. Those principles willwork with all other areas of the Bill to improve thenatural environment and environmental protection. It isa huge and wide commitment. The policy statement willexplain how those principles will be applied to contributeto that environmental protection and to sustainabledevelopment. In my view, we have those objectives rightthere at the top of the Bill.

10.30 am

I want to go into a bit more detail and to give a fewmore reassurances. The measures in the Bill will allform part of environmental law once it has been enacted.That means that the Office for Environmental Protectionwill have oversight of the Government’s implementationof their duties as it does over all other aspects ofenvironmental law.

We have designed each governance mechanism inpart 1 of the Bill with guiding objectives. I have referredto those already. They will ensure that targets andenvironmental improvement plans, the environmentalobjectives and the Office for Environmental Protectionwork in harmony to protect and enhance our natural

environment. A raft of measures will all work togetherto bring about the overall environmental improvementthat the shadow Minister and I agree is of the utmostimportance. That is what we are trying to achieve throughthe Bill. Both targets and environmental improvementplans have the objective of delivering significantimprovement in the natural environment. That is referredto in clauses 6 and 7.

I want to touch on what significant improvement is,because that was touched on by the hon. Member forLeeds North West. It will be for the Government, incarrying out all the reviews and procedures that happen,to determine what “significantly” means. There is nosingle, overarching metric for the environment—I amsure that the shadow Minister, with his knowledge ofscience and the environment, will completely understandthis—so creating an objective test here is impossible.However, we take “significantly” to mean that onlysmall, marginal or fractional improvement of the wholeenvironment, or dramatic improvement in just a fewnarrow areas of the natural environment, would not beacceptable. We could not fudge it and get away withdoing a few small things or one or two dramatic thingsand say, “That’s it.” That just would not work.

The Office for Environmental Protection may provideits own view when it monitors the implementation ofenvironmental law and monitors progress in improvingthe natural environment in accordance with theGovernment’s environmental improvement plans andtargets. If it disagrees with the Government’s interpretation,it can publish a report, to which the Government arerequired to respond.

Both the OEP report and the Government responsemust be laid before Parliament, so every hon. Memberhere will be able to see them. The OEP is also requiredto produce its own strategy setting out how it intends toperform its functions and would be expected, as part ofthat, to set out its approach to fulfilling its responsibilityto monitor and report on environmental improvementplans and targets.

I hope that is clear. The Government must periodicallyreview their long-term targets, alongside existing statutorytargets—of course, we still have quite a lot of otherenvironmental law and targets, which will carry on—toconsider whether all those things collectively, both theexisting legislation and the new targets, would significantlyimprove the natural environment in England. We referto that as the significant improvement test, and I havejust set out a lot about what “significantly” means.

If significant improvement did not occur, the Governmentwould have to set out how they intend to use theirtarget-setting powers to rectify that. That would mostlikely involve plans to modify existing targets and perhapsto set more ambitious new targets. It will be a constantlymoving feast of analysing targets and checking whetherthey are the right ones. Should they be tweaked a bit?Should we be improving them? The significant improvementtest is intended to capture both the breadth and theamount of improvement, with the aim of ensuring thatEngland’s natural environment as a whole improvessignificantly.

Clauses 7 to 14 create an ongoing requirement for theGovernment to have a

“plan for significantly improving the natural environment”.


During environmental improvement plan reviews, theGovernment must consider whether further policies areneeded to achieve targets, as I mentioned.

With regard to environmental principles, clause 16(4)will ensure that the policy statement on environmentalprinciples contributes to the improvement of environmentalprotection and sustainable development. I touched onthat right at the beginning. There will be the policystatement under it, explaining how it will be put intooperation.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West mentionedcarve-outs. I want it to be clear that the environmentalprinciples policy statement will apply across Government—across the whole policy function of Government. Whena Minister of another Department brings forward primarylegislation, they have to consider the environmentalprinciples. That is a groundbreaking introduction bythe Government. There will be exceptions in a couple ofareas, where it is self-explanatory that the principlescould not be used appropriately. That defence is one ofthose, but I am sure the hon. Member will understand that.

Dr Whitehead: I wonder if the Minister could helpme. Let us take the example of a habitat in extremelypoor condition and facing further decline. That habitatcould be significantly improved simply by preventingfurther decline and intervening to bring the habitat upto a poor but improving condition. That would be asignificant improvement, but it would not constitute ahigh-quality or healthy habitat. Does the Minister acceptthat that is a problem with the definition of significantimprovement? Or does she think that other elements inthe Bill would define significant improvement to makethat definition of a poor environment improvement—[Interruption.] I see the Minister has been providedwith inspiration. Does she think that other parts of theBill would make that argument superfluous—namely,that significant improvement would equate to healthy,with the other elements of the Bill being in place? I amnot sure it does.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman raises a goodpoint. Before I read the inspiration that has been passedto me, let me say that the whole point of the significantimprovement test, which is a legal requirement—wehave other requirements to keep on checking, testingand monitoring targets through the environmentimprovement plan, which is also checked every five years—is that it is a holistic approach. The shadow Ministeris picking one thing, but with the range of targets thatwill be set, that one thing will be constantly reported onand monitored. Later in the Bill, we will discuss thenature recovery networks and strategy. The point heraises will be addressed through those other measures inthe Bill that, on the whole, will be the levers to raise allour biodiversity and ensure nature improvement.

We have a constant monitoring system in place wherewe raise up the holistic approach. Every five years theGovernment have to assess whether meeting the long-termtargets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside theother statutory targets, would significantly improve thenatural environment. That is all open and transparent;the Government have to respond to Parliament on theirconclusions and, if they consider that the test is notmet, set out how they plan to close the gap, setting otherpowers. There are many powers in the Bill for target

setting, but also for reporting back. I hope that will givethe hon. Gentleman some assurances that the things Ibelieve he wants in the Bill will get into it through thelevers provided in it.

Clause 22 sets a principal objective for the Office forEnvironmental Protection. It will ensure that the OEPcontributes to environmental protection and theimprovement of the natural environment in exercisingits functions. Not only do we have measures forGovernment, we also have an overarching body checkingand monitoring everything and saying what it thinksshould or should not happen—whether there should benew targets or whether the targets are being addressed.All those measures are closely aligned; the idea is thatthey will work together to deliver the environmentalprotection mentioned in the amendments, concerningimprovement and protection of the natural environmentas well as the sustainable use of resources.

The shadow Minister said that the Bill had come andgone a few times and has grown a bit; I say it has grownbetter and stronger, and that we need lots of thosemeasures. The framework now is coherent. I have donea flow-chart of how this all works together, because it isquite complicated. However, if the shadow Ministerlooks at all the measures together, they knit in with eachother to give this holistic approach to what will happenfor the environment and how we will care for it.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West and theshadow Minister mentioned this “healthy environment”wording. Clearly, there are many different views onwhat constitutes a healthy environment, and theGovernment could not assess what they needed to do tosatisfy that new legal obligation, and nor could anyoneelse. The Government cannot support an amendmentthat creates such an obligation. It would create uncertaintyto call just for a “healthy environment”, because everyone’sidea of that is different. The Government cannot supportsuch a commitment, because the legal obligations aretoo uncertain. However, we support the overarchingarchitecture of everything working together to createthe holistic environment, and an approach where all thetargets work together and we are on a trajectory towardsa much better environment. The shadow Minister and Iare in complete agreement with each other that that isthe direction that we should be taking.

To sum up, the Government do not believe thatamendment 103 or new clauses 1 and 6 are necessary.I ask hon. Members kindly to withdraw them.

Alex Sobel: I will not press the amendment to a vote.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: On a point of order, Mr Gale. I wantto be clear that amendment 103 and new clause 6 are tobe withdrawn, with no effect on new clause 1.

The Chair: That is absolutely the case. Let me restate,because none of us has a monopoly on wisdom: formally,only the lead amendment is moved. If any otheramendments or new clauses are to be moved, we have tohave an indication of that fact at the right time, whenthey will be moved. Only the lead amendment can bewithdrawn, because only the lead amendment has beenmoved, at this stage. Everyone happy?



Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 1, inclause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) andinsert—

“(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the power insubsection (1) so as to set the appropriate long-term targetswithin each priority area for the purpose of achieving andmaintaining a healthy environment on land and at sea”.

This amendment seeks to provide legal clarification to show that theSecretary of State’s purpose when setting targets is to maintain ahealthy environment. It also seeks to explicitly include the marineenvironment links to which are currently sparse in this Bill.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 85, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at the endinsert—“on land, and at sea.”

This amendment makes explicit that the review of environmentaltargets should consider both marine and terrestrial environments

Dr Whitehead: We have not yet got beyond the first pageof the Bill because, I suggest, it is a particularly importantpage for the rest of the Bill. These two amendmentsseek to put clearly on the face of the Bill what we aretalking about in terms of the environment. They add“on land” and “at sea”, first to the targets in line 11onwards. They do so because we think—as we havemade clear by tabling an amendment to clause 6—thatthe Bill ought to be completely clear that we are talkingabout the threats not just to the environment but to themarine environment as well. The two are indissolublylinked.

Later, we will talk about beaches, which one mightsay are neither terrestrial nor marine, but involve aparticular series of concerns about both of them. TheBill needs to be clear that that all comes within andefinition of what we are talking about.

10.45 am

We all agree that the marine environment is importantif we are to maintain clean beaches and water we canswim in, and to maintain fish stocks. They are allconsiderations that we should not forget about and thathave an impact on the terrestrial environment. We mustmake it clear, without a shadow of a doubt, that that iswhat we are talking about. In a previous meeting, theMinister appeared to be amenable to explicitly includingthe marine environment. She may have other ways ofexpressing that, but there is a commonality of purposeabout the importance of ensuring that the marineenvironment is clearly referred to in the Bill.

The amendments have different merits. Amendment 85does not force any target changes, but focuses on theGovernment’s review of environmental targets. It wouldintroduce a minimal change, so that when the Governmentconduct the review that they propose to“consider whether the significant improvement test is met,”

they should consider the sea as well as the land. Theamendments have slightly different purposes, but thesame overall aim, which is to ensure—by waving a blueflag or whatever other means—that the environment weare talking about considers the sea as well as the land,and to underline that the two are indissolubly linked inwhatever general targets we may have for a betterenvironment. One cannot work without the other.

In the context of those considerations, I hope theMinister will be well disposed towards assuring us, withchapter and verse quoted, that everything is okay, andthat we have everything in the Bill that we need to

ensure that the marine environment is properly consideredand brought into play. Alternatively, she may say, “Hmm,hang on a minute. They might have a point.” She mightthen think about ways in which we can ensure that thoseenvironmental concerns are properly reflected in the Bill.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the shadow Minister foramendments 1 and 85, which would include specificreference to

“on land, and at sea”

in clauses 1 and 6. The Bill requires that at least onelong-term target is set in each of the four priority areas,as has been explained. That provides clarity and certaintyabout the areas on which policy setting will focus betweennow and October 2022.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to settargets is not limited to those priority areas alone andcan be used in respect of any matter relating to the naturalenvironment. I give him absolute reassurances that thedefinition of the natural environment includes considerationof the marine environment. Indeed, I welcome this beingraised. The fact that we are discussing it and gettingthat in writing will clarify the position. He is absolutelyright to raise the issue. The marine environment will beincluded, and it is explicitly highlighted on page 57 ofthe explanatory notes. The shadow Minister is notalone in calling for that; the Natural Capital Committeealso wanted clarification, and we gave it reassurances.

The Secretary of State will consider expectedenvironmental improvement across all aspects—terrestrialand marine—of England’s natural environment whenconducting the significant improvement test, which is alegal requirement. That involves assessing whether thenatural environment as a whole, including the marineenvironment, will have improved significantly. Such anapproach is aligned with comments made at the evidencesession. The Committee may remember that Dr RichardBenwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and CountrysideLink, stated that

“the environment has to operate as a system.”—[Official Report,Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]

Of course, the system has to include marine and land—allaspects. Furthermore, the Office for EnvironmentalProtection has a key role, and if it believes that additionaltargets should be set, it can recommend that in itsannual report on assessing the Government’s progress.The OEP could therefore comment on the marineenvironment specifically, and the Government mustpublish and lay before Parliament a response to theOEP’s report.

The process ensures that Parliament, supported bythe OEP, can hold the Government to account on thesufficiency of measures to significantly improve thenatural environment. I hope that provides clarificationand reassurance about the word “marine” and referencesto “on land” and “on sea.” I therefore ask the hon.Member to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: As the Minister said, the fact that weare discussing these matters, and that our words aregoing on the record, is useful in buttressing what is inthe legislation. I am grateful to her for her clarification,which is also on the record. On that basis, I happily begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Kerry McCarthy: I beg to move amendment 76, inclause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(e) global footprint.”


Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, at endinsert—

“(10) Without prejudice to subsection (6), the global footprinttarget is required to be met with regard to ecosystem conversionand degradation, and to deforestation and forest degradation, by31 December 2020.”


“‘global footprint’ means—

(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, causedby, and

(b) human rights violations arising in connection withthe production, transportation or other handlingof goods which are imported, manufactured,processed, or sold (whether for the productionof other goods or otherwise), including butnot limited to direct and indirect harm associatedwith—”.

Kerry McCarthy: Amendments 76 to 78 are intrinsicallylinked with new clause 5, which we will come to, whichis about the enforcement mechanism and due diligencein supply chains that would allow us to ensure thatactions takes place. I will try to separate the amendmentsfrom the new clause and return to this issue in a bitmore detail when we get to the new clause.

Amendment 76 would add “global footprint” to thefour priority areas in which a long-term target must beset. As the Minister is aware, the target is only in respectof at least one matter within each priority area. Somepeople may think, at first glance, our ability to knowwhat the global picture will look like over a long periodis limited, particularly given the uncertainties we face.However, as the Minister will know, this measure isabout trying to drill down and find an action we cantake in each priority area.

Amendment 77 is not about long-term targets butabout a very short-term target we could address onecosystem conversion, degradation, deforestation andforest degradation by the end of the year. I will come ina moment to why the date given is important. Amendment78 would define “global footprint”, and we will comelater to new clause 5, on due diligence in the supplychain, which is really important.

The amendments in the group address the climateand ecological emergencies that we all recognise. The25-year environment plan commits to leaving a lighterfootprint on the global environment, but that is notsupported in any way by legislation. The overseas impactof our consumption, production and, I would add,financial investment—banks lending to the companiesthat are doing these things—is partly about the embeddedcarbon and water in the products that we produce andconsume, but it is also about the depletion of naturalresources, including deforestation, and it often comeswith a human cost, too. We hear about indigenouspeople being displaced from their land and we hearterrible cases of environmental defenders being murderedor disappeared, particularly in Latin America. We hearabout modern slavery in the food supply chain, orexploitation of workers.

I took part in a debate last year or the year before—Ilose track of time in this place—linking up World FoodDay and modern slavery. The cheap food that we consumecomes at a cost. Sometimes, that is an environmentalcost. Often, it is at a cost to the people who work withinthe food system.

If we need an economic reason to pursue this agenda,as opposed to just caring about the environment andclimate change, the World Economic Forum “GlobalRisks Report 2020” ranks environmental risk as thegreatest systemic threat to our global economy, althoughI suspect that the report may have been publishedbefore coronavirus hit us. It says that the decline ofnatural assets will cost the world at least £368 billion ayear, which adds up to almost £8 trillion by 2050, andthe UK will suffer some of the biggest financial lossesbecause of our trading patterns, consumption and so on.

As we all know, the extraction and processing ofnatural resources globally has accelerated over the pasttwo decades. It accounts for more than 90% of ourbiodiversity loss and water stress and around a half ofour climate impacts. That is having a particular impacton the world’s forest.

From other debates, we know about the importanceof our land and our oceans in terms of carbonmitigation—acting as natural carbon sinks. Land andoceans could offer as much as one third of carbonmitigation needed globally by 2030, to contain globalwarming at 1.5°. We have had that debate in the UK,about tree planting and peatlands and so on, but obviously,the huge forests of the world, such as the Amazon, areincredibly important. However, the world’s intact tropicalforests are now absorbing a third less carbon than theydid in the 1990s, owing to the impact of higher temperatures,droughts and deforestation. In the 1990s, the carbonuptake from those forests used to be equivalent to about17% of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities.That figure has now sunk to around 6% of globalemissions in the last decade. If dramatic action is nottaken now to halt deforestation, tropical forests mayeven become a source of additional carbon into theworld’s atmosphere by the 2060s.

Much of this global deforestation is the result ofagricultural production. Some 77% of agricultural landis currently used for livestock, through pasture grazingand the production of animal feed, such as soya. Soyaimports represent almost half of Europe’s deforestationfootprint, and around 90% of that is used for animalfeed. Many of the products that we consume in theEuropean market, particularly embedded soya in meatand dairy, as well as palm oil, cocoa, pulp and paper,are directly or indirectly connected through the supplychain with deforestation and human rights abuses insome of the most precious and biodiverse ecosystemsacross the world, including the Amazon and Indonesianforests. For example, 95% of the chickens slaughtered inthe UK each year are intensively farmed—a model ofproduction that relies on industrial animal feed containingsoya.

The solution is to stop deforestation and to givesignificant areas back to nature. The 2015 United NationsNew York declaration on forests committed to restoringan area of forests and croplands larger than the size ofIndia by 2030. We need three significant interventionsto meet that goal.


[Kerry McCarthy]

The first is significantly to reduce global meat anddairy consumption and to give large areas of existingagricultural land back to nature. Another is to end theuse of crop-based biofuels, to prevent further landconversion away from high-quality natural ecosystems.We also need to clean up global supply chains, to limitdeforestation, which new clause 5 particularly addresses.This is one way that the UK can show leadership as weapproach COP26. It would also show leadership towardsone of the draft targets for the Convention on BiologicalDiversity at Kunming in China later this year, if thatgoes ahead.

11 am

Amendment 77 is a short-term, binding target thatwe want in the Bill. At the moment, because of the waythe Bill is drafted, interim targets will not be set untilthe beginning of January 2023. Amendment 77 wouldinsert a zero-deforestation supply chain target for December2020 for all commodities and goods used or consumedin the UK. The Consumer Goods Forum committed toeliminate all deforestation from supply chains of keycommodities by 2020. Of course, we are now in 2020,and those voluntary commitments have failed. Greenpeaceanalysis suggests that some 50 million hectares of forest—anarea the size of Spain—are likely to have been destroyedfor production since those original commitments weremade. I mentioned the link between deforestation andour consumption patterns.

Some might say that a legal deforestation target for2020 is not deliverable, but some examples show justwhat can be achieved with the will to do so. Greenpeaceexposed the link between Amazon destruction and theproduction of agri-commodities such as soy in 2006,which prompted global traders and brands, includingCargill and McDonald’s, to set up an Amazon soymoratorium, which the Brazilian Government latersupported. Unfortunately, things have changed in Brazil,with a move back towards bad practices. However, in2014, after eight years of the moratorium, almost noAmazon forest was cleared for soy.

The Government signed up to support the delivery ofindustry commitments to zero deforestation by 2020,both through their international commitments in theAmsterdam declaration and the New York declarationon forests, as well as via the 25-year plan. Amendment 77would simply ensure that those commitments have legalforce and would show bold leadership in supportingnature-based solutions, particularly as we approach theyear of COP.

Finally, I have had a letter from the chair of theGlobal Resource Initiative taskforce, which is due torelease a report with its recommendations on 30 March.The letter does not say whether I can say what is in it, soI am slightly wary of revealing of what I think will bethe recommendations. I will return to that, because bythe time we get to new clause 5, the report will havehopefully been published. I do not want to get Sir IanCheshire into trouble. However, the report sets out thecase for a more strategic approach to tackling deforestation,through a package of 14 interconnected actions, andmakes a recommendation for a legally binding target.The end of the letter says:

“The science is unequivocal—protecting and restoring forestswill be critical if we are to avert a climate catastrophe. The business

case is also beyond doubt—UK businesses have much to benefitfrom establishing themselves as leaders in deforestation-free supplychains and much to lose from being left behind.

The Environment Bill provides an opportunity to acceleratethis change, to provide a level playing for business and to demonstrateUK leadership.”

Dr Whitehead: I apologise, Sir Roger, for havinginadvertently deknighted you earlier. I do not wish tocontinue with that practice any further. It is a newworld, but it is quite useful, I think.

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for theamendments, which we strongly think should be supported.It would be an omission if the Bill did not recognisewhat the international footprint of our actions is allabout and how intrinsically linked that is, in a worldwhere sugar snap peas are grown in Kenya—[Interruption.]I am merely saying that they are grown there, Minister—ourchoices are our own in those respects. Things are flownaround the world at a moment’s notice and flowers areput in cargo plane holds. There are the effects of ourattempts at reforestation, but we then observe deforestationin substantial parts of the world as a result, quiteprobably, of them taking part in the processes by whichwe get soya milk on our tables in the UK. We mightdeplore such practices in principle, but actually, wesubstantially support them as a result of our preferencesfor particular things in this country. That causes thoseinternational events to occur, which we then deplorefurther.

The idea that we are intrinsically linked through ourglobal footprint, in terms of what we do in this countryas far as the environment is concerned, seems veryimportant in the Bill’s successful passage through theHouse. Although amendment 77 makes very specificpoints, the amendments are more than slightly contingenton new clause 5, which we will debate later. I would liketo hear how the Minister thinks that in the absence of asomething that includes our international environmentalfootprint, the Bill can do justice to what should beintrinsic elements of concern when we talk about ourdomestic environment. Not only did my hon. Friendmake a powerful case, but we are completely convincedthat this needs rectifying in the Bill, and I hope that wecan do that by not just passing the amendments, buttaking serious cognisance of new clause 5 when wediscuss it later on.

Alex Sobel: I have signed amendments 76 and 78 frommy hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (KerryMcCarthy), but not amendment 77—that is an oversight,however, and I also fully support it. I will talk about twospecific things relating to our global footprint in theAmazon and West Papua, and it is worth declaring thatI am the chair of the all-party group on West Papua,although I have no pecuniary interests.

My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister made excellentcases, but I want to add a bit more detail. Three weeksago, Chief Raoni, one of the indigenous leaders of theAmazon, came to the House and I met him, and lastweek, I hosted WWF Brazil’s chief executive here. Theyalso met the Minister’s colleague, Lord Goldsmith,while they were here, and one of their key asks wasthat the UK Government are very clear about theimport of goods from the Amazon. The range of goodsis very broad. The dangers in the Amazon are live atthe moment, with concerns that in just a matter of


months, wildfires could rage in the Amazon as wesaw last year, destroying millions of hectares ofrainforest.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East madegood points about soya and cattle farming, but there isalso extremely widespread mining—not just by largecompanies, but the wildcat mining, in which the familyof the Brazilian President have traditionally been involved—for metals such as aluminium, iron, nickel and copper.The sourcing of the materials for many of the everydayproducts that people use involves deforestation andmining in the Amazon. That has further effects becauseactivities such as farming and mining require infrastructure,such as roads right through the rainforest. The use ofthe river and of heavy diesel vehicles creates water andair degradation.

We spoke about biodiversity in the UK, but ourbiodiversity pales into insignificance compared with thebiodiversity in the rainforests of the Amazon or WestPapua. It is the Committee’s duty not to forget that theUK is a major importer of goods and a major worldcentre for resources and raw materials, which are tradedin London and imported into the UK. That means thatwe have a much broader responsibility.

West Papua is a lesser-known area that is part ofIndonesia and has one of the world’s largest mines, theGrasberg Freeport mine. There, beyond the loss ofenvironmental habitat and the pollution of water andair, there are also human rights abuses. There is awell-documented history of extrajudicial killings aroundthe operation of the mine. Offshore, BP—a Britishcompany—is involved in oil and gas resources. Ourglobal footprint is huge and the Bill must focus on that.If we are to enshrine environmental protections indomestic law, we cannot close our borders and say, “Weare doing sufficient things here,” while forgetting ourglobal footprint and the effects of our markets, imports,production facilities and export investment in causingglobal environmental degradation.

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for theircontributions on this really key subject. I remind theCommittee that the Bill gives us the power to set long-termlegally binding targets on any matter relating to thenatural environment.

I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Memberfor Bristol East about the 25-year environment plan,which is of course the first environmental improvementplan under the Bill. That plan talks about “leavinga lighter footprint” and the whole of chapter 6 isabout,

“Protecting and improving our global environment”.

That is there in writing and I assure the Committee thatthe power in the Bill to set long-term legally bindingtargets on any matter relating to the natural environmentallows us to set targets on our global environmentalfootprint.

Kerry McCarthy: I know that the 25-year plan will beincorporated as the first environmental plan, but mypoint was that by adding amendment 76 and the fifthpriority on the global footprint, we would ensure thatthe Bill specifies that global footprint targets wouldhave to be set. Simply referring to the 25-year plan isjust warm words rather than any clear commitment toaction.

11.15 am

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention,and I recognise all the work that she is doing on thisissue; she speaks knowledgably and passionately aboutit. However, the amendment would go further by creatinga legal obligation on the Government to set targets onour wider global footprint, including human rightsaspects, and amendment 77 would require us not onlyto set a target but meet it by 31 December 2020.

Before accepting such obligations, a responsibleGovernment, which I like to think we are, would needto be confident that we had or could develop reliablemetrics and an established baseline for such targets,and a clear understanding of any potential perverseincentives that such targets could create. The proposalsounds very straightforward but, of course, there is agreat deal involved in it. We are working to explore thefeasibility and effectiveness of a global environmentfootprint indicator, which includes reviewing the existingmethodologies of global impact indicators.

We cannot responsibly accept a commitment to setglobal footprint as a priority area, as that would entailus in setting at least one legally binding target in atimescale that does not reflect the need to build the solidfoundations that are needed. However, the hon. Ladywas right to draw our attention to the impact that ourdomestic consumption can have on our global footprint,and the shadow Minister also mentioned that. Indeed,I went berserk with my own children when I found apacket of Kenyan beans in the bottom of my fridge;that was in December, so they were not seasonal for us.Woe betide them if they ever do that again! I put saidpacket in the bottom of one of their Christmas stockingsto make the point. Anyway, I digress.

This is such an important issue and many colleagueshave touched on it. That is why it is really importantthat the UK establishes roundtables on palm oil andsoya. Indeed, we have already done a great amount ofwork on some of these issues. For example, the UKachieved 77% certified sustainable palm oil in 2018,which is—staggeringly—up from just 16% in 2010. TheUK has moved very fast on that issue. Eight of theUK’s largest supermarkets, representing a combinedretail market share of 83%, have published new sourcingpolicies to deliver sustainable soya to the UK market.We will continue to work both with those businesses,through these roundtables on palm oil and soya, andwith producer countries through our UK internationalclimate finance projects to improve the sustainability offorest risk commodities.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West starklyhighlighted the example of the Amazon and the impactthat we have; we must take things very carefully. However,that is not to say that, in doing all this work, we shouldnot then harness the power through the Bill to introducea target on our global environmental footprint. That issomething that we have the option to consider.

I will also touch on the Global Resource Initiative,which was set up last year to investigate what the UKcan do overall to reduce its footprint. We are awaitingthe GRI’s recommendations and we will consider themcarefully before responding. Any recommendations forlong-term, legally binding targets will need to identifythe reliable metrics, baselines and targets that I have


[Rebecca Pow]

mentioned before. However, the Bill gives us the powerto introduce a target on our global environmental footprintat any time, so such targets are definitely in the mix.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Our globalenvironmental footprint abroad is very important andthe hon. Member for Leeds North West made an interestingpoint in particular about our footprint in Indonesia. Ihappen to know about the BP investment at the Tangguhliquid natural gas project very well. It uses two offshoreplatforms, and there is an absolutely amazing socialresponsibility programme, which I have seen in detail. Itis widely recognised as one of the best in the world,both by the people of West Papua and more widely inIndonesia.

It is worth noting that we have significant renewableenergy projects there, including some interest intidal stream—we brought a delegation from Indonesiato Scotland recently. Through the Department forInternational Development’s climate change unit, wehave worked on making their timber production sustainableand are now looking at how we can help them make thepalm oil industry sustainable. The Minister makes animportant point about how we can build a strongenvironmental footprint abroad.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for thatintervention.

Alex Sobel: On a point of order, Sir Roger. Does thehon. Member for Gloucester have any interest to declarein relation to the statement he just made?

The Chair: That is not a point of order for the Chair.If the hon. Member for Gloucester had any interest todeclare, I am sure he would do so.

Richard Graham: I am happy to say that my onlyinterest to declare is as an unpaid, voluntary tradeenvoy in Indonesia for the last three Prime Ministers.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.He speaks with a great deal of knowledge about worldwideissues, as he always does in the Chamber.

On the grounds of what I have said, I ask the hon.Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Kerry McCarthy: I will have to go back and readwhat the Minister said, because I am rather confused.She seems to be jumping around all over the place. Onone hand, she says a global footprint target can beincluded in the Bill and cites some good things that havehappened through volunteer initiatives and throughcompanies—perhaps with a bit of Government pressureon them—to say that such things can be done. On theother hand, she says that we cannot possibly put it inthe Bill.

I point out that amendment 77 is designed to ensurethat there is an end-of-year target, which was previouslya commitment. The Government have said in variousdifferent forums that they would achieve that, so it is a

bit late now to say, “We need to worry about themetrics, and we need to be working on this, that and theother.”

I tried to intervene on the Minister because I wantedto ask her about the GRI recommendations, which willcome forward on 30 March. If it recommends that theprovision should be in the Environment Bill, will theMinister commit to table amendments that reflect the GRIrecommendations? As she would not let me intervene toask her about that, she is very welcome to intervene andtell me whether that is the case. It might affect whether Idecide to push anything to a vote.

Rebecca Pow: I will intervene very briefly. I reiteratethat we await the outcome of the recommendations andwill consider them very carefully. Getting the metricsright is absolutely crucial, as is every target in the Bill.I said strongly that there is a power in the Bill to settargets on our global environmental footprint. I shallleave it there.

Kerry McCarthy: As I said, I want to revisit that,because I thought the Minister was making an argumentagainst being able to pursue targets. She did not adequatelymake the case for not having the specific priority of aglobal footprint target, but we will return to that whenwe discuss new clause 5, which is a comprehensiveclause about due diligence in the supply chain and howwe enforce all this. We shall return to the debate then,rather than my pressing these issues to a vote now. I begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 178, inclause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) Targets set within the priority area of air quality mustinclude targets for—

(a) the ambient 24 hour mean concentration of PM2.5and PM10;

(b) average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10; and

(c) annual emissions of NOx, ammonia, PM2.5, PM10,SO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds.

(3B) Targets set within the priority area of water must include,but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) abstraction rates; and

(b) the chemical and biological status and monitoring ofinland freshwater and the marine environment.

(3C) Targets set within the priority area of biodiversity mustinclude, but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species;and

(b) the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats.

(3D) Targets set within the priority area of waste andresources must include, but are not limited to, matters relating tothe reduction of overall material use and waste generation andpollution, including but not limited to plastics.”

We are now moving on to a debate on one of themost important elements of the Bill. I suspect it willtake us beyond the break for lunch, but I will start myremarks. The amendment is designed to address thepriority areas for environmental targets, which are setout in clause 1(3). Hon. Members can see that the statedpolicy areas are air quality, water, biodiversity, andresource efficiency and waste reduction. Other targets,


particularly on PM2.5 air quality, are mentioned later inthe Bill, but those are the priority areas for the purposeof the Bill.

The Chair: Order. It is tiresome, but I have to interruptthe hon. Gentleman.

11.25 am

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Question

put (Standing Order No. 88).




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Sixth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 1 TO 6 agreed to, one with amendments.

Adjourned till Thursday 19 March at half-past Eleven o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than





















(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Clause 1

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS

Amendment moved (this day): 178, in clause 1,page 1, line 17, at end insert—

“(3A) Targets set within the priority area of air quality mustinclude targets for—

(a) the ambient 24 hour mean concentration of PM2.5and PM10;

(b) average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10; and

(c) annual emissions of NOx, ammonia, PM2.5, PM10,SO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds.

(3B) Targets set within the priority area of water must include,but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) abstraction rates; and

(b) the chemical and biological status and monitoring ofinland freshwater and the marine environment.

(3C) Targets set within the priority area of biodiversity mustinclude, but are not limited to, matters relating to—

(a) the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species;and

(b) the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats.

(3D) Targets set within the priority area of waste andresources must include, but are not limited to, matters relating tothe reduction of overall material use and waste generationand pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

2 pm

The Chair: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.Before we start proceedings, I have been advised thatthe ambition today is to get to the end of clause 6,which as far as I am concerned is both admirable andacceptable. The Chairman’s job is to be in the Chair,and I am prepared to do that, but if we sit rather laterthan we might have done, I will suspend the sitting,probably for 15 minutes at 4.30 pm—for natural causes.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Forthe elucidation of the Committee, I confirm that theintention of the Opposition is to get to the end ofclause 6 in reasonably good order, so it will not benecessary, I hope, for the Chair to suspend proceedings,because we will already have gone home by then. Wewill see whether I manage to keep my remarks suitablybrief, so that we can achieve that goal.

I barely started my remarks about the amendmentthis morning. I will first emphasise how important theamendment is to ensuring that the priority area targetsare seen as targets with content, rather than targets intheory. That is important because of the frankly ratherodd way in which subsection (2) is set out:

“The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1)so as to set a long-term target in respect of at least one matterwithin each priority area.”

That might suggest that the Secretary of State willhave a lottery choice, and will say, “Well, I’ve got to setat least one target in each area, so what’s it going to be?If I go above my limit of one target per area, I mightnot be able to get targets in other areas,” or perhaps, “Ihaven’t got enough targets in this section, so I have tobeef them up.”

In reality, targets are not one per customer; they arebased on what targets should be set in each area. Whatare the themes that one would prioritise within eacharea in which a target might be set? What are thepriorities regarding air quality, water, biodiversity andwaste and resources that would cause us to say, “Perhapsin this area there should be three or four targets, and inthat area two, or more than three”?

The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set morethan one target, but it at least strongly suggests that itshould be one target, and implies that that should be it.I hope we can be clear today that that certainly is not it,and that the Secretary of State will be charged withlooking at each area and deciding, on the basis of whatis needed, what the targets for those areas should be.They might or might not be numerous.

There is a rumour that there was discussion with theTreasury about how many targets might be allowed ineach area, and the Treasury said, “Maybe keep it to oneeach. That will be okay.” I am sure that is untrue, butnevertheless the drafting of this part of part 1 seems alittle odd.

In amendment 178, we have tried to say, “What wouldbe the general priority areas?” One might say that it wasour best go at answering that. If we have time to sparethis afternoon, having got through our business, we couldhave a little roundtable and decide whether we thinkthose are the absolute priorities, or whether we shouldput in others or change them around. It is an attempt,which I think is good enough to go into the legislation,to look at what the main areas are within each priorityarea that we could reasonably set targets on.

Within air quality, it would be good to have targetson average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10, andannual emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, thedifferent PMs and non-methane volatile organiccompounds. For water, the targets could be on abstractionrates,

“the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inlandfreshwater”

and, importantly, the marine environment, which wetouched on this morning.

In the priority area of biodiversity, there could betargets on

“the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species”

and

“the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats”.

Later in the Bill, we will talk about recreating habitats ifnecessary, and ensuring, through local plans, that habitatsjoin up with each other, so that we do not have a seriesof island habitants with no relation to each other.Perhaps we should have a biodiversity target on ensuringthat those habitats are connected.

In the priority area of waste and resources, therecould be targets on

“overall material use and waste generation and pollution, includingbut not limited to plastics.”


As we will see later in our discussions, there couldcertainly be targets relating to the extent to which thingsare properly moved up the waste hierarchy. One of theconcerns we have regarding the waste and resourcespart of the Bill is the extent to which there is, rightly, aconcern for recycling, but not for going any further upthe waste hierarchy than that.

Amendment 178 is the explanation that we would liketo see after the very thin gruel served up in clause 1(3).It is by no means the last word, and we state in theamendment that the targets are not limited to those setout in it. Indeed, it would be a perfectly good idea if theSecretary of State or Minister said, “I don’t quite agreewith the targets that you have set out here. There areother priority areas in these sectors, and we’d like to settargets on those instead.” We are not precious aboutthat in any way.

I hope the Committee can accept the principle that itis not sufficient to set out single-word priority areas,particularly in clause 1(2). In the Bill, there needs to besome unpacking of the process, so that we can assureourselves that we will get to grips with the sort oftargets that we believe are necessary. That is a friendlyproposal. I hope it is met with interest from GovernmentMembers, and that we can discuss how we get thatright, having accepted the principle. We do not necessarilyneed the amendment to be accepted in its totality, but ifwe do not see any movement at all in its direction, westrongly feel that we ought to set down a marker toshow that it is important that such a process be undertaken,and would therefore reluctantly seek to divide theCommittee.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): I thank theshadow Minister for seeking to specify the targets thatthe Government should set within each priority area.He asked if what he said was met with interest. Ofcourse it was. He recognises that the Bill includes arequirement, which I reiterate, to set at least one long-termlegally binding target in each of four important areas:air quality; water; biodiversity; and resource efficiencyand waste reduction. Those were chosen because theyare the priority areas that reflect where we believe targetswill drive long-lasting significant improvement in thenatural environment, which is the aim of the Bill.

The four priority areas were chosen to complementthe chapters of the Bill, to build on the vision inthe 25-year environment plan—the first environmentimprovement plan in the Bill—and to facilitate thedelivery of comprehensive measures, with an “s” on theend, across the natural environment; we are talkingabout not just one thing, but a whole raft of measures.The Bill’s framework allows long-term targets to be seton any aspect of the natural environment, or people’senjoyment of it, beyond the four priority areas in orderto drive significant improvement in the natural environment.Of course, all those things will be monitored, checkedand reported on to ensure that the significant improvementis achieved, and if more targets are seen to be required,then more targets are what will happen.

I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that theGovernment will be able to determine the specific areasin which targets will be set via the robust and transparenttarget-setting process that I referred to this morning.Advice from independent experts will be sought inevery case during the process. Stakeholders and the

public will also have an opportunity to give input ontargets. Indeed, just now in the Tea Room, one of ourcolleagues asked about giving input on the deposit returnscheme. I said, “Yes, there will be a lot of engagementand a lot of consultation, through the Bill.” Targets willbe based on robust, scientifically credible evidence, aswell as economic analysis.

We do not want to prejudge which specific targetswill emerge from the process, and the Office forEnvironmental Protection has a role in setting targets.If the OEP believes that additional targets should beset, it can say what it thinks should be done in its annualreport when it is assessing the Government’s progress. Itwill do that every year. The Government then have topublish and lay before Parliament a response to theOEP’s call. Any long-term targets will be set via statutoryinstruments, which will be subject to the affirmativeprocedure. That means that Parliament can scrutinise,debate, and ultimately vote on them, so everyone getstheir say. I hope that will please the shadow Minister,because he will very much be part of that. This processensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, canhold the Government to account for the targets they set.

2.15 pm

On air quality, we are committed to tackling a diversityof air pollutants that harm human health and theenvironment, including those that the shadow Ministermentioned. I remind him that we already have ambitiousstatutory emissions reduction ceilings in place for fivekey pollutants, as well as legally binding concentrationlimits for other pollutants, and those are already startingto drive significant improvements to air quality. Thoseare in legislation, and we obviously have to abide bythem. The case for more ambitious action on fineparticulate matter is especially strong, which is why weare creating through this Bill a specific duty to set atarget for PM2.5, in addition to a further long-term airquality target.

Far from having a thin gruel, as the shadow Ministersaid—in jest, I am sure—we have a substantial porridge.That porridge will provide the building block for thewhole process of setting these targets, with our mainambition being to drive and enhance a better-protectedenvironment. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw his amendment.

Several hon. Members rose—

The Chair: Service on a Bill Committee such as thismight seem like doing porridge, but—[Laughter.] Beforewe proceed, the normal convention is that whoevermoves the motion speaks first. There is then a pause,not because I have forgotten what to do, but so that Ican see whether anybody else is excited by the debate.If I pause and nobody bothers to indicate that theywish to speak, I call the Minister. Two Members havenow indicated that they wish to speak. That is perfectlyin order, and I have no problem with it, but traditionally,the Minister speaks last to summarise the debate. Thereis then the possibility of prolonging the matter further,but that is how it is usually done.

Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op): I apologisefor not rising quickly enough before the Minister spoke.I will try to do so more quickly in future.


[Alex Sobel]

I reiterate that under our current regime, it took threecourt cases, brought by a voluntary organisation, forGovernment to bring forward the clean air measuresthat are now being introduced. Obviously, a lot of othertargets are included in amendment 178, tabled by myhon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test—myname is not on that amendment, but I will be supportingit—but the ones about air quality are particularly closeto my heart.

The fact that we had to go through those court casesunder the European regulations, and that those cleanair targets are not in the Bill, is deeply worrying. I amsure that we have ceilings, but for a lot of people, thoseceilings are too high, and people are still going to die ofbreathing-related and other lung-related conditions. Theceiling in this Committee Room, for example, is veryhigh; knowing what we now know, we would not againbuild this room with this ceiling height; we would have afar lower ceiling. The same is true for levels of particulatematter.

When we took evidence from ClientEarth last week,Katie Neald said:

“The cases that ClientEarth has taken against the UK Governmenthave been key both to driving action to meet the legal limits wealready have and to highlighting this as a serious issue andhighlighting Government failures so far. It is really importantthat the Bill allows people to continue to do that against thesenew binding targets.”––[Official Report, Environment Public BillCommittee, 12 March 2020; c. 95, Q136.]

This amendment creates that framework. Without it,the Bill is insufficient.

Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): I apologise,Sir Roger, for not indicating earlier that I wished tospeak. I want to make a very quick point, which underpinsquite a lot of my criticism of many of the amendmentsthat have been tabled to this Bill.

This Bill is a framework measure. The Governmenthave already set out their priority areas, which are listedin the Bill. To get into the level of specificity in theamendment presupposes that we could know, theoreticallyfor 15, 20 or 25 years, all the measures we may wish tochoose. There are some that might seem good now, butin future may not seem so good. Flexibility is veryimportant and something any Government of any colouror description, or any Minister, would need in futurebecause, as we are seeing, the science and advice canchange quite quickly. Having priority areas around thebroad themes set out in the Bill makes sense because airwill not cease to exist—if it does, we will cease to exist.Within that, however, we need Parliament and theGovernment to have flexibility. On those grounds, I donot support the amendment.

The Chair: Does the Minister wish to comment onwhat has just been said before I go back to Dr Whitehead?

Rebecca Pow: Very briefly, thank you, Sir Roger.

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Memberfor Hitchin and Harpenden. He has hit the nail on the headin summing up the flexibility for the targets and theimportance of getting and inputting the right expertadvice and having the flexibility to move and change withthe requirements. The environment is such a huge thing.There is no one thing; it is not a straightforward answer.

There will be lots of different targets to consider. Specifically,however, we have a requirement to set at least onelong-term target.

To pick on the point made by the hon. Member for LeedsNorth West on air quality, we have a clean air strategyalready, which the World Health Organisation has heldup as an example for the rest of the world to follow. Weare already taking the lead on that and have committed£3.5 billion to delivering our clean air strategy and themeasureswithin it.Theyarealreadyoperatingandwillworkpart and parcel with the Bill’s new measures to have anevenmoreholisticandcomprehensiveapproachtoairquality.

Dr Whitehead: If the Bill were just a framework Bill,it would be about a quarter as long as it is. The fact that,in various parts, it has quite a lot of detail about thethings that are required within the overall frameworkindicates that the Bill is more than that. It seeks to setout, guide and secure a whole series of advances inenvironmental standards and enhancements of the naturalenvironment in a way that hopefully we can all beproud of.

That is why I call this particular section thin gruel. Iwas trying to see where we can go with the porridgeanalogy. Although its potential is not thin gruel, theway it is set out in the Bill appears to me to turn outsomething that is rather more thin gruel than goodporridge. Some Government Members, meanwhile, arethinking “How can we make it flower out of its bowlwith all sorts of things added to it?”

Our amendment does not stop Ministers coming upwith new targets—wide targets, changeover time and soon—and go with the flow of circumstances as theyunfold, but it prevents the porridge from being thinnerthan it might otherwise be. We want to see basic, goodporridge with some fruit, raspberries—

Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): Nuts.

Dr Whitehead: With some nuts on top, which togethermakes a pleasing dish that one can understand and besecure that one is going to get a good breakfast as aresult. That is the purpose of our amendment. We feelstrongly about that—we all like a good breakfast. Onthat basis, I am not happy with the Minister’s response.I do not see how the things that she wants to get doneon the Bill will in any way be undermined or diluted bythe structure that we have put forward. On the contrary,I think they would be underpinned and expanded. Onthat basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Division No. 1]

AYES

McCarthy, Kerry

Morden, Jessica

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Sobel, Alex

Whitehead, Dr Alan

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Ansell, Caroline

Bhatti, Saqib

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca

Question accordingly negatived.



“(4A) A target under this section must be set on the basisof the best available evidence and any advice given undersection (3)(1).

(4B) In setting targets under this section, the Secretary of Statemust take into account relevant international best practices andseek to improve on them.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that targets are evidence based andhave considered international best practises.

The amendment deals with what the targets mustspecify. As the Bill stands at the moment, that is a littlevague. Subsection (4) states:

“A target set under this section must specify—

(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable ofbeing objectively

measured, and

(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.”

We think that that formulation does not take full accountof the way in which those targets should be appraised,particularly the way they should be appraised on thebasis of the best available evidence and internationalbest practices and how the UK might be able to improveon them. We therefore suggest adding proposed newsubsections (4A) and (4B) after subsection (4).

We have to look at the best available evidence. I amnot saying for a moment that this would occur, but atarget that was set under this procedure by the Minister,which appeared to have been conjured out of thin air ona whim and did not have much support, would begravely undermining of those people who want thosetargets to be achieved and those achievements to befirmly attained.

The best available evidence and the relevant internationalbest practices are extremely important. We should beable to say that we can learn from others and incorporatethat into our practices so that we leap ahead in ourachievements. That is a very good guideline to informtarget setting, and it is what we offer in our amendment.Again, I would be interested to hear from the Ministerwhether she thinks that what is in the Bill at the momentreally does the job in terms of setting targets, or whether,perhaps by using different means from the clause, thereare ways in which we can make sure that the Bill standsup rather better to the target-setting task that we haveset it.

2.30 pm

Rebecca Pow: Of course I recognise the shadow Minister’sdesire to ensure that, when these targets are set, they arebased on the highest possible standards of evidence,practice and advice. However, I believe that it is notnecessary to make such explicit amendments as the onethat we are considering, because we have already committedto setting targets under a robust, evidence-led process.We expect the best available evidence to inform this,including, of course, scientific data, models, historicaldatasets and assessment of what is feasible from asocioeconomic perspective. I can assure him that absolutelynothing will be conjured out of thin air, as he wassuggesting; conducting ourselves in such a way wouldnot be a correct way for Government to operate.

I am sure that the shadow Minister will be interestedto be reminded that every two years, we will conducta review of significant developments in internationalenvironmental legislation. I think that that was one of

the new additions to the Bill that was inserted duringthe process that he was outlining earlier, about how theBill came and went, and fell, and various other things.This is an extra addition that I believe will be useful andwill address exactly what he is talking about, because itis right that we consider what is happening across therest of the world, to make sure that we are aligned,whether we want to be or not, and consider what otherpeople are doing, and make sure we keep abreast ofdevelopments in driving forward our environmentalprotection legislation.

Of course, we will publish that review and makesure that any relevant findings are factored into ourenvironmental improvement plan, and considered withthe environmental target-setting process. We will alsoseek and consider very carefully the advice of independentexperts before setting the targets. Additionally, our targetproposals will be subject to the affirmative procedure inParliament; both Houses will have the opportunity toscrutinise, debate and ultimately vote on the details andthe ambition of the targets. We also expect the SelectCommittees to take an interest in this process and theywill have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government’starget proposals. They might choose to conduct theirown inquiries or publish reports, which the Governmentwould then respond to in the usual manner.

Having given that amount of detail, I hope that itprovides some reassurance. The shadow Minister isobviously raising really important issues, but I hopethat my response makes it clear that we are taking thismatter very seriously. I therefore ask him to withdrawthe amendment.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister has said exactly what Ihad anticipated she might say in the best of outcomes,and that is now on the record; indeed, our purposeprincipally was to ensure that that kind of statementabout these targets was there for all to see. I am gratefulto her for setting that out and I am much happier than Iwould have been if she had not said that. I am happy towithdraw the amendment.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 28, inclause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out “the National Assemblyfor Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.This amendment reflects the renaming of the National Assembly forWales as “Senedd Cymru” by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act2020. Similar changes are made by Amendments 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55,56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, and 73.

The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 29, 32 to 36, 67, 37 to 57,72 and 73, and 58 to 64.

Rebecca Pow: Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections(Wales) Act 2020 renames the National Assembly forWales as the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru. Thechanges will take effect from 6 May 2020. As a consequence,amendment 28 would replace references in the Bill to“the National Assembly for Wales”with “Senedd Cymru”,and replace references to “the Assembly” with “theSenedd”—I hope I have made that quite clear. This isconsistent with the approach that the Welsh Governmentare taking to their own legislation.


Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Could the Ministerclarify whether we are replacing “the National Assemblyfor Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” in all legislation orwhether we are inserting both, as was implied in part ofher statement, by saying, “the National Assembly forWales/Senedd Cymru”? Does the National Assemblyfor Wales cease to exist completely, and are we always torefer to it as Senedd Cymru in all future parliamentarydebates?

Rebecca Pow: That is a very perceptive question,which does not surprise me at all—my hon. Friend isalways on the ball. The answer is no, the Welsh Assemblywill remain. I will just add that the Government consultedthe Welsh Government on how the Welsh legislatureshould be referred to in legislation moving forward, andusing the Welsh title ensures there is a consistent approachacross the statute book.

Richard Graham: For clarification, can I just confirmthat we will refer to “the National Assembly for Wales”and to “Senedd Cymru” in the Bill, and that that is theformat that Parliament and the Government will adoptfor all legislation, and that we are not replacing “theNational Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru”on every occasion?

Rebecca Pow: The answer to the first part of hisquestion is yes.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Amendment made: 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)See Amendment 28.

The Chair: I am satisfied that clause 1 has beensufficiently debated, and I therefore do not propose totake a clause stand part debate.

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS: PARTICULATE MATTER


“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;

(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”

This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill toensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHOguidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.


Amendment 185, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave outsubsection (2) and insert—

“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—

(a) follow World Health Organisation guidelines and;

(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January2030.”

This amendment ensures that the international standard on smallparticulate matter set by the World Health Organisation is followed,and that this target is reached by the end of the decade.

Amendment 25, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after“England” insert—

“and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmfulimpacts of air pollution on human health and the environmentas quickly as possible”.

This amendment is intended to strengthen the test against which targetsare assessed, to ensure that the human health impacts of air pollutionare considered, with the aim of minimising, or where possibleeliminating, them.

Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after“2023” insert—

“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any otherlong-term and interim target set within the air quality priorityarea, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines onambient air pollution by the World Health Organization,whichever is earlier”.

This amendment is intended to allow any new targets to reflect updatedWHO guidelines.

Amendment 27, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, after“completed” insert—

“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any otherlong-term and interim target set within the air quality priorityarea, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines onambient air pollution by the World Health Organization,whichever is earlier”.

This amendment is intended to trigger an early review of the PM2.5target, and other air quality targets, within 6 months of the publicationof the updated WHO guidelines.

Dr Whitehead: This amendment should be discussedwith amendment 185. Amendment 23 is tabled in thename of the esteemed Chair of the Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member forTiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and a number ofother Members, most of whom are not on thisCommittee—and some of our names have been added.Amendment 185 is in the names of Members who aremostly on the Committee.

These amendments highlight a real difference betweenwhat is in the Bill about the additional environmentaltarget on particulate matter, in addition to what is inclause 1(3), and the World Health Organisation guidelines.Clause 2 indicates why this is not just a framework Bill,as it includes some real stuff on particulate matter. Butthat real stuff does not get us to where we need to be ontargets for particulate matter in ambient air.

One way or another, these amendments seek to equatethe target guidelines to the World Health Organisationguidelines on particulate matter. Indeed, amendment 23states that the PM2.5 air quality target should be,

“less than or equal to 10µg/m3”.

I understand that that would be equivalent to the WorldHealth Organisation guidelines. In that sense, althoughthe amendments are slightly differently worded, they donot have any different intent or purpose.

The questions are: why the WHO guidelines; what havewe done so far on PM2.5 emissions; and where might thetargets suggested in the Bill get us? One problem withhow we have addressed PM2.5 and other particulatematter is that although the emissions expressed as densityper cubic metre of air have come down very substantiallyover the years, levels have pretty much plateaued betweenthe early 2000s and the present. Indeed, as I see it wewill not get too much further in achieving targets on thebasis of that performance over recent years. The suggestedtargets set out in the Bill do not take us much furtherdown the road as far as a fall in emissions is concerned.We need to align ourselves with the WHO guidelines, sothat we can ensure that we are targeting a regular andcontinuing reduction in emissions.


As hon. Members will know, these emissions areserious for human health. The smaller the particulateemissions, the more likely those particulates are topenetrate human tissue and lungs, and to cause long-terminjury and health problems for the recipients. Thesefiner particulates are pretty much a product of a lot ofmodern living, coming from, for example, tyres, brakes,diesel emissions—all sorts of things like that. It iscertainly more than possible to target those factors insuch a way as to get emissions down to a much moreseriously depleted level than at present.

Indeed, that was the subject of a report by theDepartment in 2019 entitled, “Air quality: Assessingprogress towards WHO guideline levels of PM2.5 in theUK”. That report, which was obviously a Governmentreport, suggested in its conclusion that the analysis ofprogress that had been made and of future progressdemonstrated that,

“measures in the Clean Air Strategy, alongside action by EUMember States, are likely to take us a substantial way towardsachieving the WHO guideline level for annual mean PM2.5”,

but that:

“It also helps us understand where further action is needed.”

That is probably a summary of where the Governmentare as far as these guidelines are concerned: we are someway towards the WHO guidelines, but we are not thereyet, and we need to understand that further action isneeded and where it is needed. That is why we think atarget, which should run alongside the WHO guidelinelevel, is essential in or around this Bill.

2.45 pm

What does the report state about the feasibility ofgetting to those WHO guideline levels in the UK? It isvery clear:

“On the basis of scientific modelling…we believe that, whilstchallenging, it would be technically feasible to meet the WHOguideline level for PM2.5 across the UK in the future.”

It goes on to say:

“Substantive further analysis is needed to understand whatwould be an appropriate timescale and means, and we will workwith a broad range of experts, factoring in economic, social andtechnological feasibility to do this.”

However, the report says that this is feasible. It can bedone, and it can be done on the basis of a reasonabletimescale and within a reasonable set of means.

I do not think there is an argument here to say thatanyone is setting an impossible task ahead of us, thatthis really cannot be done, or that we should not try toshoot for this because we will only fail and that wouldundermine the validity of targets. It is something thatthe Government’s own researchers have concluded iseminently feasible and doable. The only difference isthat it has not been done or targeted yet.

I would be interested to hear any arguments why thisshould not be done and why we should not seek to putthis in as our target in the Bill, because I cannothonestly think of any really good ones right at thisminute. If the arguments are, “Well, it’s too hard,” or,“We shouldn’t be doing this right now,”or, “It’s somethingthat would cost our country dearly,” I would suggestthat the Government’s own advice is to the contrary.Therefore, I hope that the Committee can unite aroundthe idea that this is where we should be going with ourtargets, and put this amendment on to the statute book.

Richard Graham: The hon. Gentleman says we musthave guidelines; I agree with him totally, but in fact theguidelines are there in the legislation. Clause 1 lays outspecifically what the standard means and the date bywhich it is to be achieved, which cannot be more than15 years after the date on which the target is initially set.The guidelines are there, and clause 2, in seven crispbullets, gives more detail about what is expected of theSecretary of State.

The hon. Gentleman’s amendment looks, on appearance,to be a modest word or two, but what he is trying toachieve is a rewriting of clauses 1, 2 and 3 altogether,setting not the guideline, but a very specific target anddeadline. I cannot help wondering whether the deadline,which is before January 2030, is not linked specificallyto the Labour party conference motion that called fornet zero carbon by 2030—something his own FrontBench has rejected, accepting the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change’s target of net zero by 2050.

Dr Whitehead: Those are two different things.

Richard Graham: They are indeed, but the date is, bycoincidence, the same.

Dr Whitehead: That is a bit like thinking that, if thereare two bodies in different parts of the country, theymust be connected because they are two bodies. It doesnot follow, to be honest, because they are not connected.

Richard Graham: I am interested in the hon. Gentlemansaying that they are not connected. The two dateshappen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is notlike two bodies in different parts of the country. The keything is that the guidelines for which he calls are there;the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.

Rebecca Pow: The Government shares the shadowMinister’s desire to take ambitious action to reducepublic exposure to air pollution and ensure that thelatest evidence is taken into consideration when targetsare reviewed. The Government take fine particulatematter, and air pollution as a whole, extremely seriously,and completely understand public concerns about thisvery serious health issue. That is why the Governmentare already taking action to improve air quality, backedby significant investment.

We have put in place a £3.5 billion plan to reduceharmful emissions from road transport. Last year, wepublished our world-leading clean air strategy, whichsets out the comprehensive action required at all levelsof Government and society to clean up our air. I reiteratethat that strategy has been praised by the WHO as anexample for the rest of the world to follow, so we arealready leading on this agenda. That is not to say thatthere is not a great deal to do; there is, but the Governmentare taking it extremely seriously.

The Bill builds on the ambitious actions that we havealready taken and delivers key parts of our strategy,including by creating a duty to set a legally bindingtarget for PM2.5, in addition to the long-term air qualitytarget. That size of particulate is considered particularlydangerous because it lodges in the lungs, and can causeall sorts of extra conditions. I have met with manyhealth bodies to discuss that. It is a very serious issue


[Rebecca Pow]

and a problem for many people. However, we are showingour commitment to tackling it by stating in the Bill thatwe will have a legally binding target.

It is important that we get this right. We must settargets that are ambitious but achievable. Last week,Mayor Glanville, the representative from the LocalGovernment Association, highlighted the importanceof ambitious targets, but was at pains to emphasise theneed for a clear pathway to achieve them. It would notbe appropriate to adopt a level and achievement date, asproposed in amendments 23 and 185, without firstcompleting a thorough and science-based considerationof our options.

Bim Afolami: Bearing in mind that the Minister hasalready quoted from last week’s evidence sessions, doesshe agree that Professor Lewis made it very clear that,once we reached the target level mentioned in theamendment, the United Kingdom would not be fully incontrol of the target, and it would therefore be dangerousto put such a target in the Bill?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for thatintervention. I was going to mention Professor AlastairLewis. Members will remember that he is the chairmanof the UK’s air quality expert group. He gave starkevidence. He is obviously an expert in his field, and itwas really interesting to hear what he said. He stressedthe technical challenges involved in setting a target for apollutant as complex as PM2.5, which he explained isformed from diverse sources—the shadow Minister isright about that—and chemical reactions in the atmosphere.He was at pains to explain that a lot of PM2.5 comesfrom the continent, and it depends on the direction ofthe wind, the weather and the atmospheric conditions.My hon. Friend is right that those things are not totallywithin our control.

Professor Lewis explained the need to decide how wewould measure progress towards the target, and that theprocess would be challenging and would take time. It iscrucial to get it right. When developing the detail of thetarget, we will seek evidence from a wide range ofsources and ensure we give due consideration to thehealth benefits of reducing pollution, as well as themeasures required to meet the targets and the costs tobusiness and taxpayers. It is really important that webring them on board.

I want to refer quickly to the report that the shadowMinister mentioned. I thought he might bring up theDEFRA report published in July 2019, which demonstratedthat significant progress would be made towards thecurrent WHO guideline level of 2.5 by 2030. He is rightabout that. However, the analysis did not outline apathway to achieve the WHO guideline level across thecountry or take into account the full economic viabilityor practical deliverability.

In setting our ambitions for achievable targets, it isessential that we give consideration to these matters—achievability and the measures required to meet it. Thatis very much what our witnesses said last week. If we setunrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that areneither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why weare committed to an evidence-based process using thebest available science—something I know the shadow

Minister is really keen we do—and advice from expertsto set an ambitious and achievable PM2.5 air qualitytarget.

I reiterate that it is crucial for public, Parliament andstakeholders that they have the opportunity to commenton this and have an input in the process of developingthese targets. By taking the time to carry out thisimportant work in engagement, we will ensure thattargets are ambitious, credible and, crucially, supportedby society. We have the significant improvement test,which is a legal requirement, outlined in the Bill. It willconsider all relevant targets collectively and assess whethermeeting them will significantly improve the naturalenvironment of England as a whole. It is intended tocapture the breadth and the amount of improvement. Itis very much a holistic approach and it encompasses theimpacts of air pollution on the natural environmentand the associated effects on human health. All thesethings will be taken into account in assessing the journeyto the targets. I therefore surmise that the proposal inamendment 25 is not necessary.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister is quite right in pointingout that the report we mentioned did not take intoaccount within a scientific model the full economicviability or practical deliverability of that change. If shewere to commission this group to go away and do that,would she commit to the WHO guidelines after thatpoint?

Rebecca Pow: The shadow Minister knows that I willmake no such commitment here. This has to be evidencebased. Get the right evidence, then the decisions can bemade. That is how this Bill will operate. All the advicewe took last week from the experts—the people we haveto listen to—very much agreed that this was the directionthat we need to take. Reviewing individual targets throughthe test, as proposed in amendments 26 and 27, wouldnot be in line with the holistic approach of the Bill.

Furthermore, the fixed timetable for periodicallyconducting the significant improvement test providesmuch needed certainty and predictability to businessand society. We have heard from many businesses thatthey want this surety. It would be inappropriate todetermine the timescale for this test on the basis of onenew piece of evidence. However, we recognise that theevidence will evolve as highlighted by amendments 26,27 and 185. The Government will consider new evidenceas it comes to light after targets have been set, as part ofthe five-yearly review of our environmental improvementplan and its annual progress report. The Office forEnvironmental Protection has a key role. If the OEPbelieves that additional targets should be set, as I havesaid before, or that an update to a target is necessary asa result of new evidence, it can recommend this in itsannual report, assessing the Government’s progress.

3 pm

I am convinced there is a very clear process for allthis. The Government will then have to publish and laybefore Parliament a response to any such report by theOEP. This process ensures Parliament, supported bythe OEP, can hold the Government to account on thesufficiency of its measures to improve the naturalenvironment. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Gentlemanto withdraw the amendment.


Dr Whitehead: I do worry about the idea that a targetshould only be set if we know that the target can beachieved and exceeded immediately. If we did that all ofthe time, we would not have targets. We would set whatwe were going to do as a target and—well I never—wewould always achieve it. A target has to be somethingthat is grasping at the stars in order to be achieved.A target, among other things, should not just be basedon the idea that you can do something now, easily.It should be, in part, a wake-up call and a gee-up tomake sure the target is achieved once you have done thebasic work that it is technically possible to do. Indeed,the Government report got us to a position of doingthat. I do not accept the Minister’s arguments on this.There should be a target, at the very least to keep us onthe straight and narrow as far as reduction in particulateemissions are concerned, which is based on WHOguidelines. I therefore seek a division on this.



Division No. 2]

AYES

McCarthy, Kerry

Morden, Jessica

Oppong-Asare, Abena

Sobel, Alex

Whitehead, Dr Alan

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Ansell, Caroline

Bhatti, Saqib

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS: PROCESS


“(1) Before making regulations under sections 1 or 2,reviewing targets under section 6, setting interim targets undersection 10, or considering actions required to achieve targets setunder sections 1, 2, or 10, the Secretary of State must—

(a) obtain, and take into account, the advice of a relevantindependent and expert advisory body set up for thispurpose;

(b) carry out full public consultation;

(c) publish that advice as soon as is reasonably practicable.

(1A) If regulations laid under sections 1 or 2 or interim targetsmake provision different from that recommended by the advisorybody, the Secretary of State must both publish the public interestreasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliamenton them.

(1B) Any advisory body set up under subsection (1)(a) mustcomprise 50 per cent of members nominated by the OEP and50 per cent of members nominated by the Committee on ClimateChange.”

This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from breakingArticles 4 to 8 of the United Nations Aarhus Convention of whichthe UK is a party. It encourages the Secretary of State to set up andlisten to an independent expert body, to consult with the public, and

share information. Where discrepancies between what is advised andthe regulations the secretary of state chooses to make arise, it requestsexplanation of that discrepancy. Finally it makes suggestions for howthat advisory body should be set up.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 181, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at endinsert—

“(1A) The advice sought under section 3(1) must includeadvice on how the scope and level of targets should be set tosignificantly improve the natural environment and minimise, orwhere possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution onhuman health and the environment.”

Dr Whitehead: I was slightly taken aback as I hadreceived an indication from the Chair’s provisional groupingand selection of amendments that amendments 81 and181 would be taken separately.

The Chair: They can be voted on separately butdebated together. I hate to say it, but I am right.

Dr Whitehead: I think I probably have a provisionalgrouping in front of me here and things maybe havechanged since then. In that case, I am very sorry that Iraised that particular point.

The Chair: No problem at all. The grouping on theselection paper indicates amendment 81 with 181 andthen, separately, amendment 24.

Dr Whitehead: My other problem here was that I hadextensively marked up the provisional grouping withcolour coding and so on, and was reluctant to set itaside. That is maybe why I brought it into the Committee.It is a nice piece of work in its own right.

We are talking about amendments 81 and 181 groupedtogether, which I am happy to talk to. I begin withamendment 81, which seeks to unpack the statement atthe beginning of clause 3 that before “making regulations”the“Secretary of State must seek advice from persons the Secretaryof State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.”

That is a rather strange form of wording. Hon.Members may agree on that. It appears, at its face, thatthe Secretary of State could choose who—in his or heropinion— is “independent”, a subjective view from theSecretary of State, and who has “relevant expertise”.That is also a subjective view. The Secretary of Statecan decide on his or her advice without consultation,and can decide from whom he or she must seek thatadvice.

Amendment 81 seeks to make it much clearer thatthat is not how the process of seeking and obtainingadvice would be carried out. Not only that, that it alsoseeks to put in place what is essentially good practicefrom previous legislation in this area, to guide us onhow that process would be undertaken. Amendment 81sets out that the Secretary of State would have to“obtain” and “take into account” the“advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body setup for this purpose”

when reviewing targets and making regulations underclauses 1 or 2. It would not just be someone who theSecretary of State thought had some relevance to thematter, or to whom they decided to go in the belief thatthey might be independent. They would be “independent”,they would be “expert”, and they would be separate.It would be clear who that advice was coming from.


[Dr Whitehead]

On the basis of that advice, full public consultationshould be undertaken, and that advice would be publishedas soon as was reasonably practical. It gives the Secretaryof State a get-out, and it is proper that it should. Sincethe advice is to be given as advice, and if the Secretaryof State decided that they did not want to take thatadvice, or wanted to make a provision other than theone recommended by the advisory body, then the Secretaryof State should

“publish the public interest reasons for those differences andmake a statement to Parliament on them.”

That is what is known as a comply or explain procedure.It would be expected, in the first instance, that theSecretary of State would comply with properly given,properly expert and properly independent advice, but ifthey did not feel that they could comply with thatadvice, it would be up to them to put up a good case asto why not, to publish that good case and to make astatement to Parliament on the good case as to why theycould not comply.

We have suggested that the members of the advisorybody for this purpose should be nominated by two bodies,one of which is independent and the other, we hope, willvery shortly be independent. We suggest that 50% ofmembers be nominated by the Office for EnvironmentalProtection and 50% by the Committee on Climate Change.

That brings me to the procedures that were set upunder the original climate change legislation, the ClimateChange Act 2008, which, as I have already mentioned inthese proceedings and will undoubtedly mention again,seems to me to be a yardstick by which we shouldmeasure what we are doing in the Bill. The Bill hasoften been described as a Climate Change Act for theenvironment, and it is right that we should make thatcomparison, because a Bill in its best form will, first,stand the comparison and, secondly, as the ClimateChange Act has, stand the test of time betweenAdministrations and through vicissitudes and changesin scientific consideration. It will have within it themechanism to keep a firm eye on what we are doing, butat the same time change, if necessary, with changes incircumstances.

The Climate Change Act is clear about what theSecretary of State must do in terms of either settingtargets or amending target percentages. That is a comparatorwith what is suggested in this Bill in clause 3. TheClimate Change Act states the following:

“Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrumentcontaining an order…amending the 2050 target or the baselineyear…the Secretary of State must…obtain, and take into account,the advice of the Committee on Climate Change”—

the Committee on Climate Change was set up by theClimate Change Act for that purpose of providingindependent advice. The Act also says that the Secretaryof State must publish that advice and, if the order thatthe Secretary of State lays makes provision differentfrom that recommended by the committee,

“the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting outthe reasons for that decision.”

The “comply or explain” mode of doing things isenshrined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, it is shotthrough the Climate Change Act in terms of differentorders that can be made to amend targets or baselineyears or to amend target percentages. When the target

percentage in the Act was, as hon. Members will recall,changed in July of last year—I was privileged to leadfor Labour on the change that was put forward in, as ithappened, a statutory instrument—that change wentthrough well, in that the procedures in the ClimateChange Act allowed the change to be made on the basisof proper advice and consultation and ministerial statementsto that effect. All those procedures worked well inrelation to the Climate Change Act and the changesmade there.

There are no such procedures in this Bill. That is whatwe are particularly concerned about. We think that aprocedure similar to that in the Climate Change Act butaddressing the particular concerns of the EnvironmentBill—not everything can simply be squeezed in unamendedand unchanged—would be the appropriate way to dealwith this request for advice on setting targets and interimtargets. Yes, the amendment is quite a bit more extensivethan the brief mention of targets in clause 3, but itwould add real lustre to the Bill, ensuring that targetswould be properly set, properly consulted on and properlyexplained. Therefore, they would be properly andlegitimately adopted.

3.15 pm

Amendment 181 seeks to expand on the advice soughtunder clause 3(1) and is to be taken alongside ourproposals on advice. It seeks

“advice on how the scope and level of targets should be set tosignificantly improve the natural environment and minimise, orwhere possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution onhuman health and the environment.”

It therefore specifies to an extent what the content ofthe advice sought by the independent body would looklike, and how the body could be sure to shape its adviceto be consistent with the intentions of the framers ofthe legislation. We think both changes would be goodfor and strengthen the Bill, and we hope that theGovernment will be interested in proceeding, if notalong those exact lines, then along lines similar to thosein the Climate Change Act, knowing that that procedurehas stood the test of time well. It would certainly berobust for the future.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman foramendments 81 and 181. I hope he has already got theimpression that we are absolutely committed to settingtargets under a robust evidence-led process. Independentexperts, the public, stakeholders and Parliament will allplay a part in informing the scope and level of targetdevelopment. The Government will carefully consideradvice from independent experts before setting targets.

As the Bill progresses, we will continue to considerhow the role of experts is best fulfilled. A number ofwitnesses last week referred to the need to use experts,and they will be used constantly and continuously. Suchexperts could include academics, scientists and practitionerswithin the four priority areas included in the Bill. Theexpert advice we receive to support the setting of boththe target for PM2.5 and the further long-term air qualitytarget will include that on how targets will reduce theharmful impacts of air pollution on human health. Wewill rely hugely on that expert advice.

Long-term targets will be subject to the affirmativeprocedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity toscrutinise and analyse the target proposals. That will, ofcourse, include the shadow Minister, because both Houses


will debate the statutory instruments that will set thetargets. The Office for Environmental Protection willpublish annual reports on the Government’s progresstowards the targets, which may include recommendationsfor improving progress. As I have reiterated a number oftimes, the Government will be required to publish aresponse to the recommendations.

I want to stress that the Office for EnvironmentalProtection can advise on targets, either through itsduties related to environmental law or through its annualprogress report on the environmental improvement plan.For example, it has a statutory power to advise onchanges to environmental law, which enables it to commenton proposed legislation on long-term targets. It also hasa statutory duty to monitor progress towards meetingtargets as part of its annual progress report on theenvironmental improvement plan, which can includerecommending how progress could be improved. Sothere is already a very strong mechanism.

Environmental law extends to all target provisions ofthe Bill—for example, procedural requirements on targetsetting and amendments, and the requirement to achievetargets. In addition, the Government will conduct thefirst significant improvement test—that is a legalrequirement—and report to Parliament on its outcome,three months after the deadline for bringing forwardthe initial priority area targets.

The significant improvement test provisions of theBill will form part of environmental law, which is whythey will come under the OEP. That means that the OEPwill have oversight of the provisions, as it does over allaspects of environmental law, and will have a key role inmaking sure that the Government meet the targets.

The shadow Minister rightly drew analogies with theClimate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on ClimateChange. I am pleased that he recognises the similarities.In designing this framework, we have learned from thesuccessful example of the Climate Change Act—forexample, the strong duty to achieve long-term targets,the requirement to report on progress and scrutiny ofprogress by an independent, statutory body, in this case,the Office for Environmental Protection. That mirrorsthe CCA. We are confident that the framework is everybit as strong as the CCA framework and that itprovides certainty to society that the Government willachieve the targets, delivering significant environmentalimprovements.

Ongoing stakeholder engagement, expert advice andpublic consultation will help to inform future targetareas, as part of the robust, evidence-led, target-settingprocess. The Government will, as a matter of course,conduct a wide range of consultations for the first set oflong-term targets. I hope that that is clear. We do notneed the amendments suggested by the shadow Minister,and I ask him to withdraw them.

Dr Whitehead: That is all quite terrific, but it is notquite what it says in the Bill. That is the problem. TheMinister has set out a robust and wide-ranging procedurefor setting targets and I hope that all the steps shementioned are going to be followed. If they are, we havea good arrangement. However, if we look at the Bill,there is fairly scattered evidence that that is the way weare going to conduct ourselves. On the contrary, itactually appears to give a great deal of leeway for

somebody or some people not to do most of thosethings in setting the targets, if that is what they wantedto do.

We are perhaps back to some of the discussions wehad this morning about the extent to which the Bill hasto stand not just the test of time, but the potential testof malevolence. If a well-minded and dedicated Minister,such as the one we have before us this afternoon, wereto conduct the procedure, that is exactly how she wouldconduct it, and I would expect nothing less of her,because that is the frame of mind in which she approachesthe issue—but, in legislating, we have to consider thatnot everyone would have that positive frame of mind.I do not want to divide the Committee, but I amconcerned that the procedure in the Bill is too sketchilyset out for comfort. Maybe, when we draw up theregulations, we could flesh out some of the things thatthe Minister said this afternoon, to assure ourselvesthat that is what we will do, and do properly. I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.


The Chair: I call Alex Sobel.

Alex Sobel: I was not expecting to be called quite sosoon, so I will move amendment 24 formally.

Amendment proposed: 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, leaveout “31 October 2022”and insert “31 December 2020”.—(Alex Sobel.)

This amendment is intended to bring forward the deadline for layingregulations setting the PM2.5 target to December 2020.

Rebecca Pow: I could cut my speech short and justsay that I am very pleased the hon. Member has withdrawnhis amendment.

The Chair: He has not withdrawn it; he has moved itformally.

Rebecca Pow: I will give my speech then, Sir Roger.

The amendment would undermine the intention toensure that we set targets via an open consultationprocess that allows sufficient time for relevant evidenceto be gathered, scrutinised and tested. As part of thatprocess, we intend to seek evidence from a wide range ofstakeholder interests, carry out good quality scientificsocioeconomic analysis, take advice from independentexperts and conduct a public consultation, alongsidethe parliamentary scrutiny of the target SIs that I havementioned many times before.

It is important that we get that right rather thanrushing to set targets, so we do not want to bring thedeadline forward from 31 October 2022. We have heardstrong support for that approach from stakeholders,who are all keen to have time and space to contributemeaningfully to target development. It is critical thatthere is certainty about what our targets are by the timewe review our environmental improvement plan. That isessential for us to set out appropriate interim targets—theones that will get us to the long-term target—andconsider what measures may be required to achieveboth the interim and long-term targets. The review ofthe plan must happen by 31 January 2023, so to thatend, the target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well.


[Rebecca Pow]

The Committee should also note that 31 October2022 is a deadline. It does not prevent us from setting atarget earlier where we have robust evidence and havereceived the necessary input from experts, stakeholdersand the public.

Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab): Can the Ministerreassure us that the 2022 deadline does not mean thatprogress on those issues will not be made or that wecannot have interim targets before we reach the deadline?The whole thing is not being kicked off until 2022; weshould still be doing our best to tackle the problem ofclean air between now and then.

Rebecca Pow: The target deadline of 31 October 2022works well for us to report back on our first environmentalimprovement plan three months later. We hope thatsome consultations will start during the process, sowork will be under way to improve the environment,take advice, set targets and so on. Work will be underway to start the ball rolling.

3.30 pm

Alex Sobel: I thank the Minister for giving somereassurance that the date is not absolutely set in stoneand that measures could be introduced earlier, althoughobviously the date given in the amendment is ideal frommy point of view and that of the Chair of the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.



Clause 4

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS: EFFECT

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 82, inclause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert

“and,

(c) interim targets are met.”

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet theinterim targets they set.

For the Committee’s further enlightenment, I can saythat amendment 24 was in a different place in theprovisional grouping. I landed my hon. Friend theMember for Leeds North West in it slightly by assumingthat it would be debated under clause 2; it is actually aseparate discussion. I am sorry to my hon. Friend forthat, but he did a brilliant job under the circumstances.

Amendment 82 is deceptively small but makes animportant point about interim targets in this piece oflegislation. The Bill requires interim targets to be set ona five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvementplans, the Government are required to set out the stepsthey will take over a 15-year period to improve thenatural environment. However, environmental improvementplans are not legally binding; they are simply policydocuments.

Although the plans need to be reviewed, potentiallyupdated every five years and reported on every year,that is not the same as legal accountability. Indeed,voluntary environmental targets have been badly missedon a number of occasions. The target set in 2010 to endthe inclusion of peat in amateur gardening products by

2020 will be badly missed. The target set in 2011 for theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsto conserve 50%—by area—of England’s sites of specialscientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned andreplaced with a new target to ensure that 38.7% ofSSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only justhigher than the current level. A number of voluntary,interim and other targets have clearly been missed becausethey are just reporting objects; they do not have legalaccountability.

Interim targets should be legally binding to guaranteethat they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robustlegal framework in place to hold the Government andpublic authorities to account—not just in the long term,but in the short term. As things stand, the Governmentcould in theory set a long-term, legally binding targetfor 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoidhaving to do anything whatever about meeting it until 2036.

Amendment 82 would insert the phrase, “interimtargets are met.” That would effectively place a duty onthe Secretary of State to meet the interim targets thatthey set. In that context, it is no different from theprovisions of the Climate Change Act, which I keeprepeating as an example for us all to follow. Indeed, howthe five-year carbon budgets work is an example for allof us to follow. They were set up by the Climate ChangeAct effectively as interim targets before the overalltarget set for 2050, which is now a 100% reduction; itwas an 80% reduction in the original Act.

Those five-year targets are set by the independentbody—the Committee on Climate Change—and theGovernment are required to meet them. If the Governmentcannot meet them, they are required to take measuresto rectify the situation shortly afterwards. Therefore,there are far better mechanisms than those in the Bill togive interim targets real life and ensure they are not justexercises on a piece of paper.

It is important that the Secretary of State is given aduty to meet the targets, because that means that theywill have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that theymeet those targets. That is what we anticipate wouldhappen as a subset of these measures.

We need to take interim targets seriously, as I am surethe Minister would agree. Indeed, it is not a question ofwhether we take them seriously; it is a question of howwe take them seriously, in a way that ensures that theyare credible, achievable, workable and play a full part inthe process of getting to the eventual targets that we setat the start of the Bill.

Kerry McCarthy: I will be very brief. I entirely supportwhat my hon. Friend says about the need for interimtargets. We have seen how the carbon budgets workunder the Climate Change Act. There is real concernthat the timetable might be slipping and that we mightnot manage to meet the commitments in the next coupleof carbon budgets, but at least there is a mechanism.

I know that we have the environmental improvementplans, and that there is a requirement to review themand potentially update them every five years. However,there are so many strategy documents and plans. If welook at peat, for example, my hon. Friend mentionedthe fact that the target set in 2010 for ending theinclusion of peat in amateur garden products by the endof this year will be missed. I know that the Governmenthave a peat strategy, and there are various other things


kicking around that are mentioned every time we talkabout peat. But there is a lack of focus, a lack of driveand a lack of certainty as to where the Government areheading on that issue. I feel that if we had legallybinding interim targets in the Bill, that would give asense of direction and it would be something againstwhich we could hold the Government to account—moreso than with what is currently proposed.

Regarding my last intervention on the Minister, I wastrying to be helpful. I was just asking her to give areassurance that all the efforts to clear up our air and totackle air pollution are going on regardless; it is not justabout setting this target and whether we set it for 2022or 2020. That is one particular measure. All I am tryingto say is that I am looking for reassurances that theGovernment will still be focused on cleaning up our air.All she has to do is say yes.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for tablingthis amendment. Very quickly, I can give assurancesthat of course work is ongoing to clean up our air,because we have our clean air strategy. A great manyprocesses are being put in place through that strategy totackle all the key pollutants that affect air quality. Themeasures in the Bill come on top of that. I hope thatgives the reassurance that was sought.

It is of course critical that we achieve our long-termtargets to deliver significant environmental improvement,and this framework provides strong assurances that wewill do so. The Bill has this whole framework of robuststatutory requirements for monitoring, reporting andreviewing, combined with the Office for EnvironmentalProtection and parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure thatmeeting the interim targets is taken seriously, withoutthe need for them to be legally binding.

Interim targets are there to help the trajectory towardsmeeting the long-term targets, to ensure that theGovernment are staying on track. We cannot simply seta long-term target for 2037 and forget about it. Throughthis cycle—the reporting requirement and the requirementto set out the interim target of up to five years—the Billwill ensure that the Government take early, regularsteps to achieve the long-term targets and can be held toaccount. The OEP and Parliament will, of course, playtheir role too.

To be clear, we have a little mechanism called thetriple lock, which is the key to driving short-term progress.The Government must have an environmental improvementplan, which sets out the steps they intend to take toimprove the environment, and review it at least everyfive years. In step 2, the Government must report onprogress towards achieving the targets every year. Instep 3, the OEP will hold us to account on progresstowards achieving the targets, and every year it canrecommend how we could make better progress, if itthinks better progress needs to be made. The Governmentthen have to respond.

If progress seems too slow, or is deemed to be tooslow, the Government may need to develop new policiesto make up for that when reviewing their EIPs. Theywill not wait until 2037 to do that; these things can bedone as a continuous process, and that is important.

The shadow Minister rightly referred back to theClimate Change Act and the five-yearly carbon budgets,as did the hon. Member for Bristol East. He asked why,if the carbon budgets were legally binding, the interim

targets are not. That is a good question, but of coursethe targets in the Environment Bill are quite differentfrom carbon budgets. Carbon budgets relate to a singlemetric: the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. Thesetargets will be set on several different aspects of thenatural environment.

As I am sure hon. Members will understand, that isvery complicated; it is an interconnected system that issubject to natural factors as well as to human activity.Additionally, aspects of the natural environment suchas water quality or soil health might respond morequickly to some things and more slowly to others, evenwith ambitious interventions. It is possible that theGovernment could adopt extremely ambitious measuresand still miss their interim targets due to external factors.

What is important, in this case, is that a missedinterim target is recognised and that the Governmentconsider what is needed to get back on track. I amconvinced that the system that is there to recognisingthat—the reporting, analysis and so on—will highlightit. There will be reporting through the EIPs, the targetsand the OEP scrutiny, and the incorporation of anynew interim targets or measures; it can all be looked atin the five-yearly review of the EIP. I believe there is astrong framework there already.

Finally, of course, the OEP will have the power tobring legal proceedings if the Government breach theirenvironmental law duties, including their duty to achievelong-term targets. Of course, we cannot reach the long-termtargets unless we have achieved the interim targets first.I hope I have been clear on that; I feel strongly that wehave the right process here, and I hope the shadowMinister will kindly withdraw his amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I hope the Minister will not think I ambeing too unkind if I say that she is describing a triplelock process rather more like a triple bunch of flowersprocess. Yes, what she says about the process operatingunder positive circumstances is good. Indeed, if it happensas she has outlined, we will have a good process in place.It may well be that as time goes by and people havemore confidence in how the process works, and if theGovernment of the day play ball with that process in itsown right, the outcome will be good.

3.45 pm

I accept the point that the Climate Change Act talksabout one metric, as opposed to another. However, thepoint about the process adopted by that Act is thatalthough under the law as it stands, we cannot imaginea Minister being clapped in irons and taken to theTower for not achieving a particular carbon budget, thediscipline that the legal status of that requirement placeson Ministers means that they have to explain themselvesto Parliament fully and carefully.

The Minister has suggested that this process substantivelydoes the same. Ministers have to make pretty clearrecompense for failings in the carbon budget. As shewill know, if Ministers have slipped up in achieving acarbon budget—if they have produced a clean growthplan or low carbon plan relating to a carbon budget,and then do not achieve that budget—they are legallyobliged to take measures that get it back on track. As Iunderstand it, none of that kind of constraint applies tothe Environment Bill. Although it is true that if this Billis taken in its totality, a number of things could work


together to achieve something like that end, I wouldprefer it if we had something a bit stronger to make surethose ends are achieved. I am not saying that there is noevidence that those structures are effectively in the Bill;only that they do not really add up to something thatcan give us the same sort of certainty as the process inthe Climate Change Act.

I hear what the Minister says, and I hope she is right.I am reasonably confident that with a good wind behindthis legislation, those procedures will obtain the confidenceof the public. However, the Bill is deficient when itcomes to making fully sure that it will work over thelong term in the way that the public want, and thereforethat the public have confidence in it. I do not particularlywant to divide the Committee, but I retain my reservationsabout whether the structures in the Bill will give itproper effect. I hope they will, but I reserve the right tosay “I told you so” if they do not work out. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 83, inclause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert“and,

(c) steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken.”

This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to do whatthey have said needs to be done in their report.

The amendment attempts to tidy up the proceduresin clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 talks about reporting duties,and it identifies the steps that are taken to make sure theSecretary of State does what they need to do accordingto their report. At present, the steps identified in clause 5stand separate from the Secretary of State’s report, andthe Secretary of State appears to report in isolation.Various things have to be done, but they are not tied inwith the report.

The amendment would ensure that the

“steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken”,

which would mean that the Secretary of State’s report isnot only a piece of paper. The amendment wouldimpose a duty on the Secretary of State to do what theirreport says needs to be done, so the report would havereal substance for future activity in this area.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the shadow Minister for tablingthe amendment. I am sure he agrees that the most criticalthing is the meeting of long-term targets in order todeliver significant environmental improvement, ratherthan the specific process of getting there. Our targetframework provides strong assurance that the Governmentwill achieve them, so the amendment is not necessary.

If a long-term target is missed, the Government’sremedial plan must set out the steps they intend to taketowards meeting the missed target as soon as reasonablypracticable. The Government will remain under an explicitduty to meet the target. The OEP will have a key role inholding the Government to account on the delivery oftargets, both through the annual scrutiny of progressand through its enforcement functions. If a long-termtarget is missed, the OEP may decide to commence aninvestigation, which could ultimately lead to enforcementaction. We expect the case for enforcement action toincrease with time if the target keeps being missed,including if the Government fail to take the stepsoutlined in the remedial plan. I therefore ask the hon.Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I am a little happier with the Minister’sconsideration of that amendment. I think it might be agood idea to pull these things together, but I acceptwhat the Minister says, so I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.



Clause 5

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS: EFFECT


“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation andreview of the chosen measures, and the authoritiesresponsible for their delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and theirestimated impact on delivering progress against therelevant targets.”.

The amendment strengthens the Secretary of State’s reporting byincluding a timetable and analysis.

We now turn to clause 5, which sets out that theSecretary of State must

“set out the steps the Secretary of State has taken, or intends totake, to ensure the specified standard is achieved as soon asreasonably practicable.”

To give the clause a little more robustness, the amendmentwould add at the end that the Secretary of State’s reportshould

“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation andreview of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible fortheir delivery, and

(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimatedimpact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”

That sounds a little routine, but we think that withoutsuch shaping, the report could be pretty much anything.We could give the report considerable shape by requiringit to contain a timetable for the adoption, implementationand review of the chosen measures, to shape and specifythem; to set out who will be responsible for doing thosethings; and to contain an analysis of the options thathave been considered and their estimated impact. Thatmight not necessarily be an impact assessment as wetraditionally know them in legislation, but a backgroundanalysis of those options and how they would affect thedelivery of progress against relevant targets would be agood net addition to the Bill. I anticipate that theMinister may think otherwise, but I am interested tohear what she has to say. I am interested to knowwhether she thinks that such a process, which wouldgive reports a lot more shape, might be considered forfuture reports. That might be done by further secondarylegislation, or by other means—not necessarily thosethat are laid out in the amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I am pleased that the hon. Gentlemanagrees that missing a legally binding target should leadto clear consequences and next steps. I do not believethat the amendment is necessary, however, because itdoes not strengthen the requirements that we are creating.The Bill requires the Government to publish a remedialplan to achieve the missed standard

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.


To draw up their remedial plan, the Government wouldtherefore have to assess both what is practicable—feasible—and what is reasonable. That would include how longthe chosen measures are expected to take to achieve themissed standard, how and by whom they would beimplemented, and what alternatives had been considered.To show that they had met that standard, the Governmentwould need to set out how they had selected the measuresincluded in the remedial plan—I think that is what theshadow Minister was getting at—as part of soundpolicy making and to ensure transparency.

The OEP would have a key role to play. If, forexample, the Government failed to publish a remedialplan that met the relevant statutory requirements, theOEP might decide to open an investigation, whichultimately could lead to enforcement action. There arealready very strong measures to back up the remedialplan, and in case standards or targets are missed. Itherefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: As I anticipated, I did not have aneager taker for my suggestion. Nevertheless, the Ministerput on the record some of the anticipated structurefollowing those reports. On that basis, I beg to ask leaveto withdraw the amendment.



Clause 6

ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS: REVIEW


“(3A) In considering whether the natural environment wouldbe significantly improved, the Secretary of State must be satisfiedthat—

(a) the terrestrial and marine natural environment inEngland has improved as a system; and

(b) that the achievement of any targets which meet theconditions specified in subsection (8) wouldconstitute significant improvement in that matter.”

This amendment would require a review to consider whether significantimprovement is achieved for the environment as a whole, as well as forcertain individual aspects of the environment.

We now move to the fabled land of clause 6. We havebeen looking at it from afar and thinking that it mightbe a mirage, but it turns out that, like the targets we aretalking about, it may be within our grasp. The amendmentis important when it comes to looking at the system ofthe terrestrial and marine environment as a whole in theconsideration of significant improvement to the naturalenvironment.

We have talked about what we mean by significantimprovement. We have discussed whether in certaincircumstances, the improvement of the habitat for aparticular species near Birmingham might constitutesignificant improvement, or whether we need a moreholistic consideration of significant improvement. I thinkwe need something more holistic, because it is importantthat our individual efforts—we will discuss them laterin relation to local nature action plans—join up, andthat they are seen as a whole and as parts of a widerprocess that provides systematic improvement for thewhole terrestrial and marine environment. Individualimprovements should therefore be judged against thatwider yardstick.

4 pm

In considering that question, we want the Secretaryof State to be satisfied that the same yardstick canreasonably be applied to the general and the individual,ensuring that the general is taken account of and thatindividual things are not only good in their own right,but achieve a wider improvement. The amendment alsosets out that“the achievement of any targets which meet the conditions specifiedin subsection (8) would constitute significant improvement in thatmatter.”

That would bind the notion of significant improvementinto the wider context, and it would be a useful improvementto the Bill.

The Minister might say that a systemic view of theoverall terrestrial and marine natural environment canbe inserted into the process in other ways. We probablyagree that it is important for it to be done one way orthe other, so that we stay focused on where we are goingrather than getting distracted by things that are interestingbut do not add to the whole, as far as systems areconcerned. I hope that she will reassure me on thatpoint.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the shadow Minister’s intentionof ensuring that the Secretary of State looks at whethertargets will achieve significant improvement in the naturalenvironment as a whole, as well as in individual areas ofit. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. Theshadow Minister will not be surprised to hear me saythat, but even in our evidence session of last week, DrRichard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife andCountryside Link, stated that“the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose onething to focus on, you end up causing more problems to solve.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March2020; c. 116, Q157.]

In line with that, the significant improvement test—alegal requirement in the Bill—is intended to considerboth the breadth and the amount of improvement, withthe aim of assessing whether England’s natural environmentas a whole would significantly improve. It is a holisticapproach, and the Bill’s definition of the naturalenvironment is drafted to be broad enough to encompassall its elements, including the marine environment, whichwe discussed earlier. I believe the shadow Minister and Iare thinking along the same lines, as I think he wasintimating that he wants this all-encompassing approach,which is explicitly highlighted in the Bill’s explanatorynotes.

The Secretary of State will consider expectedenvironmental improvement across all aspects of England’snatural environment, both terrestrial and marine, whenconducting the significant improvement test. The testinvolves assessing whether England’s natural environmentwould significantly improve as a result of collectivelymeeting the long-term targets, which are legally binding,under the Bill, alongside any other relevant legislativeenvironmental targets to which we are also adhering.I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, and I askhim to withdraw amendment 183.

Dr Whitehead: I am interested to know what statusthe Minister thinks the explanatory notes have inthese proceedings. I imagine they are rather more thaninsignificant, and rather less than completely significant.I read the explanatory notes to any piece of legislation.


[Dr Whitehead]

Sometimes, it occurs to me that they run very close towhat is in the legislation, and sometimes they depart alittle, yet they come before us in the same form on alloccasions. They are a sort of concordance that goesalong with the legislation so that we can understand theclauses more easily.

I am not sure whether there is a consistent productionline technique for explanatory notes, and whether theyhave at least some legal significance in terms of seekingthe Minister’s intention in presenting a piece of legislationor, indeed, a Committee’s intention in seeking to legislate.

Rebecca Pow: The shadow Minister makes a very goodpoint about the explanatory notes, although I alwayslove having a look at them. Explanatory notes canobviously be used in the interpretation of the Bill and inlegal proceedings, if necessary, as part of wider evidence.

Dr Whitehead: That is a very helpful intervention,and it is what I thought. It means that even if explanatorynotes appear to stray a little from what one might readin the legislation, if one took it absolutely at face value,we can rely on them for clarification, for future reference.That is an important point, because this afternoon, inthe Minister’s response to my inquiry, she relied onwhat the explanatory notes said about the Bill, ratherthan what the Bill said. I take her point. If we are totake on board what the explanatory notes say, then thatis not a bad response to my point. I wonder whether itwould have been a better idea to put that stuff in thelegislation, but hey, no one is perfect. We probably havea reasonably good framework to proceed with, in thelight of the Minister’s explanation. I therefore beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.



“(9) In carrying out a review under this section, the Secretaryof State must consider whether any targets relating to thepriority areas in section 1 that are contained in legislation whichforms part of the law of England and Wales—

(a) have expired, or

(b) are required to be achieved by a date which has passed.

(10) If paragraph (a) or (b) applies, then the significantenvironmental improvement test is only met if a new target ortargets are set relating to the same matters which specify a newstandard and a future date by which such standards must bereached.”

This amendment prevents the targets from meeting the significantimprovement test through virtue of being out of date and so more easilyachieved.

The amendment seeks to ensure that—

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Sir Roger, am Iright in thinking that we have got roughly halfway downpage 1 of the selection list, and still have more thanthree full pages to go? By your calculation, are we ontime to complete this business by 6 pm? If we are not,would it be possible for the Opposition to considerwhich of the amendments they most want to discuss,debate in detail and to push to a vote?

The Chair: Mr Graham, there is a wonderful organisationknown as the usual channels, and I think you and Ishould allow them to do their job.

Dr Whitehead: I think we were aiming to get to theend of clause 6, so this is the last amendment that wewant to raise this afternoon.

This amendment seeks to ensure that measures thatare considered in carrying out a review are timely and indate. For example, the Secretary of State cannot carryout a review when things are out of date, and so moreeasily achieved than they would have been if the testswere in date. The amendment requires the Secretary ofState to consider whether the targets that relate to thepriority areas in clause 1 have expired or are required tobe achieved by a date that has passed. That sounds alittle like sell-by dates on cartons of milk, but it is moreimportant than that, because a review could addresstargets that have expired, have been changed or havebeen achieved, and then the effect of that review couldbe pretty null.

This amendment puts at the end of the clause therequirement that“the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets…haveexpired.”

If eitherof theconsiderations inproposednewsubsection(9)apply, then under proposed new subsection (10),“the significant environmental improvement test is only met if anew target or targets are set relating to the same matters whichspecify a new standard and a future date by which such standardsmust be reached.”

That is to say, if, in carrying out a review, the Secretaryof State considers a target to have expired, or to havebeen required to be achieved by a date which haspassed, then the significant environmental improvementtest is met only if that is rectified.

As hon. Members said this morning, this is a movingand creaking ship. Things can change over time. Newtargets can be put in place, and existing targets can bechanged, amended and improved. This amendment reflectsthe fact that over time, that may well happen. Indeed,some targets might be achieved and exceeded. If aSecretary of State is reporting on a target that has beenexceeded, but is saying how a target should be reached,then clearly that report does not make a great deal ofsense. The amendment rectifies that possibility, andputs in place a requirement that new targets be soughtthrough the target-setting process discussed this morning.It allies these targets with the significant improvementtest, and allows them to be met in a coherent way.

4.15 pm

Again, the Minister may well decide that the amendmentis not exactly what she wants this afternoon, but shemay have information that will allow me to think,“Well, the Government have thought about this, andhave a method of making sure that the problems aresolved by means other than this amendment.”

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member. If I may sayso, he tables slightly tortuous amendments and it isoften a case of trying to get one’s head around them. Ireassure him that this is not a creaking ship. This is abuoyantshipsailingtowardsabrightnewblueenvironmentallyenhanced horizon. As this is the last amendment today,I feel I can slip that in.

Dr Whitehead: Perhaps I can clarify the issue. Myunderstanding of the term “creaking ship” is that it is aship that is under sail, flourishing and driving throughthe water, and whose timbers are creaking as it ispropelled to new horizons.


The Chair: I think the answer is, when you are in ahole, stop digging.

Rebecca Pow: I feel a bit of backtracking going onhere.

Amendment 86 would mean that the significantimprovement test could be met only if any targetswithin the four priority areas that have expired havebeen replaced by new targets. I reassure the hon. Memberthat the Government would consider current targets—notexpired targets—only when conducting the significantimprovement test. That test involves assessing whetherEngland’s natural environment would improve significantlyas a result of meeting the longer-term legally bindingtargets. That has taken up a large part of today’sdiscussion and is set under the Bill, as well as any otherrelevant legislation relating to environmental targets.

If the test is not passed, the Government must set outhow they plan to use their new target-setting powers toclose that gap. In practice, that will most likely involveplans to modify existing targets, make them more ambitious,or set new targets. That helps the Government to focuson the most pressing environmental issues of our time,rather than simply replacing targets that have expired.Some expired targets might, for example, no longer bethe key issues on which we should focus in our long-term goals.

The Office for Environmental Protection has a keyrole through the exercising of its scrutiny functions, andit could publish a report if it disagreed with theGovernment’s conclusions that the existing targets weresufficient to pass the significant improvement test. TheGovernment would then have to respond to that OEPreport, and that response must be published and laidbefore Parliament. That is a clear pathway. The processensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, canhold the Government to account on the sufficiencyof their measures to significantly improve the naturalenvironment. I hope that clarifies the situation, and Iask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw amendment 86.

Dr Whitehead: I think that does provide clarification,to a reasonable extent. The amendment sought to copper-bottom guarantees, but the ship can sail quite wellunder the circumstances set out by the Minister, whileperhaps not being fully caulked. On that basis, I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.



The Chair: Before everybody leaves, the expectation isthat the Committee will sit at 11.30 on Thursday 19 March.I say “expectation” because, as we all know, we live inrather strange times, and I feel I owe it to Mr Graham,having slapped him down a bit, to answer the questionproperly.

The timetable for the Bill is agreed by the usualchannels, in consultation with the Minister and shadowMinister. There should be more than adequate time tothoroughly debate the Bill, given the programme wehave. I have no problems with that whatsoever. However,I understand that discussions are taking place that mayaffect the progress not only of this Bill, but of otherlegislation. That remains to be seen. We may find thisextremely important piece of legislation going on ice fora week, a month or six months.

Before we part—in case we do not meet even on Thursday—I want to say two things. The proceedings today havebeen slightly ramshackle around the edges, but I canlive with that. You have been immensely courteous,thorough and good-humoured about the proceedings,and I am grateful to you for that.


4.20 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 19 March at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence reported to the House

EB13 WWF UK

EB14 Countryside Alliance

EB15 City of London Corporation

EB16 Peter Silverman MA MSc, Clean Highways

EB17 Greener UK and Wildlife and CountrysideLink (supplementary submission)

EB18 British Lung Foundation

EB19 ClientEarth

EB20 London Councils

EB21 Cllr Andrew Western, Leader of Trafford Counciland Greater Manchester Green City Region Lead

EB22 British Heart Foundation

EB23 Global Witness

EB24 Global Canopy

EB25 Broadway Initiative



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Seventh Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

Motion on future sittings agreed to.

Adjourned till a time and date to be fixed by the Chair.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: † MR NIGEL EVANS, SIR ROGER GALE, SIR GEORGE HOWARTH

Afolami, Bim (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)† Ansell, Caroline (Eastbourne) (Con)Bhatti, Saqib (Meriden) (Con)† Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)† Debbonaire, Thangam (Bristol West) (Lab)† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)Edwards, Ruth (Rushcliffe) (Con)Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† McCarthy, Kerry (Bristol East) (Lab)Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)

† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)Oppong-Asare, Abena (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)Sobel, Alex (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)






[MR NIGEL EVANS in the Chair]

Environment Bill

11.30 am

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): I beg to move,

That, notwithstanding the Committee’s order of 10 March, theCommittee, at the conclusion of proceedings at the sitting startingat 11.30 am on 19 March, do adjourn to a time and date to befixed by the Chair.

Following cross-party discussions and in the light ofrecent events, it is appropriate that proceedings inCommittee be postponed.

I thank all Members on both sides of the Committee—those here, and those not here today—for the wonderfullypositive way in which they have approached their scrutinyof the Bill. The Committee knows that the Bill islandmark legislation, so we take it very seriously. I verymuch look forward to our resumption at an appropriatepoint. The motion provides for the Committee to adjournuntil a later date, and it is right that we take such actionin the light of what is happening nationally.

Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): On behalfof Her Majesty’s Opposition, let me say that we appreciatethe constructive way in which this has been handled. Ithank the Clerks and staff. We look forward to resuming,because we have a lot of amendments to discuss, but Ithank everyone for managing to smooth this out soswiftly. Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Iecho the hon. Member’s comments. I am not aware ofany discussion held between our Whips, but I am surethat one did happen. While I am extremely disappointed,as we all must be, that the Committee cannot continueat this point, I look forward to its resumption in thenear future, once we have got through this terrible time.

The Chair: These are unprecedented times. They haveeven got me chairing the Committee!

Thangam Debbonaire: Aww!

The Chair: I know.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That further consideration be nowadjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

11.32 am

Adjourned till a time and date to be fixed by the Chair.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB26 The Ramblers

EB27 Cruelty Free International

EB28 Northern Ireland Environment Link



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Eighth Sitting

Tuesday 3 November 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

Programme order amended.

CLAUSES 7 TO 15 agreed to.

CLAUSE 16 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this

day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Saturday 7 November 2020





Chairs: † JAMES GRAY, SIR GEORGE HOWARTH


† Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)



† Browne, Anthony (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)

† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)

(Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of

State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Anwen Rees, Sarah Ioannou, Committee Clerks


229 2303 NOVEMBER 2020Public Bill Committee Environment Bill



(Morning)

[JAMES GRAY in the Chair]

Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: May I start by welcoming the Committeeback to the interrupted consideration of the EnvironmentBill and give you a few little parish notices? First, I startfrom the position of being a very traditional chairman.Chairmen come in different shapes and sizes, and I amat the traditional end of things and, therefore, try to usethe procedures and practices we have in the main Chamber,although there may be some variations.

Secondly, we should be extremely careful about socialdistancing. The idea is to sit at the chairs with a bluetick, so the central row is not used, by and large. I thinkthat is a matter for Members’ discretion, but perhapspeople can make a point of keeping their distancethroughout the process of the Bill. On social distancing,instead of passing notes to Hansard, which we wouldnormally do, would Members kindly send by email anyspeeches they might make. I know that the HansardReporters would appreciate that.

Most members of the Committee are very experienced,but for those who might not be that experienced, theprinciple of what we are doing is that, having agreed theprinciple behind the Bill on Second Reading, we nowconsider the detail of the wording of the Bill, to make ita good Bill, no matter what we thought of the principlebehind it. We can do that by considering the Bill line byline. The means by which that happens is that membersof the Committee, whether Opposition or Government—orindeed people who are not members of the Committee,by means that I will describe in a moment—put downamendments to the Bill. Those amendments are thengrouped for debate in a convenient way, bringing togethertopics that are similar.

Only members of the Committee may argue foramendments. However, hon. Members who are notmembers of the Committee may lay amendments ifthey can persuade a member of the Committee to movethem, and I think one or two examples of that mayoccur during the Bill. Amendments must be laid by therise of the House on Thursday for discussion on Tuesdayand by the rise of the House on Monday for discussionon the Thursday. That is all I have to say by way ofintroductory remarks.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): On apoint of order, Mr Gray. I welcome you back to theCommittee after our long break. It is a pleasure to serveunder your chairmanship. I also welcome Committeemembers back to our proceedings.

Because of the particularly long break we have had, anumber of events have occurred since the last sitting inthe earlier part of the year, which those with a longmemory will dimly recall. Those events are twofold.First, the Government decided during the period inwhich the Committee was in abeyance to table a largenumber of new amendments, particularly concerning

the operation of the Office for Environmental Protection,which, certainly in the Opposition’s view, considerablyalter how that office works.

Secondly, in the period between our original deliberationsand now, the Government also brought forward a planningWhite Paper, which looks as though it will cut acrossmany of the provisions of the Bill relating to environmentalimprovement and action areas, which depend on planningzones for their operation.

Both those developments fundamentally alter somestructures of the Bill. Through the usual channels, wemade representations that we should have new evidencesessions at the beginning of this Committee period sothat the Committee is informed of those new developments,which would help to ensure that our deliberations arecarried out in the best way possible. Unfortunately, thathas not found favour, and we begin our proceedings thismorning without the benefit of any new informationthat might allow the Committee to consider thosedevelopments.

Would it be possible, Mr Gray, to accommodate astatement from the Minister on those two issues, onwhich she could be questioned, so that the Committeecan have some elucidation before it continues itsproceedings? Whether that statement should be madeimmediately upon the resumption of the Committeethis morning, or could be accommodated as early aspossible in the Committee’s proceedings, is clearly amatter for discussion, but we strongly hope that such astatement could be agreed.

The Chair: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman forthat point of order, which is more of a point of informationthan anything else. The changes that have occurredsince the Committee last sat will be considered viaamendments submitted by Opposition and other Membersduring our proceedings. There is no facility for makinga ministerial statement to the Committee, but the Ministerwill have ample opportunity to answer the points thatthe hon. Gentleman wishes to raise during the debatesthat we will have between now and 1 December, which isthe agreed out date. If there were extra evidence sessions,that would delay the out date. Although it cannot bedone, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point andthe Committee has heard it. I know that the Ministerwill seek to answer those points during the debates thatlie ahead of us.

Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): On a point of order,Mr Gray. As it is fairly warm in the room, would youmind if Members removed their jackets?

The Chair: It goes completely against my naturalinstincts and my absolute principles, but of course,gentlemen may remove their jackets if they wish duringour proceedings. There is no need for a new point oforder on every occasion. I assure the Committee that Iwill not be taking my jacket off.

Ordered,That the order of the Committee of 10 March be varied as

follows—

(1) In paragraph (1)(d), leave out “and 2.00pm”.

(2) In paragraph (1), leave out sub-paragraphs (e) to (l).

(3) After paragraph (1), insert—

“(1A) the Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at9.25am on Tuesday 3 November) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;


(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12November;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19November;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;

(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26November;

(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;”.

(4) In paragraph (4), leave out “5 May” and insert “1December”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

The Chair: We now move to line-by-line considerationof the Bill. The selection list of amendments arrived inthe Committee Room a few moments ago. I hope thateveryone has a copy. It shows how the amendmentshave been grouped, starting with clause 7.

One point that I omitted to make during my earlierremarks is that amendments are grouped for convenienceof debate. However, if a decision has to be made onthem, that decision comes at the point in the Bill towhich the amendment refers. In other words, we mayhave an amendment to clause 7 and an amendment toclause 25 considered together, but the amendment toclause 25 will be moved formally at the time when wediscuss clause 25.

Clause 7

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS


“(4) The environmental improvement plan must include, as aminimum—

(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieveany targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensurethat the next interim targets included in the plan aremet;

(b) measures that each relevant central governmentdepartment must carry out;

(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerablepopulation groups (including children, older people,people with chronic illnesses and outdoor andtransport workers) from the health impacts ofpollution;

(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and reviewof the chosen measures, and the authoritiesresponsible for their delivery;

(e) an analysis of the options considered and theirestimated impact on delivering progress against therelevant targets; and

(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, theharmful impacts of pollution on human health andthe environment.”

This amendment looks to strengthen Environmental ImprovementPlans by connecting them to; measures which are proportionate totargets set out in the bill, departmental action, vulnerable people, atimetable and analysis.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 112, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave outsubsection (4) and insert—

“(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out thesteps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take in the period towhich the plan relates, which the Secretary of State considerswill—

(a) enable targets set under section 1(1) and that meet theconditions at section 6(8) to be met, and

(b) make a significant contribution to meeting theenvironmental objectives irrespective of whethertargets are in place to cover all matters relating to theenvironmental objectives.”

Dr Whitehead: This is potentially an importantamendment. What we would expect to happen in a Billis that as the legislation moves through its narrative, onepart of the narrative connects to the next one in acoherent way. One of our criticisms of this Bill, althoughwe have said that it is a good Bill in its own right in whatit seeks to achieve, is that it fails to add to its coherenceas the narrative of the Bill proceeds. What I mean bythat is that the Bill tends to set itself out in a number ofchunks, a little like an early picaresque novel, ratherthan a more recent novel that includes the present, thepast and the future. I am not suggesting that the Billitself is a novel, but others may have views on that.

The amendment seeks to bridge the narrative gap inthe Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clauserelate back to the targets at the beginning of the Bill,which we discussed, as hon. Members with long memorieswill recall, when our proceedings started earlier thisyear. Those targets, which we agreed—indeed, we agreednot only the targets, but the mechanism by which theywould be decided on—are very important in relation tothe environmental improvement plan that will arisefrom the Bill. If we have an environmental improvementplan that does not relate to those targets and, indeed,has a narrative on environmental improvement that isactually a descriptive arrangement rather than an actionarrangement, it is vital that the connection is properlymade in the Bill itself and that the environmentalimprovement plan, essentially, is instructed to organiseitself along lines that do relate to those targets in thefirst place.

As we discover when we go through this clause, anenvironmental improvement plan is, in effect, already inexistence—or rather, this Bill will bring that environmentalimprovement plan into existence. The Bill describes theprocess by which an environmental improvement plancan be developed and put in place, and then the Billsays, “Oh and by the way, it so happens that there is anenvironmental improvement plan already in existencethat we can adopt for the purpose of the Bill”—andthat is “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improvethe Environment”. People will see that, in the legislation,it is specifically referred to as being the presentenvironmental improvement plan, the one in front of us.

However, that improvement plan—as, again, I amsure hon. Members will know—was actually adopted in2018. To show people how far back that goes, I pointout that it has a “Foreword from the Prime Minister”,the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May),and a “Foreword from the Secretary of State”, the righthon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). Neitherof them is in the same role at the moment, so it is quitean old document. Among other things, it does notaddress itself to the structure of the Environment Bill;it says a lot of very interesting things, but it certainlydoes not address itself to how those things should takeplace. I want to talk later in the debate about some ofthe issues in the environment plan, “A Green Future:Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”.

For the time being, suffice it to say that there appearsto be a problem of connection, as far as the Bill isconcerned. The amendment seeks to rectify that byclearly stating on the face of the Bill:


[Dr Whitehead]

“The environmental improvement plan must include...measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve anytargets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the nextinterim targets included in the plan are met”.

It therefore makes a direct connection between this partof the Bill and the first part. It states that the environmentalimprovement plan must include

“measures that each relevant central government departmentmust carry out… measures to protect sensitive and vulnerablepopulation groups… a timetable for adoption, implementationand review of the chosen measures… analysis of the optionsconsidered and their estimated impact on delivering progress…and measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmfulimpacts of pollution on human health and the environment”.

The amendment therefore comprehensively makes thoseconnections.

I am sure the Minister will say that none of that isnecessary, because everything is okay—it all works allright. However, I hope, at the very least, that, in explainingwhy that is the case, she will also explain why it is notnecessary to make that link between this part of theBill, the environmental improvement plan and the targetsthat we set out and agreed in previous sittings.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Ithank the hon. Gentleman for his opening words. It isan absolute privilege to be back with the Committee.[HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear.”] It is more than sevenmonths since we had to adjourn, very unusually, and weall know why that occurred. Sadly, we are still in a trickysituation with the coronavirus pandemic, but I ampleased that we are able to carry on with this hugelyimportant piece of legislation, which will change theway we think about our environment forever. We are allinvolved in a very significant piece of work, and it is adelight to have you in the chair, Mr Gray.

Despite the fact that we are in these very tricky timeswith the pandemic, we need to look ahead as a Governmentand as a country. As we build back, as the PrimeMinister has said, we want to base the recovery on solidfoundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilientglobal economy. I want to touch on a few of these issuesbefore we carry on, because it has been such a long timesince we reconvened.

On the points made by the shadow Minister, we tookexpert evidence before. Everyone is entitled to take theirown evidence as we go along to inform anything that wedo. Written evidence is also submitted to back up theBill, and that is always welcomed. The hon. Gentlemanmentioned planning issues, and I absolutely assure himthat we will address those when we get to the right partof the Bill and particularly the nature chapter. I thinkthe Chair covered the issue of a statement comprehensively,and I fully support your words, Chair.

The Chair: Order. I think “Mr Gray” is the rightthing; otherwise, we will get mixed up between Chairand Chairman. Also, in passing, I know you are allpleased to serve under my chairmanship, but you do notneed to say so—[Laughter.]

Rebecca Pow: But we love saying that, Mr Gray.Okay, I will try not to say it again.

9.45 am

To touch on those wider issues, we are mindful of thesituation that the country is in at the moment, but weneed to look ahead. Those much bigger global challengeshave not gone away, including climate change, biodiversityand all the things we have heard so much about, includingthe crash in species. The Government remain committedto being a world leader on tackling environmental issues.We will ramp up our work on ambitious legislation.As I have touched on, that will be done through thislandmark Environment Bill.

Although the Bill has been paused, the work thatGovernment have been doing has not paused, as wastouched on by the shadow Minister. The Governmenthave continued to work on implementing the Bill’smeasures, including publishing our targets policy paperin August and launching a call for evidence to helpidentify which public bodies will be required to workwith local authorities to reduce air pollution.

We have also launched a recruitment campaign forthe chair of the Office for Environmental Protection,and have launched five local nature recovery strategypilots in Cornwall, Buckinghamshire, Greater Manchester,Cumbria and Northumberland to test how the strategieswill support development of wider environmental objectives.I see my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouthgrinning, because one of the pilots is in Cornwall. I ampleased that those pilots have been launched, and Ithink they are going to give us some really interestingand useful data.

Sadly, we have to wait a bit longer to play our part asthe host of COP26, but work has continued on thatwider environmental agenda as well. The Prime Ministerhas committed to protect 30% of our land by 2030,which was a really serious commitment. We played akey part in the leaders’ pledge for nature, recentlyendorsed by 76 world leaders at a United Nations event.

We consulted on an obligation for companies tradingin forest risk commodities to carry out due diligence ontheir supply chains. I very much hope to update theCommittee on that matter in the coming weeks. Indeed,it was raised by many members of this Committee,including Opposition Members, in an earlier sitting. Iwill reporting on that as we proceed.

We have set out our plans to cement the UK’s positionas a world leader in wind power. Inhabitants of theseisles often complain about the weather, but it is a greatnatural asset and it will really help in our journey to netzero by 2050. That is why we have set out our plans forwind to power every home in the country by 2030, andto double capacity for renewable energy generationthrough the contracts for difference mechanism. I mentionthose measures, as well as others too numerous to gointo today, the Chair will be pleased to hear, becausethey are all relevant to the Bill as background.

The Chair: Order. Sorry to interrupt the Minister,who is speaking extremely well, but I intend to be verytough with the Committee to make sure that we addressthe amendments in this group. I think it is right to offera reasonable reply to the hon. Member for Southampton,Test and the point of order he made regarding thingsthat have occurred since we last met. However, I thinkthe Minister is tending towards a Second Reading speech,and perhaps she could address more particularly theamendment in front of us.


Rebecca Pow: Thank you Chair, I get your point andI beg your forgiveness. I will not include everything, butI wanted to update the Committee because so much hashappened since we stopped our consideration of theBill. People think we have gone on hold, but absolutelywe have not.

We will be doing much more work, and we will discussour statutory EIPs, which will drive up environmentalimprovement, in the next few days alone, as well as howwe will continue to protect the environment from damageby embedding environmental principles at the heart ofGovernment policy.

Turning to the amendments, which is what you reallywant me to do, Mr Gray, I appreciate the desire of thehon. Member for Southampton, Test to strengthen theEIPs—that is what clause 7 is all about. I am delightedthat he has raised the 25-year environment plan becauseI was at the launch of that plan. Although colleagueswho filled those important posts are in different rolesnow, I was there as Parliamentary Private Secretary inthis Department.

I am utterly delighted to introduce this—perhaps theshadow Minister failed to address this—as the 25-yearenvironment plan is actually the first EIP. That is whatthis is all about. What we are doing with the EIPs istriggering what is set out in the excellent plan. The Bill’sstatutory cycle of monitoring, reporting and planningis designed to ensure that the Government take early,regular steps to achieve long-term targets and are heldto account through regular scrutiny by the Office forEnvironmental Protection and by Parliament.

The Bill creates a statutory triple lock, which we willhear about a great deal as the Bill progresses, to driveshort-term progress. First, the Government must havean environmental improvement plan setting out thesteps they intend to take to improve the environmentand to review it every five years. When reviewing it, theymust consider whether further or different measuresshould be adopted to achieve interim—five yearly—targetsand long-term targets. When we review the EIP in 2023we will update it as necessary to include the steps thatwe intend to take to achieve the targets that we set. Thatwill be five years after the launch of the first plan in2018.

Secondly, the Government must report on progresstowards achieving targets every year. Thirdly, the Officefor Environmental Protection will hold us to accounton progress towards achieving targets. Each year it willcomment on the progress towards targets reported inthe Government’s EIP annual report and can flag earlyon whether it believes there is a risk of the Governmentnot meeting their long-term targets. It may makerecommendations on how progress could be improved,and the Government have to respond. Ultimately, theOEP has the power to bring legal proceedings if theGovernment breach their environmental law duties,including the duty to achieve long-term targets.

In requiring that EIPs set measures to deal withpollution, amendment 88 would single out aspects ofthe environment ahead of others. EIPs are defined asplans significantly to increase the natural environment.Measures on air quality, with corresponding benefits tohuman health, are already within the scope of EIP, so itis not necessary to place duties on particular matters inthe EIP, which could undermine consideration of otherimportant environmental goals.

The Bill includes a duty to set a legally binding targetfor PM2.5, the air pollutant with the greatest impact onhuman health, in addition to a further long-term airquality target. The introduction of measures to meetthe air quality target will reduce exposure to harmfulpollutants and deliver significant improvements to humanhealth. Other targets that meet the criteria set out inclause 6(8) already have their own statutory regimes,including any appropriate requirements to set out plansand measures to achieve them. It is therefore unnecessaryto require that EIPs include measures to achieve them.

Amendment 112 would explicitly link the measures inthe EIP to “meeting the environmental objectives”, andI address this with the assumption that the environmentalobjectives are to achieve and maintain a healthy andnatural environment, as set out in new clause 1. TheBill’s provisions already ensure the delivery of the significantenvironmental improvements that the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test seeks through the amendment andensure that the Government can be held to account.Targets and EIPs have the objective under clauses 6and 7 of delivering significant improvements to thenatural environment, so I urge the hon. Gentleman notto press the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): As you suggest,Mr Gray, I will not go through all the formalities. It is apleasure to be on this Committee, although it is a littlelike the philosopher’s axe: which part of this Committeeis still part of the preceding Committee? Many of us arenew to this, and it has been a long-running process.

The Minister is notorious for her optimism—[Interruption]—or has a reputation for optimism. Whenshe talks about the 25-year improvement plan, I wonderwhether that is 25 years forward or whether it is takingus 25 years back, because it is about filling the gaps leftby our leaving the European Union and the protectionsthat came from that membership. I fear, as my hon.Friend the Member for Southampton, Test explainedearlier, that the heart has been ripped out of the Bill.

To turn to the amendment, as you directed Mr Gray,I listened closely to the Minister’s observations and I donot quite understand why she is not sympathetic tosome of the amendment’s proposals. I particularly queryher attitude to the natural environment. She will haveseen the representations from the National Trust aboutincluding heritage within the ambit of natural environment,and that prompts a big question. There is no naturalenvironment; we have been part of the environment ashuman beings for many, many years and we have hadhuge impact on it. I suspect we will pursue this matter infurther discussions, but I would welcome her observationson why heritage is not included among the proposedprotections.

In particular, I do not understand why the Ministerdoes not favour the inclusion in the environmentalimprovement plans of proposed paragraph (b) inamendment 88, which calls for the reporting of

“measures that each relevant central government departmentmust carry out”.

All of us involved in rural policy know that it is anendless issue, and that virtually every part of governmenttouches on the environment of rural areas. Those policiesmust be included as an essential safeguard to ensurethat the environmental improvement plans work properly.


Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail onthe head: the natural environment is very complicatedand complex. We have set out the Bill as it appears sothat it takes an holistic approach to the environment, asI believe he will see as we proceed in our deliberations.

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was referring torurality in particular, but the Bill covers everythingabout the environment, and not just one thing or another.It takes an holistic approach, and is a great deal moreholistic than anything that the European Union hasdone. The environmental improvement plans are significantbecause there are no equivalents to them underEU law: member states were not required to maintain acomprehensive long-term plan to improve the environmentsignificantly, but that is a key issue of the Bill. Nor wasthere any requirement on member states to report annuallyon progress towards any kind of significant improvement.EU law tends to require member states to prepare orpublish plans to achieve particular targets, for exampleon air quality or water quality, but it does not offer theholistic approach of the Bill. By leaving the EU, we havean enormous opportunity to look at the environment inthe round. I hope that helps Members.

Dr Whitehead: I am sorry, but I am just not convinced.I will consider clause 7 in further detail later, but the gapthat we have identified in terms of the connectionbetween this part of the Bill and the first six clauses isegregious, and does not appear to relate at all to what isin the 25-year environment plan, interesting thoughthat plan may be in its own right.

The amendment is important because it addressesthose shortcomings and it should not be set aside on thegrounds that everything will be all right, and that theBill is quite an holistic Bill after all. For that reason, Iam afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee.



Division No. 3]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


10 am

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I beg to moveamendment 201, in clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out“may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Government to include steps toimprove people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in itsEnvironmental Plan.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 202, in schedule 2, page 127, line 11, leaveout “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would require the Government to include steps toimprove people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in itsEnvironmental Plan and is consequential on Amendment 201.

Richard Graham: This is likely to be the shortestamendment proposed to the Bill. It simply substitutesthe word “must” for “may” in clause 7, which would inturn require the Government to include steps to improvepeople’s enjoyment of the natural environment in theirenvironmental plan. Why does this one-word change,which amounts to a net increase of one letter to the Bill,matter so much? The clue is in clause 7(5) and its clearintent to improve people’s enjoyment of the naturalenvironment. The Government explicitly recognise theimportance of that in the environmental improvementplan, which will set interim targets for each five-yearperiod, and the amendment would ensure that the Billincludes people’s enjoyment in the five-year targets.

Many of us would argue that people’s enjoyment ofthe natural environment is always important, but it isespecially so now, during the period of this pandemic.Many more of us have been enjoying green spaces duringlockdown, and park visits in the UK were up 195% inthe six weeks to 25 May compared with February. Theamendment would put a greater legal burden on theGovernment to enhance access to such spaces as theyset out new environmental policies in their environmentalimprovement plan.

The amendment acknowledges the value of parksand green spaces to all of us and all our constituents.This is a chance to appropriately fund our parks andgreen spaces, including the organisations that maintainthem. Some of us will be aware of the Governmentscheme for pocket parks, which was announced by theCommunities Secretary in March 2020. It was a£1.35 million fund—a very small fund by comparisonwith many of those that have had to be launched tosupport businesses, culture and many otherorganisations—and it created 68 new pocket parks aroundthe country in order to transform urban spaces intogreen havens. They were hugely helpful, and I believethat further rounds would be both welcome and possible.They would help fund the priorities identified in thefive-year targets for people’s enjoyment that should becreated.

At this stage, I would like to bring as a remote witnessthe Ramblers organisation, which has made the pointthat access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environmenthas multiple benefits that are relevant to the aims of theBill and to wider Government objectives. They includeencouraging pro-environmental behaviours. There isevidence to suggest that people who spend more recreationaltime in natural settings are more likely to report engagingin a range of pro-environmental behaviours. In simplespeech, that can often amount to volunteers joininglitter-picking groups to ensure that our parks and greenspace are kept clean and are attractive to more visitors.

A survey shows that 85% of adults in England andWales believe that being able to experience the countrysideis important for children’s understanding of theenvironment. I think that is true in all our constituencies.In my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy ofthe Robinswood Hill country park right in the middleof our small city. I believe that every child should havethe experience of sitting on their mother’s or father’sshoulders for their first visit up the hill to watch thesunset over the River Severn in the summer. It is oneof the most beautiful things that anyone can do, and itstimulates enjoyment and healthy behaviours.


There is also the issue of physical and mental health.More than eight out of 10 adults believe that visitingthe countryside is good for their physical fitness andmental wellbeing. In a sense, we do not really needsurveys to confirm that; we know it is true. People wholive within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24%more likely to achieve the 30 minutes of daily physicalactivity that doctors constantly recommend. Access togreen space is associated with reductions in long-termconditions such as heart disease and cancer, and closeconnections to green space are also associated withsignificantly less income-related health inequality, weakeningthe effects of deprivation on health. During the pandemic,there has been a huge increase in mental health problems,and during a lockdown period green spaces are in manyways people’s one chance of restoring some balance totheir mental health.

In the current 25-year environment plan, which willbe given statutory footing on Royal Assent, there arebroad aspirations on engagement with the naturalenvironment, but there are opportunities to improvethem. I will turn briefly to some of the aspects thatcould be addressed. Evidence shows that access tonature and the outdoors is not entirely equal: for example,children in lower income areas and people from black,Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds have thepoorest access to green spaces and the natural environment.That is not always the case—in my constituency ofGloucester, the ward that is closest to Gloucester park,Barton and Tredworth, is also the area with the highestconcentration of ethnic background diversity—but ingeneral, access to the outdoors is unequal in our largercities compared with towns or countryside.

The amendment would make a substantial differenceby requiring the Government to take a strategic andcoherent approach to issues of access to and enjoymentof the natural environment. Some non-governmentalorganisations have suggested that the amendment mightput people’s enjoyment over the value of the naturalenvironment to wildlife—that, for example, people andthe environment are in competition and their goals arenecessarily incompatible—but I reject that suggestion,because I believe that there are very clear examples ofhow people and the environment go well together.

The easiest way to shine a light on that is by talkingabout sensory gardens, which, as many of us know, area frequent feature in schools that handle people withthe greatest physical disabilities. Years ago, my familyhelped to raise funds for a sensory garden that was fullof biodiversity. Not only was it a wonderful environmentaljoy, but it brought great joy to those with disabilitieswho attended the school. It is important therefore thatthe amendment be seen not as pro-people and anti-environment, but as pro-people and pro-environment.

Nor is the amendment intended purely to benefiturban dwellers—far from it. Aspects of it will hugelybenefit the countryside as well. Research commissionedby the National Trust estimates that people across GreatBritain are missing out on 500 million park visits a yearbecause of poorly equipped facilities. Basic facility upgrades,from toilets and income-generating cafés to play areas,can help accessibility; litter collection, which I havealready mentioned, is also incredibly important. NaturalEngland has reported that insufficient footpaths in thepresence of busy or dangerous roads can prevent easyaccess and deter their use. One in eight households has

no access to a private or shared garden, a figure thatrises to 21% of households in London, which highlightsthe importance of enjoyment of our green spaces.

Overall, parks in England deliver an estimated £6.5 billionof health, climate change and environmental benefitsevery year, including £2.2 billion in avoided health costsalone. It is not for me to challenge those figures; I thinkwe can all intuitively relate to them, and I hope that asguesstimates, which are inevitably imprecise, those areas accurate as they can be. For every £1 spent on parksin England, an estimated £7 in additional wealth isgenerated for health and wellbeing and the environment.

These anecdotal examples of evidence, surveys andresearch make a strong case for making sure that thepeople’s enjoyment of our public spaces is included inthe Bill as a “must”, rather than a “may”. In a sense, theEnvironment Secretary showed his support for suchconcepts in July 2020 in a speech announcing £4 millionfor a two-year pilot project to bring green prescribing tofour areas hit hardest by coronavirus, saying:

“Studies across the spectrum, from health to financial risk,remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. Weknow that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing andimproved mental health.”

I could not agree more. I know that the Minister who istaking the Bill through the House, and whose wholecareer in the House of Commons has been dedicated toworking on the environment, shares those feelings.

I draw attention to two other aspects. First, in September2019, Julian Glover published his independent “LandscapesReview”, sometimes known as the Glover review, intowhether protections for national parks and areas ofoutstanding natural beauty are fit for purpose. TheGovernment have not yet formally responded to thatreview, but I believe they are broadly supportive. Itsproposals include:

“A stronger mission to connect all people with our nationallandscapes, supported and held to account by the new NationalLandscapes Service”,

and,“A night under the stars in a national landscape for every

child”.

What a wonderful idea. Millions of children in thiscountry have never had the chance to do that, and ifthis could stimulate that experience, what could bebetter? Also proposed is:

“New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity ofvisitors”.

That has to be the right way forward. Different ethniccommunities in my city have not had the same experiencesin enjoying our national parks. We need to encouragethem, and to make sure that national parks are seen asopen, accessible and to be enjoyed by everyone. Theproposals continue:

“Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes”,

and,“A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a

national family”.

All those recommendations, alongside the nature recoverynetwork that is part of the Bill and that aims to join upgreen spaces and landscapes, only emphasise the valueof replacing “may” with “must” in the Bill, which willhelp to achieve some of the recommendations.

My one-word amendment has the backing of theConservative Environment Network, which my hon.Friend the Minister and I were founder members of. Ithas the support of the Ramblers, as well as the support


[Richard Graham]

of all the heritage organisations that come together in agroup chaired by a former colleague of ours. Some ofthose aspects are reflected in amendment 202, which nodoubt somebody else will talk to. It highlights theimportance of archaeological, architectural, artistic,cultural and historical interest in our parks.

I particularly draw the attention of those listeningfrom my constituency to the great Jurassic landscape inRobinswood Hill country park; stones that are millionsof years old are sitting there on our doorstep. Havingbeen a civil servant in another life, I recognise that noDepartment welcomes changes to its Bills, and that“must” implies additional responsibilities and work thatis unlikely to be welcomed; however, I believe that thisone-word change is a worthwhile measure. My hon.Friend the Minister is likely to have only one chance tolead a major new environmental Bill through the House.She will want it to be as strong and successful aspossible. All Members on the Government Benchesand, I suspect, on both sides of the House, share herambition. I move this probing amendment in the hopethat she will see this one written word as an entirelypositive contribution to the spirit and intent of theenvironmental plan and the Bill.

Dr Whitehead: I commend the hon. Member forGloucester on bringing the amendment forward. It is animportant amendment in its own right. It is also importantin terms of something we did at the beginning of theBill and which was briefly discussed during the earlierstages in the spring. The Bill is littered with “mays”where there ought to be “musts” and we drew attentionto about 25 instances where there are “mays” in placeand they should be “musts”.

10.15 am

One has to be a little careful when replacing “mays”with “musts” because there are certain indications wherethey are contingent on some other action. It is perfectlyappropriate that the Government may do somethingafter they were supposed to do something else. We haveresisted the temptation to try and change those. However,we have put down a number of amendments where the“may” is in a primary part of a particular clause, whichmeans that nothing needs to happen at all. The legislationis suggesting that the Government of the day might dosomething about that if they feel like it, but they do nothave to and they have complete protection within thelegislation if they do not decide to do the particularthing that is set out, because all it says in the legislationis that they may do that. If they decide they are notgoing to that, that is the end of the matter.

I need to give the hon. Member for Gloucester anadditional piece of credit, because his was a “may” thatwe missed. We did not table an amendment to this“may” because we were too busy looking at “mays” and“musts” elsewhere in the Bill. I commend him stronglyfor spotting this “may” and bringing very cogent reasonsto the Committee as to why that particular “may”should be turned into a “must”. I suggest that thosecogent reasons spread themselves across the passage ofthe Bill. Indeed, one could make a speech—not as goodand comprehensive as the hon. Gentleman’s but whichis a stab in that direction—for a whole range of “mays”

going through the Bill. It is an issue that the Ministerought to address in terms of the Bill’s general structure.We had a debate at the earlier stage where we raised a“may” and a “must” and we said at the time that wecould make a lengthy intervention on each “may” and“must” as it went through the Bill, but we probablywould not.

The Chair: I am glad of that.

Dr Whitehead: I am putting that to the Committeefor its comfort and security. However, there is a continuingreal issue in the Bill with the way in which it has beendrafted with those “mays” and “musts”. While we havedone part of our job by drawing attention to that andputting those amendments down, even though we arenot going to pursue them in detail, it is within thepowers of other members of the Committee—as happenedthis morning—to draw attention to the effect that a“may” instead of a “must” has on a passage as we gothrough the Bill. I fear that that will be, even withoutmy intervention, a recurring leitmotif as we go throughthe Bill, and that hon. Members will be particularlyconcerned about that formation as it relates to a thingthey are concerned with as the Bill goes through. Theymay raise that concern independent of our portmanteauamendments on “mays” and “musts”.

I hope the Minister will reflect on that. I observe thatshe has been assiduous in tabling amendments. It isunfortunate, that those amendments do not include anyrecognition that this is a particular problem with theBill. There are amendments that could be put forwardthat would rectify that.

I hope the Minister will take from this exchange thatthere is a real concern about how that particular formulationworks through the Bill, and especially in this instance. Ihope she will consider, at least in some of the instanceswhere those “mays” and “musts” collide, tabling someamendments later in the Bill’s passage to rectify orameliorate those parts of the Bill. That piece of sunnyoptimism on my part perhaps goes with the Minister’ssunny optimism on many things. Let us see whoseoptimism gets the upper hand in this instance.

Finally, it might have been a little mischievous of usto seek to draw the hon. Member for Gloucester intosupporting a vote on this clause. Out of sensitivity tohis general circumstances in life, we will not seek to dothat, because I think the hon. Gentleman will withdrawhis amendment. I think it illustrates, however, that thisconcern is held not only on this side, but across theCommittee, so there is an additional onus on the Ministerto think about whether there are instances where those“mays” and “musts” can cease colliding and can beamended for the better purposes of the Bill as a whole.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gloucester for his excellent speech. He knows that Ihold him in great respect and I always listen to what hesays. He collars me many a time. I have given this a hugeamount of thought and talked to a great many peopleabout it, because it has been preying on my mind—hecan be absolutely sure of that. He has explained a bitabout my background, so he will know that I am notmaking that up.


My hon. Friend painted a lovely picture of life in thecountryside, especially in his lovely constituency, includingin the Robinswood Hill park, which I know because Ibriefly worked on rural and countryside issues in Gloucestermany years ago. That was one of the places peoplerevered even then.

I am dealing with the “may” as it relates to thisamendment, which I think is the right thing to do.

The Chair: It is.

Rebecca Pow: It is cheeky of the shadow Minister totry to widen out the “mays” and “musts” at this juncture.

Connecting people with the environment is reallyimportant to our health and wellbeing. It is a coreobjective of the Government’s 25-year plan, which wecan all have a look at later to remind ourselves. It iswritten in there, I assure my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gloucester, that connecting more people from allbackgrounds with the natural environment for theirhealth and wellbeing is a key part of the 25-yearenvironment plan, which is our first environmentalimprovement plan. When reviewing the environmentalimprovement plan, the Government must consider whetherfurther measures are needed to achieve the targets.Under the Bill, long-term targets can be set out for anyaspects of the natural environment or people’s enjoymentof it. As he will know, the Bill requires the Governmentto set out at least one target in four priority areas—airquality, biodiversity, water waste and resource efficiency—aswell as the fine particulate matter target. Other targetscan be set later, as we go along. There is huge scopefor that.

We are already implementing many projects and schemesto connect people with nature. My hon. Friend hasnamed a number of them already. For example, there isthe children in nature programme, on which I, as theEnvironment Minister, link up with the Department forEducation. There is the green social prescribing sharedoutcomes fund; he touched on the funding that has justbeen given. I was at the launch of the National Academyfor Social Prescribing last year, when I was briefly aMinister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Mediaand Sport. I went with that hat on, although I had donea lot of work as a Back Bencher on green social prescribing;my hon. Friend is absolutely right about how importantit is and what a difference it makes to people’s lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touchedon pocket parks. That fund was launched last year bythe Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment, to the tune of £1.35 million, and communitygroups can still bid for that now. If my hon. Friend orother hon. Members know any groups that would liketo bid for that money, please encourage them to do so,as that would be worthwhile. We have also launched a£40 million green recovery challenge fund, supportingprojects across the country to connect people withnature and generate jobs at the same time. So, there area lot of ongoing projects, which will not stop. We expectpublic authorities to consider how to help to tackle theissue of health and wellbeing, through actions to complywith the strengthened biodiversity duty introduced laterin the Bill, in clause 93.

I know my hon. Friend knows that the environmentalimprovement plan can set out the steps that the Governmentintend to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural

environment. I have touched on that already, but that isengrained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, people’senjoyment of the natural environment can, in someinstances, have a negative impact on the naturalenvironment. For example, if too many visitors go to abeach, it can negatively impact the wildlife and habitats,including through litter left behind. I am really consciousof that, because we have had some significant incidencesof it over the summer. I had to engage with localauthorities about it, including those in Cornwall,where it was raised as being a terribly difficult issue todeal with.

Our enjoyment of nature cannot take precedenceover our stewardship of that environment for the future.That is why we do not necessarily want to give equalprominence to environmental improvement and people’senjoyment in EIPs, as would result from these amendments.I understand that Greener UK agrees that the focusshould be on improving the whole, holistic naturalenvironment, not diverting it from its primary status.My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touchedon that.

I highlight the link between the Environment Bill andthe new environmental land management scheme, whichis being brought through under the Agriculture Bill.ELMS will be one of the tools for delivery in the25-year environment plan and one of the measures inthe Environment Bill. It will pay for delivery of publicgoods. Listed among those public goods are beauty andheritage, as touched on earlier by the hon. Member forCambridge, as well as engagement with the environment.That is actually listed as something that can be deliveredas a public good through the Ag Bill and the new ELMsystem. There is a direct link with what my hon. Friendthe Member for Gloucester touched on, and I hope thatgives him some assurance.

10.30 am

My hon. Friend mentioned the Ramblers—that excellentorganisation, which is doing very good work on accessto the countryside through our rights of way. It isobviously concerned about rights of way that might belost. Rights of way are a vital network that enablespeople to access our open spaces, and we plan tocomplete the legal record of rights of way in order tobring certainty to the public and landowners about whohas right of way over their land. I wanted to touch onthat because it was raised and has been in the press thisweek.

My hon. Friend also made an important point aboutwho gets access to the countryside, and he touched onissues relating to diversity. He rightly said that theGlover review highlighted that. It came up with someinteresting recommendations, and the Government havenot formally responded to it yet. It made some significantsuggestions about our natural parks and areas ofoutstanding natural beauty, and all those general aspects.That will be dealt with when the Government fullyrespond to the review. It touches on many of the issuesthat my hon. Friend raised—in particular, equality.

On access to green space, the Government are developinga national framework of green infrastructure standards,which will help all authorities, developers and communitiesto improve green infrastructure provision in their area,and make it more nature-friendly and accessible to people.We are mindful of every single thing that my hon.Friend touched on, and I hope that reassures him.


On amendment 202, the drafting of schedule 2 is inline with and respects the devolution settlement forNorthern Ireland. The amendment would, however,have the effect of reducing the Northern Ireland Executive’sauthority to determine the contents of their ownenvironment improvement plan.

I hope my hon. Friend understands how much thoughthas been put into this proposal. We truly note where heis coming from, but we believe that the issues he raisesare being fully addressed in this holistic approach. Itherefore ask him very kindly to withdraw amendments 201and 202.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful to the Ministerfor doing detailed research to anticipate most of thepoints that I was likely to raise. I am also grateful for thecomments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.

The Minister is quite right that it is appropriate atthis stage to tackle the one-word change to the clauseonly, rather than the wider principle, which the hon.Member for Southampton, Test tempted her to pursue.I am absolutely sure that she not only understandsexactly where I am coming from but is entirely with me.The question is whether she can bring me with her inthe direction that we want this Bill to go, rather thancome from. Everything she said only emphasised thevalue of bringing something more concrete to the clause.We are in wide agreement on almost every single issue,except the important net increase of one letter that I amhoping for.

I hope the Minister will reflect on some of the thoughtsthat I offered, particularly on the vital notion thatnature and humans do not need to be in conflict. I wasbrought up partly in east Africa, and I have seen overmy lifetime how the occasional obsession with trying toseparate the role and the perfection of the environmentfrom the role and desires of the humans living in andbeside it can cause conflict unless people work hard torealise that the two can go together very well. We haveseen in the most successful environmental schemes aroundthe world how effective that can be; whether in themarshlands to the north of Hong Kong, or in thewildlife protected in India and Africa. The same can bedone here, in our own country. There are opportunitiesto pursue, and in that spirit I hope my hon. Friend theMinister will look at this closely for the Report stage ofthe Bill—she is nodding. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


The Chair: Order. Before we move on to the nextgroup, I would like to say that I have been very relaxedso far. We have had some very discursive contributionsto the two groups we have had in the past hour and10 minutes. We should all collectively seek to addressour remarks particularly to the absolute detail of theamendments in front of us and not stray into otherareas, however interesting.


“(5A) It may also set out the steps Her Majesty’s Governmentintends to take to improve the conservation of land environmentsof archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historicinterest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if

it does so references in this Part to improving the naturalenvironment, in relation to that plan, include conservation ofland environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic,cultural or historic interest, including improving people’senjoyment of them).”

This amendment invites the government to consider the historicenvironment in environmental improvement plans.

We are enjoined to concentrate on the amendment infront of us and how it affects the Bill as a whole. Itwould be useful to put to the Committee where westand on clause 7. The clause states that the Secretary ofState must prepare an environmental improvement plan.The beginning of the clause appears to suggest that theSecretary of State must sit down—presumably with atowel round his head—and work out an environmentalimprovement plan and present it to the House.

The clause then sets out what an environmentalimprovement plan is—significantly improving the naturalenvironment in the period to which the plan relates—andthat that period must not be shorter than 15 years. Asthe hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned, an earlierclause provides that the EIP should include

“steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improvepeople’s enjoyment of the natural environment in that period.”

Clause 7 then takes an abrupt handbrake turn. It saysthat is all very well, and all those things must be done bythe Secretary of State. However, in the great tradition of“Blue Peter”, here is one I prepared earlier. It states insubsection (7):

“The document entitled ‘A green future: our 25 year plan toimprove the environment’…is to be treated as an environmentalimprovement plan”.

That is, it has already been done before the Secretary ofState has to put pen to paper as provided earlier in theclause, to produce an environmental improvement plan.It then specifically states in subsection (8) of this clause:

“References in this Part…(a) to the first environmental improvementplan, are to that document; (b) to the current environmentalimprovement plan, are to the environmental improvement planfor the time being in effect.”

That is the 25-year environment plan—

The Chair: Order. We have a very long Bill to consider,with a great deal of amendments. I therefore intend tobe tough on both sides of the Committee. I know thatthat may upset every member of the Committee equally,but we need to make some progress. I therefore suggestthat the hon. Gentleman should speak not to the wholeof clause 7—he will have an opportunity to do that, ifhe chooses, in a stand part debate shortly—but specificallyto his amendment, which refers to the conservation ofland environments. Broader discussion of the clausemay wait for later.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Mr Gray. I will, of course,follow your guidance closely, but I feel it is necessary toset out what part of the clause we seek to amend, andwhy, in order to explain the status quo ante. By tablingthe amendment, we seek to set out steps for Her Majesty’sGovernment to take to improve the conservation ofland environments of, among other things, archaeological,architectural, artistic, cultural or historical interest, includingimproving people’s enjoyment of them. The clauseas it stands mentions people’s enjoyment of the naturalenvironment. The amendment would place one of the


definitions of the natural environment into the contextof what has happened to it over a very long period ofhistory.

One little example of that, close to my constituencyin Southampton, is the New Forest. The New Forest isnot new and it is not, by and large, a forest. It is a verylarge and precious part of our natural environment, butit is not the natural environment it was originally.Actually, it is a spectacularly complex and superblyvaried environment that has been worked on substantiallyby humans over 10 centuries. Substantial sections of theNew Forest that were originally forest are heathland,for example, with their own habitats and precious areasof rare species within them. Those habitats have comeabout only as a result of human activity in the originalarea of the New Forest, clearing what was forest andworking on, draining, changing, enriching and variegatingthe land. As a result, those species have colonised thoseareas and are now, to the human eye, indistinguishablefrom the natural environment as part of that forest.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is making a powerfulcase. In the east of England, the Broads landscape is asimilarly excellent example. It was long thought to be anexample of the natural environment, but it now turnsout to be a consequence of human intervention. Thedefinition of what is natural is extremely important.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right. The Broadscame about as a result of peat extraction by Saxon andearly medieval inhabitants of the area, and an amazinginterlinked lakeland and wetland environment has developedas a result. Landscapes of archaeological, environmental,artistic, cultural or historic interest are an importantpart of the natural environment. They should be conservedand preserved, and loved and looked after for thatreason, and not because they are a variation from theoriginal landscape that was in place once upon a time.

10.45 am

Turning to the 25-year environment plan, which isapparently the status quo for our considerations, I seeno mention or consideration in it of that aspect of ournatural environment. We are being asked to adopt aplan for the future that simply does not include thataspect. As the Minister mentioned the clean air targetsthat we agreed earlier, the 25-year environment plandoes not say very much about that either, other thanpublishing a clean air strategy.

If we agree the clause without amendment, we willhave put all our eggs in a basket that does not containmany of the eggs that we want to be in that basket in thefirst place. That is why it is very important that we agreethe amendment this morning. The Minister has indicatedthat 2023 is the date that the plan might be up forreconsideration. We must agree the amendment to ensurethat at the very least the Bill contains a clear instructionto the Secretary of State to include that when preparinga future environmental improvement plan.

If the Minister does not accept the amendment, sheought at the very least to give an indication that that isthe procedure that she will adopt, among other things,for the future preparation of an environmental improvementplan for the period post 2023. We will have lost sometime as a result, but if she indicates that that would bevery much on her mind for any future environmental

improvement plan, it would go a long way to comfortingus, although ideally the measure should be in the Bill inorder to properly inform this section for the future.

Rebecca Pow: I want to assure the shadow Ministerthat the Government were elected on a manifesto thatpromised to protect and restore our natural environmentafter leaving the EU, and that is why the environmentimprovement plans and targets share an objective ofsignificantly improving the natural environment.

I will whizz through my response as briefly as I can.The hon. Member touched on the fact that the naturalworld does not exist in a vacuum. We are in completeagreement. It is a very complicated scene. We interactwith it; we use it and rely on it; and we change it, as thehon. Member referred to in many examples. It becomespart of our life, our history, our values and it is anatural heritage and inheritance that we should all beproud of. That is why the 25-year environment plan hasat its heart that we will improve the natural environmentand recognises that we cannot manage it in isolation.

The plan committed us to“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery

and improving its environmental value while being sensitive toconsiderations of its heritage.”

That is what the plan mentions, so I want to giveabsolute assurances. I believe the shadow Minister isnot aware that this point is all part and parcel of theEnvironment Bill already.

I understand that those outside this House who havebeen calling for the amendment feel that greater confidencewould be given by an explicit reference in the Bill tothese particular heritage features of land. I know thatlots of people have been concerned about this, so I wantto reassure them that the Bill ensures that our 25-yearenvironment plan, including its stated recognition ofthe connection between the natural environment andheritage, will be adopted as the first environmentalimprovement plan. It will set the benchmark for futureplans, including how to balance environmental andheritage considerations.

The approach we took in our 25-year environmentplan on heritage was welcomed by stakeholders and isexpected to be mirrored in future environmental plansby the future Government. I hope that give assurances.The shadow Minister raises some serious points aboutheritage, but I think we are actually in agreement, so Iwould ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I am not sure that the Minister canpoint to the exact part of the Bill where those thingstake place in the way that she has suggested they do,although I am a little reassured by the fact that sheclearly has a good understanding of the problem thatwe have set out today and is alive to the issue. I hope theMinister will follow up this debate with some equallyassiduous work as previously, to ensure that it is asubstantial feature of the next, or revised, environmentalimprovement plan. I hope it will give great reassurancenot just to people in this House, but to those concernedwith our natural heritage and the way that our heritageas a whole impacts on the natural environment and thechanges that have been made within it over time. I begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.




Clause 8

ANNUAL REPORTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT

PLANS


“and,

(c) consider biodiversity reports published by authoritiesunder section 40A of the Natural Environment andRural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section94 of this Act).”

Clause 8 is concerned with the preparation of annualreports on the implementation of the current environmentalimprovement plan. The amendment would additionallyrequire the consideration of annual reports on theplan’s implementation and operation. The clause setsout a number of ways in which that should be done. Bythe way, I cannot resist stating that, as hon. Memberswill observe, subsection (1) says:

“The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports”.

The Secretary of State has no option but to do this. It isnot a question of the Secretary of State “may”; rather,he “must prepare annual reports”. There is obviouslysome careful writing going on here.

Subsection (1) says:

“An annual report must...describe what has been done, in theperiod to which the report relates”

and

“consider...whether the natural environment has, or particularaspects of it have, improved during that period.”

Later in the Bill, clause 94 amends the Natural Environmentand Rural Communities Act 2006 to require the Secretaryof State to look at biodiversity reports, which

“must contain...a summary of the action which the authority hastaken over the period covered by the report...a summary of theauthority’s plans for complying with those duties... any quantitativedata required to be included in the report”,

and

“any other information that the authority considers it appropriateto include in the report.”

I will not read out the entire clause—as you will bedelighted to hear, Mr Gray—but it sets out a number ofother things that the biodiversity report should include.Nevertheless, in terms of biodiversity reports, that appearsto be fairly central to the idea of reporting, on anannual basis, what has happened to that environmentalimprovement plan. That is, those biodiversity reports,which are coming out on a regular basis, should inevitablybe included in the annual changes that have happened,which are required to be reported on by the Secretary ofState as far as the improvement plan is concerned.

However, as hon. Members can observe, there is nolinkage in clause 8 with clause 94 as far as biodiversityplans are concerned. We are concerned that, withoutsomething on the face of the Bill to link those biodiversityreports and the progress of the environmental improvementplan, those reports will be set aside, not taken intoaccount and not included in the Secretary of State’sprogress reports, and will have much less effect as aresult. The amendment would therefore require theSecretary of State to

“consider biodiversity reports published by authorities undersection 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural CommunitiesAct 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”

That is the important part. We are considering anamendment to the 2006 Act later in the Bill specificallyto do with biodiversity reports, yet we leave them hangingelsewhere in the legislation. The amendment introducecreate an important linking passage between those twoissues. The Committee ought to think carefully aboutwhether it wishes that link to be explicit on the face ofthe Bill, or whether the inclusion of those biodiversityreports in the Secretary of State’s update on theenvironmental improvement plan should be left to chance.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for hisconsideration of the Bill and the amendment. However,I assure him that the amendment is not needed. Clause8 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produceannual reports on progress in implementing theenvironmental improvement plan. As the current 25-yearenvironment plan shows, EIPs have a very broad scope.We have already touched on that. The reportingrequirements that the Government have proposed areequally broad in scope, describing what action has beentaken to implement the plan, and considering whetheraspects of the natural environment are improving. Thisconsideration should draw upon relevant existing data.Specifying that particular reports must be considered isnot necessary.

The Bill will introduce a requirement to producebiodiversity reports as part of a strengthened biodiversityduty on public authorities. These reports will providevaluable data, but are already in the scope of theexisting reporting duty of the annual EIP reports. Toensure that the annual EIP reports are as robust andcomprehensive as possible, we want them to be basedon the best evidence. We also want to retain the flexibilityto consider the most relevant evidence for a particularcontext.

11 am

Within that context, we should also consider thatthere will be several hundred biodiversity reports producedover a five-year period. They will be produced by alllocal authorities, local planning authorities, and otherlarge landowning authorities. We will discuss that inmore detail in the later clause. Only some of the reportswill be relevant to the annual EIP reports, and it wouldbe disproportionate to require all of them to be considered.The hon. Member’s amendment is not relevant, and isalready dealt with in later clauses to do with biodiversity.The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is obviouslydeeply concerned about the issue of biodiversity and itis absolutely right that we should address it, but I askhim to withdraw amendment 89.

Daniel Zeichner: I suspect that we will be discussingthe same points on a number of different amendments,but this amendment raises the whole issue of thosebiodiversity plans. It also raises the issue referred to bymy hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test atthe beginning of today’s sitting, which is that we haveseen significant changes over the summer in terms ofthe Government’s stated intent for the planning WhitePaper.

When we look at the information that goes into theenvironmental improvement plans, my concern is that,as my hon. Friend has suggested, the data needs tobe there to make any kind of sensible judgment. It is


suggested, through the links to clause 94, that localplanning authorities will be providing much of thatinformation, yet the Government now propose to createa planning system that makes that nearly impossible.We will return to that, but it points to the great difficultyfor the Opposition, in that, without an evidence sessionto explore these points, it is difficult to have a rationaldiscussion at this point in our proceedings. My hon.Friend’s suggested amendment very much strengthensthe Government’s ability to draw up a coherent plan. Ifwe do not have that, we will end up with a nice-lookingdocument that is not based on any real information.

This debates also touches on a more fundamentalissue: the relationship between this Bill and the AgricultureBill. I had the pleasure of leading on the AgricultureBill in this very room some months ago, and we raisedthe point then. The interaction between the two iscomplicated and sophisticated, particularly in relationto environmental land management schemes. The Ministermentioned that earlier. Without the relevant information,we will not be able to have the planning strength wewould all like to see.

Dr Whitehead: The points made by my hon. Friendthe Member for Cambridge are important in the widercontext of the Bill. They explain why we are finding itdifficult to easily track what the various parts of the Billare against each other. As my hon. Friend says, we willreturn to that in the next amendment. It is beholden onthe Minister to explain a bit better how these things fittogether—or indeed do not—than she has this morning.We legislate today not just for those who might bewell-disposed towards the Bill and have its architecturewell-embedded in their heads, and would therefore hopefullybe able to move about within the Bill to put its bitstogether in terms of future directions. I refer to Ministersand those who are well-disposed towards its ideas—inthis instance biodiversity reports. We are legislating forfuture circumstances where those required to carry outthe terms of the Bill might not have the same enthusiasm,dedication and support for the issues as the Ministerdoes. I am sure she will have a long reign as Minister,but she is nevertheless the present Minister.

It is important that we ensure as best we can that thelegislation is malevolence-proof and that what we decidein respect of future Governments’ duties, both in thisCommittee and when the Bill goes through the House,really happens. The amendment is an example of somethingthat could be included in the Bill. I accept what theMinister said about there being some measures that,with some good will, can ensure that those thingshappen, but they are far from the sort of long-termassurances we want. Although I will not press theamendment to a vote, I am afraid that what the Ministerhas said laid out this morning is very much dependenton her good will towards the Bill.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): The shadow Ministeris making a powerful point—we are future-proofing forgenerations to come. To my mind, it is important thatlegislation is easy to read and understand, and it mustbe secure and tight. Future generations will be lookingto us to set an example, which is why that is so important.A year ago, nobody knew about covid, so we cannotalways read the future, but we must set things downtightly in legislation. That is why amendment 201, which

was withdrawn, focused on the use of “may”and “must”—wording is so important. I agree with my hon. Friendthat we must make the legislation as future-proof aspossible.

Dr Whitehead: That is precisely my view of what weshould be doing in Committee and throughout thepassage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflecton whether the clause is really tight enough to ensurethat the provisions work, not just for her purposes butfor the purposes of people in the future, and that shewill look over the legislation at her leisure—there isplenty of time on Report—to see whether anythingmore needs to be done to ensure that that point isproperly taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.



“and,

(c) include an analysis of whether the policies andmeasures set out in the environmental improvementplan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1and 2 and any interim targets set under sections 10and 13 are likely to be met.”

This amendment is another example of the themethat we have been developing, first on the extent towhich the later parts of the Bill link properly to theearlier parts, and secondly on whether provisions shouldbe included in the Bill to ensure that those links aremade when the Bill becomes law and are not just in theminds of the Minister and well-disposed civil servants.

The amendment, which also relates to clause 7(5),proposes that the environmental improvement plan shouldinclude

“an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in theenvironmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets setunder sections 1 and 2”,

which we have agreed to,

“and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13”,

which we will talk about later,

“are likely to be met.”

It is important to the proper functioning of anyenvironmental improvement plan that it is drawn up onthe basis of the targets. The Minister has mentionedthat this is not just a question of the targets that are inthe Bill; other targets can be set on the basis of theframework in clause 1. It seems to me that if that is oneof our prime mechanisms for ensuring that what happensunder the Bill as a whole works, it has to be a primefunction of an environmental improvement plan. Theidea of setting up an environmental improvement planto miss, subvert or undermine those targets would beanathema to us, but there is nothing in the Bill toprevent that from happening. The two clauses are justnot linked together. We therefore think, as I have mentionedbefore, that the amendment is important to rectifyarchitectural defects in the Bill.

Under the amendment, the analysis would be one ofthe things the Secretary of State was required to includewhen preparing an environmental improvement plan.Of course, when the environmental improvement planthat we have at present was produced, no targets were inplace, no targets had been set and no targets had been


[Dr Whitehead]

considered. This is therefore an entirely new thing thatwould have to go into the revision of the environmentalimprovement plan that the Secretary of State is requiredto do in 2023.

I hope that the Minister will be fairly generous inconsidering whether to put this provision in the Bill. Ithink that it is an important change that needs to bemade and, given that we have thought about it for awhile, we will consider dividing the Committee if thereis not a reasonable response to what is a serious andconsiderable lack of joining up between this clause andthe earlier clauses.

Rebecca Pow: I thank shadow Minister for his proposalthat the Government annually assess the sufficiency ofenvironmental improvement plan measures for achievingour targets. He is clearly aware, as are we and, indeed,all the people who have put so much work into thestructure of the targets and the EIPs, that it is veryimportant to keep the EIPs on track. With that in mind,I assure him that the whole system that has been setup—the Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planningand reporting—is designed to ensure that the Governmentregularly assess the sufficiency of their actions, whileallowing some flexibility in how they do so.

The EIP annual reports are intended to be a retrospectiveassessment of what has happened in the preceding12 months. The five-yearly EIP review is a morecomprehensive assessment in which the Governmentmust look not only backwards but forwards and considerwhether the EIP should include additional measures. Ifso, the EIP may be updated and a new version laidbefore Parliament.

The Office for Environmental Protection will commentyearly on the progress reported in each EIP annualreport, providing it with the opportunity to flag earlyon where it believes there is a risk that the Governmentmight not meet their legally binding, long-term targets.It may also make recommendations on how progresstowards meeting targets can be improved, to which theGovernment must respond.

11.15 am

I hope that that reassures the shadow Minister thatthere is a step-by-step system of constant reporting,monitoring and assessing. Ultimately, of course, theOEP has the power to bring legal proceedings if theGovernment breach their environmental law duties,including the duty to achieve long-term targets.

The intent of the amendment already appears in theEIP cycle. I have it all written out, because there is astep-by-step process to ensure we are kept on track. Anyextra or duplicative reporting is unnecessary and coulddivert resourcing from that needed to ensure the successfulimplementation of the policy, so I ask the hon. Memberfor Southampton Test to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I wonder whether the Minister willexplain why—

The Chair: Order. The Minister has finished herremarks; the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate.

Dr Whitehead: Indeed. I am wondering in a non-specificway, Mr Gray, what the Minister might think about thisissue, having responded to the debate so far.

The provision that we wish to place in clause 8(2)appears in subsection (3), so will the Minister considerincluding it in subsection (2), which states what anannual report must consist of, whereas subsection (3)states that the report might consider these matters.Surely those targets and interim targets are central toany annual report and are not a consideration thatmight arise in the report.

I do not know whether the wording is slack orwhether there is a reason why the consideration ofrelevant targets under clauses 1 and 2 are in subsection (3)and not in subsection (2). Our amendment expresses thecentrality of targets to annual reports.

Daniel Zeichner: I have to say that I am finding this aslightly dry discussion, Mr Gray.

I listened to the Minister carefully and I am trying tounderstand the amendment’s effect in the real world.For those that influence the environment—I think ofwater companies and transport authorities—the extraclarity offered by the amendment would make it farmore likely that they would amend their planning andinvestment decisions at the right time, which seems tobe key to what we are trying to achieve.

Dr Whitehead: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend,although it is perhaps going a little too far for an hon.Friend to say that I am involved in dry discussions. Onhis suggestion, I will try to make my discussions a littledamper in future.

To be honest, I do not think the Minister has given usa good reply. I do not want to press the amendment to avote, but I want to put it on the record that we think it isimportant that these issues should be gathered togethercentrally in the annual reports and not put in theconsiderations about the annual reports. Again, I wouldhope—it is not a general reflection on this occasion, butan actual reflection—that the Minister might look atthe fact that the wording applies to the documentationof the report and consider whether a drafting amendmentto put subsection (3) into subsection (2) might not be awise course of action at a future date.



Clauses 9 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 91, inclause 16, page 10, line 6, leave out “proportionately”.

This amendment removes ministerial estimates of proportionality as alimitation on the policy statement on environmental principles.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave outsubsection (2).

This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirementto consider the policy statement on environmental principles.


Dr Whitehead: I am afraid that we might be herediscussing slightly dry propositions for a little while.Amendments 91 and 92 look at the wording in the Billthat relates to the proportionality of the interpretationby Ministers of the Crown when making policy. Clause 16(2)defines what a policy statement on environmental principlesis. It explains that it

“is a statement explaining how the environmental principlesshould be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers ofthe Crown when making policy.”

Although that appears to be an innocuous point, ourview is that it is not remotely as innocuous as it looks,because it is not just talking about the statement on howthe environmental principles should be interpreted. It isstating that, even after that interpretation, there is a

second course of action that may be taken: Ministers ofthe Crown may decide to apply them proportionately.As far as I can see, there is no definition of the word“proportionately” in clause 16 or in the Bill as a whole,even though it is quite usual to place an interpretationof particular words in a Bill.

My understanding is that the word “proportionately”has to be attached to something—it is proportionate tosomething, or proportionately a part of something.When it is stated in the—

11.25 am





OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Ninth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 16 TO 21 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 1 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till

Thursday 5 November at half-past Eleven o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than












† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and

Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)








(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Clause 16

POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES

Amendment moved (this day): 91, in clause 16, page 10,line 6, leave out “proportionately”.—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment removes ministerial estimates of proportionality as alimitation on the policy statement on environmental principles.

2 pm

The Chair: I remind the Committee that with this weare discussing amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11,line 13, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirementto consider the policy statement on environmental principles.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I wasin the middle of a brief exposition of the word“proportionately”, as found in clause 16, which we werediscussing this morning. As I mentioned, the clauserequires that a policy statement on environmental principlesmust be prepared in accordance with clauses 16 and 17.Subsection (2) defines the policy statement on environmentalprinciples as

“a statement explaining how the environmental principles shouldbe interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of theCrown when making policy.”

The word “proportionately” very much concernsOpposition Members, because the clause not only dealswith the statement itself and how the environmentalprinciples should be interpreted, but adds that Ministersof the Crown will be assumed to be proportionatelyapplying those principles. It goes beyond the environmentalprinciples themselves and gives Ministers of the Crownthe leeway to apply those principles “proportionately”.

“Proportionately” is a strange word. The Cambridgephilosopher of ordinary language J. L. Austin definedit, among others, as a “trouser-word”—a word that doesnot function properly without a pair of trousers on.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Where are yougoing with this, Alan?

Dr Whitehead: I think J. L. Austin is very interesting,but others disagree. Indeed, the dictionary definition of“proportionately”, which underlines his point, is:

“In a way that corresponds in size or amount to somethingelse.”

It has no consequence in its own right, and that is theproblem that we have with this particular formulation.If there are no trousers on “proportionately”, it canmean whatever anybody wants it to mean. In this instance,it appears to mean what Ministers of the Crown may

want it to mean. It is possible—not in terms of theintentions or anything else of present company—thatthe definition of “proportionately”is entirely what Ministersof the Crown may want to make of it. A much morestraightforward example of that particular action isLewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty deciding that wordsmean exactly what he wanted them to mean.

We may come on to this later, but the Bill should definewhat “proportionately” might mean, what its limits areand what Ministers may do when deciding, proportionately,what environmental principles should be. I accept thatit may well be the case that Ministers have a view onenvironmental principles and how that policy statementmay be put into place. This is not an appropriate way tobring Ministers into that particular discussion. For thesake of clarity, we would like the to see the wordremoved from the clause, so that it reads, “a policystatement is a statement explaining how the environmentalprinciples should be interpreted.” That offers enoughleeway as far as policy statements are concerned. Iwelcome the Minister’s explanation as to why that additionalline should be necessary in the clause, and what it addsrather than what it takes away, in terms of making quitemeaningless some of the things that I have outlined inthe first part of the clause with regard to Ministers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Ithank the hon. Gentleman for these amendments, andwelcome the opportunity to clarify why the provisionsare needed. The amendments would remove the needfor the policy statement to set out how the environmentalprinciples should be proportionately applied by Ministerswhen making policy. They also remove importantproportionality considerations associated with the legalduty to have due regard to the policy statement onenvironmental principles. Proportionate application is akey aspect of use of the principles, and it ensures thatGovernment policy is reasoned and based on sensibledecision making. It is vital that this policy statementprovides current and future Ministers with clarity onhow the principles should be applied proportionately,so that they are used in a balanced and sensible way.Setting out how these principles need to be applied in aproportionate manner does not weaken their effect, nordoes ensuring that action on the basis of the policystatement is only taken where there is an environmentalbenefit. It simply means that in the policy statement, wewill be clear that Ministers need to think throughenvironmental, social and economic considerations inthe round, and ensure that the environment is properlyfactored into policy made across Government from thevery start of the process.

When the policy statement is then used, Ministers ofthe Crown will take action when it is sensible to do so.This approach is consistent with the objective in relationto the policy statement of embedding sustainabledevelopment, aimed at ensuring environmental, social,and economic factors are all considered when makingpolicy. Not balancing those factors could have consequencesthat halt progress. For example, a disproportionateapplication of the “polluter pays”principle could result inanyone being asked to pay for any negligible harmon the environment, when in reality, many actions taken byhumans cause some environmental harm, such as goingfor a walk in the country. It is essential to ensure that


the principles are applied in an appropriate and balancedway, and proportionality is absolutely key to this. Since thisamendment removes vital proportionality considerations,I ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 91and 92.

The Chair: Before I call Daniel Zeichner, who caughtmy eye, can I explain a small point about procedure? Itwould be helpful if anybody who wishes to speak whilethe person who has moved the amendment is speakingwould catch my eye one way or another—standing upin their place is the clearest way to do so. Those peoplespeak, and the Minister speaks afterwards. That meansthe Minister is replying to the points that are made. Fornow, it is fine, but in future, Members should catch myeye while the mover of the amendment is speaking.They can speak, and the Minister can reply to whathon. Members have to say.

Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, Mr Gray. My apologiesfor muddling up the procedure. I am grateful for theopportunity to make a few points on what seems to beone of the most important parts of the Bill. For manyof us, the precautionary principle has been a key part ofour environmental protections.

It is fair to say that there is a difference of viewinternationally about how one approaches these things.Without trying to trivialise it in any way, there is adifference between the American approach and theEuropean approach. Of course, we have been part ofthe European approach for a long time, and theprecautionary principle has been absolutely key. Theintroduction of proportionality will seriously weakenour environmental protections. Although we have reamsof paper to go through, that is the key distinction. I fearthat the application of proportionality will water downour environmental protections.

I found the explanatory notes very helpful, as Ialways do. Paragraph 173 says:

“Proportionate application means ensuring that action takenon the basis of the principles balances the potential for environmentalbenefit against other benefits and costs associated with the action.”

Of course, as soon as we introduce that balancing side,those essential precautionary environmental protectionare at risk. I am afraid, despite the Minister’s optimismabout the Bill, that this is the crunch issue. If thisamendment is not carried, there is no doubt that ourenvironmental protections will be weakened.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes a key pointabout the importance of the amendment. It is not justthat many things pivot on it; one could almost go so faras to say that the whole thrust of the Bill pivots on it.

The understanding has always been that the Billreally will put the environment on the map and willprovide not only good environmental protection in thelong term, but no regression and enhanced environmentalprotection in the future. If that word is at the heart of it,things could be traded off against considerations thatare completely outwith the intentions and purposes ofthe Bill, and it could be subverted entirely at ministerialdiscretion. That is surely not something that we shouldeasily countenance.

In a moment, we will come on to an amendment thatattempts to get a definition of proportionality on to thestatute book. Although we do not want to divide the

Committee on this amendment, if we do not securesubstantial progress with the next amendment, we mayseek to divide the Committee at that point. I beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.




Clause 18

POLICY STATEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PRINCIPLES:EFFECT

2.15 pm

Amendment proposed: 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13,leave out subsection (2).—(Dr Whitehead.)This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirementto consider the policy statement on environmental principles.



Division No. 4]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 114, in clause 18, page 11,line 19, leave out paragraph (a).

This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence andnational security policy from the requirement to have due regard to thepolicy statement on environmental principles.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 93, in clause 18, page 11, line 19, leave out

“the armed forces, defence or”.

This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces and defencepolicy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statementon environmental principles.

Deidre Brock: It is important to establish a principlethat no area of Government should be exempted fromits responsibilities to the environment. The amendmentbrings the activities of the Ministry of Defence, thearmed forces, defence and national security into thescope of the Bill. I have been talking at length on thissubject for some time now, and have submitted numerousparliamentary questions on it. Some of those questionsactually received answers, but sadly I am still awaiting aletter from the Minister for Defence People and Veteransoutlining the environmental impact assessment of theMOD’s operations at Cape Wrath, which he promisedme in February of this year. Perhaps mentioning thattoday will jog his memory a little.


[Deidre Brock]

We have swathes of munitions dumps up and downthe UK coast, still imperilling our fishers and others onour waters. There are also large chunks of land in theUK currently outside the scope of the Bill. Yes, hundredsof nuclear safety incidents on the Clyde were acknowledgedby the MOD, but only because of written questions Ihad submitted. We have no idea what impact militaryfuels are having. Scientists for Global Responsibilityestimates that 6% of global greenhouse gas emissionsresult from military-related activities.

I understand that the percentage share of the UK’semissions total is lower for defence here, but our omissionsfrom the military are still higher than those of someentire countries. By taking this action, the UK reallycould act as a world leader and role model. We have noidea what impact weapons testing or training effortshave. I know because of my parliamentary questionsthat assessments are made, but they are not published.It must be possible to make such assessments transparentwithout compromising the safety of our forces andtheir interests.

A number of witnesses to the Committee, when I askedthem about the issue, seemed to agree that it wassomething of an anomaly. Lloyd Austin of ScottishEnvironment LINK, while accepting that exceptionswill exist, said that they

“should be based…on a degree of justification for why…theenvironmental issue has to be overwritten. Nobody thinks theenvironment will always trump everything but, on the other hand,where the environment is trumped, there should be a goodreason, and that reason should be transparent to citizens.”

John Bynorth of Environmental Protection Scotlandsaid:

“It is a bit arbitrary and unjustified that the military…shouldnot be subject to the same conditions as everyone else.”––[OfficialReport, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 143,

Q202.]

Ruth Chambers, from Greener UK, speaking about thefact that this duty will not apply to the Ministry of Defence,said:

“Already, we seem to be absolving quite a large part of Governmentfrom the principles.”––[Official Report, Environment Public BillCommittee, 10 March 2020; c. 71, Q112.]

The environmental principles, that is.

I am not going to speak for long—we have manyamendments to get through—but I have been raisingthis issue for a long time. I was delighted to see Labourcome on board too, although disappointed to see thatthey still want to keep the exemption for national security.We have to ask what kind of national security will beleft to us if the environment goes belly up.

From answers received from the House of CommonsLibrary, I know that there are so many pieces of primarylegislation containing exemptions relating to the armedforces that it is not possible to list them all. If we aregoing to start stopping these exemptions for the military,the place to start should be in the Environment Bill. Iam interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I amgoing to press the amendment to a vote.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): Clause 18 makes thearmed forces, defence or national security exempt fromdue regard to the policy statement on environmentalprinciples. It is detrimental to leave this whole section of

Government out of the Bill’s provisions. If we want thisBill to be a legal framework for environmental governanceand to have all the correct people in one room, whyleave out one of the biggest polluters, the biggest spendersand the biggest landowners? It just does not make sensein terms of achieving ambitious net zero targets.

Were the exemption to be confined and constricted todecisions relating to urgent military matters and thoseof national security, it is of course entirely reasonable. Ifully accept that there will be occasions when nationalsecurity has to take precedence over environmentalconcerns. We do not want to impede the work of ourarmed forces or compromise our safety and security inany way. However, the clause is not drafted as tightly,cleverly and smartly as that. Rather, it is a blanketexclusion for the Ministry of Defence, the DefenceInfrastructure Organisation and the armed forces fromcomplying with the environmental principles set out inthe Bill.

The carbon footprint of UK military spending wasapproximately 11 million tonnes of CO2 in 2018—verysignificant. Some £38 billion was spent on defence lastyear alone—more than 2% of our GDP. Bringing howthat is spent in line with our environmental aims isessential to achieving our overall national environmentaltargets. If it is not in the Bill, it is just going to be left togoodwill and to hoping that it will work.

I hope that the Minister will shortly argue that theprinciple is important and, if it is, the armed forces anddefence must not be exempt—that is how we show it isimportant. The Ministry of Defence is one of thelargest landowners in the country, with an estate that isnearly equal to 2% of the UK landmass. Last week Iwas on Salisbury plain, which is the size of the Isle ofWight. It is where significant military work is carriedout, but it is also where a significant environmentaladvantage could be held.

The Defence Infrastructure Organisation manages431,400 hectares of land within the UK. The sites areused for training, accommodation and large bases and theorganisation has a remit to ensure the safety, sustainabilityand rationalisation of the estate. It states that:

“MOD has a major role to play in the conservation of theUK’s natural resources. Stewardship of the estate means that theMOD has responsibility for some of the most unspoilt andremote areas in Britain; with statutory obligations to protect theprotected habitats and species that they support.”

I am not arguing that the Ministry of Defence doesnot care about the environment. I am saying that, if weall care about the environment, the MOD should comewithin the legal framework of guidance. We can have anamendment specifically tailored for the armed forces.Much of the land used by the MOD for training andoperations is in highly sensitive environments and manyparts are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty,including Dartmoor, Lulworth, Warcop and the Kentdowns. They are subject to a number of associated policyprocesses, such as bylaw reviews, planning applicationsand so on, which means that they are subject toenvironmental protection. They should be joined upand come within the remit of the Bill as well.

A reason for adding this matter to the Bill is that theMinistry of Defence is already deeply committed toenvironmental protection and to tackling climate change,but a major rethink of defence policy is needed toachieve our ambitious environmental aims. New approaches


to procurement are needed in particular. The Air Force,for example, is looking at different types of aircraft fuel.That should come within the Environment Bill, notwithout.

It prompts the question of why there is a blanketexemption, as it does not give credit to the armed forcesand to the newly formed strategic command for all thework they are doing to achieve our environmental goals.The clause should be tightened up considerably. Ratherthan separating them, here is an opportunity to link theBill’s environmental principles to the armed forces’environmental objectives. We are in a climate emergency.There is no time to wait around for the goodwill ofenormous Departments to get in line—certainly notone with such significant spending, carbon emissionsand land ownership. I urge the Minister to support theamendment, or to come back with a smarter amendmentthat enshrines our national security at the same time asenforcing the speed of environmental action that weneed and expect the armed forces to be able to deliver.

Dr Whitehead: What the Committee needs to understandis that the inclusion in the Bill of the application ofpolicy as set out in subsection (1) does not apply to thearmed forces. Subsection (1) states:

“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have dueregard to the policy statement on environmental principles currentlyin effect.”

The Minister must, therefore, have “due regard” topolicies on environmental principles except where itrelates to anything to do with the “armed forces”, as myhon. Friend the Member for Putney said. She mentionedthat it is particularly important when the land that theMOD has under its control is considered, which weindeed know from the handy “National Statistics”publication which states what land is owned by theMOD. The issue, however, is not only the land ownedby the MOD but also the further 207,400 hectares overwhich it has rights in addition to its freehold andleasehold-owned land. A reasonable interpretation ofthat is to consider what is controlled by the MOD andthe armed forces. Is that a total of 431,000 hectares, asmentioned by my hon. Friend? That is the size of Essexplus half of Greater London, to put it into context.That is the amount of land that is under no jurisdictionat all as far as environmental principles are concerned.

There may be good reasons for that huge amount ofnational land resource being exempt from theseenvironmental protections, but none are immediatelyapparent to me. Not only are they not apparent to me,what is apparent to me is that an organisation thatundertakes actions that prejudice the environmentalquality or environmental protection of UK land isoften required to mitigate those actions elsewhere inany other sector. If a new port berth is being decidedupon, then one of the first things to happen is that aconsideration of environmental mitigation takes placefor the land that has been despoiled by the new port,even if the berth is regarded as necessary. Even thatprinciple does not appear to apply as far as the MOD isconcerned.

As my hon. Friend said, I accept that when a persondrives across Salisbury plain, for example, they occasionallysee great big tracks on the plain where tanks have drivenaround it, and that on the Lulworth ranges thereis weaponry practice that has environmental impacts.

Of course, that is a part of MOD defence activity, and itmay be necessary for that activity to be carried out.However, it does not seem beyond our imagination toconsider that the MOD and defence should be in adifferent position as far as environmental mitigation isconcerned. It would be quite reasonable to suggest thatwithin the necessary undertakings that the MOD has togo about doing, environmental mitigation should bepart of that process, if necessary. To just give the armedforces a blanket let-off as far as any environmentalprinciples are concerned seems, to me, a bridge too far.

2.30 pm

It is not the case that the Army and the MOD do nothave policies that they themselves state are mitigating,pro-environmental principles, but under this legislation,those principles would be entirely voluntary. If theMOD decided one day that it did not want anything todo with them, that would be the end of the matter.When we are talking about an area that is, as I say, thesize of Essex plus half of Greater London, we surelycannot have that as part of a Bill that claims to protectthe environment as a whole over the next long period oftime. This has nothing to do with that particular ambition.

Daniel Zeichner: We just had a discussion aboutproportionality, and it strikes me as perfectly possibleto say to the MOD that it could react proportionately tothese kinds of judgments. In our previous discussion,we introduced a notion that I would say will be used tothe detriment of the environment; why could we not askthe MOD to act proportionately when it comes to itsenvironmental obligations?

Dr Whitehead: Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutelyright. It would not be difficult to draft something thatwould both protect the activities that I think we allagree the MOD and the Army need to do on occasions,and ask them to act proportionately in respect of theirenvironmental obligations when undertaking those activities.

An amendment to this clause has been tabled by thehon. Member for Edinburgh North—[HON. MEMBERS:“And Leith.”] And Leith as well, yes; I have been toboth Edinburgh North and Leith, so I should rememberthe connection between the two. The Labour party hasalso put forward amendments, which take out twosections of this clause and, as it were, challenge theirinclusion and these exemptions separately. We do notsee any substantive difference between what we aresaying through those two particular challenges and, asit were, the overall challenge that the hon. Lady has putforward through her amendment: it is essentially a bigquestion about why these particular exemptions are inplace. We do not just have exemptions for the MOD; wehave exemptions as far as

“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.

I am not exactly sure what land that controls, as wecannot put that in place in the same way as we can withthe MOD, but it is also not apparent to me why thoseareas should also be treated differently.

The Chair: The amendment does not refer to that.

Dr Whitehead: Sorry, amendment 94—

The Chair: Amendment 93 refers to paragraph (a),not paragraph (b).


Dr Whitehead: Amendment 94, which I believe is inthis group—

The Chair: No.

Dr Whitehead: I stand corrected. So we are discussingamendments 93 and 114 in this group and discussingamendment 94 in the next group. I will remove myremarks on amendment 94 and save them for the nextgroup. I have to say that I do not think there is muchbetween the formulation put forward by the hon. Memberfor Edinburgh North and Leith and the one put forwardby us, as we will come to in the next amendment.Therefore, we support the hon. Lady in her endeavoursto try and get some clarity as far as this section isconcerned.

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for the amendments.Clearly, we have sparked some quite strong feelings hereabout this particular issue. I want to make it clear,Chair, that I am just going to focus on defence, to whichthe amendment relates.

While we recognise the intention behind theseamendments, it is fundamental to the protection of ourcountry that the exemptions for armed forces, defenceand national security are maintained. The exemptionsthat would be removed by the amendments relate tohighly sensitive matters that are vital for the protectionof our realm, so it is appropriate for them to be omittedfrom the duty to have due regard to the environmentalpolicy statement. A critical part of the role of Defenceand Home Office Ministers is to make decisions aboutthe use of UK forces to prevent harm, save lives, protectUK interests or deal with a threat. We have severalcolleagues in the Room who have strong armed forceslinks, and I think they will agree with that summary. Itwould not be appropriate for Ministers to have to gothrough the process of considering the set of environmentalprinciples before implementing any vital and urgentpolicies related to the issues I have just mentioned.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has its ownenvironmental policies in place, as well as a commitmentthat its policies protect the environment, with a strongrecord on delivering on those commitments, which wehad reference to from both sides, particularly from thehon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge.For example, the MOD require that all new infrastructureprogrammes, projects and activities have to includesustainability and environmental appraisals. Thoseappraisals cover a similar spectrum of analysis to theenvironmental principles.

I also want to highlight that the MOD takes theenvironment extremely seriously. It is adapting to mitigatedefence’s impact on climate, which was touched on bythe hon. Member for Putney, to build resilience and supportthe Government’s commitment to net-zero emissionsand a review is underway to develop its response to netzero and climate change, with a new strategy planned toadd to the existing sustainable development policy. Thatis a clear indication that the MOD means businesswhere the environment is concerned.

As was touched on by a couple of Members, andparticularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North andLeith, the Ministry of Defence owns or otherwise controlsapproximately 1% of the UK’s landmass—

Dr Whitehead: Two per cent.

Rebecca Pow: My facts say 1%, but shall we agree,Chair, that it is nearly 2%?

The Chair: It is quite a lot.

Rebecca Pow: It is a significant amount. Actually, Ithink the shadow Minister is right and it is nearer 2%.More than a third—38%—of that area is designated assites of special scientific interest. SSSIs have a statutoryduty that they will be managed and protected and thatduty is not removed—it is not exempted. As such, thatwork carries on. The MOD’s record on getting thosesites into favourable condition is good, with 48% of thesites in that condition. The MOD works very hard withNatural England on those plans and projects; it has adedicated environmental team, working on the environmentthrough the MOD.

When I was a news reporter, I had a wonderful daywith the MOD up on Salisbury Plain, looking at itstremendous stone curlew project. Even though the tanksrattle across, the stone curlews can still thrive. The Whipis looking at his phone, but I am sure that he lives nearthere; I would like someone to report back to me onhow the stone curlews are doing now, because that is afantastic project.

To go back to my point, because of the particularsensitivities of this policy area as well as existingenvironmental commitments, I hope that I am givingsome clarity as to why the MOD is exempted. It mightbe helpful for the hon. Member for Edinburgh Northand Leith to note that there are exemptions in the UKWithdrawal from the European Union (Continuity)(Scotland) Bill, and they are in categories that are quitesimilar to those in this Bill, if not a little bit wider. Theyare listed in clause 10(3) of that Bill as

“(a) national defence or civil emergency,

(b) finance or budgets.”

I thought that it might be interesting to put that on therecord.

I hope that I have provided some clarity on this issue.I think we are covering a lot of the same ground here, soI ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.

Deidre Brock: The Minister talks about the UKWithdrawal from the European Union (Continuity)(Scotland) Bill, but unfortunately defence is still reservedto Westminster, so I am afraid that the Scottish Governmentwould not have any control over that issue anyway.

The issue for me here is transparency for our citizens,so that they know exactly what impact the armed forcesare having on our environment. The Minister talksabout the highly sensitive nature of the armed forces’activities, but not all their activities are sensitive. Forexample, what are their recycling rates and what aretheir targets towards the reduction of emissions? Regardingthe environmental impact of the armed forces, justtoday we heard on the radio from the actor JoannaLumley about the impact of underwater explosions onmarine mammals, and the hearing loss that results whenmunitions that have been on the seabed for many yearsare detonated. Such issues will become more and moreimportant. I have pursued the question of munitionsdumps for a while, as I mentioned; it is not going away.There is an increasing clamour about it from around theworld, and it is important for the Minister to rememberthat because it will return as an issue in the near future.


It is simply no longer acceptable for the armed forcesto be exempt from reporting their progress towardsclimate change targets, or their compliance withenvironmental targets or any of the other targets thatother parts of Government are required to report on. Iam disappointed that the Government cannot supportthis amendment. As I have said, the number of exemptionsfor the armed forces in primary legislation acrossGovernment is extraordinary; in fact, there are so manythat the Commons Library felt that it could not listthem in their entirety in its briefing.

It is important to hold to the principle that we allhave a part to play in trying to save the planet. Thereshould be no exemptions for any Government Department.I accept that there are sensitivities around nationalsecurity, but I think there are ways of addressing themand taking them into account. I am delighted thatLabour Members are with me on this issue, and I willpress the matter to a vote.



Division No. 5]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Brock, Deidre

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


2.45 pm

Amendment proposed: 93, in clause 18, page 11, line 19,leave out

“the armed forces, defence or”.—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces and defencepolicy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statementon environmental principles.



Division No. 6]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Brock, Deidre

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 94, inclause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment removes the exceptions for tax, spending andresources from the requirement to have due regard to the policystatement on environmental principles.

Bearing in mind that we have had something of adebate on this subsection overall, I need not detain theCommittee long on this amendment, other than to saythat it is a mystery to me that taxation, spending or theallocation of resources should be exempted in the sameway that the armed forces should be exempted. TheMinister defined why the armed forces should be exempted:they are doing things in the national interest and pursuingour defence. But taxation, spending and the allocationof resources are not doing that. They are doing thingsthat are important to the country but do not comeunder that definition at all. I cannot understand thejustification for exempting them from the provisions onthe policy statements on environmental principles orwhat the exemption’s effect will be. I look forward tohearing from the Minister what her justification for thisparticular exemption is. I presume that it does not relateto national security or defence manoeuvres or activitiesthat we should be pleased happen but do not need toknow too much about. It would seem that this fallsoutside all those categories. There must therefore besome other reason and I am sure that we are about tohear about it.

Deidre Brock: The amendment would bring tax andspend into the scope of the Bill. I am glad that Labouris also addressing this because when I mentioned this onSecond Reading, few Members seemed to have graspedit. It is a really important point. If we are not consideringthe big issues of politics and the spending on them, weare not putting the environment high on the list ofpriorities. Likewise, if environmental considerations donot play a part in taxation decisions, we are missing agreat chance to influence people’s behaviour and helpsave our planet.

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for tabling theamendment. While we recognise the intention behind it,it is important to maintain the exemption to ensuresound economic and fiscal decision making. It is importantto be clear that this exemption only refers to centralspending decisions, because at fiscal events and spendingreviews such decisions must be taken with considerationto a wide range of public priorities. These includepublic spending on individual areas such as health,defence, education and the environment, as well assustainable economic growth and development, financialstability and sustainable levels of debt.

There is no exemption for individual policy interventionssimply because they require spending. Ministers shouldstill have due regard to the policy statement whendeveloping and implementing all policies to which thestatement is applicable. This means that while the policystatement will not need to be used when the Treasury isallocating budgets to Departments, it will be used whenDepartments develop policies that draw upon that budget.This is the best place for the use of the policy statementto effectively deliver environmental protection.

With regard to the exemption for taxation, let mereassure hon. Members that the Government are committedto encouraging positive environmental outcomes throughthe tax system, as demonstrated already by our commitmentto introducing a new tax on plastic packaging, to encouragegreater use of recycled plastic. We also have examples


[Rebecca Pow]

such as the woodland carbon guarantee and commitmentsto biodiversity net gain, with the Treasury commissioningthe Dasgupta report. A raft of measures demonstratethis. However, we need to ensure the Treasury Minister’sability to alter the UK’s fiscal position is not undermined,since taxation raises the revenue that allows us to deliveressential public services, such as the NHS, police andschools.

Although I recognise the purpose of the amendment,it is beneficial for the country that the Treasury canmake economic and financial decisions with regard to awide range of considerations, which will, of course,include the environment and climate. I therefore ask thehon. Gentleman to withdraw this amendment.

Dr Whitehead: As I always am, I will be polite. TheMinister, with great aplomb, read out words from apiece of paper that was placed in front of her to explainwhat the clause means, but she must realise, as we all do,that that is total nonsense. It makes no sense at all.

Let us look at actions in various other areas ofGovernment. The imperatives on net zero and climatechange that we just passed through the House effectivelyapply to decision making in all Departments. Departmentsare not supposed to make decisions about their activitiesand spending without reference to those imperatives.Yet what we have on this piece of paper—I am sure itwas assiduously drafted by someone seeking to defendthis particular exemption—appears to drive a coachand horses through that consideration, let alone otherconsiderations. Apparently, in taking its decisions onlarger matters, the Treasury does not have to be boundby considerations on environmental protection.

I think that is a shock to all of us, because it meansthat the Bill is completely useless. The Treasury considersa large number of things in its policies, covering everyarea of practical Government activity, one way or another. Ifthe situation is as the Minister has described, where doenvironmental protections stand? With any environmentalprotection, if it is part of the consideration of Treasurypolicy development, there is a door for the Treasury torun out of. As I understand it, that is what it says on thepiece of paper.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Just for clarification,is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that the Bill shouldprovide the Treasury with an opportunity to give ablank cheque for whatever the Office for EnvironmentalProtection requires?

Dr Whitehead: The phrase “due regard” comes in here,importantly. The truth is that clause 18 is a blankcheque in the opposite direction—a blank chequefor Ministers to invoke if they decide under certaincircumstances not to be bound by environmental protection,as the Bill appears to suggest that we all should be. Thatis unconscionable; it should not be in the Bill.

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Couldthe hon. Gentleman clarify what would happen in thesituation that we have faced this year, in which theTreasury has had to make very fast decisions and givebillions to businesses because of covid? Some of thosebusinesses might not be of an environmental nature—in

fact, some might be what we would regard as non-environmental or actually detrimental to the environment—but because of the social impact of that money, theTreasury has had to do it. It is my understanding that ifthe law were as the hon. Gentleman would like it, theTreasury would not have had that leeway. Could heclarify that?

Dr Whitehead: The Treasury would have had thatleeway, because of the phrase “have due regard”. Thereare clearly circumstances in which emergencies or otherissues mean that Ministers may at particular stages haveto draw away from their environmental or climate changeimperatives and responsibilities. However, the importantthing about having due regard is that if they do so, theyhave to explain why and under what circumstances theyare taking the decision. Clause 18 will do exactly theopposite: Ministers will not have to explain anything—theycan just not do anything that they do not feel like doing.I hope that Conservative Members will join us in sayingthat that is not good enough and is not what the Billshould be doing.

There could be another formulation. The hon. Memberfor Truro and Falmouth has pointed the way; with theright formulation, we could encompass the sort ofcircumstances she mentions. Of course we would be happyto support that, because there are indeed considerationsthat need to be undertaken at certain stages of emergencyand difficulty, and which may cause some difficultywith the imperatives. That is what due regard protectsus from, to a considerable extent. However, the principlethat someone who does something other than what wethink the imperative should point towards should justifywhat they are doing and be accountable for it is a veryimportant part of our processes, and that is not thecase here.

Rebecca Pow: I just want to clarify a few points. As Iam sure the shadow Minister knows, HMT takesenvironmental impact extremely seriously already; infact, it is referred to in the Green Book, which guides policymaking, that it has to be taken into account includingconsideration of natural capital. The environmentalprinciples will be referred to in the Green Book, so wealready have very strong measures that HMT is obviouslybeing guided by.

Dr Whitehead: Forgive me, but I think the Ministerhas elided “is” and “ought”. Yes, the Treasury may dothose things and put them in the Green Book, but underclause 18 it does not have to, just as the Ministry ofDefence is doing things that we might say are laudable—weheard about curlews coexisting alongside tanks—but itdoes not have to, and if for any reason it did not dothem, it would not have to say anything about it. It isentirely lucky that the Treasury and the Ministry ofDefence are doing what they are doing, but that neednot be the case. The Minister illustrated in what sheread out a little while ago that that is not the case. Theydo not have to do those things under the Bill. In defenceof the fact that they do not have do them, she hashighlighted examples of where, despite that and becauseof their good nature and good will, they are doing themanyway. I would expect that to happen, but it does notmean that in legislation we should allow good luck torule the things that we think are imperative as far asenvironmental protection is concerned.


3 pm

Daniel Zeichner: This is a fascinating discussion. Asthe debate has unfolded, I have found myself looking atthe clause and thinking, “What would have been inanyone’s mind when drafting that extra line?”. What dothey think needs to be excluded, and for what purpose?If the clause existed without that line in the first place, thenunless people are seeking something rather extraordinary,I would not have thought they would try to open a hugeopportunity to drive a coach and horses through anenvironmental protection Bill. What was the thinking, Iwonder?

Dr Whitehead: Indeed; my hon. Friend shines a lighton it. If one were of a suspicious character, one mightsay, “Why is this line here anyway?”. As the Ministersaid, the Treasury and the MOD do quite a lot of workin this respect. One might say, “Good. They do quite alot of work in this respect, and that needs to be encouraged,so let’s have a pretty strong starting point to bolster thework that they do already, and let’s have some limitedexceptions, driven by absolute necessity, with accountabilityover what they consist of and how they are undertaken.”Instead, we have drafting that does the opposite. If hon.Members were suspicious, they might question why thatdrafting is in there, and not another form of draftingthat is much closer to what we all want to see: environmentalprotections being respected as far as possible.

Frankly, the Minister has given us no explanation ofwhy it is there. She has given us a very able and clearexposition of who does what through their good nature.I applaud her for that, because it is part of her Department’sremit to make sure other Departments do that. However,her Department’s remit would be strengthened if theclause was strengthened or if it was not there at all. Onthat basis, I am afraid that we will seek to divide theCommittee on this amendment.



Division No. 7]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Brock, Deidre

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca




Clause 20

REPORTS ON INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION LEGISLATION


“(1A) The Secretary of State must—

(a) consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied indetermining significance for the purposes ofsubsection (1), and

(b) publish guidance on those matters reflecting the resultsof the consultation.”

This amendment would require the Government to consult on whatcounts as “significant” for the purposes of this Clause.



“(2A) The report must include—

(a) the results of an independent assessment of developmentsin international environmental protection legislation,and

(b) the Government’s proposed response to thosedevelopments.”

This amendment would require the report to include an independentassessment and the Government’s response to it.


“(7) The Secretary of State must make an oral statement toParliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicablefollowing the laying of the report.”

This amendment would require an oral statement to accompany thewritten report.

Dr Whitehead: I am afraid that we come to anotherdiscussion about the definition of a word in the Bill,which I know will cause some Members to groan.Nevertheless, as we saw in the last discussion, just acouple of words, or three, can have enormous significancein terms of a Bill’s wider consequences, so it is importantthat we look at them, what they mean, and their place inthe Bill.

Amendment 195 seeks to define what is meant by“significant” where the clause states:

“The Secretary of State must report on developments ininternational environmental protection legislation which appearto the Secretary of State to be significant.”

The clause therefore provides for reports on what ishappening around the world in terms of environmentalprotection legislation. What are the good and bad points,what can we learn from, and what things can we co-operateon? The clause kindly defines international environmentalprotection legislation as

“legislation of countries and territories outside the United Kingdom,and international organisations, that is mainly concerned withenvironmental protection.”

The clause also states:

“The Secretary of State must report under this section inrelation to each reporting period.”

It then states what those reporting periods are to be.International environmental protection legislation istherefore defined, but the Secretary of State apparentlyhas a completely free hand to decide which of thosedevelopments are significant, without any accompanyingdefinition in the legislation of what that word means.

One might say that that is quite significant, becauseclearly there can be an enormous range of judgmentson what, subjectively, a particular Secretary of Statemight think are significant international developments.For one Secretary of State, it might be that a particularstate has adopted legislation similar to our own in theirParliament. Another might think it significant that


[Dr Whitehead]

another jurisdiction has decided that its army should beexempt from land holdings coming under its ownenvironmental legislation, and that such an omissionhas produced riots and street clashes in that country asa result of the population deciding that it was a badidea. A range of things might be regarded as significantor not.

Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): Thispoint is fundamental. As drafted, the Bill has it as asubjective judgment by the Secretary of State. The hon.Gentleman’s amendment seeks to make it objective. Inour system—this goes to the heart of the amendment,and many others—the Secretary of State and Ministersrepresenting the Department are responsible to Parliamentfor their actions and whether any judgment they makeis correct. The Bill deliberately leaves it in the hands ofthe Secretary of State to make that subjective judgment,and if the House disagrees at the time the debate willhappen at the time.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the hon. Member for hisintervention, but that is not quite right, really. TheSecretary of State must report on developments and oninternational environmental protection legislation thatappears to him or her to be significant, and after he orshe has taken a judgment, he or she produces a reportthat must be laid before Parliament. What comes beforeParliament is not what is before the Secretary of State.It is not a gazetteer of international environmentalprotection action. It is a report after the Secretary ofState has decided what is significant and what is notsignificant. Those things that the Secretary of Statedefines as not significant are left out of the report.

Parliament could conceivably say, “Aha! We havedone a great deal of separate assiduous research and wehave decided that the Secretary of State has left this andthis and this out—why has the Secretary of State leftthese things out?”, but that requires a separate series ofactions from Parliament that are outwith the report,not about the report itself. The amendment seeks todefine what the Secretary of State should reasonablyput into a report for Parliament to look at. We have alsotabled an amendment on what should be done in additionto the report being published, which we will come to ina moment.

The central point of the amendment is that theSecretary of State should

“consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determiningsignificance”

and then

“publish guidance on those matters”.

That still gives the Secretary of State some leeway indetermining what is in the report, but it means thatthere is a body of guidance by which the Secretary ofState should be guided in terms of what he or she putsin the report for the subsequent perusal of Parliament.At present, because there is no definition of “significant”in the Bill, that guidance is completely lacking.

I hope that now I have given that explanation, thehon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden can supportthe amendment, as I think what he seeks to ensure isthat Parliament gets a report and the chance to discusswhat the Secretary of State has done. I would suggest

that a much better way of doing that is by agreeing tothe amendment, rather than the word standing unexplained,as it does at the moment.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for theamendment. I recognise the intention behind requiringfurther guidance on what counts as “significant”. However,this is a horizon-scanning provision. As such, it wouldbe counterproductive for the Government to try toanticipate in advance the kinds of significant developmentsthat might be identified.

There is no single overarching metric for the environment.Many of us touched on the complex landscape that isthe environment earlier today. Creating an objective testis impossible. It is important that there is flexibility totake account of the full range of developments in theperiod, in order to produce a report that is useful ininforming domestic legislation. The amendment wouldreduce the flexibility, potentially limiting the scope anduse of the report.

The review will cover other countries’ legislation thataims to protect, maintain, restore or enhance the naturalenvironment or that involves the monitoring, assessing,considering or reporting of anything in relation to theabove that is significant. What is significant will dependon the period being assessed. Something significanttoday might not be significant next year and differentthings might be significant next year.

On the proposals for an independent assessment andan oral statement, I assure the hon. Member that thereare already effective measures in place to allow Parliamentto scrutinise the report. That point was ably raised bymy hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden.When the report is laid before Parliament, Memberscan highlight any areas where they believe the Governmenthave missed important developments. It is obviouslyreally important that they do this, and it will ensureindependent scrutiny. It is crucial that this is carried outand that we look at what is going on internationally. Ifwe want to call ourselves global leaders, we have to beaware of what is being done elsewhere. If there are goodexamples, we need to copy them.

3.15 pm

Daniel Zeichner: As I listen to the Minister, I thinkthere is so much subjectivity involved in this. Just thinkingback through the glorious array of Secretaries of Statewho we have had in the Conservative Government overthe past decade—

Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): Glorious!

Daniel Zeichner: There has been a glorious range ofopinions, including those of one or two notorious climatechange deniers, so there would have been a completelydifferent view on things that were happening internationally,depending on which part of the spectrum of opinionwas held by the office holder at the time. Clearly, therecan be a change of Governments in the future when thislegislation is in place. Surely having an objective set ofcriteria for how this is done is far better than just havinga subjective view, with it depending on whether somethingis deemed to be significant by the office holder andGovernment at the time.

Rebecca Pow: I think the hon. Gentleman has steppedright into my trap, because that is why it is reallyimportant that the report goes before both Houses so


that they can both comment. The whole purpose of it isthat it will be well scrutinised, so that the right measuresare introduced. There will be many measures, and wewill not want all of them to be introduced, so we needto choose the very best ones. The whole idea of theSecretary of State’s report is that it will be open andtransparent—I honestly hope that I have made thatclear.

The clause is about ensuring that the Governmenttake active steps to identify significant improvementsand are accountable to Parliament for the actions thatthey will take in response. It is therefore right that theGovernment take full responsibility for producing thereport. I do not think that requiring the Secretary ofState to outsource the responsibility is the right approach.Additionally, independent consideration can already beprovided by the Office for Environmental Protection—forexample, clause 27 provides Ministers with the power torequire the OEP to advise on any other matters relatingto the natural environment, which could includedevelopments in international environmental protectionlegislation that it sees as important, positive or progressive,so we have that extra layer there as well.

I hope that I have given some clarity, and I ask hon.Members not to press amendments 195 to 197.

Dr Whitehead: I think we have not got to amendment 197yet.

The Chair: Amendments 195 to 197 are groupedtogether. We have debated them, but we will not bedeciding on amendments 196 and 197.

Dr Whitehead: Indeed, but I have not spoken toamendment 197.

The Chair: They are one group: amendments 195,196 and 197. That is the group we are currently discussing.

Dr Whitehead: I wanted to say a few words aboutamendment 197.

The Chair: Well, it is too late. I asked you to discuss itin the first place, and you did not. You can now wind upon the group of amendments.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Chair. Following youradvice, I will wind up on this group of amendments. Inso doing, it is conceivable that I might refer to some ofthe amendments during the course of my discussion.

The Chair: Quite right.

Dr Whitehead: We have the Minister’s explanation ofhow the word “significant” is to be defined: it is not tobe defined, effectively. We also have what I would kindlysay is a descriptive, rather than an objective, passageabout what Secretaries of State do about significance.The point made by my hon. Friend the Member forCambridge is really important, and it underlines what Isaid previously. We do not impugn the motives or thecommitment of either the present Secretary of State orthe present Minister in this respect. I am sure they willdo everything they can to ensure that such reports are

open and transparent, are put before the House andare properly discussed and that they include everythingthat most people would consider significant, as faras international environmental protection events areconcerned.

However, that is not the point. The point is thatdifferent people could occupy those offices. They mighthave significantly different views and might producevirtually nothing for the House regarding environmentalprotection events. There would be nothing in the Bill to stopthem doing that, except, possibly, if we were to passamendment 197. That amendment would add to thispart of the Bill by saying:

“The Secretary of State must make an oral statement toParliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicablefollowing the laying of the report.”

As the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden envisaged,the Secretary of State would have to come before theHouse and make an oral statement, on which he or shecould be questioned. There would therefore be a clearline of transparency at that time as far as whatever theSecretary of State decided to do concerning the report.If the Minister went as far as to accept amendment 197,that would make a difference concerning this test ofsignificance. As matters stand, we feel that the protectionsare woefully inadequate in terms of the way in whichthe report must be compiled and presented. Therefore,we seek to divide the Committee.



Division No. 8]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



“(7) The Secretary of State must—

(a) keep under consideration whether there are any stepswhich they could take which would or might securebetter or further effect full compliance with the AarhusConvention, and

(b) if they consider it appropriate to do so, take any of thesteps identified by that consideration.

(8) A report under this section must set out what steps havebeen taken during the reporting period to secure better or furthereffect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention and what stepsthe Secretary of State intends to take during the next reportingperiod to that effect.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider what stepsmay be taken to improve compliance with the UNECE Convention onAccess to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making andAccess to Justice in Environmental Matters and, if they consider itappropriate to do so, to take those steps.



“(c) respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in theUNECE Convention on Access to Information,Public Participation in Decision-making and Accessto Justice in Environmental Matters.”

This amendment requires the OEP to oversee implementation of theUNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation inDecision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.

Dr Whitehead: The explanatory statement for thisparticular amendment relates to the question of securingbetter or further effecting full compliance with theAarhus convention, which is a wide-ranging conventionrelating to environmental protection and activities.

The amendment suggests that the Secretary of Stateshould keep under consideration how the UK Governmentmight secure better or further effect full compliancewith the Aarhus convention. We are signatories to it, soone would have thought that we should try to fullycomply with it, in general terms. The amendment isreally asking the Secretary of State to do somethingthat we ought to do anyway. If the Secretary of Stateconsiders it appropriate, the amendment also suggeststhat they take the steps identified in that considerationand produce a report setting out what steps are beingtaken to secure full compliance and what steps theyintend to take over the next reporting period.

The Aarhus convention is important, but it has been,in some people’s eyes, somewhat overtaken by otherevents. Nevertheless, it remains important in internationalenvironmental considerations, and it important that itshould be put into the Bill as one of the Secretary ofState’s considerations to undertake.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawingthe Committee’s attention to the Aarhus convention,which is of course an international agreement. I do notdeny its importance, so he and I agree on that.

The UK ratified the convention in 2005, and weremain a party to it in our own right. Our exit from theEU does not change our commitment to respect, protectand fulfil the rights contained in this important internationalagreement. Implementation of the Aarhus conventionis overseen by the Aarhus convention compliancecommittee, and the Department for Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs co-ordinates the UK’s ongoingengagement with the committee on our implementationand on findings pertaining to the UK on specific issues.The committee has welcomed the willingness of theUnited Kingdom to discuss compliance issues in aconstructive manner.

Clause 20 requires the Government to review significantdevelopments in international environmental protectionlegislation, as we discussed. The findings of that reviewwill then be used to inform Government policy onenvironmental protections, enabling the UK to stay atthe forefront of international best practice on environmentalprotection. The amendment would require that reportto include material about existing obligations under theAarhus convention, not new, innovative developmentsin environmental protection legislation. That woulddilute the purpose of the clause. We independently meetour convention obligations, and there is no need toamend clause 20 to ensure that we continue to do so.

Amendment 97 is unnecessary, as the provisions ofthe Aarhus convention already fall within the remit ofthe OEP, where they have been given effect in UK lawand meet the definition of environmental law. The OEPwill improve access to justice: it will receive complaintsfree of charge to complainants and will have powers toinvestigate and enforce compliance with environmentallaw by public authorities. The OEP will be legally requiredto keep complainants informed about the handling oftheir complaints, and it will also have to produce publicstatements when it takes enforcement action, unless itwould not be in the public interest to do so. In addition,public authorities that have been subject to legal proceedingsby the OEP will be required to publish a statementsetting out the steps they intend to take in the light ofthe outcome of the proceedings.

Given that we are already engaged with the conventioncommittee on our obligations, the amendments areunnecessary. I ask the hon. Gentlemen not to pressthem.

Dr Whitehead: I appreciate that the Minister hasalready replied, but I wonder whether she could—

The Chair: The Minister could intervene.

3.30 pm

Dr Whitehead: Has the Minister thought about theextent to which the Aarhus convention is fully implementedin the UK, either via retained EU law or the existingdomestic system? In terms of her response to thisdebate, was she saying that it is the case that the Aarhusconvention is now fully implemented in UK law?

Rebecca Pow: I know I am not able to speak again,but perhaps the shadow Minister will allow me to interveneon him—I think I will have to put this in the form of aquestion, which makes it quite tricky, Mr Gray. Doesthe shadow Minister agree that the UK’s commitmentto the Aarhus convention is unaffected by EU exit,because the UK is a party to the convention in its ownright?

Dr Whitehead: That is true, but nevertheless there isthe question of the extent to which that commitmentitself is a freestanding commitment or additional, viaEU retained law. I think the Minister will agree that thereis EU retained law in respect of the Aarhus convention.While it is true that we are an individual signatory to it,we were also effectively a joint signatory to it throughthe EU joint law arrangement. Therefore, we were actuallytwofold signatories, as far as the Aarhus convention isconcerned. Does the fact that we are now a onefoldsignatory to the Aarhus convention fully replace what itwas that we were originally as a twofold signatory to theAarhus convention? I think the Minister was saying yes,but I am not absolutely certain that that is the case.

Richard Graham: I am slightly confused that theshadow Minister appears to be suggesting that if we area signatory to any convention in our own right, we aresomehow a stronger signatory if we are also a signatoryas part of the EU, which we have already left. Are wenot straying into areas of semantics way beyond theEnvironment Bill today?


Dr Whitehead: I can understand the hon. Memberindicating that this may be semantics, and indeed, itmay be. I was attempting to elucidate the question ofwhether our being an original signatory to the Aarhusconvention—when the convention took place—is identicalto what has happened in terms of our being a jointsignatory to the Aarhus convention, which took placethrough our EU membership. There are instances wheresomething that the UK originally signed up for wassigned up for jointly through the EU at a different stage.A lot of the conventions on atomic materials transfersand various similar things, which have gone throughEuratom or the International Atomic Energy Agencyare subject to that sort of progression, where what wesigned with the IAEA and what the European Communitysigned up to subsequently, are a progression in terms ofthose original signatories. They therefore mean slightlydifferent things, even though it appears that there aretwo signatories.

It may be the case that the hon. Member is right, andI am seeking to get the Minister to elucidate whether,indeed, the hon. Member is absolutely right. Is the factthat we are a signatory to the Aarhus convention exactlythe same as what was the case when we were previously—inaddition—a joint signatory with the European Union?Are there any particular matters relating to that signatorywhich should be converted into UK law to ensure thatwe are actually in the right place, as far as that signatoryissue is concerned? The Minister may well stand up andsay yes, that is the case—in which case, I will be a veryhappy Member of Parliament.

The Chair: That question must hang in the air, becausethe Minister has already spoken. Does the hon. Gentlemanwish to withdraw the amendment?

Dr Whitehead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.




Schedule 1

THE OFFICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 179, page 121,line 16, at end insert

“with the consent of the Environmental Audit and Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committees of the House of Commons”.

The amendment would require the appointment of the Chair and othernon-executive members of the Office for Environmental Protection tobe made with the consent of the relevant select committees.

We have now moved from chapter 1 of the Bill, whichis about environmental governance and improving thenatural environment, to the very important topic of theOffice for Environmental Protection, which I thinkwill detain the Committee for a little while, as we willdiscuss not only its formation and operation, but theamendments that the Government made while the Billwas not before us, changing what the Opposition thinkare substantial elements of the OEP’s operation.

Clause 21 states:

“A body corporate called the Office for Environmental Protectionis established.”

So before anybody worries too much about where wehave got to, that is all we have done so far. We have justestablished the Office for Environmental Protection. Aswith all good Bills, however, the meaning is often containedat the end, in the schedules. That is the next bit we aredealing with this afternoon—the schedule that sets upwhat the Office for Environmental Protection is about.I assume that we will get stuck into the substance ofthe Office for Environmental Protection’s objectives,independence and general function in our next sitting,but this afternoon we are concentrating on some detailsabout the OEP’s membership, non-executive directors,interim chief executive and so on. Some people may saythat those are not particularly central or important tothe OEP, but they nevertheless have quite considerablerepercussions in terms of its independence or otherwise.

Amendment 179 looks at the first appointment of thechair and non-executive members, and at how they areappointed and with what agreement. I am sure hon.Members will agree that, in addition to what the Officefor Environmental Protection does, a key part of itsindependence lies in who its chair is, who the non-executivedirectors are, how they act in their role and the extent towhich they ensure and guarantee that the office carriesout an independent function in terms of that protectionrole. Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 defines what the OEPconsists of: a chair, at least two but not more than fiveother non-executive members, a chief executive, and

“at least one, but not more than three, executive members.”

Paragraph 1(2) states:“The members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”.

Under paragraph 2, the non-executive members arealso to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but

“The Secretary of State must consult the Chair before appointingany other non-executive member.”

The key is that a lot of the appointments effectivelyflow from the appointment of the chair. The Secretaryof State must consult the chair on how other membersare appointed having appointed the chair in the firstplace. The question then is whether it is right that thechair of the OEP is appointed simply because theSecretary of State decides that he or she should beappointed and has an untrammelled ability to do that.We think that that could create a cascading lack ofindependence in the whole OEP, depending on how theprocess is carried out. If it is carried out without anyscrutiny or accountability, it is quite possible that theSecretary of State could appoint someone whom he/sheparticularly favours or thinks will give him or her aneasy time with the appointment of other members ofthe office, and shape the office to be entirely subservientto what the Secretary of State wants to do.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is making an importantpoint. A theme runs through the debates today: anextraordinary concentration of power in the hands ofthe Secretary of State. In the discussion on the Aarhusconvention, we saw the move away from supranationalbodies. It is a basic principle that if power is spread,there is far more chance of it being exercised properly,particularly with something as important as environmentalprotection. Does he agree that this is just the latest exampleof a theme that has developed all the way through?

Dr Whitehead: That is indeed a concern. We haveraised, and will repeatedly raise, the difference betweenthe Bill’s aspirations and many of the practicalities. The


[Dr Whitehead]

difference between the Bill’s lofty aspirations and itsoften severely lacking practicalities is apparent throughoutits construction. This is one instance where that is thecase. The chair of the OEP is, in the first instance, to bea non-executive member of the office. I would be interestedto hear whether the Minister shares my understanding,but it looks to be the case that the chair will be appointedfrom among the non-executive members whom theSecretary of State has appointed in the first place. Thekey at that point is who the non-executive members areand how they are appointed. In this instance, theyappointed just by the Secretary of State. We suggest aprocedure that grounds those appointments withinparliamentary procedures.

Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Does the hon. Memberrecognise that the Environment, Food and Rural AffairsCommittee and the Environmental Audit Committeehave the opportunity in the appointment process toscrutinise the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate?

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Member has put his fingerexactly on the problem, because according to this pieceof legislation, in practice, they do not. There is norequirement to do that in the Bill. The amendment isdesigned to do exactly what he suggests should be done,which is that the appointment should take place withthe scrutiny and consent of the Environmental AuditCommittee and the Environment, Food and Rural AffairsCommittee.

3.45 pm

I think the spirit of what the hon. Member said thisafternoon about the operations of this House is exactlywhat we take to be the case. Regularly, Select Committeesscrutinise and discuss appointments and put forwardtheir opinion to the House, so the House may thendecide what the Secretary of State’s decision might be,informed by their scrutiny and discussion. As far as Ican see, there is no provision for that in the Bill. I hopethat the hon. Member and others agree that it would bea good idea for those non-executive directors to beappointed by the Secretary of State with the consent ofthe Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee, as this amendmentproposes.

The hon. Member will undoubtedly have experienceof that. That is what we do in this place, in generalterms. The Committee on Climate Change, like all sortsof committees, has its appointments run in front ofSelect Committees. The Select Committees do an honestjob for the House to ensure that the Executive andlegislative branches are in line with those appointmentswhen they come through.

I hope the Minister will agree that that is an omissionfrom the Bill that needs putting right. In practice, I donot think it would make an enormous amount of difference,but constitutionally it could make an enormous amountof difference. If we do not have this in the legislation,there is the possibility that the Secretary of State coulddecide in the absence of any parliamentary scrutiny ordiscussion of what he or she will do, and therebysubvert some of the Bill’s good intentions on environmentalprotection. The Office for Environmental Protectionhas to be the centrepiece of protection activity; to do

that, it needs not only theoretical independence, butstated independence, laid down in legislation concerningits activities for environmental protection.

Rebecca Pow: I will keep my comments to what theamendment refers to, which is the involvement of theEnvironmental Audit Committee and the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I agree with thehon. Gentleman that Parliament should have a role inthe process of making significant public appointments.To scrutinise key appointments made by Ministers is aproper role for Parliament. The Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs Committee and the EnvironmentalAudit Committee—I am proud to have been a memberof both, and many hon. Members here are members ofthose Committees—will jointly carry out a pre-appointmenthearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidatefor the OEP chair.

As the shadow Minister knows, there has alreadybeen a lot of discussion about this. This is a commitment.The Secretary of State will duly consider anyrecommendation made by the Committees.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): The Minister saysthat the preferred candidate can be scrutinised. Is thatnot a bit of a Hobson’s choice?

Rebecca Pow: This is an open and fair process, andother appointments are duly scrutinised in that way.The considerations and views of both Committees willbe taken extremely seriously because the work they do isvery pertinent to the work in this sphere of Government.The OEP chair is then consulted by the Secretary ofState on the appointments of the non-executive members.We do not believe it necessary or desirable for Parliamentto scrutinise all those individual appointments in theway that has been suggested.

Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliamentfor public appointments, and they should thereforeretain the ability to make the final determinations.Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to Parliamentand the public for the overall performance of the publicbody and of public money. The OEP will be added tothe schedule of the Public Appointments Order inCouncil and so will be independently regulated by theCommissioner for Public Appointments. The Secretaryof State will be required to act in accordance with thegovernance code, including with the principles of publicappointments, which would ensure that members areappointed through a fair and open process.

The chair of the OEP will be classed as a significantappointment, requiring a senior independent panel member,approved by the commissioner, to sit on the advisoryassessment panel, which can report back to thecommissioner on any breaches of process. We have alsointroduced, in paragraph 17, a duty on the Secretary ofState to have regard to the need to the need to protectthe OEP’s independence in exercising functions in respectof the OEP, including on public appointments.

Those arrangements, and the requirements in theBill, provide the appropriate balance between parliamentaryoversight and ministerial accountability, while ensuringthat appointments to the OEP are made fairly and onmerit. I therefore request that the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test withdraw his amendment.

Richard Graham: Will the Minister give way?


The Chair: Order. The Minister sat down before youasked, Mr Graham, but I dare say you may intervene onthe shadow Minister. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister has yet again providedus with a description of things that happen, as opposedto what ought to happen as far as this House is concerned.On the second category of events, she appears to besaying that Select Committees may well take it uponthemselves to interview and discuss candidates for posts—with the agreement of that candidate—and report backtheir thoughts, and that Ministers may then decide thatthey like or do not like what the Select Committee hassaid, but are pleased, in any event, that the SelectCommittee did that piece of work.

I do not think the Minister can show me anything inthe Bill that requires that process to be cemented, sothat the Secretary of State could not go ahead with anappointment without Select Committees having donethat work. Let us say, for example, that the SelectCommittees decided that they did not want to do thework or were too busy with other matters, and theSecretary of State appointed the chair and the non-executivemembers of the board, there would be nothing thatanyone could do about it, because nothing in the legislationsays that that scrutiny has to happen. The Ministershould be able to confirm that there is nothing in thelegislation for that.

Richard Graham: I think I understand the position ofthe Opposition, which is to undermine slightly theindependence of the new Office for EnvironmentalProtection before it has even got under way by suggestingthat the appointments process for the chair will somehowbe rigged, with some crony of the Minister or theSecretary of State comfortably slotted into position.Shock, horror! That never happened under the Governmentof which he was a member.

In fact, what has taken place is rather remarkable. Itis much closer to an American appointments hearingthan almost anything that has ever happened in relationto senior appointments to new independent offices. Theidea that two—not just one but two—Select Committeeswould be so disinterested in their unusual and newpower to scrutinise and hold to account someone who isbeing put forward as the first chairman of a newindependent body and would completely overlook theirresponsibilities is surely bizarre. The hon. Member is areasonable man. Can he not agree that this is a verygood process?

The Chair: Interventions must be brief. That was aspeech.

Dr Whitehead: A very good one, if I may say, butnevertheless a speech. You are right, Mr Gray.

The point the hon. Gentleman was making is that aprocess of scrutiny will, in this instance, be undertakenby the Select Committees in question. However, weneed to look at the circumstances whereby that scrutinycomes about. The Committee and, indeed, members ofthe Select Committee, may say “Actually, this particularpiece of formulation in the schedule relates to theappointment of the initial chair of the Office forEnvironmental Protection”but I think it probably appliesto the appointment of chairs as they go forward.

Rebecca Pow: I remind the hon. Gentleman that theSelect Committees pressed for that scrutiny and theyhave welcomed the fact that they will be able to scrutinisethe potential chair. They did some prelegislative scrutinyof the Bill; that was one of their recommendations andwe accepted it. It has gone down extremely well. I wantto back up the comments from my hon. Friend theMember for Gloucester in terms of what is being put inplace. I am sure the shadow Minister, when he fullyunderstands the process, will agree with me that thepurpose is that non-exec members in particular areappointed on a fair and open basis, regulated throughour public appointments process.

Dr Whitehead: I am not suggesting that anything isother than that, and I am not suggesting that the SelectCommittees are anything other than pleased with whatthey have undertaken to do and the welcome their workhas received from the Government. However, the Minister,in a sense, answered her own question by stating thatthe Select Committees pushed for that. That is whatSelect Committees do, and they have the power tosummon all sorts of people. In this instance, as far as Iunderstand—I may not have fully understood theprocess—the Select Committees in their power as SelectCommittees in general pushed for the hearing andMinisters thought that was a good idea and they wentahead with it. To that extent, yes, things have gone well,but it is still not in the Bill that that should ever happen.It is entirely down to the Select Committees. We shouldnot do it that way round.

Rebecca Pow: Does the hon. Gentleman not agreewith me that the very fact that that has happeneddemonstrates that Select Committees are taken seriously?As such, the measure in the Bill is sensible, seriousand fair.

Dr Whitehead: As it happens, yes. However, again, weare in “as it happens” territory, which we seem to be inrather a lot this afternoon. As it happens, yes, thatappears to be working quite well. I do not know, shouldthere be a future reconstitution of the Office forEnvironmental Protection or future appointments ofnon-exec members and the chair, whether that procedurewould necessarily be replicated. It might be; it mightnot. We are lucky we have Select Committees that are asstrong as they are.

Cherilyn Mackrory: As a new Member, I am justunderstanding the mechanisms here. From what I amhearing, the process that has just taken place to ensurethat we are where we are is due to good parliamentarymechanisms. It seems that the hon. Member is askingMinisters to put more parliamentary mechanisms in theBill when those checks and balances are already in placeand work very well.

4 pm

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Member is quite right todraw attention to good parliamentary mechanisms. I donot want us to be diverted into a long discussion aboutthe Executive and the unwritten UK constitution, butParliament is not putting a provision on the Executiveby passing this Bill—that does not exist. Instead, Parliamenthas used parliamentary procedures outside of that tohave an effect on the Executive, and the Executive have


[Dr Whitehead]

agreed for that effect to be placed upon them. That is agood thing—I do not in any way want to underminethat. As the hon. Member says, that has worked well.

Cherilyn Mackrory: The hon. Gentleman is illustratingthe point perfectly. Secretaries of State come and go atthe mercy of the electorate, whereas the parliamentarychecks and balances are always here. That is whatshould govern the procedure.

Dr Whitehead: Yes, indeed—Secretaries of State comeand go, just as Presidents of the USA come and go.Nevertheless, while they are there, Presidents can appointjustices of the Supreme Court who are always there.Although the member of the Executive has gone, theeffect of their actions remains—in this example, withthe judiciary branch in the US. In principle, that is whatcould happen as far as this construction is concerned inthe Bill. A Secretary of State who comes and goes couldappoint, without involving the parliamentary process,somebody who will outlast the Secretary of State in thatposition.

Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): I ama member of the Treasury Committee. We do a lot ofselection hearings and most of them are agreed throughparliamentary processes. We find we end up doing anawful lot of selection hearings, and we have spent ahuge amount of time doing them, on the board of theBank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority,the Financial Policy Committee and so on. We end uphaving discussions about whether we want to do allthese hearings. Do we do them in this way or that way?Do we do reappointment hearings? We retain flexibilityaround that, because it is done through the parliamentaryprocedure.

It seems to me that the danger of setting down inlegislation that all non-executive members should beappointed on the consent of the two Committees is thatwe bind their hands into the future. They may decidethat they want to do it in some other way. We retainmore flexibility for the Committees if they do it throughparliamentary means.

Dr Whitehead: Well, yes is the answer. We are tryingto bind those Committees to some extent to do the rightthing, as far as those appointments are concerned. Thehon. Gentleman who has experience on the TreasuryCommittee and other hon. Members who have experienceon Committees will know that Committees take theirresponsibilities seriously. I have been party to that sortof discussion in Select Committees that I have served onin the past. They take their responsibilities very seriously.They take the issue seriously. They do it very carefullyand make sure that the result of their deliberations is asgood as it can be. That is something that I am absolutelyfine with; I do not wish to fetter that in any way.

However, the hon. Gentleman and other Membersalso know that that has not always been the case withSelect Committees. Indeed, in my time in Parliament, ishas largely not been the case. The process of decidingupon the appointment of members of various organisationsvia a Select Committee hearing is a relatively recentinnovation. That came about not as a result of legislationbut as a result of Select Committees pushing their ownauthority within the parliamentary system.

In one sense, that is perfectly acceptable, but I amseeking to draw a distinction between that process,which has by and large resulted in a good outcome asfar as these appointments are concerned, and the factthat it says in a piece of legislation, “That is what issupposed to be done.”There are other pieces of legislationin existence that specify what is supposed to be done,but this piece of legislation does not. I wonder to myselfwhy those pieces of legislation specify those thingswhereas this piece of legislation does not.

It would not be difficult—on the contrary, it wouldbe very straightforward—to specify in this piece oflegislation what is to be done, while agreeing that that islargely what happens in practice in this Parliament.That is a good thing, and it is a sign of our changingunwritten constitution—I emphasise the word “unwritten”.That is why, in a piece of legislation, it is probablynecessary to write down what our intentions are andhow they are to be carried out in practice by the Housein its interpretation of the unwritten constitution ofthis country.

Daniel Zeichner: I had the privilege of serving on theTransport Committee for a couple of years. Like thehon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—my nearneighbour—I went to a number of hearings and foundthem very useful. It strikes me that there is a range oflevels of significance. This appointment is hugely significant.It takes back from a supranational body, the EuropeanUnion, responsibility for one of the most importantoversights. We all agree that it would be good to gothrough this process, so I do not understand why theGovernment do not want to codify in law what will infact happen. I do not quite see what they are frightenedof. Does my hon. Friend agree?

The Chair: Order. I do feel that we are slightly goinground in circles.

Dr Whitehead: Yes, indeed, Mr Gray. I agree with myhon. Friend. It would be a good idea for the Governmentto put this in the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that, inpractice, the creaking oak of the British constitutiondoes things in sometimes surprising ways in order todevelop itself. It is always useful to have something onthe face of a piece of legislation to fix how the unwrittenconstitution works in respect of a particular function ofGovernment. There is nothing to lose and everything togain from putting this in the legislation.



Division No. 9]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 15, inschedule 1, page 122, line 5, leave out “may” and insert“must”.”

The amendment asks for “may” to be left out and“must” to be inserted. As I recall, we have had previousdiscussions about that in this Committee, so I do notthink I need to add anything further.

The Chair: I think the hon. Member is thereforeseeking to withdraw the amendment.



Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 154, inschedule 1, page 122, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3).This amendment prevents the Government from giving directions to theinterim chief executive of the OEP.

The amendment concerns the directions that theSecretary of State may give an interim chief executiveof the Office for Environmental Protection. As hon.Members will see, paragraph 4(3) of schedule 1 refers toan interim chief executive“exercising the power in sub-paragraph (2)”,

which states:“Where the OEP has fewer members than are needed to hold a

meeting that is quorate…an interim chief executive may incurexpenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of theOEP.”

The key point is that the interim chief executive may do“other things” in the name of and on behalf of theOEP, even though the OEP does not have sufficientmembers to be quorate and take a decision.

What appears to be envisaged is that in thosecircumstances,“an interim chief executive must act in accordance with anydirections given by the Secretary of State.”

Quite simply, if an interim chief executive is in postwithout those other members of the OEP beingappointed—depending on the speed with which that isdone, it could be quite a while—the independence ofthe OEP will not be compromised just a little bit; it willbe compromised completely, in that the interim chiefexecutive is completely the creature of the Secretary ofState.

The Chair: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman isaddressing himself to the wrong amendment, becausethis amendment requires that sub-paragraph (3) bedeleted from paragraph 4. You are referring to sub-paragraph (2), I think.

Dr Whitehead: Mr Gray, if I gave that impressionthen I am sorry, but I thought I was speaking tosub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4, which is that thechief executive“must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretaryof State.”

As far as I can tell, amendment 154 leaves out sub-paragraph (3), which is the sub-paragraph to which Iwas referring.

That is, in essence, the case that we want to make thisafternoon. As hon. Members have already asked, why isthis particular provision in place? What is the problemhere? If this is an interim chief executive of a body thatis going to be independent, why the lack of independence

when the OEP is still forming itself ? Is it because theSecretary of State thinks that the interim chief executivemight go rogue and do all sorts of odd things in theabsence of other non-executive directors to hold themin place? In that case, the appointment process for theinterim chief executive must be pretty lacking. Is it thatthe Secretary of State might be tempted to mouldthe OEP and its operations before it is fully functionalas an independent office and can therefore, as it were,hit back?

I would not like to think that either of those arecorrect interpretations of this sub-paragraph, but as itis written, that is what it appears to say: that the interimchief executive does as the Secretary of State says. Thatseems to fly in the face of everything I have understoodabout the OEP and how it is supposed to work, how it issupposed to be set up and how it is supposed to startoperating. As the amendment states, we would thereforelike to see the sub-paragraph excised from this Bill, sothat the interim chief executive has the beginnings ofthe independence in his or her actions in the OEP thatwe would expect the OEP to have when it is fullyformed.

4.15 pm

Anthony Browne: I have set up lots of organisationsand it is completely standard to go through a processwhere there is a shadow or interim chief executive andan interim board. There is a critical difference betweenthat position and a substantive chief executive, which isthat they are setting up the way the whole systemworks—the operations, the modus operandi—and makingsignificant decisions that will last for many years ordecades. They are doing it in a position where there isnot full governance around it, such as a fully establishedboard, an established chair and everything else. It isright that there is some oversight of what an interimchief executive is doing in setting up the organisation,because the rest of the governance infrastructure willnot be there yet.

Daniel Zeichner: There has not been any commentyet on the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in.We are just 55 days away from the end of the year andthe new situation that we are about to embark upon,and there is nothing in place. That is part of theproblem. It is a shambles, quite frankly, that we areleaving the European Union and entering a periodwhere it is unclear how our environmental protectionswill work. I suggest much more will be said about thatas we go through our debates.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,Test and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshirehave said, this is a key moment in setting the path aheadfor this new organisation. This provision feeds into thisgeneral sense that, far from having a much moresophisticated and wider way of approaching these issues,it all comes down to centralising power in the hands ofthe Secretary of State to determine the way forward.That cannot be right and I think there is genuineoutrage among many who are looking at how thisprocess is unfolding.

We have gone from helping to establish strongenvironmental principles as a leading player in theEuropean Union to the extraordinary position we findourselves in. We have no idea how long this is going to


[Daniel Zeichner]

take. Is it going to be in place? Perhaps the Ministercould tell us. Perhaps things are in train and we arewaiting for announcements. Perhaps it will happen nextweek or in January, or perhaps it will not happen formonths and months. In the meantime, many of our ownprotections are in limbo, effectively.

The schedule gives us no confidence that the Governmenteven have a plan for where we are going with this. I hopethe Minister can give us some reassurances, becausemany of my constituents—and, I suspect, many constituentsof other Members—are really worried about these issues.At a time of climate crisis and biodiversity emergency,how can we possibly be setting an example to the rest ofthe world as we approach COP26 when we are in thisshambolic position, with the suggestion that this so-calledindependent agency should effectively be run by theSecretary of State?

Rebecca Pow: There have been some fiery commentsabout this particular amendment, Chair.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test for our inclusion in the Bill of amechanism to appoint an interim chief executive of theOEP. I want to give some reassurances that establishingthis independent body that can hold future Governmentsto account is of crucial importance. That remains verymuch in focus when considering this power for theSecretary of State to appoint an interim chief executive.

The initial role of the interim chief executive wouldbe to take urgent administrative decisions to ensure thatthe OEP is up and running as soon as possible, which Iknow is a key concern of Members. I want to say a littleabout that role and why it is necessary. Such decisionswould include staff recruitment and other matters relatedto setting up the new body. I welcome the comments ofmy hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire,who has a lot of experience in setting up these bodies. Itis a fully practical step to help with the interim period.By way of background information for the hon. Memberfor Cambridge—he raised some pertinent points—weintend that the permanent chief executive will be inplace no later than autumn 2021, and the proposedtimeline then allows for the OEP chair to lead theappointment of that chief executive.

By way of more background, the Secretary of Statehas asked officials to assemble a team of staff withinthe Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsgroup, to be funded from the Department’s budget, toreceive and validate any complaints against the criteriafor complaining to the OEP; so there will be a team inplace in the interim. A lot of work has gone on behindthe scenes but we had a lull because of the coronavirus,so it is nobody’s fault that this has happened. Obviously,other structures and plans are being put in place, butthat is why details of an interim chief executive havehad to be considered. That power will be required forthe interim chief executive only in the event that aquorate board is not in place in time to make thedecisions. If the board is quorate in time, it will be ableto make its own arrangements. During any period whenthey are making administrative decisions on behalf ofthe OEP before the board is quorate, the interim chiefexecutive must be capable of being held to account.That is essential good governance and oversight of

public funds. That is why we are giving the Secretary ofState, as the accountable Minister, the power to directthe interim chief executive during that period.

The shadow Minister was, if I may say so, makingsome slightly malign intimations about what he potentiallythought the Secretary of State had in mind in controllingthe interim chief executive. I would like to set all thosethoughts and views aside—that is not the purpose; it isa practical arrangement. I would like to give morereassurance on two point. First, the Bill provides for theinterim chief executive to report to the OEP’s board,not the Secretary of State, as soon as the board isquorate. Secondly, the Government will not commencethe OEP’s statutory functions before the OEP is quorate.Therefore, the interim chief executive will only be ableto make decisions relating to the OEP’s statutory functionswhen they report to a quorate board, not to the Secretaryof State. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not haveany power of direction over the OEP’s statutory functions.It is important to make that clear. Amendment 154 is,consequently, unnecessary and I ask the hon. Memberto withdraw it.

Dr Whitehead: I wonder whether the Minister hasconsidered at what point the interim chief executive ofthe OEP must be in place, bearing in mind that theactual chief executive is not to be appointed until nextAugust. The OEP, which is essential, should be operationalfrom 1 January—indeed, we have had assurances onthat—because of the differences in environmental protectionthat may result from our leaving the EU, and so nothaving areas of EU law available for environmentalprotection purposes, which are supposed to be replacedby, among other things, the independence of the OEP,to ensure that those areas of law are fully upheld.

The Minister appears to be telling us that there willbe something like an OEP in existence from 1 January,and that it will have something like an interim chiefexecutive to run it—indeed, I understand that a lot ofwork on that has already been done—but that duringthat entire period the OEP will not be independent,because effectively it will be run by the Secretary ofState. That may be a function of the fact that theprocess is dragging on in a way that we did not anticipate,and that the Minister probably did not anticipate,overlapping the period when lots of work should havebeen under way to get this system going, to ensure aseamless change on 1 January. Instead we will have araggedy process that is a very, very long way from any ofthe aspirations that were expressed for the OEP—theway it will operate, what it will do in terms of environmentalprotection, and its independence of the Secretary of State.

I accept that when a new organisation is set up—asthe hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, andhe has experience of these matters—there can be issues.If someone is setting up, say, a new subsidiary company,the board of the company that is setting up the newcompany will appoint a chief executive of that subsidiarycompany, and while that chief executive is getting inplace it is quite reasonable for the board of the superioror parent company to expect that person to be responsibleto the superior or parent company as the new companyis being set up. Only if, for example, at a later dateChinese walls are inserted between the operation of thesubsidiary and that of the superior or parent companydoes that reporting go adrift; but that is only whenthings are properly set up.


We are not in that situation here. We said from theword go that we would set up an independent body thatwould be responsible for all the environmental legislationthat has come over to us from the EU, which is nowbedding down in UK law, and that that responsibilityneeded to be exercised from day one of that transfer.

Rebecca Pow: Does the shadow Minister not agreethat an unprecedented and unexpected incident hasoccurred? We have had the coronavirus pandemic. Inthe light of that, does he not agree that arrangementsare well under way for setting up the OEP, and that theGovernment fully intend—I have given more detailstoday—to introduce the OEP by 2021? Because of thepause in consideration of the Bill and because ofthe coronavirus, we cannot confirm the exact date, butwe will implement—indeed, are implementing—bonafide transitional arrangements, with a secretariat thatwill support the OEP chair. The chair is currently beingsought, through a public appointments campaign. Thewhole system is in process. We will have an interim chiefexecutive and my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire understands exactly the role of thatperson. There is nothing malignant about it, and theSecretary of State will certainly not control him. Doesthe hon. Member agree that I made that quite clear inmy speech just now?

Dr Whitehead: Well, I hope the Secretary of State willnot be controlling him. [Interruption.] Or her. I hopethe Secretary of State will scrupulously keep his or herhands out of controlling that person. I am pleased tohear assurances from the Minister that that may well bethe case—in terms of the Minister’s bona fides, I wouldexpect nothing less. That is what the Minister should besaying, because that has always been her commitmenton the OEP in the past; but that does not in any wayexcuse the fact that it says something opposite on theface of the Bill. That is the issue that, as legislators, weneed to look at.

4.30 pm

Yes, it is true that there have been problems withmoving the legislation forward, and I have great sympathywith the Minister for having to deal with those problems.That still does not excuse the fact that, one way oranother, we will have a non-functioning or barelyfunctioning OEP for a considerable period, whereas wewere always told that the opposite would be the case.Sub-paragraph (3) underlines why that is the case.

This piece of the Bill was not written after theseevents took place; it was actually in the original Billfrom the end of 2019. It is not the case that, as a resultof the great difficulties that we have had and the problemsthat there have been in setting up the OEP, needs mustand actions have been taken—I appreciate that thatmay well be a problem. It was always the intention,regardless of whether things were operating perfectly bythis stage, that that is how things would operate: it isclear from sub-paragraph (3). I am afraid the argumentthat, “Well, there have been big problems. Give us abreak on this”—powerful though it is in practice—doesnot stand up. That is what the legislation says; that iswhat the legislation always suggested. Notwithstandingother matters, that is what would have happened withthe legislation. That perhaps underlines why it is necessaryto take sub-paragraph (3) out under these circumstances.

Although I applaud the Minister’s efforts in gettingthe Bill together under the present circumstances, andher fortitude in pushing it forward when it looked like itwas seriously in jeopardy, we nevertheless have an almightymess situation here, which it seems has been exacerbatedby the original intentions behind the legislation. Obviously,we would want to do everything we can to support theMinister in ensuring that the OEP is up and running assoon as it can be and that it is a good as it can be, but weare still in a position where we are about to write a pieceof legislation that seems to underwrite the mess, notresolve it.



Division No. 10]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 155, inschedule 1, page 122, line 15, after sub-paragraph (4)insert

“;but an appointment may be made in reliance on this sub-paragraphonly with the approval of the Chair.”.

This amendment requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or otherexternal persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.

Although it is late afternoon and I do not want to goon the record as being excessively shirty for a longperiod, I am afraid that discussion of the amendment ispart of that shirtiness process. Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1,which was written as part of the Bill and was not part ofthe suite of amendments we saw when the Bill reconvenedfrom the Government side, suggests that rules that thechief executive may not be an employee or a civilservant do not apply to the appointment and operationof an interim chief executive.

The constraints on the appointment of an interimchief executive are not there. They could be an employeeof the Department, a civil servant, or someone placedby the Secretary of State in that position, when therequirement to underpin the independence of the OEPmeans that should not be the case for the chief executiveproper. That underlines the theme of determined non-independence of the OEP in its early stages, and theSecretary of State’s ability to mould and shape how theOEP works, before it is properly formed.

Amendment 155

“requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other externalpersons as interim chief executive of the OEP.”

Having been appointed, the real chair—not the interimchair—would have the authority to act as a guardian ofthe independence of the OEP. We have already beenthrough the process of appointing the chair, so at thepoint at which the interim chief executive might be


[Dr Whitehead]

appointed from within the civil service or the Department,or that might be proposed, the chair of the OEP wouldnot necessarily say that was bad or impossible, butwould at least have the authority to decide whether theSecretary of State was doing the right thing. That seemsto me to be the least of the requirements that should beplaced on this sub-paragraph.

We have discussed the independence of the OEP as itis set up. Having got to the position of having a reasonablyindependent chair in place, to then not involve the chairin the appointment of the interim chief executive seemsperverse. The amendment does nothing except try toensure that the OEP is visibly independent; Membersfrom all parties can agree to that.

Anthony Browne: I used to be the chair of the RegulatoryPolicy Committee, a non-departmental public body linkedto the Department for Business, Energy and IndustrialStrategy; I appointed its entire new board. In a previouslife, as I have mentioned, I was involved in setting upvarious other bodies, such as TheCityUK and theHomeOwners Alliance, and I have been involvedtangentially in setting up independent bodies as part ofthe civil service.

I completely salute the support expressed by the hon.Member for Southampton, Test and the Opposition forthe independence of the OEP. They are doggedly makingsure that it is fully independent, and I totally supportthat; it will function properly only if it is fully independent.However, on the issue of the interim chief executive, Ithink—to follow the dogged analogy—that they areslightly barking up the wrong tree.

The whole point about the interim chief executive ofany organisation is that they are setting it up. They aredesigning the org chart, saying “Right: this committeewill do this, we need to hire these personnel to do that,these are the finances, this is the first draft budget,” andeverything else—they are not actually fulfilling thesubstantive end function of the public body. The Oppositionare worried about the timing, and I am worried aboutthe timing too.

What normally, or very often, happens is that anorganisation does not go through a recruitment processfor an external interim chief executive. The chief executiveis normally banned from being a civil servant, which isabsolutely right, but we are talking about getting somebodyto set the body up and get it going before the recruitmentprocess for the end chief executive, the appointment ofthe entire board and everything else, which will takea long, long time—I think it took me about eightmonths to recruit a new board for the Regulatory PolicyCommittee.

The thing to do is get a civil servant who has experienceof setting up bodies. Because of employment rules inthe civil service, they can basically just be reassignedand put in place immediately. They can start setting upthe organisation and doing all the stuff that needsdoing, and in the meantime we can recruit the full,substantive, independent chief executive, which takeslonger. When the independent chief executive is recruited,they will then have an organisation that they can workwith and can retune and rejig if they want. That is a farbetter and more efficient way of setting up an organisationthan taking the completely purist approach that the

first chief executive has to be a fully independent personwho is not a civil servant and will not take directionsfrom the civil service.

Daniel Zeichner rose—

Anthony Browne: I have finished, but the hon. Gentlemanis welcome to succeed me.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful; I am sure that thehon. Gentleman can unfinish briefly.

This is not just about setting up another body; it is anextraordinarily delicate issue. The complaint out thereis concern about independence. Because of the substantialshift away from a supranational body, surely it is muchmore important to make sure that everybody sees thatthat the new body is independent from the outset. Thisis exactly the wrong way of going about giving peoplethat confidence.

Anthony Browne: I will just make one observation,speaking as somebody who has hired various chiefexecutives for other organisations. On the boards that Ihave been on, the recruitment processes for externalchief executives has taken at least three months just toidentify the candidate. The sort of people we are lookingfor are often on notice periods of three or six months,so we are really talking about a minimum of six months,maybe nine months—quite probably a year—to hire thesubstantive chief executive.

Do we want to sit around doing nothing, with noorganisation and no one doing anything for a year ornine months, while we hire the substantive chief executive?I agree with the principle, but what is more important isgetting the machinery up and running, the cog wheelsgoing and the pieces in place, and doing the recruitmentof the substantive chief executive in the meantime.When we finally appoint them, which might well be sixor nine months later, they will then have a skeletalorganisation to run.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test for his interest in the interim chiefexecutive’s role and the Secretary of State’s power toappoint them. I reiterate what I mentioned in ourdebate on amendment 154: that the role of the interimchief executive is to take the urgent administrativedecisions required to ensure that the OEP is up andrunning on time. That power will be required only in theevent that a quorate board is not in place soon enoughto make those decisions; that is the crucial point. If theSecretary of State is required to consult the chair on theappointment, the power may not be worth exercising,because we expect the board to become quorate soonafter the chair starts in post.

Amendment 155 actually has the potential to delaythe appointment of the interim chief executive, which Ithink is what my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire was alluding to. That would actuallydefeat the point of appointing one. He or she might bethere for just a couple of days.

Richard Graham: The only disappointing aspect ofthis debate has been a relatively determined approachby some Opposition hon. Members in trying to demonstratethat the independence of this new Office for EnvironmentalProtection will be somehow compromised from thestart. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, what is


being put in place is a pragmatic approach to try to getsomething up and running as fast as possible, given theextraordinary circumstances of this year, and thatto do anything else would only delay things and becounterproductive? We all want the same end; this is thebest way to do it.

4.45 pm

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for thatintervention; I could not have put it better myself. I feelthat I am under a certain amount of attack here. This isall being put into place so that we can get things up andrunning. As everyone knows, we are in an extraordinarytime. I know the shadow Minister said that the provisionwas in there anyway as a failsafe, in case we needed thisinterim set-up. It could well have never been needed tobe used, but it is there in case we need it.

We want the OEP to get off to a good start. When thechair is appointed—as I said, that process is well underway—we want them to be the person to appoint what Iwould call the first real chief executive. That is the rightprocess. I think we would all agree with that. Therequirement in the amendment would be disproportionateto how long the interim post might be there, becausewe expect this chief executive to be fully in placeduring 2021.

I must clarify another separate point. Although itwould be a short-term role, the interim chief would beable to make decisions on behalf of the OEP, but theywould be just set-up decisions. That is also why—Iallude again to my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire—we need to get the right person inplace, because they have a lot of work to do to put thetools in place. Allowing for the successful candidate notto be an employee of the OEP, such as a civil servant onsecondment, helps to widen the field of candidates. Weneed to ensure that the person has the right skills toswing into action very quickly and get this whole systemset up.

I remind the shadow Minister that the Secretary ofState is subject to parliamentary scrutiny—there is along process by which that will happen—concerning allthe decisions taken in respect of the OEP. I have a page Icould read about how the OEP will be independent, butI am sure we will get into that in discussing otherclauses. The Secretary of State would be legally requiredto have regard for the need to protect the OEP’sindependence in making this appointment, as requiredby paragraph 17 of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendmentis unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test to withdraw it.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister spoke of the importanceof getting things done now. After all the problems wehave had, I cannot for the life of me see how that is inany way impacted by the idea that the chair of the OEP,who will shortly be in place, should have a say indeciding—guidance has properly been put in for theindependence of the OEP—whether long-term recruitsshould not be from the civil service or any other externalpersons. Why should the chair not have that say in anappointment?

I assume that the chair of the OEP would be equallyconcerned to ensure that things are up and running asquickly as possible, that a proper and good appointmentis made of an interim chief executive, and that, if a

good case is put forward, that appointment might be ofsomeone in the civil service or another person in theDepartment.

The amendment does not stop any of those thingsfrom happening; it merely says, as my hon. Friend theMember for Cambridge mentioned, that if it is the intentionthat the OEP will be truly independent it is the look ofthe thing from the beginning that will convince peopleof that.

I do not think that we can duck the issue. There are alot of people out there who are profoundly suspiciousand concerned that the OEP will not have its independenceand will not be able to act as an environmental watchdogin the way that is claimed. Indeed, they will have suspicions,many of which we do not share, that a lot of what isbeing done is to undermine that independence, and—Iwould not go so far as to say to strangle the OEP atbirth—to clutch the OEP much more closely to thebosom of Government than might have otherwise beenthe intention.

I hear what the Minister says about the fact that itwas extremely fortunate that the provisions in the Billwere there anyway, which sort of came to the rescuewhen we were in the position of having to do thesethings very much at the last minute, rather than in amore considered way over a longer period. The fact thatthey have always been here, and always allowed that tohappen, increases some of the suspicions out there. It isour duty, and would at least be good sense, for us todispel those suspicions as early as we can in the life ofthe OEP.

Accepting the amendment would not, therefore, be abig deal. I do not intend to divide the Committee yetagain, because we have made our point by dividing theCommittee on other amendments, but this one is entirelyon the same theme. I enjoin the Minister to think againabout whether she wants to introduce something at alater date in proceedings that at least waves a flag in thedirection of proper independence for the OEP as it getsunder way, in addition to when it is fully under way.That would be very helpful for all of us who areconcerned, in terms of what we will try to do to ensurethat the OEP does its job properly.

Cherilyn Mackrory: Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 explicitlysays:

“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary ofState must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”

I notice that the Opposition have not tabled an amendmentto that, because they are obviously happy with it.

Dr Whitehead: That is right, but that is the OEP as itis up and running; this is about the OEP as it is formed.Our point on a number of things this afternoon hasbeen that if we undermine the independence of theOEP as it is being formed it is rather difficult to carryout paragraph 17 later on, when the OEP is fullyfunctioning. I thank the hon. Member for drawingattention to that point, but it is not entirely what we arediscussing this afternoon—although I fully agree thatthe Secretary of State should, of course, have regard tothe independence of the OEP when it is up and runningand functioning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 188, inschedule 1, page 124, line 26, at end insert—

“10A Where the function is being exercised in relation toScotland or in Scotland the OEP must—

(a) delegate the function to an environmental governancebody designated by the Scottish Ministers, and

(b) provide the resources for that function to be exercised.”

This amendment aims to introduce the geographical imperative toensure clear lines of reporting and response in Scotland and to clarifythat the body acting in Scotland will be acting with consent of ScottishMinisters, thus respecting the devolution settlement.

Clearly, the Bill before us is applicable largely to thisplace because, as I have already referenced, environmentalpolicy is, in the main, devolved. There are, however, stillareas here and there within the Bill that require a littletidying to ensure that there is no danger of devolvedregulatory powers being affected or even overriddeninadvertently.

The amendment ensures that on the rare occasionswhen the OEP acts in Scotland, it will do so only withthe consent of Scottish Ministers. In fact, amendments 190and 191 also seek to respect the devolved Administrationin Scotland.

Amendment 188 is about respecting the devolvedAdministration in Scotland, ensuring that the regulatoryfunctions remain with the Scottish regulator, as is currentlythe case. It is about the Scottish Parliament and Governmentforging a different kind of future that will keep drivingforward improvements in environmental policy. It means,too, that the Scottish regulator—currently the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency—would maintain aholistic view of environmental policy in Scotland. Ilook forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for EdinburghNorth and Leith. The amendment gives me a goodopportunity to demonstrate that the Government’s newenvironmental governance framework respects the devolvedsettlements. She will be aware that the environment islargely a devolved matter and, as such, it is for eachAdministration to develop and deliver their ownenvironmental governance proposal in relation to thedevolved functions.

The Bill therefore makes a clear distinction betweendevolved and non-devolved functions, and we haveensured that the OEP can cover England and anymatters across the wider UK that have not been devolved.That is necessary, as non-devolved matters cannot beaddressed by the devolved Administration’s own governancearrangements once these ones are in place.

We expect that all the remaining devolved mattersthat fall outside the remit of the OEP will be addressedby the devolved Administration’s governance proposalsin due course. Indeed, we welcome the steps that Scotlandhas taken to establish its own environmental body. TheBill is drafted in such a way as to ensure that the OEPcan exercise its functions only on matters that are notdevolved in respect of Scotland, so it would be inappropriateto delegate such functions to Environmental StandardsScotland, the intended equivalent Scottish body, todeliver those functions.

We do, none the less—and I did want to be at pains tosay this—expect that the OEP will work harmoniouslyand productively with equivalent bodies in the devolvedAdministrations. That is obviously really important,since we cannot control the air, water or lots of thingslike that: in many cases, we will be working in tandem.

That is why in clause 40(2)(f) we have made provisionfor the OEP to share information with its devolvedequivalents and why in clause 24(4) we have placed aduty on it to consult them on any relevant matters.

Beyond the provisions already in the Bill, the OEPand its equivalent bodies will also have discretion tojointly decide how best to co-ordinate these activities.The OEP has been carefully designed to respect thedevolution settlements by limiting its scope to environmentallaw, the definition of which specifically excludes mattersfalling within the devolved competence in NorthernIreland, Scotland and Wales.

The Government consider it inappropriate and contraryto the delineation of legislative responsibilities underthe devolution settlements to delegate the OEP’s functionsin this context. I thank the hon. Member for raising thisissue, because I want to be at pains to be clear abouthow we are working with the devolved Administrations,but I believe the amendment is unnecessary. I ask her tokindly withdraw it.

Deidre Brock: I have great respect for the Ministerand for her sincerity—I genuinely do. I think she absolutelymeans what she says and she absolutely thinks that theway things are at the moment under her ministerialleadership will remain the same forever.

I am afraid that, ultimately, her suggestions do notcut the mustard with me, because environmental policyis devolved to Scotland. The amendment simply requiresthat, rather than Scottish Ministers just being consulted,they are actually required to give some sort of consent.As the amendment says in sub-paragraph (a), whateverthe environmental issue is, the function should be putto a“body designated by the Scottish Ministers”.

Without that agreement from the Government, I amafraid that I will have to ask that the amendment be putto a vote. Things are either devolved or they are not. Ido not think that whether the Government at the timefeel that they have a greater locus in an area than thedevolved Government in place at the time should bepart of the consideration. It is important that theresponsibility for environmental policy that rests withdevolved Governments is fully respected and that theagreement of the Scottish Government is sought in allinstances to do with environmental policy.



Division No. 11]

AYES

Brock, Deidre

NOES

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Ordered,That furtherconsiderationbenowadjourned.—(Leo Docherty.)

5.1 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 5 November at half-past Eleveno’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB29 The Law Society of Scotland

EB30Bio-basedandBiodegradableIndustriesAssociation(BBIA), and the Association for Renewable Energy andClean Technology (REA)

EB31 Aldersgate Group

EB32 Forest Peoples Programme

EB33 United Kingdom Without Incineration Network(UKWIN)

EB34 Mineral Product Association

EB35 Nappy Alliance

EB36 Severn Trent Group

EB37 Chemical Industries Association

EB38 Environmental Investigation Agency

EB39 Bright Blue

EB40 ReNew ELP

EB41 News Media Association

EB42 Yorkshire Humber & North Lincolnshire RegionalAccess Forum

EB43 British Soft Drinks Association

EB44 Policy Connect

EB45 Food and Drink Federation (supplementary)

EB46 Scottish Land & Estates

EB47 Association of Convenience Stores

EB48 Convention of Scottish Local Authorities(COSLA)

EB49 Pesticide Action Network UK

EB50 Veolia

EB51 Environment & Threats Strategic Research Group& Centre for Ecology, Environment and Sustainability,Bournemouth University

EB52 Alupro

EB53 InSinkErator

EB54 Mayor of London

EB55 UKELA (UK Environmental Law Association)

EB56 Professor Eloise Scotford, Centre for Law andEnvironment, Faculty of Laws, UCL

EB57 Woodland Trust

EB58 Sustrans

EB59 Paper Cup Alliance

EB60 NO2PLASTICS

EB61 Professor Elizabeth Fisher, Professor ofEnvironmental Law, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford

EB62 Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association(NIFDA)

EB63 National Biodiversity Network Trust

EB64 Foodservice Equipment Association

EB65 AMDEA—The Association of Manufacturersof Domestic Appliances

EB66 Alliance for Beverage Cartons and theEnvironment (ACE UK)

EB67 Western Riverside Waste Authority

EB68 Ancient Tree Forum (ATF)

EB69 Camfaud Concrete Pumps Ltd

EB70 Waitrose & Partners

EB71 Lead Ammunition Group

EB72 Inland Waterways Association

EB72a Inland Waterways Association: Appendix A—Vision for Sustainable Propulsion on the Inland Waterways

EB73 Woodland Trust (further submission)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Tenth Sitting

Thursday 5 November 2020

(Morning)

CONTENTS

SCHEDULE 1 agreed to.

CLAUSES 22 AND 23 agreed to, one with amendments.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than

Monday 9 November 2020





Chairs: JAMES GRAY, † SIR GEORGE HOWARTH







Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of







(Morning)


Environment Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I remind Members aboutsocial distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearlymarked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if youcould send any speaking notes to [email protected]. I also remind Members to switch electronicdevices to silent, please. Tea and coffee are not allowedduring sittings.

We will continue line-by-line consideration of theBill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available inthe room, and shows how the selected amendmentshave been grouped together for debate. Amendmentsgrouped together are generally on the same, or a similar,issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do nottake place in the order they are debated but in the orderthey appear on the amendment paper. The selection listshows the order of debate. Decisions on each amendmentare taken when we come to the clause to which theamendment relates.

We now continue our consideration of schedule 1.I call Dr Alan Whitehead to move amendment 157.

Schedule 1

THE OFFICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I begto move amendment 157, in schedule 1, page 124, line 40,at end insert—

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

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

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

(b) each subsequent period of five financial years.

12B If the OEP requests additional funding, due to a changein the nature or extent of its functions, the Secretary of Statemust publish and lay before Parliament a statement respondingto the request.”

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship,Mr Howarth. Before we start, I note the Minister’sabsence this morning. I understand that she is unwell. Ihope to convey the wishes of us all, and particularly ofthe Opposition, for her speedy recovery and return toher full powers, which are considerable, in the businessof guiding the Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]I appreciate that her absence has meant that we havehad to slightly rearrange how we proceed today. The

Opposition fully support those changes, and hope thatwe can get through today in a useful and amicable wayand be out in good time this afternoon. That is certainlyour intention.

We tabled amendment 157 on the basis of the need tounderpin the independence of the Office for EnvironmentalProtection as far as its financing is concerned. The Billeffectively states that the Minister can provide fundsfor the OEP from time to time, as he or she directs. I donot have the exact wording in front of me, but that isessentially what it states. That is not good enough;independent bodies associated with Departments needa clear line of sight of the money that they will receivefor their activities.

In the case of another departmentally associatedindependent body, the Environment Agency, thecombination of the Government hugging it closer, interms of the agency’s activities, and substantially reducingits funding has created a real problem with its activities.We therefore suggest that the procedure for fundingthe OEP should be that, at the start of each five-yearperiod, the Secretary of State publishes and lays beforeParliament an indicative five-year budget, which weanticipate would be maintained for the life of theParliament. We suggest that that be done not just forthe first five-year period, but for each subsequent five-yearperiod, so that at the beginning of each period the OEPhas a clear remit in front of it, knows what its budget isand what it can and cannot do, and cuts its clothaccordingly, with a clear line of sight as far as financingis concerned.

That would mean, among other things, that in eachParliament the OEP has guaranteed independence forits activities. I reflect, in parallel, on the experience ofSelect Committees, which we were talking about inTuesday’s proceedings. Following changes made a littlewhile ago, Select Committee members are selected atthe beginning of each Parliament, and their membershipcontinues independently of the wishes or interference ofbodies such as the Government Whips Office—heavenforfend that it would ever do such a thing—or ofsuggestions that people ought or ought not be on SelectCommittees because of their views about supportingthe Government. Select Committees are proof that thatworks. Not only are their memberships selected andagreed at the beginning of each parliamentary Session,but their budgets come from a parliamentary vote, notfrom Government sources.

We are trying to set up a procedure that is reasonablyclose to that, in that the budget is set. It would not belimitless, but it would be known and secure for a five-yearperiod—the lifetime of a Government. It would not bepossible for it to be diluted, diverted or whatever duringthat period. We think that is an important principle insetting up the OEP, and we hope that the Minister forthe time being—I am not sure how to refer to him—willcome at least some way towards meeting that principle,perhaps by accepting this amendment. I hope he will atleast indicate that he will think seriously about it. If weare not able to get that very clear assurance, we will seekto divide the Committee to put that principle on therecord.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend ismaking a powerful speech about the funding. Let us behonest: if we do not have the correct funding in place,how can the OEP be impartial and carry out its job


effectively? Does he agree that it would be a concern ifthe OEP did not have separate estimates from those ofthe Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?How else will it maintain its impartiality?

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

Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): I am grateful to theshadow Minister for his kind remarks in wishing myhon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane a speedyrecovery, and for the amicable tone in which he isseeking to work today. I thank him for the amendment.It highlights the unusual commitment this Governmenthave already made to giving the OEP an indicativemulti-annual budget, in response to Parliament’s scrutinyof the draft Bill. This budget will be formally ring-fencedin any given spending review period; that will providethe OEP with more longer-term financial certainty thanafforded to most arm’s length bodies.

However, it would be unnecessary and unhelpful toinclude this commitment in the Bill. Other bodies withmulti-annual funding commitments, such as the Officefor Budget Responsibility, do not have it set out inlegislation. In this Bill we have already included mechanismsto ensure that the OEP will remain adequately fundedunder this and future Governments.

The Bill imposes a statutory duty on the Secretary ofState to provide the OEP with enough funding to undertakeits statutory functions. There is also a duty on the OEP,in its annual statement of accounts, to provide anassessment of whether it was provided with sufficientfunding by the Secretary of State during that year. TheOEP’s statement of accounts will be laid before Parliament.

That brings me to the second part of the amendment.Parliament will have ample opportunity to scrutinisethe funding of the OEP further, and to hold Governmentto account accordingly. The OEP’s funding will bemade public through a separate line in DEFRA’s estimate,with further detail in the OEP’s own annual financialreport. We will give the OEP the option of providingthe relevant Select Committee with an additional estimatesmemorandum alongside the DEFRA estimate. Thememorandum would provide the Select Committee witha clear statement of what is in the estimate, and why anyadditional funding is being sought.

The OEP will therefore be able to provide Governmentand Parliament with additional information relating toany changes in funding and how the funding will beapplied, enabling any perceived shortcomings to behighlighted. In that spirit, I ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw the amendment.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I echo the remarksmade by the shadow Minister, my hon Friend theMember for Southampton, Test, about sending our bestwishes to the Minister, the hon. Member for TauntonDeane. I wish her a speedy recovery.

I will add to the shadow Minister’s remarks aboutstrengthening the multi-annual budget provision andputting it in the legislation. I am grateful to the Minister

for saying that there will be some indication of themulti-annual budget, but I ask for it to be stronger. Idraw the Committee’s attention to what the Select Ctteeon Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said on thefunding of the OEP in April 2019. The Bill has been inprogress for a long time, so we may not all rememberwhat the Committee said then—some, like me, may noteven have been an MP then. It said:

“A history of sustained budget cuts to DEFRA’s arm’s lengthbodies does not fill us with confidence that the current fundingprovisions for the Office for Environmental Protection in thedraft Bill are sufficient. Given the importance of the OEP’sindependence from Government”—

that independence is the reason why it is important thatwe discuss this matter alongside amendment 156—

“it should have additional budgetary protections than is customaryfor Non-Departmental Public Bodies.

The Government should commit to providing a multi-annualbudgetary framework for the Office for Environmental Protectionin the Bill. This commitment would help to ensure the Office forEnvironmental Protection’s independence from Government andis consistent with best practice as seen with the Office for BudgetaryResponsibility. Rather than grant-in-aid, the Office for EnvironmentalProtection should also have its own estimate which should benegotiated directly with HM Treasury, and voted on by Parliamentin the yearly Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill.”

The Select Committee argues that the requirement formulti-annual provision should be fundamentally writteninto the Bill, not subject to whims or dependent ongood intentions in the future. That is very important forthe next topic of our conversation about the independenceof the OEP.

11.45 am

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): It is a pleasureto serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I alsosend my good wishes to the hon. Member for TauntonDeane and wish her a speedy recovery.

Much of the discussion on Tuesday was about—as itwill be today—the independence of the OEP. Of course,organisations cannot be truly independent if they areheavily dependent on another organisation for theirfunding and resourcing. I echo many of the commentsmade by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney andthe shadow Minister. This might seem a slightly arcanediscussion about how the funding is separated andarrived at, but a point that I have already made, andwill, I suspect, continue to make, is that the organisationis so important that it has to be independent, and beseen to be independent, and has to have public confidence,because it replaces a very strong regime.

Sadly, we saw on Tuesday, and will, I fear, see as wego through further clauses today, that the sense ofindependence is being eroded. That is important, becausewhen we look at other organisations that are involved inenvironmental protection, we see that the record, particularlyunder this Government, is absolutely atrocious.

The Lords Select Committee in 2018 described thecuts made to many of these organisations as having a“profound negative impact” on England’s biodiversity.The funding cuts to Natural England under thisGovernment have been absolutely astonishing—therewas a cut of some £265 million in 2008-09, and of amere £85.6 million in 2019-20. This matters because weare being asked to trust the Government to resource theorganisation properly. I am sure many of us are regularwatchers of “Countryfile”; just a few weeks ago, it had


[Daniel Zeichner]

a feature based on Unchecked UK’s report, “The UK’sEnforcement Gap”, which looked at the impact offunding cuts on these organisations. Natural Englandhad a 72% cut between 2009 and 2019, and the FoodStandards Agency a 51% cut. The report concluded:

“The implications of these cuts are significant, with declines inalmost every metric of regulatory activity—including food safetychecks, water pollution sampling”,

and many others. That is the evidence before us regardingpast promises from the Government.

Talking of environmental issues and the cuts to NaturalEngland, staggeringly, the monitoring of sites of specialscientific interest has declined by 62% between 2010and 2019. There are many other damaging statisticsthat one could cite, but it all leads one to conclude thatthe new organisation—the key organisation for protectingour environment—must be properly resourced to do thejob. All the evidence suggests the Government cannotbe trusted.

The Chair: I should apologise to the Committee;I should have brought in other speakers before theMinister. That is what I will do in future. I am sorry ifthat has caused any confusion, but seven months’ absencehas made me a little too rusty.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Mr Howarth, for thatnote of concern about Committee proceedings. I amsure that in no way tripped us up or stopped us achievingour purpose, but thank you for clarifying matters.

I hear what the Minister says about ring-fencingefforts that might be made on the funding process bythe Government, but that does not remotely meet theneed to fix and set out a budget at the beginning of theperiod, so that the funding is not just ring-fenced, butclearly separated out from the daily business in theperiod after that budget has been set. Given the commentsof my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I amafraid that we will have to divide the Committee to setdown a clear marker about what we want to happen. Wehope that the Government will think seriously about theissue as the Bill goes through the House.



Division No. 12]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie


Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): On a point oforder, Sir George. In the Committee’s discussions onTuesday, I noted that the shadow Minister, the hon.Member for Southampton, Test, raised on a couple of

occasions—in columns 285 and 287 of the Official Report—the appointment of non-executive directors to thefuture Office for Environmental Protection. He intimatedstrongly that it would be a good idea for such directorsto be appointed with the consent of the two relevantSelect Committees. He later said that perhaps the SelectCommittees would decide that they would not want tobe involved in the appointment of non-executive membersof the board.

I have been in contact with the Chair of theEnvironmental Audit Committee, my right hon. Friendthe Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), who confirmedthat there has never been an approach from LabourFront-Bench Members or any member of his Committeewith that suggestion. He does not recall a suggestion forpre-appointment hearings for NEDs—apart from thechair—by any member of his Committee during itsinquiry into the draft Environment Bill last year, either.In his view, it is an impractical suggestion, which hadnever been raised before. May I therefore invite theshadow Minister to withdraw some of his commentsabout the appointment of non-executive directors fromTuesday’s discussions?

The Chair: It is the tradition of this House that, forgood reasons, the Chair does not take responsibility forthe content of right hon. and hon. Members’ speeches.The hon. Member was perfectly entitled to raise hisconcern, and it is now on the record. I am sure that theshadow Minister will respond if he wants to do so.

Dr Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 156, inschedule 1, page 126, line 2, leave out

‘have regard to the need to’.

This amendment makes the independence of the OEP an absoluterequirement.

I apologise for de-knighting you earlier, Sir George;I will continue in the right vein. I will respond briefly tothe point of order by the hon. Member for Gloucester.My intention on Tuesday was to draw attention to theprincipal architecture of various issues and how theymight work relative to Select Committees. It was not toimpugn the actions of anyone on a Select Committee orany proceedings of Select Committees. If the hon.Member for Gloucester felt that I was doing that in anyway, I hope I can set the record straight this morning.As to the remarks that I made about how, in principle,Select Committees work and might have a hand in theappointments, and about the difference between thoseCommittees having a hand in the appointments and theGovernment—in principle, but not necessarily in practice—not referring to them, I fully stand by those remarks forthe future. I hope that that clarifies things for the hon.Gentleman.

Richard Graham: I am grateful for the shadow Minister’scomments. The key thing is that there is an importantseparation between the responsibilities of Select Committeesand what a Government choose to do in a Bill. Theimplication of what he said on Tuesday was that thoseideas had been well discussed, and raised previously,and that it was perfectly normal for the two relevantenvironmental Select Committees effectively to havehearings for non-executive directors, as well as for thechair. I thought it would be helpful to put the recordstraight and to say that that had never been discussed in


the Environmental Audit Committee and that the Chairmanhad never been approached about it by anyone fromany party.

The Chair: Order. I have made the point that the Chairis not responsible for the content of any right hon. orhon. Member’s speech. Mr Graham has raised his concernin a point of order. Dr Whitehead has responded, and Ipropose that we now stick rigidly to the amendment athand and continue with consideration of it.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Sir George. We can perhapstalk about this offline, so to speak. I am happy to standby what I said previously, but I would welcome discussingit further with the hon. Gentleman if he would like to.

The amendment is fairly straightforward. On Tuesday,the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth made a pointabout paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which reads:


In her intervention, she emphasised the words “protectits independence”. However, we would rather emphasisethe fact that the wording

“have regard to the need to protect its independence”

would not actually protect the OEP’s independence.We suggest deleting the words

“have regard to the need to”

so that the passage would read, “In exercising functionsin respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State mustprotect its independence.” That is simpler and morestraightforward, and makes the duty of the Secretary ofState clear. I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

Fleur Anderson: I also want to speak about theindependence of the Office for Environmental Protection.The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Memberfor Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), promised us a new,“world-leading”, independent environmental watchdog.However, what is in the Bill is not good enough. The currentwording is:


The amendment would change that so that the Secretaryof State “must protect its independence”. We have hadprevious amendments that were short but important,and this is another one. Instead of giving a nod tosomething, hoping it will happen or wishing for thebest, we will actually write this proposal into the Bill.That is important in relation to our earlier conversationsabout the appointment of the chair and the OEP’sindependence.

12 noon

It was promised that family reunion would be in theoriginal Brexit legislation, but it was not there, and itwas promised that it would be in the Immigration Bill,which was discussed only yesterday in the House ofCommons, but it was not there. We cannot trust theGovernment to deliver in the legislation promised, andthey have once again moved the goalposts with theOffice for Environmental Protection.

I welcome the concept of the Office for EnvironmentalProtection and share the ambition for it, but what theBill delivers cannot in all seriousness be called independent.

The problem is compounded by the Minister’s newclause 24, which further dilutes any appearance orpractice of independence. That is really disappointing,and it is why we deem it necessary, unfortunately, to tablethis short but important amendment. It is not too lateto rescue what was originally a really positive idea.

On Tuesday, the Committee discussed the chair. I amdisappointed that our amendment was rejected, as itwould have gone some way to restoring a semblanceof independence and precedence. As the Institute forGovernment noted:

“This was one of the moves the Treasury made back in 2010 toestablish the Office for Budget Responsibility as an independentcredible actor. Indeed, the Treasury went even further: the chancellorcan only remove the chair and the other two members of theBudget Responsibility Council with the consent of the TreasurySelect Committee.”

It is written right there in the procedures.

Overseas examples demonstrate the importance ofan independent chair, whose role can be written in andmake the whole body more independent. In Canada,the equivalent body, the Commissioner of the Environmentand Sustainable Development, which audits theenvironmental policies of the Government, is appointedby the Auditor General in Canada, who is in turnappointed by the Canadian Parliament.

In its evidence sessions, the Committee had manyorganisations lining up to share their concerns aboutthe independence of the OEP. Industry-orientated bodies,such as the Aldersgate Group, whose members includecompanies such as Associated British Ports, IKEA andThames Water, as well as environmental non-governmentalorganisations, say that the failure to give MPs a say onwho leads the OEP is a mistake. That is why this associatedamendment is needed.

I am deeply worried by the further changes to theOEP proposed by the Government, particularly thosegiving the Secretary of State powers to issue enforcementguidance on matters that must be included in the OEP’senforcement policy—new clause 24. To quote GreenerUK, that gives the Government a

“get out of jail free”

card, to direct the watchdog away from awkward orinconvenient cases.

The Government’s justifications for that simply donot stand up to scrutiny. The Secretary of State has saidthat this is a normal, standard clause that applies toother public bodies with independent regulatory laws,and I am sure we will hear that again. Although theGovernment do have a similar power in relation tosome existing public bodies, the critical fact is thatMinisters do not have a similar power to issue guidancein relation to bodies charged principally or partly withenforcement in relation to potential breaches of the lawby other public bodies. For example, the Equality andHuman Rights Commission and the InformationCommissioner’s Office, which carry out enforcement inrelation to breaches of the law on human rights, equalityand data protection legislation, are not bound by similarpower in relation to their enforcement functions.

Ministers have the power to issue guidance to somebodies in the DEFRA ecosystem, such as Natural Englandand the Environment Agency, as well as other non-departmental public bodies, such as the Office for BudgetResponsibility. However, none of those are enforcement


bodies with the power to take the Government to courtif there is a suspected breach of law. That is a criticaldifference.

The Government have also claimed that the newpower does not grant the Secretary of State any abilityto intervene in decision making about specific or individualcases and that the OEP does not have to act strictly inaccordance with the guidance where it has clear reasonsnot to do so. Although that is technically correct, and Ihope it remains so, when considered in the context of allthe other changes the Government hope to make to theOEP, that power will clearly have the effect of allocatingMinisters an essential role in shaping the basic principlesof the watchdog. That will have a severely constrainingeffect on the OEP’s ability to act independently.

The legislation makes the good intentions law—thatis the point—but it would change the whole powerdynamic in the room. When the OEP chair is there withthe Minister, who has the most power? As Greener UKput it:

“This guidance power inverts the intended hierarchy (in whichthe OEP oversees ministers) and gives ministers the role ofoverseeing the OEP.”

That has consequences for the rest of the Bill. No matterwhat the Government claim, there is no doubt thatsuch a broadly cast power will undermine the OEP’sindependence and render the Government’s ambition fora world-leading watchdog unachievable. The Government’sproposals would also limit to only urgent cases theOEP’s powers to bring review proceedings against publicpolicies, which is something that we will be looking at infuture.

Let us not make these mistakes with the OEP, which,if set up correctly from the start and left to do its jobwithout interference, has the potential to transform ourenvironment and be a crucial partner to the Governmentin achieving their aims and policy statements. I hopethat the Committee will support amendment 156.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friends have made a powerfulcase, to which I will not add much more. Looking atwhat we are losing through leaving the European Union,I was very struck by the Library briefing, which states:

“EU law is monitored and enforced by the European Commissionunder Article 258…as the ‘Guardian of the Treaties’. It is overseenby the Court of Justice of the European Union… which canlevy fines on Member States that are found to be in breach ofEU law.”

That is an incredibly powerful position. Although we hadonly a certain amount of influence over that arrangementas a member state, it could be used to considerableeffect.

I was very struck by the evidence to the Committeefrom ClientEarth, which has obviously used thatarrangement to good effect on behalf of the citizens ofthe UK in challenging the Government’s record on airquality. Even back in March, before the amendmentsbefore us and others were tabled, ClientEarth was veryclear:

“Despite the Government’s words about the independence ofthe OEP, the funding structure envisaged in the Bill places theOEP too close to Defra and too much discretion is given to theSecretary of State in the appointment of the OEP’s members.”

Those at ClientEarth are concerned because they knowthat, in the past, they could intervene and act on behalfof UK citizens, but under this system, they will not be

able to. That key change weakens our protections, and itis why it is so important that amendments such as thisare pursued, although I suspect they will not be successful.However, I think that these provisions in the Bill will betorn to shreds in the other place, quite frankly.

Leo Docherty: I agree with Opposition Members whohave spoken about the need to protect the independenceof the OEP. That is why we have introduced a new dutyon the Secretary of State to have regard to the need toprotect the OEP’s independence, and placed a duty onthe OEP to act objectively, impartially and transparently.Unlike with most public bodies, the Bill gives Ministersno power to set the OEP’s programme of activity or todirect the exercise of its functions. Parliament can scrutinisethe actions of the Secretary of State in exercising functionsin relation to the OEP to ensure that the Governmentare not interfering in the delivery of the OEP’s statutoryfunctions.

The operational independence of the OEP, however,which we wholeheartedly support, should not impedethe Secretary of State in exercising appropriate scrutinyand oversight of the OEP. That is important becausethe Secretary of State, as an elected representative ofthe Government, is accountable to Parliament and thepublic for the overall performance of the body and forthe use of public money. Requiring the Secretary ofState to actively protect the OEP’s independence at alltimes would be incompatible with that ministerialaccountability, which is one of the Government’s keyprinciples of good corporate governance.

The amendment would prevent DEFRA, the OEP’sparent Department, from exercising appropriate oversight,including accounting officer responsibilities. I thereforeask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdrawhis amendment.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friends have made powerfulcontributions on the overall independence of the OEPand the circumstances under which that independencecan be enhanced or undermined. In terms of our generaldiscussions this morning, hon. Members will see thatthe importance of the OEP—its crucial role in holdingother bodies to account and possibly taking them tocourt—puts the OEP into a reasonably unique categoryas far as such bodies are concerned. Comparisons withsome of those other bodies fall rather short in terms ofmaking a distinction between the importance of theOEP and, indeed, the importance originally attached toit by previous Secretaries of State in introducing the Billin the first place.

That, essentially, is a theme that we will be pursuingtoday, and amendment 156 is part of that. While I hearwhat the Minister says about the Department’s abilityto guide and control part of the OEP’s actions, it is notgood enough, in the context of the formulation beforeus, to say that the independence of the OEP can becompromised for the purposes set out. We do notintend to pursue the point to a Division this morning,but in terms of the corpus of our contributions on thisclause, I want to place on record that the same goes forthe debate later today, and we hope that those commentswill be heard.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Schedule 1 agreed to.


Clause 22

PRINCIPAL OBJECTIVES OF THE OEP AND EXERCISE OF

ITS FUNCTIONS

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 189, in clause 22, page 13,line 16, leave out subsection (5).This amendment removes the restriction on the OEP overlapping withthe Committee on Climate Change.


Government amendments 30 and 66.

Governmentnewclause4—Memorandumof understanding.

Deidre Brock: May I send my best wishes to theMinister, and wish her a speedy recovery? I look forwardto seeing her back in her place next week.

I say from the outset that amendment 189 is really aprobing amendment. I am trying to gain a betterunderstanding of what the Government were seeing toachieve in the clause by excluding areas of climatechange committee activity from OEP oversight. However,I note the Government’s in new clause 4, and I lookforward to hearing what the hon. Member for Aldershothas to say in that regard.

12.15 pm

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Member for EdinburghNorth and Leith for her warm wishes, which I willconvey to the Minister, and for tabling amendment 189,which gives me the opportunity to explain how the Billwill ensure that there will be clarity over the respectiveremits of the OEP and the Committee on ClimateChange. Government amendments 30 and 66 and newclause 4 will ensure that the OEP does not duplicate thework of the Committee on Climate Change, as well asrequiring the two bodies to prepare a memorandum ofunderstanding. I will come on to those in more detail ina moment.

Amendment 189 would remove clause 22(5), whichwould weaken the overall provision of the Bill to clarifythe respective roles of the two bodies. That provisionrequires the OEP to set out in its strategy how it intendsto avoid any overlap with the Committee on ClimateChange when exercising its functions. That ensures thatthe avoidance of such an overlap would run throughthe OEP’s entire operation. That would be difficult toachieve simply through a memorandum of understanding.I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw amendment189 to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protectionand the Committee on Climate Change can work togetherseamlessly.

Government amendments 30 and 66 and new clause 4are part of a package of measures, including statutoryrequirements already set out in the Bill, that help toclarify the distinct roles of the two bodies to ensure thatthey develop an effective working relationship. Governmentamendment 30 will ensure that the OEP does not duplicatethe work of the Committee on Climate Change by providingthat the OEP will not monitor or report on specificmatters already within the statutory remit of the Committeeon Climate Change. Government amendment 66 ensuresthe same effect in Northern Ireland should the NorthernIreland Assembly choose to extend the OEP to NorthernIreland.

The OEP has an important role to play alongside andin collaboration with the Committee on Climate Changein ensuring that the UK continues to drive forwardambitious action on climate change. That role is notbeing called into question by the amendments. Indeed,Greener UK has welcomed the amendments and theiraddition to the existing provisions, which

“ensure that there is no duplication and overlap”.––[OfficialReport, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 74,Q116.]

The Committee on Climate Change is also supportive ofboththeexistingmeasuresandtheGovernmentamendments.I therefore commend Government amendments 30 and66 and new clause 4 to the Committee, and graciouslyurge the hon. Member to withdraw amendment 189.

Deidre Brock: I thank the Minister for that brief butadequate explanation.

Dr Whitehead: I think we can claim a little collectivewin on this. We have been concerned about the possibleclash between the remit of the Committee on ClimateChange and that of the OEP, almost since the publicationof the Bill. I think the matter was raised in proceedingsbefore they were suspended earlier in the year. To avoidduplication and a possible treading on each other’s toes,it is really important that there is not a mix-up betweenwhat the OEP does on elements of the climate changeand environmental remit, and what the Committee onClimate Change is doing.

The amendments that the Government tabled to clarifyand codify that distinction, which also refer to NorthernIreland, seem a positive step forward in how we decidewhat we are going to do. In a moment, we will come toan amendment that tries to clarify that for anotherGovernment body. I welcome these amendments.

Daniel Zeichner: I, too, welcome the amendments,but does my hon. Friend agree that they demonstratethat the overall architecture of the whole system hasbeen flawed from the outset? I am thinking of therelationship with other organisations and, for instance,the interaction with the Agriculture Bill and the FisheriesBill, which we have long argued were done in the wrongorder.

Dr Whitehead: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutelyright. It indicates that the thinking when the Bill wasconstructed in the first instance did not take account ofthose distinctions. We may need to go further in decidingwho has what brief, as far as these issues are concerned.

On this particular issue, the Minister’s clarification iswelcome. Obviously, the Opposition have not won manyamendments so far, so being on the right side of a newamendment can be the cause of some rejoicing. We donot wish to oppose the amendments; on the contrary,we support them.

The Chair: Government amendments 30 and 66 andGovernment new clause 4 will be determined later in theproceedings.

Deidre Brock: I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.




‘(5A) The Energy Act 2013 is amended in accordance withsubsections (5B) and (5C).

(5B) In section 131(1), for “may” substitute “must”.

(5C) In section 131(2), after subsection (c), insert—

“(d) the duty of the Authority in assisting the delivery ofgreenhouse gas emissions targets as set out in theClimate Change Act 2008.”

(5D) This section comes into force at the end of the period ofthree months beginning with the day on which this Act ispassed.”

This amendment is intended to facilitate co-operation between the OEPand the Energy Authority.

This amendment follows on from our previous debateabout clarifying which of various bodies does what. Asmy hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, thereare a number of other issues relating to which bodydoes what—how that works in the overall scheme ofthings as far as environmental protection is concerned,and how that relates to climate change issues.

One body that has a very substantial hand in the processand is very involved in the consequences of environmentalprotection, the use and deployment of energy, anddecisions about where energy comes from—particularlyas far as climate change and net zero considerations areconcerned—is Ofgem: the body responsible for thoseconsiderations in the energy sphere.

The amendment would align Ofgem’s responsibilitiesand remit with the other bodies that we have discussedthis morning. Ministers have argued that Ofgem’s remitincludes concerns about the environment and climatechange, but in practice, its written remit does not. Itsremit at the moment is simply to secure good value forcustomers; it does not go into the areas that we havebeen talking about today. However, from the EnergyAct 2013 onwards, the Government have had the abilityto put that right. In part 5 of the Act, there is provisionfor the Government to put forward a strategy andpolicy statement, which would produce the remit forthat body.

I have now been concerned for a long time that whilepart 5 of the Act would have been simple for theGovernment to implement—it is there on the statutebook, with detailed guidance on how to do it—it hasbeen curtailed merely because it is up to the Ministerto trigger the provision. There is no start date for itsimplementation—we may come later to similar pointsabout this Bill—and the Government have decided notto implement it. They have therefore resiled from theidea of producing a strategy and policy statement.

The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it wouldamend part 5 of the Energy Act 2013 to ensure that aremit for the policy and strategy statement is writteninto the Act. Secondly, it would ensure the implementationof that part of the Act by setting a timescale. Ministerswould therefore need to pay attention to the insertion ofOfgem’s climate and environmental brief and do somethingabout it by bringing that part of the Act into force withina set period of time.

It is a simple amendment. I appreciate that it wouldamend another Act of Parliament so we might have togo through a Marx Brothers tootsie-frootsie ice creamsketch form-guide discussion to get to a thoroughunderstanding of how the 2013 Act relates to the Bill,but I hope hon. Members are assured that the Opposition

tried hard to draft the amendment so that it wouldproperly give effect to what we want it to do. If hon.Members do not take our word for it, a copy of theEnergy Act 2013 is freely available on my desk for themto peruse at their leisure.

Leo Docherty: The hon. Member’s amendment raisesa question about the making of a strategy and policystatement for Ofgem. As he will be aware, the Governmentintend to publish an energy White Paper ahead ofCOP26, and it would make sense to draft a strategy andpolicy statement in the light of the policies and prioritiesset out in the White Paper. It would be inappropriate togive a specific timeline on publishing the strategy andpolicy statement at this stage.

Ofgem already has various powers and duties inrelation to its important role in the transition to netzero. Its duty is to protect existing and future consumersand, as is already set out in legislation, that includestheir interest in the reduction of targeted greenhousegas emissions. At the start of the year, we welcomedOfgem’s new decarbonisation action plan, which containsimportant proposals, including enhancing flexibility inthe electricity system and decarbonising heat, whichwill help us to meet our vital commitment to eliminateour contribution to global warming by 2050.

Given the existing decarbonisation duties on Ofgem,the work it is already undertaking in that area and theclose and productive working relationship at all levelsbetween Ofgem and central Government, it is not necessaryto place any new duties on Ofgem in relation to thedelivery of greenhouse gas emissions targets. I thereforeask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for the interestingreply that—he will have to forgive me for saying this—heread out from the piece of paper put in front of him.Nevertheless, that piece of paper is quite interesting,because it appears to say two slightly different things.First, it says, “Don’t worry about putting something inthe Bill today, because the energy White Paper is shortlyto appear.” There may well be a proposal in the WhitePaper to implement part 5 of the Energy Act 2013—finally,after seven years. That White Paper has been imminentlyexpected for two years, but is so very imminently expectednow that it might appear before Christmas. That statementappears to say that that is what the Government aregoing to do and that a proposal to unlock part 5 of theEnergy Act 2013 will be in the White Paper. If that isthe case, that is an interesting development.

12.30 pm

However, the second part of the statement says that itis not necessary to do that, because Ofgem has all itneeds to undertake a climate and environment brief.Indeed, Ofgem has pushed the boat out a little, on itsown freelance account, in terms of a climate and energybrief. It is also the case that the outgoing chief executiveofficer of Ofgem bewailed the fact that Ofgem did nothave that particular brief in its locker, and felt thatconstrained what Ofgem could do in that area.

That statement is both interesting and curious, as itappears to face both ways. Is it something that theGovernment intend to do in the energy White Paper,and therefore implement? Alternatively, is it somethingthat is not necessary, and therefore the Government donot intend to bring forward something in the energy


White Paper to influence part 5 of the 2013 Act? I haveput the Minister on the spot. He may not be able to giveme a response today, but I would be interested to see hisresponse in writing in the near future about what exactlythat paragraph means.

If the statement means what I think it might mean,that is encouraging. If it means what the second partappears to say, then that is not encouraging at all. Ithought the statement might say something slightly lessencouraging and that we might have to divide theCommittee, but under the circumstances I will awaitsome written information.

Leo Docherty: I will be pleased to write to the hon.Member.

Dr Whitehead: I have effectively concluded my comments,Sir George. I hope the Minister will write to me shortlyto give a clear indication about what that packagemeans, and we can go from there. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.


Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): I beg to moveamendment 203, in clause 22, page 13, line 22, after“33(1)(b)” insert “,35(1)(b)”.This amendment is consequential on Amendment 208. It requires theOEP’s enforcement policy to set out how the OEP will determinewhether a failure to comply with environmental law is serious for thepurposes of clause 35(1)(b), which is inserted by Amendment 208.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 208 and 209.

Leo Docherty: This group of amendments clarifiesthe circumstances in which the OEP may bring anenvironmental review, in order to ensure there is no doubtabout its thresholds for action. Government amendment 203ensures that the OEP’s enforcement policy will set out aconsistent approach in determining whether a seriousfailure has occurred throughout its enforcement process,and is consequential on amendment 208.

Dr Whitehead: We are in an interesting set ofcircumstances regarding these amendments, and someothers that are still to come. Essentially, the Governmentare amending their own Bill, so on several occasions—bothtoday and in the not-too-distant future—the Oppositionmay be in the position of stoutly defending theGovernment’s Bill while, I suspect, Government Memberswill stoutly defend the amendments that the Governmenthave tabled.

We are potentially in an odd position, in that weactually do not think that the Bill is very good as itstands, particularly in terms of the protection of theindependence of the OEP, but we are certainly preparedto defend it from further erosion by what we consider tobe a systematic series of Government amendments that,taken together, seriously undermine the OEP’s independenceof action over its life.

These amendments are the first part of that action,which took place, to our dismay, over the period the Billwas suspended. Clearly, at some stage somebody decidedthat the Bill was too kind to the OEP and that furtherrestrictions should be placed on its activities and freedomof action in relation to a series of things, such asnotices, environmental improvement plans, and whether

the OEP can bring about a review if a subject continuesto do what it was doing after a notice has been given.Previously, the Bill enabled the OEP to do that; followingthe amendments, it no longer can. It has had a substantialelement of its freedom to act, and to act appropriately,removed by the amendments.

Theotherimportantelementinthisgroupof amendments,which will recur in a number of other areas, is, as wehave raised in Committee before, the use of the word“serious”. The amendments have curtailed systematicallythroughout the Bill the remit of the OEP to undertakevarious actions on the basis of what it thinks is best in aparticular set of circumstances, to the extent that beforethe OEP can act it has to pass a test of whether theaction is regarded as serious. We have discussed how aseries of differences can flow from one word. The problemwith the introduction of the word “serious” in theseareas of the Bill and others is that there is no definitionin the Bill of what “serious” means. Let us have a guess:whocandeterminewhat“serious”meansthroughguidance?Does anyone have any thoughts?

Richard Graham: The OEP.

Dr Whitehead: No. The Secretary of State can decideby guidance how “serious” is to be interpreted regardingthe OEP’s actions.

Fleur Anderson: It is a fact that environmental protectionand action that breaches air pollution limits, for example,will happen slowly and incrementally. Does my hon.Friend agree that it is hard to determine the point atwhich that becomes serious?

For example, Putney High Street in my constituencyis one of the most polluted high streets in the country.That has happened slowly over many years; it would behard to say when it became serious. When will theOffice for Environmental Protection be enabled to stepin and say, “This is an issue”? That goes for rivers andall the other issues we will discuss.

The nature of environmental action is that it willhappen slowly. The measure of saying something is“serious” will limit the term to so few large-scale eventsthat the Office for Environmental Protection will berendered so weak in its action.

The Chair: Order. This is no criticism of the hon.Lady, but her contribution could have been a speechrather than an intervention, which should be brief. I amsure the Committee appreciated it, whether it was aspeech or an intervention, but I hope interventions willbe kept brief in future.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Sir George. I am sure thatall Committee members will abide by your guidance inthe remaining sessions. My hon. Friend the Memberfor Putney has hit the nail on the head regarding thediscussion of seriousness.

RichardGraham:TheexplanatorystatementtoGovernmentamendment 208 lays out clearly that“the OEP may only bring an environmental review against apublic authority if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilitiesthat the authority has failed to comply with environmental law”.

The explanatory statement to Government amendment 209adds:

“The OEP may only bring an environmental review after it hasgiven a decision notice.”


[Richard Graham]

The steps are clearly laid out. Surely, we should all haveconfidence in the OEP doing its job as defined bythe Bill.

Dr Whitehead: I am not sure whether the hon. Memberhas addressed himself to the totality of these issues. Iwill raise a question concerning the explanatory notesand the notes on the purport of the amendments in asubsequent debate.

The steps that the OEP must take in providing anotice are perfectly reasonable and should be undertaken;the big difference is the additional test, after those stepshave been taken, as to whether the whole thing is seriousor not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putneyrightly said, in many instances one cannot set a point atwhich something becomes serious or not.

Richard Graham: We have to be serious about this. Ifthe borough council is not cleaning a particular streetin Putney properly, that is not an issue that the OEPshould immediately jump at on the evidence of onephotograph from one constituent. It should not say,“Right—we must take the authority to court!” Therehave to be some boundaries, so the insertion of the word“serious” is surely sensible and appropriate.

12.45 pm

Dr Whitehead: The central point is that it ought to bewithin the remit of the OEP to decide what constitutesa cumulation, to the point that something becomesserious. The amendments take that decision out of thehands of the OEP so that a serious test threshold wouldhave to be passed before it could take action in the caseof a cumulative serious problem. The hon. Gentlemancan read what the amendment paper indicates aboutwhether the OEP considers that that test has been passed.

Richard Graham: I fear that the shadow Minister hasnot read the explanatory statement clearly. It begins:

“This amendment provides that the OEP”

and refers to whether it is satisfied, and whether

“it…considers that the failure…would be serious.”

The emphasis is on the OEP. Does he not accept that?

Dr Whitehead: Yes. Of course the emphasis is on theOEP, but the test of what is serious is outwith the remitof the OEP. The hon. Gentleman can look at otherexplanatory notes in this regard. There is no definitionof “serious” in the Bill. The guidance on the test ofseriousness that has to be achieved is inevitably outsidethe Bill: it is within the remit of the Minister to decide.

As to the decision on whether something is seriousenough to proceed—and I suggest to the hon. Gentlemanthat we are now talking about two different versions of“serious”—if the agency itself, in its work, thinks somethingis serious, I would have thought that it should be able toproceed. However, the question whether something isserious in terms of the test that must now be passed bythe agencies concerned is outside the consideration ofwhether the agency itself thinks that something may ormay not be cumulatively serious. That is a central concernthat we have in this area, and other areas.

If the issue were as straightforward as the hon.Gentleman suggests, why on earth would the Governmentamendments have been tabled in the first place? Theyhave not been put in for a laugh—there is a seriouspurpose behind them, which is to put “serious” on theface of the Bill and take the definition outside thelegislation, so that control of the word “serious” is outsidethe OEP’s remit.

Frankly, as with the old fable of the frog that doesnot get out of the saucepan before it boils because at nostage does it decide it is too hot for it to stay, the OEPwould have no ability to pull the frog out of the saucepanat any stage. It would simply have to stand by while thefrog boiled, and then refer the boiled frog to the Ministerand say, “Is that serious enough and should we perhapshave done something about it beforehand?” That seemsto me to be a bit of a concern about how the OEP worksin the long term.

We do not intend to divide the Committee on theamendment, because we are making a general pointabout seriousness as part of the corpus of Governmentamendments that have been tabled. However, when wedebate clause 23 we certainly intend to divide theCommittee, for reasons that I shall set out.


Leo Docherty: I beg to move amendment 204, inclause 22, page 13, line 22, after “36(1)” insert “and(6A)”

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendment 220.

Leo Docherty: We have sought to ensure that theOEP focuses its enforcement function on the mostsignificant and serious breaches of environmental law.Unlike the European Commission, which can only takeaction against member state Governments, the newOffice for Environmental Protection will enforce thedelivery of environmental law by all levels of publicauthority, from local authorities and arm’s length bodiesto central Government. On that basis, it is importantthat the OEP should have the ability to focus on themost significant or serious breaches of environmentallaw.

Clause 36 allows the OEP to apply to intervene in ajudicial review relating to an alleged failure to complywith environmental law. However, the clause as currentlydrafted does not require the OEP to focus such interventionson serious cases when initiating its own enforcementactions. Amendments 204 and 220 will therefore improvethe clause by increasing consistency across the OEP’sapplication of its enforcement function.

Dr Whitehead rose—

The Chair: The hon. Gentleman had not indicatedthat he wished to speak. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.

Dr Whitehead: I put my pen up, Sir George, but thatis probably more appropriate for the auction room thanthe Bill Committee. I will try to raise my pen higher ormake some other sign in future.

The Chair: In future, I will assume that the hon.Gentleman wants to take part, rather than assumingthat he does not.


Dr Whitehead: That is kind of you, Sir George; thankyou. These amendments follow on from the debate thatwe had on the last series of amendments. As the Ministersaid, they would make proceedings consistent across theBill, but that is precisely the point that we have beenmaking. This series of amendments consistently seeksto introduce different levels of judgment necessary forthe OEP to carry out a range of things, including, in thecase of amendment 220, applications

“to intervene in a judicial or statutory review relating to an allegedfailure by a public authority to comply with environmental law”.

The amendment states that the OEP may apply tointervene in proceedings

“only if it considers that the failure, if it occurred, would be serious”.

As there is no definition of “serious”, the OEP is left inthe dark about whether it may intervene or not if itconsiders a failure to be serious—its definition may notbe in line with the Government’s. It is really curious thatthe explanatory statement to amendment 220 states:

“This amendment provides that the OEP may apply to intervenein a judicial or statutory review relating to an alleged failure by apublic authority to comply with environmental law only if itconsiders that the failure, if it occurred, would be serious”

but that

“If that test is satisfied, it may apply to intervene”.

What test? Who can satisfy it? There is no test in the Billor, apparently, in the remit of the OEP, yet the explanatorystatement refers to a test being satisfied. I can draw noother conclusion: the only way to reconcile the amendmentand its explanatory statement is for the Government toprovide guidance—separately from the OEP—on howthat test can be satisfied. That is one of the fundamentalproblems that we are grappling with here. Although Iaccept that the amendments are consequent to thecentral idea of seriousness, unless we bottom out whatseriousness is and how the test can be satisfied, we willnot have made any further progress on amendmentsthat sort things out in the Bill.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend is explaining quite acomplicated situation really well. What I find bafflingabout this discussion is that earlier this morningGovernment Members asserted the independence ofthe OEP, and here they are introducing an amendmentthat restricts its independence and makes a judgment asto where to intervene. Does he share my puzzlement?

Dr Whitehead: I do share my hon. Friend’s puzzlementbecause we appear to be having things in different ways.If the question of seriousness were so straightforward,

we would not have to worry about putting these thingsin the Bill in the first place; the previous formulationswould be perfectly adequate.

There is a purpose behind the Government amendments,and that purpose has to be, as I have explained, to takethe definition outside the work of the OEP. For thatreason, we really have to divide on amendment 220 toestablish clearly what we think about this particularactivity taking place.



Division No. 13]

AYES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

NOES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

Question accordingly agreed to.


Dr Whitehead: On a point of order, Sir George. Hon.Members will have noticed that amendment 204 isconsequential. We had to vote on it because of theinclusion of the two amendments in this part of the Bill.However, we wanted to vote on amendment 220. Perhapswe could have it on the record that that is what wewanted to do, but procedurally we were required not to.

The Chair: We can have a Division on that when wecome to it.

Clause 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of theBill.


Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)

1.1 pm




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Eleventh Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 24 TO 36 agreed to, some with amendments.

Adjourned till Tuesday 10 November at twenty-five minutes past Nine

o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than








Anderson, Fleur (Putney) (Lab)






† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)






(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Clause 24

CO-OPERATION DUTIES OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AND

THE OEP

2 pm

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Ibeg to move amendment 190, in clause 24, page 14,line 29, at end insert—

“(g) a Scottish local authority,

(h) a Scottish housing association, or

(i) a Scottish environmental regulator.”

This amendment seeks to ensure clear reporting lines in Scotland and toensure that the OEP’s remit does not clash with that of the Scottishregulator.

This amendment—I touched on this on Tuesday—continues the intent of amendment 188. Its aim is toensure that Scottish public bodies do not duplicate theirchain of authority, that they report to the correct bodiesand that the devolved settlement around environmentalprotection is protected. It would basically ensure thatthe devolved nature of the Administration in Scotlandwas respected, that the reporting lines for those dutieswere clear and that the remit of the Office for EnvironmentalProtection did not clash with that of the Scottish regulator.

I hope the Minister will see that muddying the watersof authority in the present way is rather unhelpful, andI hope he and his colleagues will see fit to support whatwould be a very reasonable addition to the Bill.

Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): I thank the hon.Member for her contribution. I would like to reassureher that the Bill respects all the devolution settlements,including the Scotland Act. Therefore, the duty toco-operate does not apply to Scottish Ministers, theScottish Parliament or any person carrying out devolvedfunctions, and the public authorities listed in the amendmentare already excluded from the duty to co-operate to theextent that they will be carrying out devolved functions.That means that these public authorities would not berequired to share any information with the OEP inrelation to their devolved functions in Scotland. Therefore,it is not necessary to list them as excluded bodies for thepurposes of clause 24.

I support the hon. Member’s intention to avoid overlapswith the functions of the equivalent Scottish governancebody. That is why we have appropriately sought to limitthe OEP’s remit to reserved matters, while avoiding anydevolved matters that would appropriately be dealt withby that other body. I therefore ask the hon. Member towithdraw the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I am just trying to establish this fromthe Minister: all these bodies are included in the referenceto the Scottish Government—to “the Scottish Ministers”.I think that that is what the Minister is saying. If that isindeed the case, although I stick to my point that allmatters of the environment should be under the aegis ofthe Scottish Government, I am content to withdrawmy amendment at this point, but I might revisit it onReport and Third Reading. We will, of course, bespeaking to other amendments relating to the samematter later on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



Clause 25

MONITORING AND REPORTING ON ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND TARGETS

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I begto move amendment 98, in clause 25, page 15, line 26, atend insert

“including setting out what action will be taken”.

This is a fairly simple and straightforward amendment,which I hope will be taken in a fairly simple andstraightforward manner. In subsections (9) and (10) ofclause 25, there is provision for the Secretary of State todo certain things. By the way, I cannot resist emphasisingthat on this occasion the Secretary of State “must” dothem. Subsection (9) states:

“The Secretary of State must—

(a) respond to a report under this section, and

(b) lay before Parliament, and publish, a copy of theresponse.”

Subsection (10) states:

“Where a report under this section contains a recommendationfor how progress could be improved, the response must addressthat recommendation.”

But the clause does not include a provision for settingout what action the Secretary of State might take inresponse to that report. Amendment 98 would add thewords,

“including setting out what action will be taken”.

It would be a prudent addition to the Bill, ensuring thatwhen the Secretary of State is responding to an annualreporting process, he or she responds to the fact not justthat there is a report, but that there is a report and thataction should be taken. The Secretary of State ought torecord at the same time as responding to the reportwhat actions he or she is going to undertake.

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for thisamendment, as it allows me to highlight the reportingmechanisms and duties the Bill creates for the Office forEnvironmental Protection and the Government.

These carefully designed reporting mechanisms arecentral to the OEP’s ability to hold the Government toaccount on their environmental commitments. Clause 25(10)already requires the Secretary of State to address anyrecommendations made by the OEP when they respondto the OEP’s annual report. This requirement was addedto the Bill following pre-legislative scrutiny. It is expectedthat Ministers will respond to the OEP’s recommendations


in the Government’s own progress report on theenvironmental improvement plan. This report must describewhat has been done over the previous year to implementthe EIP—that is, what actions have been taken—andconsider whether the natural environment has improved.Both the OEP’s report and the Government’s responsewill be published and laid before Parliament. This givesstakeholders and Parliament the opportunity every yearto scrutinise whether the Government have taken actionin response to the OEP’s recommendations.

As part of the triple lock in the targets clauses, theGovernment are required to review the EIP at leastevery five years. In doing so, they must consider whetherfurther or different steps should be included in the planspecifically to achieve interim and long-term targets.This would include consideration of the OEP’srecommendations since the last review. Given that theGovernment are already required to respond to theOEP’s recommendations in this way, there is no need toinclude any additional requirement in the Bill to set outthe actions that the Government will take. I thereforeask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for that explanation.I am not entirely sure that it completely satisfies ourconcerns, but under the circumstances we do not wishto press the amendment to a Division this afternoon. Ibeg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Clause 26

MONITORING AND REPORTING ON ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 99, inclause 26, page 15, line 31, at end insert “(includinginternational environmental law)”.

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

As we alluded to earlier in our proceedings, we aresimply suggesting adding, “(including internationalenvironmental law)”, so that the OEP is required tohave regard to what is happening in environmental lawnot only here in the UK, but elsewhere, for the greaterelucidation of what is happening in environmental lawin this country. The amendment would make it clearthat that is a responsibility of the OEP. We think itwould strengthen the position in terms of a light beingshone on not just UK environmental law, but environmentallaw across the world.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I rise to supportthe amendment. It is all very well having environmentallaw, but we must take account of international law aswell. As we have heard in previous debates, air qualityhas no boundaries as such. We must also take accountof the fact that international law will impact on the waywe manage recycling, waste and so on. I therefore standin support of the amendment.

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for tablingthe amendment, as it gives me the opportunity to clarifythe OEP’s remit. The intention of the amendment is to

include international environmental law within the remitof the OEP’s monitoring function only where it isrelevant to the UK. However, the relevant internationalenvironmental law already falls within the remit of theOEP in three ways.

First, any domestic legislation that implements aninternational convention and meets the definition ofenvironmental law—for example, the conservation ofhabitats and species regulations implementing the Bernconvention on the conservation of European wildlifeand natural habitats, and the EU habitats and birdsdirectives—would already be in the scope of the OEP.Secondly, the OEP will be able to scrutinise our internationalenvironmental commitments where they are included inthe environmental improvement plan, for example ourcommitments to the UN convention on biological diversity.Finally, the Secretary of State may ask the OEP’s advicewhen fulfilling the duty, under clause 20, to report onsignificant developments in international environmentalprotection legislation.

I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that theOEP has already been given a role in holding theGovernment to account for our international environmentalcommitments. I therefore hope that he will withdrawthe amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I am not entirely sure that what theMinister has said this afternoon clarifies the matter tothe extent that we wanted in our amendment. However,I draw attention to the fact that when someone sayssomething in this Committee it goes on the record andcan be used subsequently for the purpose of clarifyingthe intentions behind a measure in the Bill. Nevertheless,the fact that the Minister has, by way of a not quitebang-on description of exactly what is happening at themoment, gone slightly further in his clarification ofwhat he thinks would be the responsibility of the OEPunder these circumstances, is, I think, good enough forme. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Amendment made: 30, in clause 26, page 15, line 33, atend insert—

“(2A) But the OEP must not monitor the implementation of,or report on, a matter within the remit of the Committee onClimate Change.

(2B) A matter is within the remit of the Committee on ClimateChange if it is a matter on which the Committee is, or may be,required to advise or report under Part 1, sections 34 to 36, orsection 48 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Leo Docherty.)

This amendment modifies the OEP’s duty to monitor, and power toreport on, the implementation of environmental law under clause 26. Itprovides that the OEP must not monitor or report on matters within theremit of the Committee on Climate Change, which is defined insubsection (2B) by reference to specified provisions of the ClimateChange Act 2008.


Clause 27

ADVISING ON CHANGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ETC

2.15 pm

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 4, inclause 27, page 16, line 16, leave out“may, if the Minister sees fit,”

and insert “must”.


[Dr Whitehead]

At first sight, this amendment looks as if it is justanother “may” and “must” amendment. I say “just”,but I think Members have got the message that this issomething we are concerned about throughout the Bill.The Bill is written in such a way that Ministers may doall sorts of things, but there are very few things thatthey must do. It would strengthen the Bill immensely ifthe “mays”were converted to “musts”. The hon. Memberfor Falmouth and—

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Gloucester.

Dr Whitehead: Sorry, Gloucester—it is in the westcountry, so that is okay. I hope our listeners in the westcountry will not be offended by that comment. As thehon. Member for Gloucester said earlier, there are aconsiderable number of circumstances where replacing“may” with “must” could do a very good job.

This is a particularly egregious version of that “may”or “must” dilemma. Clause 27(6) states:

“The Minister concerned may…lay before Parliament—

(a) the advice, and

(b) any response the Minister may make to the advice”—

that is, the advice on changes to environmental law andso on. I have deliberately left out a little bit of thatsubsection. Over and above “may”, it says,

“if the Minister thinks fit”.

The preceding subsection gives the OEP a responsibilityto publish advice on changes to environmental law,stating:

“The OEP must publish—

(a) its advice, and

(b) if the advice is given under subsection (1), a statementof the matter on which it was required to give adviceand any matters specified under subsection (2).”

The OEP has a duty to do that—it must publish theadvice.

When that advice gets to the Minister’s desk, theMinister may not feel like responding at all, and theMinister may justify the fact that he or she has notresponded at all by simply saying, “Well, I didn’t thinkfit to do it.” That phrase is capable of any interpretationwhatever. All the Minister has to do is say, “I didn’tbother to publish the advice or any response to itbecause I didn’t think fit to do so.” There is no objectivetest of that; the Minister can just decide that they donot want to do it, and that is the end of it. That is areally bad piece of drafting, and it ought to be removed.At the least, we want to see the word “may” replaced by“must”, but we also think that the additional anti-belt-and-braces device—“if the Minister thinks fit”—shouldbe removed from the clause.

Leo Docherty: The Bill provides the OEP with statutoryfunctions that enable it to provide advice on any proposedchanges to environmental law. It can also provide advice,at the request of a Minister, on any other matter relatingto the natural environment. The clause provides theMinister with a discretionary power to lay the OEP’sadvice and any response they wish to make to it beforeParliament. In this situation, it is entirely appropriate toprovide the Minister with that flexibility.

The provision of advice from the OEP to Governmentmay not simply be a single event but could be aniterative process. Given that the OEP will become anexpert body, Ministers may regularly ask it for advice,which may include specific technical questions on relativelyminor matters. Requiring the OEP’s advice to always belaid before Parliament may impede the interaction betweenthe OEP and Government. The Government should beable to seek advice from and respond to their publicbodies with ease. This approach is not new; the adviceprovided by the Committee on Climate Change undersections 33 to 35 of the Climate Change Act 2008 is notlaid before Parliament. Flexible, case-by-case provisionis needed here, and it would be inappropriate to convertthis power into an inflexible duty. The Committee shouldbe assured that, if the OEP’s advice is significant enoughfor Parliament to debate it, the Minister will lay itbefore Parliament so that it can be discussed.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Some of usOppositionMembersdonothaveexperienceof government,so we have to trust the way others work, but I find thisslightly extraordinary. It seems to me that if this is inlegislation, it is not a question of just picking up thephone and having a casual chat with people; it is aboutseeking advice. If the Minister is seeking advice, whyon earth should that not be available to Parliament?Parliament ought to be able to see what the Governmentare doing. That does not preclude the odd informalphone conversation.

Leo Docherty: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, butthe key word here is “flexibility”. It is important thatflexibility be retained in the relationship so that theGovernment can interact with the OEP and other publicbodies with ease. That is the important principle atstake here.

The OEP is required to act transparently, and anyadvice that it provides, either on its own initiativeor at the request of a Minister, must be published.Parliamentarians will be able to use the OEP’s publishedadvice to question the Government on action they havetaken in response to the OEP’s advice. I hope that haseased some of the concerns of the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test, and I courteously ask him to withdrawthe amendment.

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

The clause relates to advising on changes toenvironmental law, which it should absolutely be theprovince of Parliament to have a good look at. If theclause is simply about the relationship between the OEPand a Minister, and the Minister can, at his or herpleasure, decide whether something goes before Parliament,although it is true that Parliament can, in theory, quizthe OEP separately about what it is doing, that requiresall sorts of other devices to be put in place. The layingbefore Parliament of the advice and, most crucially, any


response the Minister may make to that advice, wouldmean that Parliament had a reasonably automatic routeto deciding what it wanted to do about those things.

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

Ruth Jones: The shadow Minister is making an importantpoint. The wording in the clause is“if the Minister thinks fit”.

Again, the power is now vested in one person, and weare back in a situation in which, if it is a good Tuesday,the Minister may do it; if it is a bad Tuesday, he maynot. This is where we need to take the subjectivity out.The objective advice that must be given by the OEP andpublished should then make its way naturally to Parliament,to ensure that it can be acted on.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sheemphasises that the proper relationship is between the OEP,the Minister and Parliament, not the OEP, the Ministerand maybe Parliament. That is what this issue is about.

This is not quite the same as other issues that thisCommittee has considered, which were about the extentto which the Government may be trying to withdraw orreduce the powers of the OEP. Nor, indeed, is it aquestion of a simple “may” or “must”, because it goesto the heart of the need for that three-part relationshipwhen it comes to changes to environmental law.

I am getting a little weary of pointing out theselacunae and various other things in the Bill. On thisoccasion, we do not want to divide the Committee, but Ihope that the Minister has heard what we say about therelationship between the Committee, Ministers andParliament, which it would be in the Government’s owninterest to clarify, because opaque processes can becomethe cause of quite unnecessary tussles, misunderstandingsand opposition. Simply making things open, transparentand clear will prevent those difficulties in most instances.If those difficulties can be compounded depending onwhether the Minister has a good or a bad Tuesday, asmy hon. Friend the Member for Newport West said, thechances of something happening that may not be to theadvantage of the Government are also then compounded.

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



Clause 28

FAILURE OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES TO COMPLY WITH

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 117, inclause 28, page 16, line 30, after “means a” insert—“Minister of the Crown, a government department and publicbody, including a local authority, or any”.

This amendment clarifies that Ministers, government departments andpublic bodies are public authorities in respect of all their functions.

The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discussamendment 191, in clause 28, page 16, line 39, at endinsert—

“(f) a Scottish local authority,

(g) a Scottish housing association, or

(h) a Scottish environmental regulator.”

This amendment seeks to increase the definition of ‘public authority’in relation to failures by public authorities to comply with environmentallaw.

Dr Whitehead: Amendment 117 seeks clarity aboutwhat a public authority is. Hon. Members will see fromperusing the amendment paper that it is not an actionamendment; it does not ask the Government to doanything differently. It amends that part of the Bill—apart found in all Bills—that defines words and terms inthe Bill. Although I cannot put my finger on it exactly, Ibelieve there is a definition of “public authority”elsewherein the Bill, but not in this clause.

2.30 pm

Amendment 117 would put a definition of “publicauthority” in this part of the Bill by inserting before

“a person carrying out any function of a public nature that is nota devolved function, a parliamentary function or a function ofany of the following persons”

the words

“a Minister of the Crown, a government department and publicbody including a local authority”;

those would be public authorities carrying out thatfunction. That would expand the definition in the Billto match what is said elsewhere in the Bill about what apublic authority consists of.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful for the opportunity tospeak in support of the amendment. We are well awarethat the terms “public authority” and “public body” areoften used interchangeably, which can lead to a lack ofclarity. We are concerned that “public authority” couldbe interpreted as meaning a smaller category of publicbodies. Public bodies are sometimes, for the avoidanceof doubt, explicitly listed in legislation as being encompassedby the term authority. For example, section 28G of theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981 clarifies that authoritiesinclude

“any other public body of any description.”

This clarification is helpful for those reading only part of theBill; it means that they do not need to read the whole Bill tounderstand a clause. It is important that we clarify what we meanby the term, so we welcome the amendment.

Leo Docherty: I thank hon. Members for theircontributions. I agree that it is of great importance thatthe OEP should be able to hold public authorities toaccount, and that all parties should have certaintyabout its remit. I assure hon. Members, however, thatthe provisions in the Bill are sufficient to ensure boththose things.

Regarding amendment 117, we have deliberately takena broad approach to defining a public authority as

“a person carrying out any function of a public nature”,

subject to a number of specific exclusions. The sameapproach is used in a number of other Acts, includingthe Human Rights Act 1998 and, more recently, the


[Leo Docherty]

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Itis, therefore, an approach with which the courts arefamiliar.

The existing definition already covers UK Ministersand Government Departments, local authorities, arm’slength bodies such as the Environment Agency, and allother bodies that carry out public functions. It is thereforeunnecessary to list specific types of public authority inthe Bill, as they are already captured. Furthermore, byincluding the term “public body” without defining itfurther, this amendment would introduce a lack ofclarity about who and what is covered by this particularnew element of the definition.

I reassure the hon. Member for Edinburgh Northand Leith that the Bill respects the devolution settlements,including the Scotland Act 1998. Scottish Ministers, theScottish Parliament and any person carrying out devolvedfunctions have been excluded from the remit of theOEP. The public authorities listed in amendment 191are, therefore, already excluded from the remit of theOEP, to the extent that they are carrying out devolvedfunctions, so it is not necessary to list them as excludedbodies for the purposes of clause 28. I support herintention of avoiding overlaps with the equivalent Scottishgovernance body, Environmental Standards Scotland.That is why we have appropriately sought to limit theOEP’s remit to reserved matters, while avoiding anydevolved matters that would appropriately be dealt withby that body.

In conclusion, I hope that Members are reassuredthat the definition is fit for purpose. It both avoidsoverlaps with bodies carrying out devolved functions,and ensures that the OEP has oversight over all relevantpublic authorities. As such, I politely ask the hon.Member for Southampton, Test, to withdraw theamendment.

Deidre Brock: I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’scomments. He has basically given me the same assuranceas he gave for amendment 190—that all the bodiescovered in the amendment are already covered by referencesto either “(d) a devolved legislature” or “(e) the ScottishMinisters”. I am happy with that assurance and will notpress amendment 191.

Dr Whitehead: Likewise, although we think it wouldbe a good idea to have the words in amendment 117 inthe Bill, we are a little reassured by what the Ministerhas said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Clause 29

COMPLAINTS

Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 192, inclause 29, page 17, line 5, leave out subsection (4).This amendment would allow public bodies to report the actions ofother public bodies where they are at fault.

The amendment has come about because it seems alittle strange to me that public bodies would be excludedfrom the reporting side of the system, particularly aspublic bodies might be reckoned to be rather more

likely to receive knowledge about breaches. If publicbodies should be held to account, why is it sensible forthem to not aid in holding other public bodies toaccount? Reports made by those carrying out publicfunctions are not likely to be less valid, or less based ontrue concern, so I do not feel they should be discounted.I am keen to hear the Minister’s response, because, as Isay, it seems a strange part of the Bill.

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Lady for tabling heramendment. It is of course important that the OEP beaware of potential breaches of environmental law, andthe power to receive complaints is an important elementof that. However, it would not be appropriate for onepublic authority to be able to submit a complaint to theOEP about another public authority; it would amountto one part of the government system complainingabout another. There are more appropriate ways forpublic authorities to resolve such disputes.

Public authorities are expected to work togetherconstructively to resolve any instances of alleged non-compliance. For example, the Government’s code ofgood practice is clear that Government Departmentsand arm’s length bodies should“develop constructive working relationships based on trust, respectand shared values.”

Furthermore, if a public authority has a specific rolein regulating other public authorities, mechanisms willalready be in place to enable the relevant bodies toenforce the relevant regimes. For example, when a localauthority applies to the Environment Agency for anenvironmental permit and is subject to permit conditions,the Environment Agency already has powers to take thenecessary enforcement action under existing legislationif the local authority fails to abide by the conditions.

There are also relevant precedents for our approach,which is broadly similar to that in the Local GovernmentAct 1974 in relation to what is now called the localgovernment and social care ombudsman. In that Act,public authorities are also excluded from submittingcomplaints to the ombudsman.

I note that a person who works for a public authoritywould still be able to submit a complaint in a personalcapacity, rather than on behalf of their organisation.As such, I hope that the hon. Member is reassured thatthe provision in clause 29(4) is appropriate, and ask herto withdraw the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I am not entirely convinced by theMinister’s response. My point about public bodies beingmore likely to hear of potential breaches from otherpublic bodies still stands, but I will reflect a little moreon what he has said. I will withdraw the amendment,but I might revisit it in future. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.



Clause 30

INVESTIGATIONS

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 5, inclause 30, page 18, line 6, leave out “may” and insert“must”Where the OEP carries out an investigation this amendment seeks toensure that it is made public.


This is another “may” and “must” amendment, whichdraws attention to an interesting passage of “mays” and“musts” in this clause that culminates in letting the OEPoff. Subsection (1) states:

“The OEP may carry out an investigation under this section ifit receives a complaint”

made under the previous section. Subsection (2) statesthat it

“may carry out an investigation under this section without havingreceived such a complaint if it has information that, in its view,indicates that…a public authority may have failed to comply withenvironmental law, and…if…the failure would be a serious failure.”

So it can carry out an investigation.

However, subsection (4) states:

“The OEP must notify the public authority of the commencementof the investigation.”

So there is a requirement and a duty on the OEP to tellthe public authority what it is doing about the investigation.Not only must it tell the public authority, but undersubsection (5) it must

“prepare a report on the investigation and provide it to the publicauthority.”

Then, subsection (8) states that the report should setout

“whether the OEP considers that the public authority has failedto comply with environmental law…the reasons the OEP came tothat conclusion, and…any recommendations the OEP may have”.

So there is quite a powerful set of instructions to theOEP as to what it may do when it carries out aninvestigation into a public authority and how it issupposed to prepare a report. It must set out the thingsthat I have just cited.

After all that, subsection (9) states:

“The OEP may publish the report or parts of it.”

Or it may not; it may keep it to itself and put it in acupboard. Having done all that, the OEP is not requiredto do anything about it. However, subsection (10) states:

“If the public authority is not a Minister of the Crown, theOEP must also…notify the…Minister of the commencement ofthe investigation, and…provide the relevant Minister with thereport prepared under subsection (5).”

So the OEP must provide the Minister with somethingif the public authority is not a Minister of the Crown,but it does not have to publish the report. It is not clearwhether the Minister has to do anything if the OEPdoes not, although the OEP, instead of leaving thereport in the cupboard, might send it across the Minister’sdesk.

We therefore have a circularity that ends in a deadend, if it is possible to conceive of such a thing. Thatconcerns me, because if I were the interim chair of theOEP and I was not completely au fait with everythingthat it ought to do or not do, I would take that passageto mean that the OEP does not actually have to do verymuch. I do not think that is good enough; the OEPshould be bound by what it is required to do in the caseof these investigations.

2.45 pm

Ruth Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Billcannot make up its mind whether the OEP is a strongbody that stands for environmental rights or a puppy ofthe Government?

Dr Whitehead: That is an interesting point. Thisclause does not appear to be able to decide whether theOEP should or should not do something. Having saidthat it should be a strong, independent body, to theextent that the Government are thinking about how theword “independent” may be interpreted, the Bill seemsto let it perform less than its best, in terms of what thatindependence might consist of.

Richard Graham: We have seen today a number offurther insinuations that the Office for EnvironmentalProtection will be less than satisfactorily independent.This is the first time that such an office has been createdin this country—it is a unique historical moment—andall the evidence we have heard so far clearly suggeststhat it is up to the OEP to define a large amount of itsrole and that the Government are giving it the opportunityto do so. Surely we should accept that this will be a greatstep forward and stop undermining it.

Dr Whitehead: It is not a question of underminingthe integrity of the OEP at all. As the hon. Gentlemansays, it does not exist yet, although bits of it are graduallycoming into existence and may materialise in corporealform in due course. It is therefore not easy to say thatanyone in this room is undermining its performanceand actions. We are talking about whether the frameworkwithin which it functions will work well or not. It isincumbent on us to ensure that, as the OEP comes intoexistence, the framework is as good as it can be and thatthe lines of its relationship with Parliament and Ministersare as clear as they should be. We are not underminingwhat the OEP will do; we are trying to support it byclarifying, before it is under way, what the boundariesare, how they work and who is expected to do what.That is not clear in this passage of the Bill.

Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): Icompletely support the OEP’s independence, but I amconfused. At the moment, the OEP can decide whetherit publishes a report, but the hon. Gentleman’s amendmentproposes that it must publish a report, which presumablyreduces rather than increases its independence of action.When it does a report, it might decide that there arecertain things that it does not want to publish forcertain reasons—we do not know, because we cannotpre-empt it. The hon. Gentleman is saying that it has todo something, which surely reduces its independence.

Dr Whitehead: With respect, independence has nothingto do with an authority not doing what it should do orjust deciding that it cannot be bothered to do somethingor other. That is not independence, but sloth. We wouldexpect the framework for an independent body to supportits independence by giving it a framework within whichto work that makes sure it can work as well as itshould—by determining on what lines the expectationsabout what it does should be determined, and, indeed,how the public will see that independence in action. Oursuggestions would not downgrade or undermine theindependence of the OEP. On the contrary, they wouldhelp it to act in the best possible way as an independentbody.

Anthony Browne: There are many reasons why anorganisation such as the OEP might not want to publisha report, other than sloth. As a former journalist, I amall in favour of openness—I think everything should be


[Anthony Browne]

as open as possible—but there might be reasons forwanting a private, or non-public, investigation, and theamendment would remove the ability to decide to carryout a private investigation. It would curtail the OEP’scourse of action and reduce its independence. I thinkeverything should be public, but I can certainly see thatthere are scenarios where the OEP might decide to dosomething that it did not want put in the public domain.The Opposition would remove that course of action.

Dr Whitehead: There are a number of existing laws,protocols and arrangements for all public bodies thatgive them, in certain circumstances, discretion not to docertain things, such as in relation to national security orthe revelation of individual contracts—there are allsorts of things of that kind. Guidelines already allowthat discretion.

I do not think that the idea that a Departmentshould, under normal circumstances, publish reports toelucidate matters for the public, where those existingareas of discretion in the law do not apply, is in any wayundermined. That is part of the process by which weexpress our confidence in that public body in the firstplace as a body that operates transparently and inconcert with the Minister and Parliament to get therelevant matters out on the table and discussed and thatcan demonstrate that it is doing that. That is a perfectlyappropriate way to ensure that the public and indeedthis place are confident about its independent operation.I am not, therefore, sure that the point made by the hon.Member for South Cambridgeshire, well-intentioned asI think it was, has a great deal of substance in relationto the clause.

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscontribution and agree that it is extremely importantthat the OEP should operate as transparently as possible.However, it is also important that it should be allowedthe discretion it needs to operate effectively.

Investigation reports prepared under the clause willplay an important role in ensuring that the OEP’senforcement activities are transparent and in enablingpublic authorities to learn from its recommendations.We expect that, in the majority of cases, the OEP wouldchoose to publish its report. However, it is importantthat it should have the discretion to choose whether thatis appropriate. Some investigations may involve mattersof significant sensitivity or confidentiality. For instance,the OEP may investigate a complaint that has beenmotivated by bad faith or factually incorrect information.There may be no public interest in its widely publishinga report containing entirely groundless allegations.

The OEP should be able to decide whether it is in thepublic interest to publish a report, and to determinewhether any other restrictions on the publication ofinformation need to be taken into account. It is ofcourse required by clause 22(2)(b) to have regard to theneed to act transparently. It will need to exercise itsdiscretion concerning publication in line with that duty.Also, clause 38 already requires it to publish a statementat key stages in the enforcement process, to ensure thatit is as transparent as possible. Furthermore, anyinformation that the OEP does not proactively publishor report will still be subject to requests for disclosureunder the relevant legislation.

The clauses therefore strike the right balance andmake clear provision to ensure that the OEP acts astransparently as possible. Although I acknowledge thepositive intent behind it, the amendment is unnecessaryand could hinder the OEP’s ability to make decisions inthe public interest. It could also lead to the unnecessarypublication of baseless allegations. On those grounds, Iask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I regret to say that I have not yet beenelevated to that position.

Leo Docherty: It is only a matter of time.

Dr Whitehead: Something that we have been trying topoint out fairly consistently as we have gone throughthe Bill is the use of “may” and “must”, and we willcome shortly to another one of those areas in a moment.I do not intend to push for a Division. I just want to say,as I have done when debating previous clauses, that ourconcern about this issue has some substance. It wouldbe a good idea to reflect on how we want the OEP to beset up and to operate. We should consider whether thereare other ways to ensure that the OEP is established as abusy and transparent advocate of its area, and whetherwe can find other methods of doing that, other thanthrough this part of the Bill. I am sure the Minister willwant to think about that over the next period. I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.




Clause 32

INFORMATION NOTICES

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 6, inclause 32, page 18, line 40, leave out “may” and insert“must”.

Where the OEP has reasonable grounds for suspecting a serious breakof environmental law, this amendment seeks to ensure that aninformation notice is given.

Earlier, I was going to stand up and say that we mighthave tabled an amendment that was a “must” too far,and that was because, in clause 32(1), we suggest thatthe OEP must, rather than may, give an informationnotice to a public authority. As I have pointed outpreviously, there are circumstances in which “may” is aperfectly appropriate term to put in a Bill, and it maywell be thought at first sight that this is one suchoccasion.

However, we will come shortly to a debate—it probablywill not be much of a debate, because we have coveredthe area before—about the fact that the Governmentare seeking to amend subsection (2)(a) by clarifyingthat an information notice

“explains why the OEP considers that the alleged failure, if itoccurred, would be serious”.

In this clause, the inclusion of the word “serious” haselevated the import of whether the OEP gives aninformation notice to a public authority. If the Governmentare including a provision that says the failure to complyhas to be serious in order for an information notice to


be given, surely the word “must” ought to apply. That iswhat the Government have done with their amendment:they have put the seriousness of the public authority’salleged failure, as judged by the OEP, into the “must”category rather than the “may” category. Under thosecircumstances, it would look pretty odd if the OEP didnot give an information notice. It might be a good idea,therefore, in line with the amendment—not that Iparticularly agree with the amendment itself, assumingwe make it—to place in the Bill the requirement for theOEP to give an information notice to a public authorityunder those circumstances.

3 pm

Leo Docherty: I understand the hon. Gentleman’sdesire to ensure that all failures are addressed by theOEP. However, the amendment may in fact limit theOEP’s ability to resolve failures quickly and efficiently.

The OEP’s enforcement function has been designedas a framework. An escalating series of measures isavailable for it to use to resolve failures as quickly aspossible in the interests of people and the environment.The investigation phase is an important part of thatframework and we expect that, in many cases, thatprocess will quickly resolve any issues without the needfor enforcement action.

Where an issue has been resolved by a public authorityat the investigation stage, there will be no need for aninformation notice, and a requirement to issue onewould serve no purpose. It would also waste the OEP’sresources by prolonging cases that it would otherwiseprefer to have closed following its initial investigation.

We consider it appropriate that the OEP, as anindependent body, has the discretion to target andprioritise its enforcement activities in line with its ownenforcement policy. We have provided for that in clause 22.The amendment would be inconsistent with thoseprovisions.

Finally, it is important that the OEP does not duplicatethe work of any existing bodies or regulators. By removingits discretion concerning when to issue an informationnotice, the amendment may mean that it is required totake enforcement action where another authority maybe better placed to do so, which could lead to overlappingenforcement activity. Placing it under a duty to serveinformation notices in all cases is inconsistent with itsrequirement to respect the integrity of other statutoryregimes in clause 22 and is clearly not in the interests ofany party or the environment.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that theOEP’s enforcement framework is designed to bringabout compliance as quickly as possible, and that allowingit the discretion to target enforcement activities will befundamental to its success. I therefore ask him to withdrawthe amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I wonder whether the Minister’s speakingnote was written before the Government tabled the nextamendment that we will debate, because his reply is onethat I might well have given before that amendment wasintroduced. The Government amendment counters quitea lot of what he said, so I would like him to considerwhether that is indeed the case, and whether he completelystands by what he said in the light of amendment 205.

We may want to discuss that when we get toamendment 205, and it might be a good idea, althoughI do not intend to pursue the other word of the day,“serious”, with regard to that amendment. The combinationof the two issues—“must” and “may”, and “serious”—isinteresting, and that is what we have in this clause. I donot wish to press amendment 6 to a Division, but I hopethat the Minister reflects on that conjunction. I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Leo Docherty: I beg to move amendment 205, inclause 32, page 19, line 2, at end insert—

“(aa) explains why the OEP considers that the allegedfailure, if it occurred, would be serious, and”.

Under clause 32 the OEP may give a public authority an informationnotice if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that the authority hasfailed to comply with environmental law, and it considers that thefailure, if it occurred, would be serious. This amendment requires theinformation notice to explain why the OEP considers that the allegedfailure, if it occurred, would be serious.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendment 206.

Leo Docherty: Amendment 205 is a technical amendmentthat serves to clarify that an information notice issuedby the OEP must explain why the OEP considers thatthe alleged failure would be serious. Together withthe corresponding change proposed in Governmentamendment 206 to clause 33, concerning decision notices,it will ensure that all the OEP’s notices are clear andtransparent, and it will provide clarity for all parties inthe process.

Given the requirement that the OEP may issue aninformation or decision notice only if it considers that thealleged failure would be, or is, serious, it is entirely rightand in the interests of good administration that noticesshould explain the OEP’s reasons for considering that tobe the case. The OEP’s enforcement framework is designedto ensure that the OEP prioritises action in the mostserious cases, adopting a strategic approach to enforcementaction, and these amendments reinforce that.

Dr Whitehead: Yet again, we may be defending theBill from its detractors, who happen, on this occasion,to be in the Government. The traffic is not always oneway. The substantial problem of the inclusion of theword “serious” continues in the two amendments. Wedo not want to go over the full discussion of the word“serious” and what it does and does not do, because wehave already had quite a good go at it. The hon.Member for Gloucester is not in his place, so we mightbe able to skip over that reasonably rapidly.

The amendments continue the problem of definingwhat is serious, how the OEP works on that basis, andthe extent to which someone from outside the OEP isrequired to tell it what is or is not serious. I ask theMinister to reflect on what the addition of the amendmentswould say, as far as the OEP is concerned. I wasinterested in his statement a little earlier that the OEP“must” decide whether something is serious in order totake action—in this instance, to give an informationnotice. If the OEP must decide whether something isserious, it must also be enjoined to provide an informationnotice when it has decided that something is serious.


[Dr Whitehead]

Therefore, as we have said, the two go together. TheMinister sort of underlined that case in his statementon what the OEP must do in respect of the Governmentamendments. Again, we do not intend to press thematter to a vote, but I underline what we have saidabout the question of seriousness and the conjoining ofthe two. It is a bit like putting two fireworks in a box,with all the consequences that that might entail. I hopethe Minister will reflect on that, and on whether he hasany thought of making drafting amendments to theBill, perhaps on Report, to make its purpose a littleclearer.



Clause 33

DECISION NOTICES

Amendment made: 206, in clause 33, page 19, line 36,at end insert—

“(aa) explains why the OEP considers that the failure isserious, and” —(Leo Docherty.)

Under clause 33 the OEP may give a public authority a decision noticeif it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the authority hasfailed to comply with environmental law, and it considers that thefailure is serious. This amendment requires the decision notice toexplain why the OEP considers that the failure is serious.


“(2A) A decision notice may also direct the public authority torectify the failure to comply with environmental law.

(2B) A public authority must comply with a direction undersubsection (2A).”

This amendment allows the OEP to require a public authority toremedy a failure to comply with environmental law.

I am sure the Committee will be delighted that thisprovision does not involve the words “serious”, “must”or “may”, or anything like them. What it does involve isa suggestion by the Opposition that the OEP should begiven additional powers on decision notices to direct apublic authority about which a decision notice has beenmade. When discussing the previous clause, we haveseen that the OEP must consider seriousness in theinformation notices. When it comes decision notices,the same applies. A decision notice “may” follow froman information notice, and the definition of the decisionnotice in 33(2) states that it

“describes a failure of a public authority to comply with environmentallaw, and

(b) sets out the steps the OEP considers the authority shouldtake in relation to the failure”.

However, it does not say anything about what the publicauthority ought to do to rectify that failure and complywith environmental law. The OEP has a pretty strongrequirement to go through information notices anddecision notices, but it steps back at that point; it hasissued its decision notice, and that is the end of it.

Our amendment takes that process a stage further bysuggesting that the OEP should also have the power ofdirection: a power to require the public authority torectify its failure to comply with environmental law,

which the OEP has identified through the informationnotice and the decision notice. The amendment alsostates, in order to make it clear, that the public authority“must comply” with the direction that the OEP hasmade. The amendment would therefore give the OEP asubstantial new power—one that is absolutely consistentwith the strength of action it is required to take in theroute between information notices and decision notices.That would be a wholly good thing as far as goodgovernance by the OEP is concerned. It would be aclear note of understanding that if a public authoritydoes come by a decision notice from the OEP, it shouldexpect that there will be consequences. The OEP wouldbe empowered to provide those consequences and ensurethat compliance with the subject of a decision noticecould be followed up.

3.15 pm

Ruth Jones: I rise in speak in favour of the amendment.My hon. Friend has made an eloquent point about thesteps so far. We seem to be teetering on a cliff edge. Wehave got as far as accepting that there is an issue, theproblem has been highlighted and solutions have evenbeen suggested, but the wording of the clause does notgive us an actual solution. The public authority mustrectify the failure, but that is not enshrined in law. We allknow that if we want something to be done, it must beenshrined in law. “Put it in the Bill,” is our usual cry.

Some of us—those who have worked in health, forinstance—well remember that Crown immunity used tobe given to NHS buildings. Problems and solutionswere identified, but there was never any enforcementbecause of Crown immunity. I am sure that the Governmentdo not want that to happen with such an important Bill,and that is why we have tabled the amendment.

Leo Docherty: It is, of course, important that theOEP’s enforcement framework is robust. However, wedo not consider that binding notices would be an effectiveor appropriate means of achieving that. Decision noticesare an important part of the OEP’s enforcement framework.They allow the OEP to set out the nature of a failureand recommend the remedial steps that a public authorityshould take in response. If the public authority choosesnot to follow the recommended remedial steps—forexample, because it believes that it is correctly applyingthe law for which it is responsible—the OEP can referthe matter for an environmental review. We would expectthe OEP’s decision notice to form part of its evidencesubmission in an environmental review, and for thisevidence to be given appropriate consideration as theview of an independent body. This will be the mosteffective way for the OEP to address cases of non-compliance.

Furthermore, the provision for binding notices throughthis amendment would be inappropriate for three keyreasons. First, if the amendment were accepted, theOEP would effectively be able to superimpose its owndecisions in place of those made by the relevant authoritiesappointed or elected for this purpose. Secondly, currentprotections for third party rights in the environmentalreview process would be lost. That could be damagingfor businesses and cause extremely unhelpful uncertainty.Thirdly, without provision for an appeals mechanism,the public authority would have no right to challengethe OEP’s judgments, other than making an application


for judicial review. The enforcement framework set outin the Bill will ensure that cases are resolved as quicklyas possible, with powers to overturn decisions restingwith the courts, as is appropriate. I therefore ask theshadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for that response.Our suggestion that the OEP ought to have a moreserious power has to some extent been answered withreassurance by the Minister. However, I am unsurewhether the Minister ought not to consider, for futurereference, not necessarily the exact wording of thisamendment, but the merit of giving the OEP whatmight be described as shots in the locker. Perhaps thatcould be done entirely as the Minister has described, orperhaps other provisions need to be added, althoughnot necessarily this one. The process needs some thought,and I hope that the Minister will give it some thought aswe move towards the introduction of the OEP. I willtherefore not pursue the amendment, in the confidentthought that the Minister will give the matter someconsideration for the future. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.




Clause 35

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Leo Docherty: I beg to move amendment 207, inclause 35, page 20, line 40, leave out “Upper Tribunal”and insert “court”.This amendment replaces a reference to the Upper Tribunal with areference to the court, which means either the High Court or the Courtof Session. Similar changes are made by Amendments 210, 211, 212,214 and 216.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment amendments 210 to 216.

Leo Docherty: This group of amendments will movethe environmental review process from the upper tribunalto the High Court. Having reflected further on howthat process will fit within the wider landscape ofenvironmental mitigation, we have identified a risk thathearing environmental reviews in the upper tribunalcould introduce unnecessary complexity and, potentially,inconsistency. This change is therefore intended to creategreater coherence, clarity and consistency and is in theinterests of good administration. First, the change willensure that all the OEP’s legal proceedings are heard ina single forum, the High Court, regardless of whetherthey are brought as an environmental review followingnormal enforcement procedure or as an urgent judicialreview.

Secondly, the change will ensure that all alleged breachesof environmental law are heard in the same forum,regardless of who has brought claims. For example,wider environmental judicial reviews brought by non-governmental organisations are heard in the High Courtand environmental reviews brought by the OEP willnow come to the same forum. That should help topromote a consistent approach towards the interpretationand application of environmental law. It is important tonote that this change of legal forum does not in any way

affect the legal test or principles that will be applied inan environmental review, and nor does it affect theOEP’s access to legal remedies as such.

Dr Whitehead: This is a substantial group of amendmentsthat all have the same effect—to transfer proceedings ina variety of different areas from the upper tribunal tothe High Court.

I am—mercifully, it might be said—not a member ofthe legal profession, and one of the few Members ofParliament who is not, but I am somewhat puzzledabout how this provision happened as an amendment inearlier proceedings of the Bill. When the Bill went offfor pre-legislative scrutiny by the Select Committee onEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, that Committeegave some recommendations and thoughts on the questionof the upper tribunal and, indeed, of the High Court,judicial review and environmental review.

At that point, the Government’s response to theEFRA Committee and its pre-legislative scrutiny reportwas as follows. Noting the Committee’s recommendation,the Government stated that“we have made provision for a new environmental review mechanismin the Upper Tribunal for the OEP to bring legal challenges”—

that is, the Government made such provision. I emphasisethis next sentence:

“The approach will have a number of benefits compared tothat of a traditional judicial review in the High Court. In particular,taking cases to the Upper Tribunal is expected to facilitate greateruse of specialist environmental expertise.”

At the point of pre-legislative scrutiny—this is how theBill stood, before we all disappeared for a while—theGovernment appeared to be not only in favour oftaking cases to the upper tribunal, but advocating thatbecause they expected it would“facilitate greater use of specialist environmental expertise.”

Although the Bill was not in front of us for a time,nothing has happened in the legal world, as far as Iknow, to cause that judgment to be reversed. No newlegislation or proceedings are in place; all is as it was.

The Government had judged that the upper tribunalapproach was perfectly okay, so it is unclear why fairlystrong support for continuation of the clearer uppertribunal route with an environmental review has beenso comprehensively replaced with reference, under thejudicial review mechanism, to the High Court. Perhapsduring lockdown some people had too much time ontheir hands—they were not getting out enough orwhatever—and thought they would tinker around withthe provision.

People who understand these matters better than I dohave suggested that that could undermine the holisticapproach we might expect the OEP to take, which couldhave been supported in the upper tribunal. That is due,among other things, to how a tribunal has a less adversarialapproach than the High Court, and the lowering ofprocedural requirements between the similar but different-in-name processes of environment review and judicialreview could create confusion for court users andpractitioners. There are a number of cons to the change—that may be what the Government thought when theyresponded to the EFRA Committee with a robust viewthat the upper tribunal would give

“greater use of specialist environmental expertise”

in determining, in a non-adversarial way, how suchmatters should progress.


Ruth Jones: My hon. Friend is making an excellentpoint. Does he agree that, as various NGOs have alsosaid, without an upper tribunal, the lack of expertise inthe High Court could be a problem when determiningsuch scientific, delicate and detailed matters?

Dr Whitehead: Indeed, my hon. Friend makes thepoint about specialist environmental expertise in a farbetter way than the Government did to the EFRACommittee. Among other things, the upper tribunal isnot adversarial; it is, in effect, inquisitorial, allowingsuch expertise to come to grips with an issue in anatmosphere conducive to shining light on it, rather thanthe knock-down, drag-out fight between two sides ofthe High Court. The Government would be well advisedto listen to her point carefully.

3.30 pm

Again, this is not an issue on which we wish to dividethe Committee, but we put a big question mark overwhy this decision has been made, which appears to gocompletely against the Government’s previous position,and whether the advantages that the Government thinkthis change in procedure will have are not outweighedby the disadvantages that a number of people haveraised, including my hon. Friend the Member for NewportWest.

I suggest again that it would be good if the Governmentconsulted further before deciding that this is how theBill will be shaped. They need to reflect on whetherthere are a greater number of considerations against thechange than for it and whether they are happy that,after passing through all stages in this House and theother place, the Bill will emerge in its final state withthis provision intact.


Amendment made: 208, in clause 35, page 20, line 40, atend insert

‘, but only if—

(a) it is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that theauthority has failed to comply with environmentallaw, and

(b) it considers that the failure is serious.’—(LeoDocherty.)

This amendment provides that the OEP may only bring anenvironmental review against a public authority if it is satisfied on thebalance of probabilities that the authority has failed to comply withenvironmental law, and it considers the failure is serious. This aligns theconditions for bringing an environmental review with the conditions forgiving a decision notice.


‘(1A) Where the OEP has given a decision notice to a publicauthority but has not applied for an environmental review, anyperson with sufficient interest may apply for an environmentalreview.’

This amendment allows any person to apply for an environmentalreview where the OEP decides not to.


‘(4A) A person who has made a complaint under section 29may intervene in an environmental review which relates to thatcomplaint or an issue which the Upper Tribunal considers isrelated to the issue in that complaint.

(4B) Any person with sufficient interest may make anapplication to the Upper Tribunal to intervene in anenvironmental review.

(4C) The Upper Tribunal may not order an intervener to paythe costs of any relevant party to the proceedings in connectionwith the proceedings.

(4D) The Upper Tribunal may not order a relevant party tothe proceedings to pay the intervener’s costs in connection withthe proceedings.’

This amendment allows relevant people to intervene in environmentalreviews and any other person to apply to intervene in environmentalreviews. It also makes provision about payment of costs of proceedings.

Dr Whitehead: These two amendments are reallyimportant for completing the process of environmentalreview and the way in which an environmental reviewmay come about and be discharged through the OEPand beyond. As we have seen, there are circumstances inwhich the OEP may decide that something has occurredthat causes it to take action through notices and variousother things but not to pursue an environmental reviewin its entirety.

These amendments attempt to enable the public—individuals with a sufficient interest in a particulardecision notice or environmental review—to act in instanceswhere the OEP decides that it is not going to. It is not anability for every member of the public to take vexatiouslegal action on an environmental review. The amendmentsspecifically state that this pertains to

“any person with sufficient interest”

in the proceedings. We envisage that to be people whohave been reasonably closely involved in proceedingsand are concerned that action has not been taken on adecision notice or environmental review. They wouldthen be able to take that up by applying for anenvironmental review outside the mechanism of theOEP.

At the moment, if the OEP decides that it does notwant to take any action, there is very little recourse forthose people who have been involved in a particularprocess to do anything further. The amendment seeksto enable a person with sufficient interest to make anapplication, in this instance, to the upper tribunal tointervene, and to protect that person from paying thecosts of any relevant proceedings, where they are aparty with sufficient interest that feels that the processesthrough the OEP have not sufficiently enabled theirrights and their considerations to be properly looked at.

Amendment 123 establishes:

“Where the OEP has given a decision notice to a publicauthority but has not applied for an environmental review, anyperson with sufficient interest may apply for an environmentalreview.”

Amendment 124 sets out the way in which that personmay intervene and the protection that that person mayhave in terms of costs when they seek to intervene. Thatdoes not mean that they automatically get their way; itis a method by which the general public can be rathermore assured that their views are not completely buriedin these sorts of processes and that there is a route toredress outside the official structures, if they considerthat the official structures have not undertaken whatthey might reasonably have expected to happen in theenvironmental review.


Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Member for theamendments. The Government agree that it is importantfor the general public and interested parties to be able tochallenge alleged breaches of environmental law, whichis why we are ensuring that anybody can make a complaintto the OEP, free of charge, about a public authority’salleged failure to comply with environmental law, whichis in addition to existing rights to bring judicial review.

The environmental review is an innovative,bespoke litigation procedure and the final stage in theOEP’s enforcement process. The OEP will only bringenvironmental review in serious cases, having first conducteda number of thorough pre-litigation steps with the aimof resolving the breach. We do not consider it appropriatefor another party to be able to take over at this point, asproposed in amendment 123. The OEP’s decision not toapply for an environmental review will be a consideredone and could be taken for a number of reasons.

First, following the decision notice, the public authoritymay have acknowledged the breach and be taking remedialmeasures to rectify it, or the response to the decisionnotice could demonstrate to the OEP’s satisfaction thatthere is in fact no breach. Secondly, any decision not tobring legal action will be informed by the OEP’s specialistexpertise and the information it has gathered in itsinvestigation. Furthermore, the OEP’s enforcementframework has been designed in order to motivatepublic authorities to engage in constructive dialogueand problem solving. If there is a threat of legal actionby a third party, regardless of actions taken to resolveissues during the investigation stage, that underminesmuch of the incentive for public authorities to workwith the OEP.

On amendment 124, we recognise that people willhave an interest in cases brought to environmentalreview by the OEP and may wish to intervene in suchcases. However, we also recognise that that might notalways be appropriate. There is a well-established procedurefor determining who may intervene in legal proceedings.As such, it would be inappropriate to override thatprocedure by specifying such matters in the Bill.Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Member that we havealready started to examine the existing procedural rulesto see where changes may be necessary. I therefore askhim to withdraw amendments 123 and 124.

Dr Whitehead: We do not intend to press this to aDivision if we are satisfied that the public are fullyprotected in terms of how this works overall. TheMinister has to some extent, by pointing out the mechanismfor judicial review, started to build ground for thepossibility that there are other mechanisms for publicintervention. I welcome the fact that he indicated thatthere should be public involvement, if necessary, beyondthe involvement of public bodies where appropriate, butI do not think he has made the case—in terms of aspecifically environmental review, which, as he said, is arelatively new process—that the public’s ability underjudicial review to intervene can be wholly applied toenvironmental review in the way that the Bill mightintend.

Our amendments try to tie the public—a “personwith sufficient interest”—to that environmental reviewspecifically. I am afraid, therefore, that we need to puton record that this is an important right that the publicshould have and that it is not fully recognised in the Bill.

We would like to see it recognised, and therefore I thinkwe ought to apply for a Division on amendment 123this afternoon.



Division No. 14]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Moore, Robbie


Amendment proposed: 209, in clause 35, page 21, line 1,leave out paragraph (b). —(Leo Docherty.)

The OEP may only bring an environmental review after it has given adecision notice. This amendment removes the OEP’s power to bring anenvironmental review in relation to conduct occurring after a decisionnotice is given, which is similar or related to the conduct described inthe decision notice.



Division No. 15]

AYES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Moore, Robbie

NOES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan



3.45 pm


“(2A) The purpose of an environmental review is to promotethe integrity of environmental law and the achievement ofenvironmental improvement in accordance with the law.

(2B) When considering an environmental review, the Tribunalmay review any finding of fact on which the decision in questionwas based and, where relevant, whether the achievement ofenvironmental improvement required, had been achieved.”.

This amendment clarifies the purpose of environmental review andprovides that the Tribunal may review findings of fact during a review.


“(4A) In the case of an environmental review, the UpperTribunal shall treat notices issued by the OEP as authoritative inrespect of any relevant issues.”.

The amendment ensures that OEP notices will be treated as authoritativein any related environmental review, helping to ensure that the noticesplay a meaningful role in any subsequent enforcement action.


Dr Whitehead: Amendments 119 and 120 are connected.They seek to provide in the Bill a definition of thepurpose of an environmental review. We think that willstrengthen environmental reviews as set out in the Bill.Amendment 119 sets out that their purpose is to

“promote the integrity of environmental law and the achievementof environmental improvement in accordance with the law.”

That is a fairly clear definition. It would allow a tribunal—inthis case, the High Court—to review any findings offact on which the decision in question is based, andindeed whether environmental improvement, as definedin the first part of the amendment, has actually beenachieved. This would give powerful additional clarity aboutthe environmental review, and we offer the amendmentto the Government as a good addition to the Bill.

If the definition in amendment 119 is put in place,amendment 120 would enable the upper tribunal totreat notices issued by the OEP as authoritative inrespect of any relevant issues. The link between thedefinition of environmental law, what the tribunal maydo so far as facts are concerned and how those noticesshould be treated by the OEP would be a substantialaddition to the Bill, ensuring that environmental reviewsare as strong as they can be. I anticipate that theMinister might not think that such a great idea, but Ioffer it, for what it is worth, and hope that even if theMinister does not decide on this occasion that it shouldgo straight into the Bill, he may go away and reflect onit and consider whether, during the passage of the Bill,something like this may be an appropriate strengtheningof it, making it more robust as it makes its way out intothe world following our deliberations.

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Member for hiscontribution on this matter. First, I reassure him thatthe court may already review relevant facts or evidencein coming to its judgments. I fully expect that the courtwill give the OEP’s decision notices appropriate weightas part of any environmental review, and that its judgmentswill contribute to the integrity of environmental law.

While I support the hon. Member’s desire to seeenvironmental improvements delivered by the Bill, I amconcerned that amendment 119 would potentially blurthe well established separation of powers betweenGovernment and the courts. We all support the objectiveof achieving environmental improvement, but that is apolicy objective for the Government to deliver. It wouldbe highly unusual and inappropriate to give the courtsresponsibility for delivering a policy objective other thanthe service of justice. Moreover, this could also lead tosecondary legal challenges examining whether theenvironmental review had achieved its supposed purpose.

Both amendments also risk tilting the balance of thecourt’s judgments in such a way as to favour the OEP’scase in environmental reviews. It would be unheard ofto impinge on the impartial role of the court in carefullybalancing all the evidence before it and reaching a fairand reasonable judgment. That could be prejudicial tothe public authority concerned. Clearly, therefore, it isbetter to allow the court to continue to operate in a fairand balanced way, giving all parties confidence thatthey will be given a fair hearing, which is necessary toensure that judgments are objective, impartial and canwidely and positively influence environmental caselaw. I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdrawthe amendments.

Dr Whitehead: I did not expect the Government to beover-enthusiastic about this idea, and indeed, they havedemonstrated that they are not. They have indicatedthat they have concerns about the difficulties that thisparticular formulation might cause, but, as I have saidon previous occasions, I think that the principle isprobably about right, and it would be helpful for theBill if the Government thought on it. I beg to ask leaveto withdraw the amendment.


Amendments made: 210, in clause 35, page 21, line 15,leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “court”.

211, in clause 35, page 21, line 18, leave out “UpperTribunal” and insert “court”.

212, in clause 35, page 21, line 23, leave out “UpperTribunal” and insert “court”.

213, in clause 35, page 21, line 24, leave out “thecourt” and insert “it”.—(Leo Docherty.)

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 121, inclause 35, page 21, line 24, leave out from “review” toend of line 28.This amendment allows the Upper Tribunal to grant any remedy itthinks fit.



“(8A) Where the Upper Tribunal makes a statement ofnon-compliance, it may issue ongoing financial penalties where itdeems these to be necessary.”

The amendment would clarify that the Tribunal has the power to issuesfines in instances of non-compliance.


“(8A) Where the Upper Tribunal makes a statement ofnon-compliance it may impose a remediation requirement totake such steps as it may specify, within such period as it mayspecify, to secure that the net environmental position is restoredto what it would have been if the offence had not beencommitted.”

The amendment would give the Tribunal the power to require a publicauthority to make amends for environmental harm resulting from abreach of the law.

Dr Whitehead: I hope that, after that plethora ofvotes, everyone knows where we have got to. I think andhope that I know, but we shall see whether I am speakingto the right amendment.

Amendment 121 would give the OEP’s relationshipwith the upper tribunal—in this case, the court—agreater amount of leeway over a remedy that could begranted by the court on judicial review. Clause 35(8)states that the upper tribunal—here it is the High Court—“may grant any remedy that could be granted by the court on ajudicial review other than

damages, but only if satisfied that granting the remedy wouldnot—

(a) be likely to cause substantial hardship”,

and so on. The amendment would delete the secondpart of subsection (8), thereby enabling a remedy tobe granted without that caveat on its operation. Wethink that would strengthen the proceedings. Similarly,amendment 80 would allow the upper tribunal to issuefinancial penalties where it thinks fit.


Amendment 184—this is important; I am particularlyconcerned about it—would allow remediation requirements,so that the net environmental position would be returnedto where it was before the action took place. Oneimportant principle regarding environmental damageand various other activities is that such damage shouldnot go unnoticed or be left by the wayside, and thosewho cause it should be required to put things back totheir original state. If bodies undertake planning activitythat causes environmental disturbance, they shouldbe required to put something else in place or remedy thedamage. The amendment would allow remediationrequirements to be introduced, so that the offendingbody would be required to put the issue right. Thatimportant principle ought to be in the Bill.

Ruth Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that althoughfinancial penalties are important, remediation is evenmore important? For instance, where trees with treepreservation orders have been cut down, contractorshave decided to take the fine on the chin, while notdoing anything about the trees. The remediation aspectis so important.

Dr Whitehead: Once again my hon. Friend hits thenail on the head. In many cases a contractor, or someonewho has decided to undertake an action, may make acold calculation about what they can achieve by cuttingdown a row of trees, or sawing branches off a tree, orwhatever. Although they might face financial consequences,the net result could be to their advantage, so they willtake that on the chin. However, the tree is gone, and theother things have not been remedied. The idea of havinga remediation clause that a person who is thinking ofdoing something must take into account before they doit is an important step forward. As my hon. Friend says,that remediation requirement should be in the Bill and apower of the upper tribunal or the court.

4 pm

Leo Docherty: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscontribution. We support his intention of ensuring thatthe court has powers to grant appropriate remedies inenvironmental reviews.

With regard to amendment 121, it is also importantto recognise that in some cases the granting of remediesby the court could substantially affect the rights ofinnocent third parties who have acted in good faith inreliance on public authority decisions. We have thereforesought to protect the rights of such third parties fromthe most significant implications of unlawful decisionmaking. To be clear, that does not prevent the courtfrom granting remedies in any circumstances where athird party is even slightly affected. In order to be ableto grant a remedy, the court would need to be satisfiedthat this would not be likely to cause substantial hardshipor prejudice.

It is entirely necessary to protect third parties fromthe increased risk of granting remedies long after adecision has been taken. It is not novel to protect suchrights in legislation, but the current drafting is a reasonableand proportionate approach to that issue. Subject tothose safeguards, through environmental review, thecourt will have access to judicial review remedies, includingmandatory and quashing orders that can ensure thatcompliance with environmental law is achieved.

In the highly unlikely event that a public authorityfailed to comply with a court order, the OEP would beable to bring contempt of court proceedings, whichcould lead to a range of sanctions being imposed by thecourt, potentially including fines or even imprisonment.The availability of those remedies and the strict requirementfor compliance with court orders entirely dispense withthe need for an inferior system of fines in a domesticcontext, as proposed in amendment 180. Fines formpart of the EU infraction framework, but only becausethe Court of Justice of the European Union is unable tocompel the member state into a specific course ofaction through a court order. The provision for remediesthrough the OEP’s environmental review enforcementprocedure clearly outlines how this Government arecommitted to enhancing environmental protections nowthat we have left the EU.

Turning to amendment 184, I reassure the hon.Gentleman again that the court has the appropriatepowers to make court orders where a public authorityhas breached environmental law. Amendment 184 wouldgo further by giving the court powers to specify thesteps necessary to make amends for any environmentalharm resulting from their failure to comply with thelaw. Given the separation of powers, it is for the courtsto determine legal proceedings and for the Governmentand public authorities to implement law and policy. Thatis why we have provided that, where the court hasdetermined that a public authority has failed tocomply with environmental law, that authority mustpublish a statement setting out the steps that it intendsto take. I therefore ask the hon. Member not to pressamendments 121, 180 and 184.

Dr Whitehead: I take the Minister’s points onamendments 121 and 180, and we do not intend toproceed further with those. However, on amendment 184the Minister has essentially repeated the limitations thatare already on the courts with respect to public authoritiesand remediation—that is, that an authority would beexpected to say what it is going to do, but that does notmean the authority has to do it. We think the inclusionof this particular arrangement on remediation, althoughit would be an extension of the court’s responsibilities,would nevertheless be a substantial environmental gainby ensuring that the process was fully followed through.

I am sorry that the Government have been unable toaccept either the spirit or the actuality of amendment 184.Although it is not the lead amendment in this group, itdoes relate to this clause, so a Division would be appropriatewithin the purview of this particular clause. That iswhat we would like to do, Sir George, if that is theorder that we can follow. I beg to ask leave to withdrawamendment 121.


Amendment proposed: 184, in clause 35, page 21, line 28,at end insert—

‘(8A) Where the Upper Tribunal makes a statement ofnon-compliance it may impose a remediation requirement totake such steps as it may specify, within such period as it mayspecify, to secure that the net environmental position is restoredto what it would have been if the offence had not beencommitted.’—(Dr Whitehead.)

The amendment would give the Tribunal the power to require a publicauthority to make amends for environmental harm resulting from abreach of the law.



Division No. 16]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Moore, Robbie


Amendments made: 214, in clause 35, page 21,line 29, leave out “Upper Tribunal” and insert “court”.

See Amendment 207.

Amendment 215, in clause 35, page 21, line 31, leaveout from “review” to end of line 32.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 214. It omits wordsthat are no longer required relating to remedies granted by the court.

Amendment 216, in clause 35, page 21, line 33, leaveout “Upper Tribunal”and insert “court”.—(Leo Docherty.)

See Amendment 207.


Clause 36

JUDICIAL REVIEW: POWERS TO APPLY TO PREVENT

SERIOUS DAMAGE AND TO INTERVENE

Leo Docherty: I beg to move amendment 217, inclause 36, page 22, line 11, at end insert “, and

(b) the urgency condition is met.”

This amendment provides that the OEP may only bring a judicialreview under clause 36, rather than proceeding by way of informationnotice, decision notice and environmental review, in urgent cases.Amendments 218 and 219 define what is meant by urgent.


Leo Docherty: We have created the OEP’s bespokecore enforcement mechanism of notices and environmentalreview to identify and resolve breaches of environmentallaw while only resorting to litigation in court as a lastresort. Clause 36 ensures that the OEP can apply directlyfor judicial review, but that power has always beenintended to supplement the OEP’s core enforcementmechanism. It is expected that judicial review should beused by the OEP in limited and exceptional circumstanceswhere it is necessary to do so to prevent or mitigateserious damage to the natural environment or humanhealth where the OEP cannot do so through its coreenforcement mechanism.

Government amendments 217, 218 and 219 clarifythe policy intention as to how and when the OEP shouldapply directly for a judicial review. Amendment 217simply clarifies that the OEP should apply for judicialreview only in limited circumstances, now referred toas the urgency condition. Amendments 218 and 219go on to define when and how the urgency conditionmay be met.

The urgency condition is framed in terms of necessity.To meet the condition, it must be necessary for the OEPto proceed according to this route—rather than itsnormal enforcement procedures—to prevent or mitigateserious damage to the natural environment or humanhealth. The clause is also restructured so that thiscondition is an objective, rather than subjective, testthat must be passed in order for the OEP to bring suchproceedings. This is intended to bring greater clarity tothe test. Amendments 217 to 219 will therefore improveclause 36 by clarifying the process for the OEP to applyfor judicial review as intended.

Dr Whitehead: The Opposition’s opinion is that theseamendments, which are connected, as the Minister hasexplained, constitute a serious undermining of the powersof the OEP and its ability to judge for itself whatit wants to do, particularly with regard to judicial review.Clause 36(1) states:

“The OEP may apply for judicial review, or a statutory review,in relation to conduct of a public authority (whether or not it hasgiven an information notice or a decision notice to the authorityin respect of that conduct) if the OEP considers that the conductconstitutes a serious failure to comply with environmental law.”

Therefore, there is already the question of “seriousfailure” in the clause. Now, the Government are addingto that by putting this urgency requirement on the end,so there has to be not just a serious failure, but anurgent and serious failure. This clearly puts obstacles inthe way of the ability of the OEP to work for itself, inrelation to how judicial review is undertaken. It puts inplace a number of outside obstacles to that process.

Without going over the case at great length, we thinkthat this is part of that suite of amendments that seek toput a corset around the OEP in terms of what it may ormay not do, and in effect hug it closer to Government asa result. We do not think that is conducive to what wehave always considered to be the imperative of theindependence of the OEP, and therefore we will seekonce again to defend the Bill as it stands—against theGovernment’s wish to dilute further what is init—particularly in relation to the powers of the OEPthat were set out when the Bill was first introduced.

We do not want to support amendment 217, but weappreciate that the other amendments are consequentialto it and that therefore if amendment 217 does gothrough, the others follow. Not wishing to extendproceedings greatly this afternoon, I will just say that iswhere our position stands.

4.15 pm



Division No. 17]

AYES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Moore, Robbie

NOES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan




Amendments made: 218, in clause 36, page 22, line 12,leave out from beginning to “(rather” in line 13 andinsert

“The urgency condition is that making an application undersubsection (1)”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 219, provides that a case isurgent only if it is necessary to bring a judicial review, rather thanproceeding by way of information notice, decision notice andenvironmental review, to prevent or mitigate serious damage to thenatural environment or to human health.

Amendment 219, in clause 36, page 22, line 14, after “35)”insert “is necessary”.

See Amendment 218.

Amendment 220, in clause 36, page 22, line 29, leaveout subsection (6) and insert—

“(6) Subsection (6A) applies to proceedings (including anyappeal) that—

(a) are in respect of an application for judicial review or astatutory review, and

(b) relate to an alleged failure by a public authority tocomply with environmental law (however theallegation is framed in those proceedings).

(6A) If the OEP considers that the alleged failure, if itoccurred, would be serious, it may apply to intervene in theproceedings (whether it considers that the public authority has,or has not, failed to comply with environmental law).”—(LeoDocherty.)

This amendment provides that the OEP may apply to intervene in ajudicial or statutory review relating to an alleged failure by a publicauthority to comply with environmental law only if it considers that thefailure, if it occurred, would be serious. If that test is satisfied, it mayapply to intervene whether or not it considers that the authority has infact failed to comply with environmental law.


The Chair: In consideration of the vast amount ofmaterial that the Minister has agreed to reflect on, andout of concern for his time and welfare, the Committeewill now adjourn.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Fay Jones.)

4.16 pm

Adjourned till Tuesday 10 November at twenty-fiveminutes past Nine o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB74 Royal Society of Chemistry (briefing on the

Environment Bill’s provisions relating to plastic andelectronic waste)

EB75 Royal Society of Chemistry (briefing on theEnvironment Bill’s provisions relating to REACHlegislation)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Twelfth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 37 to 45 agreed to, some with amendments.


CLAUSE 46 agreed to.

SCHEDULE 3, as amended, under consideration when the Committee

adjourned till this day at Two o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than












† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)



State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)† Thomson, Richard (Gordon) (SNP)† Whitehead, Dr Alan (Southampton, Test) (Lab)† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)






(Morning)


Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: We have a great deal to get through today,so there is no time for idle chitchat.

Clause 37

DUTY OF THE OEP TO INVOLVE THE RELEVANT

MINISTER

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of theBill.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussclauses 38 to 40 stand part.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Hon.Members will see that under clause 38, when the Officefor Environmental Protection

“gives an information notice or a decision notice, applies for anenvironmental review, judicial review or statutory review or appliesto intervene in a judicial review or statutory review, it mustpublish a statement”.

What is curious about this clause is that while it states atthe beginning that the OEP “must” publish a statement,the next subsection says that that does not apply

“if the OEP considers that in the circumstances it would not be inthe public interest to publish a statement.”

My concern is this: in what circumstances would itnot be in the public interest to publish a statement; andwhy is it only for the OEP and no one else to decide thatit should not publish such a statement? I would like tohear from the Minister what she considers thosecircumstances to be and, if the OEP so decided, whatwould be the criteria upon which that decision would betaken?

Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): Whenwe last met we all agreed that the OEP should have asmuch independence as possible. I fully support that.What I find confusing about the hon. Gentleman’sargument is that he is talking about reducing the OEP’sability or flexibility to do what it sees fit, and he is tryingto set down in law exactly what it should do in differentcircumstances. Surely we should appoint an independentregulator, make sure that the best people are running itand—as much as one can—let it decide whether to issuea notice or not. This would limit its independence.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman will have acceptedalready that, throughout the passage of the Bill, wehave tried to assert robustly—this is accepted on allsides—that the OEP should be truly independent andshould undertake its activities in that spirit of independence.We have tried to point out that a number of measures inthe Bill would undermine that independence by puttingconstraints on the way in which it acts.

Secondly, we have tried to ensure that the OEP is setup in such a way that it is fully transparent andorganisationally accountable for what it does. Thosetwo things go together: the OEP should be fullyindependent, and it should be set up in such a way thatthat independence is based on accountability andtransparency in its actions. Clause 38—I remindhon. Members that this is a clause stand part debate,not an Opposition amendment—appears to suggestthat the OEP has an option to be less than transparentin its dealings with the public in relation to publicstatements. That is a substantial caveat on a requirement.It is a “must”, not a “may”. It “must” publish thosestatements, but the caveat is that if the OEP thinks thatit is not in the public interest, it does not have to do so.On the face of it, that is resiling from the secondprinciple that I set out: that the OEP should act in apublicly transparent and accountable way.

What I want from the Minister is either an explanationof why that subsection has been placed in the Bill or toknow whether there could be a potential challengeto the subsection, which appears to enable the OEP todecide, regardless of any other criteria, that it feelssomething would not be in the public interest. If theOEP decided that it would not be in the public interestto publish a statement—so no such statement wouldappear and people would not know even that a statementwas about to come out—what would be the potentialchallenge, and what machinery exists elsewhere in theBill that one may not yet have seen that would enablecriteria to be applied to how the OEP considers what isin the public interest or otherwise? All hon. Memberswill agree that if the question of public interest issubjective and internal to an organisation, that is notnecessarily a good test of what the public interest mightbe considered to be.

That is why this is a stand part debate: it is a questionto the Minister, rather than a suggestion that this clausebe removed.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Good morning,Mr Gray. My hon. Friend is making important points.In paragraph 340 of the explanatory notes, there is acomparison with how the European Commission works.One of the key issues is: is this system now stronger orweaker? Does my hon. Friend believe that this is a moreor less transparent process?

Dr Whitehead: As my hon. Friend suggests, it is a lesstransparent process than before. It appears that, in thisclause, we are retreating from the principle of transparency.Of course, I may be completely wrong, and there maybe factors, to which I hope to be pointed shortly, thatmitigate or dissolve that concern. I am sure that theMinister can reassure me on that, or point to things thatmean that the clause, odd though it looks in terms oftransparency, is not as bad as it seems on the surface.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): It is good to beback. I thank the shadow Minister for his comments,and all hon. Members for carrying the proceedings lastweek when I was unwell. I put on record my thanks tothe Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot,who did a sterling job, and to the Opposition for, Ithink, being kind.


We are talking about clauses 37 to 40 en bloc. Thoseclauses ensure that the OEP can operate effectively,openly and transparently when carrying out its importantduties, which of course is vital. Clause 37 ensures thatrelevant Ministers are informed and able to participatein relevant enforcement cases, and that the OEP canrecommend ministerial involvement in legal proceedings.That allows it to make a case for a Minister’s participationin instances where it may be helpful for Ministers toprovide input to the proceedings.

The shadow Minister touched on clause 38. I gatherthat he will not oppose it, but it is always good to havesome questions and inquiries. I hope I will make it clearthat the clause requires the OEP to publish statementsat specific points during the enforcement process. Theclause is important because it establishes the OEP as anopen, effective and transparent watchdog.

If the OEP, having decided to carry out an investigation,is to do so effectively, we must enable it to obtain andreview all the available information from other publicbodies, so that it can reach a robust and fair conclusion.Clause 39 therefore ensures that, in appropriatecircumstances, obligations of secrecy that would otherwiseapply are disapplied to enable public authorities toprovide information to the OEP in complaints andenforcement cases. All these clauses work together. It isimportant to note, though, that we have also ensuredthat certain fundamental protections, such as those setout in the Data Protection Act 2018, are unaffected bythis clause.

Openness and transparency are important, butconfidentiality is also vital to allow the OEP to establisha safe space for dialogue with public authorities, so thatit can quickly and effectively establish the facts in a caseand explore potential pragmatic solutions without theneed for litigation, where that can be reasonably avoided.The whole system has been set up in a way that meansthat when the OEP is carrying out its enforcementfunctions, it first takes a liaison, advisory and discussionrole. We want to do all that before we get down the roadof litigation and all those other things. That is veryimportant.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire for his comments. He is absolutelyright that we do not want to tie the hands of the OEP. Ithas to be independent, and it has to be able to come toits conclusions about which bits of information will andwill not be relevant.

Clause 40 plays an important role in the OEP carryingout its functions by ensuring an appropriate degree ofconfidentiality during the enforcement process. I assurethe shadow Minister that the clause does not create ablanket ability to prevent information being disclosed,which I think is his fear; that is not how the OEP willoperate. The OEP and public authorities will still haveto assess any requests for information case by case, inline with the relevant regulations.

Clauses 39 and 40 therefore strike a careful balancebetween retaining confidentiality of that very sensitiveaspect of the enforcement process and creating greatertransparency across the process. As has been said manytimes, transparency is absolutely key to good governance.The EU does not even have such a system, so we aresetting ourselves up as world leaders by introducing thiskind of independent body. I hope those points havereassured the Committee.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for her explanation.I am not entirely happy with the way the clause isdrafted, but I accept what she has said and will notoppose it.


Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.


Clause 41

MEANING OF “NATURAL ENVIRONMENT”

The Chair: We now come to amendment 113. Nomember of the Committee has signed the amendment,but anyone may move it if they wish. No one hassignalled that they wish to, so we will move straight on.

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 126, inclause 41, page 25, line 35, after “structures” insert

“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, culturalor historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.

This amendment seeks to widen the definition of “natural environment”in this Part to include the historic environment. For the avoidance ofdoubt, we do not seek the inclusion of the historic environment in thedefinition of “environmental law”, or in the enforcement functionsof the OEP.

The amendment revisits, in a slightly different way, adiscussion that we had about the definition of “naturalenvironment” and the effect of buildings and otherstructures on the environment. As the Committee willrecall, when we spoke about that in a previous sitting,we discussed the fact that the appearance of the naturalenvironment has, over centuries, been changed by humanactivities. If we went back in time, there would be nopoint at which we could say, “This is the naturalenvironment, so we will use this point in time for ourdefinition, because after this time, it is no longer thenatural environment.” The natural environment is clearlyconstantly changing through human intervention.

Amendment 126 would give the clause a better gripon the issue than amendment 113, which was not moved.Amendment 113 sought to leave out

“(except buildings or other structures)”,

but amendment 126 would insert

“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, culturalor historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.

That is the nub of the question, as far as our landscapeis concerned. Not only has the natural environmentbeen changed over time in the way that I have described,but there are, in our natural environment, a whole hostof structures—they might come under the definition of“buildings or other structures”, which, as hon. Memberscan see, are effectively excluded from the clause—that invarious ways become part of the natural landscape as aresult of their longevity in it, and because they have, atsome stage, changed that landscape, thereby becominga part of it.

9.45 am

I am sure hon. Members can think of many examples.I think of Maiden castle near Dorchester. That is ahuge earthwork that dominates the landscape. I presumethat if section 106 agreements and planning authoritieshad been around in the late bronze age, they wouldprobably have decided that Maiden castle was an appallingblot on the landscape and should not have been built;


they would have asked the proposers to go back anddesign a much smaller castle that would not obliteratethe view towards the sea. However, they did not exist atthe time, and Maiden castle is there. It is clearly part ofthe natural landscape. Under this clause, it appears thatthat structure would be exempted from consideration.That cannot be right. Another example is Bant’s Carnon the Isles of Scilly.

A host of things have changed the landscape andbecome part of it. If anyone decided that they shouldnot be protected as part of the landscape, there wouldbe quite an outcry. The wording of the Bill skews ourapproach towards these structures and monuments, whichthe British public hold dear as part of the naturallandscape. I think the British public would be surprisedto hear that we are effectively legislating not to protectthem and keep them part of that natural landscape.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friendmakes a powerful point. It is important to recognisethat people may not even know of such places. There isa mountain called Twmbarlwm just outside my constituency.On the top, it has a twmp, or pimple, which is an ironage burial mound. People do not even know that thatpimple is manmade. They would be affronted if anyonetried to deal with it. They assume it is natural, but it isnot, though it has been there for hundreds of centuries.It is important that we make every effort to cover alleventualities. If this Bill is to be groundbreaking forgenerations to come, we must cover all bases.

Dr Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for makingthat point. That underlines what we know is right in ourhearts. If we reduced this to a few lines on a piece ofpaper, we might have to start making them distinctive inorder to define what we are talking about. This amendmenttries to ensure that such structures are regarded as partof the natural landscape.

Anthony Browne: The hon. Gentleman makes thevalid point that many historical monuments have becomepart of the landscape. The UK is one of the mostdensely populated countries in the world. After 40,000 yearsof continuous human habitation, there is virtually nothingleft that is not touched by the hand of man. I fullysupport the desire to protect monuments and so on, butthe Bill is about protecting the environment. There is aseparate legal framework for protecting monuments. Iam worried about confusing the objective of the Bill,and worried that the OEP will be tasked with protectingmonuments—when there is a separate legal frameworkfor that—rather than protecting the natural environment.

Dr Whitehead: I take the hon. Gentleman’s point butit is not a question of the OEP having to take on themantle of English Heritage, or a national monumentscommission, and assiduously sweeping the leaves offramparts and other things. Hon. Members will see thatclause 41 is simply a meaning clause: it defines what wemean elsewhere in the Bill. It is important inasmuch asit provides a serious context in which other measures inthe Bill can be seated. That is its only function. Whenwe are seating those meanings within other parts of theBill, it is important that we are clear about the extent ofthose meanings or indeed the limits of those meanings.That is all that the amendment seeks to do. It does notseek to do anything more, and does not give the OEP

any obligation as far as these monuments and buildingsare concerned, nor the changes in the landscape towhich I refer. The hon. Member can rest assured thatthere would be no duty of care on the OEP, and it ismerely a matter of including that in the definition.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): Does my hon. Friendshare with me concerns that the National Trust—one ofthe custodians of our British landscape—is also concernedabout that very clause? They say that heritage and thenatural environment “go hand in hand”. They will belooking to the clause to put them together in the correctway, as my hon. Friend said, for the very nature of ourBritish environment. Nobody in this room would disagreewith that.

Dr Whitehead: I thank my hon. Friend for that point,which I had not fully covered. The National Trust is,indeed, responsible for sweeping the leaves and variousother things from these monuments, and it is among thebodies expressing concern that the meaning of clause 41will not adequately serve the purpose of guiding theclauses that go before it. I hope that the Minister canprovide a good explanation for the meaning in parenthesisbeing as it is. It is not that it should not be there—it willcover a number of issues, and if it was not there then wemight start considering a modern block of flats part ofthe natural environment. Clearly, we would not want togo that far. I hope that the Minister accepts that amendment126 strikes the right balance, ensuring that we have amuch better definition to work with and that we make adistinction between buildings and other structures thatare clearly not part of our natural environment andthose that have become so, certainly in the public’s view,and deserve to be included in this meaning clause.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hisamendment on the meaning of the natural environment.Obviously, we discussed this previously in some of theearlier clauses relating to heritage and such. I recognisethat the natural environment does not exist in a vacuumand that our interactions with it and use of it create aheritage that we should be proud of, as I think we allare. It does not exist in a vacuum—the shadow Ministerhimself touched on this—but I believe it would beinappropriate to include the elements in the amendmentin this particular definition, given that one of its keyaims is to determine the scope of the functions of theOffice for Environmental Protection.

The OEP must remain focused on its principal objectiveof environmental protection and the improvement ofthe natural environment. It is not its place to investigatecomplaints against breaches of legislation such as thatconcerned with cultural heritage such as listed buildings,which my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire touched on, listed building consents orprotection for ancient monuments. There is a raft oflegislation that deals with all those things, and that isnot the role of the OEP.

Daniel Zeichner: I welcome the Minister back to theCommittee. This is a fine distinction, but does she notagree that, in so dramatically excluding “buildings orother structures”, the Bill goes too far, and the amendmentis an attempt to bring it back slightly?


Rebecca Pow: Obviously all that has been consideredand thought about, but the hon. Gentleman makes agood point. I will come on to what the 25-year plan saysin a minute, because that really nails why the wording hewants is not there: it is because we believe it is alreadycovered. It is important to note that the hon. Member’sexplanatory statement—[Interruption.] I will just stopthat buzzing, Mr Chairman; it is very annoying.

The Chair: It is very annoying.

Rebecca Pow: I apologise—I did not know it was on.

It is important to note that the hon. Member’sexplanatory statement is very specific about the effecthe intends the amendment to have. It states that hespecifically does not wish the historic environment to beincluded,“in the definition of ‘environmental law’, or in the enforcementfunctions of the OEP.”

It is necessary to have a distinction to ensure that, as Ihave just touched on, laws concerning, for example,building safety or other matters do not get tangled up inthis and are not included in the OEP’s remit. Its focusmust be the natural environment.

The clarification is welcome, and it is good to thinkabout it, but unfortunately I must also point out ourconcern about the unintended effect that this amendmentwill have. The three definitions in clauses 41, 42 and 43are intrinsically linked, working together to underpinthe OEP and determine the scope of its enforcementfunctions. Therefore, including those matters within themeaning of the natural environment would mean thatthey would also be included in scope of the meaning of“environmental law” and the OEP’s enforcement policy.

Going slightly back on the previous point I made, thedefinition would not preclude the OEP’s looking at anybreaches of environmental law that were related to theenvironment, for example, around Maiden castle or thetwmp mentioned by the hon. Member for NewportWest. Say, for example, that that was a protected habitator there was a protected species within that habitat—Ihave the same around my wonderful Wellington monument,which is managed by the National Trust—and there wasseen to be some contravention of the nature conservationlaw in relation to that habitat, which I would say Maidencastle is very much part and parcel of; that would comeunder the remit of the OEP to investigate, so a lot of itis included.

In line with the explanatory note, I am sure hon.Members will agree with my earlier point that it wouldnot be appropriate for the OEP to oversee legislation inrelation to all those specific wider matters. I assure theshadow Minister that the absence of the historicenvironment from this definition does not preclude theGovernment’s work on important aspects of the historicenvironment. For example, to touch on the previousintervention, the Bill ensures that the 25-year environmentplan, including the recognition of the connection betweenthe natural environment and heritage that is specificallywritten out in that 25-year plan, will be adopted as thefirst environmental improvement plan through the Bill.I also remind hon. Members that we have a manifestopledge to protect and restore the natural environment,which is all part of this—it is all-encompassing. The25-year environment plan will set the benchmark forfuture plans, including how to balance environmentaland heritage considerations. In the light of that explanation,I ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw the amendment.

10 am

Dr Whitehead: With the greatest respect, I do notthink the Minister has made the sort of case I anticipatedshe might make this morning to explain why the clauseis so loose as far as buildings and other structures areconcerned. It is not the case that our amendment wouldprejudice clauses subsequent to this—the Minister setout clauses 42 and 43 as falling within, for example, themeaning of environmental law. We think it would be agood thing if the structures and buildings that havechanged the natural environment and have effectivelybecome part of it were included in those considerations.

Rebecca Pow: I have the exact words here of the25-year environment plan, which is the first environmentalimprovement plan. It commits us to:

“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural sceneryand improving its environmental value while being sensitive toconsiderations of its heritage.”

It is in there.

Dr Whitehead: I am sorry to say that that is rather atenuous linkage to the fact that we must set out a plan. Ihave a copy of the plan we have already set out in frontof me. There is merely half a line within that generalplan to say that we should be “sensitive”. There isnothing else in the plan, as far as I can see, that saysanything further than that—nothing that goes anywherenear the sort of consideration that we are putting infront of the Committee this morning.

The amendment makes it clear that we should notonly be sensitive, but that we should include as aconsideration those historic monuments and those elementsof heritage that effectively form part of the naturallandscape. Nothing in the Bill addresses that point, andthe amendment seeks to put that consideration on theface of the Bill.

The Minister has underlined our point to some extent.Being sensitive is not good enough; we have to havesomething in the Bill that spells out the overall considerationthat should be made when thinking about the naturalenvironment. We think strongly about this point, to theextent that we will press the Committee to a Divisionthis morning. The amendment has very considerablemerit and, whether or not the Division is successful—wewill see when the votes come out, rather in the way ofthe American election—we nevertheless hope that theMinister will consider the point further.



Division No. 18]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 125, inclause 41, page 25, line 35, after “water” insert “,including the marine environment”.This amendment clarifies that the natural environment includes a referenceto the marine environment and is not confined to inland waters.


“(d) the marine environment,”.

This amendment aims to ensure that the seas and oceans and the healthof those environments are considered when the OEP is working.

Dr Whitehead: Before I discuss the amendment, Iwould like to seek your guidance, Mr Gray. As you cansee, unfortunately, our Whip is not with us this morningthrough illness, but I wish to get a note to the GovernmentWhip. Since I cannot walk out of the room to talkto him, may I through you or somebody pass this noteto him?

The Chair: I would be delighted to pass that to theMinister, who will pass it on to her Whip.

Dr Whitehead: I shall be grateful if the Ministercould draw the Whip’s attention to that when he returns.

The Chair: It might be appropriate for the shadowMinister to appoint one of the other Labour Membersas a temporary Whip. That might be helpful for theCommittee.

Dr Whitehead: Yes, that is quite right. Perhaps Ishould have thought of that; it is difficult to do mid-flight.

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

The amendment seeks to include a better definition,effectively through a few simple words, in the sameclause that we were talking about previously concerningthe meaning of “natural environment”. It would meanthat subsection 41(c), which begins“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water”,

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

It seems pretty obvious that that ought to be in theBill. We are a country with a length of coastline that isalmost uniquely extensive in Europe, and we are anisland. Obviously, in the UK, we also have extensiveinland waterways, such as lakes, rivers and, indeed,man-made inland waterways that have effectively becomepart of the natural environment, as I am sure hon.Members agree, such that they merit the sort of protectionsuggested by the definition in this clause. When theMinister replies, will she assure us that man-made inlandwaterways are included in the definition of “water” inthe clause?

At no point does the Bill mention the marineenvironment. To the credit of Members across theHouse, we have developed sites of special scientificinterest and conservation zones in the marine environment

and around the coastline, sometimes quite a way offshore.It is not a question of having the land and the foreshore,and then simply the deep blue yonder. The marineenvironment must be seen as an integral part of theprocess of environmental conservation. Our legislationincludes substantial activity to enable environmentalprotection and conservation to take place in those zones.

Ruth Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerfulpoint. During the passage of the Fisheries Bill, we spenta long time considering how to avoid dredgers damagingthe marine environment. That should be included inthis Bill, so that our legislation is joined up and cohesive,and ensures that the marine environment is as protectedas the land.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend’s important pointunderlines the purpose of our amendment and impelsme to highlight that this is not just a theoretical questionabout the protection of the marine environment, but apractical question about how we approach that. Forexample, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay hasthe very practical effect of—among other things—preservingthe environment for cold-water corals and various otherthings in that very fragile ecosystem that require ourprotection to survive and thrive. Those considerationsof the marine environment are absolutely andindistinguishably conjoined.

Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Will the hon. Gentlemanclarify the purpose of the amendment? Given thatparagraph 355 of the explanatory notes to the Billstates:

“This includes both the marine and terrestrial environments.‘Water’ will include seawater, freshwater and other forms ofwater”,

I am not sure what the purpose of the amendment is.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman has quoted theexplanatory note, which is not legislation. One of theproblems that Committees face is that explanatory noteshave a sort of half-life: they are quite often helpful forelucidation, but they add nothing whatsoever to, or takenothing away from, the legislation in front of us.Explanatory notes might mention what is or is not thecase, but essentially they indicate only how benevolentlyor otherwise the Government look upon the legislation.

10.15 am

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Iam as big a champion for the marine environment asanyone in this room; before this time last year, it wasour livelihood. I am struggling to understand the purposeof the amendment because everything in the marineenvironment is covered by

“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water, andthe natural systems, cycles and processes through which theyinteract.”

I am struggling to see what in the marine environment isnot covered by the Bill as originally written.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Member will see that the Billmerely contents itself with the word “water”, which canhave a number of different interpretations. In this instance,it has a substantially strong interpretation. This is not aproblem with the present Government, but we are talkingabout legislation that must stand the test of time. It is


possible and reasonably straightforward to define “water”in this case as internal waterways, rivers and other waterservices within the land mass. The hon. Member will seethat that is what the clause appears to suggest. The“natural environment” is defined as“plants, wild animals and other living organisms,”

“their habitats” and “land”, which suggests that theword “water” should be taken in the context of theother things in the clause.

Cherilyn Mackrory: With respect, I disagree. Whatthe hon. Member suggests is that the land stops on theforeshore. It does not, of course; it goes straight out tosea and becomes the seabed. The land does not stop.What we are arguing here are the semantics of whereour land and our waters end, which will be covered inthe Fisheries Bill.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Member is right to theextent that land does extend under the water, otherwisethe seas would drain fairly rapidly and we would be in abad state. According to the hon. Member’s definition,we are conjoined with every other country in the world.The clause does not say that we must have a definitionof “natural environment” that includes that—it stops interms of what is on our land and what is not under thesea, as far as land is concerned. Arguably, the fact that itincludes water could be defined, as the hon. Membersuggests, as including everything on that land that isunder the sea. It is nevertheless our responsibility—thereare different areas of concern expressed in internationaltreaties about territorial waters and various other things.

Anthony Browne: I completely and utterly supportthat the definition should cover the marine environment.My question to the hon. Member is why he picks on themarine environment as the one point of clarificationneeded in “land…air and water”. My hon. Friend theMember for Truro and Falmouth has talked aboutsome aspects of the land, but does it cover soil? Doesthe hon. Gentleman want clarification on that? Does itcover underground waterways, for example, which arebig in my area? The big issue in South Cambridgeshireis the aquifer, which is definitely under the ground.Does it cover cave systems? Is “air” just the air webreathe when we talk about air pollution, or is it alsothe ozone layer and so on? We could carry on withmultiple long definitions and a long train of differentqualifications, but I think that would create legal uncertaintyfor lawyers to interpret. The Bill is very generic—“land…airand water” covers everything that is important.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to godown a detailed path of discussing subterranean wateroutlets. I assume, because water is within our land mass,that those would be covered by the elision of land massand water, which is suggested by the clause. Withoutgoing into a lengthy disposition about how far underthe ground water might be counted as being coveredunder this arrangement, we can rest assured that thosematters are not a serious issue of dispute.

That is why I do not want to go into enormous detail.The amendment is straightforward and short. It proposesseveral words that would put the matter to rest. It juststates in a modest way that the definition should includethe marine environment, so that if anyone is in anydoubt, there it is in the Bill. That is all we are suggesting.There is no side to that. There are no additional

consequences. It merely says we should be clear thatthat is what it includes. I think we all agree that it shouldinclude that.

This morning, we were treated to a quote from theexplanatory notes, which indicated that the marineenvironment should be included, but it is not. We arejust doing a modest labour in the vineyard by attemptingto ensure that when people say something, they meanwhat they say. The best way to ensure that people meanwhat they say is to say it. That is what we propose to doon the face of the Bill.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):Amendments 125 and 193 have similar intentions. Myamendment was meant as a probing amendment. I willnot revisit the areas that the shadow Minister haseloquently gone through. My assumption was that themarine environment was considered for inclusion hereand the decision was taken to exclude it. I would beinterested to hear from the Minister what the rationalewas for that.

Obviously, marine life is just as vital to the globalecosystem as terrestrial life, and the health of marineenvironments also needs to be protected. There may besome other agencies responsible, which the Governmentreckon should do the job, but surely there is a good caseto be made for an agency with an overarching view ofthese tasks and challenges for the whole environment. Ilook forward to the Minister’s comments.

Daniel Zeichner: This is a short clause, but it is veryimportant. I am fortunate to represent Cambridge, acity with some fantastic environmental organisations.The David Attenborough Building is renowned. It housesthe Cambridge Conservation Initiative, which includesthe Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fauna &Flora International and BirdLife International. I wasfortunate to visit them a while ago, when I was preparingfor a Westminster Hall debate. I was briefed by a rangeof dazzling experts. I was struck from their presentationsby how many talked about the marine environment. Ihad not realised how significant it was. That was verymuch the term they used throughout their recommendationsand advice to me.

I know the Minister cares passionately about themarine environment. I remember a Prime Minister’sQuestion Time when she questioned the showeringhabits of the Speaker. It is amazing the things thatpeople remember. I should be clear that she was referringto the microbeads in Mr Bercow’s shower gel. I do notdoubt the passion that she feels for the marine environment.

That leads me to question, given that we all agree onthis point, why it cannot be put in the Bill. I believe theGovernment intend to include it. If there is such resistanceto putting it in the Bill, it is either because each sidewants to defend its position and does not want to giveway, or there is something a bit more sinister.

Rebecca Pow indicated dissent.

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister says no. She mightwant to think about that, maybe not this morning, butas the Bill progresses. I would have said that includingthat one phrase would strengthen the Bill from theGovernment’s point of view and not leave people wonderingwhat other treasures close to our land mass some partsof Government organisations have their eye on.


Rebecca Pow: I thank the shadow Minister for hisvery kind opening words. I also thank him for hisinterest in the clause, which is crucial to future environmentalgovernance. I appreciate the sentiments behind theamendment, but I must disagree and say that it isunnecessary. I have thought about this matter a greatdeal myself, as hon. Friends and Members can imagine.I have also spoken to the Natural Capital Committee atlength about this, and it is satisfied with what we havecome up with after much discussion.

Hon. Members are aware that the marine environmentis by far the largest part of the UK’s environment and,as such, is an enormous part of our natural world. It istherefore vital that we safeguard crucial marine ecosystems,and that is a core part of our environmental policy. Oneof the names I get in my portfolio is the marine Minister,so I say, “Leave water and the marine space out atyour peril.”

That is why the marine environment is included withinthe existing clause, as is clarified on page 57 of theexplanatory notes. I hear what everyone says about theexplanatory notes, but the meaning of the naturalenvironment explicitly covers “water”. This includesseawater, canals, lakes, the Somerset levels—which areseawater that has come inland, goes back out, and isthen joined by inland water—and all the undergroundaquifers.

A very good point was made: where do we stop withthese lists of things? That is important to remember.The definition also covers—I thank my hon. Friendsthe Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Keighleyfor mentioning this—the land that includes the seabed,the intertidal zones and the coastal plains. They are allpart of the natural environment. Any plant, wild animal,living organism or habitat is also included in the definition,regardless of where it is physically.

Out of interest, I want to touch on the target-settingpowers in the Bill. Targets can be set on any matterrelating to the natural environment, which could includethe marine environment. That means we can set long-termtargets or legally binding targets that can help improvethe marine environment. The Government must set outat least one target in their four priority areas, whichinclude air, biodiversity, water and nature. The initialround of targets might include a marine environmenttarget, and that could be one of the biodiversity targets.That measure is already in the Bill; it will actuallybolster, protect and strengthen the myriad measures wealready have in place for protecting the marine space.All of this will dovetail with the sustainability elementsin the Fisheries Bill, which was mentioned by the hon.Member for Newport West, so it is all part and parcel.

I hope I have provided some assurances. The marineenvironment is very much included within the definitionand, as such, each element of the environmental governanceframework—including the OEP—will apply to it. Onthose grounds, I propose that the amendment is unnecessary,and I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister has given some goodand solid assurances concerning what she thinks theclause could be interpreted to mean. Clearly, the factthat she has said that this morning suggests that itmight be possible, should there be a dispute about this,to draw upon her words as underlining the Government’sgood intentions. We have never disputed that. We arehappy that the Minister thinks in that particular way.

10.30 am

I emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member forCambridge said, which is that it seems straightforwardto us that this should be included in the Bill. There issuch potential dissonance between the Minister’s warmwishes for the marine environment and what is actuallyin the Bill. We think overwhelmingly that it would be agood idea to accept the amendment and seek to dividethe Committee.



Division No. 19]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Brock, Deidre

Jones, Ruth

Thomson, Richard

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



The Chair: I hope it is not impertinent of me to pointout that we have now been at this for more than an hourand have achieved only clause 41, which is less speedyprogress than other Committees I have chaired. It mightbe helpful to the Committee to seek to make speedierprogress.

Clause 42

Meaning of “Environmental Protection”

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Ibeg to move amendment 31, in Clause 42, page26,line 1, after “considering” insert “advising”.

Member’s explanatory statement

The fourth limb of the definition of environmentalprotection covers the functions of monitoring, assessing,considering or reporting on anything within the otherthree limbs. This amendment adds the function of “advising”,which was included in the equivalent provisions of thedraft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill(clause 31(2)(d)), and last session’s Environment Bill(clause 40(2)(d)).

The Chair: With this is it will be convenient to debateGovernment amendment 65.

Rebecca Pow: Before I begin, it was terribly remiss ofme that I omitted to mention the hon. Member forEdinburgh North and Leith when discussing the previousamendment. I meant to do so, but I forgot to pick upmy bit of paper. All the hon. Lady’s comments werewelcome and duly noted, and added to the general


discussion and debate that we had about marine matters.I apologise for that; I meant to do so and then it wastoo late.

Government amendments 31 and 65 insert the word“advising” into clause 42(d) of the Bill and make thesame amendment to schedule 2 in respect of the Officefor Environmental Protection in Northern Ireland. Thisis a technical amendment to ensure that our newenvironmental governance framework can operate fullyand effectively.

Environmental protection is at the heart of what theBill intends to achieve, and as such it is vital that weensure that the meaning of environmental protectionprovided in the Bill is as effective as possible. Withoutthe amendment, statutory duties for public bodies toadvise on environmental protection, such as section 4 ofthe Natural Environment and Rural CommunitiesAct 2006—which we all refer to as the NERC Act—whichplaces a duty on Natural England to provide advice atthe request of a public authority, would not be consideredenvironmental law.

The OEP would not be able to monitor or enforcethis kind of legislative provision and the Secretary ofState would also not be obliged to make a statementabout any new legislation in this place. Therefore, notincluding “advising”in this clause would place unnecessaryand unhelpful limitations on our new environmentalgovernance framework. This would limit the Government’sambition to be a global leader in championing the mosteffective policies and legislation for the environment. Itherefore commend the amendment to the Committee.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister’s amendment does indeedclarify matters and enables a better definition for monitoringassessments and reporting. The Opposition are happyfor the word “advising” to go into the clause, but Iwould like the Minister to reflect briefly on why thatword, which she is now putting in as an administrativeamendment, was in previous iterations of the Bill. Itwas in the original Bill two years ago and also in thecurrent Bill’s immediate predecessor, which was unableto make progress because of the election. Why is it,then, that the word did not appear in the current Bill?Was it an accident? Did someone consider it inappropriate,and is the Minister now making up for that lapse?Unless it was an accident, could the Minister assure methat there was no underlying reason for leaving out theword, the reinsertion of which now requires a Governmentamendment, and that she has not mentioned anythingthat we ought to consider?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for thatquestion and for saying that the Opposition are happywith getting the word “advising” into this clause. I thinkI am at complete liberty to say that it was just atechnical correction. I am pleased that it has beenspotted and thank the hon. Gentleman for having done so.


Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to standpart of the Bill.

Clause 43

MEANING OF “ENVIRONMENTAL LAW”

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 127, inclause 43, page 26, line 6, leave out “mainly”.

This amendment ensures that any legislative provision that concernsenvironmental protection is included in the definition of “environmentallaw”.

Clause 43 concerns itself with one word, but, as Ithink hon. Members will appreciate, it provides, as isthe case with many Bills, the crucial underpinning of aparticular part—namely, those clauses up to clause 43.In other words, it defines the words we have discussedthis morning and on other occasions. Although it mayappear that a great deal of debate is focused on verysmall parts of the Bill—on one or two words—it isimportant to pay attention to them and to get this right.I appreciate that we may appear not to be making theprogress we would otherwise want to make, but this isessential for the overall progress of the Bill. I can revealto the Committee that I have discussed with the GovernmentWhip exactly how much progress we can make today,and we need to ensure that it is commensurate withgetting the Bill through in good order overall. I assurehon. Members—and, indeed, you, Mr Gray—that wewant to make good progress and get the Bill through ingood order and in good time. I hope that what we dothis morning will aid rather than impede that progress.

Clause 43 concerns itself with the meaning ofenvironmental law. Subsection (1) states that it“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and…is notconcerned with an excluded matter”.

Subsection (2) defines excluded matters. We are concernedabout the word “mainly”. We think that legislation thatdefines the meaning of environmental law should be“concerned with”environmental protection, not “concernedmainly with” with environmental protection. The use ofthat word implies that a number of other things couldbe construed as not being concerned with environmentalprotection. Logic suggests that the inclusion of theword “mainly” admits the possibility and, indeed, thelikelihood that there are things outwith that particulardefinition.

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

Ruth Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the term“mainly concerned” is ambiguous, with no clear legalmeaning? Indeed, Dr David Wolfe QC drew attentionto this issue in his written evidence to the pre-legislativescrutiny of the draft Bill.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is a mine of carefullyculled information from previous sittings of the Committee,including the evidence sessions, which underline thepoints we are making this morning. She has set out thatthis is not just our concern; it is widely shared outsidethis Committee Room, and for that reason it deservesadditional consideration.

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


Rebecca Pow: I support the broad approach to definingenvironmental law, which has always been our intentionwith clause 43. We also need to ensure, however, that thedefinition is practical and workable, particularly for theOEP. The definition must not give the OEP such a wideremit that it is unmanageable or intrudes into areaswhere it would be inappropriate for the OEP to act or tobe expected to act.

10.45 am

The OEP’s principal objective is to contribute toenvironmental protection and the improvement of thenatural environment, as we have said many times. Wemust have a definition of environmental law that safeguardsthat objective by making it clear to all parties that theOEP’s focus will be on legislation for environmentalprotection and improvement. Removing the word “mainly”could bring a large amount of legislation into the OEP’sscope—that is not unlike our discussions about heritageand the other legislation connected to that—and wouldrisk diluting the OEP’s effectiveness or diverting itsresources to matters that could be more adequatelydealt with by another body.

Many areas of legislation can be considered to beconcerned, to a small degree, with environmentalprotections, despite being mainly concerned with somethingelse. That is a good point, and I will give one smallexample: road traffic speed limits are mainly concernedwith road safety, but they also have implications for theenvironment. We do not think that the OEP shouldhave a remit to enforce speed limits.

Daniel Zeichner rose—

Rebecca Pow: I think that is quite a good example,but the hon. Member for Cambridge might come upwith another.

Daniel Zeichner: I will not come up with a counter-example, but I think many would draw a very differentconclusion from the Minister’s example. I am not alawyer, but we are advised that the term “mainly” ismainly ambiguous in law. Others have suggested that“related to” would be a better term. Why have theGovernment chosen “mainly” rather than “related to”?

Rebecca Pow: Just like the hon. Gentleman, we havealso taken a great deal of advice and have used “mainly”for the reasons that I have set out. Although the OEPcould still prioritise, it would be unhelpful for stakeholderswere the OEP to be concerned in a huge range of issuesthat have only minor or tangential links to environmentalprotection or improvement.

It is important to note that the definition is alreadybroader than it might initially seem because it applies toindividual legislative provisions, so it could be part of awider Act or statutory instrument. That means thateven if most of an Act or statutory instrument is notmainly concerned with environmental protections, anyspecific provisions that are considered environmentallaw would come under the OEP’s remit. It is also worthnoting that the term “mainly” is not prescribed in theBill. The OEP and public authorities will therefore beable to interpret it in accordance with its normal—anotherlegal word—meaning.

I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test, but the amendment is not necessaryor appropriate because the existing definition is sufficiently

broad and balanced with the need to maintain theOEP’s focus on the protection and improvement of thenatural environmental. I therefore ask him to withdrawhis amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for her response—shehad a good go at it. We will not withdraw our concern,but as the Minister has given some reassurance abouthow the term “mainly” might be interpreted and hasindicated that some thought was given to that prior tothe Bill’s drafting, I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.


Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 115, inclause 43, page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisionsrelating to armed forces and national security matters from thedefinition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposes of the scope of theOEP’s functions.

I thank the Minister for her kind words and wouldlike to correct myself slightly because I did not welcomeher back to her place earlier. I am very pleased to seeher and am glad that she has recovered.

The armed forces are potentially among the biggestpolluters. The evidence from Scotland demonstratesthat there has to be some oversight of the potential forenvironmental damage. I mentioned that previously inrespect of the issues that have arisen. The nuclear baseson the Clyde do some work with SEPA—the ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency—and local authoritiesto alert them to some instances, but not all. Even thosescant measures are the subject of voluntary agreementsrather than obligations or regulatory oversight. Noinformation is forthcoming, however, on the rest of thedefence estate across Scotland. I imagine there is nothingabout the estates across England either.

We know that the MOD does environmental assessmentsbecause it told me so in answer to written questions, butthat information is kept secret. That is not good enough.We all have to play our part. As I have said, no individualDepartment should be completely excused from shoulderingthat responsibility. The phrase “so far as is reasonablypractical” is used in a lot of legislation from whichdefence and our armed forces are exempt, and it couldbe too easily used as a get-out when that suited. It istime for that loophole to be removed, and for oversightto be in a place whereby such activities could receiveindependent and robust scrutiny that—while allowingfor sensitivities around national security and similarmatters—ensured that activities could be monitoredsatisfactorily. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution.We heard something about the issue with respect toprevious clauses as well, and we recognise the intentionbehind those. Protecting our country is fundamental,which is why exemptions for the armed forces andnational security are maintained. Any legislation thatcould be covered by those exemptions would concernhighly sensitive matters that were vital to the protectionof our realm, so it is appropriate to restrict the OEP’soversight of and access to information in such areas.

We want to make it clear, so that there is absolutelyno doubt, that legislative provisions relating to thesematters cannot be environmental law, and so cannot fallwithin the OEP’s remit. Legislative provisions concerning


national security would cover matters such as the continuousat-sea nuclear deterrent and other policy areas vital tothe protection and defence of the UK, which are of theutmost importance.

The single most important thing that we do is protectour people. It would not be appropriate for the OEP tohave jurisdiction here, where its intervention could hindervital work. We expect that such specialist matters wouldalso be outside the OEP’s areas of expertise. As such,the OEP would not be appropriately qualified to enforcesuch issues. Legislative provisions concerning the armedforces would cover matters related to personnel andstaffing that link to defence capability and matters suchas the Armed Forces Act. It would not be appropriatefor the OEP to have a role overseeing the legislation.

To be clear: the exemption does not mean that publicauthorities such as the MOD or any of the armed forceswill be exempt from scrutiny by the OEP in respect oftheir implementation of environmental law—for example,a lot of MOD land has site of special scientific interestdesignation; it simply means that legislation concerningthe armed forces or national security will be excludedfrom the OEP’s remit. Much of the defence land isprotected land with SSSI designation. The OEP will stillbe able to hold public authorities accountable on thatland for their statutory duties concerning the protectionof the site, as the relevant legislative provisions will notbe covered as regards national security or the armedforces.

The Scottish Government have, I note, taken a similarapproach on the issue in section 10(3)(a) of the UKWithdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity)(Scotland) Bill 2018. They also have a number ofexemptions that are not unrelated to this. It is worthnoting that the Ministry of Defence has its ownenvironmental policies, and it went into that in somedetail last week. It does a great deal of good environmentalwork. I should mention the stone curlew project Ivisited, but there are many others where it is doingexcellent work for protected species and habitats. Itprides itself on that, and has a strong record of deliveringon those commitments. On the whole, its SSSIs are inpretty good condition, so all credit to the MOD.

I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh Northand Leith has done a lot of work in this area, and it issomething she has talked about from the beginning. Ithank her for raising this, because it gives us a chance tomake the argument. Given the sensitivities and existingenvironmental commitments, and given my clarificationthat the provision does not exempt from scrutiny publicauthorities that are concerned with national security, Ihope she will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Deidre Brock: I remind the Minister again that theScottish Government have no control over defence issues,so it is perhaps no surprise that they have had to exemptthat in the continuity Bill. I hear what she says aboutsome scrutiny being applied, but I still feel that there istoo much of a blackout around the information relatingto these areas. That is what I, environmental groups andmembers of the public have issues with.

I appreciate that there are sensitive areas that willhave to be dealt with differently, but I am afraid Iremain to be convinced that the exemptions are appropriatein this day and age, and that transparency acrossGovernment is not required by the public and various

environmental groups that we have all dealt with. Thisis certainly a principle that is very important to me.With that in mind, I will push the amendment to a vote.



Division No. 20]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Brock, Deidre

Jones, Ruth

Thomson, Richard

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Longhi, Marco

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Deidre Brock: I beg to move amendment 116, inclause 43, page 26, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).

This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisionsrelating to tax, spending and the allocation of resources withingovernment from the definition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposesof the scope of the OEP’s functions.

You will be relieved to hear, Mr Gray, that I will notbe pushing the amendment to a vote, although that issomething I am keeping in my back pocket for thefuture. It seems to me that by fully exempting the mainthrusts of Government policy, which are the biggesttools in the Government’s cupboard, the Governmentare not driving their policy towards the best possibleenvironmental goals. By wholly exempting tax and spendfrom their thinking on such matters, the Governmentare missing a chance to engage their biggest publicpolicy lever.

I would have thought that at least some considerationof these issues would have been useful for the Government.That would have shown real commitment to change,improvement, making a future unlike the past andputting the environment at the middle of decision making.As I have said in the past, I appreciate the Minister’ssincerity and her belief in these issues, but surely shedoes not want it to look as though the Government aremerely ticking a box to say that the gap left by Brexit isbeing filled. Instead, she can show that there is anenvironmental heart to this legislation and this Government,not simply warm words. Here is an opportunity toprove that.

I am particularly keen to hear the Minister’s reasoningbehind the exemption, because it seems that the Governmentare missing a trick by not showing their commitment toenvironmental issues on this particular point.

11 am

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for tabling heramendment and for saying she will not push it to a vote.Although I recognise the intention behind the amendment,it is important that the exemption is maintained toensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. Itwould be inappropriate for the OEP to have oversight ofthe implementation of legislative provisions that specifically


[Rebecca Pow]

concerned taxation, spending or the allocation of resources,as the OEP needs to keep its focus on the protection ofthe natural environment.

Legislation regarding taxation is developed by TreasuryMinisters, as the hon. Lady knows, and it is importantthat they are able to set taxes to raise the revenue thatallows us to deliver essential services, such as the NHS,policing, education and schools—all those things thatwe all need and want. It would not be appropriate forthe OEP to have jurisdiction over this area or over theadministration of taxation regimes by Her Majesty’sRevenue and Customs.

I want to give a bit of clarity on this, as I think theremay be some confusion: the term “taxation” does notextend to legislation relating to regulatory schemes suchas the plastic bag charge, which was particularly successful,or the imposition of fees to cover the cost of a regulatoryregime. Therefore, legislation relating to these matterscould be considered within environmental law, and theOEP could take enforcement action if the public authorityfailed to comply.

The words“spending and the allocation of resources within government”

refer to decisions about how money and resources aredesignated within and between Departments. Whenspecifically considering the exclusion or allocation ofresources, it is important to note that it is only thelegislative provisions on this subject that are excluded.It is just a matter of being very clear about that, as thereare many other areas, such as the plastic bag charge,where the OEP will be able to engage.

If a public authority were to argue that it did nothave adequate resources to implement an environmentallaw, that would not stop the legislative provisions inquestion being environmental law, although the authority’scomments on its resources could, of course, be consideredduring the OEP’s investigation. On those grounds, I askthe hon. Member whether she might withdraw heramendment, now that I have given her more clarity.

Deidre Brock: I thank the Minister for her comments,which have provided me with some clarity. As I said, Iwill not be pressing this matter to a vote, although Ithink I will pursue it in the future. We are all well awareof the Treasury’s track record in resisting attempts toconstrain its activities in any way—I suspect there hasbeen some arm twisting done behind the scenes on thisone—and this is an issue I will revisit. I thank her againfor her words and beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.


Amendments made: 32, in clause 43, page 26, line 16, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”.See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)

Amendment 33, in clause 43, page 26, line 21, leave out“the National Assembly for Wales”


Amendment 34, in clause 43, page 26, line 22, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)


Clause 44

INTERPRETATION OF PART 1: GENERAL

Amendments made: 35, in clause 44, page 27, line 7, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”


Amendment 36, in clause 44, page 27, line 17, leaveout“the National Assembly for Wales”


The Chair: We come to amendment 78. It was notmoved previously by any member of the Committee,but if any member of the Committee wished to move itnow, they would be welcome to do so.

Dr Whitehead: I would like to. This amendment, ashon. Members will see, Mr Gray, was tabled by twoprevious members of the Committee. With the effluxionof time, however, they are no longer members of theCommittee, for reasons of ascent—

Daniel Zeichner: They have been elevated.

Dr Whitehead: Elevated indeed, to higher and moreaugust posts in the Opposition ranks. They are thereforeno longer on the Committee, but that does not meanthat what they put forward should have less considerationby the Committee.

The fact that additional consideration should be givenis underlined by the information that we received justbefore the Committee met, which was that the Governmentproposed to table amendments that will come up laterin the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestationin supply chains and the due diligence to be carriedout in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Memberswill see from the latest marshalled list of amendmentsthat those amendments—a new clause, which we willdebate later, and a defining amendment that will bedebated a little earlier than that—have now indeed beentabled.

The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial partsof another amendment that was tabled by some hon.Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we willdebate much later. This concerns the question of duediligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, forexample, and various other elements such as that. Isuggest that my amendment was an essential definingpart of new clause 5, which has in effect been run withby the Government in the proposals they have justtabled. There is a complete chain of connection betweenall those.

In that context, what is missing from the Bill is adefinition not just of environmental harm, whetherdirect or indirect, but of what is meant in that contextby the global footprint of environmental harm orenvironmental activity. By tabling their amendments,the Government are strongly indicating that the globalfootprint of environmental harm is a key element ofthe Bill.

I am delighted that the Government have tabled theiramendments, because they cover an area that a lot ofpeople have been concerned about for a long time. We


will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, butthe fact that the Government have considered the issue,listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—

Ruth Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is goodto see the Government using the important proposaltabled by my hon. Friends the Members for LeedsNorth West (Alex Sobel) and for Bristol East (KerryMcCarthy) as a stepping stone to improve the Bill? Weshould welcome the Government doing that.

Dr Whitehead: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend remindsme of the constituencies of our hon. Friends who tablednew clause 5, so I may now refer to them.

The amendments that the Government have tabledare important and we welcome them. We would like toadd to our welcome the idea that the definition in theclause––which is, after all, as I have emphasised, aninterpretation clause to ensure that we know the content,detail and background––should be placed so that itlinks not only to what we have already discussed in theBill but to what is in the Government amendments. Thiswill be our only opportunity to discuss this because, bythe time we get to the Government amendments, we willhave gone past this section of the Bill, so it is importantthat we decide this one way or the other today.

The Chair: I apologise to the Committee. I had notspotted the fact that this amendment was debated on aprevious occasion and that we therefore should not behaving a second debate on it but should have moved itformally.

Amendment proposed: 78, in clause 44, page 27, line 24, atend insert—

“‘global footprint’ means—

(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, caused by,and

(b) human rights violations arising in connection withthe production, transportation or other handlingof goods which are imported, manufactured,processed, or sold (whether for the production ofother goods or otherwise), including but notlimited to direct and indirect harm associatedwith—

(i) greenhouse gas emissions;

(ii) ecosystem conversion and degradation;

(iii) deforestation and forest degradation;

(iv) biodiversity loss;

(v) water pollution and abstraction; and

(vi) air pollution.”—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.



Schedule 2

IMPROVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: NORTHERN

IRELAND

Amendment proposed: 194, page 127, line 6, schedule 2,leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

‘(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out—

(a) the steps that the Department intends to take toimprove the natural environment;

(b) any steps that any other Northern Ireland departmentintends to take to improve the natural environment;

(c) long-term targets, setting a measurable standard whichmust be achieved by a specified date that is no lessthan 15 years after the target is set; and

(d) interim targets relating to each long-term target, settinga measurable standard which must be achieved by aspecified date that is—

(i) no more than 5 years after the target is set; and

(ii) no more than 5 years after the most recent review ofthe environmental improvement plan.

(4A) It is the duty of the Department to ensure that alllong-term and interim targets set in an environmentalimprovement plan are met and the Department must publish anannual report stating how it is meeting these targets.” —(DeidreBrock.)

The amendment will ensure that Northern Ireland has interim andlong-term environmental targets, and places a duty on the Departmentof Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure these targetsare met.


Question negatived.

Amendment made: 65, page 132, line 1, schedule 2,after “considering” insert “advising”. —(Rebecca Pow.)This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to theprovision made by Amendment 31.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.


Schedule 3

THE OFFICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: 66, in schedule 3, page 133, line 33,at end insert—

“(2A) But the OEP must not monitor the implementation of,or report on, a matter within the remit of the Committee onClimate Change.

(2B) A matter is within the remit of the Committee on ClimateChange if it is a matter on which the Committee is, or may be,required to advise or report under Part 1, sections 34 to 36, orsection 48 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment modifies the OEP’s duty to monitor, and power toreport on, the implementation of Northern Ireland environmental lawunder paragraph 2 of Schedule 3. It provides that the OEP must notmonitor or report on matters within the remit of the Committee onClimate Change, which is defined in sub-paragraph (2B) by referenceto specified provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.

11.15 am

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 221, inschedule 3, page 146, line 24, at end insert—

“22A (1) Section (Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy andfunctions) (guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy andfunctions) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, so far as relating to theOEP’s Part 1 enforcement functions.’

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) in paragraph (a) after ‘policy,’ insert ‘so far as relatingto its Part 1 enforcement functions,’;

(b) in paragraph (b) for ‘enforcement functions’ substitute‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.

(4) In subsection (5) for “enforcement functions” substitute‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.”

Schedule 3 to the Bill confers on the OEP enforcement functions inrelation to Northern Ireland, which are similar to its enforcementfunctions under Part 1 of the Bill. Guidance issued by the Secretary ofState under NC24 is not to apply to the enforcement functionsconferred by Schedule 3, which are devolved. This amendment ensuresthat when Schedule 3 comes into force, the guidance power under NC24will be limited to the OEP’s enforcement functions under Part 1 of theBill and will not include its enforcement functions under Schedule 3.


The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussGovernment new clause 24—Guidance on OEP’senforcement policy and functions.

Rebecca Pow: That was a massive canter or, actually,a gallop. We have whizzed on. The amendment and newclause will provide a power for the Secretary of State toissue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed inclause 22(6) concerning its enforcement policy. TheOEP will be required to have regard to this guidance inpreparing its enforcement policy and in carrying out itsenforcement functions. This is an important new provision,which will allow the Secretary of State to seek toaddress any ambiguities or issues relating to the OEP’senforcement functions where necessary. We expect theOEP to develop an effective and proportionate enforcementpolicy in any event, but Secretary of State guidance canact as a helpful resource for the OEP in the process. Forexample, the Secretary of State may issue guidance tothe OEP relating to how it should respect the integrityof other statutory regimes, including those implementedby regulators such as the Environment Agency. Thatcould also be invaluable to resolve and clarify anyconfusion that may arise regarding the wider environmentalregulatory landscape.

As the Minister ultimately responsible to Parliamentfor the OEP’s use of public money, it is appropriate thatthe Secretary of State should be able to act if the OEPwere not exercising its functions effectively or neededguidance from the Secretary of State to be able to do so,for instance, if it were failing to act strategically and,therefore, not taking appropriate action in relation tomajor systematic issues. The new clause will not providethe Secretary of State with any power to issue directionsto the OEP—that is important—or to intervene inspecific decisions. Rather, the OEP is simply required tohave regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcementpolicy and exercising its enforcement functions.Furthermore, the Secretary of State must exercise thepower in line with the provision in paragraph 17 ofschedule 1, which requires them to“have regard to the need to protect”

the OEP’s independence. That is important as well.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: May I just finish? Any guidance mustalso be laid before Parliament and published. Thatmeans that the process will be transparent, and theSecretary of State will ultimately be accountable toParliament.

There are precedents elsewhere in legislation for thistype of approach. For example, the Climate ChangeAct 2007 provides for the Secretary of State to giveguidance to the Committee on Climate Change—abody that is considered to be highly effective andindependent.

Daniel Zeichner: This is very important, and it cameas a surprise to many of us that the Government areintroducing it as an amendment. Will the Minister

explain why it was not in the Bill originally? What wasthe process that led to the introduction of theseamendments?

Rebecca Pow: As usual, much debate and discussionwent on. It is all about transparency and clarity for theOEP—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is raisinghis eyebrows. The Opposition are always seeking tosuggest that there is something underhand going on,but I wear my heart on my sleeve, and this is all in theinterests of transparency. There is a whole flowchartabout how the OEP will remain independent. Schedule 1(17)sets out that the Secretary of State must be aware of theindependence of the OEP. It is about giving much moreclarity and focus to the way that the OEP will operate.

Amendment 221 is a consequential amendment toschedule 3, which provides an option to extend theOEP’s funtions to apply to devolved matters in thefuture. As the functions conferred by schedule 3 aredevolved, the amendment ensures that, if schedule 3comes into force, any guidance issued under new clause 24will not apply to those devolved functions. Amendment 221is therefore necessary to ensure that new clause 24 iscompatible with the devolution settlement in NorthernIreland. It leaves the Government the flexibility to assistthe OEP through guidance if ever necessary while ensuringthat it remains an independent enforcement body. In thelight of that, amendment 221 is essential to ensuringthat new clause 24 is compatible with the devolutionsettlement for Northern Ireland.

Dr Whitehead: I do not have any great objections tothis clause, but we should reflect on the point made bymy hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. It is a bitshocking that this proposal was not in the Bill previously.This section is about ensuring that the OEP is set upand functions well in Northern Ireland, with all theissues that go with devolved government and the replicationof its functions in the Province. Yet the ability totransfer functions on a devolved basis appears not tohave occurred to the framers of the Bill before it wasput before us. It is only after what in this context wemight call the fortunate suspension of the Bill for quitea long time that it has been possible to reflect on thatomission and this amendment appears before us. Thatis a bit concerning, in terms of what else in the Billmight not do justice particularly to the devolutionsettlements. That is a worry, but we are not worriedabout the actual content that has appeared. Therefore,we do not want to divide the Committee on thisamendment.


Amendment made: 67, in schedule 3, page 148, line 18,leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”

and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(Rebecca Pow.)

11.25 am





OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Thirteenth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

SCHEDULE 3 agreed to, with amendments.





CLAUSE 49 agreed to, with amendments.


Adjourned till Thursday 12 September at half-past Eleven o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than












† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)









(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Schedule 3

THE OFFICE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:NORTHERN IRELAND

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, bethe Third schedule to the Bill.

2 pm

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Thereare two things on which I want to reflect. We mustremember that the schedule concerns the NorthernIreland function of the Office for Environmental Protection,and should effectively provide the devolved NorthernIreland Assembly with a reasonable replica of what isrequired to set up the OEP in England and Wales. Atthe same time, it should provide for substantial reportingand discretion to the Assembly by the OEP.

A particular concern, about which I hope the Ministerwill reflect and respond, is that that replication of theOEP’s operation for its Northern Ireland function isnot as close as it could be. Amendment 194, whichwas tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South(Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), whoboth represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, wasdiscussed earlier as part of a debate on a group ofamendments, so we did not actually discuss its content.I draw the Committee’s attention to the effect thatamendment would have on the OEP in Northern Ireland:it sought essentially to provide a mechanism for long-termand interim targets.

That mechanism was the same as the one for the OEPresponse to targets set out in clauses 1 to 6. Althoughthere is reference to those targets in general, it is verydifferent from clause 1. Indeed, it does not include, forexample, achievement measures and does not specificallydiscuss interim targets. That could have been resolvedwith the amendment, as the formulation is differentfrom the one for England and Wales. I wonder whetherthat has arisen by commission or omission. Was theGovernment’s intention that there should be differentarrangements relating to targets and interim targets forEngland and Wales and for Northern Ireland? Wastheir intention that the OEP should have differentresponsibilities towards targets in Northern Ireland?That is the first concern.

The second concern relates to the formulation of therequirement for Ministers to lay before Parliament thenotices and legal actions that the OEP has introduced inrespect of environmental law and environmental protection.Hon. Members will see that there is a repetition of ourearlier debate about what we characterised as a particularlyegregious “may” and “must” issue. Clause 3(6), onpage 134 of the Bill states:

“The Northern Ireland department concerned may, if it thinksfit, lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly— (a) the advice,and (b) any response that department may make to the advice.”

Hon. Members will recall that is exactly what we debated,and whether the Minister responsible might decide thathe or she would lay something before Parliament or, onthe other hand, they might decide that they would notlay something before Parliament, and that was the endof that. We expressed concern about what we thoughtwas a very poor formulation, as far as the UK Parliamentwas concerned, when we discussed the relevant amendment.

In the first instance, it looks as if that formulation issimply being repeated as far as the OEP and the Ministerare concerned, in Northern Ireland, but there is adifference: it is not the Minister who may lay somethingbefore the Northern Ireland Assembly if he or she seesfit, but the Northern Ireland Department. I am puzzledby that formulation. How it is possible for an entireDepartment to think that something is fit, or not? Inthe formulation used in the England and Wales version,there is a person—the Minister—who must decide whetheror not it is fit. We criticised the potential actions of thatperson in not thinking that something was fit.

I am puzzled about how this will work. Someone,somewhere, may or may not decide to lay somethingbefore the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is okay asfar as it goes, but we do not like the idea of “may or maynot”. However, I do not think what we are consideringis a particularly easy legal concept: not only an entireDepartment thinking fit, but an entire Departmentthinking at all. The formulation that the Department“thinks fit” would require an entire Department todecide something, and an entire Department then todecide whether what it thought fit would be laid beforethe Northern Ireland Assembly.

There is no identified person at any stage in this towhom the Northern Ireland Assembly say, “We wouldrather you had put that in front of us. Why have younot, and why did you not think it was fit to put that infront of us?” Instead, they presumably have to knockon the door of the UK’s Northern Ireland Office andask to speak to someone who could shed some light onthat, then pursue how that thinking and fitness cameabout in the corridors of that Office.

That seems to be a very strange formulation. Can theMinister elucidate whether that means that an individual,one way or another, is responsible in the NorthernIreland Office and can be identified and can take theresponsibility for thinking fit or otherwise? Or is it justa formulation that is so legally opaque as to make itvirtually unworkable? If that is the case, would theMinister think about taking that away and thinkingagain about how the provision is formulated as far asNorthern Ireland is concerned?

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): I want to be clearthat, as part of our dual commitment to a strong Unionand protecting and enhancing the natural environment,the Northern Ireland Executive have asked us to extendcertain aspects of our new environmental governanceframework to Northern Ireland, subject to affirmationfrom the Assembly. A great deal of discussion has goneinto that, and the Executive asked for that. I want to beclear about that. They do not believe it is clouded inopaqueness, because they have been fully engaged.

Schedule 3 provides an option to extend the OEP’sfunctions to apply to devolved matters in Northern Irelandin the future, should the Assembly decide to do so.


That is important. The shadow Minister touched ontargets, but we voted on that earlier in schedule 2, so Ido not think that is necessarily relevant to what we aretalking about now.

The provisions in part 1 of schedule 3 will provide theOEP with powers in Northern Ireland broadly equivalentto those in England. For example, the OEP will be ableto monitor and report on the implementation of NorthernIrish environmental law, much as it would be able to doin England under clause 26. Similarly, schedule 3 providesfor the extension of the OEP’s enforcement functions toNorthern Ireland, taking into account the two nations’different court systems. Part 2 will provide for the OEPto adapt its operating procedures appropriately if extendedto cover devolved matters in Northern Ireland, andamends the general functions of the OEP so they mayadequately apply to Northern Ireland. For example,part 2 ensures appropriate Northern Ireland representationon the OEP board and ensures that the OEP’s remitcovers Northern Irish environmental law. Schedule 3 isessential to ensure the extension of the OEP to NorthernIreland should the Assembly decide to do that. I hopethat I have made that quite clear.

Dr Whitehead: I do not think the Minister has clarifiedwhat paragraph 3(6) of schedule 3 means. I offered apossible interpretation of what that clause meant—itappears to say that an entire Department is responsiblefor thinking, and for thinking something fit. I assumethat the entire Department that is mentioned in theprovision is the Northern Ireland Department concerned,so that, as the Minister said, should these matters proceedproperly towards devolution, there will be—she said thatthere has been, as I anticipated there should have been—extensive discussion with the devolved Administrationin Northern Ireland on how this will work and what itmeans, and that a substantial part of this process is attheir request. It is important to understand, since we aremaking legislation here for that to work there, what thisactually means. I assume that it does not mean that theUK Northern Ireland Office is responsible, if it thinksfit, for laying before the Northern Assembly—

2.15 pm

Rebecca Pow: First, I want to clarify the fact that thedecision to commence provisions to extend the OEP todevolved matters to Northern Ireland is a matter forNorthern Ireland Ministers and for affirmation by theAssembly. I also want to point out that it is common practicefor Northern Ireland to confer powers on a Department.Departmental functions are exercised subject to thedirection and control of the departmental Minister, asset out in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for that. That isvery helpful. If it is the case that a Department, inNorthern Ireland practice, effectively takes its cue forthese things from the Minister in the Department that isresponsible, that potentially answers my particular question.I have not heard that before, but it would be good if wecould be assured that that is what will happen in practiceonce that goes into devolution—that there will be aperson responsible for thinking fit, namely, the Ministerin that Department.

Rebecca Pow: I will intervene again and give thoseassurances. I send a great many letters to my counterpartin that Department. We have a lot of toing and froing,

so the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is a lotof communication. We want it to work for NorthernIreland the way that they want it to work

Dr Whitehead: Absolutely, and that is what we want todo as well. That is why we want to ensure that it worksas well as it should. It appears, I hope, that this formulation,strange as it looks, is capable of being operated in asound way, as far as the Assembly is concerned for thefuture, and that people will not be running aroundcorridors asking a building to think, but running aroundcorridors asking the Minister to think, which is what Ithought should have been in the Bill. If it works thatway round, that is fine. I thank the Minister for herclarification. I have no intention of opposing the schedule.


Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.


Schedule 4

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY OBLIGATIONS

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 16, in schedule 4, page 151, line 12, leaveout “may” and insert “must”.

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

The Bill, according to the Government’s publishedpaper, comprises two thematic halves. The first providesa legal framework for environmental governance, whichmy hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test soknowledgably touched on this morning and last week.The second half of the Bill makes provision for specificimprovement of the environment, including measureson waste and resource efficiency, which we are discussingtoday. In the coming days, we will cover air quality andenvironmental recall; water; nature and biodiversity;and conservation covenants. They will all be discussed.We need to get the Bill right to ensure that we honourthe promise to provide a once-in-a-generation piece oflegislation—a promise that the Minister and manyGovernment Members heralded at every opportunity,at least until the Bill disappeared back in March. It is sogood to have it back.

That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabledthis amendment. We must not have a Bill that is madeup of passive “mays” or “coulds”; we need “wills” and“musts”. Many in this House and across England, andthose in the sector, have waited hundreds of days for themissing-in-action Bill. Now that it is back and we arehere in Committee, we must not waste—I apologise forthe pun—the opportunity to have the strongest possiblelegislation, so we have tabled the amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for proposingthe amendment. I also welcome her taking up thecudgels—perhaps I should say something less aggressive.


Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): The baton.

Rebecca Pow: Yes, taking up the baton on behalf ofthe Opposition. May I assure the hon. Member forNewport West that the Government have every intentionof making regulations using schedule 4? The Bill createsproducer responsibility obligations in respect of specifiedproducts or materials. That is one of a number ofprovisions that will enable us to take action significantlyto improve the environmental performance of productsacross their entire life cycle—from the raw materialused, to end-of-life management. Other powers in theBill include our ability in schedule 5 to require producersto pay disposal costs for their products; our powers inschedule 6 to introduce deposit return schemes; and thepowers in schedule 7 to set resource efficiency standardsin relation to the design and lifetime of products.

The Government need the flexibility to decide whatmeasures will best deliver the outcomes that we want.Imposing producer responsibility obligations in all casesmay not be appropriate. The power is drafted in a waythat gives us the flexibility to choose the appropriatemeasure or combination of measures for any product,and to decide which producers are obligated, the obligationson them, and the steps that they need to take to demonstratethat they have met their obligations.

In this instance, we will use these powers to introducenew regulations for producer packaging responsibility.That will increase the reuse and recycling of packagingand reduce the use of unnecessary and avoidable packaging.In 2019, we consulted with the devolved Administrationson proposals to reform the regulations, and we willconsult again in 2021, so it is a lengthy process, but a lotof discussion has informed this. In the resources andwaste strategy for England, we made commitmentsrelating to updating our already up-and-running producerresponsibility schemes on waste electricals, waste batteriesand end-of-life vehicles; these powers are needed toimplement those commitments. We also committed totaking action to address food waste.

Products vary. They have different supply chains, usedifferent materials and have different impacts on theenvironment. That is why we need to be able to introduceproduct-specific regulations, using the appropriate powers.This power provides the flexibility to impose producerresponsibility obligations where it is appropriate to doso, and that flexibility would be removed by the amendment.I therefore ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw it.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments. Itake the point about flexibility; in my previous job as aphysiotherapist, however, we had both flexibility andcontrol. Splints and corsets were very useful in ensuringflexibility in confined areas. That is why the “mays”shouldbe turned into “musts”. The grammar is important tous. But I take the point, and this is a probing amendment,so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 4,page 151, line 16, after “waste” insert

“, reducing the consumption of virgin materials,”.

This amendment is about taking strengthened measureson tackling waste. It refers to virgin materials, which theMinister mentioned previously. For the benefit of those

outside these walls who are maybe not as knowledgeableas the Committee, these are materials like new paper orplastic.

This amendment, although specific and focused in itsapproach, seeks to ensure the Bill includes the strongestpossible measures to tackle waste. The wider focus onthe obligations and responsibilities of producers isimportant—not because the Bill will directly impactthose parts of the world outside the UK, but because ofthe need to get our own house in order in the UK, andin England specifically. We need to do this because it isimportant to set an example to others, and the Ministeralluded to this in discussions about COP26 next year.

We want a strong Bill. If colleagues support thisamendment, we will help deliver a strong EnvironmentBill with a strengthened schedule 4. It would make clearto the producers of materials used in everyday life thatthey have responsibilities and we are going to hold themto account.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I welcome the intentionbehind the schedule, which is to shift the burden ofdisposal costs from local authorities and the taxpayer toproducers; the burden on them has historically been toolow. I also welcome the shift in this Bill towards tacklingfood waste. I have been campaigning on this in Wandsworthborough for many years, and to see that it will be in thelegislation and has to be addressed by the council is verywelcome. However, in some ways, the drafting is tooloose; as often in this Bill, it needs some tightening up,and I hope that these Labour amendments will beuseful in doing that.

In terms of virgin materials, it is not good enough tofocus on the end-of-life solutions for materials. Theschemes introduced under this schedule need to incentiviseproducers to make the right decisions at the start of theprocess, as well as ensuring that they fulfil environmentalresponsibilities at the end. As the UK EnvironmentalLaw Association recommends, the Government need toclearly signal that extended producer responsibility coversthe full life cycle, not only waste disposal. Reducingvirgin material use is key to this, and to the Bill being asambitious as we want it to be. Amendment 158 addssome words to ensure this.

Virgin materials include timber, plastic resin derivedfrom the petroleum refining process and mined materials.This amendment would ensure that the producerresponsibility scheme considers upstream measures thattackle consumption and production as well as wasteminimisation. Although waste minimisation is important,it is not sufficient by itself to guarantee a reduction invirgin material use. Without adding this amendment,we cannot be sure the outcome will be the reductionthat we need to see.

Manufacturing products with virgin materials usuallyrequires much more energy and depletes more naturalresources than using recycled materials, so when wereduce their use, there is also an offset for other processes.Action to reduce usage of virgin materials is essential totackle overall depletion.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for her interestin this provision and for this amendment. I reassure herand the Committee that the amendment is not needed.

Reducing the consumption of virgin materials isimportant; we all agree on that. In our 25-year environmentplan, we stated our long-term ambition of doubling


resource productivity by 2050. That is about maximisingthe value and benefits we get from our resources, andmanaging these resources more sustainably to reduceassociated environmental impacts.

I can assure the hon. Member for Putney that we aretackling this issue in the Bill. We have powers in schedule 5to require producers to pay the disposal costs of theproducts or materials they place on the market, and forthese costs to be varied according to the design orconsumption of the products. Through the costs thatproducers pay, they can be incentivised to design andmanufacture products that use fewer materials, thatinclude more recycled materials, and are much easier torecycle and break down, so that the parts can be reusedelsewhere.

2.30 pm

Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con): In myconstituency, as in many others, I suspect, there is oftendifficulty getting recycling plants put in. I completelyagree with the Bill’s intention to shift the cost to producers.However, what proposals are there to get recyclingplants and places to process the waste, paid for by theproducers, put in the right places? One could spend allthe money one likes, but if there is nowhere to get thewaste recycled, it cannot be recycled.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend. He touches onthe crux of the matter. This is all-encompassing. We aredriving towards what we call a circular economy. That isthe purpose of the measures on waste and resources.They will ensure consistent collections, though we havenot got on to that yet, and require products to be morerecyclable, but we will need them to be collected andrecycled. That will drive the demand for those plants tobe established in the right place. Things will join up muchbetter than they do today. That is what the measures inthe Bill are all about. I thank my hon. Friend for raisingthat important point. This should make the wholeprocedure a more complete circle.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP):Do the Government intend to invest in some of thoserecycling centres, or is the intention to leave it to theprivate sector to fill that need? That is a topic I havebeen pursuing lately and I am interested to hear theMinister’s views.

Rebecca Pow: That topic is not referenced in the Bill.Those are issues relating to how the regulations willwork when it comes to producer responsibility anddeposit return. Local authorities will still play a hugerole, but the great point is that they will not be responsiblefor all the costs any more. What is brilliant is that thecosts will be shifted on to the businesses. They will thenbe forced to design products that are much easier torecycle. That brings us again to the circular economy. Ithank the hon. Lady for raising another good point.

The measures will help us to tackle waste from thebeginning of the life cycle, and complement measureselsewhere in the Bill that support the later stages of thatcycle. There are also powers in schedule 7 that will allowresource efficiency requirements to be placed on specifiedproducts. Those requirements will relate to factors suchas the materials from which the product is manufactured,and the resources consumed during its production. Forinstance, thinking off the top of my head, one could say

that clothing or textiles must contain a certain amountof recycled fibre. There could be a requirement to usefewer virgin materials or more recycled materials in themanufacture of the product.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Putney welcomesthe schedule. It is great to have that positivity, and Iapplaud her work on food waste. It is very exciting thatit will become law for food waste to be collected. Thatwill be an important part of the Bill, because whilesome local authorities, such as mine in Taunton Deane,do collect it, loads do not. Much of it ends up inlandfill, giving off emissions. We could make so muchbetter use of it, and could focus attention on how muchfood waste is produced, which is frankly shocking.

Dr Whitehead: Is the Minister’s example of requiringa certain proportion of textiles to include recycledmaterials now a policy?

The Chair: In the context of this amendment, Minister.

Rebecca Pow: I was just giving a random example, offthe top of my head. I do not see any policies writtenhere. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch me out?

Dr Whitehead: I was hoping it was going to be policy.

Rebecca Pow: The measures are the kind of thing thatwill open up the doors to all those opportunities.

The Chair: If it is any comfort to the Minister, shewas deviating slightly from the content of the amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I was, and I thought the Chairman wasgoing to interrupt me when I mentioned all the food.

Finally, schedule 4 allows us to set obligations onproducers in relation to reuse, redistribution, recoveryand recycling. All that will contribute to a more resource-efficient economy. For those reasons, I ask the hon.Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance,in which she stressed the importance of the cyclical natureof the production of goods. We must break the cycle ofnew, new, new. I am risking the wrath of the Chair, butwhen I sat on the Environmental Audit Committee, wehad an investigation and report into the throwaway natureof the fashion industry; that is very relevant to the Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden,my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the hon.Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for mentioningthe importance of recycling centres. There is no point ineveryone sorting their recycling at home if there isnowhere to recycle things. That is an important part ofthe process, which is why we will press after the legislationis enacted to ensure that happens. Having received theMinister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 159, in schedule 4,page 151, line 32, after “be” insert “prevented, reduced,”.


[Ruth Jones]

As you might notice, the amendment is very similarto others put before the Committee today. It focuses onthe strength of the language that Ministers have chosento use in the Bill. In recent days, my hon. Friends theMember for Southampton, Test and for Cambridgeand I have said that we will hold Ministers to their promiseto deliver a once-in-a-generation Bill. “Once in a generation”means it has to be big, bold and comprehensive. That iswhy we are calling on the Minister to use the strongestlanguage in the Bill. I implore the Minister to be ambitiousand bold in the text that is used.

I want to be helpful. I want the Minister to be able tosing from the rooftops about the Bill. I hope she willacknowledge the Opposition’s willingness to make it aneven better Bill that really delivers for people across thewhole UK. Let us not limit ourselves to moving thingsaround, or shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Let ususe this Bill to deliver real, long-term change.

The amendment would add “prevented”and “reduced”to the Bill, so that it does not just say “reused” and“redistributed”. We want the country to cut its relianceon plastics and paper, and to tackle waste in a meaningfulway. Once again, the amendment will help deliver astrong Environment Bill with a strong schedule 4.

Fleur Anderson: As my hon. Friend has described sowell, the amendment would widen the powers, so thatproducer responsibility regulations allowed targets forwaste prevention and reduction, not just reusing andrecycling. That is absolutely vital to achieving realcarbon reduction and real waste reduction.

Waste prevention focuses on reducing the amount ofwaste generated from the source. It involves looking atmanufacturing, processing, packaging, storage, recyclingand disposal processes, to identify opportunities tomanage waste and minimise the impact on the environment.

Although this looks like a minor amendment, the twowords to be added would create another dimension tothe powers of the Bill and the impacts it covers. activitieswould include mapping packaging and production wasteto inform and develop good practice, and developingrecommendations and strategies for prevention, recoveryand reuse. The words “prevention” and “reduction” areessential for doing that. An example from real life is utensils.The measures would look not just at plastic utensils andhow to deal with them when they are thrown away, butreusing utensils from the start, so there is no re-packagingto look at. I have been campaigning about nappies,which form a huge part of our landfill. Preventing theuse of disposable nappies would incentivise producers.“Prevention” could be a game-changing additional wordin the Bill. A home composting scheme run by myneighbouring borough of Lambeth looks at the preventionof waste right from the beginning, in the home.

This provision would enhance the Bill. I endorse theaddition of the words “prevented” and “reduced” .

Dr Whitehead: I want to add a little bit of context toamendment 159. As my hon. Friends the Members forPutney and for Newport West have already mentioned,it increases the dimension within which these issues canbe considered in terms of targets. It does so not by anaccidental addition of words, but essentially by adding

what is in the Government’s White Paper “Our waste,our resources: a strategy for England”, which was publishedin 2018.

In that White Paper, the Government fully embracethe notion of the waste hierarchy, and the documentcontains lots of good charts to illustrate it. At thebottom of the waste hierarchy are things such as landfill.Moving up the hierarchy, we find energy from waste,which is still pretty low in the hierarchy; after that, it isnecessary to start recycling. From a policy point ofview, measures should always drive waste as far up thehierarchy as possible. If it is possible to recycle waste,rather than putting it into an incinerator as an alternativeto burying it in the land, that is what should be done. If,however, there is residual waste that cannot be incineratedor recycled—there is some of that in the waste stream—itshould be put into landfill, but only on a residual basis.We would hope that over time, the amount of wastegoing into landfill will be virtually nil, because we havemoved up the waste hierarchy in terms of how thesystem works.

In the waste hierarchy, there are two other categoriesabove recycling: reducing and preventing. The best wayto handle a waste stream is to make sure that there isless waste in it in the first place, and that it contains onlythings that cannot be reused or prevented from arising.At that point, we would be dealing, pretty much, with aresidual waste stream when it came to volume andclimate change energy considerations. In the wholewaste stream, the only waste to be addressed would beresidual waste from a largely circular economy, in whichproducts are designed to come apart so that the partscan be put to other uses, and, through industrial symbiosis,products that one company views as waste are presentedto other organisations as raw material.

That process is possible only if product design orarticulation allows it to happen. For example, theexpectation would be that a vehicle could be taken apartand all the components—even if they are made ofdifferent elements, and they are not all metal or plastic—would be sufficiently pure and reusable to be used as theraw material for something else straight away. As wewill discuss later, that is particularly important with thecoming upon us of electric vehicles. If electric vehiclescannot be taken apart—in particular, if their batteriescannot be taken apart to recover the rare earth elements,lithium and other materials for use in other batteries, sothat they are not put into the waste stream in the firstplace—we are not very far down the line of recycling.

2.45 pm

Reuse is immensely important in the waste hierarchy.It sits only marginally behind the reduction of packagingand the reduction of unnecessary elements in manufacture,by careful design, to ensure that a product uses theminimum amount of material that is compatible withthat material’s life. If we do those things, we will have acomplete waste hierarchy in operation. The two wordsthat would be added by the amendment are essentialcomponents of that hierarchy. I am not saying anythingparticularly novel or different, because that is the processthe Government have adopted in their waste strategy.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend speaks with passionand experience on this issue. This is not novel, so I havefound myself wondering, exactly as he does, why those


words have been excluded. Would he care to speculateon why the Government would choose not to have themin the Bill?

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend, as always, makes animportant point about what is and is not in the legislation.I would expect him to have similar views about otherwords. It seems plain to me that if the waste hierarchy isto be adopted, all the components of that hierarchy mustbe in the description. They are not there, and I cannotspeculate on why not. It may be that those who draftedthe Bill were not fully aware of the waste White Paperwhen they sat down late at night to write that passage. Ifthey were not, they should have been. The amendmentwould offer an opportunity to rectify that omission. Weare not suggesting that there was any malevolent intention;perhaps it is just an omission. I hope the Minister canoblige us by ensuring that the words sit proudly in theBill, alongside Government policy.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for NewportWest for the proposed amendment. Although I recognisethe intentions behind it, I must disagree with it. She pressedthe Government to be as ambitious as possible, and Iassure her that we are being ambitious. I am delightedthat we think in the same way in wanting the highestambition; I like to think that we are as one on that.

I do not believe we need the amendment. The power,as drafted, already allows us to place obligations, includingtargets, on producers to prevent waste or to reduce theamount of a product or material that becomes waste.Paragraph 2(2) gives examples of how targets may beset. They include, but are not limited to, the settingof targets to increase the proportion of a product ormaterial that is reused, redistributed, recycled or recoveredto prevent it from becoming waste. Those examples donot prevent the powers in schedule 4 from being used toset targets in relation to preventing waste from beingproduced, or reducing the amount of waste that is produced.

Producer responsibility obligations could be set astargets to incentivise producers to prevent or reducewaste, but they do not have to be set only as targets. Wecan all get a bit hung up on targets. Targets are important,but we could use the powers, for example, to requireproducers to take specific action to tackle waste, such asby requiring retailers to take back products. There is alot of work in this space in the area of electronic waste,where department stores are expected to take backproducts. Another possibility could be single-use cups,once they have been used. Obligations such as thisshould create a strong incentive to create less waste inthe first place: I think we are all agreed that that is whatwe are driving towards.

The hon. Member for Putney made a similar caseabout the circular economy. I applaud her work onnappies; I was one of those mothers. I have threechildren, and—this was a long time ago, when peoplewere not talking about this sort of thing—with my firstchild, I used only washable nappies. Can you imagine,Mr Gray, how much work that was? Oh my goodness—notto mention the smell! I am not digressing, because thisis all relevant. I was a news reporter at the time, and Iinterviewed a lady who had set up a business makingthese nappies, so I thought, “I am going to use those.”In fact, I think I used my child allowance support to payfor them. That was what I had decided I would do, but itwas a labour of love.

The point is that through all these measures in theBill, manufacturers of any product will be driven tothink about what is in it. For example, are nappies madeof recycled material? Do they have recycled content?Could they be reused? Are they washable? The Bill willdrive everyone to think like that.

Dr Whitehead: If they made nappy pins that did notstab the baby.

Rebecca Pow: Did the shadow Minister use washablenappies for his children?

Dr Whitehead: I did indeed, absolutely.

Rebecca Pow: Did he?

The hon. Member for Putney also raised an importantpoint about garden waste. We have now legislated forgarden waste to be collected: that is in clause 54.

I also wanted to give a quick résumé about the lifecycle issue that the hon. Member for Southampton,Test touched on. He mentioned the waste hierarchy,which is basically driving towards a circular economy.That is the driving force of the resources and wastestrategy, and it is the intention behind the Bill. I willwhizz through the related measures in the Bill, whichare about raw material, extraction and manufacturing.

The resource efficiency requirement power enablesstandards to be set that relate to the materials andtechniques used by manufacturers, such as specifyingthe minimum amount of recycled fibre in clothing, aswe mentioned earlier. The resource efficiency informationpower will drive the market by providing consumersand businesses with the information they need to makesustainable choices. I can see my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gloucester looking at me; in order for him to be ableto make the right choices, he wants to know howsustainable a product is, so that he can buy that one asopposed to another one. There will be more informationand more labelling.

On end of life, the resource efficiency powers can beused to specify that products are designed so that whenthey reach end of life, they can easily be dismantled—exactlyas the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has outlined—and the materials can be recovered and recycled. Ourpowers for deposit return, extended producer responsibilityand recycling collections would enable better managementof products and materials at the end of life. That willincrease reuse and recycling, and it will reduce theamount of material that is incinerated or landfilled.

Preventing waste from being created in the first placeand reducing the amount of waste that is produced is apriority for the Government. That is why we have statedour ambition to achieve zero avoidable waste by 2050.We will do this though the measures set out in theresources and waste strategy—we seek the powers forsome of those in this Bill—and through other initiativessuch as the new waste prevention programme, which wehope to publish and consult on in the near future. On allthose grounds, I ask the hon. Member for NewportWest if she might withdraw her amendment.

Ruth Jones: What an enlightening debate we havehad. In terms of one-upmanship, dare I say it, my hon.Friend the Member for Putney has managed reusablenappies for four children. This debate has been useful,


[Ruth Jones]

and it is good to have all the ideas, because only byputting all our heads together can we make thisEnvironment Bill ground-breaking. We want it to work,and that is why our amendments are designed to help,not to hinder.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Testmade the important point that as well as recycling, thereusing of goods, parts and components is crucial.People want to do the right thing. Since programmessuch as “Blue Planet” have come along, people aremuch more aware of pollution and how they can playtheir part. They want to do the right thing, and this Billmust make it easy for them to do so.

The Minister mentioned garden waste. At the risk ofblowing Wales’s trumpet, Wales already has a successfulgarden waste scheme—in fact, recycling rates in Walesare very high—so perhaps she can look across theborder. She also mentioned targets. If we do not havetargets, how do we know if we are getting to the end ofthe road? How will we know if we are improving unlesswe set targets in the first place? We should set targetsnot to be punitive, but to help us to assess our progress;that is why they are important. We believe that theamendment is also important, so we will press it to aDivision.



Division No. 21]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 160, in schedule 4,page 154, line 38, leave out “any” and insert “specified”.

This amendment is very similar to others that havebeen tabled. It focuses not on the strength of language,but rather on the choice of language that Ministers haveopted for in this Bill. By leaving out “any” and insertingthe word “specified”, we are looking to ensure that wedeliver results, rather than a scattergun or “we hope”approach. The amendment is relatively straightforward,so the Chair will be pleased to know that I will not goon when I do not need to. I hope that Ministers will takethe amendment in the spirit in which it is intended,because we want the Bill to have teeth and to beeffective. Above all, we want it to be useful and todeliver, so this amendment seeks to ensure we are focusedon results, not just on good intentions and misplacedhope. As I have said, “once in a generation” means thatthe Bill has to be bold, big and comprehensive, so wecall on the Minister to use the right language. Webelieve that the amendment will help to deliver a strongerEnvironment Bill, with a strengthened schedule 4.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment,but I reassure her and the Committee that it is notneeded. Paragraph 11(2) provides the ability to specifyin regulations the activities that count as recovery. Thatmeans that the way in which energy is to be obtainedfrom a product or material can be specified in regulations.The power is designed to be flexible, given the broadrange of possible products on which we may decide toimpose producer responsibility obligations. I reassureher that in making any regulations, it would be ourintention to impose regulations on producers in relationto options higher up the waste hierarchy, such as prevention,reuse and recycling—all the things that we discussedearlier—as a first priority. In simple terms, it means thatwe will be encouraging the prevention, reuse and recyclingof waste over energy recovery. I therefore ask her towithdraw the amendment.

3 pm

Ruth Jones: Having heard the Minister’s words, I amsomewhat reassured, but not entirely. We will thereforenot press for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.




Schedule 5

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISPOSAL COSTS

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 17, inschedule 5, page 157, line 9, leave out “may” and insert“must”.

Earlier this afternoon, I noted how important the Billis and how we need to ensure that it receives thoroughscrutiny, so that it is as strong and coherent as it can be.With that in mind, we need to do what I urged theCommittee to do earlier: get the Bill right, so that wehonour and meet the promise of a once-in-a-generationpiece of legislation. I remind the Minister that she andher colleagues heralded that promise at every opportunity,until the Bill disappeared in March, only to return now.

That is why we are proposing the amendment. As Inoted with amendment 16 to schedule 4, we must notrest on our laurels. We cannot have a Bill that is simplymade up of passive and weak “mays” and “coulds”; weneed the “wills”and “musts”. The fact that we have waitedso long, listening to campaigners and those active in thesector, means that we cannot waste the opportunity todeliver a strong, wide-ranging and competent piece oflegislation.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment,but I reassure her that we feel it is not needed. TheGovernment need the flexibility—I have mentioned thisbefore—to decide what measures will best deliver theoutcomes we want to see achieved. Requiring producersto pay disposal costs in all cases might not be theappropriate option.

The power is drafted to give flexibility to choose theappropriate measure, or combination of measures, forany product. It also gives us the flexibility to decide forwhich products or materials producers must pay disposal


costs, the producers who must pay the disposal costs,the costs that they must pay and what those costsshould be.

At this point, I will take a step back to reflect on whatthe measures will actually mean. The powers will allowus to create a strong financial incentive for businesses todo the right thing. I have spoken with businesses, and ofcourse they want strong signals, because without themthey will not be inclined to invest, innovate or go in thedirection that we want them to go. That is so important.

The measures will encourage producers such assupermarkets to reduce the packaging they use in theirproducts, so that less waste is produced. Everybody willstart thinking about their products and their packaging,because they have to be responsible for what happens toit at the end of the day. It would be in the best interestsof manufacturers to make products that are more reusableand recyclable. Thinking back to nappies, if they are tobe reusable or rewashable, they could contain recycledfabric—in fact, that is a jolly good idea, and someone isprobably already doing it. That is just an example. Suchdecisions should all have sustainability in mind, and thecustomers will see that—with the new labelling and allthe information—in the products that they buy.

I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for NewportWest that the Government have every intention of makingregulations using schedule 5. The resources and wastestrategy also commits us to reviewing and consulting onmeasures, including extended producer responsibilityfor five other waste streams by the end of 2025. Thosefive include textiles, construction materials and fishinggear. Along with the other products in that list, theyhave all been highlighted as urgent areas that could dowith this kind of focus.

We need to retain the flexibility to introduce product-specific regulations using the appropriate powers, andas drafted, this power provides the flexibility to imposeextended producer responsibility obligations where it isappropriate to do so. I hope that is helpful, and Itherefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdrawher amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her words, andrespectfully say that strong signals sometimes need tobe backed up with strong words, which is why wewanted to amend the wording of the schedule to “must”,not “may”. However, that point having been madeagain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 161, inschedule 5, page 157, line 13, leave out from first “the”to end of sub-paragraph (2) and insert

“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products ormaterials.”

As the Committee will know, schedule 5 allows therelevant authority to make regulations that require

“those involved in manufacturing, processing, distributing orsupplying products or materials”

to

“meet, or contribute to, the disposal costs”

of those products. This is all about the journey, fromstart to finish, of the materials that we all rely on everyday, even when we do not think about it. We havealready had ample examples of the kinds of recyclablethings we need to consider. I have to say to the Minister

and her colleagues that the issues covered by thisamendment will be mentioned both now and in comingdays, because the Bill lacks foresight in a number ofareas, but particularly when it comes to assessing thewhole life cycle. That is particularly important, and itshould be part of this Bill.

Thinking through this amendment and the backgroundto it reminded me of recent events in Sri Lanka. Thatreminder was further reinforced when I received theanswer to a written parliamentary question that Itabled to the Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs—for those who may be interested, it wasquestion 109651. I asked the Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs

“what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart onthe 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that countryin September 2020.”

The answer I received from the hon. Member for TauntonDeane was as follows:

“The Environment Agency (EA), as the competent authorityfor waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with theauthorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading theresponse on this matter.

The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday28 October. The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lankain 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegalmaterials described as mattresses and carpets which had beenexported for recycling. With the shipment now back on Englishsoil, EA”—

that is, the Environment Agency—

“enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of wasteshipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Thoseresponsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, anunlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gainedthrough the course of their criminal activity.”

That was the answer I received from the Minister, andthe issues it covers show why this amendment is sonecessary. There are some parts that I will be followingup on outside this Committee, but its arrival in myinbox was timely for today’s debate.

The Minister’s answer to the question demonstratesthat waste and the issues that go with it simply do notdisappear. Containers that left the United Kingdom in2017 and travelled across the world are now comingback to cause trouble. This Bill can design out some ofthose issues if Ministers want it to, and this amendmentwould help to ensure that it does. We need to ensure thatthe life journey of the materials used is followed throughby their producers from start to finish, focusing not juston the waste element but on the production and usefullifetime element of these issues. I urge the Minister tothink about the social costs of the issues we are discussing,not just the environmental costs. Many of these issuesrequire a cohesive and coherent approach that dealswith a number of different factors, and I hope theMinister will give proper consideration to this.

As the Committee will know from the papers, thisamendment is relatively self-explanatory, but it is important,and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.Once again, our amendment will help to deliver astrong Environment Bill with a strengthened and morecomprehensive schedule 5.

Fleur Anderson: We moved this amendment to urgethe Government to go that bit further in their ambitionfor this Bill. We have gone this far—we have set up the


[Fleur Anderson]

office, and have put in place all of these schedules andprovisions—and by going just a little bit further, wecould achieve so much more. Including

“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products ormaterials”

in schedule 5 would make a great difference.

The Local Government Association also believes thatthis schedule does not go quite far enough. It is concernedthat litter and fly-tipping of discarded packaging is notincluded in the schedule, and that greater clarity onwhat producer responsibility will cover is needed. It alsoquestions why the Bill does not currently include theterm “full net cost”. There is a commitment to pay localauthorities, but it should set out clearly that producerswill be required to pay the full net cost to councils. Toachieve that, the schemes should seek to reduceconsumption of materials in the first instance, reducingthe full life cycle impacts arising from sectors andproduct groups.

That is why I urge the Minister and her Governmentcolleagues to consider supporting amendment 161, whichwould address this omission by factoring social costsinto the fees, alongside environmental effects. It wouldalso ensure that fees are implemented across the full lifecycle of products and packaging, rather than just, as wehave said in previous amendments, the end of lifeimpact. Such a change would incentivise responsibleand sustainable design to minimise these costs in thefirst place and enhance the environment for us all.

Dr Whitehead: Just to add to my colleagues’ excellentexpositions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the wordingof the schedule. It is headed “Producer responsibilityfor disposal costs”—fair enough. Paragraph 1(2) talksabout

“the disposal costs of the products or materials”.

It is then as if the framers of the schedule thought,“Hang on a minute, is that what we really want to do?”,because paragraph 2(2) says:

“In this Schedule the ‘disposal’ of products or materials includestheir re-use, redistribution, recovery or recycling.”

In order to continue with the way that the schedule isset out, the framers have had to mangle the Englishlanguage to such an extent as to make it unrecognisable.A reasonable dictionary definition of “disposal” is “theaction or process of getting rid of something”. Thewhole point about the circular economy and the wastehierarchy is to avoid doing that as much as possible inprocessing waste. Rather, one should try to recycle it,reuse it and keep it in life. It should go round thecircular economy for as long as possible.

This schedule therefore looks like it is facing thewrong way in its whole outlook. The amendment goessome way to putting that right by emphasising that it isabout the whole life of the product: what happens afterit has been used the first time and how it can best fit intothe circular economy definition of continuing with itsuse in the economy, so that new materials do not have tobe brought in because the previous materials have beendisposed of.

I suggest that the amendment is tremendously helpful,because it puts right the mangling that has gone onto get the schedule into existence in the first place.

While paragraph 2(2) goes some way to un-mangle thephrase, the amendment completely un-mangles it. Itemphasises what we should all emphasise—indeed, it ispolicy to emphasise—namely the whole life; the circularlife of products that go round and round in the economy.

I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in thepositive spirit in which it is intended. Among otherthings, it will restore to the Bill what most members ofthe public would consider to be the meaning of theword “disposal”. It is quite important that we ensurethat legislation is not just intelligible to the generalpublic, but can be received by them in the spirit in whichit was put forward—that is, that they understand aparticular phrase to mean what they think it means, notwhat someone somewhere in a building far away hasinvented it to mean because they could not get it right inthe first place.

3.15 pm

Rebecca Pow: First, I thank the hon. Member forNewport West for withdrawing her previous amendmentand not pushing it to a vote. I thank her for herconsideration of this particular amendment, but I wouldlike to reassure her and the Committee that I do notbelieve it is necessary.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is important thatas a society we monitor and address social issues relatingto the manufacture of products and materials. In theUK, we address them through legislation, such as the Healthand Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the HumanRights Act 1998. Other initiatives, such as the UnitedNations’ International Labour Organisation and theForest Stewardship Council, look to tackle those issueson a global scale.

However, the core focus of extended producerresponsibility is to encourage producers to take actionsthat will help to protect and improve the environment,including paying the costs of managing products at theend of their life and improving the design of productsto make them recyclable or increase the amount of recycledmaterial that they contain—all the things that we havementioned previously. Recycling rates will then increaseand the supply of secondary material will increase.

I will quickly address the issue that the hon. Ladytouched on about Sri Lanka. I just want to highlightthat it is a manifesto commitment, which we will implementthrough this Bill, to ban all exports of plastic waste tonon-OECD countries. That is in clause 59, I think—Icannot read my writing. I have terrible writing.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I am grateful tothe Minister, because this is very important and thehon. Member for Newport West was right to raise it.Those of us who have responsibilities as trade envoys arevery conscious of some of the damage done to relationshipswith overseas countries, particularly Commonwealthcountries, where waste has effectively been dumped bylocal councils. That is partly due to the supply chain forwaste disposal. Does the Minister agree that this Billwill make real steps forward in tackling that problem?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for raising thatissue. The hon. Member for Putney touched on litter,and I was going to say that this is a very wide subject—waste, hazardous waste, export of waste, litter—and


clauses 60 to 68 deal with a whole lot of those issues, sowe will discuss them at length when we get to them.However, we are mindful of what my hon. Friend theMember for Gloucester says, and there are measures inthe Bill to really get to grips with some of those things,which are rightly important, especially for our globalstanding, as he says with his trade envoy hat on. I knowhe does such great work representing us, so I thank himfor that.

I must disagree with the hon. Member for Southampton,Test about words being mangled. The only thing thatwe want mangled is the waste, so that we can take itapart and turn it into something else. I completelydisagree that the words have been mangled by thosewho have so carefully drafted the legislation. I willhighlight the fact that the extended producer responsibilityscheme and the requirements to cover the full net disposalcosts of their products and materials when they becomewaste will encourage producers to make these changesthat we all want to the design and the materials that willhave an impact on the whole supply chain. That is thepurpose of all this. That will then increase the supply ofmaterials for recycling and the quality of material forrecycling, by reducing contamination and the use ofhard-to-recycle products and materials. The whole circularsystem will be dealt with, so I take issue with hismangling suggestion.

At the end of the day, our supply chains will bestrengthened in secondary materials, which is so importantthat we will then give investors the signal and theconfidence they need to invest in our UK recyclingindustry, so we can put the recycling units that my hon.Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden mentionedeverywhere they are required and companies such asCoca-Cola can have all the PET plastic they want tomake all the bottles they would like to make fromgood-quality recycled plastic. It is difficult to get holdof enough of many those things now, but when we getthese measures in place, the idea is that it will all besorted out. I can see the hon. Member for Cambridgesmiling at me, but I know he knows that I am on theright track.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend the Minister madea good point about making sure that the costs to theprivate sector involved in helping us recycle more cometo a level at which it is important for them to invest. Thefringe benefits from that are massive. Many of therecycling centres that previously sent waste to landfillare now available for all sorts of green energy projectsincluding solar, hydrogen and onshore wind. It willmake a huge difference in my constituency of Gloucester,so I am grateful for what she says about how the Bill willhelp that.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioninghis constituency and for raising that important pointabout how we need to get business on board, and howwe need to give the right signals and get the right thingsto happen to move us to the circular economy. At theend of the day, we want less waste landfilled or incinerated,less litter and a decrease in the use of virgin rawmaterials. These outcomes bring wider social benefits—touching on amendment 17—as they improve theenvironment for the public and for wildlife. They alsoreduce greenhouse gas emissions. For all of these reasons,

the measures in the Environment Bill are strong enoughas they stand, and it follows that social issues such aspoor conditions for workers are considered outside thescope of extended producer responsibility. I ask thehon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her explanationand I also thank my hon. Friend the Member forPutney for highlighting the issues of litter and fly-tipping,which really vex people. My inbox is full of complaintsabout such issues as are, I am sure, those of mostMembers here if their constituency is anything likemine. It is important that the quality of people’senvironment is enhanced and made as good as possible.I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test: as he points out, the wording isimportant. People outside these walls do not fullyunderstand what the Bill is trying to say: the word“disposal”—as he says—is in the dictionary and itmeans getting rid of something, but we want to makesure that we have a cyclical economy. We come back tomaking sure that words matter.

I was pleased to hear the Minister highlight themanifesto pledge not to dump rubbish in non-OECDcountries. It raises the issue of whether it will go toOECD countries, but that is obviously important. I wasalso pleased to hear COP26 raised. It is important thatthe UK sets a shining example to the rest of the worldon that, and that is why we are pushing amendment 17:it is so important that we make sure we get it right atthis stage so that, as has been mentioned, future generationslook back on the Environment Bill with pride. We willbe seeking to divide the Committee.



Division No. 22]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca

Zeichner, Daniel



Clause 49

PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISPOSAL COSTS

Amendment made: 38, in clause 49, page 29,line 36, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.



Schedule 6

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY INFORMATION

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 18, inschedule 6, page 161, line 21, leave out “may” and insert“must”.

This is another “may” and “must” amendment. Hon.Members are familiar with the arguments, so I will notrehearse them at this late hour of the day. In moving theamendment, I am adding to the pile on the Minister’sdesk. I ask her to consider whether, even at this latehour, it might be a good idea to start putting in a fewmore “musts” than was the case previously. I hope theMinister will look at that favourably in the future. I donot wish to push the amendment to a vote.

The Chair: But you are moving it.

Dr Whitehead: Yes.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for hisamendment. He is trying at every opportunity to sneakin a “must”, but we share the sentiment and recognisethe importance of taking action to improve the designof products—that is what this is all about—includingby mandating the provision of information relating toresource efficiency on products. Given the pace of changeand the need for flexibility in deciding where regulationis necessary, however, it is not appropriate to insert arequirement that we must take such action across theboard for all products, nor to specify a list in advance.Our intention is to use this power to set resource efficiencyinformation requirements where they will give the greatestimpact. I can reassure the hon. Member that we arecommitted to doing that.

I am pleased that the first anticipated use of theinformation power will mandate labelling to show therecyclability of packaging, which I know is a source ofstress for many households, including my own. In fact, Igo absolutely berserk if I get home and find that mychildren have gone to a shop where everything is inpackets, instead of buying it loose. Labelling and clearmessaging about the damage that some packaging cando would get the message through.

The Government are considering how we shouldimplement these measures beyond packaging, and wewant to ensure that, where requirements for moreinformation are introduced, it will have significant positiveimpacts on the environment. We expect that some industrieswill be motivated to proactively settle or improve theirstandards for products. Where industry does not, however,these powers will enable us to set mandatory requirementsin future. It has to be said that lots of supermarkets arealready looking at what they can do to reduce theirpackaging, which is to be welcomed.

For those reasons, it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than impose a duty on theGovernment to set standards. Primary legislationconsistently takes such an approach to the balance ofpowers—what may be done; a duty is what must bedone—and this power is no different. This approachwill provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modifyrequirements at different times for different products,and within a reasonable timespan. Additionally, it willfacilitate the making of separate provisions for England,Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should the devolvedAdministrations wish to exercise this power.

On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whethershe would kindly withdraw the amendment.

The Chair: Dr Whitehead moved the amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I am sorry. I ask the hon. Gentleman tokindly withdraw the amendment.



3.30 pm

The Chair: We now come to amendment 226, whichthe sharp-eyed will have seen is not on the selection list.That is because it is what is known in the trade as astarred amendment, which means that it was tabledafter the cut-off date last Thursday. I have neverthelesstaken the view that it is appropriate to debate it underschedule 6, which we have now reached. I call AlanWhitehead to move the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I have no idea what amendment 226 isabout—or at least I have not got it in front of me.

The Chair: While he is finding his feet, it may help thehon. Gentleman if he looks at page 8 of the amendmentpaper, where he will see that amendment 226 amendsschedule 6, line 7.

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 226,page 162, line 7, schedule 6, after “product” insert

“and the expected total environmental impact the product willhave throughout its life”.

This amendment requires manufacturers or sellers to evaluate theenvironmental impact of a product throughout its life cycle, alongsidethe expected life of the product.

The amendment speaks for itself. As the Chair haskindly reminded us, it concerns the overall life of theproduct, not specific moments in the life of that product.As hon. Members know from stories such as the 5,000-mileyoghurt pot, the overall life of a product includes arange of travel, processing and other activities before itgets on to the shelf. Modern arrangements mean thatsomething that looks very simple will have been fabricatedin one country, exported to another and further processedthere, exported back to the original country and filledwith another product, while the lid is added somewhereelse during the refrigeration process and then it is backto where it started from. In my constituency, there aremany instances of stuff leaving the port in a container,going to the other side of the world for processing andcoming back for sale in roughly the place it started outfrom.

The lifetime of the product is about all the things thathappen to it on its journey. The amendment recognisesthat that is the case and that, in moving towards acircular economy, we need to be mindful that the lifetimeof the product is a theme that needs to be seriouslytaken into account so that we can ensure that it is asefficient, economical, low-carbon and resource-efficientas it can be. That is why we have tabled the amendment.


Rebecca Pow: I am very happy to discuss the amendmentin the circumstances outlined by the Chair, and I thankthe hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling it.The Government recognise the value of providingconsumers with information on the expected lifecycleand environmental impact of products. The amendmentis not necessary, because the powers in the Bill alreadyallow for that. Indeed, I hope that it is clear fromeverything we have been talking about that it is thewhole lifecycle of the product that will be the key thingonce the measures in the Bill are in place.

The resource efficiency powers set out in the Billenable us to achieve the amendment’s goal. However,the current drafting allows us to provide greater clarityon the aspects of a product’s lifecycle that can becovered, in recognition of what it is practicable andfeasible to require. The schedule covers the scope of thepowers in relation to lifecycle impacts, including productionprocesses, pollution impact during production, use anddisposal, product lifetime and related aspects such asrecyclability. There is a broad and comprehensive list ofwhat consumer information could be about. It providesthe scope for meaningful and specific provisions relevantto a product’s impact on the natural environment withoutplacing overly complex or impractical requirements onmanufacturers.

We want this to be simple for manufacturers and tohelp consumers make the right choices. It is a two-prongedattack: we want manufacturers to do the right thing,but they need to be able to do it, and we want to give theconsumers the information to make the right choices.For example, we could require that items of clothing aresold with information about the resources used to makethem, as well as about the pollution—for example,greenhouse gas emissions—arising from a garment’sproduction, use and disposal. All of those things couldbe possible. Customers, should they wish, could thenuse that information to choose products that have lessimpact on the environment across their life cycle.

I know from talking to people who watch theAttenborough documentaries, and others, that they knowabout the horrific impacts and consequences of theproducts they buy. They do not want that to happen, sothe information and labelling will really help, as will thewhole new life cycle approach that this Bill will introduce.

I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Testto withdraw the amendment, given that the currentprovisions already do what it suggests.

Dr Whitehead: I am encouraged by the Minister’sresponse, although I am not sure that the wording isexactly as it should be. I, like, I suspect, her, am verytaken by the idea of a backpack on a product. Forexample, if a pen has a gold nib—unfortunately, my penhas a steel nib, but there we are—it would have asubstantial backpack outlining the cost of mining thatgold and the amount of resources used, such as oil, ingetting the gold out. Everything would have a backpack:some products would have huge backpacks, while otherswould have smaller ones. I take on board the Minister’scomments. The aim is to start talking about thosebackpacks and how we relate to products. The life cycleinformation relates to not just what is in the backpackbut how far the backpack has travelled.

Rebecca Pow: This whole subject is interesting. “Productpassport” is another term that could cover all thatdetail. The Bill will also allow us to introduce labellingrequirements relating to water use and carbon footprint,so it will open up a wealth of opportunities in the spacethat the shadow Minister is talking about.

Dr Whitehead: Indeed. That is absolutely right:“passport” is another good way to describe it, althoughonly a limited number of things can be jammed in apassport, whereas rather more things can be jammed ina backpack. The principle, however, is exactly the same,and I am encouraged to hear the Minister speaking of itin that particular way. I do not, therefore, wish to pushthe amendment to a vote and hope that what theMinister has said is how the schedule will be interpretedin future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.




3.39 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 12 November at half-pastEleven o’clock.



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Fourteenth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS






SCHEDULE 9 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till this


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: JAMES GRAY, †SIR GEORGE HOWARTH







(Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of







(Morning)


Environment Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I remind Members aboutsocial distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearlymarked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you couldsend any speaking notes to [email protected] also remind Members, please, to switch electronicdevices off or to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowedduring sittings.

We will now continue with line-by-line considerationof the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is availablein the room. It shows how the selected amendmentshave been grouped together for debate. Amendmentsgrouped together are generally on the same or a similarissue. Please note that decisions on amendments do nottake place in the order that they are debated, but in theorder that they appear on the amendment paper. Theselection and grouping list shows the order of debates.Decisions on each amendment are taken when we cometo the clause to which the amendment relates.

Clause 50

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: 39, in clause 50, page 30, line 20, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 40, in clause 50, page 30, line 21, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.


Schedule 7

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY REQUIREMENTS

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 19 in schedule 7, page 165, line 30, leave out“may” and insert “must”.

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir George,and to serve under your chairmanship. The amendmentis in the names of my hon. Friends the Members forSouthampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport(Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire),for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), forCambridge and, my neighbour back home, for NewportEast (Jessica Morden).

The schedule gives the relevant national authority thepower to make the regulations that set the resourceefficiency requirements that products are required to meet.

As a Member representing a Welsh constituency, it is areal pleasure to be able to speak to a part of the Bill thatapplies to all parts of the UK—to all countries. Onceagain, it is appropriate to remind colleagues that the Billis important for all our futures. That is why we need toensure that it is fit for purpose and effective in itsmeasure and scope.

Our amendment to schedule 7 once again looks tothe power of language and the subsequent ambitionand drive of the Minister and her colleagues. I havenever doubted her willingness or commitment to action,but that is why we wanted the Bill to come back sooner,so that all Members could give it the attention and focusthat it deserves. For all the commitment and focus,however, we need to see results and actions, not justempty rhetoric that lands up simply being nothing morethan words. That is why the amendment proposes toleave out “may” and to insert “must”.

All those of us privileged to be elected to this House,from all parts of the country, come with the support ofour constituents behind us. We also come with ourparty political views and commitments, too. Those viewsand commitments will, as we all know, change dependingon the contemporary political issues of the day, which iswhy it is so important that we get the wording of the Billcorrect now, to ensure that what we mean is enshrinedin law for, and clearly understood by, future generations.

The schedule is applicable to all parts of the UnitedKingdom, so it is vital that we make it as strong aspossible. We do not need any more “mays”; we needmore “musts”. Language, as has been said in previoussittings, is something that we need to get right. We needto ensure that the language used in the final iteration ofthe Bill is as strong and ambitious as it can be. As thispart of the Bill looks at the general powers exercised, weneed to ensure that the relevant authorities are empoweredto do what is necessary, and are obligated to do so. Theamendment will help to do that, and I hope that theMinister will take it in the spirit in which it is intended.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): It is a pleasure toserve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank thehon. Member for the amendment. As with amendment18 on the resource efficiency information power, it is notappropriate to have a duty to take action on all productsor to specify particular products in advance. Our intentionis to use the power to set resource efficiency eco-designrequirements for products where the greatest benefit canbe realised. As I did in respect of amendment 18, I reassurethe hon. Member that we are committed to approachingthe making of any regulations in that way.

It is really important that we have flexibility onsetting standards on products that come to light ascritical. It is not possible right now to identify productsin advance, as it very much depends on industry practice,the environmental impact that the particular group ofproducts being considered might have on the environment,and the feasibility of setting minimum eco-designrequirements.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): It is a pleasureto continue with you in the Chair, Sir George. TheMinister is making a fine speech, but on all the “may”and “must” issues I find myself casting my mind backto children on the streets on Fridays, as they left their


schools, to demand climate justice, and huge numbersof people expressing concern about the urgency of it.Would she really feel comfortable standing in front ofthose groups of people and dithering in this way onissues that need to be dealt with urgently?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for his slightlycheeky intervention. We are talking about the EnvironmentBill. I have outlined the difference between “may” and“must” in great detail. Importantly, we are not stoppingit happening, but it has to happen in the right way andon the right products. A great deal of stakeholderengagement has already happened with industry andwill continue, because industry has to be able to do suchthings, and we have to bring industry along with us.

I will give a good example of where we might soonneed to use the measures. Evidence has suggested thatabsorbent hygiene products might be a good place tostart. Similarly, we have identified some other wastestreams. The powers might be useful on textiles, furniture,electronics and construction materials, so the provisionwill genuinely be used and it will genuinely be useful.

I believe that the prioritisation approach will alsoprovide sufficient flexibility to implement or modifyrequirements at different times for different products,and within a reasonable time span. It will also facilitatethe making of separate provisions for England, Wales,Scotland and Northern Ireland, should the devolvedAdministrations wish to exercise the powers, as the hon.Member for Newport West recognised. For those reasons,I believe it is appropriate to take regulation-makingpowers, rather than a duty on the Government to setstandards, and I therefore ask her to kindly withdrawthe amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments. Ithink she has made the case for me, because I wouldhope that the devolved Administrations would insist ontaking up the powers. The schedule addresses futurecircumstances very well with the word “specified”. It isfuture-proofing the Bill, but the word “must” strengthensit at the beginning. That is why we are pushing for it.

We will not divide the Committee on this mattertoday; we are content that the wording has been recordedin Hansard. But it is really important that we strengthenthe Bill and make sure that people can take the powerswhen they should do so. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 7,page 165, line 35, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).

As with a number of other important amendments, Imove the amendment in the names of my hon. Friendsthe Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth,Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West(Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (AbenaOppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my constituencyneighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden)—that was a memory test.

As Government and Labour colleagues will knowfrom their preparation for this sitting of the Committee,this is very much a technical amendment. Having donethat reading, I know that all Members will agree thatamendment 162 essentially speaks for itself. [Laughter.]

As a consequence, I will not detain the Committee forlonger than is necessary, but I will touch on a couple ofimportant points.

First, our amendment proposes to remove sub-sub-paragraph (a). We tabled the amendment because LabourMembers are conscious of the need to use the Bill bothnow and in the future. We do not want to reduce thescope and reach of the Bill before we know where thechallenges facing our environment are, what action maybe required and when. Once again, I reiterate the pointabout language: it is vital that every word, every fullstop and every sub-sub-paragraph enhances our abilityto protect the natural world and preserve our environment.This amendment will help to do that and I hope that theMinister will accept it in the spirit that is intended.

Rebecca Pow: Again, I thank the hon. Member fortabling the amendment, but I also reassure her that theGovernment recognise the importance of measures toimprove the durability, repairability and recyclability ofboth energy-related products and products that are notenergy-related. The amendment is therefore not necessary,because at the end of the transition period the Governmentwill have powers to set resource-efficiency requirementsfor energy-related products under the Ecodesign forEnergy-Related Products Regulations 2010. Also, DEFRAis working closely with the Department of Business,Energy and Industrial Strategy in this regard.

In combination with the information power detailedin schedule 6, we could, for example, require thatinformation be provided with electronic devices explainingtheir expected lifetime, and how to carry out repairs orupgrades. The retained eco-design legislation could beused in tandem to set requirements for the availabilityof spare parts and upgradeable design.

Lots of us who have our own washing machines,dishwashers and all of those sorts of equipment wouldprobably be pretty much in favour of some of thoseideas, so having two sets of powers covering resourceefficiency for the same products risks being confusingfor businesses and other stakeholders. Therefore, I askthat the hon. Member withdraw her amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her words there,including her explanation, and also for setting out thescenarios that could be useful in the future. It is alwaysuseful to have practical examples to be able to thinkabout how these measures will be applied in the future.

Obviously, while we are sad that the Minister is notgoing to take our amendment on board, we neverthelessnow have it on the record. Therefore, I beg to ask leaveto withdraw the amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 163, in schedule 7,page 166, line 13, at end insert

“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights,public health and fair working conditions”.

The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discussamendment 164, in schedule 7, page 166, line 26, leaveout lines 28 to 32 and insert—

“(b) the techniques and working conditions used in itsmanufacture and sourcing of resources;


(c) the resources consumed during its production or use;

(d) the pollutants (including greenhouse gases within themeaning of section 92 of the Climate Change Act2008) released or emitted at any stage of the product’sproduction, use or disposal; with consideration of thesocial impacts these may result in, for example, publichealth concerns.”

Amendment 165, in schedule 7, page 167, line 22,after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.



Ruth Jones: This amendment has also been tabled inthe names of the hon. Members I mentioned in relationto the previous two amendments.

Amendment 163 looks at the wider impact of howthings are done, so it is not just a case of looking solelyat what is produced and manufactured and its impacton the environment. It looks at the full package, whichis why it seeks to insert into schedule 7

“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights,public health and fair working conditions”.

11.45 am

We all know from our constituency work the importanceof all three of these social dimensions to workers andproducers, and also to consumers. Certainly, my mailbagis full of people who want to do the right thing. As wesaid before, David Attenborough’s “Blue Planet” hasraised awareness and consciousness among people outthere who want to do the right thing. I get many emailsfrom constituents asking how best to do the right thing,and they certainly want to take into account humanrights, public health and fair working conditions. Wesee that in people using reusable coffee cups—obviouslyuntil the covid pandemic came in—and in campaignsfor the real living wage and other important protectionsfor working people.

As we seek to deliver this once-in-a-lifetime legislation,we need to make sure that all our bases are covered andthat the impacts of the decisions we take are factored inand covered in detail. The amendment would allowMinisters to demonstrate their commitment to thisonce-in-a-lifetime legislation actually delivering change,and it would allow colleagues across the House to showthat we will put our money and our legislation whereour mouths are.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for tabling theseamendments. I share her view that human rights, workingconditions, public health and the impact of productmanufacture, use and disposal on workers and widercommunities—I think those are the things that she wasshe was getting at—are of the utmost importance. However,the primary focus of the Bill, and the resource efficiencypowers that we are currently debating, is improving thenatural environment. That will benefit workers andcommunities who depend on their natural environmentfor clean air, clean water and a stable climate, as well asimproving the durability and reparability of productsso that they last longer and provide better value. Goingbeyond matters of the environment to incorporate socialfactors—such as labour conditions, as the amendmentssuggest—and other benefits to communities would begoing beyond the scope of this legislative instrument.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Does the Ministeragree that the suggested amendment looks like a cocktailof impractical virtue signalling?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for that incrediblyconcise intervention. Indeed, the amendment is notnecessary, which is the point I am trying to make andwhat I think he is getting at, because it would be reallycomplicated, if not impossible, to lay down requirementson a product basis that cover these considerations forall exporting countries. Some difference in standards isobviously inevitable, and because of this complexity,such matters are much better dealt with—as I think myhon. Friend is getting at—by other legal mechanisms.That is the remit of the International Labour Organisation’sconventions.

Amendment 164 would remove reference to the materialcomposition of products. This wording is essential tothe objectives of the power, as the materials in a productwill determine how easily the product can be to be takenapart, recycled and manufactured. Material compositionmay also determine the amount of pollution associatedwith these activities.

Finally, I must emphasise the importance of having acarefully defined power within the scope of the Bill. Thedetriment of seeking to cover too many considerationswithin these provisions is the risk of making it overlycomplicated to actually use the powers. On those grounds,I ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw heramendment.

Ruth Jones: I am glad that the Minister shares ourconcerns about human rights, public health and fairworking conditions. As the hon. Member for Gloucestersaid, it is a cocktail, but to be honest it is a goodcocktail, and it is useful, and it will actually assist us aswe go forward with this Bill. It will enhance the Bill,because we think that the Bill should cover these importantaspects.

Rebecca Pow: May I very quickly intervene on thehon. Lady, if that is all right, Mr Chairman?

The Chair: Provided that the hon. Member is preparedto accept the intervention, yes, it is all right.

Rebecca Pow: I want to highlight that we do notconsider that goals such as labour rights are best deliveredthrough setting requirements relating to product standardsand information. To add to the point made by my hon.Friend the Member for Gloucester, action is alreadyunder way on those fronts through a number of otherroutes, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, whichrequires corporate reporting on supply chains and multi-stakeholder working groups and encourages companiesto sign up to the International Labour Organisation’scall for action, which I referred to before.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for augmentingher comments. I agree it is good that we have theModern Slavery Act and that is important, but there isno harm in putting an additional belt and braces on thisBill to ensure that human rights are taken into consideration,as are public health and fair working conditions. Wehave pushed for the minimum wage and the living wage,and it is important that those things are taken intoconsideration. There is no harm in our having integratedobjectives across a number of Bills, because it showsthat the Government are joined up and thinking across


the piece. That is why we will push this amendment to aDivision, because it is such an important one and wethink it should be enshrined in law.



Division No. 23]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 164, in schedule 7, page 166,line 26, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert—

“(b) the techniques and working conditions used in itsmanufacture and sourcing of resources;

(c) the resources consumed during its production or use;

(d) the pollutants (including greenhouse gases within themeaning of section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008)released or emitted at any stage of the product’sproduction, use or disposal; with consideration of thesocial impacts these may result in, for example, publichealth concerns.”—(Ruth Jones.)



Division No. 24]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 165, in schedule 7, page 167,line22,after“environment”insert“workersorcommunities”.—(Ruth Jones.)



Division No. 25]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 166, in schedule 7, page 167, line 25after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.—(Ruth Jones.)



Division No. 26]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Question proposed, That the schedule be the Seventhschedule to the Bill.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I havea few things to say about the schedule, including somequestions for the Minister about how it might best beimplemented.

As I am sure all hon. Members know, how wastebecomes a resource is set out substantially in the 2008EU waste framework directive, which gives guidance tomember states—to be placed into law—about how thatprocess should be carried out. The Committee will alsobe aware that resource efficiency is a very real issue.

A big question is precisely when something in astream should be defined as waste or as a resource. Thewaste framework directive contains a number of criteriaabout that end-of-waste transition, but the frameworkand the subsequent UK legislation have been fraughtwith difficulties and problems, because they have requiredwaste to be categorised: as hazardous waste, as inertwaste—waste that can be put in golf courses and soon—or as waste that must undergo various treatments,for example. The waste hierarchy, which the Committeehas discussed, derives from a number of considerationsnot only about what waste is, but about what should bedone with various waste streams.

12 noon

A problem arising from that is that quite often awaste stream entering the various processing, sortingand recycling arrangements carries a classification ofwhat it consists of. There are circumstances where aparticular waste stream is plainly potentially usable foranother purpose, but because it is classified in a particularway going through the process, there are all sorts ofcomplications about how it should be treated, makingit virtually impossible to transfer it to a resource stream.The point at which waste becomes a resource is veryimportant. Indeed, frequently in this country thecomplications surrounding the treatment, arrangementsand the direction of waste mean it is far less likely thanit might otherwise be that someone will come along andsay, “That’s a resource we would like to take up. We canuse it as a resource for our processes subsequently.”

Ruth Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerfulpoint. Would he agree that a good example of this is thesupermarkets? In the past, food that had gone beyond


[Ruth Jones]

its use-by date went to waste, but nowadays, thanks toimportant communication between supermarkets andhomeless people, for example, the latter can utilise thisfood for their evening meals. One man’s waste is anotherman’s supper.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is right. We havemade considerable progress on food waste, and we willcome to discuss some wider aspects of food waste laterin the proceedings. Nevertheless, she rightly states theprinciple: if a piece of waste which would otherwise betaken out and processed in certain ways is stewardedthrough that process, knowing that the outcome of thatprocess is a good outcome, that process can be muchmore easily streamlined to ensure that what was wastebecomes a resource.

For years, the Environment Agency has been tryingto tackle the many instances where something that goesinto a waste stream, such as bones residual to animalrendering, carcases and various other things, may wellbe treated as hazardous and have particular measuresapply to them. However, if those bones can be transferredfor the making of bone china, that industry can take thebones and steward them through the process of becominga resource for undertaking what the industry wants todo. That allows what looked like a problem to becomea solution. That is just one example—perhaps, not aterribly good example—but there are many examples ofthat in industry, where one industry’s waste, which maybe classified in particular ways, is desperately needed asa resource for another industry, which cannot unlockthat resource from it being waste. We have never properlygotten to grips with that in this country.

The concept of stewardship, whereby what is a pieceof waste can be certified as being stewarded, ready forthe purpose of becoming a resource, has never properlybeen defined in regulations or in law. Hence, often bythe time we have gotten around to thinking that somethingis a particular resource, it has already been disposedof down a particular waste stream and is lost for thatresource purpose.

Daniel Zeichner: As ever, my hon. Friend is making athoughtful and interesting speech. As he spoke, I thoughtof some of the examples that came up in the covid-19crisis in the food chains, where we were at risk becauseone part of the system relied on another in exactly theways he is describing. What struck me is that the economiesof scale are critical. Are we not much better being partof a wider, bigger system that allows us to use thingsthat are potentially regarded as waste? With a small,narrow system, they cannot be reused, but they can be ifwe are part of a bigger system.

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.The concept of a larger system through which all of thisworks is key to this whole discussion. Indeed, what wehave been talking about, and what the waste strategydocument says about the circular economy, means thatputting this into a wider frame of how we circulate productsthrough the economy, so that we do not pull virginmaterials in and that everything we are using as it goesthrough the economy is reusable, recyclable or replaceablein one way or another, is essential to a resource-efficientand low-carbon waste and resource economy.

In this part of the Bill, we are essentially replacingelements of the waste framework directive with UK law,but does not seem to me that what we have done allowsthe sort of processes that I have described to be properlyincorporated in regulations so that the circular economyarrangement can be expedited. Does the Minister considerthat the regulations that will be associated with schedule 7are capable of allowing those sorts of changes to bemade, to the benefit of the recycled and reclaimedresources industry in the UK; or does she consider thatwe have missed an opportunity here, and that furtherlegislation and/or regulations may be necessary to ensurethat that can be done?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test for his thoughts. I shall stick to thedetail of what the schedule is actually about in myanswers, but I want to touch on his general points. Ofcourse, the whole purpose of the waste and resourcessection of the Bill is to reduce all waste with a range ofmeasures, and to make everything we produce recyclable,repairable and more durable. That is why we are focusingparticularly on eco-design.

The hon. Gentleman touched on some issues relatingto bones and various things like that. This is a slightlymore general comment, but there are many health-relatedissues that would have to be taken into account. It takesme back to the time of bovine spongiform encephalopathy,when any food waste was banned from being fed to pigs.There were masses of knock-on effects, but as a pigkeeper, I was mortified about that. He will know thatsuch things are complicated, so one cannot go downthat burrow without discussing a lot of other issues.

I want to get back to the purposes of the schedule,but I will touch on the point made by the hon. Memberfor Newport West about food waste. I am sure she ispleased that food waste is dealt with in the Bill—that isone of the really positive and exciting things about it.Food waste will now have to be collected from localauthorities in the waste collections. Some local authoritiesalready do it, but every one will have to do it. Clause 47and schedule 4 will require producers that are responsiblefor food surplus and food waste to take action, and thatincludes redistributing it. Great work is already done bymany people, but that will be a requirement for surplusfood.

On the schedule, by applying the principle of eco-designto non-energy-related products, we can drive up resourceefficiency by gradually removing the least resource efficientproducts from the market. That is the very point that thehon. Lady was getting at. Those requirements might relateto durability, recyclability, repairability or the sustainabilityof products for dismantling and remanufacture. I thinkthe hon. Member for Southampton, Test was getting atthat point; products can be taken apart and then thecomponent parts could be reused.

The requirements might also concern the materialcomposition of products and the way in which productsare manufactured, and the pollutants emitted or producedby products throughout the full lifecycle. For example—thehon. Member for Newport West said she likes examples—that might include moving and load-bearing parts suchas wheels and hinges from items of furniture, becausethey might wear out first. Making them removable andreplaceable could be part of the design. Where that isnot the case, the regulations might require that parts


can be removed without damage to the rest of the product,and other wheels can be screwed back on, for example.That is the kind of thing we are discussing.

As has been explained in relation to the resourceefficiency information power, we have identified priorityareas for action, including clothing, furniture and electronicequipment, where we believe requirements such as thisare likely to have the greatest impact.


Rebecca Pow: I am about to conclude, but I see thatthe hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for giving way. Iam not particularly criticising or wishing to take awayfrom any of the excellent things the Minister has beensaying about the purpose of these provisions. What Iam trying to get at is what actually happens now—theway in which things are classified while they are goingthrough the waste stream and before they turn into aresource, and the extent to which the classificationunder existing legislation hinders the process by whichthey may be liberated as a resource in exactly the waythe Minister has described in her comments. That iswhat I am concerned about—whether those classificationscan be substituted by a system of stewardship, whichwould enable that passage to be much more straightforward,good intentions notwithstanding concerning how thatpassage can result in a successful outcome.

Rebecca Pow: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point,but I think he is overcomplicating the issue. Throughthe measures in the Bill, every single person who makessomething will have to think about what it contains,what it is made of, what is going to happen to it, whereit is going to go, who is going to reuse it and how long itwill last. I think the issues he is worried about will solvethemselves, in a way. If he wants more detail on that,I am sure we can write to him.

Daniel Zeichner: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I am going to plough on. The scheduleconsiders eco-design. Clauses 49 and 50 and schedules 6and 7 describe resource efficiency powers, whichcomplement various other powers in the Bill, includingthe extended producer responsibility—that very muchtouches on what I have just said. They aim, as a minimum,to ensure that we can be ahead of the curve internationallyand, ideally, to enable us to lead the way. Acquiringresource efficiency powers is an essential step towardsdelivering against the goals of the 25-year environmentplan and the resources and waste strategy, and achievingnet zero by 2050. I believe that all the things in theschedule will help that work.

We are ahead of the curve even compared with theEU on this matter. Once we have acquired the powers, itwill be possible to set requirements for all products,whether they are energy related or not. That is not yetpossible for the EU. At present, its eco legislationextends only to energy-related products. On those groundsalone, we are ahead, which I hope my hon. Friends andhon. Members will be pleased about.


Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 51

DEPOSIT SCHEMES

12.15 pm

Amendments made: 41, in clause 51, page 31, line 3, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.See Amendment 28.

Amendment 42, in clause 51, page 31, line 4, leave out“Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)See Amendment 28.


Schedule 8

DEPOSIT SCHEMES

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 20 in schedule 8,page 170, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The amendment appears in my name and those ofmy hon. Friends. The schedule seeks to enable thenational authority, namely the Secretary of State inrelation to England, Ministers in the Welsh Governmentand the Department of Agriculture, Environment andRural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulationsestablishing deposit schemes.

I thank those out there in the real world who areworking on these important issues. For example, GreenerUK is working tremendously hard to ensure that theBill is fit for purpose. I hope that Ministers will take thesame approach.

With the powers in place, it will be imperative that theGovernment promise to deliver the model that will bestachieve their aims, as detailed in the resources and wastestrategy. Those include changing behaviour to reducelittering on land, in rivers and at sea, and to improverecycling rates. Members of the Committee will remember—I only just remember—the pop bottle schemes, whenpeople would go around with bottles and get 5p. Foryoung people, it was a useful income—for those of usold enough to remember.

All-in deposit schemes—by that, I mean drinks containersof all sizes and materials—offer the best financial return.They achieve the best recycling return, and constitutethe clearest system for the public to use. That wasconfirmed by a series of impact assessments undertakenby the Government in 2019, which found that an all-indeposit return scheme would offer substantial financialbenefit and collect a greater proportion of containerswhen compared with a more limited system that onlycovered so-called “on the go” drinks containers. Anall-in scheme is the most likely to offer opportunities forscaling up to a refill system in future.

Further to that, an all-in deposit return scheme wouldensure compatibility right across the UK, by setting outa system for England that would work in harmony withScotland’s plans. We all have our views on whether theGovernment are committed to the Union, but as aWelsh MP the lack of respect for devolution and thedevolved Government in Wales in recent months hasbeen a matter of huge concern to me and many of myconstituents. If the Government are to show that theyare serious, they need to show it in letter as well asin voice.


[Ruth Jones]

The amendment would allow the Government to dojust that. A system that works for and with all nationsof the UK would especially benefit those who live nearthe border between, say, England and Scotland andanyone travelling between the two nations. My Scottishcolleagues have highlighted the matter in the House onprevious occasions. We want to ensure that the systemsare compatible, if not all encompassing, while ensuringthat they do not undermine one another financially orenvironmentally. Likewise, that approach would facilitatea simple roll-out to Wales and Northern Ireland, and sowould be a win-win for us all.

The Bill only states that the Secretary of State “may”establish a scheme. The amendment would ensure thatthe Secretary of State, whoever he or she might be,would actually deliver. Our amendment follows manyothers tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It isall about delivery, action and getting it right by writingit into the Bill.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment.We obviously recognise the importance of reducinglittering and increasing recycling rates as part of ourcommitment to leave the environment in a better statefor the next generation. Our 2019 manifesto pledged tointroduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise peopleto recycle plastic and glass.

This power we enable us to establish deposit returnschemes for different items, particularly those which arelittered—it is important to try to cut those down—wherewe want to increase recycling, as well as the quality andvalue of recycled material. That is all part of that drivethat this section is about.

A deposit return scheme will allow us to take plasticfrom drinks bottles and ensure it gets recycled back intoa new bottle, reducing our reliance on virgin plasticmaterial. We touched on that yesterday. So many companieswould like a regular, consistent supply of the right kindof plastic to turn into other bottles. We are working ondeveloping an evidence base that will include furtherconsultation before finalising the design and scope of aDRS for drinks containers that will be set down inregulations made using this power.

We know that UK consumers go through a shocking14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cansand 5 billion glass bottles a year. Although plasticbottles are fully recyclable, recent packaging recyclingrates of 65% demonstrates that there is room forimprovement. We consider that a well-designed depositreturn scheme for drinks and containers could achievesomething like 90% and higher, as countries that havealready introduced the scheme are achieving.

This power gives the relevant national authority theflexibility to make regulations to establish deposit returnschemes in relation to specific products or materials. Italso gives the flexibility to decide which items are to beincluded in the DRS, to secure an increase in recyclingand reuse of materials and to reduce the incidence oflittering and fly-tipping.

It is entirely appropriate to be flexible here. It wouldnot be appropriate for this power to be exercised insome circumstances. The discretionary element allowsit to be used in a targeted manner for things that are, forexample, the most littered items, such as drinks containers,

that are often consumed away from the home. This comesout as one of the top lists on the “Keep Britain Tidy”surveys that are constantly conducted.

We need to have a system that allows us to add andadjust as we learn more about how a deposit returnscheme works in practice. I have talked to lots of peopleinvolved in these types of schemes. Getting the systemright is crucial. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, to withdrawher amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments. Iam slightly anxious that she is talking about furtherconsultation here, because the public just want us to geton with this. They are fed up with being consulted.They have given their views and they want it to happennow. As Greta Thunberg and all the young people,certainly in my constituency, are telling me, “Get onwith it. We cannot afford to wait for you. This planethas to be there for us tomorrow.”

Daniel Zeichner: That is exactly the point. I was temptedto intervene on the Minister, but she seemed reluctant.The call from people out there is that this needs to begot on with. I do not understand why the Governmentpersistently delay. There is a danger that the Governmentcould be accused of virtue signalling.

Ruth Jones: That is an interesting point. As my hon.Friend said, if the Government are serious about this,they need to get on with it and they need to be seen tobe getting on with it.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Member for Cambridge hasfired me up now. The point is that this scheme must alsofit with other schemes, so it also must fit with theconsistent collection of items by the local authorities. Agreat deal of work must be done to ensure that they allfit together. Even the hon. Member for Cambridgementioned that one system must not undermine another;they must fit together. If we could get consistent systemsacross all the devolved Administrations, that would beuseful. We are watching Scotland closely, because it is alittle bit ahead, to see how that works. It is importantthat we bring all those things together.

Ruth Jones: Yes, of course we agree with her thatthese things have to be communicated clearly. We needto make sure that no one scheme undermines another.We do not want people crossing borders with lorryloadsof plastic waste or whatever. That is not the intention.We understand that. However, it is important that wehave clear communication across all four nations tomake sure that that does not happen. The Ministeroutlined the regulations that will come through—

Rebecca Pow: I am sure the hon. Lady will agree andapplaud the fact that we consulted closely with theWelsh Assembly Government, and on behalf of NorthernIreland. We are working closely with them on the proposalson exactly the grounds that she proposes.

Ruth Jones: I agree that it is important that wecontinue to make that point and communicate clearlyacross all four nations, but the Minister mentionedfurther regulations down the line. How will those be


enforced? We want to know the how, the what and thewhere. How will it all come together? I am still not clearon exactly what will happen, so perhaps in future debatesthe Minister will outline those regulations.

The Minister talked about flexibility. Again, I harkback to my physiotherapy days: we do not want to be soflexible that we fall over. We need some constraints andguidelines to help us to walk in the right path. We are allin favour of getting this done. It is just a question ofhow soon, how quickly and how best we can do it. Withthat, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 8,page 172, line 39, leave out from “scheme” to end ofline 40 and insert

“in relation to which the Scottish deposit administrator is exercisingfunctions”.

This amendment modifies the way in which the scheme administrator ofa Scottish deposit and return scheme is described, by referring to theadministrator “exercising functions” rather than being “designated”.This is consistent with the terminology used in the relevant Scottishlegislation. A similar change is made by Amendment 69.


Rebecca Pow: Amendments 68 to 70 seek to correct atechnical error concerning a reference to how a schemeadministrator would be established in Scotland. Theamendment will enable a scheme administrator to interact,engage and make payments to a scheme administratorestablished through a deposit and return scheme inScotland. It was always our intention for schemes withinthe UK to be able to work together, as I have alreadyhighlighted, including being able to make paymentsbetween schemes. I think the hon. Member for NewportWest asked about that. The measure will help ensurethat schemes are easier for consumers to use, will helpto reduce the risk of fraud between schemes, and providecoherence for producers and retailers. I hope the Committeewill agree to the amendment.


Amendments made: 69, in schedule 8, page 174, line 20,leave out from “person” to end of line 22 and insert

“exercising the functions of a scheme administrator in relation toa Scottish deposit and return scheme”.

See Amendment 68.

Amendment 70, in schedule 8, page 174, line 24, leaveout “that Act” and insert

“the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 12)”—(RebeccaPow.)

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69 and inserts the fullname of the Act being referred to.

Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, bethe Eighth schedule to the Bill.

Dr Whitehead: I welcome the opportunity to have abrief debate on the schedule, which is all about depositschemes. As the Minister has set out admirably, thedeposit schemes can target things that cause particularproblems, including litter, fly-tipping and various otheractivities. I want to ask the Minister what the depositschemes might consist of and the extent to which theschedule would facilitate that extent being realised.

When talking about deposit schemes, we usually thinkabout precisely the sort of things that my hon. Friendthe Member for Cambridge talked about, with memoriesof kids hanging around lidos and swimming pools,nicking Coke and pop bottles from sunbathers to takethem back to the shop and get thruppence on them—notthat I did that, obviously.

12.30 pm

Daniel Zeichner: Of course not.

Rebecca Pow: That is how his early interest in wastestarted.

The Chair: Order. There is too much muttering.

Dr Whitehead: What occurred then, and what isoccurring now—or what I hope will occur now—is thatthe motivation to recycle, return and sort out particularitems comes from a value being given to the residualfunction of those items after their primary function hasbeen carried out. In the previous example, the Cokebottle has been emptied, but it still has value becausethe child can get some money by returning it to theshop.

We have seen that process in operation in various partsof Europe. In France, a number of supermarkets havereverse vending machines, where bottles can be insertedinto the machine in exchange for a credit. The value hasbeen secured and the product has been safely restoredfor recycling. The consequence of a lack of such schemesis that people dump things in the street or, in moreserious instances, engage in serious fly-tipping.

On deposit schemes for larger items, some really largeitems have effectively got themselves into that valuechain by different means. Hon. Members who werelocal authority councillors for any long period mayremember that there was a particular passage of timewhen many estates and other places were plagued withburnt-out cars. People had decided that their car had novalue because it was an old banger or had broken down,and that the easiest thing to do was to go and dump itsomewhere and/or burn it.

That was substantially resolved by the end-of-lifevehicles directive and the beginnings of the idea thateven an old banger had some value for recycling purposes.The person who might otherwise have put that car intoa hedge or burnt it in a car park would be incentivisedto drive it on its last lap—or push it if it did not work—down to the breaker’s yard, where they would get acouple of hundred pounds for it, because it had increasedvalue that way.

In the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive,we have a sort-of attempt to give that value to whitegoods and various large items. The producer responsibilityelements of WEEE required that the producer have aresponsibility to get those products back. The process isvery indirect. At the end of the life of a particularproduct, the producer is not necessarily in the samestate as when the product was first produced, so you mayhave orphan products that require producer responsibilitybut are without a producer responsible for them. Thatproducer responsibility is also a mediated process becausesomeone else has to collect the product and establishwhat the responsibility should be.


Ruth Jones: Again, my hon. Friend is making apowerful and practical point. When ordering a newwashing machine or dishwasher, for example, peoplehave to pay if they want the person coming to fit the newone to take the old one away. That is almost a disincentiveto recycle and reuse things. It is similar with mattresses.Does he agree that mattresses are the bane of localcouncils’ lives? They are dumped on the side of the road.We should make sure that they are recycled properly.

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

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

I am not clear about whether the regulations inschedule 8 are actually generic, or whether they willactually enable that sort of thing to happen in additionto the things that we normally talk about, such as theeasier recycling of small items. I think the Minister willagree that it is not just about littering, it is about theselarge items. We could do the same thing with mattresses.We could require a deposit on a mattress, and providedsomeone had a certification of the deposit, they couldreceive the value of the mattress at the end of its life.Mattresses actually have quite long lives in variousiterations. Does the Minister think that these regulationscould accommodate that sort of arrangement? Althoughshe has said that these regulations should be targeted,does she consider that in the fullness of time, perhapsthey could be expanded in ambition and scope toaccommodate those sorts of arrangements for the future?Does she think that within the schedule as it stands,regulations can be made that allow that to happen, ordoes she consider that further work may be necessary tobring it about?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for his comments.I am pleased he raised those points, because it gives mea chance to expand a bit on a genuinely interesting

subject by which most of the population are fascinated.As has been mentioned, people do want the schemes. Infact, I am old enough to remember those glass Tizer bottlesthat could be taken back.

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

We have had a consultation and we are in the processof developing proposals using further evidence and ongoingstakeholder engagement, which is important becausewe have to involve the industry and local authorities—allthe people involved in that whole space. The final scopeand model of the schemes for drinks containers, includingwhether it is all-in or on-the-go, will be presented in asecond consultation. We are considering cans and plasticand glass bottles.

In the previous consultation, we also consulted oncoffee cups, cartons and pouches, which are one of mybugbears. We seem to be forced to buy our cat food inpouches whereas most of it used to be in tins, which Ican hardly find now. That is an interesting subject thatwe need to go into at some point.

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

Ruth Jones: The Minister raises an interesting pointabout cat food pouches that I will take away. Obviouslyit is importantly to address those things, so can sheoutline the timescale for that?

Rebecca Pow: I was going on to say, touching onthe important point made by the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test, that the powers will allow us andfuture Governments to introduce deposit return schemesfor other items in future. That is the purpose of them,so they can be expanded in scope, exactly as he hopes.He makes a good point on those grounds.

For example, those schemes could be for batteries,electrical and electronic equipment, and bulky items,including mattresses. The point about mattresses isabsolutely right. My family are farmers and they findmany mattresses dumped in their gateways on the outskirtsof Bath. I know other Committee members’ families areinvolved in recycling and waste, and they could probablytell similar stories. The schedule will give us that opportunity.

The schemes will work hand in hand with the extendedproducer responsibility schemes, which will also help toreduce the amount of waste being dumped. Takeawaycups are classed as packaging, so they will come underthe extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging.We are committed, as I think I said on a previous day,to consulting on EPR for textiles and bulky householditems, so mattresses could come under that category ofextended producer responsibility. Thus, exactly as Ithink the hon. Member was suggesting, it will all be


factored into the costs of the mattress, but the manufacturerwill have to abide by the EPR system for the mattresses.Other items that we have committed to consulting onfor that EPR scheme are construction materials, tyresand fishing gear, so they should all work together.

12.45 pm

However, this power relating to deposit schemes willenable other items to be included where it is considerednecessary to promote reuse and recycling, where theyare difficult to manage at the end of life and arefrequently fly-tipped or dumped. I hope that has given abit more detail.


Schedule 8, as amended, accordingly agreed to.


Schedule 9

CHARGES FOR SINGLE USE PLASTIC ITEMS

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 21 toschedule 9, page 174, line 28, leave out “may” and insert“must”.

This amendment is another case of “may”and “must”;at the risk of harping on about these things, it isimportant that we get our language correct. For thebenefit of colleagues, I refer them to page 174, line 28 ofthe Bill, where we want to leave out “may” and insertthe word “must”. The reason is that we want Ministersto take to keep their promises and be honest and bold intheir promises. Once again, we are looking to strengthenthe Bill and make it fit for purpose, and that is why I amasking the Minister to accept this objective and balancedamendment.

This schedule allows for the making of regulationsabout charges for single-use plastic items. These charges,which we have seen right across the country, with acharge on plastic bags in supermarkets and large storessuch as John Lewis and the Link, aim to deliver areduction in the consumption of single-use plastic items.Our amendment follows on from many others tabled tothis Bill and moved in Committee. It is about delivery, itis about action and it is about getting this right.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for heramendment. However, it is appropriate to provide therelevant national authority with flexibility regardingwhen and how this provision relating to littered plasticsis given effect. We have seen similar amendments acrossthe Bill, balancing powers, what “may” be done, withduties or what “must” be done. This amendment is nodifferent.

It will not be appropriate for this power to be exercisedin all circumstances: for instance, our extended producerresponsibility reforms to the packaging waste regulationsshould make significant strides towards addressingunnecessary plastic waste in packaging. Adding anadditional charge would be unnecessary and unfair tothose producers, as they would face an overlap of multiplecharges and fees. To avoid that, we must take care whendeciding which policy instrument to use in order tobring about the most effective change.

We need to take a measured approach and introducethe charge for items where there is a clear, consideredand evidenced need for us to intervene. Imposing a duty

for the Government to do so without thorough investigationinto which products we should charge for could, forinstance, lead to the unintended consequences of drivingthe market away from a single-use plastic product becausea suitable alternative is available. That could risk causingeven more serious effects, such as increasing greenhousegas emissions through poor material switches.

The UK is consistently and rightly seen as a worldleader in the area of tackling plastic pollution. I recentlymet a group called Oceana, a global organisation, thinkingwe were going to pick up lots of tips from them abouthow they are dealing with it, but they said, “Oh, no, weare watching you, Minister!” That was interesting—weare very much being watched on what measures we areputting in place.

We want to continue to lead by example to ensurethat we reduce the plastic pollution entering the environmentin the right way to prevent greater issues further downthe line. This power will allow us and the devolvedGovernments of Wales and Northern Ireland to interveneas and when there is a clear need for change. I thereforeask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw heramendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her explanation.It is always helpful to hear her expand on matters. It isalso good to hear that, yes, the Government are beingscrutinised by non-governmental organisations out there.It is good to see that they are being held accountable bysuch people, who are, let us be honest, the watchdogs.They, too, want to ensure that we have action.

The argument about flexibility—that the danger withtoo much flexibility is that we cannot actually achieveanything—has been made many times, so I will notrepeat it, but I am happy to hear about the progressbeing made in moving matters forward. Again, I pressthe Minister on timescales. If we are to consult, then howlong for and when will action come through? However,I am sure we will discuss that later. I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.


Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 182 inschedule 9, page 174, line 32, leave out paragraph 1(2)(b)and insert—

“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material,and”.

The schedule seeks to reduce the consumption ofsingle-use plastic by allowing charges to be imposed.However, the provision for charges to apply only tosingle-use plastics risks merely shifting the environmentalburden, as alternative materials may be used with equalenvironmental recklessness. The risks of materialsubstitution are plentiful and well documented by theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chairedby the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (NeilParish), a Conservative Member. They have also beencovered in comprehensive reports from Greenpeace andthe Green Alliance, and I thank both organisations fortheir work on this important area.

The deeper problem lies with the single-use, throwawayculture, not with plastic per se. We need to look atchanging hearts and minds, as well as legislation. I amwell aware that during the pandemic our progress ongetting rid of single-use plastics has been set back,but I hope the Minister will take this serious and urgentissue forward.


[Ruth Jones]

To take fly-tipping, for example, one north Londonborough—I am sure that this is similar elsewhere—spendsmillions on collecting fly-tipping, because it has anobligation to keep streets clean, and residents complainwhen it does not. I am sure all hon. Members in theCommittee have similar stories about the amounts theirlocal councils have to fork out to ensure that theirstreets are kept clear of litter and fly-tipping.

It is not the council dumping mattresses, furniture,unwanted goods and so on; it is residents, businessesand the like, and we had a discussion about that, led bymy hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Totackle the problem, therefore, we need to get it intopeople’s heads that enough is enough. It is simply notacceptable to attack, damage and contaminate ourenvironment like that. Similarly, with this amendment,we want to tackle the throwaway culture once and forall, and we can use the Bill to do just that.

The amendment would address that increasing challenge.We need to ensure that charges are possible for allsingle-use materials, not just the plastic ones. In simplerterms, our amendment would ensure that the Governmentcan successfully tackle our throwaway culture at thesame time as tackling plastic pollution. Treating plasticin a policy vacuum is a short-sighted approach thatrisks changes that could, for example, increase carbonemissions or result in more waste generation.

The amendment follows on from many others tabledto the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all aboutdelivery, action and getting the Bill right.

Rebecca Pow: I appreciate the focus on this issue.However, I fear that the amendment has not takenenough account of the bespoke issue of plastics or ofhow much of the Bill is aimed at tackling our single-useculture. Applying charges to single-use plastic items willbe an effective way of reducing the impact on thenatural world. The measures are designed to focusspecifically on single-use, hard-to-recycle plastics.

In 2019, the Marine Conservation Society recordedthat, on average, per 100 metres of beach, more than150 pieces of plastic were found, which is a shockingrevelation. That is more than triple the second mostcommonly listed item, which is cigarette stubs, whichalso contain plastic. I do not know whether hon. Membershave been to the Keep Britain Tidy events, but thatorganisation has a big drive on cigarette butts at themoment. They contain a horrifying amount of plastic,not to mention the other toxic chemicals.

The MCS’s work showcases the prevalence of plasticsin our environment and explains why this materialneeds a focused clause in the Bill. As we saw with ourban on plastic straws, plastics still have an importantrole to play in certain applications, but Governmentintervention is necessary to tackle unnecessary plastic.Many of our mailbags are full of messages about theseitems. Public opinion was demonstrated in HMT’s callfor evidence on tackling the plastic problem in March2018, which received an incredible 162,000 responses,with strong support for the use of taxes and charges totackle single-use plastic waste.

A lot is already being done on single-use plastics.Great work is being done on microbeads and microplastics,which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to.

When I was a Back Bencher, I asked the Speaker whetherhe had had a shower that morning, with the intention topoint out how many microbeads were in the shower gelthat would have been used. We have brought in one ofthe toughest bans in the world. There is also the 5psingle-use carrier bag charge, which has had a dramaticimpact on the number of bags used. A lot of good workhas already been done.

The Bill already provides a robust approach towardsachieving a more circular economy. Our new powers toreform the packaging waste regulations will enable us toadapt the system to incentivise all packaging, not justplastic, to be more carefully designed and manufactured,with recyclability in mind. The eco-design measures andconsumer information powers will enable regulations tobe made that set basic standards with sustainability inmind and that require information provision to consumers,to drive the market towards products that are designedto last longer, perhaps through multiple uses, instead ofbeing thrown away after first use. The House of Commonsshop is selling some excellent cutlery packs, which aremade of bamboo. My hon. Friends and hon. Membersshould all carry a pack in their pockets or bags, to cutdown on single-use items.

Meanwhile, our powers to enable the implementationof a deposit return scheme and introduce consistency inhousehold and business recycling collections will drivethe capture of more material and all types of single-useitems for recycling.


Rebecca Pow: I will give way quickly, before I wind up.

Dr Whitehead: I am slightly concerned that the Ministeris not responding to exactly what we said in the amendment.We need to make a decision on what this is about. Is itabout single-use items, or is it about plastic items? Inthis instance, the two have been elided for the purposeof a concentration on plastic single-use items.

Schedule 9 defines single-use items in paragraph 1(3).It does not define them as a plastic single-use item, butsimply as a “single use item”. The schedule enables theGovernment to make specific regulations. Indeed, theregulations “may specify”—that is the correct use of a“may”—single-use items, but only those that

“are made wholly or partly of plastic”,

which narrows down the range of single-use items.

The Chair: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has madehis points—[Interruption.] I cannot bring in any otherMembers until the Minister has resumed.

Rebecca Pow: I was literally on my last paragraph.The ability to place a charge on single-use plastic itemswill be a powerful tool in our efforts to tackle the issuesarising from our use of single-use plastic, while stillallowing for their continued use by people who needthem. I therefore ask the hon. Member for NewportWest to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: Again, as my hon. Friend the Memberfor Southampton, Test has said, we are not talkingabout plastics; we are talking about single-use items.


Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): Thereis a specific issue in terms of plastic and why there is aneed to focus on it: it is not biodegradable. It stayspermanently in the oceans and is often very difficult torecycle. That is why there are so many tonnes of plasticfloating around in the oceans, but not tonnes of othermaterials. We cannot start saying, “We’ve got to clampdown on everything that is single use.”

I suspect that the hon. Lady tends to buy The Guardian,which she uses only once. Would she put a special chargeon buying all paper that is single use? Pieces of paperare single use, as are many other products. The troubleis that if we introduce charges on them, we actuallydiscourage companies from moving from somethinglike plastic, which is environmentally damaging, tosomething that is more sustainable. For example, I am asubscriber to The Times newspaper. It used to comewrapped in single-use plastic, which was terrible. It nowcomes wrapped in something that is completely bio-degradable, which can be put in the compost. If weintroduce charges, we discourage companies from doingstuff that is more environmentally sustainable.

Ruth Jones: I am disturbed to hear that the hon.Member does not recycle The Guardian, because that iswhat we are doing.

Anthony Browne: I do. Well, I do not subscribe toThe Guardian, but I recycle The Times.

The Chair: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had hisintervention. He cannot continue to make interventionsfrom a sedentary position.

Ruth Jones: Thank you, Sir George. I am sure we cancontinue this debate at length at a later date.

I would suggest that we recycle everything that can berecycled, but the important thing is that we do not takeour eye off the ball by talking just about plastics. Thedanger is that by talking just about plastics, we limitourselves to being able to control only single-use plasticwith this legislation in the future. Two years down theline, the problem might be some other material that issingle use. Again, we have a problem with the definitionof single use. As my hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test said, the issue is the single-use sicknessof it, rather than the actual product itself. That is whywe think the amendment is so important, and we willpush it to a Division.



Division No. 27]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


1.4 pm

The Chair adjourned the Committee without Questionput (Standing Order No.88).




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Fifteenth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS




CLAUSES 64 to 69 agreed to.




CLAUSES 71 to 74 agreed to.

Adjourned till Tuesday 17 November at twenty-five minutes past

Nine o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than






Chairs: JAMES GRAY, †SIR GEORGE HOWARTH




Brock, Deidre (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)



Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)

† Longhi, Marco (Dudley North) (Con)Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of







(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Schedule 9


Question proposed, That the schedule be the Ninthschedule to the Bill.

2 pm

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Ashon. Members will recall, before we adjourned we discussedan amendment that sought to place a slightly differentemphasis on elements of the schedule; we wanted toemphasise the question of single use in general, ratherthan just single-use plastic. The argument is that a lot ofthings other than plastic are single-use.

The idea is not what the hon. Member for SouthCambridgeshire suggested in his intervention—that wewould tax everything that was single-use, which wouldclearly be absurd. Indeed, one would not want to taxsome plastic single-use items, given that they may beappropriate in a number of circumstances. That is why,on this occasion, the use of the word “may” is correct.

Schedule 9, it appears, has been drawn narrowly inrespect of plastic and therefore narrowly also in termsof single use. To emphasise that, the schedule is actuallyheaded “Charges for single use plastic items”, not “Chargesfor single use items that may be plastic”. That is unfortunatebecause the issue is not just about manufacturers seekingto get round a ban or restriction on single-use plasticitems by making single-use items from different materials;it is that the whole throwaway culture is based onsingle-use items in general, which may or may not beplastic.

As those who have had the pleasure of dining undercovid restrictions in this building, a couple of floorsdown, will know, a number of throwaway items are putforward for our use, including knife, fork and spoonsets. Interestingly, those sets are sometimes made ofbamboo and sometimes of plastic; that seems to dependon which night people turn up for what meal. Theprinciple is exactly the same: people are supposed to putthe knife, fork and spoon set in the bin afterwards. Inthe particular instance of covid-19 restrictions, I fullyunderstand why. However, although it is the norm in anumber of catering establishments to supply a knife,fork and spoon set that cannot be washed and usedagain, those knife, fork and spoon sets are not necessarilyonly plastic. They can be made of all sorts of otherthings; the principle is that something is being madeavailable that is supposed to be thrown away and notused again, when it could very easily be used again, withfairly minor alterations to the spec and how things aredone, thereby saving a great deal of resource and upholdingthe principles of the circular economy.

That is what we were trying to get at in amendment 182.There are clearly various things that fit in that categoryand that we as a society could do a great deal to sortout, so as not to bring virgin materials into the economywhen we do not need to and to circularise things so thatthey go round the economy. Making the best use of thoseitems when we can is something that should be agreedto. Indeed, we had a debate a little while ago in whichthe Minister extolled the virtues of recyclable nappies.Of course, a recyclable nappy is what used to be knownas a nappy. That is what people did, because Pampersand all the rest of it were not available in those days.However, we now have a culture where the default is tobuy a bag of Pampers and get through those, ratherthan even thinking about using recyclable nappies. Indeed,they are quite difficult to get hold of.

Recyclable or non-recyclable nappies need not necessarilybe made of plastic; they could be made of various things.However, the principle is about moving from nappiesthat are used in one way to those used by default in anotherway, with the result—which we know, and which I amsure comes across the Minister’s desk every day—thatnappies are now a substantial part of the waste streamand potentially part of fatbergs and various other thingsin our sewers, because of the change over time frommultiple to single use.

We do not oppose the schedule, but can the Ministersee circumstances in which discouraging but not necessarilyremoving single use could be incorporated into theschedule or introduced in further regulations, or doesshe think that that is it for the debate on single-useitems? I cannot believe that it is; we need to take itfurther than just plastic items. I seek suggestions or anunderstanding for how we can best advance the debate,if not through this schedule, then maybe somewhereelse.

In conclusion, I know personally that a number ofitems—some of which apply to me—including certainmedical things, such as sealed eye drops, absolutelyneed to continue to be plastic single-use items, and itwould be inappropriate were it otherwise. My view isnot that we should remove all plastic single-use items—oruse only single-use items—but we all ought to be seekingto give ourselves the possibility of ensuring between usthat the most circularity is achieved. I hope the Ministercan give us some guidance and assurances on that.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow):The Government are committed to tackling plasticpollution and moving towards sustainable alternatives.The schedule outlines the various provisions that can bebrought forward in secondary legislation to place newcharges on single-use plastic items. That will provide theincentive needed for citizens to use reusable alternativeswhile ensuring that single-use options are still availableto those who need them—examples such as those thehon. Gentleman mentioned. The success of the carrierbag charge, which has led to a 95% reduction in the useof plastic carrier bags in the main supermarkets sinceits introduction, demonstrates the difference that even asmall incentive can make.

I want to wind up this debate by being clear that thepower in schedule 9 is related to single-use plastic items,with the reason being that single-use plastic items, as Ihighlighted right at the beginning, are increasingly common


in daily life. They are a significant and ongoingenvironmental problem, in use and disposal, and giventhat they are not valued, they are indeed disposed of viablack bins or littering. They are not commonly recycled.The measure will address that.

Other single-use items will be addressed through theother myriad measures in the Bill, including depositreturn and extended producer responsibility. The generalethos of this whole part of the Bill is to drive downwaste from the very beginning, and I believe that thehon. Member for Southampton, Test, has not fullytaken all that into account. When he sits down tonightin bed with the Bill and goes over it and the explanatorynotes, he will realise that the problem he is raising isdealt with. That has all been thought about. I am,however, grateful to him that he will not oppose theschedule.


Schedule 9 accordingly agreed to.


Clause 54

SEPARATION OF WASTE


Dr Whitehead: We do not seek to oppose the clause,but I want to ask about food waste, which we may cometo when we debate later schedules.

Food waste is clearly an important issue. Indeed, itwas highlighted in the resources and waste strategy forEngland, which came out a little while ago, in a chapterheaded, “Enough is enough: cutting down on foodwaste”. At the time, the White Paper projected thattotal UK food waste was 10.2 million tonnes. Interestingly,that food waste was broken down by sector. It suggestedthat households produced 7.1 million tonnes of foodwaste, hospitality and food service 1 million tonnes,manufacturing 1.85 million tonnes and retail 0.25 milliontonnes. The important thing about that particular distinctionmade in the White Paper is that, yes, there is a largeamount of food waste, as we know, and we could have along debate about the reasons for rising food waste,how we can suppress that rise in food waste and how wecan do much better at ensuring that we use what we areproducing.

2.15 pm

That includes things such as inappropriate courgettesthat do not actually make their way to the supermarketbecause they are the wrong shape and go into the foodwaste chain, and how retailers, particularly large retailers,might actually offer us rather more funny-shaped courgettes.Certainly my garden has a proliferation of funny-shapedcourgettes; in fact, all I ever get is funny-shaped courgettes,so I do not find a problem with eating them, although Ido get a bit fed up with the number that I produce. Theessential point is that there are a whole load of thingswe can do in various different ways about cutting downfood waste and ensuring that the food that is comingour way is used appropriately.

However, the chart in the White Paper does two things.It shows that, while probably the majority of food wastecomes through households, substantial amounts of foodwaste elsewhere come not from households, but from

other particular sources. The importance of that pointis underlined by the conditions put forward in clause 54about the management of food waste in terms of separationof waste. The clause substitutes the existing provisionsin the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with a newprovision on separate collection of household waste.

It states:

“The first condition is that recyclable household waste must becollected separately from other household waste.”

That is recyclable waste, so that is a wider definitionthan food waste. Moving down, it continues:

“The fourth condition is that recyclable household waste whichis food waste must be collected at least once a week.”

The Minister mentioned that this Bill makes it necessaryto collect food waste, but I am not sure, reading thisclause and the schedules that go with it, that that isexactly what the Bill says.

The first point is that the collection of food waste inthe Bill is basically referring to municipal food wastecollection which, as hon. Members know, only dealswith a fraction of the total waste arising. Most of thewaste arising in this country is not the responsibility ofmunicipal collection, because it is industrial or commercialand is in a different bracket. The 1990 Act also accentuatesthat by underlining that this is municipal waste that weare talking about and that, therefore, the collectionunder this clause is municipal waste being collectedseparately from other household waste, but that remainswithin the household as a whole and does not gooutside it.

Secondly, in that context, that waste, if it is foodwaste, must be collected at least once a week. Differentlocal authorities have different collection agencies; thewaste world is divided into collection agencies whohand it over to disposal agencies, which would normallybe top-line authorities or consortia of authorities. Thereis an issue of who is collecting what where and whatbelongs to whom at what point. However, the bottomline is that different practices remain in different partsof the country when it comes to the collection of foodwaste. Some authorities have little blue boxes for collectingit; some authorities intermingle their food waste withother streams.

The provisions that

“recyclable household waste must be collected for recycling orcomposting”

and

“must be collected separately from other household waste”

do not appear to me to automatically mean that thefood waste has to be separated out from other recyclablewaste: the condition could be fulfilled by a collectingauthority including food waste with other recyclablecollections. The second separation is not necessarilyspelled out, although it is clearly strongly encouraged inthe clause.

The fourth condition that

“recyclable household waste which is food waste must be collectedat least once a week”

only applies, therefore, where food waste is wholly separatedout from other recyclable waste. If the food waste isincluded in the general recyclable waste, it does notappear that it has to be collected once a week. A localauthority can get round that by simply not mounting aseparate food waste collection.


I do not think that the provision says—I could bewrong and I would be grateful if the Minister couldelucidate on the point—that all local authorities collectingwaste have to collect food waste, have to collect itseparately from other recyclable waste and have tocollect it once a week.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend ismaking an important and detailed point. We do need toclarify this issue: what is written in law is written in law,and we must make sure that we fully understand it.

The Welsh Government currently have higher recyclingrates than the English rates, because of the way thatfood waste is dealt with. Food waste is separated by thehousehold; at kerbside, it is separated again by thecollection authorities. There is food waste as well asrecycling. There is an important point to be made aboutweekly collections. If food collections are less thanweekly, all sorts of contaminations can occur, such asmaggots, infestations and so on. Does my hon. Friendagree that it is important that we clarify these points?

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend is absolutely rightthat clarity is important.

In clause 54(4), immediately after the conditions thatare set out on recyclable and food waste, there is aseparate amendment to the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, which talks about the

“separate collection of household waste from relevant nondomesticpremises”.

The conditions in that proposed new section are differentfrom those on household waste. We have an issue hereabout what it means to collect recyclable waste, whichmay be food waste, in the context of household collection;and what it means to collect food waste that is separatefrom recyclable waste, and appears to be collectableonce a week.

Unless the join is properly made between the differentprovisions in legislation, it appears to me, the holes willnot be completely filled. Can the Minister point me toother parts of the Bill where they are filled? Alternatively,will it be possible to fill those holes in different ways, byregulations? I would be delighted to hear from theMinister what she thinks about the idea in general andhow far she thinks the clause has gone towards resolvingthe problems.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscomments. In the 2018 resources and waste strategy, theGovernment set out their intention to achieve 65% recyclingof municipal waste by 2035. Our current arrangementsare insufficient to meet that, so clause 34 will make a bigdifference. It will make recycling simpler for everybodyby requiring the same recyclable waste streams to becollected from all households, whatever their local authority.At the moment, as hon. Friends and Members know,we have myriad different systems across the country,which is clearly not the best way to get the most productscollected, recycled and reused. That will include non-domestic premises such as schools, hospitals and businesses.

Through the Bill, no matter where people live in England,they will have their plastic, metal, glass, paper, card,food waste and garden waste all collected for recycling,with food waste being collected from households weekly.

The unexpected consequences of leaving food wastelonger than that were outlined by the hon. Member forNewport West.

Food waste should be collected separately unlessabsolutely not technically or economically practical,but there is a requirement for it to be collected everyweek. At the very least, householders will have a bin forwhat is called dry recycling, which are the first things Imentioned, and another bin for residual waste, as we doin Taunton Deane already; I do not know whether theyhave those in Southampton, Test.

Dr Whitehead: They do.

Rebecca Pow: All the district councils in Somersetjoin together for that scheme. It works extremely welland it is very straightforward. All other local authoritieswill follow a similar model, so there will no longer be apostcode lottery with one place where they do collect itand another where they do not.

For the first time, there will also be a requirement, aswas raised by the hon. Gentleman, for non-domesticpremises and businesses to arrange to have the samerecyclable waste streams as households, separately collected,with the exception of garden waste, and for them topresent their waste in accordance with those arrangements.I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is getting abit muddled in his interpretation of what he is reading,because what is envisaged is clear.

Daniel Zeichner: I do not mean to usurp my hon.Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who I amsure will follow immediately afterwards, but I thinkmuch of that is to be welcomed—certainly weeklycollections. As I am sure the Minister is aware, theLocal Government Association has caveated its supportwith a request for funding to be made available to carrythose out. Can she point to where in the Bill thatguarantee is given?

Rebecca Pow: We have made it very clear from thebeginning that burdens to local authorities will be covered.If the hon. Gentleman wants us to write to him in moredetail about that, we can, but that has been made quiteclear.

Dr Whitehead: If I am being misled, I look to theMinister to provide clarification, which I hope she isbeginning to do—indeed, that is what I want, to informmy understanding of how the clause will work. Thereare some things that I cannot quite get to the bottom of,however, so perhaps she can point me to exactly howthey join together.

I very much welcome the advances on food waste andit is essential that we take action on that, but I remainunconvinced that the clause states exactly that everylocal collection authority has to provide a food wastecollection. If they do provide a food waste collection, ithas to be collected once a week, but does the clausemean that every local authority has to provide anunmingled food waste collection arrangement and thatthat arrangement is not to be mingled with more generalrecyclable collections?

I am sure that the Minister can appreciate the distinctionbetween putting a whole pile of food waste in a generalrecycling bin and separating food waste out so that it


can be used for specific purposes. If food waste ismingled in with recycling, it is difficult to take it outsubsequently, and it cannot be used entirely for thepurposes for which we want food waste to be used:anaerobic digestion and various other things.

2.30 pm

The Chair: Order. Before I bring the Minister back in,I should say that I have allowed lengthy interventionson the basis that I think it is for the good conduct of theCommittee that people have the opportunity to makethese points, so no criticism is implied. However, I dohope people will try to be a bit briefer with theirinterventions as the Committee proceeds.

Rebecca Pow: I think the hon. Gentleman has madehis own point, really. He has outlined why we do notwant food waste mingled up with all the rest of thewaste. That is why through this Bill, no matter where inEngland a person lives, they will see dry waste—plastic,metal, glass, paper and card—collected, and food, whichis not dry waste, in a separate bin. That is all in the Bill.Food waste will be collected from households on aweekly basis—I do not know how much clearer I canbe. That will make recycling more straightforward and,with all the other measures in the Bill, will help us toincrease overall recycling rates to 65%.

These recyclable waste streams must be collectedseparately from other waste and separately from eachother, except when it is technically or economicallyimpractical to do so or there is no significant environmentalbenefit. That will lead to higher quality, driving up thevalue of all recycled materials and, in turn, encouragingmore recycling through increased demand. The clauseallows us to add additional recyclable waste streams infuture, subject to certain conditions. It will provideconsistency of recycling for the first time, and help usmeet future recycling targets. I therefore commend it tothe Committee.


Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clause 55

ELECTRONIC WASTE TRACKING: GREAT BRITAIN

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 55,page 41, line 33, leave out “including” and insert“excluding”.

Clause 55 adds new text to the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990, and seeks to set up a new system of electronictracking for waste. Our amendment, which stands in myname and that of my hon. colleagues, seeks to securethat new system. I say to the Minister that the proposednew system is very welcome, but although we welcomethe proposal, we and many campaigners and expertswant to go further. The new system needs to be expandedto track all materials in line with the National MaterialsDatahub—the same data hub that the Governmenthave previously supported. I hope the Minister willunderstand the background and motivation behind whatwe are trying to do here, and I commend the amendmentto the Committee.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment.I would point out that in the resources and wastestrategy, the Government committed to modernising,simplifying and harmonising current regulations relatingto the transport, management and description of waste,which have been introduced in a very piecemeal fashionover the past 30 years or so. She will probably agreewith me that the current system is in urgent need of anupdate, and I welcome the fact that she is supportingthese general measures.

Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record keeping, which makes it very difficult totrack waste effectively, as it provides organised criminalswith the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematicmishandling of waste. In 2018, the independent reviewinto serious and organised waste crime recommendedthat mandatory electronic tracking of waste should beintroduced at the earliest opportunity to address theproblems of illegality in the waste sector. In the currentsystem, waste can be fraudulently re-classified andtransferred on, or simply illegally dumped, and thepaper trail then disappears. That makes it difficult toidentify and deal with waste crime, including cases offly-tipping, which concerns rural and urban areas.

To make essential improvements and create a digitalwaste-tracking system, amendments may be required toprimary legislation or retained direct EU legislation.That does not mean that we are falling behind the EUon standards of waste management—far from it. Instead,we will amend the current legislation to develop acomprehensive system, to ensure that waste can betracked and regulated more effectively.

The practical effect of the amendment, therefore,would be to undermine and restrict our ability to introducemandatory electronic waste tracking in a way that worksbest for our environment, now and in the future, althoughI know that is not the hon. Member’s intention. I askher, therefore, to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for herexpansion on the situation. We are singing from thesame hymn sheet, because electronic tracking is soimportant, as the Minister said; the paperwork trail isnot as accurate as the electronic one. We all want thesame thing. I am pleased she has mentioned the EU,because we do not want to fall behind the EU either.That is paramount as we move forward from 1 January.With that in mind, we will not push the amendment to aDivision. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Amendment made: 43, in clause 55, page 41, line 44, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)See Amendment 28.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 56

ELECTRONIC WASTE TRACKING: NORTHERN IRELAND

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 56,page 43, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment, again, is focused on language andthe strength of the legislation. We want to replace“may” with “must”. I suspect the Minister is gettingtired of hearing these amendments, but we are trying to


[Ruth Jones]

be helpful and ensure that the Bill is as strong andeffective as possible. I will not repeat the benefits of“must” over “may”.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for theamendment. The introduction of a mandatory electronicwaste tracking system will increase transparency in thewaste industry, as I outlined earlier, and pose a barrierto organised criminals operating in the sector.

Clause 56 provides the regulation-making powersneeded to legislate on how the system is set up andadministered in Northern Ireland. It is entirely appropriateto provide the Department of Agriculture, Environmentand Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland with the flexibilityas to when and how the provision is given effect. Primarylegislation consistently takes that approach to the balancebetween powers and duties. This enabling power shouldnot be converted into a duty.

It should be for the Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs to decide how andwhen to use the enabling power to bring forward legislationand, in turn, for the Northern Ireland Assembly todecide whether to approve this legislation. The Assemblymust be given its proper place in terms of scrutiny whenit comes to the commencement and implementation ofthe powers. The proposed amendment to place an absoluteduty on the Department of Agriculture, Environmentand Rural Affairs goes against the spirit of that. If theamendment is made, the Department could be subjectto a duty to make regulations on waste tracking that itwould then be unable to comply with if the Assemblydid not approve the legislation. It would also not beappropriate for Northern Ireland to be subject to a dutyto make waste tracking regulations that the other nationsof the UK are not subject to. I therefore consider theamendment inappropriate and ask the hon. Lady if shewill kindly withdraw it.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments.While I understand her reasoning, we want NorthernIreland to be in line with the rest of the UK in being asstrong and far reaching as possible on waste and electronictracking systems. It is important that we enable theNorthern Ireland Assembly and the authorities there todo everything they want to. We had a long debate onpowers and duties when considering the AgricultureBill. If it is that important, it should be legislated for,and it should be in the Bill. However, having heard theMinister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Clause 56 agreed to.

Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.

Clause 59

TRANSFRONTIER SHIPMENTS OF WASTE

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 177, inclause 59, page 50, line 19, at end insert—

“(1C) The Secretary of State must by regulations makeprovision to prohibit the exportation of waste consisting whollyor mostly of plastic from no later than March 2025.”.

The clause seeks to amend the Environmental ProtectionAct 1990 and give the Secretary of State new powers toregulate the export of waste from the United Kingdom.In principle, it is welcome, because a country of ourwealth and location should absolutely not export pollutingwaste to countries in poorer parts of the world witheconomies nowhere near the size of ours. This is a questionof morality in many ways. I touched on it earlier thisweek when I referenced the situation that the Governmentare now in with Sri Lanka and the 21 containers thatwere shipped there in 2017 that are now being returned.

For all the welcome that the clause deserves, existinginternational commitments mean that it is already illegalfor the UK to send polluting waste to non-OECDcountries. The international Basel convention obligessignatories, including the UK, to prohibit the export ofwaste to developing countries if they have reason tobelieve that the waste will not be managed in anenvironmentally sound manner. The convention will bestrengthened in 2021, when most plastic will becomesubject to even stricter hazardous waste controls.

The United Kingdom, in many ways, has had a lostdecade under the Tories and Lib Dems when it comes toprotecting the environment. I have to say that thiscountry has struggled to fulfil its international obligationsin this area, although the Environment Agency in Englandrecently tried to increase its preventive work, and Iacknowledge those small, tentative steps forward inspite of the cuts to resources it has suffered over the last10 years.

For the power before us to be exercised effectively, theGovernment need to put in place an adequate regulatoryand enforcement system to ensure that they meet currentand future obligations on waste shipments. Ministersneed to review the approach to consumption and resourcesuse to reduce current and future reliance on landfill andincineration. This should address the underlying driversof the waste problem. For ease of reference, those driversinclude unsustainable growth and consumption of single-usepackaging and other items, a lack of domestic recyclingand reprocessing infrastructure, and limited end marketsfor secondary materials. We have had some useful debateson those things already during the passage of the Billthrough this Committee. The amendment is specificand allows us to show the leadership that people andnations across the world expect from the United Kingdom.

2.45 pm

Daniel Zeichner: It is a pleasure to follow my hon.Friend, who has made a very good case for the amendment.I am puzzled about why the world is not more excited bythe Bill at the moment. Given the wider world’s interestin environmental issues, one would expect it to be oneveryone’s lips. Of course, Greta Thunberg laid out thechallenge: she does not trust a single politician, andhere was the opportunity for the Minister to respondand to become a politician Greta Thunberg might trust.Part of the problem is the lack of ambition in the Bill,and that is exactly what the amendment inserts intoit—a sense of urgency.

I suspect that hon. Members have been into primaryschools and talked to young children. I used to do thatoften, and I was struck by how many times environmentalissues came up. I have had numerous letters from schools,and the issue of waste being transported elsewhere comesup time after time. So many of our fellow citizens do the


right thing. In so many households, particularly in acity such as Cambridge, people go to huge efforts torecycle, but then they ask themselves where it goes. Whenthey read—possibly even in The Guardian occasionally—that all is not well on this front, it really demoralisesthem. They think, “What’s the point?” They are doingtheir bit, but their Government are not doing the bitthat only Government can do.

That is why there is an opportunity to strengthen theBill. The Minister should welcome the opportunity theOpposition are giving her today to do that and toperhaps begin to be able to say to the wider world thatthese things really are worth supporting. With all thecaveats, all the “mays” and all the reasons why thesethings cannot be done yet because they are too difficultand complicated, the feeling out there in the widerworld among the people we represent is that there reallyis not the sense of urgency that the situation requires.

Dr Whitehead: I echo my hon. Friend’s claim that theamendment is very important for how the country isseen to deal with its waste, and particularly for how weare seen by our own population. Hopefully, we are seenin a positive light. All that we have discussed aboutrecycling, single-use plastics and such things is based, toa considerable extent, on the public’s confidence thatwhat is going to happen is actually what does happen. Ifthe public think that none of what is being said to themis true, the chances of them co-operating—by sortingeverything into different bins, ensuring that things arereturned, and stopping dumping things in hedges—willbe undermined.

The fact that we are seen to be dealing with our ownwaste properly and safely, and that we are not simplyusing the export of waste as a safety valve for ourinadequacies in processing waste fully in our country,ought to be something that should concern us verymuch. Frankly, that is what has happened over a numberof years with our waste exports. We do import somewaste, but we export quite a lot more than we import.The waste we import is usually waste that can be usedfor energy from waste and various other things, such asrefuse-derived fuel. The waste we export is not only of amuch wider variety, but actually goes to parts of theworld where, in many instances, we cannot be sure—andcertainly, people there cannot be sure—that the destinationfor that waste is of the standard we would expect if thatwaste were disposed of in our own country.

The Minister has said this legislation would ensurethat we do not export waste other than to OECDcountries. That sounds very reassuring, until we look atmembership of OECD countries. It is not, shall we say,EU members and a couple of other states in the world.It is actually a wide variety of states across the world:for example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Turkey aremembers of the OECD. Therefore, that is not necessarilythe quality standard route, as far as safety valves areconcerned. The best thing to do is probably to ensurewe have sufficient recycling collection, processing andreuse facilities here, so that we can really deal with allour waste in the UK. That is not just a practical thing; itis a moral obligation we have for the future, as far aswaste management is concerned.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport Westmentioned, what we really do not want is repeatedscenes—not just repeated scenes, but repeated extremely

embarrassing scenes—of bales of waste, mainly consistingof plastic, going to countries we think will quite easilyaccept them and say nothing, but that are now beginningto say, “This is not good enough. The quality of thismaterial is not right. It is not what we thought it wasgoing to be, so you can have it back.” That is not justone instance—Sri Lanka; we have form on this. Thishas happened with several countries, including Malaysia,which sent back 27 bales of waste. Indeed, I put awritten question to the Minister a little while ago abouthow that had happened, what was going to happen withthat material when it came back to the UK and whetherit would be properly dealt with and disposed of.

Part of the reason these things have started to happenis that some of our traditional destinations, in terms ofwhat have historically been fairly lazy assumptions aboutexport of waste, have drawn the drawbridge up themselves.China’s great green wall policy means that the Chineseno longer want to receive anything that looks vaguelyusable that we might put in a container back to China,and that we cannot work on the assumption that theycan somehow reprocess some of it and will be quitepleased to do so because that will help their economy.They do not want it. They have put a green wall up tostop these things happening.

That has meant that the waste exports have gone toother countries, which it was thought are less particularabout what they want to receive and, indeed, probablyhappy to receive stuff that is not what it says on the tinor on the bale. One issue from this particular return ofbales of waste to the UK was that they were claimedto be high-quality waste that could be reused andremanufactured by those countries for recycling purposes.However, they were not. There was all sorts of old stuff,to coin a phrase, in those bales, and it was way beyondthe standard that they would reasonably accept. Twoquestions arise from that. First, what were we doingcontinuing to export in that lazy way to those countries?Secondly, why did what I thought were our internalchecks and balances to ensure the quality of what weexport fail to work?

We have potentially considerable work to do. If weare to continue to export waste at all, we have to get ouract together and ensure that that waste is as good as itcould be and is absolutely not going to the wrongplaces. The Opposition think that the best way to dealwith plastic or mostly plastic waste is simply to say thatby 2025 we will stop doing that. Yes, that gives us achallenge, because we currently do not have sufficientgood-quality plastic recycling facilities in this country,particularly those that can properly separate the 25 or26 different kinds of plastic and put them at the rightlevel in the plastics hierarchy so that we do not end uponly making traffic cones with the plastic we recycle.

With plastic recycling, the production level of theplastic going into the system needs to be commensuratewith the recycling that takes place, so that the plasticcan be recycled at that level. For example, food-gradeplastic has to be recycled with other food-grade plastic.If it is contaminated with anything else, it stops beingfood-grade plastic, recycled or not. Indeed, if we arenot careful, it all goes to the bottom of the plastichierarchy, and we get massive amounts of park benchesand traffic cones and nothing else.


[Dr Whitehead]

We need better facilities in this country for recyclingand reprocessing plastic that can be recycled properly,according to the hierarchy. That is partly why theamendment says:

“from no later than March 2025.”

That would give us the space to start getting our acttogether in this country and ensuring that facilities areavailable to recycle properly. We really cannot accept,and I do not think any of us would want to accept, thatexporting waste should in the future be seen as a safetyvalve for our own inadequacies. It has to be differentfrom that. The amendment underlines why it has to bedifferent, how it can be different and how we can set anexample to the world by ensuring that we deal withwhat arises from our own backyard in our own backyardand do not send it out across the world, for purposesthat we do not know too much about and that thepeople concerned are obviously increasingly upset aboutwhen it gets to them.

This is an important amendment that we hope theMinister will accept entirely in the spirit in which it isintended. I know that she is absolutely committed tothose high standards in our waste management, and Ihope that she will accept it in that spirit.

Rebecca Pow: I thank all hon. Members who haveinputted, although I take slight issue with the “lostdecade” for the environment. I think Labour needs tolook at its own record prior to that and ask how we havecome to this pass. Thank goodness we have a Governmentwho are doing something about it. However, that is notto say that I do not welcome the Opposition’s support; Iabsolutely do.

Also, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked whypeople were not more excited about the Bill. I believethey are genuinely excited about it, and it is such a hugeBill. Other hon. Members have probably had this too,but when one meets groups of people who might be awee bit, what I call controversial, and explains what is inthe Bill, they are absolutely amazed. It literally addressesall the things that people write to us about and that fillour inboxes, so I for one am going to be that champion—indeed, I hope I already am. I hope that the hon.Gentleman will join me and promote the Bill, because Ithink it will do all the things we need for a sustainablefuture.

Anyway, to the amendment, for which I thank thehon. Member for Newport West and which wouldprohibit the export of

“waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic”

by March 2025. However, the clause already providespowers to make regulations on a wide range of mattersto do with the import and export of waste, includingprohibiting and restricting its export. We will use powersin this clause to implement our manifesto commitmentto ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries—exactly what the hon. Member for Southampton,Test is asking for—as we recognise that some countrieshave difficulty processing imports of this type of waste.We are committed to dealing with more of our wastehere in the UK through the measures I have beentalking about today and previously. We will consultindustry, NGOs and local authorities on the date bywhich the ban will be achieved.

3 pm

Dr Whitehead: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I will, but very briefly, because the hon.Gentleman had a very long go just now.

The Chair: I am sure he will be very brief.

Dr Whitehead: I will indeed. I just wanted to correctwhat the Minister seemed to suggest I said aboutthe OECD. I was not saying “Hooray for exports to theOECD!”Rather, I think we should see whether all OECDmember countries keep to high standards of wastereception and export. My perusal of the membershipsuggests that not all do.

Rebecca Pow: I too looked at that great list of membersyesterday and at non-OECD countries. The OECDcountries represent 80% of the world’s investment andwealth. I just wanted to make a point about OECDcountries and waste, though. We must not forget thatwaste is a commodity and that there is a legitimateglobal market for secondary materials. Exports of wastefor recycling between OECD countries are already coveredby an international agreement—the OECD decision—which provides the framework for the control of movementsof waste.

Where the UK cannot currently recycle materialseconomically, exports can ensure in some cases thatth3e materials are recycled, rather than sent to landfillor for incineration. Not all products sold in the UK aremade in the UK. Waste exports can help to increase theamount of recycled materials going into new productswe buy that are produced abroad. We must not forgetthe big picture where waste goes and what it is used for.

Making the amendment before the consultation onthe date for stopping the exports of waste to non-OECDcountries would pre-empt the result of the consultation.It is important that all stakeholders have a fair andequal opportunity to express their view on when theproposed prohibition should be implemented. Theprohibition could have wide-ranging effects on localauthorities and our wider waste infrastructure, and it isimportant to consider these effects fully before we set atimetable for implementing the ban.

I assure all hon. Members that the Government takevery seriously the regulation of waste imports andexports, as well as the impact illegal waste shipmentscan have on the global environment—hence our manifestocommitments. Electronic waste tracking will help thisagenda, as we will know what is going where and it willbe harder to send the wrong products abroad. I reaffirmthat we should be dealing with our own waste right herein the UK wherever possible. I ask the hon. Member forNewport West to withdraw her amendment.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her enthusiasmfor this Bill. We are obviously all enthused, and it isimportant we get the word out about what is going on. Ithank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridgeand for Southampton, Test for their eloquent speechesabout the need to deal with things at home and not justshove them off into the far blue yonder. People at homehave woken up and want to do the right thing. We go onand on about people’s awareness being raised, but we mustensure that they have the ability to do the right thing.


Greta Thunberg has spoken eloquently and youngpeople around the UK especially have taken on boardwhat she says. I was honoured to make my maidenspeech on 1 May last year, when she addressed a numberof us in Portcullis House. It was the day we declared theclimate change emergency so it was important. She isseen as one of the leading lights in engaging youngpeople and encouraging them to lobby those within andoutside this room, so that we will do the right thing forthem and for future generations.

The nub of the matter is the end result, which is thatwe are dumping containers in another country. I haveseen TV pictures of young people—children—scavengingthrough waste sites, and the waste has clearly been identifiedas coming from the UK. That is not acceptable and weknow it. We need to make sure we deal with our wastehere in the United Kingdom, for the very reason thatthe Minister has outlined, and with the very mechanismsthat she outlined. We make the waste and we mustdispose of it properly ourselves though measures includingproper processing and proper waste stations. Let us notforget, if we ship waste abroad, it contributes to climatechange through the extra emissions from shipping freight.

The Minister has made an eloquent plea for us towithdraw the amendment because the deadline of March2020 might hinder meaningful consultation, but I arguethat the deadline is a helpful way to encourage people toconsult and to decide how we can achieve what we wantwithin the timeline. I should say it is a spur—a driver—tohelp. If the Government are ambitious then, yes, set anambitious target. That is why it is important that weshould push the deadline. That is how we can start todemonstrate that this is about actions, not words. Forthat reason we shall divide the Committee.



Division No. 28]

AYES

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Thomson, Richard

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Longhi, Marco

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment made: 44, in clause 59, page 51, line 47, leaveout

‘the National Assembly for Wales’

and insert ‘Senedd Cymru’.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.


Clause 60

HAZARDOUS WASTE: ENGLAND AND WALES

Amendments made: 45, in clause 60, page 54, line 14, leaveout


and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 46, in clause 60, page 54, line 17, leaveout


and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.





Clause 69

LOCAL AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Question proposed, That the clause stand part ofthe Bill.


That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.

Clause 70 stand part.

That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.

Dr Whitehead: I wanted to draw the Committee’sattention to schedule 11, which concerns the local authoritymanagement framework. As hon. Members will see, withinthat framework on air quality, an enormous amount isplaced on the local authority’s plate. That is quite rightbecause the people at local authorities are absolutelythe right people to deal with air quality problems.

A little while ago there were exceedances of worldstandards on air quality. The Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs required a number of the localauthorities that were in danger of infraction at thatpoint to draw up local air quality plans and to produceproposals to improve air quality in certain areas. Mycity, Southampton, was one of those places. Generally,there was a good relationship between the Departmentand my local authority in drawing up those plans—thiswas before the more extensive plans set out in schedule 11—how those were looked at by the Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, what sums ofmoney were put in to support the plans in some instances,and how they then went forward. So far, so good.

3.15 pm

In a number of instances, however, as soon as localauthorities started to put in their plans, other GovernmentDepartments piled in to slag them off for what theywere doing—saying that they were impeding the properpassage of transport or whatever through city centres,that it would be bad for business and should not bedone for all sorts of reasons. I regret to say that thoselocal authorities were getting it in the neck for doingwhat DEFRA wanted them to do and was supportingthem to do. Local Members in those areas, who werenot necessarily of the party putting forward those proposalsif those proposals were from an Opposition partyadministration, also piled in to slag off those localauthorities, even though their own Government weresupporting the local authorities in putting forward thoseplans. I thought that was quite reprehensible.


The local authorities were making honest efforts totry to get air quality under control and sort it out. Insome instances, they were using seriously difficult measuresto do that. For political purposes, and sometimes otherpurposes, other Departments and Members sought tobelittle and downgrade those efforts, or even downrightopposed them. I hope to hear from the Minister aboutthat.

We fully support the plans for local authorities andhow they work, but two things are necessary. First, sufficientfunds have to be available to allow local authorities todo their work where those plans are being set out. It isby no means apparent at the moment that that will bethe case. Secondly, where local authorities are doingwhat they should be doing, they deserve support fromacross Government to allow that to happen. Believe me,it is severely demoralising for local authorities that areworking really hard to find that support is not therewhen they thought they were doing the right thing.

I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that thisis essentially a cross-departmental initiative and that allGovernment Departments understand what is involvedin the schedule—that it involves, particularly at locallevel, local authorities doing something for this specificpurpose that another Department might not think is agreat thing. Departments have to understand that thatis how it must happen. It may even be a question of theMinister asserting her undoubtedly massive power withinthe Government to get it across to other Departmentsthat they should refrain from casting aspersions onlocal authorities when they are doing their best. Indeed,more than refrain, perhaps Departments should beactive partners in those activities.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscomments. Improving the quality of the air we breatheis an absolute priority for the Government. We aretaking action to reduce pollution from a range of sources,including a £3.8 billion plan to reduce pollution fromroad vehicles and our commitment, set out in clause 2of the Bill, to set a legally binding national target toreduce fine particulate matter, which we discussed agreat deal on the very first day of this Committee, along time ago. The current local air quality managementframework places responsibility on local councils toassess local levels of air pollution and to address pollutionexceedances. The framework—I think this is what thehon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I agree with him—isnot sufficient for delivering the progress we want to see.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues,but, first of all, on cross-departmental working, I can assurehim that I, as the environment Minister, am workingincreasingly across Departments. On air, we work withthe Department for Transport in particular; we have thejoint air quality unit with that Department and we arealso increasingly working with the Department of Healthand Social Care. That is really healthy and really important.

However, going back to that framework, local authoritieshave told us that they need greater co-operation from arange of bodies in order to deliver meaningful action tobring pollution levels to within statutory limits. Theprovisions in the schedule will drive greater co-operationbetween different levels of local government and allowthe Secretary of State to designate other relevant publicauthorities that will also be required to take action.I think that is what the hon. Member for Southampton,

Test is really driving at, but it is all in here, and we willconsult on which bodies should be designated—actually,we launched a call for evidence on this on 5 October, sowork is already under way.

As we set out in our clean air strategy, we also wantto provide a quicker and more proportionate enforcementmechanism for smoke control areas, enabling greaterlocal action on domestic solid fuel burning, which is amajor contributor to national fine particulate matteremissions. I think the hon. Gentleman touched on funding.We anticipate only a small extra cost to local authoritiesfrom the revised local air quality management frameworks—the estimate we have had is around £13,000 per yearper local authority.

Returning to the enforcement measures, especially inrelation to the smoke control areas and domestic solidfuel burning, we are going to help tackle that, and wewill achieve that by replacing the criminal offence inexisting legislation with a civil penalty regime, whichwill allow for the removal of the statutory defences thatcurrently hinder enforcement. This change will ensurethat local authorities can avoid lengthy and costly courtcases—many of them have mentioned this to us—inenforcing regulations on the smoke emissions, enablingmuch smarter enforcement. It will be much quicker andsimpler for them to deal with an issue as and when theycome across it if we make it a civil penalty.

Ruth Jones: On that point about enforcement, whilewe agree that it is essential that local authorities are ableto enforce, how does the Minister see that enforcementbeing undertaken? There are environmental health officersup to their eyes with covid, there are lots of people whoare no longer in work because of the cuts the authoritieshave had to make and the funding is an issue. How willit happen?

Rebecca Pow: The main way it will happen is that wewill put the measures in the Bill to enable it to happen,so that the local authorities can take the action they areasking for. This is something they have been asking forand it will be made much simpler for them to take theaction that they want to take, so they need to take it. Wewill have all our targets on smoke and fine particulatematter, so there will be even more reason to tackle anyissues within one’s particular local authority.

These measures will also require retailers in Englandto notify customers of the law regarding the purchaseof certain solid fuels for use in smoke control areas.These measures will all work together to improvecompliance. They will remove the limit on the fine forthe current offence of delivering these fuels to a buildingin a smoke control area. Local authorities will also beable to apply smoke control legislation to boats mooredin their area, subject to consultation. Finally, criminalprosecution of serious offenders who repeatedly emitsmoke that is prejudicial to health will be made possibleby removing an exemption in existing statutory nuisancelegislation. That is another thing that will definitelyhelp the local authorities.


Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.





Clause 71

ENVIRONMENTAL RECALL OF MOTOR VEHICLES ETC

Ruth Jones: I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 71,page 61, line 25, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

The clause provides for the Secretary of State tomake regulations providing for the recall of relevantproducts that do not meet the appropriate environmentalstandards. I am afraid that this is yet another case ofmays and musts. The whole point of the Bill is to deliverreal change and to ensure that we seize every opportunityto save our planet.

Do not forget, the Bill disappeared for more than200 days, so we have lost a lot of time in the fightagainst climate change—but the fight is why we are heretoday. We cannot simply report back to the Floor of theHouse, and to the country, a Bill that is full of mays, ifsand buts. Let us be confident and turn those mays intomusts and whens. We can get the Bill through and geton with what we need to do about climate change.

Rebecca Pow: We know the harmful effect that pollutionfrom vehicles and machinery has on our air quality andthe health of our communities. I am sure that allMembers are aware of the difficulties facing many localauthorities in bringing down concentrations of dangerousair pollution. Much of that is due to vehicles that emitmore pollution on the road than they do in a certificationtest. The Government therefore set out in our clean airstrategy that vehicles that do not meet the relevantenvironmental standards must be recalled and fixed.The provisions will enable the Transport Secretary toissue a mandatory recall notice if vehicles or parts ofvehicles do not meet the environmental standards requiredof them.

I assure hon. Members that my colleagues in theDepartment for Transport intend to lay secondarylegislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure thatnon-compliant vehicles can be removed from the road.However, it is critical that the vehicle recall regime is fitfor purpose. We therefore intend to have a full publicconsultation on the draft regulations, and we expect thesecondary legislation to be in place as soon as possibleafter Royal Assent. That will depend on the outcome ofthe consultation. It is appropriate that the Secretary ofState is provided with the flexibility as to when and howthis provision is given effect. I therefore ask the hon.Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Ruth Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for herwords. Obviously, we welcome the clean air strategy.The fact that secondary legislation will be introduced isalso welcome but, again, we do not want it to be seen asan excuse to kick things further down the road. Kickingthe can down the road is not a good idea, especiallywhen it comes to people’s health. As we know, the lackof clean air can impact directly on people’s lung capacity,asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease andthings like that, which are all exacerbated by poor airquality.

My question to the Minister—it is rhetorical, ofcourse—is, again, who will enforce? She has talkedabout secondary legislation, but who will actually enforcewhen a vehicle is seen emitting polluting smoke andparticles? Who will do it? There is no money and nostaff within the local authorities to do it.

Rebecca Pow: The measures will impose no additionalcost on the motorists. All the recalls will continue to befully funded by the affected vehicle manufacturers. Whenenacting a recall, the Government will now be able toimpose supplementary conditions on vehicle manufacturers,which could include the requirement that the owner ofthe vehicle or equipment is compensated for anyinconvenience. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree thatthat means there is a sound system, including setting itall in secondary legislation.

Ruth Jones: That is interesting. I am sure that we willhave further debates on this with later parts of the Bill.When I ask who will enforce, I am talking about bootson the ground—who will physically get to the car, lorryor whatever, to pull it in for the assessment it needs inorder to impose that secondary legislation? But I amgrateful to her for her explanation and, on that note, Ibeg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.





3.32 pm

Adjourned tillTuesday17Novemberat twenty-fiveminutespast Nine o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB76 People and Nature EB77 UK Pesticides Campaign



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Sixteenth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS



CLAUSES 79 and 80 agreed to.



PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than












† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and

Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)

† Jones, Ruth (Newport West) (Lab)† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)† Moore, Robbie (Keighley) (Con)† Pow, Rebecca (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of







(Morning)


Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: I welcome hon. Members back to line-by-lineconsideration of the Environment Bill. I particularlywelcome the hon. Member for Ynys Môn, who joinsour Committee for the first time.

Clause 75

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLANS, DROUGHT

PLANS AND JOINT PROPOSALS

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I begto move amendment 9, in clause 75, page 66, line 11, leaveout “may” and insert “must”.

We start this morning with an amendment relating toclause 75. It will not be a surprise to any member of theCommittee. The suggestion is to replace the word “may”in the line under the heading “Plans and joint proposals:regulations about procedure”. Proposed new section 39Fof the Water Industry Act 1991 states:

“The Minister may by regulations make provision about theprocedure for preparing and publishing—

(a) a water resources management plan,

(b) a drought plan, and

(c) a joint proposal”.

It seems to the Opposition that it is very important thatthese things—a management plan, drought plan andjoint proposal—are actually published and that provisionis made about the procedure for publishing them. Thatis a central part of this clause.

As we have said in this Committee previously, noaspersions are cast in any direction concerning thepresent intentions of Ministers, but I remind the Committeethat we are making legislation for a very long time andthat there might conceivably be circumstances in whichMinisters less well inclined towards the process lightupon this clause and decide that it is not really soimportant that regulations are made, hence we thinkthat the word “must” should be inserted in the Bill.

We have pointed on a number of occasions to thelack of “musts” in the Bill. I think that this is one of themore important ones and I hope that the Minister, evenif she is not prepared to consider a number of the other“musts”, will have laid by a little store of sympathy forthis “must” proposal, because it relates, as I think shewould agree, to a very important feature of this clause.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I would like to add tothe argument about the fact that this legislation willstand for a long time. Even the fact that clause 75amends the Water Industry Act 1991 is a reminder to usof how long we expect this legislation to be in force andpeople to be acting on it accordingly. The Water IndustryAct became law 29 years ago and we are still discussingit, and how we will amend it, now. Many years fromnow, we will still be discussing this legislation, and

therefore it is so important to get it right. That is why a“must” instead of a “may” is very important, especiallyin this clause.

This amendment seeks especially to talk about regionalplans. Currently, planning on a regional rather than acompany-by-company basis is non-statutory, and so toput this on a statutory basis would be a gear change interms of water resource management. I would welcomeany moves to put regional plans on a statutory footing,but the Government have to be clearer on the circumstancesin which the Secretary of State would use the powersand how adherence to the regional plans would beencouraged if it were not clearly set out here. The currentdrafting is too weak and does not give this clause theteeth that it needs.

By changing “may” to “must”, amendment 9 wouldtighten up the clause considerably and make it far moreeffective. It would require the Secretary of State tomake provision setting out the procedure for preparingand publishing water resources management plans, droughtplans and joint proposals. I would like the Minister,before rejecting the amendment and dismissing it asunnecessary, to answer the following questions. Underwhat circumstances would the Secretary of State expectto use the powers created by clause 75 to direct watercompanies to prepare and publish joint proposals—theregional plans? There is a concern that that will notbecome standard practice if it is not expected. If thepowers are not used and regional water resources planningremains on a non-statutory footing—if it is just a“may”—how will the Secretary of State ensure thatcompanies produce water resources management plansthat are aligned with the regional plans?

In the absence of a commitment to using the powerscreated under clause 75 to direct regional planning, canthe Minister assure us that the Secretary of State willdirect the Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs to set out the need for company plans to alignfully with regional plans in its strategic policy statementto Ofwat? Otherwise, many who are listening to andreading this debate will remain concerned that companies’individual plans could deviate from regional plans, affectingour ability to provide sustainable water resources forsociety in the light of the worrying projections set out inthe Environment Agency’s national framework for waterresources.

Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): Iwant to make a general philosophical point about “mays”and “musts”. We have been talking about this matter alot over the past couple of weeks. Obviously, our endobjectives are the same: we all want a Bill that strengthensenvironmental protection, and a strong and independentOffice for Environmental Protection.

I realise that this clause is slightly different fromearlier clauses, but I will make the generic point thatwhen we say that something should be a “must” ratherthan a “may”, we are often prescribing what the OEPcan do. I realise that this amendment is about Ministers,but if we accepted all the amendments on this point, theOEP would end up with a whole list of things that itmust do, as prescribed by the Committee, and it wouldspend all its time ticking those boxes. We would takeagency away from the OEP.

As a parent, if I go around telling my children, “Youmust do this, and you must do that,” they do not feelvery independent. If I tell them that they have to be


grown up and make their own decisions, they feel moreempowered. Throughout this whole process—we haveanother couple of weeks to consider amendments—it isworth thinking about what being so directive towardsthe OEP would do to its agency and independence.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): It is good to beback this week. I welcome the shadow Minister again,and the new member of our Committee, my hon. Friendthe Member for Ynys Môn. I thank the hon. Memberfor Southampton, Test for the amendment. I understandthat the intention is to give certainty that Ministers willmake secondary legislation about the procedure forpreparing and publishing water resources managementplans, drought plans and joint proposals, but he is againplaying on my sympathies over “may” and “must”. Hewill not be surprised that I am not going to relent onthis one.

I think the hon. Member will agree that the explanationis quite clear. The duties under sections 37A and 39B ofthe Water Industry Act 1991, which we have alreadyheard about, to prepare and maintain water resourcesmanagement plans and drought plans remain on statutoryundertakers; they are “must” duties on the Minister.This was raised by the hon. Member for Putney. Theplans are already on a statutory footing, and the Minister’spower to make regulations about procedural matters, towhich the amendment refers, does not remove thoseduties. Ministers fully understand that water undertakersneed to know the procedural requirements for fulfillingtheir duties in good time.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for SouthCambridgeshire for the good points that he made aboutindependence and his children. It is entirely appropriateto provide Ministers with flexibility on when and howthis provision is given effect.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I come from avery dry region, which adjoins the constituency of thehon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. Some watercompanies, such as Anglian Water, are already workingwith other parts of the country, and there are regionalplans coming into place. Does the Minister agree that itwould be much better to give legal certainty by specifyingthat as the amendment suggests?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for thatpoint, and lots of companies are already working towardsthat. We will talk later in more detail about how watercompanies will work holistically together to deal withthe whole water landscape.

In the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers to directfuture procedure under statutory legislation if he thinks,for example, that more attention needs to be given towhat the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are existingpowers in section 37B of the 1991 Act to make regulationsfor procedural requirements, and those are replacedby new section 39F. The existing powers have alreadybeen used by Ministers to make the Water ResourcesManagement Plan Regulations 2007 and the DroughtPlan Regulations 2005.

Water companies’ plans are revised every five years.The plans are prepared at different times within theirown five-year cycles. When exercising these powers,Ministers in England therefore need to be flexible and

mindful of when to introduce the new planningrequirements, so as not to have unnecessary impacts onthe preparation of water companies’ plans, many ofwhich are under way. I therefore ask the hon. Gentlemanto withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I think the Minister knows what myanswer is going to be. The hon. Member for SouthCambridgeshire made a fair point about what wouldhappen if we put in every “must” in every place in theBill, and how that might constrain the agencies that areresponsible for carrying out its business, but that is notwhat the Opposition has done with our repeated suggestionsfor the inclusion of “mays” and “musts”.

We agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is notappropriate for an agency to be constrained in that wayif, for example, it may decide to carry out an actionrelating to an investigation or look at the extent towhich it ought to do certain things. In that case, it is notappropriate to use “must”, and “may” is perfectlyappropriate. There are, however, other circumstanceswhere it is clear that an agency, or indeed the Minister,ought to do something.

In his analysis, the hon. Member for SouthCambridgeshire made reference to parents and children,and I would say that this is on the parents’ side. It is a“must” in the same way as a parent must not leave theirchild on a bare hillside for the evening to see whetherthey survive. That is the sort of “must” this is, ratherthan a stipulation that a parent or a child must docertain things. I would put the Minister in the role ofthe parent, as far as this process is concerned. If theMinister is, in a sense, the parent of these activities, theMinister ought to act like a good parent. If there is asuggestion in the Bill that the Minister “may” not, thatshould be recognised.

In answer to the Minister’s question, I will not pressthis amendment to a Division. I know that this isbecoming a little formulaic, but the Minister may wantto reflect on whether drafting amendments need to bemade at certain places in the Bill, either now or at afuture date, bearing in mind that this is not a spray-paintjob as far as “mays” and “musts” are concerned. I begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Dr Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 130,in clause 75, page 66, line 22, at end insert

“including persons or bodies representing the interests of thoselikely to be affected.”

I will give the game away straight away by saying thatthis is a probing amendment, as I am sure the Ministerwill be pleased to learn, and we seek her comments onit. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said, the1991 Act has been with us for a while. Does the Ministerthink that bodies that represent those who are likely tobe affected by a water resources proposal or a droughtplan should be included in the process of preparing andpublishing regulations? There is a distinction to bemade between the Government deciding to make aplan, and those who would be particularly affected bythat plan—for example, the hon. Members who wouldbe affected by a drought plan in Cambridgeshire—havinginput into the process. There is a relationship between ahigh-level plan and the reality of any changes on theground, and it is important to have both perspectives.


[Dr Alan Whitehead]

That is the reason for this amendment, and theMinister may wish to comment on whether she agreeswith the principle behind it, even if the wording is notquite right. I would particularly like to hear whether sheis signed up to the idea that I have set out and, if so,whether there are other ways of ensuring that the drawingup of these plans and proposals is a two-way process.

Fleur Anderson: I would like to unpack the amendmentslightly more and highlight some areas that may beaffected by the Government’s proposals. We would bevery interested to hear from the Minister how this Billwill be enacted on the ground after it has progressedthrough both Houses.

Consultation is key during any planned preparation.The plans to clean up our water across the country areessential and, unless they are done correctly and withthe full engagement of all the representative bodies,they will not work. If that happens, the current plateauingof environmental protection, which many people findvery concerning, will continue.

The removal of section 37A(8) from the Water IndustryAct 1991will remove a list of other bodies. The Actstates:

“Before preparing its water resources management plan…thewater undertaker shall consult”—

the use of the word “shall” is interesting. Following onfrom the comments of the hon. Member for SouthCambridgeshire, I think that our job in this Bill is to saywhat is within the OEP’s remit, what must happen andwhat the OEP, with its flexibility, can decide shouldhappen. We need to set that framework, and an essentialpart of that is engagement with all the right agencies.The proposed deletion will remove the EnvironmentAgency; Natural Resources Wales; the Water ServicesRegulation Authority, or Ofwat; the Secretary of State;and any licensed water supplier, as listed in the 1991 Act.These bodies will not be included in this Bill unless weadd the text of the amendment, which is, I think, veryreasonable,“including persons or bodies representing the interests of thoselikely to be affected”.

I do not think that that is overly restrictive, because itwould give the OEP the ability to decide who thosepersons or bodies are. It does, though, say that theymust be consulted. Has the Minister considered how toensure that the new provisions on the preparation ofplans by water undertakers will retain stakeholderengagement requirements? Does the Minister believethat the proposals are sufficient to ensure that theEnvironment Agency, in particular, is fully engaged inplan development? Its involvement is crucial to ensure ahigh level of environmental scrutiny of water resourcesoptions. That is essential for both the working of theEnvironment Agency and the effectiveness of any plans.

The Minister may suggest that this is dealt withthrough other requirements such as the customer challengegroups. However, those arrangements are typically extremelynarrow and do not enable the wide engagement of thestakeholder that is necessary for the best plans—world-leading plans. Amendment 30 would ensure thatconsultation rights for stakeholders—

The Chair: It is amendment 130.

Fleur Anderson: Thank you, Mr Gray. Amendment 130would ensure that consultation rights for stakeholderscould be created under such regulations and allow theseprovisions to include a requirement for

“persons or bodies representing the interests of those likely to beaffected”

by a plan to be consulted during the plan preparation.This requirement should be included in the Bill to makeit as clear as possible and to ensure that full consultationwith stakeholders takes place, so that we have the bestpossible water resources management plans and thebest likelihood of increasing water quality across thecountry.

9.45 am

Rebecca Pow: I thank the shadow Minister for thisamendment—a probing amendment, as he said. Iunderstand the intention to ensure that those who arelikely to be affected by water resource managementplans, drought plans and joint proposals be consulted.The Government recognise that planning for waterresources is strengthened by the involvement of a rangeof stakeholders, both individuals and representativeorganisations, in the development of the plans, as wasoutlined by the hon. Members who spoke.

The Government intend that stakeholders will beinvolved in the preparation and delivery of these plansin England. Clause 75 enables Ministers to set out inregulations which bodies are to be consulted on thepreparation of plans. Under existing powers, Ministershave set out a long list of relevant consultees in theWater Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005. The EnvironmentAgency’s national framework for water resources inEngland, which was published in March, already givesfurther clarity. It sets out how we expect water undertakersin England to engage with stakeholders to prepare theirplans in future.

Reflecting on the comments from the hon. Memberfor Putney, I want to clarify that Ministers in Englandwant to ensure that the process of developing theseplans is open and transparent—more so than ever—throughthese changes and that stakeholders are involved at theright time, so that they can effectively collaborate on theplans. If we are to encourage this more holistic joint-workingapproach, that is really important.

While the current wording of “persons” is notdefined in the Water Industry Act 1991, the InterpretationAct 1978, which applies here, defines “persons” asincluding

“a body of persons corporate or unincorporate”—

that is, a natural person or a legal person. It includes apartnership, which would include representative bodies.The meaning of “persons” is very broad and wouldinclude representative bodies, making the amendmentunnecessary. I hope that provides clarity.

The changes introduced by clause 75 will help theplans to deliver cross-sector and mutually beneficialoutcomes, which we all want for the wider waterenvironment, as well to secure water supplies. I hope,therefore, that the hon. Member for Southampton, Testwill see that his probing amendment is unnecessary. Hewas right to ask those questions, but I hope that I haveanswered them. I respectfully ask him to withdraw hisamendment.


Dr Whitehead: I have, as a result of this debate, begunto feel that this is less of a probing amendment than Iinitially thought. My hon. Friend the Member for Putneymade an important point, which I neglected to includein my contribution. The Water Industry Act 1991 includedthese things. At that time, there were specificationsabout agencies and bodies that should be consulted andinvolved in the plans. That has all been swept away.

While the Minister makes the possibly importantpoint about the phrase “persons to be consulted” inproposed new section 37F(3), that appears to be arather feeble replacement for what was firmly in theprevious piece of legislation. At the very least, I wouldlike some assurance. The Minister says that the phrase“persons to be consulted”could be interpreted as personsin the collective. By a transfer of reasoning, we mighttherefore get to the Environment Agency and variousother people in the end. I would like the Minister toactually shorten that course and say, “Yes, it will,” so faras the Bill is concerned.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman makes a goodpoint, but just for clarity, we can make regulations tospecify what persons or bodies must be consulted duringthe plan preparations, and we plan to use that power.I just wanted to get that on the record.

Dr Whitehead: I think we may be getting there. Whenthe Minister says, “we can make regulations”, is shesaying that the Government will make regulations thateffectively restore that arrangement, in terms of persons,by a regulatory route, as I was trying to tease out? Itwould be helpful if the Minister said that it is very likelythat regulations will come about that include a betterdefinition of persons, so that those bodies can effectivelybe brought back into the process in a way that the Billseems to have neglected to do.

The Chair: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdrawthe amendment?

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman would like toencourage the Minister to say something else on this.

Rebecca Pow: I will intervene one more time, just forclarity. As I said, we made the Water ResourcesManagement Plan Regulations 2007 and the DroughtPlan Regulations 2005, which demonstrates that wehave already done something like what the hon. Gentlemanasks for. I reiterate that we can make regulations tospecify what persons or bodies must be consulted duringplan preparations, and we plan to use that power.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for that. That is65% of the way there. On balance, I am happy towithdraw the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


Amendments made: 47, in clause 75, page 67, line 20, leaveout “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.See Amendment 28.

Amendment 48, in clause 75, page 67, line 32, leaveout “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)See Amendment 28.


Clause 76

DRAINAGE AND SEWERAGE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I beg to moveamendment 200, in clause 76, page 68, line 17, at endinsert—

“(ca) the water quality and impact of the discharges of theundertaker’s drainage system and sewerage system,”.

This is a probing amendment, tabled in the name ofmy right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (PhilipDunne), myself and others. The last amendment I tabledproposed to change one word and add one letter to theBill’s proposed environmental improvement plans. Thisprobing amendment adds 16 words to a subsectionon drainage and sewerage management plans. Bothamendments have in common the shared interests of ourenvironment and us as beneficiaries of that environment.

Amendment 200 focuses on drainage and seweragemanagement plans. It is an uncomfortable fact for us allthat a huge amount of raw sewage is still dischargedinto our coasts and waterways—200,000 times in thelast year, with 3,000 discharges in UK coastal watersbetween May and September—all of which threatensthe quality of the water itself and water users. It is forthat reason that 40,000 people signed a petition to endsewage pollution. My right hon. Friend the Member forLudlow was motivated to initiate a private Member’sBill, which will be heard in the House in due course, andto table this amendment to the Environment Bill.

Surely it is the aim of all of us to stop discharges intorivers, lakes and waterways, as well as into our sea, andto raise our current rating within Europe—although weare leaving the European Union, we are still a geographicalpart of Europe—from 25th out of 30 for coastal waterquality. Only 16% of our waterways meet good ecologicalstatus.

Why does that matter for all of us, as users? Ultimately,there are health risks—gastroenteritis, ear, nose andthroat illnesses, and apparently even, although I havenot seen evidence, hepatitis and E. coli. Those of uswho enjoy wild water swimming—in the River Wye, forexample, on the Gloucestershire-Herefordshire border—willknow that there are times when agricultural companiesare pumping discharge into the water and damaging itsquality and the experience, particularly for the young.

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Myhon. Friend is making an important point. Does heagree that we need a change in when water companiesgive notifications of sewage outlets, particularly aroundthe coastline, such as in my constituency and aroundthe Cornish coast? Currently, they do it only in whatthey call “bathing months”. With better equipment andbetter wetsuits, we now swim all the year round off theCornish coast. We have no way of knowing—unless weknow that these things happen after heavy rainfall—whetherthe water is safe to bathe in.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend makes a strikingpoint. From a human perspective, Cornwall is probablythe most used bit of coastline in our United Kingdom.The pressures are considerable and the point that shemakes about more people swimming and surfing allyear round is important. The restrictions should not


[Richard Graham]

just cover the traditional swimming months of May toSeptember. I am sure the Minister will address thatpoint.

Alongside a duty on water companies to ensure thatuntreated sewage is no longer pumped into the seas, theamendment would tackle a series of other actual andpotential issues—for our water quality has implicationsacross the whole ecological system, from plant life tofish stocks, as well as the health of the population. Oursurface, coastal and ground waters suffer from significantpollution, as I have illustrated, and they also take thatpollution into our seas and oceans. The Governmenthave not made as much progress as we would have likedon meeting the targets established under the EU waterframework directive, and the Bill is a step towardsmaking significant improvements.

While diffuse pollution from agriculture, as I illustratedwith the River Wye, accounts for 40% of river pollution,wastewater from sewage treatment accounts for almostas much, at 36% of river pollution.

Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con): As aParliamentary Private Secretary, I am not always meantto speak, but my hon. Friend mentions the River Wye,which runs through my constituency. It would be remissof me not to mention that there are many actors in thisspace. We cannot solely blame farmers in their entirety.The issue needs a whole supply chain response, becauseit is too important a problem to lay solely at the door ofagriculture.

Richard Graham: My hon. Friend makes a very goodpoint. There will not be too much specific finger-pointingwith the amendment, nor in the Bill in general. We havealready referred to water companies. Agriculture, in thebroadest sense, is a challenge along the river that sheloves in her constituency so much. There are, of course,others who discharge pollution into our waterways.Everyone has to do their bit; that is why the amendmentis so important.

Let us be clear that the drainage and wastewatermanagement plans proposed under clause 76 are anexcellent step forward. They seek to improve watercompany focus, and they send a clear message aboutimproving the safe and environmentally responsibletreatment of human effluent. However, there is anomission in the objectives. The amendment would thereforeplace the obligation on water companies, in their five-yearplans, to consider the impact on water quality of thewastewater facilities for which they are responsible.

Sewage is estimated to account for 55% of the riversthat are failing to reach the good ecological status towhich I referred. This can lead to pollutants such asorganic material, which depletes the dissolved oxygen inthe water, and other pollutants such as phosphorus, nitrates,ammonia, pathogens and man-made toxic chemicalsentering the water environment.

10 am

We should acknowledge that water companies havemade significant steps. The water company in myconstituency, Severn Trent, has invested a huge amountin improvements. Overall, throughout the country, watercompanies have committed £4.5 billion between now

and 2025 towards environmental improvements. Despitethe significant investments already made and planned,the Government—that is, DEFRA—acknowledge thatprogress has flatlined. The chair of the EnvironmentAgency, Emma Howard Boyd, recently stated that,against environmental standards, the performance ofwater companies deteriorated in 2018, and was notshowing much sign of improvement in 2019. In fact, atthe current rate of progress, it is estimated it could takeover 200 years to reach the Government’s 25-yearenvironment plan target of 75% of waters being close totheir natural state. Therefore, we can all agree that thereare opportunities for improvement.

With the interventions from my hon. Friends theMembers for Truro and Falmouth and for Brecon andRadnorshire, I have referred to the importance ofswimming—both so-called wild swimming and holidayswimming on the coast—and that is an important point.

The amendment would make a very simple change tothe Bill. On page 68, in proposed new section 94A(3) tothe 1991 Act, after the words,

“A drainage and sewerage plan must address”,

it would insert:“the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’sdrainage system and sewerage system”.

To be clear, in this context, “undertaker” is a sewerageundertaker, which is the word used for a seweragecompany. When I first read it, I was rather confused,but it is the water quality and impact of the dischargesof the sewerage company’s drainage system and seweragesystem that this probing amendment attempts to improve.

The amendment has considerable support from non-governmental organisations, including Marinet, whichhas been fastidious in bombarding many Members’inboxes with its support for the amendment. Theamendment also has the support of the ConservativeEnvironment Network, which includes some 70 MPs,many of whom support the private Member’s Bill of myright hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, who would,had he been here, have made a much more persuasiveand articulate case for this probing amendment. I hopethey will not be unsatisfied with the key points I havehighlighted today.

As it stands, the Bill has much to recommend it, butthis particular omission is one that could be put rightrelatively straightforwardly. I therefore look forward tohearing the Government’s response.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Member for Gloucester hasmade a powerful speech in support of the amendment,covering many points that I would have raised had henot done so. The Opposition would have tabled anamendment on this subject had amendment 200 notappeared. We did not, because we saw that a substantialnumber of Members from both sides of the House hadput their names to the amendment, which I think addsto its gravity. Frankly, we felt that if we had proposed aseparate but similar amendment, it might have decreasedthe chances of this one being made, so we kept theposition as it was. The one point I would disagree withthe hon. Gentleman on is that the amendment shouldnot be probing; it should be a serious attempt, withcross-party support, to get a provision into the Bill thatwill undoubtedly be to the benefit of the naturalenvironment and its users as a result of changes in watercompanies’ activities.


I want to reinforce what the hon. Gentleman had tosay about discharges of sewage and similar activitiesthat have taken place over a number of years. He is rightto state that there were more than 200,000 releases ofraw sewage into rivers last year. That number slightlyunderestimates the actual effect of the releases, sincesome occurred over an extended period rather thanbeing instant. We should think about why that happens.

These are not accidents; they are provisions withinthe operating arrangements for water companies whichallow the occasional release of raw sewage into watercourses.All water companies have an emergency release provisionin their operations. They have a system of stop valvesthat normally separate the sewage from the water, but ifthe system is so suffused with water at certain points—during a heavy storm, for example—that it cannot cope,those valves are effectively released; the two flows arethen mingled. That is the point at which raw sewagemay be released into watercourses.

Water companies say that, generally speaking, thedilution of the sewage is such that it does not make agreat deal of difference, particularly in heavy stormsand similar conditions. That is partly overthrown by thefact that discharges sometimes take place over a substantialperiod and are not simply brief discharges into rivers atthe height of a crisis like a storm. I do not think thatanybody would say that in periods of severe crisis for awater company, those sorts of provisions should beremoved, but that provision far exceeds what we mightexpect.

The discharge of spills came to an incredible 1.53 millionhours across the nine English water companies lastyear. As I mentioned, a lot of the spills are not brief.The water companies could introduce procedures thatwould ensure that they were brief by improving howthey separate out water and sewage, and ensuring thatthose flows can be combined only in the most criticalcircumstances. It is evident from what we know aboutthose discharges that that is not the case. This is beingused as a safety valve by water companies in manyinstances, rather than as an emergency, last-stop procedure.It is certainly within the companies’ ability to ensurethat those safety valves become last-gasp emergencyprocedures just by improving their procedures to ensurethat arrangements for the separation of water aremaintained to a higher standard.

As a shadow Minister, I would say that, wouldn’t I?However, it is perhaps not surprising, given that thisconcern is shared pretty much across the House, thatother people have said much the same thing. For example,I believe the Minister met chief executives of the 15 watercompanies in September, at which point she called onthem to take further action to protect the environment,reduce leakage and safeguard water supply. She saidthat

“we discussed a number of issues I feel strongly about, includingstorm overflows, and how we can work together to see much moreambitious improvements. This country’s green recovery fromcoronavirus can only happen if water companies step up and playtheir part.”

I could not have put it better, and the Minister indeedput it very well.

The hon. Member for Gloucester, who made anexcellent contribution, reminded us that the amendmentis supported, and was substantially crafted, by theChair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right

hon. Member for Ludlow. Other hon. Members pointedout the concerns on this issue in their constituenciesand why action needs to be taken. The entire Oppositionthink that this is a good idea and wish to pursue it, andof course the Minister has made admirable commentson how water companies need to step up their activity,particularly on storm overflows, to get things organised.

Basically, what is there not to like about the amendment,and why can it not just be instantly put into the Bill? Itwill not detract from anything; it will simply add a layerof urgency to something that we all think needs to bedone, which surely is what Bills should be about. Theyshould frame action in such a way that entreaties andsuggestions are added to by a piece of legislation thatsays, “Go and do this over a period of time.”

We not think that this should be seen as a probingamendment. That is a very minor disagreement betweenthe Opposition and the hon. Member for Gloucester,who I appreciate may have suggested that it should bedeemed a probing amendment out of sensibility for hisown side’s manoeuvrability, shall we say, on this issue.In his heart, I think, he would be absolutely behind theidea that it ought to go in the Bill straight away. I sensethat very strongly from the vibrations that are comingacross the room.

10.15 am

I hope that on this occasion the Minister can obligeus all and simply say, “Yes, this is a really good piece ofwork. It ought to be in the Bill.” I do not expect her tosay, “Sorry we didn’t put it in the Bill in the first place,”but I expect her to say that we will proceed, either nowwith the present formulation, or on Report if a slightlydifferent formulation is needed.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gloucester for the amendment and for paintingsuch a charming picture of wild swimming in the RiverWye, which I should think is quite chilly. I must alsorefer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow,who has done so much work on this. As my hon. Friendknows, I have met colleagues several times to discussthis very important issue. He quoted some, frankly,fairly ghastly statistics, as did the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test. My hon. Friend is right that thismatters and he knows, as does our right hon. Friend,that I take it extremely seriously. I think the hon.Gentleman knows that too.

The issue of river health and the impact of seweroverflows is a priority for me. One of my hats is WaterMinister. I vowed that I must do something about thatwhile I am in this role, and I am determined to takeaction. It has been overlooked for far too long. I havediscussed that with my officials at great length. I willnot say that they thanked me for it all the time, but it is apriority that I believe we have to get right.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucesterthat controlled sewage discharge to watercourses fromsewage treatment works are tightly regulated by theEnvironment Agency using powers under the environmentalpermitting regulations, so we obviously already havethat in place. I want to be clear that when we weredesigning the current provisions in the EnvironmentBill on drainage and sewerage management plans, inclause 76, it was a prime objective to tackle the dischargeof sewage into our waterways better.


[Rebecca Pow]

Clause 76 specifically requires that each sewerageundertaker must prepare a drainage and seweragemanagement plan. [Interruption.] Yes, there is a “must”—that got a cheer! The clause also specifically requiresthat a drainage and sewerage management plan “must”address relevant environmental “risks”—those two wordsare very important—and how they are to be mitigated.That will include sewer overflows and their impact onwater quality.

Although I understand the intention for specificreferences to address sewer discharges and water quality,it is entirely appropriate in this case to provide a broaddefinition in primary legislation of relevant environmentalrisks. The provision needs to stand the test of time andbe fit for the environmental challenges of tomorrow,not just of today. I can say unequivocally and canconfirm that I and any future DEFRA Ministers willalso have a failsafe power to make directions to specifyany other matters that a plan must address. In simpleterms, that will ensure that if a plan or plans are notadequate, the Government can take swift action. I willnot hesitate to use that power to direct companies if Iam not satisfied with their performance to addresssewer discharges and water quality. They should considerthemselves on notice; in the meeting that was referred toby the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, I prettymuch gave that message. I am not messing about.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): The Minister ismaking a powerful point. The Opposition have noproblem at all with how diligent she is and howconscientiously she does her job. I am just wonderinghow she would feel if a successor—obviously in manyyears’ time—was not quite as diligent. We need to knowthat the safeguards are in the Bill. We want themenshrined in primary legislation. If the Minister is sokeen on the power and so committed to it, what is theproblem with putting it in the Bill?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for reiteratingmy commitment. We believe the measures and stepsthat are here will ensure that that does happen—thesewerage and drainage management plans will comeinto use and the idea of that will become normal—butthere will be an opportunity for a DEFRA Minister tohave a failsafe power to make directions to specify anyother matters. We also have the Environment Agencykeeping abreast of all this. We even have the OEP, at theend of the day. We have so many checks and balances inthe Bill that once we get the system going, it should befailsafe.

Richard Graham: The Minister has reiterated her owncommitment, which none of us doubts. None the less,as the chair of the Environment Agency has said,despite all the various checks and balances, progress hasnot been as strong as any of us would have liked. Here isthe opportunity to insert the words about“the water quality and impact of the discharges of the undertaker’sdrainage system and sewerage system”.

Even if the Minister believes that the Bill has enough“musts” and enough powers for the Minister to direct,the explanatory notes are not that clear, saying simplythat

“The sewerage undertaker is required to set out in the planwhat it intends to do to maintain an effective system of sewerageand drainage, and when those actions are likely to be taken”,

then adding, rather vaguely:“Should other factors become relevant”.

Does the Minister not agree that there is a real opportunityto specify, at least in the explanatory notes, that thewater quality and impact of sewerage overflow must beaddressed?

Rebecca Pow: My hon. Friend is doing absolutely theright thing in checking up on the issues. I have beendoing that myself, in fairness. He mentions the EA. Ashe said, Emma Howard Boyd, the chair, made it clearthat much more is expected of water companies, whichincludes developing, publishing and implementing specificplans by the end of this year, to reduce pollutionincidents. The Environment Agency is on the case.Following my meeting, the Secretary of State is meetingwith water companies again very shortly. I repeat that“relevant environmental risks”will include sewer overflowsand water quality; I said that just now and I hope myhon. Friend the Member for Gloucester was listening.Once that has been established as a risk, it would bevery hard for anyone to argue in the future that it wasnot a risk. That addresses the point made by the hon.Member for Newport West, and I reiterate that point.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister talks about checks andbalances, but I am sure she will know that, as far as thechecks and balances relating to storm overflows areconcerned, more than 60 discharges a year should triggeran investigation by the Environment Agency. Thosestorm overflows have been released hundreds of timesper year by each water company. The EnvironmentAgency relies on water companies to self-monitor theirdischarges, so the check and balance does not work aswell as it should. Does the Minister think that arrangementis sufficient to keep those discharges under control?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for raisingthat important point; I just want to talk a little bit aboutthe Environment Agency. They are actually part-waythrough a programme to improve the management ofstorm overflows. Event duration monitoring gadgetsare being installed on the vast majority of combinedinland and coastal sewer overflows, and will providedata for the duration and frequency of storm spills by2025. Approximately 13,000 of the 15,000 overflowswill receive this event duration monitoring, so it willmake a difference—I am convinced of that. We do,however, accept that there is a great deal more to do.

Let me clarify how important I think the issue is; wedo not want to sit around waiting, but to get on and dosomething about it. In addition to the Environment Billand the ongoing discussions around making it as strongas possible, I have set up a new storm overflows taskforceto make rapid progress in addressing the volumes ofsewage discharge into our rivers. This has been done atspeed and very recently, when all of this “stuff”, as theycall it, came to my attention. I would like to thankeveryone involved for moving so fast on this. I will set along-term goal on the storm overflows for sewerageundertakers, which I will talk about in more detail later,but the work on that needs to start now. The taskforce isdeveloping actions that will increase water companyinvestment to tackle storm overflows in order to accelerateour progress.


Daniel Zeichner: The water companies operate in atightly constrained regulatory framework, always havingto balance bills, investment and shareholder returns.What impact does the Minister think her welcomeinitiative will have on that, and will she be directingthem as to either what they do not do instead, or wherethat investment should come from?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridgefor that, and of course he makes a really importantpoint. All those things will be in the mix for consideration.The storm overflow taskforce has been set up betweenthe EA, DEFRA, Ofwat, the Consumer Council forWater, Blueprint for Water and Water UK. These are allthings they are well aware of and will be discussing, andthey will be the ones setting out clear proposals toaddress the volumes of sewage discharge into our rivers.They are working on that now, at speed, and I anticipatewe will have a good idea of their list of actions byspring. The hon. Member might say that that is a longtime away, but we are already in November; it is actuallyonly a in few months’ time. I anticipate that this will bereally beneficial and really helpful.

The whole thinking behind the taskforce’s action listis to increase the amount of sewage processed at treatmentplants, for example through building additional sewagestorage capacity, which I think my hon. Friend theMember for Gloucester might be pleased to hear, andseparate surface water connections for the combinedsewerage network.

I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member forTruro and Falmouth for her input; I have met her andothers from Cornwall over the issue of surfers, as wellas Surfers against Sewage, who do great work highlightingthe issues. As I said, the taskforce is looking to all issuesto do with water quality and sewerage overflows, whichwill include bathing water. We are looking into that.

I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member forBrecon and Radnorshire, who makes a good point—alwaysstanding up for her farmers, in that great farmingcountry she is in—and she is absolutely right. We cannotlay all of this at the door of the farmers. There are manycauses and they all have to be looked at and tackled, butthat is not to say that there is not work to be done withfarmers—I believe they know that. Through our newenvironmental land management scheme, there will beopportunities to work with farmers to reduce pollution.That is coming down the tracks as well and will alsohelp with the whole water pollution issue.

10.30 am

You will be pleased to hear, Chair, that I am going towind up. I want explicitly to confirm that I expect a keyoutcome from the taskforce and our new statutorydrainage and water management plans will be a sizeablereduction in uncontrolled discharges from sewerageassets such as storm overflows. I thank my hon. Friendthe Member for Gloucester again and ask him to pleasepass on my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Memberfor Ludlow and others. He is trying to intervene.

Richard Graham: I am very grateful that the Ministerhas announced this storm overflow taskforce, which isan interesting new group. Taskforces come and go andthey have occasionally been used in the past—surely notby this Government—as a sort of alternative to action.One thing that would make us all have greater confidence

in the Bill being able to deliver the change that theMinister and all of us wish to see, if she is unwilling, atthis stage, to amend clause 76 with the words theamendment suggests, would be if she would consideramending the explanatory notes. At the moment, therelevant sentence reads:

“Any relevant risks to the environment and mitigation measuresshould be recorded in the plan.”

The Minister could, if she wished, insert “any relevantrisk to the environment and mitigation measures, includingwater quality and the impact of sewerage overflow.”

The Chair: Interventions must be brief. Minister.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you, Chair. I thought my hon.Friend would try and sneak in a final go. I do not blamehim for that.

The Chair: He will have a final go in a moment.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you, Mr Gray.

On that note, I hear what my hon. Friend the Memberfor Gloucester says about the explanatory notes but Iwant to reiterate what I said earlier: relevant environmentalrisks will include sewer overflows and water quality.Once that has been established as a risk, it will be veryhard for anyone to argue that it is not a future risk.I shall leave it there.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester,my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and otherMembers for all their work, particularly in raising awarenessof this issue. I hope, on the strength of the assurancethat I have given today, that my hon. Friend will kindlyconsider withdrawing his amendment.

Richard Graham: This has been a helpful discussion,with Members contributing from all sides. The hon.Member for Southampton, Test is even able to detectvibrations from across the room, which perhaps none ofthe rest of us has been able to do. As for the key issue inthe proposed amendment, my right hon. Friend theMember for Ludlow put it very well in a note to mewhere he said, “This amendment would require watercompanies, their regulators and overseeing Ministers tohave regard to continuous improvement through theseadmirable five-yearly plans to ensure our rivers cangradually recover from their polluted state to onceagain become clear and clean for our children andgrandchildren to enjoy.” Members on both sides havehighlighted how, in their constituencies, that is relevant.

The Minister has tried to reassure us that that isexactly her own objective. I have no reason to doubtthat, as she has confirmed it several times. However, itseems to me that were I to withdraw the probingamendment, it would be on the basis of the words sheused, which were that the relevant risks would includewater quality and the impact of sewerage overflow. Itis great that the Minister has made that statement, butwe need to see that in the explanatory notes. If she cangive an indication that she would consider that onReport, I would be happy on that basis to withdraw theamendment.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for his passionatewords. I am happy to consider making it clearer in theexplanatory notes.


Richard Graham: I am very grateful to the Ministerfor making a significant step to recognising the strengthof feeling on this, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.

Hon. Members: No.



Division No. 29]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendments made: 49, in clause 76, page 69, line 25, leaveout “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 50, in clause 76, page 69, line 37, leaveout “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow)

See Amendment 28.


When a minister chooses to make a drainage and seweragemanagement plan, this amendment obliges them to consult on it.

Yes, this is another amendment. By the way, I thoughtthat last bit was really exciting. I am sorry that hon.Members did not vote our way on amendment 200 thismorning, but I appreciate the effort that everyone put itto make it almost get there.

Amendment 199 relates to the amendments to theWater Industry Act 1991. This is about how regulations“may” make provision about consultation, which is aparticularly weak “may”. I would have thought thatconsultation is an essential element of the process. Inparticular, we are talking about consultation to becarried out by sewerage undertakers—that is, watercompanies—who are required by regulation to makeprovision about the person to be consulted, the frequencyand timing of the consultation and the publication ofstatements.

There is a pretty tight requirement on water companiesto be clear about what their provision is, except they donot have to do it. That seems to me to be a suggestionthat holds the entire subsection. There is quite a fiercething in this subsection about consultation. This is agood thing. It covers not just consultation, but who itshould be carried out by—the sewerage undertakers—aswell as instructions on who should be consulted and soon. It is all spoiled by the “may” at the beginning of thesentence. I think this is another important “must”,which ought to go into the Bill. Again, I will not pushthe amendment to a Division, but I hope the Ministerwill take careful note of our strong feelings on the issue

and will put it in the box of reconsiderations for whenshe gets around to deciding whether there should bedrafting amendments to the Bill in the future.

Fleur Anderson: I welcome the Minister’s earliercomments about taking action on sewage pollution, ofwhich this is an additional part. I welcome the aims ofthe clause, and I believe it is vital that a strategicapproach is taken to waste water management. However,I have a couple of issues with it that I would like topoint out.

Sewage pollution is a very important issue for constituentsacross the country, including in my constituency ofPutney, next to the beautiful River Thames, where weare extremely concerned about it. Some 39 milliontonnes of sewage is dumped into the River Thamesevery year, with an estimated 50 epic dumps of pollution.The Tideway project is making great headway—it ismaking amazing progress, and I commend it. It willresult in a real difference being made. However, thereare still extreme concerns. One is about the use of theterm “sewerage” in the clause, whereas the industrywould prefer to use the term “wastewater”. Wastewateris a much larger section of domestic, industrial, commercialand agricultural production, of which sewerage is onlya small subsection.

I slightly digress from the amendment—

The Chair: Which you should not do.

Fleur Anderson: Which I should not do. I acknowledgethat, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments onthat.

Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 byadding new section 94C. There are a whole rash of“mays”, and we have chosen modestly, and I thinkcorrectly, to identify one that should be a “must”. It isin new section 94C(3), which, again, talks about consultationon plans. We have talked about that previously, and it isabsolutely vital for ensuring that those plans work andthat they tackle the 39 million tonnes of sewage goinginto the River Thames and the similar incidences acrossthe country. The Bill places obligations on water companiesonly for something they are already doing; it does notreflect the scale of the challenge from climate change orthe fact that drainage is universally recognised to be ashared responsibility with other organisations that arealso responsible for managing service water.

Water UK is concerned that, as written, clause 76 willexclude significant bodies that are involved in drainageand will eliminate much of the potential benefits thatcustomers, society and the environment could otherwisegain. It is a fundamental feature of drainage and wastewaterplanning that water companies cannot do this in isolation,because drainage is shared with other risk managementauthorities, as defined in the Flood and Water ManagementAct 2010. For example, large numbers of drainageassets are not under the ownership of water companies,the management of which needs to be integrated intothe drainage and wastewater management plans. Thathas been recognised by the National InfrastructureCommission in its recommendation that water companiesand local authorities should work together to publishjoint plans to manage surface water flood risk by 2020.Ensuring that such consultation is done as a “must”rather than a “may”, which is the aim behind theamendment, is absolutely essential.


As a minimum, all flood risk management authoritiesshould have a duty to co-operate in the production ofdrainage and wastewater management plans. There shouldbe the ability to require other flood risk managementauthorities to provide the information needed for theproduction of such plans. Clause 76 would ensure thatthat would happen as a directive to the OEP, which isneeded to ensure that we have the best seweragemanagement plans and wastewater management plansthat we can.

RebeccaPow: I thankthehon.MemberforSouthampton,Test for the amendment. It is amazing that we havemanaged to get him excited—for me, that is a massivemilestone in the Bill’s passage. I hope he does not mindmy saying that.

I understand that the intention behind the amendmentis to give certainty that Ministers will pass secondarylegislation about the consultations to be carried out bysewerage undertakers on their drainage and seweragemanagement plans. Under proposed new section 94Aof the Water Industry Act 1991, sewerage undertakerswill have a duty to prepare drainage and seweragemanagement plans. Ministers understand that sewerageundertakers need to know the procedural requirementsfor fulfilling their duties in good time. Ministers requireflexibility on when and how the provision is given effectso that procedural requirements for plans remainproportionate and current.

10.45 am

The UK Government intend to use the delegatedpowers for drainage and sewage management plans in asimilar way to the approach used for water resourcesmanagement planning, to which I referred earlier. TheWater Resources Management Plan Regulations 2007and the Drought Plan Regulations 2005 were made inthat way. The existing powers have been used as needed.Those are good examples of dealing with proceduralmatters such as around the consultation to be carriedout.

The hon. Member for Putney touched on the term,“sewerage system”. I want to pinpoint that it is definedin the Water Industry Act 1991 in a way that covers allrelevant aspects of waste water. She also spoke aboutthe Thames. I have been down the Thames Tideway—ahuge channel down which one can go—and it is afantastic project that will make a difference to the Thamesriver water.

Sewerage undertakers are currently developing thefirst tranche of plans on a non-statutory basis to afive-year cycle. Ministers in England, when exercisingthe powers, will therefore be mindful of when to introducethe procedural requirements so as not to cause unnecessarydisruption—lots of them are in the middle of those, anda great deal of work has gone on—to the developmentof sewerage undertaker plans. On those grounds, I askthe hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdrawhis amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for what she hassaid. She has gone some way towards assuring us onthis matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



“including persons or bodies representing the interests of thoselikely to be affected”.

This amendment is very similar to amendment 130. Itadds the same wording to the end of this clause toensure that persons or bodies representing the interestsof those likely to be affected are included. We haveeffectively discussed this, so I am not very excited aboutthis amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: “Shame!”] By theway, I ought to assure the Minister that, although I amprobably among the least excitable Members of thisHouse, I do get excited about quite a few things; I drawa distinction between those two uses of language.

I think that the Minister will probably respond to thisamendment in the same way that she did when wetabled a similar amendment to the end of a previousclause, so I do not think that we need detain ourselvesvery long, other than to say that we still think that suchan amendment is a good idea.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for theamendment and his brevity. Clause 76 enables Ministersto set out in regulations which bodies are to be consultedon the preparation of drainage and sewerage managementplans—a process that will be strengthened by theinvolvement of a range of stakeholders. We intend tomake those regulations in England to include thosepersons or bodies representing the interests of thoselikely to be affected, including representative bodiessuch as the Consumer Council for Water.

I went into some detail about the meaning of theword “persons” previously, so I refer the hon. Memberto that. As I also mentioned, this was done in a similarway when the existing water resources managementregulatory making powers were used by Ministers inmaking the Water Resources Management Plan Regulations2007. The regulations set out a long list of persons to beconsulted by undertakers. I hope, therefore, that he willsee that the amendment is unnecessary, and I respectfullyask him to kindly withdraw it.

Dr Whitehead: In the light of that answer, which Ihad anticipated, I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.


Amendments made: 51, in clause 76, page 70, line 38, leaveout “the Assembly” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.

Amendment 52, in clause 76, page 71, line 6, leave out“the Assembly”and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(RebeccaPow.)

See Amendment 28.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, standpart of the Bill.

Dr Whitehead: I will not detain the Committee atgreat length on this particular clause stand part debate,because I just want to raise an issue that somewhatpuzzles me about the wording of the clause.

The Minister alluded to the source of my puzzlementa moment ago in her response to the previous debate.As hon. Members can see, the title of the clause is

“Drainage and sewerage management plans”.


[Dr Whitehead]

The clause refers repeatedly to such plans, but what weshould be talking about are not Drainage and seweragemanagement plans but drainage and waste watermanagement plans.

Some hon. Members may think there is not much ofa distinction, but there is quite a substantial distinction,in that sewerage and waste water are not the samethings. Waste water includes all the sources of wastewater coming into a particular riverine or estuarialarea, which may have a number of sources that are notsewerage-based. Therefore, the definition of these plansas drainage and sewerage management plans narrowswhat they might consist of—not only that, but thedefinition narrows who might be involved in these particularplans. It narrows it down to water companies, whereas anumber of other companies are indeed involved inwaste water management and properly ought to bewithin those plans, to make a comprehensive arrangementas far as waste water is concerned. What is a furthersource of puzzlement is that the Department and industryhave actually worked on such plans for many years, andthey are called drainage and waste water managementplans.

The Minister may say, as she did a moment ago, thatin the Water Industry Act 1991 the words “drainageand sewerage management” effectively mean a widerissue as far as waste water is concerned, but of coursethe wording in clause 76 is not what was in the 1991 Actbut is actually an amendment to that Act. It would havebeen easily possible, as far as the construction of theBill is concerned, to include the words “sewerage andwaste water management” in the Bill, with no cost toanybody—no additional amendments; nothing—whereasthe less than adequate wording in the 1991 Act has beenretained for the purpose of these amendments.

I wondered why that was the case. Is it an omission oris it deliberate? Other than the rather obscure referenceto the 1991 Act, why does not the Bill state what plansthe Department has and what the plans should consistof if they are properly to take account of what “wastewater” defines and accommodates?

Rebecca Pow: How quickly, in the space of 10 minutes,we have gone from excitement to puzzlement. I hope Ican, however, assuage some of the puzzlement.

Clause 76 amends the Water Industry Act 1991 toplace drainage and sewerage management plans on astatutory footing to match the status of water resourcemanagement plans. The provisions are modelled closelyon the existing approach to water resource managementplans.

I shall deal with the interesting point about thedistinction between sewerage and waste water. The clauseamends the 1991 Act, which defines the term “seweragesystem” in a way that covers all relevant aspects ofwaste water, so we have used that wording. This includesfacilities to empty public sewers and other facilities suchas waste water treatment works and pumping stations.

The term “waste water” is not defined in the 1991 Act.The statutory name is not intended to dictate what thewater industry chooses to call the plans as part of itsdaily operations; it might have some other casual termfor it. Drainage and sewerage planning is the only keyplanning process without a formal statutory status in

the water sector. Placing plans on a statutory basis willensure a more robust planning and investment processto meet future needs, including housing.

Statutory plans will also allow waste water networkcapacity to be fully assessed and encourage seweragecompanies to develop collaborative solutions with localauthorities and others who have responsibility for partsof the drainage system. They should also sit with planningfor population and economic growth and therefore helpto deliver improved resilience in sewerage and drainagesources over the long term.

There is strong cross-sectoral support for the measure.When we consulted publicly on making plans statutory,over three quarters of respondents supported the proposal.The statutory production of the plans will clearlydemonstrate how a sewerage undertaker intends tofulfil its duty under the Act to provide, improve andextend the public sewerage system to ensure that its areais effectively drained. A statutory plan will help to setout the actions needed to address the risks that someassess that might pose to the environment or customers.

Dr Whitehead: I think the Minister should acceptthat I am one of the least puzzled Members of theHouse, but I do admit to puzzlement sometimes. Onthis occasion, my puzzlement has not been assuaged.The Minister is talking about how good these planscould be, but that does not take us much further interms of why the wording is as it is when it would havebeen so easy to put it right when the Bill was introduced.I take on board the Minister’s assurances that, in practice,the word “sewerage” can be used by reference back tothe bits of the 1991 Act that have not been amended bythis legislation to expand its remit, but it would havebeen easier to get it right first time round, but I shall notpursue this. It can go into the Minister’s box of thingsto think about should she wish to clarify this part of theBill any further.


Clause 76, as amended, accordingly ordered to standpart of the Bill.

11 am

Clauses 77 and 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.



Clause 80

WATER ABSTRACTION: NO COMPENSATION FOR CERTAIN

LICENCE MODIFICATIONS

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 132, inclause 80, page 78, line 1, leave out “2028” and insert“2021”


Amendment 133, in clause 80, page 78, line 34, leaveout “2028” and insert “2021”.



Dr Whitehead: These amendments all make the samepoint about there being no compensation for certainlicence modifications in water abstraction. Should licencesbe modified as a result of environmental considerations,especially with the uprating of environmental legislation,water companies and other organisations will have toundertake additional actions to ensure that their licencesare adhered to, but they will not receive compensationfor those modifications. That is all well and good,except when those licences come to be revoked orvaried, in pursuit of a direction under a section of theWater Act.

The no compensation clause comes in on 1 January2028, so it could be argued that that gives the waterundertakings a reasonable period to adjust to thechanges, but it may have the reverse effect of what isintended. If companies were to make changes thatmight need to be undertaken before 2028, they wouldget compensation. I am not sure whether the clauserequires a period of notice for changes caused by increasedenvironmental protection—it is reasonable to give watercompanies time to adapt—or is it a device that allowswater companies to get some money for environmentalchanges that they should be doing anyway, if they dothem before 2028? It is a pretty long run-in for changes.I ask the Minister—and this goes for all these amendments,because they all seek to change the date from 2028 to2021—whether she thinks that the 2028 date is satisfactoryin terms of a run-in for the water companies to maketheir changes.

If they make the necessary changes before 2028,would they be protected from a legal requirement toenter into and discuss compensation? I would suggestthat that is less than satisfactory. The Minister faces achoice this morning on which way she jumps; or perhaps,with great dexterity, she could jump in both directions.

Not only is there potential confusion about the preciseintention of this clause, but the 2028 date itself seems tobe excessively generous by any measure. If the Ministeris not able to at least give us an indication that that datemight be considered for foreshortening, we may wish todivide the Committee.

Fleur Anderson: I would like to speak in support ofthe concerns raised by my hon. Friend the shadowMinister about the long deadlines of this Bill, whichwould be rectified by amendments 132, 133 and 134.

Clause 80 amends the Water Resources Act 1991 toimprove the way in which the abstraction is managed.This additional Environment Agency power, to act onlicensing that causes environmental harm, is welcome.However, the timescale proposed in the Bill is too long,as the changes will apply to licenses revoked or variedon or after January 2028. With compensation remainingpayable on any license changes opposed by the agencybefore that time, budgetary constraints will significantlylimit its scope to act, which cannot be the aim of thisBill.

The current timescale does not appear to fully graspthe severity and immediacy of the problems facing UKwaterways and the poor performance of water companiesto date. Four out of nine companies assessed by theEnvironment Agency require improvement. We cannotwait until 2028 to start revoking licenses and takeaction, when there is clearly systemic underperformancein the water industry.

Moreover, water companies in England were responsiblefor their worst ever levels of environmental pollution inthe five years up to 2019, leading to condemnation fromMinisters and the Environment Agency. In the agency’sannual assessment of the nine privatised water andsewage companies, its chair, Emma Howard Boyd, saidthat their performance continued to be unacceptable.

Unsustainable abstraction can do serious environmentaldamage, particularly by changing the natural flow regime.This results in lower flows and reduced water levelswhich, in turn, may limit ecological health and result inchanges and reductions of river flows and groundwaterlevels. This is about far more than just hosepipe bans.

The Government’s own analysis has shown that 5% ofsurface water bodies and 15% of groundwater bodiesare at risk from increasing water use by current licenseholders, which could damage the environment. With theEnvironment Agency recently warning that in 25 years,England’s water supply may no longer meet demand,we will have to clamp down on over-abstraction now.Before becoming an MP, I worked for the aid agencyWaterAid, where I saw the result of over-abstractionand how damaging that was for communities aroundthe world. We do not want to face that here.

Abstracters are unlikely to give up these abstractionrights voluntarily and forfeit potential compensationpayments. This means that over-abstracted rivers andgroundwater-dependent habitats will continue to sufferfor at least another eight years under the clauses of thisBill, putting threatened habitats and public water suppliesat risk. Further clarification could then ensure that thenew date would not impose unrealistic time pressureson water abstractors.

Variations to licences could then be made, setting outa reasonable compliance period for changes to be put inplace before the abstractor would be in breach of thenew conditions. That would give fair notice to abstractors,which I understand is a concern for the Minister and isthe original purpose of the 2028 date, while also enablingswift action on the mounting environmental harm causedby damaging abstraction. It would put environmentalrisks in the driving seat, not the concerns of watercompanies, which is what the Bill does at the moment.

Does the Minister agree that without bringing forwardthe date from which environmentally damaging abstractionlicences could be amended without compensation, weare unlikely to achieve the existing Government targetsfor the health of the water environment, which requireus to bring our waters into good status by 2027 at thelatest? Bringing the date forward to 2021 will allowaction to be taken within the final cycle of the riverbasin management plans for 2021 to 2027, and allow usto reduce abstraction damage in line with Governmenttargets set under the water environmental regulations of2017. The dates need to add up.

In its report, “Water supply and demand management”,published in July, the Public Accounts Committee advised:

“The Environment Agency should write…within three monthssetting out clear objectives, and its planned mitigation actionsand associated timescales for eliminating environmental damagefrom over-abstraction”.

The Committee wants immediate action and we should,too. Has the Environment Agency yet been able tooutline how it will eliminate the environmental damage


[Fleur Anderson]

in line with statutory deadlines, given that this powerwill not come into effect until after those deadlines havepassed?

I support these amendments, in order to put theGovernment’s own targets in line with each other andmake sure that we take action against over-abstractionas urgently as necessary.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Member for Putney hashighlighted why we need to control water abstraction,which is why these clauses are so important. TheGovernment would strongly prefer that solutions arefound at a local level between abstractors and theEnvironment Agency, before these new powers are utilised.A lot of work is already going on to look at abstractionlicences, to find different ways of working and to reducequantities of water abstraction. Indeed, the Government’s2017 abstraction plan sets out the Government’scommitment and actions to protect our water environment,and it is already beginning to have some effect. Since2014, a total of 31 billion litres of water has beenreturned to the environment, and a further 456 billionlitres has been recovered from unused or underusedlicences.

The implementation date of 2028 will afford theEnvironment Agency the time to engage directly withabstractors to resolve situations without the need to usethese powers. That is one of the main pieces of work inprogress, as I have outlined. It will also allow time for acatchment-based approach to water resources, to producesolutions. There is a lot of catchment-based work goingon. Opportunities will come through the new environmentand land management scheme and its systems of newenvironmental management, where farmers and catchmentswork together, which is crucial in a holistic approach tothe water landscape.

Finally, the date allows time for the transfer of abstractionlicensing into the new environmental permitting regime.The powers are more of a big stick, but we are hopingthat these other things will swing into place before theyhave to be used.

Ruth Jones: Does the Minister agree that 2028 is along time into the future? By then, small water bodiesand wetland habitats, which are an essential butunnecessarily overlooked part of our water environment,may be lost. Something that has already gone cannotbe brought back. The year 2028 is far too far into thefuture and we do not want things to be lost in themeantime.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention,but I hope she realises, as I have just outlined, that weare taking action now. The Environment Agency isalready working on reducing abstraction with theselicence holders in many cases, and that work must carryon at pace.

I also want to be clear—the hon. Member for Putneytouched on this—that these measures do not apply towater company abstraction licences. Following the WaterAct 2014, water companies are not eligible for compensationfor any revocation variation of their abstraction licences,so it is not the water companies we are actually talkingabout, but the other abstractors of water.

11.15 am

The Bill measures complement the progress that isalready being made, widening the circumstances in whichthe EA can take action against unsustainable abstractionwithout the liability to pay compensation, because thatcan be somewhat debilitating. It can do this where it isnecessary to protect the environment from damage,including our internationally important chalk streams,which are a priority for me, and which I am doing agreat deal of work on, because that whole habitat andenvironment is something we need to look after. TheEnvironment Agency will also be able to vary a licencethat has excess headroom without the payment ofcompensation. However, this action should not be takenprematurely.

Water abstraction is also vital to the economy—thathas to be remembered—for example, to generate power,run industries, grow food, and to be used by all ourfarmers. Meanwhile, access to clean, safe and securewater supplies is fundamental to society, so actions weare taking now and these new future measures willenable us to balance these competing demands on ourprecious water resources. It is a fine balance.

I trust that hon. Members now understand the contextfor selection of the implementation date, and the ongoingaction being taken by Government to ensure that changesto ensure sustainable abstraction are already beingimplemented. I therefore ask the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test to withdraw his amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I would have thought that if measuresto sort out sustainable abstraction were already beingtaken, that would be a compelling argument for bringingthe date forward from 2028. It is, after all, a longerperiod than the second world war. I am not convincedby the Minister’s arguments, and on the basis of thatdate we would like to pursue a Division.



Division No. 30]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 133, in clause 80, page 78,line 34, leave out “2028” and insert “2021”.—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.

Amendment proposed: 134, in clause 80, page 79,line 7, leave out “2028” and insert “2021”.—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.



Clause 81

WATER QUALITY: POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE


“(9) Regulations under this section are subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure.

(10) In this subsection, ‘super-affirmative resolutionprocedure’ has the same meaning as it does in Section 18 of theLegislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”

I will not detain the Committee for long. Our amendmentsuggests that instead of regulations under this sectionbeing subject to the negative procedure, they should besubject to the super-affirmative procedure. There is areal difference between the two because, as hon. Memberswill know, the negative procedure for secondary legislationrequires merely that the legislation be laid before theHouse, and if no one objects to it within 21 days, itautomatically becomes law. The affirmative procedure,on the other hand, means that under normal circumstances,the House is entitled to a debate on the legislation, inwhich the Minister is required to take part, at least toair the reasons behind the introduction of the regulations.

The affirmative procedure is potentially an importantprotection for Parliament to hear properly what is happeningwith secondary legislation. The super-affirmative procedureguarantees a 90-minute maximum debate on a piece ofsecondary legislation, and that is the procedure that wewould prefer for this clause. We will not press theamendment to a vote, but we would be grateful if theMinister reflected briefly on why she thinks the negativeprocedure is the right way to go.

Fleur Anderson: Although there is some justificationfor a power to make technical updates to regulations, asmy hon. Friend the shadow Minister has set out, theclause could provide a licence for the Secretary of Stateto weaken, via secondary legislation, the standards ofour waters, and their chemical status in particular.Secondary legislation has caused a huge amount ofdivision between the Opposition and the Government,as we have asked that much more of it be put intoprimary legislation. If there is more secondary legislation,and “may”does not become “must”, it is really importantthat it is debated under the super-affirmative procedure.

That is particularly worrying in the light of Sir JamesBevan’s speech, which suggested possible reform of theway in which the status of our water is considered.What is behind that suggestion? The last thing we neednow is a regression of water quality standards. Accordingto data released by the Environment Agency last month,not a single lake or river in England that has beenrecently tested has achieved a good chemical status. Weare experiencing a five-year high for environmentalpollution by the water industry.

Stakeholder concerns about the unmitigated power inthe clause would be unlikely to evaporate if there were acommitment tonon-regressionof environmental standards.Given the public support for environmental protection,which I am sure the Committee will acknowledge, whyare the Government reluctant to provide assurances andto agree to the amendment? That goes to the heart ofmany of the issues at the centre of the Bill. Time andagain, we have heard assurances of non-regression, buttheGovernmenthavesofaravoidedeverysingleopportunityto put those promises into statute. That persistent refusalmakes us all highly suspicious.

At the heart of the water framework directive is theprinciple that the water environment is a system andthat all its parts need to be in good working order for itto operate effectively. That principle remains true. Theclarity of the one in, one out rule should not be abandoned,and any weakening of chemical standards would be abackward step in the light of growing public concernabout water pollution and the new data showing theextent of water quality failures across England.

I urge the Committee to support the amendment,which goes some way towards addressing that significantrisk, and would ensure that any changes to water qualityregulations would be subject not to the negative procedure,as the Bill currently states, but to the super-affirmativeprocedure—as a new MP, I had to go and look it up andhave learned a lot about it—as defined in section 18 ofthe Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Thatwould give stakeholders the right to input into anywater quality regulation changes, including UKTAG,the UK technical advisory group that currently adviseson standards—

11.25 am





OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Seventeenth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS



CLAUSES 91 and 92 agreed to.

CLAUSE 93 under consideration when the Committee adjourned till

Thursday 19 November at half-past Eleven o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than













Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)








(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

Clause 81

WATER QUALITY: POWERS OF SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment proposed (this day): 135, in clause 81,page 80, line 28, leave out subsection (9) and insert—

“(9) Regulations under this section are subject to thesuper-affirmative resolution procedure.

(10) In this subsection, ‘super-affirmative resolution procedure’has the same meaning as it does in Section 18 of the Legislativeand Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”.—(Dr Whitehead.)

2 pm

Question again proposed, That the amendment bemade.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): Before our lunchbreak, we were discussing clause 81, on water qualityand the powers of the Secretary of State. The clausegives the Secretary of State a wide-ranging power toamend the regulations that implement the EU waterframework directive, particularly as they relate to thechemical pollutants that should be considered underthe regulations and the standards applied to them.

I have some concluding comments to my earlierstatement. The amendment would ensure that any changesto water quality regulations would be subject not to thenegative procedure, as the Bill sets out, but to the super-affirmative procedure. This would give stakeholders—including UKTAG, the UK technical advisory group,which currently advises on standards and which shouldretain a lead role in this process—the right to input intoany water quality regulations changes. It would alsolegally require the Secretary of State to have regard tothat input, ensuring that standards and targets arealtered only in line with scientific advice and followingappropriate stakeholder consultation.

A robust, binding legal assurance of non-regressionon environmental standards would give further assuranceon that point. The Government still have the opportunityto give such assurance through the Bill, and that wouldbe warmly welcomed by the environmental sector andmany other stakeholders.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Ithank the hon. Member for Putney for tabling theamendment. I understand entirely the desire to ensurean appropriate level of scrutiny when this delegatedpower is exercised. The clause creates a narrow powerfor the Secretary of State to maintain a list of the mostharmful chemical substances that could enter watercoursesand sets out measures to monitor and tackle them,keeping pace with the latest scientific knowledge. This isa key aspect of our wider regulations that protect andenhance our water environment. The exercise of the

power in the clause is subject to consultation withexperts in the Environment Agency who provide scientificopinion and have a statutory duty to monitor water.

I highlight the fact that the Secretary of State willtake into account the latest scientific evidence whenupdating lists. In addition to the EA, a lot of thatevidence comes through the UK technical advisorygroup, a working group of experts drawn from theenvironment and conservation agencies for England,Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland who alreadyderive threshold values for UK-specified pollutants,which are monitored for the purposes of contributingto the ecological status of our surface waters. A statutoryconsultation requirement could not be placed on theUK technical advisory group as it is not a statutorybody, but it offers valued expert advice. The Secretaryof State must also consult any person or bodies appearingto represent the interests of those likely to be affectedby these provisions.

I understand that the amendment seeks to increasethe level of parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of thepower by upgrading to the super-affirmative resolutionprocedure, as the hon. Member for Putney mentioned.As we have mentioned, this procedure is used extremelyrarely for statutory instruments that are considered toneed a particularly high level of scrutiny—for example,legislative reform orders under the Legislative andRegulatory Reform Act 2006, which could be used toabolish, confer or transfer statutory functions or createor abolish a statutory body or office—so we do not feelthat that would be appropriate.

The hon. Member was concerned about a lowering ofstandards, which is absolutely not the case. I know thatshe has a particular interest in this, and I was sointerested to hear earlier that she worked for WaterAid.Lots of Back Benchers engage with WaterAid—I did—when it holds events in Parliament. It does really goodwork. The wider regulations require the EA to have anextensive and robust monitoring regime for chemicalsin the water environment and refer to the prioritysubstances as those that must be used to assess chemicalstatus in surface waters. The EA will monitor for newand emerging harmful substances through an earlywarning system and, in consultation with the EA, theupdates to the list will be based on the latest science andmonitoring data, which currently suggest a potentialincrease in the number of substances of concern, ratherthan a reduction. An eye will certainly be kept on that,because it is so important.

Although I fully acknowledge the importance ofparliamentary scrutiny, a super-affirmative, or indeed astandard affirmative, resolution procedure is whollydisproportionate in this instance. This power can beused only to make relatively narrow changes to existingtransposing legislation for the purpose of updatingcertain water quality standards. The power does notextend to changing the wider regime for assessingand monitoring water quality, which is enshrined inthe Water Environment (Water Framework Directive)Regulations 2017. An update to the list of prioritysubstances involves highly technical discussions, asI have mentioned, around emerging pollutants andtheir threshold values, measured in micrograms perlitre, and sophisticated monitoring techniques, includingbiota testing.


I hope that clarifies the position, and I therefore askthe hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdrawthe amendment.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Asthe Minster indicated, the name super-affirmative suggeststhat this is not an everyday procedure. It has beensuggested in the amendment because the clause wouldallow the Secretary of State, albeit on a reasonablynarrow basis, to amend or modify legislation, and therebyto degrade or completely remove environmental protectionsthat are already in the regulations. That would essentiallybe a power to deregulate current regulations, underpinnedby the ability to do so by simply notifying the House.We do not think that is good enough.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney emphasised,the super-affirmative procedure would not just allowfor greater parliamentary scrutiny but would allow forgreater consultation in the process. We think it is anappropriate device to add, although it is a relatively newone. It has been in place, as the Minister alluded to,since 2016.

However, the Minister has given some assurances onthe limit of the Secretary of State’s power to degrade orremove secondary legislation. She has also indicatedthat that would not be the intention of the Government,and that, on the contrary, it is their intention to try touprate those regulations.

Rebecca Pow: Apologies; I was mistaken earlier. Itwas the shadow Minister who tabled the amendment. Inaddition to all these matters, the Secretary of State willconduct a two-yearly review of significant developmentsin international legislation on the environment. That isanother prong that will help to keep up the standards ofenvironmental protection. I thought the hon. Gentlemanmight be interested to hear some of the ways we mightuse—

The Chair: Interventions must be very brief.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for her intervention.Alas, we will never hear the detail of what those changesmight be, but the fact that she was brandishing a sheetof paper that clearly had them written on it is perhapsfurther assurance. I did indeed move this amendment,but the multi-talented nature of Opposition Memberscould have led one to believe that someone else had doneso, such is the power of our interventions this afternoon.

We do not intend to press the amendment to aDivision, but I hope that this is another thing for theMinister’s “to think about” box. I do not think that it isgenerally a good idea for secondary legislation to beput through the negative procedure on this catch-allbasis. Among other things, doing so puts considerableimpediments in the face of Parliamentary scrutiny, becausethe negative procedure requires the legislation to beprayed against. That means that the right to a debatelies with the usual channels rather than being guaranteed,as it is with the affirmative procedure.

I hope the Minister will take the general point onboard for future legislative purposes that we do notthink that is a good idea. We would be grateful if theMinister could have that in mind when she is reviewingthe legislation. On this occasion, we are reasonablyhappy with the Minister’s assurances on this clause and

the additional—alas, secret—assurances that she has onher piece of paper. Therefore, I beg to ask leave towithdraw the amendment.



Clause 82

WATER QUALITY: POWERS OF WELSH MINISTERS

Amendments made: 53, in clause 82, page 81, line 19,leave out



See Amendment 28.

Amendment 54, in clause 82, page 81, line 21, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.



Clause 87

VALUATION OF OTHER LAND IN DRAINAGE DISTRICT:WALES

Amendment made: 55, in clause 87, page 85, line 9,leave out



See Amendment 28.


Clause 88

VALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DRAINAGE

DISTRICT: ENGLAND AND WALES




See Amendment 28.


Clause 89

DISCLOSURE OF REVENUE AND CUSTOMS INFORMATION




See Amendment 28.




2.15 pm

Schedule 14

BIODIVERSITY GAIN AS CONDITION OF PLANNING

PERMISSION

Dr Whitehead: Apologies, Mr Gray, but we hadpreviously notified the Committee that our amendmentsto the natural environment and environmental protectionelements of the Bill would be moved by my hon. Friendthe Member for Cambridge.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 169, in schedule 14, page 207, line 26, leaveout paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—

“(3) The relevant percentage is a minimum of 10%.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend thisparagraph so as to increase the relevant percentage.

(5) The Secretary of State shall review the relevant percentageafter 5 years or sooner.”

This amendment amends the power to vary the 10% level so that it canonly be increased.

I apologise to anyone who was expecting to continueto hear the mellifluous tones of my esteemed colleague,my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. Iam grateful to have a backing part; it is a huge honour.

After all the excitement this morning, I hope we canhave a similarly exciting afternoon. We are coming tothe bit that I have been looking forward to most since Ifirst read the Bill: the exciting part around nature andbiodiversity. Part 6 is fascinating. It is hard to imagine amore important and pressing subject when we all knowthat around the world, the targets we have collectivelyset ourselves continue, sadly, to be missed. At the sametime, we look to find ways out of the economic crisisstemming from covid.

Part 6 is a very important part of the Bill. As I lookedat the Bill last night in revising for today, I reread someof the 25-year environment plan. What an optimistic,forward-looking and exciting document it is, full of“wills”, “shalls” and “musts”. The trouble is that someof that enthusiasm seems to have been mislaid en route.One of the key things is that somewhere along the line,the planning White Paper came along, and there is anunresolved tension between the excellent ambition ofthe 25-year environment plan and those new suggestions.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,Test said at the beginning of our discussions, we thinkthis is a good Bill, but we want to make it better. Mytask this afternoon is to try to help the Minister restoreit to the Bill it might once have been. We could see thisas a bit of a whodunnit. Who was it, and how did thechanges creep in? Who did such harm to it, and howcan we now help the Government make good? In someof the discussions on this schedule, the Governmentthought about going beyond net biodiversity gain towardsnet environmental gain, and we would really like thatdesire to be addressed.

Much of the schedule is about the planning system. Isuspect many Members here have direct or indirectexperience of our planning system and know how importantit is. For the moment, the provisions for reducingenvironmental impact in the planning system are focusedon preventing and mitigating harm. The net gain objectivehas been embraced in the national planning policyframework since 2012, when it replaced the previous

policy objective of no net loss, which sought only aneutral outcome after losses and gains were accountedfor. Thanks to the rules for site-based protection in theConservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017,the net gain objective has been relatively effective inreducing loss of habitats and species without slowingdown development, but it has been far from enough toturn the tide in nature’s decline. The principle of takinga more strategic approach to restoring nature and requiringa 10% net gain in biodiversity is one we fully support.That is what is addressed in this schedule.

We know how important that is because, sadly, theUK continues to suffer rapid biodiversity loss. TheGovernment have failed on too many metrics: 46% ofconservation priority species in England declined between2013 and 2018. This is serious. We welcome the fact theGovernment have begun to address some of the issues,although we think we need to approach this seriousissue in an open and clear way. We note the PrimeMinister’s announcement a few weeks ago about 30% ofland being protected, but we also gently point out thatsome 26% of that is achieved through a countingmechanism that includes areas of outstanding naturalbeauty and national parks. We want to address thisproblem. We have to be serious about it and not try toplay with the figures, and our view is that at the momentthe Bill is a lost opportunity to stop the decline. However,the new general condition has the potential to be aneffective tool to boost biodiversity across the country,and there are many issues we want to address in theamendments to see how the Bill can be improved.

I will touch on several of our amendments, includingon the length of time for which habitats should bemaintained, which is 30 years; the exemptions, toomany, in our view, from the biodiversity gain condition;the relationship between the new system and irreplaceablehabitats; and the lack of a mechanism to guaranteewhat is prescribed in the biodiversity gain plan toensure it is actually delivered on the ground. To turn tothe detail of amendment 169, our fear is that we are indanger of being left with a rather unambitious percentageof biodiversity net gain that is all too easy for theGovernment to decrease if they choose to do so. At firstsight, setting the condition for planning permission at10% biodiversity net gain seems a reasonable thing todo, but it is important to note that the impact assessmentpublished alongside the biodiversity net gain consultationin December 2018 said that 10% is merely the lowestlevel of net gain at which the Department

“could confidently expect to deliver…net gain, or at least no netloss”.

It does not appear that this is taking us very far forward.Indeed, 10% net gain is less ambitious than the currentpractice of some local authorities. I am told that LichfieldDistrict Council already requires 20% net gain on newdevelopment, so although we welcome the Government’sstatement and its response to the biodiversity net gainconsultation, the 10% should not be viewed as a cap onthe aspirations of developers who want to go further. Iwas pleased that the Minister reiterated this point onSecond Reading. It would be very helpful if she couldmake a clear statement, to facilitate ambitious developersand to help them and local planning authorities, underliningthat the aspiration is to go further.


A number of changes need to be made. Underschedule 14, the Secretary of State has a number ofpowers to make regulations, including a Henry VIIIpower to amend the 10% biodiversity net gain objectiveand to amend the types of developments the net gainwill apply to. The Bill’s provisions read that “the relevantpercentage” of biodiversity net gain for developers is10%, and:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations amend this paragraphso as to change the relevant percentage.”

Our amendment is very clear: that must be amended toinclude a commitment to monitor and review practice,so that the level of gain can be increased in future ifevidence demonstrates this is possible and needed. Wealso need a lock-in so that the percentage can only beincreased by the Government, not simply decreased at alater date. There must be no mechanism in the Bill tolower the level of gain; that would seriously underminethe objectives of the system as a whole, and would likelyresult in little or no gain being achieved in practice.

Amendment 169 would ensure that the only way the10% net gain figure could be changed is by beingincreased after review by the Secretary of State. Itwould also lock in a timeframe to ensure the percentageis reassessed after an appropriate amount of time, withina maximum period of five years.

I am sure the Minister will, as she has throughout,assure us that there is no need for concern. But to returnto my whodunnit, I fear that there may be a villain inmy story and Members might be able to guess whosome of the contenders might be. Looking back at thePrime Minister’s “Build, build, build” speech in July, hedid claim—spuriously in our view—that:

“Newt-counting delays are a massive drag on the prosperity ofthis country.”

We will discuss newts in more detail later, but whenGovernment policy lurches from one approach to another,we need certainty that the commitment of the currentMinister will not be trumped by future Ministers whomight take a different view. Unless we get that certainty,we will certainly wish to press this amendment to aDivision.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the hon. Member for Cambridgeas he takes the floor this afternoon. This is a tremendouslyexciting part of the Bill, through which we can all be apart in doing our hugely important bit for nature in thiscountry. He is right about degradation—I am not evengoing to think about denying that—and about howimportant the Bill is. This is the tool for achieving themeasures in the 25-year environment plan, which wasthe first environmental improvement plan. It is greatthat the plan is full of optimism because it sets out whatwe want to do and where we want to go, and thesemeasures will be in this Bill.

Let me turn to the amendment. Responses to the netgain consultation revealed that some developers havealready made voluntary commitments to no net loss ornet gain and there were calls for both a higher and alower percentage. It was quite interesting how that cameout. On balance and having considered all responses,we believe that requiring at least a 10% gain strikes theright balance between ambition, creating certainty inachieving environmental outcomes, deliverability andcosts for developers. It should not be viewed as a capand the hon. Member for Cambridge has already mentioneda local authority that has set its sights higher. Manymore are doing that and going voluntarily above 10%.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the “Planning forthe future” White Paper, which I think will probably bereferred to a lot today. It specifically sets out supportfor biodiversity net gain and rightly identifies improvingbiodiversity as one of our most important nationalchallenges. It is important to build the houses peoplewant and all of the developments that we need, but thatcannot be done to the detriment of the environment.

That is quite clear in the White Paper that biodiversitynet gain and biodiversity more generally are one ofour most important challenges. The Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs is working closelywith the Ministry of Housing, Communities and LocalGovernment on the implementation of biodiversity netgain to make sure it is fully integrated into the planningsystem. I have already said that the 25-year environmentplan is the first environmental improvement plan, andall these things will work as part and parcel of oneanother.

The ambition of 10% net gain represents a significantstep forward beyond current practice while striking abalance and meaning it does not have be reviewed as acap. Restricting the ability to set a lower percentagerequirement may force the Government to exempt anydevelopment types that cannot achieve a 10% net gain,rather than keeping them in scope and subjecting themto a lower percentage requirement. Broader exemptionswould be a greater risk to the achievement of the widepolicy aims than targeted application of a lower percentagegain.

Limiting the power might therefore compel futureGovernments to make other adjustments to therequirement, which could compromise environmentaland development outcomes more fundamentally than alower percentage of net gain.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister is making an interestingcase for the clause. However, does she accept that it is aparticularly egregious example of “first you have it,then you don’t” legislation appearing in consecutiveparagraphs? That is to say—a bald statement, as shesaid—the relevant percentage is 10%, but then the Secretaryof State can take that away. Does she have any suggestionsas to how one might make that a little less alarming, ifshe is indeed suggesting that that sort of arrangementneeds to be in place?

2.30 pm

Rebecca Pow: I reiterate how closely we are workingwith other Departments and on the “Planning for thefuture” White Paper to make sure that biodiversityremains the significant objective that it needs to be, ashas been indicated already.

Other measures in the Bill, such as the local naturerecovery strategies that we will come on to talk about,will help with our moving towards biodiversity net gain.There are a lot of measures that will make it muchclearer where the net gain is, what the advantages andbenefits of it are, and where it should go.

One of the main aims of our planning reforms is toenhance the environment while having the developmentthat we need. We want environmental assets to beprotected. We want to provide more green spaces, moresustainable development and new homes that are energy-efficient. Many of these measures have already beenannounced and are being introduced, such as the measures


[Rebecca Pow]

on houses and on the reduction of carbon-intensivemodes of transport. All these things will work together,and measures in the Bill will help that process. We willalso work through the White Paper to deliver evenfurther on the net gain.

Let me reiterate that limiting the power might compelfuture Governments to make other adjustments to therequirement that would compromise environmental anddevelopment outcomes more fundamentally than a lowerpercentage of net gain. What we are trying to do overallis to raise up the whole net gain.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): Does the Ministeragree that these amendments are very moderate? We arenot looking to limit things down, but to raise things up.The Bill already has the relevant percentage—10%—soto put that as a minimum is surely a very moderatething. That word is a very important one. As she hasalready said, she is very ambitious, so adding that wordwould surely increase the ambition.

Rebecca Pow: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but Istill stick to my point that restricting the ability to set alow percentage requirement might force Government toexempt any development types that cannot achieve the10%. What we are trying to do is to make sure thateveryone gets to the 10% mark, and others might goabove that voluntarily.

On the final point about the amendment, aboutcompelling the Secretary of State to review the percentagewithin five years, I offer my assurances that the Governmentintend to monitor closely the policy outcome of net gainafter its implementation. Of course, Members shouldremember that we have our Office for EnvironmentalProtection; we have a great big monitoring and reportingbody. It will be very difficult for anyone not to stick tothese measures. They are all in the Bill and they add tothe overall enhancing of the environment. I respectfullyask the hon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw theamendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister. Isuspect that a theme is already emerging from thisdiscussion, whereby the Minister tries very hard toexplain away the differences that have emerged. That isher job and she has made a very good attempt at it.However, it seems counterintuitive to argue that, on theone hand, the Government are going to introduce thislevel and, on the other hand, they will have the ability toreduce it. As for the argument that that somehowprotects the measure, I think that the cat was slightly letout of the bag by the suggestion that there might beexemptions that will allow another way round it. Wewill come on to that in a moment.

In some ways, this is a strange discussion, because theWhite Paper on planning emerged in the summer, afterthis Committee was in abeyance. It seemed to us—wemade this point very strongly—that this process is acomplicated set of interactions that would have benefitedfrom the detailed interrogation of experts. We will getinto some quite detailed planning law issues in thecoming hours, I suspect, and many of us possibly donot have the expertise that some of our witnesses mighthave been able to bring to these discussions. It is a greatpity that we are not able to explore that in more detail.But we are where we are and we will have to do our best.

The problem is that a lot of this goes back to thequestion of trust. Basically, the Minister is asking us totrust the Government. She says that they are introducingthe OEP, but the OEP will work to the legislation thatwe are putting in place today. Inevitably, there is pressure—we know that there is huge pressure and we understandwhy—from local developers and a Government whowant to build, build, build. That is why nature needs avoice: it needs the legislative protection that the Ministeris so passionate about. There should not be any loopholes,because we know what will happen: if we leave loopholes,people will use them. That is why—and I will keeprepeating this point—I want to understand what changed,who did it and why, because if we get an answer to thosequestions, we will understand what is likely to happenin future.

This Bill might look lovely and sound great, but whenwe begin to delve down into the detail and look at the“mays” rather than the “musts” and at the exemptionsand loopholes it introduces, we may find that, like on somany other occasions in the past, it is a greatdisappointment. That is why we want to absolutely tiethis down. On that basis, we wish to divide the Committee.



Division No. 31]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 168, inschedule 14, page 209, line 37, leave out

“maintained for at least 30 years”

and insert

“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.

This amendment requires habitat created under net gain to be securedin perpetuity.


Amendment 75, in schedule 14, page 209, line 37,leave out

“for at least 30 years”

and insert “in perpetuity”.

This amendment would require post-development habitat enhancementsfor the purposes of biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuityrather than for 30 years.

Amendment 74, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leave out


and insert “in perpetuity”.

This amendment would require habitat enhancements for the purposesof biodiversity gains to be maintained in perpetuity rather than for30 years.


Amendment 230, in clause 91, page 92, line 1, leaveout


and insert

“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.

This amendment would require habitat enhancements created under netgain to be secured in perpetuity.

Daniel Zeichner: The theme continues with this set ofamendments because, in exactly the same way as I havejust explained, there is a risk of not achieving thedesired outcome and ambition of the 25-year environmentplan.

The amendment relates to the length of time that thebiodiversity gain habitats should be maintained. Ouramendment challenges the Government’s suggestion of30 years. In our view, both schedule 14 and clause 91(2)(b)would allow protected sites potentially to be downgradedor destroyed after 30 years, thereby destroying the ecologicalgains and carbon storage benefits, and any prospect ofthose gains and benefits making a long-term impact.

That is essentially the issue: we are talking about thelong term. I am sure the Minister will explain in amoment the logic for the Government’s 30-year proposal,but this takes us back to the basic point about howserious and ambitious we are about embedding thesechanges for the future. There will be little point to theprovisions if they do not work in practice. For instance,if someone gets rid of a pond that has been in place forhundreds of years, with all the richness in biodiversity ithas developed, and replaces it with another pond nearby,that replacement could be let go after 30 years. Ourconcern is that the provisions do not give the necessarystrong support. The danger is that too short a periodcould simply see the biodiversity gains swiftly lost.Thirty years sounds like quite a long time, but when onebears in mind that we are already two years down theline from the 25-year environment plan and that politicsdoes not always move at a frightfully great pace, it is nothard to imagine things moving quickly and those gainsbeing quickly lost. If biodiversity gains are to properlycontribute to the 25-year environment plan commitmentsto a nature recovery network and to provide carbonsequestration, which is so crucial to our net zero targets,these areas must be secured and maintained for the longterm, because only through that kind of approach willwe secure long-term nature recovery.

There really ought to be some binding mechanisms toensure that the habitat condition target is reached in atimely way. One does not want to be cynical about someof these things, but one can well imagine that peoplewishing to build, build, build will try to find waysaround them and will try, on occasion, to take advantage.The time taken for a habitat to reach its target condition—for example, for woodlands to reach maturity—couldbe specified in a biodiversity gain plan and included inplanning conditions to ensure that it can be enforced.One can see so many possibilities here, and yet, eventhough the goal is within grasp, it seems that it is beingclawed back. Again, I wonder by whom and forwhat purpose.

Amendment 168 to schedule 14 and amendment 74to clause 91 would change the provisions by requiringpost-development habitat enhancements for the purposeof maintaining biodiversity gains in perpetuity, ratherthan for 30 years. I have no doubt that the Minister

secretly agrees with that; I suspect that she would like tosee these things achieved. However, I suspect that she isconstrained.

Our amendment 168 would ensure that those habitatsare maintained at their target condition. It is interestingto note that that proposal comes not only from theOpposition Benches but is broadly supported. I wasdelighted to see a similar amendment in this groupfrom the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford(Tracey Crouch), although I do not think that it goesquite as far as ours. However, there are clearly GovernmentMembers who see the significance and importance ofachieving this for the long term. I have to say once againthat, if we do not get the commitment we are lookingfor on amendment 168, we will divide the Committee.

Dr Whitehead: I want to add a few thoughts to theexcellent introduction to the clause from my hon. Friendthe Member for Cambridge. This issue has a considerablerelationship to not only biodiversity gains generally butour targets under climate change legislation.

Part of the purpose of a number of the biodiversitygains that may arise as a result of putting percentageson biodiversity gain is not only to make a little gain butto actually sequester what is in that gain. That sequestrationshould and will count towards the carbon balance, sofar as getting to net zero is concerned. We will discuss,when considering a new clause later in Committee, thewhole question of what to do about planting trees overa period of time and how the planting of those treesleads, as those trees mature—my hon. Friend alluded tothis—to substantial gains in net negative emissions,which are absolutely essential for reaching a net zerotarget in the future. The assumption would be that thecarbon embedded in those trees is permanently placedon the carbon account as a negative input, because ithas been effectively sequestered by the trees. That meansnot only that we can get to net zero, but that the wholequestion of net negative in the net zero equation is anessential starting point, and without that net negativeinput, there is no way we will get to net zero by 2050. Aswe in this House have all agreed, 2050 is the propertarget, although we would like net zero to be achievedsooner in this country as far as emissions are concerned.

2.45 pm

The Government’s proposals seem to suggest—I thinkthis is probably a coincidence, but it is a very neatelision—that the moment we get to 2050, all the sequesteringof carbon that we decided to start doing in 2020 couldbe over, because someone could dig up all the stuff thathad been laid down. The whole point of anything thatrelates to the carbon account going to 2050 is that it hasto continue after that date, otherwise the whole purposewill be overthrown. It is not a case of getting to net zeroand then saying, “Yippee! Now we can let everythingrip.” It is a question of getting to net zero and stayingthere. There must be a guarantee that whatever we putinto the negative carbon account will be there for thelong term, otherwise it will not work. The proposals failin seeming not to show any understanding that that iswhat is required.

By the way, it is not beyond the reach of imagination—wehave seen this with land banking, because of the numberof people working on very long-term timescales—thatpeople could consider the 30-year provision and say,


“Okay, this land is in my company or family’s purview,and it will not be developed for the time being because itis in this structure, but as long as I keep it in reasonablygood order and keep it in my ownership, somethinggood can happen with it in 30 years’ time. It is just30 years; that is all we need to worry about.”

That combination of matters suggests to me that the30-year limit is just wrong, and it should not be in theBill. We have suggested “in perpetuity”, and there maybe other suggestions for timescales that are long enoughto make sure that these effects work. As far as the30-year rule is concerned, we think it is best simply tosay that—with the exception of very specific circumstances,where things can be untangled or undone by othermeans—the default position is that once it is done, it isdone, and it is not to be undone thereafter. We thinkthat that is an important principle that should be enshrinedin this Bill, as far as biodiversity gains are concerned.

Rebecca Pow: I thank both hon. Members for theircomments. The 25-year environment plan has beenreferred to, and I would say that Opposition Membersare talking about weakening the commitments onbiodiversity net gain in the 25-year plan. The Bill actuallytakes us further on biodiversity net gain. The plan onlyincluded a commitment to consult on a mandatoryapproach and strengthened policy. We are proposing arobust mandatory requirement with a broad scope ofmechanisms for securing gains. I think that is importantto register at the beginning.

The schedule states that “any habitat enhancement”within a development site that is considered significantby the planning authority must be

“maintained for at least 30 years after the development is completed.”

Respondents to the net gain consultation expressedstrong support for a minimum period of maintenance,and Government responded by confirming that theywould introduce a minimum period—hence the 30 years.

Ruth Jones: I am just seeking some clarification onthe definition. The Minister said the amendment appearsto weaken the Bill, but “in perpetuity” cannot be weakerthan 25 years, because perpetuity is longer than 25 years.

Rebecca Pow: My point was that what we are introducingin the Bill is much stronger than what was in the 25-yearenvironment plan. That was the point I was making. Iwill press on—

Dr Whitehead: We did not write that.

Rebecca Pow: But it was referred to earlier. It is acommitment we have made, and we are strengthening it.Credit should be given where credit is due. A greatamount of work has advanced since the launch of thatplan, which I went to in 2018 with the then PrimeMinister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead(Mrs May). We are forging on and doing even morethan was promised in that plan.

I welcome the acknowledgment by hon. Members ofthe importance of long-term maintenance of biodiversitygain sites to ensure that we provide long-lasting benefitsfor wildlife and communities and for climate change, aswas ably referred to by the hon. Member for Southampton,Test. There are, however, practical reasons why we shouldkeep the minimum requirement to a 30-year duration.

We need to create the right habitats in the right placesfor wildlife. Increasing the minimum required durationof maintenance might dissuade key landowners fromvolunteering their land for gains. Agreements made forperpetuity would also risk creating permanent conditionsor obligations to maintain particular types of habitat,when future changes in climate or ecological conditionsmight make a different type of habitat more suitable.The Bill leaves space for flexibility.

I want to give some more detail about what we termconservation covenants. Any conservation covenant usedfor net gain would be drafted to secure the carrying outof habitat enhancement works and maintenance of theenhancement for at least 30 years. We would expectresponsible bodies to respect that purpose when decidingwhether or how to modify or discharge a conservationcovenant. They might consider whether any flexibilityfor landowners would better serve that purpose thanretaining the conservation covenant unchanged. I havetalked to landowners about this, and it is a point theymake, so that has to be respected. The Bill leaves theflexibility for that.

There are also a range of existing protections forhabitats, which will not be going away. They could applyto biodiversity gain sites even after the 30 years haveexpired. These are principally of relevance to off-sitehabitat enhancements, but would still apply to habitatscreated within developments. We understand fromstakeholders that there may, in some cases, be littledifference in funding requirements between the minimum30-year agreement and a longer agreement.

In cases where it is acceptable to a landowner andwould deliver greater biodiversity benefits, we would, ofcourse, encourage longer-term agreements. We woulddo that initially through guidance. Should further evaluationof the policy show that this is not achieving the rightoutcomes, the encouragement might be adjusted throughpolicy, the biodiversity metric, which has been in existencefor about five years and is currently being updated byNatural England, or further guidance. Any future decisionrelating to the mechanisms of the encouragement willbe made by Government on the basis of evaluation ofthe biodiversity net gain practice rather than speculation,which, I suggest, is what is being done at the moment.

Dr Whitehead: First, I think it should be put onrecord that suggesting that a Government initiative isbetter than an amendment being proposed, when thecomparison is made between two Government initiatives,one of which is better than the other, really should notstand. We did not write the 25-year environment plan;the Government did. If this improves on the 25-yearenvironment plan, fair enough, but it is not to dowith us.

Secondly, in law, 30 years means 30 years. It will befound out whether that was the right thing byencouragement only after 30 years. If someone ripseverything up after 30 years, they will find the Government’sencouragement was not as good as it should have been.I am puzzled as to how the Minister will find outwhether this is working short of the 30-year period.Would it not be better not to have that 30-year period,to ensure that we do not have to find out the hard way atthe end of 30 years, when that change is made in law?

Rebecca Pow: I take the point that the hon. Gentlemanmade earlier. I put on record that I hear what he hassaid. We will not fall out.


Things will not stop after 30 years. For example,while the agreements made for biodiversity net gainmight expire, the created habitats will remain subject toa wide range of protections at that point, as I just said.For example, if a woodland had been created, it wouldbenefit from existing protections for woodland andwould then fall into the scope of the felling licence andpotential environmental impact assessment regulationsfor forestry. All those other protections would comeinto play.

I reiterate that people can voluntarily enter into contractslonger than 30 years if they so wish. I am sure thatcertain people will want to do that. In light of the reasonsI have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cambridge towithdraw his amendment.

The Chair: I call Dr Zeichner.

Daniel Zeichner: I have been elevated, Mr Gray, todoctor. Thank you very much.

The Chair: You look like a doctor.

Daniel Zeichner: I am not sure what a doctor lookslike, but thank you.

This has been a useful discussion, because it begins toshow how complicated some of this is. It shows—wewill come to this in subsequent discussions—that theinteractions between the different pieces of protectionlegislation are complicated, as I have already hinted.This is possibly already a discussion for lawyers, and myfear is that it will become a discussion for lawyers in thefuture, because these things will be disputed. If we donot get the legislation clear now, it will lead, I suspect,to disappointment in the future.

Perhaps I was overly gushing in my praise for the25-year environment plan at the beginning, but I wasseeking to make a broader point, which is that in toomany cases we have stepped back. This is a case inpoint. The Minister, in explaining the logic behind the30 years, has raised more concerns in people’s mindsthan she might have allayed. I am grateful to my hon.Friend the Member for Southampton, Test for linkingthis issue to sequestration and our necessary attemptsto achieve net zero by 2050. He seems to me to beabsolutely right; we need these improvements.

It is striking that, in this schedule, this is the key toolthat the Government are adopting. They are using theplanning process. If that is the key path to protectingnature in future, we do not want to start introducingloopholes and qualifications in this way. I understandthe debate around the 30 years—I was ploughing myway through the submissions to the net gain consultationand the Government’s responses—but I am sure thatthe Minister will concede that many people agree withour position, which is that this needs to be seen inperpetuity. An additional point is about how we monitorand check that progress in between. As we all know, it isall too easy for this place to pass legislation and think,“job done,” only to wonder why it has not had an effectin the real world. We will probably touch on some ofthose points as the debate continues.

3 pm

I am afraid that local councils do not always coverthemselves in glory when it comes to ensuring that theconditions that they put on planning consents are abided

by. That is not a criticism of the local authorities, whichrightly ask, “How on earth do you expect us to do allthis when we have limited resources?”—I suspect I shallbe asking that on their behalf when discussing some ofthe subsequent amendments. It is a fair question; if weare asking them to do more, we must ensure that theyhave the ability, skills, training, knowledge and time todo it.

How can we be sure that these net gain proposals arenot only implemented, but monitored and maintainedover time? My fear is that what sounds like a good idearisks not becoming practice, which would be a greatdisappointment, and we will divide the Committee becausewe think that is a very important point.



Division No. 32]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 22, inschedule 14, page 212, line 15 leave out “may” andinsert “must”.

Amendment 22 would make it a duty for the Secretaryof State to provide a clear procedure to planning authorities.Here, again, we come back to the realms of localgovernment. I should perhaps have said earlier that someyears ago I was a district councillor in rural Norfolk. Ivery much enjoyed the experience, and spent manyhours—as, I suspect, did many other members of theCommittee—on local planning processes. I learned thatplanning law is lengthy, complicated and sometimescontroversial, but very important when it comes toprotecting and developing local communities.

This is another one of those “may” and “must”issues. The amendment would strengthen the Bill, whichstates only that

“The Secretary of State may make regulations as to the procedurewhich a planning authority is to follow in determining whether toapprove a biodiversity gain plan”.

I fear, yet again, that the devil is in the detail. I rememberbeing quite impressed as a district councillor someyears ago that there was an interest in biodiversity. Wehad a biodiversity committee, which meant that we hadsome fascinating discussions, but I fear that nothingmuch happened. That is so often the problem: that thereis concern but no means of translating intent into action.

Whether the Secretary of State “may” or “must”make regulations is therefore quite important. I fearthat many planning authorities that do not have toengage with this will look at it sympathetically, becausepeople want it, but it will be the usual thing: when they


[Daniel Zeichner]

are constrained by so many competing requirements, itis tough to do something unless they have to, which iswhat we are in this place to ensure.

Regulations may specify the details of the

“time by which a determination must be made…factors whichmay or must be taken into account in making such a determination”,

and appeals against the planning’s authority’s decisions.I suspect that we are all familiar with the dilemmas thatlocal councillors often face. We give them a huge rangeof things to take into consideration while trying toachieve balanced outcomes that can withstand scrutinyand appeal, and quite often—and rightly so—they haveto take direction from their expert officers who havealready made those calculations.

The question is where we balance this issue as apriority against the other things that councillors takeinto account. My sense is that unless we strengthen theBill, it will become one more on the list of things thatthey really ought to take into account. At best, it maybecome a line on an agenda that gets ticked: “Yes, wehave taken it into account, because somebody raised it,”but will it actually be considered among the trade-offsin the decision-making process? I am not convinced.

We also wish to raise the question of how the regulationswill be decided here; again, we believe that they shouldbe subject to the affirmative procedure to allow properparliamentary scrutiny. They should also be subject toproper public consultation; because the issue is complicated,the input of biodiversity and planning professionalsthrough public consultation would strengthen discussionand improve procedures. These are not simple matters—theyhave significant consequences and significant costs—butin due course such input would improve the overallplanning outcomes. Improved procedures could ensurethat all planning authorities’ biodiversity gain plans aresufficiently detailed, subject to public consultation, andmade available in draft so as to inform planning applications.That is a part of the democratic process that we believevery valuable, although the planning White Paper seemsto suggest that, for whole swathes of the country, thatprocess may not be continued in future.

We want to get the Minister’s thinking on this, becauseit is not clear why she would not want to accept theamendment. We will not press it to a Division, but wewould like an explanation.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for movingthe amendment. Paragraph 16 of schedule 14 sets outthat the Secretary of State may impose further proceduralrequirements relating to how a planning authority approvesa biodiversity gain plan. Paragraph 15 makes it clearthat the biodiversity gain objective must be met; it alsospecifies that other key factors, such as the accuracy ofthe plan’s ecological information, must be consideredby the planning authority. The Government intend touse the paragraph 16 power to ensure that the requirementsfit well with the planning system; the hon. Memberalluded to that, and obviously it is really important, butwe believe that the other considerations in paragraph 15should provide confidence that approved plans willmeet the legislation’s environmental policy objectives.

Primary legislation consistently takes this approachto the balance between powers and duties, as we havediscussed many times. It is entirely appropriate to provide

the Secretary of State with flexibility as to how theprovision is given effect. Forcing the use of regulationswhen they might not be needed risks creating unnecessarycomplication, or even weakening the purpose of themeasures. It may not be necessary for the regulations tocover all the areas in paragraph 16; they are set out togive the Secretary of State discretion to address them ifit is considered necessary. While we cannot rule outneeding to address appeals in the regulations, that maynot be necessary. Forcing the Secretary of State toregulate such matters immediately when that may notbe a clear necessity would risk adding complexity to aprocess that we aim to keep straightforward. The additionof undue complexity risks undermining the benefits ofthe approach for the planning authorities, thecommunities—which are obviously so important—andthe developers using it.

The biodiversity gain plan is simply the documentthat allows the developer to demonstrate to the planningauthority how it has satisfied the biodiversity net gainrequirement. A typical biodiversity gain plan will consist ofthe completed biodiversity metric and some supplementaryinformation. We expect that the consistency of theplans will make their assessment easier for the planningauthorities, and reduce the risk of miscommunication. Itherefore ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdrawhis amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I listened with interest to the Minister’sexplanation. I am not entirely sure that I am convincedby it, because it is not clear to me why making regulationsat a later date, rather than making things clear sooner,will make the position less complex. Having the discretionto make them or not does not seem helpful.

The Minister also raised an issue about the biodiversitynet gain metric, which is worthier of comment. There isa worry that we are creating yet another algorithm thatpeople will not understand—the phrase “mutant algorithm”has already been bandied about with regard to housingnumbers and the planning White Paper. As someonewho is interested in data, I am not convinced that it isthe algorithm that is mutant, the issue is those who putthe data in, or interpret or programme it in a certainway.

Clearly, there is concern that technocratic approachesto making such decisions will take away local input—thatthose with unique knowledge of the local communityand local biodiversity could in some way be excluded.That is a concern. The amendment has the potential toexplain to local planning authorities how things shouldwork, so the Minister is missing an opportunity.

An important point was made to me by the Town andCountry Planning Association: if there is just a simplemetric, where sites have apparently lower biodiversityvalue, people’s attachment to that local open space andits social values could somehow be lost. There is a bigdebate to be had about how the metric works, and whatparameters feed into it in.

Rebecca Pow: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is awareof this, but although he suggests that the metric is a newthing being imposed on people, it has been used forabout five years, and is referred to by planning authoritiesand developers. As I think I just mentioned, NaturalEngland is working on updating it, because it is complicated—it is not a simple thing, but it is a very useful thing.We want to know what is there, what the value is, and


what the value could be—all that. We must also rememberthat all of this will link into the local nature recoverynetworks, which local communities will be really involvedwith.

Daniel Zeichner: Yes, and we will discuss those localnature recovery networks. The point that I am makingis that the amendment was an opportunity for theGovernment to give direction to local planning authorities.Different planning authorities would do this differently—some would probably not do it at all, some would do itwell, and some less well. It is sufficiently important forthe Government to give direction. That is the point ofour probing amendment.

To some extent, the Minister has clarified things,although I am not sure that has left us any more hopefulabout the impacts, but at least we have had clarification.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


3.15 pm

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 170, inschedule 14, page 212, leave out line 26.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 171, in schedule 14, page 212, leave outlines 29 and 30.

Daniel Zeichner: Amendments 170 and 171 relate toa major concern about the proposals, which is that anumber of exceptions have been made to the conditionto provide a biodiversity net gain. As I said earlier, anoble ambition can be undone if there are too manyexceptions and loopholes.

Under the Bill’s schedule 14 amendments to theTown and Country Planning Act 1990, biodiversity netgain provisions will not apply to development for whichplanning permission is granted by a development order,an urgent Crown development, or a

“development of such other description as the Secretary of Statemay by regulations specify”.

I hope Members are all still with me. The excitement ofthis morning cannot necessarily be replicated whendiscussing this provision, but it is clear that, in thewrong hands, it could lead to some pretty major exemptions.

In order to maximise the benefits of biodiversitygain, provide developers with certainty and create alevel playing field, it is important that the application ofthe biodiversity gain system is broad, and that mostdevelopment is part of the net gain system. As I said,the intention is noble, but if people want to find gapsand we give them the opportunity to find lots of them, Iam afraid that that is what is likely to happen. We haveprobably seen that kind of thing happen in the past. Ifbiodiversity gains are to be delivered on the scale that Igenuinely think we all agree is needed, we need toensure that the exemptions and loopholes are limited.

We think that the exemptions for development orderscould have a very broad application in practice, particularlyif they are extended to the full range of developmentorders, which include local or neighbourhood developmentorders, and development orders brought forward bydevelopment corporations. That could lead to majordevelopments such as new towns, and wider proposals

for free ports, being exempt from the biodiversity gainprovisions. That is a significant loophole, and a majormissed opportunity to deliver biodiversity gains at scale.

The problem that we face, which goes right back towhere the discussion started, is that the challenge ispressing and huge. We know that. If we start introducingexemptions and loopholes, we know what happens. It isnot an aspersion on developers; we know that lots ofpeople are paid in the development sector to find waysaround planning laws. In my part of the world, there aremany of them, and they are very good. They are assiduous,and they probably know planning law better than Ido—in fact, I think I can guarantee it. That is why weneed to ensure that we do not give them extra opportunitiesto get around it. Clarification on the development ordersexemption and its intended scope would be very welcomefrom the Minister, not least because I think her wordsmight be useful in future, as local authorities try todefend themselves against clever people who are tryingto find ways through this.

I am sorry to have to go back to the planning WhitePaper, but it is relevant because of its proposals. Incidentally—I do not think I made this point earlier—the Ministerhad to search pretty hard in the planning White Paperto find references to net gain and biodiversity; themention of it is very tangential. Anyway, the WhitePaper includes proposals for the extended use ofdevelopment orders for large-scale development, as wellas wider permission in principle.

We fear that significant swathes of development couldbe taken out of the system of net gain. If I were beingkind, I would say that that would be an unintendedconsequence of the planning White Paper, but I thinkthat there are some who know full well what they aredoing with this. It allows the Government on the onehand to say, “Look what we’re doing with our wonderfulnew Environment Bill. We’re delivering on our 25-yearenvironment plan,” while on the other hand it is businessas usual. That is really not what we need. Perhaps theMinister could use this moment to explain how she seesthe relationship between the Bill and the planning WhitePaper. It is highly significant, and difficult, because theWhite Paper has come along since the Bill Committeewas originally formed, but it is hardly irrelevant.

Paragraph 17(b) of the proposed new schedule introducedby schedule 14, which effectively enables the Secretaryof State to exempt any type of development in future,could lead to wide exemptions from net gain. I notethat in their response to the net gain consultation, theGovernment have outlined that a “targeted exemption”may be intended for brownfield sites. That is quite asignificant statement. For many years, there has beenconsiderable interest in pursuing brownfield sites. Ithink there is sometimes a misunderstanding that natureexists only in some parts of our landscape. It can, ofcourse, exist everywhere. Brownfield sites are no exceptionto that. It may not always be as diverse and high grade,but it is still very important to our overall attempt torestore and recover nature.

I understand that some environmental organisationssuch as Greener UK have expressed concerns that theproposed targeted exemption for brownfield sites couldundermine the delivery of biodiversity gain as a whole,if a substantial amount of brownfield land is broughtforward for housing development. One can see how thatcould begin to happen. If it is predominantly brownfield


[Daniel Zeichner]

land, frankly, for all our good intentions, we are notmaking sufficient progress. The sites can have significantbiodiversity interest, even when there is no formalbiodiversity designation. Under these proposals, wecould see damage to brownfield land of high environmentalvalue, which sometimes is not really appreciated untilthe planning process is well under way. That raises someissues around how the process will happen. At somepoint in the process, it has to be assessed. The point atwhich that assessment is done is quite significant. Wewill come on to that with other amendments.

Will the Minister clarify how brownfield land of highenvironmental value will be protected and enhanced?What steps will the Government take to ensure that anybrownfield site exemption does not undermine our goalof biodiversity gain as a whole? Will she also clarify bywhat process any future exemptions will be consideredby the Secretary of State before being pursued underthe broad power in the Bill?

Will there be any public consultation on furthersignificant exemptions from biodiversity net gain? Thatis a very important point. In my part of the country,which the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire willbe familiar with, we have a very engaged electorate, toput it mildly, which is a good thing, but it means thatpeople are interested and would not want to be excludedfrom a discussion. It would be hard to exclude some ofthem, frankly, but they should have a proper, formalrole in that discussion, and a sense that their involvementaffects the outcome. Otherwise, it leads to furtherdisenchantment in the way our politics works.

There is a range of weaknesses and loopholes, evenbefore we get to what I have described as the realwhopper. It is deeply concerning that nationally significantinfrastructure projects and other large-scale infrastructureprojects are currently exempted from mandatory biodiversitygains. That is a bigger discussion, but it is a factor inthis discussion. We know that such projects can causesignificant damage to nature and we believe that provisionmust be made to include such developments within thescope of mandatory biodiversity gain, in line with theGovernment’s 25-year environment plan to embedenvironmental net gain in infrastructure. We will returnto this point later in Committee when we discuss newclause 32.

Amendments 170 and 171 would strengthen what theGovernment are trying to do, by removing the potentiallyvery wide exemption from net gain for developmentorders, and remove the broad power given to the Secretaryof State in the Bill to lay down regulations exemptingfurther development from biodiversity gain as and whenthey wish. We are genuinely interested in the Minister’sresponse. I have posed a series of questions. We do notseek to divide the Committee on the amendment, but itis important that people in the wider world get a senseof what the Government are trying to do through thismeasure.

The Chair: I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I callDr Alan Whitehead. I am terribly sorry. I would be mostgrateful if you would indicate more clearly if you wishto speak. The order of speaking goes from the proposerof the amendment to the Minister, but if you wish toadd anything, please indicate that to me by standing upor by any other method that is clear.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Mr Gray. I escalated froma pen to a hand, but I can escalate to a full bodymotion, if that is acceptable.

I want to add to the admirable exposition of the twoamendments by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeby drawing attention to amendment 171, which wouldleave out two lines from paragraph 17 of the proposednew schedule, which has the heading, “Exceptions”. Iask members of the Committee to see what has beendone here, because I think it is shocking. At the start ofpart 2 of the proposed new schedule, conditions forplanning permission relating to biodiversity are laiddown:

“Every planning permission granted for the development ofland in England shall be deemed to have been granted subject tothe condition in sub-paragraph (2).”,

which is,

“The condition is that the development may not be begununless”

there is a biodiversity gain plan. That looks terrific. Thecasual observer would think, “That’s it sorted out.The biodiversity gain plan has to be in place. That’swhat the Bill’s about.”

On turning to paragraph 17, we see that there aresome exceptions:

“development for which planning permission is granted…bya development order, or…under section 293A (urgent Crowndevelopment)”.

That is arguable, but then we have this sentence:

“development of such other description as the Secretary of Statemay by regulations specify.”

Put into English, that means that if the Secretary ofState introduces a regulation, development is exempted.The whole thing is meaningless from the beginning. Allit needs is a regulation, which I presume may well beunder the negative procedure, for this to be completelyundone.

I know that it is fashionable to blame drafting forthese issues, but something as shocking as this has tohave had an intention behind it. This cannot arise fromsomeone taking a lax instruction, writing the provisionin the bowels of a building, presenting it and no onenoticing. How these things are written is instructed byMinisters, who under the Bill can simply remove stuffthat the Government do not feel like doing. It refers toall development, not just to some developments—itsays “development”. That really is not good enough fora Bill of this kind.

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for their comments.The hon. Member for Cambridge asked a lot of questions,so if I do not cover them all, we will put something inwriting because I could not keep up with them all.

Paragraph 17 of the proposed new schedule introducedby schedule 14 sets out when the general biodiversitygain condition does not apply. Sub-paragraph (b) createsa power to exempt specific types of development throughregulations. While I welcome the hon. Member’sacknowledgement of the importance of keeping exemptionsnarrow, there are good reasons to use this power, whichamendment 171 seeks to remove, to introduce targetedexemptions for more constrained development types.

The Government will not introduce broad exemptionsfrom delivering biodiversity net gains, which was somethingthe hon. Member specifically asked about. The power


will be used to make narrow practical exemptions inorder to keep net gain requirements proportionate.Exemptions will ensure that the mandatory requirementis not applied to development on such a small scale thatit could be negligible, and I will go on to talk a bit moreabout that and about no losses in terms of habitatvalue. Some development will result in negligible lossesor degradation of habitat. Examples of such developmentmight include changes or alterations to buildings andhouse extensions, for example. Applying the 10% targetsto such development would not generate significantecological gains, and the requirement might result inundue process costs for developers and planning authoritiesalike.

3.30 pm

The removal of the power for the Secretary of Stateto exempt certain types of development by regulationsis likely to create the need to exempt certain classes ofdevelopment from the requirement on the face of theBill. As developers become increasingly familiar withthe biodiversity gain approach in the future, Governmentand stakeholders may come to deem some initial exemptionsunnecessary as they get used to the way it works, and itwill be easier to review and remove any such exemptionsin regulations than it would be if they were all inprimary legislation.

Ruth Jones: The Minister has talked about targeted,narrow exemptions, but that is not what it says in theBill. I take on board the fact that she is enthusiasticabout and fully committed to this, but somebody comingafter her—heaven forbid—could use the wording in acompletely different way and we would need to followthat is actually in the Bill, rather than what is in anexplanatory note.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for that and Ireiterate my first sentence. The Government will notintroduce broad exemptions from delivering biodiversitynet gain, and we have made that quite clear.

Amendment 170 would undo the exemption forpermitted development from the net gain requirement.Permitted development rights play a vital role in freeingup local planning authorities to deal with planningapplications that really matter to local communities,and have a wider social, economic and environmentalimpact. The hon. Member for Cambridge will knowthat from his time on the planning committee at thedistrict council. Many permitted development rightsare for small-scale development or changes of use, suchas modest alterations to buildings, small fences or temporaryuse of land for fairs, where there is little or no impact onbiodiversity.

Development undertaken through local planning ordersis not exempt from net gain, as we have touched on.Only development under the general permitted developmentorder, such as adding a conservatory, is exempt. It istrue that we have extended the scope of the permitteddevelopment rights in recent years in order to delivermore homes, but permitted development rights such asallowing office-to-residential conversions and allowingresidential blocks to be built up are principally aboutthe use of existing developments and development land,and so are generally outside the scope of biodiversitynet gain.

Brownfield sites were mentioned. It is not theGovernment’s intention to exempt brownfield sites. Weabsolutely recognise the biodiversity value those sitescan have and, indeed, their value to communities—manyof them are right in the centre of towns and cities. Anybrownfield exemptions will be narrow and will have torecognise biodiversity value. We will consult further onthe details of exemptions. For example, brownfield siteswill have a set of criteria that would relate to them whenthese matters were being considered.

Special development orders are rarely used, but it isimportant to retain the legislative flexibility to makethem very quickly to respond to urgent priorities. Forinstance, in recent years they have been used to secureurgent planning permission for the temporary lorryparks as part of the Brexit preparations, and Memberswill be able to see the benefit of that and why it isimportant to do that quickly.

New towns were also touched on, and we are awarethat there are extant powers in the New Towns Act 1981to use special development orders to set out the planningframework for new towns. There are no plans to usethose powers at present, and the Government recentlyconsulted on modernising the planning powers ofdevelopment corporations to ensure that they are fit forpurpose. However, we are clear that any new townwould need to contribute to biodiversity gain: indeed,one of the great things about new towns is that there isthe opportunity and scope to make them wonderful,green, biodiverse spaces in which to live. We have learnedso many lessons this year about how important thosethings are.

We think it is right that the legislation is clear thatbiodiversity gain should not be included in permitteddevelopment rights, and that a clear exemption fordevelopment orders is the best way forward. I hope Ihave given clarity on some of those other areas, and forthe reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Gentleman notto press amendments 170 and 171.

Daniel Zeichner: I thank the Minister, and I do thinkthat some of what she said was helpful. However, I haveto say that not only was my hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test excited this morning; he is nowshocked. Being excited and shocked in the same day is abit worrying, but the Minister will have heard theshocked tones from the Opposition Benches.

I think a close reading of the text gives cause forconcern, and I hope that the Minister might, on reflection,look at what she described as “narrow”. One person’sflexibility is sometimes another person’s loophole. Thereare different definitions of narrow, and some of us cansee a yawning chasm—a big gap that anyone who isastride a bulldozer could drive straight through—so wedo think there is legitimate cause for concern. Clearly,the permitted development rights extensions have beenextremely controversial and a cause for concern, so I amnot entirely sure that the Minister’s defence wouldreassure everyone. Certainly in my part of the world,some huge problems have arisen from some of thosechanges, and I am not convinced that any concern wasgiven to restoring nature when making those changes. Ialso have to say that whenever a Minister says there areno plans to do something at present, that is generally agood sign that it may happen sometime soon, so that isalso a cause for worry.


[Daniel Zeichner]

I do think this issue needs to be further examined,and I suspect we will be coming back to it. I also suspectthat the other place will look quite closely at this, so Ido not think today’s discussion will be the end of thematter. However, it is useful to have had it, because ifthe Bill is not precise, the words that Ministers usebecome more helpful in defining and limiting.

I suspect that many people will look at the Bill andthink that this is too big a loophole, and ask—exactly asmy hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Testdid—what was the thinking behind doing this? That isthe question I keep going back to: why has there beenthis change from the optimism of a couple of years ago?It may just be that this is what happens in government:officials look at it more closely and say, “You really donot want to do that, because”—and then the Governmentfind that they are losing out on the noble ambition theyhad at the outset. We are pretty determined to makesure that that noble ambition stays on track.

I hope the Minister thinks we are in being in someway helpful to her; I am sure that is not how it feels atthe moment, but she may come to see that in time. Withthe reset of Government policy, she may suddenly beflavour of the month. Maybe she can feature in a10-point green plan—who knows? However, we do notneed to pursue this issue further at the moment, so I begto ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 172, inschedule 14, page 212, line 32, leave out “may” andinsert “must”.This amendment would commit the Secretary of State to makeregulations excluding irreplaceable habitat from the net gain policy.

I am afraid that we are going to go further into thelegalities of the planning system. I apologise: mid-afternoonis probably not the time to be doing this, but it needs tobe gone into. This amendment is another may/mustone. We are concerned about the provisions for net gainin the Bill, and the relationship between this new systemand the irreplaceable habitats that, in many places, wetreasure and love. These irreplaceable habitats are veryprecious places and include ancient woodlands, saltmarshes, blanket bog and lowland fen, which, if destroyed,are technically extremely difficult to restore, and it takesa hugely long time to do so. By their very nature, thesehabitats cannot be properly recreated, so this is not acase of providing a replacement or, in any real sense,a gain.

The national planning policy framework sets out that

“development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceablehabitats…should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptionalreasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists”.

We need further clarity that provisions on biodiversitynet gain will not undermine existing protections forirreplaceable habitats. The amendment seeks to explorethe complicated relationship between these new provisionsand the existing protections.

Schedule 14 gives the Secretary of State powers todefine what is meant by “irreplaceable habitat” and toexclude such habitats from net gain or amend how thelegislation applies to them. Amendment 172 would placea duty on the Secretary of State to make such regulations,such that they “must” rather than “may” make them.

Any regulations and associated guidance on irreplaceablehabitats should make it clear that current legal protectionsand requirements for irreplaceable habitats are fullyretained and take precedence.

That is the problem with the interpretation of thedifferent pieces of legislation. I suspect that the Ministerhas probably had these conversations. We want to addclarity to the process. If that is not done, we fear that itwill be open to dispute in future. Not only that, butpeople would also be able to do things that they wouldnot have been able to do before. The theme of some ofthe upcoming amendments is that there is a danger thatsomething that looks good could end up doing harm asa result of unintended consequences. I am not in anyway suggesting that that is the intention, but it is therisk, and that is why it is important that this is sorted out.

The Government should also reiterate that adverseimpacts from development should be avoided, not justminimised. Our concern is that if the requirements forirreplaceable habitats are less arduous than those forother habitats, a perverse incentive could be created. Wedo not want the regulations to do that or to end up withthe extraordinary situation of developers being incentivisedto target irreplaceable habitats instead.

The Bill should be absolutely explicit that the mitigationhierarchy, existing designations, and statutory and planningprotections for sites and species are not undermined byany of the new proposals. Net gain should be whathappens right at the end of the process, if plannerscannot find a way of stopping damage to habitats alongthe way. These protected sites should remain inviolate andrely on and benefit from the current protections andsystems, which we want to ensure are in no way diminished.

Any regulations proposed by the Secretary of Stateshould be taken under the affirmative procedure, andthere should be public consultation because there isvery real public interest in these issues. We believe thatallowing third parties, including experts in the naturesector, to input into those regulations through publicconsultation would ensure that new net gain conditionswould not inadvertently provide the kinds of loopholesthat I have been describing. I do not think that theMinister will disagree with this, but in my experiencelocal people invariably know their own locality best,and we should not be silencing them.

I say again that this amendment is an attempt to teaseout from the Minister some safeguards and words ofreassurance, and that we will not need to divide theCommittee.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for lookinginto this issue and for the amendment. Some habitatsinclude ancient woodland, with which I have a greataffinity, having been chair of the all-party parliamentarygroup on ancient woodland and veteran trees. We did alot of cross-party work on this habitat. These habitatscannot be recreated and are typically consideredirreplaceable. They are of enormous ecological andcultural importance and significance.

3.45 pm

National planning policy already provides that suchirreplaceable habitat is affected by development onlywhere there are exceptional reasons for doing so. Wheresuch exceptional reasons exist, we do not want to preventsuch exceptionally important development, nor do we


want those circumstances to weaken the requirement inthe planning policy for suitable compensation to beagreed down the line, as the hon. Member for Cambridgesuggested.

Paragraph 18 of proposed part 1under schedule 14grants the Secretary of State the power to modify orexclude the application of the biodiversity gain conditionto develop where irreplaceable habitat is present on thedevelopment site. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’sacknowledgment of the importance of the provisionsfor irreplaceable habitat and understand the Opposition’swish that these powers should be exercised. Withoutregulations made under paragraph 18, a developmentwith irreplaceable habitat on the proposed site may notbe able to legally satisfy the biodiversity requirement atall. Such a development might, therefore, be unable toproceed, even if it were fully compliant with planningpolicy, justified by exceptional reasons and had perfectlyfollowed the mitigation hierarchy.

I confirm, therefore, that we intend to make regulationsthat will disapply the requirement for the 10% biodiversitygain on irreplaceable habitats before commencement ofthe mandatory net gain requirement. Furthermore, Iconfirm that the strong planning policy protections forirreplaceable habitats will not be undermined in anyway. That is something that the hon. Gentleman specificallyasked about. The existing strong statutory and policyprotection for our statutory protected sites and specieswill not be undermined by the Bill’s biodiversity netgain measures or any other measures in the Bill. Aproposal to deliver biodiversity net gain does not affectthe weight that should be given to other planningconsiderations, matters of planning policy or legalobligations, including those relating to protected sites,protected species and irreplaceable habitats.

The key to achieving the objective of continued strongprotections for these irreplaceable habitats will be notonly in the presence of these regulations, but in thequality of their content. Forcing the creation of regulationswithout guaranteeing their quality or purpose will nothelp to meet their objective. I therefore ask the hon.Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I welcome the Minister’s helpfulcomments. I do not think anyone doubts her commitmentto those irreplaceable habitats. The key points are ensuringthat that message is clear and understood and that theregulations are made, and the relationship betweenthem explained, in the correct way. We are concernedabout future arguments as a result of misunderstandingthe gaps. We are all trying to get to the same place. Onthat basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Clause 91

BIODIVERSITY GAIN SITE REGISTER

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 10, inclause 91, page 91, line 37, leave out “may” andinsert “must”.

I am sure you will be delighted, Mr Gray, that wehave moved on to another clause, but the previousschedule was a big and important one. The biodiversitygain site register requires another discussion about “may”and “must”. The amendment seeks to tease out theintention behind the measure.

Clause 91 sets out that the Secretary of State maymake provision for a biodiversity gain site register to becreated. To some extent, this is the last stage of themitigation hierarchy: it is not something that anyonewould want to do, but we recognise that it might sometimesbe necessary. It is very important that a register ofcompensatory habitat sites is publicly available andupdated regularly, and that we are able to see how theprocess works.

All our amendment does is seek to tighten theGovernment’s responsibility to provide the register byturning it into a duty for them to do so. A register ofsites is essential to secure and record meaningful andlasting net gain. I refer to some of my earlier comments:we worry that in some cases there will be not necessarilya lack of will but a lack of capacity to check andmonitor. Not only does this have to work, but themessage needs to go out that it works, such that, as myhon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test saidearlier, people will not think, “Well, no one is ever goingto check. It’s not going to matter, and after 30 yearswho’s going to know and who’s going to care?” If thatbecomes the attitude, clearly this whole process andsystem will have failed in its intentions.

We do not want a simple tick-box exercise where itlooks as if it has been done but no one knows what ishappening in the real world. We think the amendmentwould help check on progress in delivering and maintainingenhanced habitat sites. We think it would help with thechecking, monitoring, and enforcement function, eventhough we worry whether it will actually be done. Thisis a probing amendment, so we will not seek a Division.The question to the Minister is: why would one not doit? If the net gain system is to be established respectiveof mitigation hierarchy, it is hard to see why one wouldnot do this as soon as possible.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for hisamendment. It is definitely worth enquiring about thisregister, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to talkabout it.

Clause 91 makes provisions for the creation of aregister of these biodiversity gain sites. The register isnecessary for the biodiversity gain condition to workeffectively. Without a register, no habitat enforcementoutside development sites would be undertaken in pursuitof biodiversity net gain. Furthermore, without the register,a development that is unable to achieve biodiversity netgain within its site boundary may not be able to commencedevelopment at all. That would block a significantproportion of new development, so the register is usefulin a number of ways.

I welcome the hon. Member’s acknowledgement ofthe importance of the register and the provisions in thisclause, and understand his wish that the powers withinit should be exercised in good time. There is a clear needfor the Government to design and implement this registerbefore the biodiversity gain condition comes into effect,and I can confirm that, while the hon. Member seemedto suggest that one or may not create the register, it isthe Government’s intention to do so.

I want to clarify that this clause provides this powerfor the Secretary of State to make regulations that willset out the rules and procedures for the operation andmaintenance of the new register of biodiversity gainsites. That will include setting fees for applications to


[Rebecca Pow]

add land to the register, criteria for determining eligibilityof land to be added to the register, and rules for theallocation of land in the register in relation to developments.The use and nature of the register is likely to evolve, andflexibility will be needed to update its requirements.Before making an order under this power, the Departmentwants to consult stakeholders. Detailed regulations willneed to be in place to provide all parties with sufficientguidance on how the biodiversity gain register willoperate. This will help create confidence that the systemcan achieve the intended environmental outcomes. Ihope I am answering all the things that the hon. Memberhas on his mind.

Primary legislation consistently takes this approachto the balance between powers and duties, as I have saidmany times before. It is entirely appropriate to providethe Secretary of State with the flexibility as to how thisprovision is given effect. I hope that provides clarity. Ithink it is a probing amendment, and I ask the hon.Member to withdraw it.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister. This isa probing amendment, so we will not divide the Committee,but it is extraordinary that it almost seems like a globalchange has resulted in “shall” or “will” appearing as“may” throughout the Bill. We could do a global changeback again. It is clear that the system cannot workwithout the register, which gives rise to the question:why the delays? The Minister may be slightly nervous,in the sense that she said that we will need to design andimplement the register. It comes from a 25-year environmentplan from two or three years ago, so how long is this allgoing to take? She might want to intervene to sayroughly how long she thinks it will take, but I suspectshe will not want to do so.

Why is there not a greater sense of urgency? To goright back to where we started, it is urgent and crucialthat we tackle this crisis, yet in designing the system itappears that there was a presumption that it would takea few months for the legislation to get through and thatthe register would then need to be designed.

Rebecca Pow: I will intervene. I am sure the hon.Gentleman will agree that local authorities in particularwill want a system that works, not some flim-flam,half-developed thing that is going to go wrong. That iswhy it is so important to do it step by step. There isurgency, hence the Bill and all the measures in it. Allthis has to work with the local nature recovery strategiesand the overall nature recovery strategy. The targets andall the rest of it will fit together, and it will come onstream with some urgency. Was that an intervention?Does he agree?

Daniel Zeichner: I have clearly touched a nerve. I amdelighted to hear that. All I gently observe is that thingsmove rather slowly sometimes. I am sure that the Ministerwants it to happen quickly, just as we all want it tohappen quickly and to work. I am not entirely sure thatthose two things have to be mutually exclusive, but Isuppose experience suggests that things do not alwaysinstantly work smoothly. I appreciate the Minister’scontribution, and having heard what she has had to say,I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


The Chair: Amendment 74 was discussed previously.It was originally tabled by the hon. Member for Chathamand Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I suspect that it will notbe taken forward by another Member. Perhaps theCommittee might like to send our warmest, best wishesto the hon. Lady. Perhaps the Minister might like totake that forward.

Amendment proposed: 230, in clause 91, page 92,line 1, leave out


and insert

“secured in its target condition and maintained in perpetuity”.—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment would require habitat enhancements created under netgain to be secured in perpetuity.



Division No. 33]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



Clause 92

BIODIVERSITY CREDITS

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 11, inclause 92, page 93, line 5, leave out “may” and insert“must”.

I am afraid that this is going to sound remarkablysimilar to the previous discussion. We welcome themeasures in the Bill to ensure that developers whocannot achieve biodiversity net gain on a particular sitewill be required to fund improvements elsewhere, throughpurchasing biodiversity credits, to make up their required10%—we would say at least 10%, but that is what theBill requires—biodiversity net gain. We also welcomethat the funds from these credits must be used forprojects to enhance habitats and biodiversity. However,we have some concerns about clause 92, which we willinterrogate with amendment 11 and amendment 136, whichwe will come to next. On amendment 11, clause 92(1)uses the wording:

“The Secretary of State may make arrangements under whicha person who is entitled to carry out the development of any landmay purchase a credit from the Secretary of State for the purposeof meeting the biodiversity gain objective”.

This is exactly the same point as in the previous discussion:the system cannot work unless that is done. The amendmentwould tighten the Government’s responsibility to operatethose credits by requiring them to get on with it—to putit crudely.


4 pm

Again, we think that subjecting the regulations toparliamentary scrutiny and public consultation, withinput from biodiversity experts, would likely improvethe effectiveness of the credit scheme and deliver betteroutcomes for nature. I ask the same question again: willthe Minister explain why the Government are not gettingon with it? Once again, we will not seek a Division onthis probing amendment.

Rebecca Pow: Clause 92 makes provision for theSecretary of State to set up a system of statutorybiodiversity credits. Some developers might find thatthere are no suitable local habitat enhancement schemesto enable them to achieve net gain, and in such cases, abiodiversity gain requirement might become a barriereven to the most appropriate and sustainable ofdevelopments. To mitigate that risk, the Governmentwill sell biodiversity credits, which may be countedtowards a development’s net gain. That will allow us toachieve biodiversity net gains through strategic investmentin habitat restoration, while reducing the risk of unduedelay to development.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s clear acknowledgmentthat this and the environmental potential of the statutorybiodiversity credits system are important. Obviously,there is a clear need for the Government to design andimplement the credits system before the biodiversity netgain requirement comes into effect, and I can confirmthat that is the Government’s intention. He is rightabout urgency and about wanting it to happen now, butit all has to happen step by step. The Government haveevery intention of doing that, because it will be animportant part of the whole machine.

The Government will apply principles for setting thetariff rate—that was set out in the net gain consultation—insetting the standard costs of statutory biodiversity units.Although the Government still consider the consultation’sproposed range of between £9,000 and £15,000 for thecost of a biodiversity unit to be broadly appropriate,some respondents raised concerns that it was too lowand would stifle habitat creation, while others thoughtit was too high. Several respondents asked for furtherevidence and work to refine the cost per unit.

The Government will undertake a review of the rateand seek further stakeholder engagement on this subjectbefore announcing specific costs per unit of biodiversity.That is really important. I have spoken to a whole rangeof different people, from those who have land and whomight want to offer it up for the offsetting, to the agentsoperating for them. Loads of people in this spaceclearly need to be consulted. I hope this explanationgives a bit more clarity.

Primary legislation consistently takes the approach,as we have set out in the clause, of balance betweenpowers and duties. Forcing the creation of arrangementsthat might not be needed risks creating unnecessarycomplication in the process, or even a weakening of thepurposes of the measures. In the long-term, for example,we might no longer need a credit system if sufficienthabitat enhancement opportunities were offered by locallandowners or conservation bodies. I hope that hasgiven a bit more clarity and I ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw his probing amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister’s comments are helpful.There is concern that if the system does not workappropriately, we could end up with credits stacking upwithout the work being done, which is clearly not theaim of the exercise. I think that we are all trying to getto the same place, so there is no need for me to re-rehearsethe previous arguments. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 136, inclause 92, page 94, line 5, at end insert—

“(11) In accordance with the biodiversity metric, the Secretaryof State or another person, is obliged to carry out such works asnecessary to enhance the biodiversity of habitat associated withthe sale of biodiversity credits.

(12) The Secretary of State or another person is required tosecure and maintain the enhancement in perpetuity after thehabitat enhancement has reached its target condition.”

There is concern that biodiversity credits could underminethe biodiversity gains system as a whole. Our worry—tosome extent this touches on my previous point—is thatit is obviously uncharted territory. We do not entirelyknow how it will work, but the key thing, in our view, isthat it is linked as much as possible to local priorities.The Minister hinted in her previous reply that it may bea touch optimistic to imagine that local alternatives willalways be found, which is the reason for setting this upin the first place, but through the amendment we wantto press her on how the Government can guard againstthe long-term pooling of revenue, instead of fundsbeing used to achieve the net gain that we all want. Thatis our worry.

We also think—this goes back to an earlier discussion—that it would have been possible to make a requirementfor habitats created through the purchase of biodiversitycredits to be maintained in perpetuity. I suppose ourworry throughout is that, for all the good intentions, itis possible that the system could end up not achievingwhat we want it to. It could be abused, and could, ineffect, buy a way through for developers to access habitatsthat none of us would want to see developed. That is thedanger and the risk, and we want to help the Government,through the amendments, to ensure that is not the case.

We also think that there ought to be a reportingfunction, and that the added value of biodiversity creditsto local habitat creation projects and strategic ecologicalnetworks should be set out clearly in an annual report.To ensure transparency, habitats created throughbiodiversity credits should also be held on a register ofbiodiversity gain sites. That is partly about ensuringthat the mechanisms work in an open and transparentway.

We have had strong representations from both theTown and Country Planning Association and the LocalGovernment Association, which are genuinely worriedabout the possibility that biodiversity credits really willnot be reinvested in their own locality. I think that is areasonable concern. The danger, as those organisationssee it, is that communities that accept developmentsmight not see improved biodiversity, which could, inturn, make the process really quite hard to justify tolocal people. I can see how that could happen.

There is a question about whether credits should beretained by local authorities, so that funding stays in thearea where development takes place, and local people


[Daniel Zeichner]

can have a say in how the funding can be used toimprove the natural environment. What level we shouldset that at is quite a big question. To some extent, we aretrying to tease out from the Minister what she thinks itshould be. We think that there is a genuine discussion tobe had. I think she has already hinted that she sharesmy view that the overwhelming priority should be to getnew development to achieve net gain onsite and locally,and that offsite contributions and credits should be alast resort. Further reassurance on that would be helpful.

We are placing, through the amendments, two keyrequirements on the Secretary of State, or any otherbody charged with using biodiversity credit funds, toensure that natural sites created or enhanced by biodiversitycredit funds are held to a high and lasting standard. Iguess one of the running themes through our amendmentsis the sense of the provisions actually being for thelong-term, rather than a mechanism for developers tofind a way through to sites that they might not have hadaccess to before.

The first requirement is that all habitat work carriedout using biodiversity credits would have to achieve anactual enhancement in biodiversity, as measured by thebiodiversity metric. The second requirement is thatenhancement be maintained in perpetuity. I anticipatethe Minister’s answers, because I think we have heardsome of them before, but this amendment is sufficientlysignificant that, unless she comes back with a miraculousresponse, we will seek to divide on it.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hisacknowledgement of the importance of the long-termmaintenance of biodiversity gains in order to ensurethat we provide that long-lasting benefit to wildlife andcommunities. The Government, too, recognise theimportance of those long-term benefits. Indeed, theGovernment response to the net gain consultationconfirmed that through the stated criteria for selectinghabitat projects. The response stated that enhancementprojects will be selected

“on the basis of their additionality, their long-term environmentalbenefits and their contribution to strategic ecological networks.”

Obviously, they have to have some real value.

The long-term benefits of habitats are vital, butbinding future Secretaries of State to deliver only habitatsthat can be secured “in perpetuity” risks compromisinganother of the criteria: that of delivering habitats instrategically critical networks. We would not want to seenew habitat creation fail to provide the coherent networksthat our wildlife needs because we are bound only to useland that can be secured forever. Where enhancementsin perpetuity are an appropriate option, the Secretaryof State will have powers under the clause to use paymentsto purchase land interests in England for habitatrestorations, or to secure the enhancements throughother means.

With regard to the obligation on the Secretary ofState to spend those credit sale funds, I draw theCommittee’s attention to the reporting requirement underthe clause, which will create a strong incentive for theSecretary of State to spend the funds both promptlyand prudently. It was intimated by the hon. Gentleman,I think, that the Secretary of State might be hoarding

the funds, but the idea is that this becomes its owntrading platform—a bit like the nitrates trading platform,for example. DEFRA would only get involved were themarket not working, or potentially just at the beginningwhen it is getting going. The intention is not that he orshe is the banker—that is absolutely not how it shouldwork.

Subsection (6) of the clause should also provide somereassurance. It clarifies that funds may only be used foractivities related to habitat enhancement. I think thehon. Member for Cambridge was pressing to ensurethat that is what would happen, but that is absolutelywhat they are for. Furthermore, subsection (10) willensure that the long-term value of the money receivedfrom the sale of credits and the use of biodiversityenhancements can be monitored. That is important aswell.

In the light of the reasons that I have set out, I ask thehon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I welcome much of what the Ministerhas said but, as I intimated, the perpetuity issue, and theconcern about what might happen with the system notworking and the potential for achieving outcomes otherthan those we are all trying to achieve, mean that wethink our amendment would strongly improve the clause.On that basis, we seek to divide the Committee.



Division No. 34]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



Clause 93

GENERAL DUTY TO CONSERVE AND ENHANCE

BIODIVERSITY

4.15 pm

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 140, inclause 93, page 94, line 13, after “biodiversity in England”insert

“, including in particular the species and habitats listed in section 41,”.

The amendment clarifies the intent of the duty in relation to theconservation of priority species and habitats.

I am afraid that we are back to some of the interactionwith different pieces of legislation. We welcome thechange in the Bill to strengthen the Natural Environmentand Rural Communities Act 2006—abbreviated toNERC—so that local authorities have a duty not just to


conserve but to enhance biodiversity, as well as tofollow the obligations of public authorities to plan forappropriate action in order to fulfil their duty and toreport on their actions regarding that duty. That is thegood news. That is the bit we support.

However, we have some concerns. Public authoritieshave a key role to play in turning around the state ofnature, and the current duty on public bodies to haveregard to conserving biodiversity has been rightly criticisedfor not being strong enough. A House of Lords SelectCommittee report on NERC in 2018 clearly outlinedthat

“the duty is ineffective as it stands, as a result of limited awarenessand understanding among public bodies, weak wording and thelack of clear reporting requirements and enforcement measures.”

I cannot help but notice that those are exactly the kindsof concerns that I have been expressing all the waythrough this Bill as well. I guess what it shows is thatthere is nothing new about the difficulties that peoplehave had trying to do good things but not necessarilydoing them in ways that are clear and specific enough totranslate into action.

The Lords Select Committee said:

“We recommend that the NERC Act should be amended inorder to add a reporting requirement to the duty; the Governmentshould also consider strengthening the wording.”

The measures taken in the Bill to do so are welcome, butwe have concerns about the rewording of the duty ofpublic authorities. We want to probe some of thosepoints with some amendments. We will come to themore serious changes, but the first one is proposed inamendment 140. Currently, clause 93 stipulates that the“general biodiversity objective” be defined as

“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.

Our amendment would broaden that to include thespecies and habitats listed in section 41 of the NERCAct. In effect, it is a clarifying amendment, as we feelthat the provisions in the duty could be seen as beingtoo open-ended to guide everyday action by publicauthorities.

We think it would be more helpful for there to be adirection that the biodiversity duty clearly requiresauthorities to act in order to further the conservation ofthe species and habitats listed under section 41. Forthose who are not familiar with section 41, it is a list ofsome of our most precious and vulnerable species, fromwater voles and otters to particular species of orchidsand the short-haired bumble bee. We believe the amendmentwould provide a closer link between the public duty toenhance biodiversity and the species that need the mostattention. Although I will listen with interest to theMinister’s comments, I do not think it is an amendmenton which we will seek a Division.

Rebecca Pow: I appreciate that the intent behind theamendment is to ensure that action that might be takenunder the biodiversity duty is effective and is targetedwhere it is most needed. At the same time, one of thestrengths of the duty is that it is broad, and we wantpublic authorities to consider all functions when determiningthe best action to take. That could be action on limitingtheir biodiversity footprint or addressing wider, indirectimpacts on biodiversity, such as from transport policy,water use or energy consumption. We would not wantto stop authorities considering such action, eveninadvertently, by focusing their attention on what can

be done for a targeted set of species and habitats. Also,there are some 943 species, some of which the hon.Member for Cambridge named, including the hairybumble bee.

Daniel Zeichner: The short-haired bumble bee.

Rebecca Pow: There are some fantastic creatures and56 habitats of importance on that list, as set out undersection 41 of the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006. Interpreting this list and theactions required is likely to require specialist knowledge,which may not be available within every public authority.

In complying with the strengthened biodiversity duty,public authorities must have regard to any relevantlocal nature recovery strategy. If Governmentamendment 222 is agreed to, public authorities mustalso have regard to relevant species conservation strategiesand protected site strategies, which will help publicauthorities to identify the actions with the most benefitsfor biodiversity, including for species and habitats listedin section 41 of the 2006 Act. I therefore suggest thatthe amendment is not needed; indeed, it might constrainpublic authorities’ actions to conserve and enhancebiodiversity. While I think that it was a probing amendment,I urge the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Daniel Zeichner: We will not press the amendment toa Division. While the Minister and I might have a slightdifference of opinion, the approaches are legitimatelydifferent. I was grateful for her reference to the short-hairedbumblebee. Like many Members, I am a species champion.I stand up for the ruderal bumblebee, although I havenever had the pleasure of meeting one—I live in hope. Ibeg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.


Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 138, in clause 93, page 94, line 18, at endinsert—

“(1ZA) A public authority which has any functions exercisablein relation to England must exercise those functions consistentlywith the aim of furthering the general biodiversity objective.”

This amendment requires public authorities to apply the biodiversityduty in the exercising of all of their functions.

This is a slightly more serious amendment, in thesense that this is a more difficult issue, as we think thatthe clause has a couple of key weaknesses. Section 40 ofthe 2006 Act currently states that any public authoritymust,“in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistentwith the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose ofconserving biodiversity.”

That implies a biodiversity duty in all day-to-day publicauthority decision making. As it stands, although thenew duty widens public authorities’ responsibility toboth conserve and enhance biodiversity, the wordingnarrows the application of the duty. Its current draftingapplies only to actions taken in line with specific policiesand objectives developed in relation to clause 93(3),which requires authorities to consider from time to timewhat action they can take to further the biodiversityobjective and to take the actions appropriate to do so.

I apologise that this is slightly complicated, Mr Gray,but, yet again, we see the interaction between differentforms of wording in various pieces of legislation. The risk


[Daniel Zeichner]

is that the Government are changing the duty on publicauthorities to have regard to conserving biodiversity inall their functions to a duty on conserving and enhancingbiodiversity with specific considerations that they mustmake from time to time. The reach into their everydayfunctions is not made clear.

This is, I guess, a discussion about how local authoritymembers should make their decisions—what they shouldtake into consideration and when. We fear that a keyopportunity is being missed to improve the effectivenessof public authorities’biodiversity work, namely by requiringthem to factor in the need to conserve and enhancebiodiversity in all decision making, including statutorilyrequired planning and spending decisions. This is actuallyquite a big issue.

Biodiversity work is in continual danger of beingmarginalised. I referred to that when I spoke about myexperience as a councillor, and I suspect that others willhave had the same experience. This is not a criticism ofcouncils or local government—they are under pressure,and many, many demands are put on them. However, ifwe have the challenge of restoring nature to a level thatevery member of the Committee would agree is what weare seeking, and if that is actually going to happen, theagenda needs to be taken up in local government.Embedding biodiversity into all public authority decisionmaking is vital to ensure that we do not miss theopportunities that are available.

During my time as a councillor, I very much enjoyedour discussions but, as I have said, I do not think Icould honestly say that I recall, when we came to makebig decisions—we did make some quite big decisions,such as when the new Norfolk and Norwich hospitalwas discussed, which was referenced at today’s Healthquestions—any discussion around biodiversity, althoughwe tried to take many things into account. It wouldmake a real difference if biodiversity was central todecision making.

It is worth noting that the House of Lords SelectCommittee identified the “have regard” wording in thecurrent obligation as the main reason, in its view, whythe duty has been ineffective. That point has not beenproperly addressed. “Have regard”is a perfectly innocuousterm, but it is just that—have regard in passing, not as acentral part of decision making. We would welcome anexplanation from the Minister on that point.

The amendment would fix the problem with thecurrent wording of legislation and prevent biodiversityopportunities from being missed by requiring publicauthorities to exercise all their functions consistentlywith the aim of furthering the general biodiversityobjective. That would prevent biodiversity being siloed.It would be rendered as a critical factor to be consideredin all public authority decisions, including statutoryplanning and spending decisions, which can have significantimpacts on nature and biodiversity.

Rebecca Pow: Our purpose in strengthening the currentbiodiversity duty is to ensure that public authoritiestake robust action to drive nature recovery. It is absolutelynot the intention for biodiversity to become siloed, asthe hon. Member has just said. He referred to theNorfolk hospital planning having no reference tobiodiversity. I do not know what year that was—

Daniel Zeichner: A while ago.

Rebecca Pow: How times have changed. That willchange—biodiversity will come into the general parlance.This is an ambitious duty. All public authorities willhave to undertake a thorough consideration of whatthey can do to enhance biodiversity at least every fiveyears, and then take action. As I said before, they willneed to have regard to local nature recovery strategiesand, if Government amendment 222 is accepted, relevantspecies conservation strategies and protected site strategieswill provide information, data and tools to identify themost beneficial action to be taken in the region.

Clause 93 requires all public authorities to take abroad look across all their functions to identify theaction they can take that would be most beneficial fornature. In our view, the strengthened duty in the Billstrikes the right balance by supporting action to conserveand enhance biodiversity while retaining the flexibilityfor public authorities to balance competing priorities.The amendment risks distorting those priorities byrequiring public authorities always to exercise theirfunctions to further the objective of conserving andenhancing biodiversity. Public authorities must retainthe power to decide the best use of their resources. I amsure that the hon. Member for Cambridge, having beena councillor, appreciates that point.

We expect public authorities to look across all theirfunctions and prioritise the actions that will have themost impact, in contrast to the existing biodiversityduty, which is a reactive duty. It is intended to be universalbut, as we know, in many cases it has not driven actionon the ground, as the hon. Member suggests. Theamendment risks replicating the reactive nature of theexisting duty by requiring a case-by-case assessment ofeach individual function and decision to ensure that it isfurthering the biodiversity objectives. We would therebylose the advantages of the more strategic view, whichallows the most effective measures to be prioritised, so Iurge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I hear what the Minister says, butthe amendment is crucial to tilt the balance in localauthorities. On that basis, I wish to divide the Committee.


Division No. 35]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


4.30 pm


‘(1G) In this part, “public authority” has the meaning given bysection 28(3) of the Environment Act 2020.”





‘(4) “Public Authority” means—

(a) a Minister of the Crown, a government departmentand public body (including a local authority), and

(b) a person carrying out any function of a public naturethat is not a devolved function, a parliamentary functionor a function of any of the following persons—

(i) the OEP;

(ii) a court or tribunal;

(iii) either House of Parliament;

(iv) a devolved legislature;

(v) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, a NorthernIreland department or a Minister within the meaningof the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’

Daniel Zeichner: We tabled these technical but importantamendments to interrogate the definition of “publicauthority” in the Bill as it applies to the biodiversityobjective and the local nature recovery strategies—theyare linked. Amendment 139 is consequential onamendment 147 and would clarify the meaning of “publicauthority” under section 40 of the Natural Environmentand Rural Communities Act 2006 by using the definitionset out in clause 28(3) of the Bill, as that particularlystrong definition would apply well to biodiversity provisions.It would make it clear that the term “public authority”would apply to local authorities or organisations

“carrying out any function of a public nature”,

which would ensure that bodies with key public statutoryundertakings, such as water companies or rail providers,would have a responsibility to comply with the enhancedbiodiversity duty.

Such bodies might not be included in a narrowerdefinition, and that is important because we know thatthey have many responsibilities, or a lot of land or manyrivers to look after. Keeping them within the ambit ofthe biodiversity duty would therefore give them a muchstronger incentive to do the right thing. Such bodies’legal status or corporate structures might be differentfrom those of local government authorities, but theystill provide key public functions. Amendment 148, likeamendment 139, would make it clear that the term“public authority” in relation to local nature recoverystrategies applies to planning authorities and all planningfunctions.

Amendment 147 would amend clause 99, which currentlyprovides definitions of a “local authority”and a “nationalconservation site”. However, that clause applies only toclauses 95 to 98, which set out provisions for localnature recovery strategies. Our amendment would extendthe definition of local authorities and national conservationsites to the Bill’s broader provisions on biodiversityobjectives and reporting—clause 93 on the general dutyto conserve and enhance biodiversity; and clause 94 onbiodiversity reports. Yet again, our proposals wouldstrengthen the Bill, so my question to the Minister is:why would she not choose to support us on that?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for tablingthe amendments—I shall rattle through them.

Amendment 139 would change the definition of “publicauthority” in relation to the strengthened biodiversityduty to that used in clause 28. Taken together,amendments 147 and 148 would have the same effect.Clause 93 does not alter the definition of public authorityunder section 40 of the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006, but clause 28 represents a differentapproach: it is drafted to be UK-wide, and then hascarve-outs. Amending the definition to that in clause 28would not make a significant difference to the bodiescovered by the duty, although it would mean that theparliamentary estate would not be captured.

Amendment 147 would apply two additional definitionsto the Bill’s biodiversity duty provisions, the first being“local authority”. The definition in clause 99 is verysimilar to the existing definition in section 40 of the2006 Act. However, that definition includes parish councils,so the amendment would remove parish councils fromthe scope of the biodiversity duty—[Interruption.]“Shocking,” says the hon. Member’s colleague, the hon.Member for Southampton, Test.

I accept that many parish councils are very small andhave limited resources, but they are likely to make acontribution to local biodiversity and we do not want toexclude them from the duty. I speak from experience:the hon. Member for Cambridge might have been adistrict councillor, but I was on my parish council for10 years—I am very proud of it. We did a great amountof work on biodiversity, including by planting a chestnutavenue and creating a village garden out of a piece oftarmac. There is biodiversity if ever I saw it—we walkpast it every day.

The second definition, “national conservation site”,is not a term used in the Bill’s biodiversity provisions, soapplying it would have no practical effect. On its own,amendment 148 would have no effect. It would insert anew definition of “public authority” into clause 99. Thedefinitions in clause 99 apply to the provisions relatingto local nature recovery strategies, which are set out inclauses 95 to 98, but the term “public authority” is notused in a way that has an effect in those clauses.

I hope that that information was helpful, and I ask thehon. Member for Cambridge to withdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for the Minister’sclarification and I endorse her comments about parishcouncils. I, too, started on a parish council, and as adistrict councillor, I diligently attended my five parishcouncils regularly. They have a hugely important role toplay. We were trying to widen the scope of the bodiesthat would be drawn into the process. That might besomething that we need to revisit in order to embraceboth points, which would be a good outcome.

The amendments were probing, so we will not needto divide the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 137, inclause 93, page 95, line 1, leave out subsection (5) andinsert—

“(5) After subsection (2) insert—

“(2A) the authority must act in accordance with any relevantlocal nature recovery strategy in the exercise of relevant publicfunctions, including strategic and local land-use planning anddecision making and in spending decisions, and in particular incomplying with subsections (1) and (1A).””


[Daniel Zeichner]

This amendment would ensure that Local Nature Recovery Strategiesare considered in day-to-day planning and spending decisions by publicauthorities.

Amendment 137 addresses a key issue in the Bill’scurrent drafting regarding local nature recovery strategies,which we welcome. If they are implemented properly,the strategies can enable a wide range of organisationsto contribute to measures needed to address the biodiversitycrisis and deliver the Government’s ambitions in the25-year environment plan, in particular by supportingthe creation of a nature recovery network.

By identifying local biodiversity priorities, includingrestoration opportunities, we think—I am sure that theGovernment agree—that policy integration and bettervalue for money could be achieved at the same time assaving nature. I suspect that we all have good examplesfrom our areas, but I am sure that the hon. Member forSouth Cambridgeshire will join me in praising NaturalCambridgeshire, chaired by Richard Astle, and theexcellent work that it is already doing through its naturerecovery toolkit. I believe that the hon. Member addressedNatural Cambridgeshire recently. I hope to do so againsoon, and I will be keen to bring news of a strengthenedBill.

At the moment, despite local enthusiasm, the duty touse local nature recovery strategies is very weak. It isincluded in the duty to conserve and enhance biodiversityunder clause 93(5), which requires local authorities to“have regard” to the strategies when making plans toconserve or enhance biodiversity, but that risks creatingobligations for local authorities to develop local naturerecovery strategies, thereby expending precious localresources, only to see that that effort might be wastedthrough a failure to give the strategies any influence onreal decision making. That is a problem.

The duty should be a much stronger requirement totake the strategies into account in the exercise of publicfunctions, including in the statutory planning systemand in spending decisions. This mirrors arguments thatI have previously made. Unless such a change is made,there is a real risk that local nature recovery strategieswill overburden local authorities and once again risksitting on the proverbial dusty policy shelf.

This is not a criticism of local authorities, but areflection of the fact that many are already hard pressedand will not have the capacity to do what is asked ofthem. When I raised this previously, the Minister reassuredme that all necessary funding will be made availableunder the Bill. I liked her reassurance, but she was notable to point me to where that was specified. I invite herto do so again, but I do not think she will be able to doso, because it is not specified—it is just an aspiration.This is not a party political point, but anyone who hasbeen in local government well knows the problem thatwhile central Government frequently make promises,the outcomes rarely transmit. They often end up ingeneral funding, and we are told that it is in theresomewhere, without clarity that it is enough. It is importantto note that the success of the measures in general willbe dependent on the Government making those fundsavailable. I recognise that at this stage it seems difficultto predict the costs—there was some discussion in theimpact assessment about how it was not entirely clearhow much would be needed—but I ask the Minister

how the Government intend to carry out an assessmentof how the new duties operate and how they can ensurethat resources are available to make the duties work.

The strategies are potentially a very useful tool. Ifthey work well, they could effectively co-ordinate theactions of multiple stakeholders and direct local use ofbiodiversity gains from the planning system, environmentalland management systems and other sources, helping tobuild and maintain ecologically coherent networks andnature recovery sites. That leads me back to the 25-yearenvironment plan, particularly page 58, which is litteredwith “we will”, “we shall” and “it will happen”, includingthe statement that we

“will coordinate our action in England with that of externalnature conservation…as well as farmers and land managers.”

That is great, but I have to ask when that will happen.

I had the pleasure of being an Opposition spokesmanon the Agriculture Bill, and we were begging constantly,and tabling amendments, for an integrated approachbetween this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I am afraidthat we were constantly knocked back. Here we are, justa few weeks from the beginning of the phasing out ofbasic payments, and we do not have ELM schemes inplace. The Secretary of State will have to deliver a fix in10 days’ time. I am happy to be corrected by hon.Members on the other side if that is not correct, butthat is what I hear. While the sustainable farming initiativesounds fine, it is a missed opportunity to link to thelocal nature recovery strategies that we are discussingtoday. Because of this weak duty to apply the strategiesin decision making, I am afraid the potential that thesehave may well fall short.

Amendment 137 aims to strengthen the duty to uselocal nature recovery strategies by requiring all publicauthorities to “act in accordance with” any relevant localnature recovery strategy in exercising their duties, includingthe statutory requirements, planning and spending decisions.That would make a big difference and deliver real change,and that is why I worry that it is not in the legislation asit stands at the moment. It is essential to ensure that thelocal nature recovery strategies actively influence importantday-to-day decisions that affect nature.

Fleur Anderson: I, too, would like to supportamendment 137. I can picture the scene in the draftingcommittee. One group wanted to have “act in accordancewith”, to make the duty very strong so “we woulddefinitely put this into action”, and on the other sidewas the “must have regard to” group. I would like tospeak on behalf of the “act in accordance with” group,and it was a mistake that the “have regard to” groupwon the day.

The provision for planning to work for nature is verywelcome, but there is a risk that it will be stalledindefinitely if we do not have the amendment in the Bill.The duty to use local nature recovery strategies is veryweak. The environmental coalition, Greener UK, hassimilar concerns. The amendment would embed biodiversityin public authority decision making, because here therubber hits the road—or the hedgerow or the greenerarea of a siding. The amendment includes complyingwith spending decisions, and that is what will ultimatelydecide whether this is put into action.

There is great potential for these strategies to be ahighly effective tool, and I welcome the five pilot schemes,as I know the Minister does. However, as it stands, the


potential will not be realised because the duty is soweak. The amendment would ensure that local naturerecovery strategies actually influence day-to-day decisionsthat affect nature. There are two examples of how thatwould work out in my constituency. We have manywonderful green spaces which have “friends of” groups,and they are knocking on the door and trying to get theattention of the local authority all the time. It is not agiven that that will happen. Those groups really careabout biodiversity, but the day-to-day work of the localauthority is not reflecting that.

I have a very active save our hedgehogs group, and Iam surprised that they have not been mentioned thisafternoon up to now, so I want to put that straight.Those vulnerable mammals have been in decline by 30%in urban areas and 50% in rural areas since 2000. Thatis dreadful. If the local authority will have regard to thelocal nature recovery strategies, rather than acting inaccordance with those strategies, there is a danger thatthe work to reverse the decline of hedgehogs will nothappen. There is a mention of hedgehogs in the environmentplan, but this amendment would cement action to savehedgehogs and all other biodiversity in our planningsystem.

4.45 pm

Rebecca Pow: Some strong points have been madeabout local nature recovery strategies. I think we allagree that they are a good idea. When I was a trustee ofthe Somerset Wildlife Trust many years ago, it wasworking on a similar idea to that which is now cominginto legislation. Subsequent Government amendment 222changes the provision so, if accepted, public authoritieswill be required to have regard to species conservationstrategies and protected site strategies. However, I willspeak only to the original purpose of the amendmentnow.

We want public, private and voluntary groups toengage openly in the development of local nature recoverystrategies and for this to follow through into theirimplementation. That is exactly what the hon. Memberfor Putney is asking for, so that those hedgehog highwaysand interlinking runways through fences in towns willstay there. I love a hedgehog as much as she does. I hadsome rescue ones from the rescue centre sent to mygarden. We need to look after our hedgehogs.

Requiring public authorities to have regard to a specificdocument is an established and effective means of achievingthat aim. I have discussed this with the officials. Theyhave convinced me that this is the right terminology. Weshould also be mindful that public authorities have awide range of existing duties such as housing, healthand social care, which have to be considered. Someflexibility to take these wider considerations into accountis important. Similarly, local planning authorities arerequired to balance a wide range of importantconsiderations when establishing their planning policyfor this area. I am keen that we continue to work withthe planning system, rather than create complexity bymaking separate demands on planning authorities. Thespatial information provided by the local nature recoverystrategies will support the development of local plans.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridgethat the Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs, will continue to work closely with the Ministryof Housing, Communities and Local Government to

set out clearly the role for local nature recovery strategiesas part of the ongoing planning reforms. The work hasalready started, and it has been clear that this must bean integral part of our future going forward. Those fivepilots will inform the local nature recovery strategies.They have already been announced and money hasbeen agreed for them. We will learn a lot from thoseabout how these strategies will work.

We want the reformed system to play a proactive rolein promoting environmental recovery and long-termsustainability. We have really high ambitions for thelocal nature recovery strategies in helping to do this.They are a crucial tool towards the whole endeavour ofbiodiversity from the ground upwards. I therefore urgethe hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful particularly to myhon. Friend the Member for Putney for enlivening ourdiscussions late in the afternoon—well past teatime, insome people’s view, which I understand—and forintroducing hedgehogs into the discussion. I had a sidebet with one of my colleagues as to how long it wouldtake for the Minister to raise a hedgehog highway. I amgrateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putneybecause that allows me to mention Nora the rescuehedgehog. The Cambridge Wildlife Trust allowed her toescape down a hedgehog highway in my sight. I am notsure where she went, but hedgehogs are very important.

The problem was confirmed by the Minister, whoadmitted that she had been convinced by her officialsthat this is the correct terminology. We do not thinkthat it is the correct terminology; it is not strong enough.I invite the Minister perhaps to go and have thatconversation again. That point takes us back to thebeginning of our sitting, when my hon. Friend theMember for Southampton, Test and I questioned whysome of these things are as they are. I am led toconclude, I am afraid, that despite the admirable enthusiasm,there are flaws in the process.

The Minister said that we do not want to put toomany demands on planning authorities. Actually, we dowant to put demands on planning authorities; that isexactly what this will be about if our goals are to beachieved. We get distracted by the hedgehogs and thebumblebees, but at heart there is a serious question ofallocation of resources, effort and money through theplanning process. That is often what it is about, and myfear is that, wonderful though much local effort is, sadlyif it cannot be translated into action it will go on beingjust good effort, without the kind of gain that we wantto see.

I suggested at the beginning of our sitting that therewere some villains in the piece, and I think the Committeehas a sense of who I think one villain is, but it is not justabout the current Prime Minister. It is worth rememberingthat in 2011 the then Chancellor, George Osborne,described the EU habitats directive as placing

“ridiculous costs on British businesses”,

and spoke about companies being burdened with

“endless social and environmental goals”.—[Official Report,29 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 807-808.]

The point is that there is a view out there that this is all“green crap”, as another eminent former Prime Ministerdescribed it. That is why we are worried, why thismatters, and why the Bill needs to be strengthened.


The Chair: The hon. Gentleman used the word “villain”with regard to the Prime Minister. He might wish towithdraw it as unparliamentary.

Daniel Zeichner: “Pantomime villain”—will that do?

The Chair indicated dissent.

Daniel Zeichner: I withdraw the comment. [Interruption.]But I would like to press the amendment to a Division. Iwas distracted by the pantomime.



Division No. 36]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Browne, Anthony

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 222, inclause 93, page 95, line 3, at end insert

“and

(b) any relevant species conservation strategy or protectedsite strategy prepared by Natural England.”

This amendment requires a public authority to have regard to a speciesconservation strategy or protected site strategy in complying with itsduties under section 40 of the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006.


Government new clause 25—Species conservationstrategies.

Government new clause 26—Protected site strategies.

Government new clause 27—Wildlife conservation:licences.

Rebecca Pow: The overall purpose of this group ofamendments is to enable better species and habitatconservation in England as part of the Government’scommitment to growing back better, faster, greener.They will allow for the creation of two new types ofstrategies and will resolve inconsistencies regarding thelicensing of development.

New clause 25 will allow Natural England to createspecies conservation strategies, which are innovativeapproaches to safeguard the long-term future of speciesthat are at greater risk. The strategies will be developedusing up-front surveying, planning and zoning across awide area. Natural England will then develop measuresto mitigate, or compensate for, the impact on species—from building projects, for example. This approach helpsto avoid the need for reactive site-based assessmentsand mitigation.

The legislation is based on the successful district-levellicensing approach to the conservation of great crestednewts, which have already been mentioned today. Anarea is comprehensively surveyed in advance and alicensing strategy is developed. Up-front mitigation workis then carried out to cover the creation or restoration ofponds in areas that are known to provide the besthabitats for newts to thrive in. Developers then make aconservation payment and can begin work without delays.

New clause 26 will allow Natural England to prepareand consult on protected site strategies. These willenable the design of bespoke solutions for sites that areaffected by a combination of different impacts, such aspollution from agriculture and pressure from development.Protected site strategies are also based on existing,innovative schemes such as that in the South HumberGateway, which has unlocked development on hundredsof hectares of land while creating 275 hectares of newwet grassland for birds, and is held up as something of amodel.

For both species conservation and protected site strategies,local planning authorities will be placed under a duty toco-operate with Natural England. They will also berequired to have regard to relevant strategies as theycarry out their planning functions. These new strategieswill deliver better environmental protections throughsimpler processes, and are therefore fully aligned withthe proposals set out in the “Planning for the future”White Paper. The planning reforms will reinforce theimplementation of these measures.

Amendment 222 adds an important provision tosupport the new strategies. Clause 93 strengthens theexisting duty under the Natural Environment and RuralCommunities Act 2006 to require public authorities totake action to further the conservation and enhancementof biodiversity. It also requires public authorities tohave regard to local nature recovery strategies as theydo so. This amendment extends that duty so that publicauthorities must also have regard to any relevantconservation strategy or protected site strategy as theyconsider what action to take, so the three kinds ofstrategies are designed to work together. The localnature recovery strategies will be a system of strategiescovering the whole of England, and will identify whereaction can be taken to reverse the decline of nature as awhole. Species conservation and protected site strategiesare more bespoke, targeted measures to help protectspecific species and sites that are at risk, and are intendedto ensure public authorities comply with legal protectionsin a way that achieves better outcomes for nature. It istherefore important to make this amendment, to ensurepublic authorities have regard to all three types of thenew strategies.

Finally, new clause 27 makes three changes related toprotecting species licences granted under section 16 ofthe Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Those changesare intended to unlock the full potential of strategiclicensing for protected species. First, the new clause willintroduce an additional “overriding public interest”purpose for granting a licence. Secondly, it will introducetwo additional tests that must be met before a licencecan be granted if“there is no other satisfactory solution, and…the grant of thelicence is not detrimental to the survival of any population of thespecies”.

Thirdly, the new clause will extend the maximum permittedlicence period from two years to five years.


Taken together, the amendment and new clausesstrengthen the nature chapter of the Bill and help toprotect and restore species and habitats at risk, whilealso enabling much-needed development. I have rattledthrough them, Chair, and there is a lot of detail there,but I commend amendment 222 to the Committee.


Daniel Zeichner: I think I may have missed a point.We discussed all those new clauses, did we?

The Chair: Yes.

Daniel Zeichner: In which case I apologise. I shouldhave come in earlier.

The Chair: There was no sign from the Oppositionthat the hon. Gentleman wished to discuss Governmentamendment 222, so it was passed. Therefore, we will moveon to Government amendment 223. If you are waitingfor votes on Government new clauses 25, 26 and 27,they will come at the appropriate point in the considerationof the Bill—not now.

Dr Whitehead: May I seek your guidance, Mr Gray?Presumably, we will want to have a stand part debate onthe clause.

The Chair: We can perfectly happily do so if that iswhat people like.

Daniel Zeichner: That may be the way out of thedilemma.

The Chair: Hang on, this is not a general conversation.It is of course possible that if anyone in Committeewishes to have a stand part debate, they may do so at theappropriate moment. That is absolutely fine, but it isnot to become a discussion.

5 pm

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 223, inclause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘orenhancing’;”.

This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity tosection 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act2006.

This amendment makes a small change to section 41of the NERC Act. The section requires the Secretary ofState for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to publisha list of species and habitats that are of principalimportance to conserving biodiversity. The amendmentwill change the requirement to “conserving or enhancing”biodiversity.

The language mirrors that of the strengthenedbiodiversity duty under section 40 of the NERC Act, asamended by clause 93. The duty will require publicauthorities to take action to further the conservationand enhancement of biodiversity. The amendment willtherefore create consistent language across two relatedsections of the NERC Act.

When the list is updated in future, the amendmentwill allow wider consideration of which species andhabitats should be included. That is consistent with ourintention, as expressed in the 25-year environment plan,to improve beyond merely trying to maintain the statusquo—or conserving—and instead recovering and restoringnature. This small amendment further signals our ambitionsto enhance biodiversity.

Daniel Zeichner: I regret to say that we have someextensive questions about clause 93 as amended, whichmay not come as a welcome moment for the Government.I get the sense, however, from looking at the GovernmentWhip, that he may think tea has come.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(LeoDocherty.)

5.3 pm

Adjourned till Thursday 19 November 2020 at half-pastEleven o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the House

EB78 Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC)

(Due diligence on forest risk commodities for NS1)

EB79 Energy UK and RenewableUK (Schedule 14amendments 75 and 168)

EB80 British Glass

EB81 Letter from Rebecca Pow to Dr Alan Whiteheadre: OFGEM



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Eighteenth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS

CLAUSES 93 TO 96 agreed to, one with an amendment.



PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than












† Crosbie, Virginia (Ynys Môn) (Con)† Docherty, Leo (Aldershot) (Con)† Furniss, Gill (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough)

(Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)








(Morning)


Environment Bill

11.30 am

The Chair: Before we begin, I would like to remindhon. Members about social distancing. Spaces availableto Members are already clearly marked. Hansard colleagueswould be grateful if you could send any speaking notesto [email protected]. I also remind Membersto please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea andcoffee are not allowed during sittings.

We continue with line-by-line consideration of theBill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available inthe room. It shows how the selected amendments havebeen grouped together for debate. Amendments groupedtogether are generally on the same or similar issues.Please note that decisions on amendments do not takeplace in the order they are debated, but in the order theyappear on the amendment paper. The selection andgrouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions oneach amendment are taken when we come to the clauseto which the amendment relates.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): On a point oforder, may I highlight the terrific leaf-covered suits ofthe Minister and her PPS and, indeed, the green jacketof the hon. Member for Putney, as part of a tribute tothe cause of this great Environment Bill Committee?

The Chair: As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, thatis not a point of order. However, the point has beenmade and I am sure it will be appreciated by those towhom it was directed.

Clause 93

GENERAL DUTY TO CONSERVE AND ENHANCE

BIODIVERSITY

Amendment made: 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after“England))” insert—

“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand partof the Bill.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): I thank my hon.Friend the Member for Gloucester for his lovely commenton my suit. As I explained to the Chair earlier, it is mylucky suit. I wore it for both Second Readings—we havehad two already—and I thought, as we are doing nature,I should wear it today.

Public authorities can and should play an importantrole in improving our nature. Under the current duty, anumber of public authorities have undertaken projectswith the aim of conserving biodiversity, such as changingcutting regimes for roadside verges to allow wild flowersto flourish. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentionedsomething going on in his own area along those lines,and I am pushing my county council in Somerset to doexactly that.

Such efforts are not consistent across public authorities,nor are they enough when compared with the Government’swider ambitions for recovering nature and the country’sdesire to build back better. They are also not enough toaddress the drastic decline in biodiversity seen over pastdecades, which we have referenced several times inCommittee. I believe we all agree about the need toaddress it.

The existing duty was criticised in a House of LordsSelect Committee report in 2017, with environmentalgroups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link givingevidence that the duty was ineffective. We have listenedand clause 93 therefore strengthens the biodiversityduty to better reflect the ambition set out in the 25-yearenvironment plan and to give public authorities a betterapproach to building biodiversity into their core activities.It just needs to be part and parcel of everything in thefuture. We are changing the nature of the duty awayfrom considering biodiversity every time that a functionis exercised, when in many cases it will not be relevantor it will be too late in the implementation process tomake the most effective change. We want public authoritiesperiodically to take a strategic look over all their functions,identify where they can make a change that will improvebiodiversity as they are developing their policies andprocedures, and then take action.

Public authorities must also have regard to localnature recovery strategies, species conservation strategiesand protected site strategies—I mentioned those in theprevious sitting—when they consider biodiversity. Thatis an important underpinning for the strategies and iscrucial to their implementation.

The strengthened duty seeks to embed considerationof how biodiversity can be conserved and enhanced inthe overall performance of public authorities’ functionsacross England. I urge that clause 93 stand part of theBill.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): Let me start byreassuring hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Memberfor Southampton, Test is not suffering undue excitementfrom the previous sitting, but is on a late-running trainfrom Southampton and will join us soon.

May I also thank you, Sir George, for allowing us tosort out the slight procedural difficulty that we had atthe end of the previous sitting? It was a long sitting andfinished in a bit of a rush. The Government introduceda whole range of important new clauses relating toclause 93, to which I will now be making reference. Ahuge set of amendments were introduced about speciesconservation strategies and protected site strategies. Ofcourse, it was not possible to discuss that provision inevidence sessions, and the Opposition were disappointedthat that was not possible. It prompts a whole range ofquestions, and perhaps the Minister can answer some ofthem in her reply. We are not clear on why the provision


was introduced at such a late stage. Although some of itis welcome, there are some questions of detail, which Iwill go into. It is not clear to us why the provision wasintroduced at such a late moment.

I have to say that this goes back to the argument thatI have been making—you missed the first half of it,Sir George—as I have questioned who was responsiblefor, in the Opposition’s view, so diminishing the powerof the Environment Bill. We think that there is aninteraction with the Government’s planning White Paper,and I ask the Minister just to say a little more about theinteraction that she thinks that there will be with theseproposals.

I draw the Minister’s attention to a piece in The Planner,which I am not sure she is a regular reader of—I confessI am not. The question was raised over the summer ofthe interaction between the planning White Paper andthe good proposals in this Bill and clause 93. Onequestion raised by Huw Morris, one of that publication’skey writers, is this: in a streamlined planning system,how will local plans be assessed from an environmentaland sustainability point of view, and how will individualschemes be environmentally assessed to provide theright mitigation? The point is that in the planningWhite Paper, we have new categories, including of coursethe growth category, where none of these things will bedone in detail. Huw Morris says that the picture getsmurkier in growth zones, where schemes will be allowedautomatically. With sustainability appraisal scrappedand environmental impact assessments not carried outat the outline stage, how will a development’s greenfootprint be judged, if at all?

That is a very big question. I appreciate that theMinister might not want to respond immediately, but Ihope that she has some opportunity, in the discussions,to give some reassurance to people, because this potentially,in our view, undermines many of the good points thatwe have talked about. That is why we were so keen tohave an evidence session.

In relation to clause 93 and new clause 25 on speciesstrategies and licensing, we have looked at this provisionclosely and are disappointed that we were not able toexamine it more closely in a proper evidence session,because the interaction between some of these suggestionsand existing legislation is quite detailed. Strategic approachesto species conservation are clearly essential. We agreewith them. It is vital to preserve biodiversity and enablethe recovery of nature. As I think we have already said,that is important because 46% of conservation priorityspecies in England declined between 2013 and 2018,and many of those species would certainly benefit froma strategic plan resulting in all relevant public bodiestaking appropriate actions to save and restore them.

Sadly, this proposal has to be understood in thecontext of the net-gain offsetting that we have alreadydiscussed, and our fear is that there could be unintendedconsequences. We are advised that the overall resultcould sadly be to allow the destruction of habitats andprotected species in return for new habitat creationelsewhere. A developer could be licensed to proceedwith activities that destroy habitats and species in returnfor contributing to habitats that support the widerpopulation of that species.

It is a complicated point, but I am sure that theMinister knows what we are driving at. Our worry isthat it would allow a developer to proceed without

protecting every specimen of a protected species andwithout always undertaking site-specific survey work.The result would be to speed up development andreduce costs, which seems to us—this is the argumentthat I am trying to build—to be the effect of theplanning White Paper. It seems to be the very oppositeof what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.

If the proposal is implemented well, it certainly couldbe a positive way to contribute to the conservation ofcertain species, but if it is managed badly or applied toinappropriate species it could sadly become a shortcutto getting round some of the protected species obligations.The evidence for that is provided by conservationorganisations that tell us that the implementation ofstrategic approaches to species protection, such as districtlicensing for great crested newts, have not been proveneffective. The Minister claimed that they had been, butthat is not their view.

The Government notes do not give us cause foroptimism. In the fourth bullet point of the notes thatwere issued alongside the clauses, the Government saythat there are

“concerns limiting the development and roll-out of such existingschemes: 1) uncertainty about how effective they are and 2) whetherthey can be considered to meet the high standard of certaintyrequired by law.”

That is the point that we are seeking to pursue.

We are told by environmental organisations thatmonitoring has been incomplete, that there is littleevidence that it has protected the most important newtpopulations from development, and that the overallbenefits for the species are unproven. That could havebeen probed and tested in evidence, but sadly we havenot been given that opportunity. We are concerned thatthe Government seek to advance on the roll-out ofdistrict licensing around the country, with a duty toco-operate forcing the hand of local authorities, manyof which are already saying that they are concernedabout the effectiveness of the scheme.

We can see the dangers, and we think that high riskswould come from extending that kind of approach toother species that have distinct conservation needs. Asfar as we are aware, no assessment has been undertakento establish which, if any, other species would be ecologicallyamenable to this or similar approaches. Can the Ministertell us whether that work has been done? Again, I donot necessarily expect her to have the answer to hand,but if she cannot tell us today, she could write to us.

We are looking for some serious reassurance that thespecies conservation strategies will not lead to perverseoutcomes. We need to ensure that they are deliveringgains for nature rather than gains for developers. Thismay be slightly tedious, and I apologise, but againbecause we have not had the opportunity to interrogatethese matters we think it is important to put it on therecord.

Greener UK has raised several legal details with usthat we would like addressed. It asked us why the clausehas not been worded to ensure that each species strategyis required to identify priorities for the protection ofhabitats in addition to the existing priorities of creationor enhancement of habitats. Greener UK’s concern isthat purely focusing on enhancements, as is currentlythe case in the clause, would undermine the planningprocess by undervaluing the need to protect existing


[Daniel Zeichner]

habitats, and it wonders why the clause has not beenworded to ensure that each strategy must give precedenceto the mitigation hierarchy.

That is an important point because, as we said inearlier discussions, offsetting and licensing through speciesplans should be the very last option rather than consideredearlier in the process. Greener UK is particularly concernedthat site surveys should still take place when existingdata is inadequate to identify impacts on key species.The worry through all this is that this is an attempt tospeed up the process for development rather than toprotect species.

Site surveys covering features important to species aswell as habitats are particularly important for bats andinvertebrates. Bat roosts, which are essential to thespecies’ survival, and endangered insects on privatesites, are easily overlooked and are often detected onlyin pre-development site surveys.

11.45 am

To return to the powers, why is it only a power, ratherthan a duty, for Natural England to publish the speciesconservation strategies for species listed under section 41of the Natural Environment and Rural CommunitiesAct 2006 that are in decline or are persisting at unsustainablelevels where, under that legislation, actions by any publicbody are likely to contribute to the recovery of thatspecies? A duty would help to ensure that speciesconservation strategies focus on environmental ratherthan development needs. Again, the point is about theinteraction between new and existing legislation.

We are concerned that, on the evidence we have seen,it is pretty clear that when authorities only have to haveregard to wildlife, sadly, that is often interpreted asthinking about rather than taking action. Why has thatnot been strengthened to ensure that authorities have totake actions that will contribute to the objectives of thespecies conservation strategies?

Currently, there is no duty to report on the status of aspecies subject to a species conservation strategy. Thereshould be clear responsibilities for monitoring and reportingon the status of species within the areas covered, withrelevant data published to enable scrutiny. The clausealso contains no wording to prevent the continuance ofspecies conservation strategies that are not working. Itshould be a long-term process. Any strategy that isfailing should be revoked or replaced by a significantlystrengthened strategy.

Can the Minister explain why those things have notbeen done? Can she confirm that, in every case, conservationgain and the method of achieving it within each strategywill be agreed by the Natural England species specialistand external non-governmental organisations beforestrategic approaches are applied, and that each strategywill be framed around the action needed to achievespecific conservation objectives and favourable conservationstatus? Those objectives will vary across species, as eachspecies requires a tailored approach based on its specificneeds and area-specific pressures.

I would also like the Minister to confirm that, wherespecies conservation strategies are used in cases ofdevelopment planning, species’ needs will dictate theoutcome, with the overriding presumption and priority

being for on-site or local, rather than off-site, mitigations.Will she also confirm that biodiversity net gains will beadditional to meeting the legal and policy requirementswithin the species conservation strategies?

As the clause stands, it looks as if the Governmentare racing ahead to deploy strategic approaches as alicence to give developers freedom to potentially destroyimportant species that they view as an impediment toplanning. That is a seriously different outcome from theone that I suspect all Committee members would like.

We welcome the principle of new clause 26. At themoment, sites are often harmed by the cumulative effectof successive developments without a strategic view ofhow they can be alleviated. Of course, that then leads todisputes later when those sites are pushed to breakingpoint. That is in the context of 61% of sites of specialscientific interest being in an unfavourable condition.Frankly, I am surprised we even know that, because Iam told that half of those SSSIs have not been monitoredfor more than 60 years. That is not a criticism ofNatural England.

An excellent report published by the Prospect tradeunion last week indicated—this goes back to earlierpoints about funding and capacity—that Natural England’sgrant in aid budget has declined by 49% in the last sixyears. Its chair said:

“We are now running with some serious risk to our core,statutory functions.”

There is a real risk that the good intentions will not berealised, so it is important that we take a more strategicview of the conservation needs of sites. The measures innew clause 26 aim to do that by mitigating those pressuresin advance and ensuring that the needs of the ecosystemare considered as part of each individual applicationand in the round.

Many sites are also affected by water extraction,pollution from nearby land, and a range of other activitiesthat are regulated by public bodies and could be addressedin a co-ordinated way by a protected site strategy.Again, those must not serve as an excuse to destroyvaluable habitat for development or forgo the need forsite-specific consideration, assessment and advice.

Organisations have raised legal issues with us. Why isthe preparation and publication of protected site strategiesa power of Natural England, rather than a duty onthem? A cynic would say that it is a way of helpingNatural England solve a funding crisis. Frankly, it ispassing the buck and will not achieve the outcome weare looking for. We would like confirmation that site-specificimpact assessments at the time of planning or of otherconsent applications should still be carried out to ensurethat all impacts are identified and addressed. We needconfirmation that each strategy will be framed aroundthe conservation objectives of the sites concerned, aswell as any other conservation considerations. Eachstrategy should be properly underpinned by a clearunderstanding of what successful achievement of thoseconservation objectives should look like for those sites,with clear monitoring and reporting.

Finally, new clause 27 is a particularly difficult one: ittackles a complicated issue around the way licences aregranted for activities that could “harm, remove or disturb”wild animals and wild plant species that are protectedeither under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 orunder the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations2017. The issue is particularly complicated, and has not


been subject to consultation. Strong concerns have beenexpressed to us that the changes could weaken theprotection for some species. Greener UK are certainlyrecommending that aspects of new clause 27—particularlysubsection (1) and subsection (2)—should not be agreeduntil further consultation has taken place. I seek theMinister’s assurance that there could be further consultationon that. On that basis, I will not go into the fine detailsof the relationship between these pieces of legislation,which are tricky. Subsection (1) could result in a licenceunder habitat regulations overriding the additionalprotection currently afforded by the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981.

An example I have been given is that a licence toallow the capture of natterjack toads under the habitatsregulations could then permit reckless disturbance of thenatterjacks that is otherwise prohibited under section 9(4)(b)and (5) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, butnot under the habitats regulations. It is complex stuff,and it does require looking at, as otherwise we may endup with unintended consequences.

Similarly, subsection (2) of new clause 27 amends theWildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to allow for licensingactivities to take place under a new ground of so-called“overriding public interest”. That would allow developmentto proceed if it meets the bar of “overriding publicinterest” even when it would result in the killing ofprotected species such as grass snakes, if licences aregranted to cover that.

There is a range of difficulties in terms of the differentlevels of protection in different pieces of legislation,and we want those to be resolved, if possible. I apologisefor speaking at some length on the matter. They areimportant amendments that have been introduced latein the process, and we seek reassurances from the Ministerthat these questions can be answered.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I rise in support ofthe objections and concerns raised by the shadow Ministerabout clause 93 and, specifically, new clauses 25 and 26on species conservation strategies. The strategic approachesto species conservation are essential to preservingbiodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. They shouldinclude protecting, restoring and creating habitat over awider area to meet the needs of individual species. Theadditional clauses, along with shining a light on speciesconservation, are welcome. It is clear that current rulesare not working and—as already mentioned—46% ofconservation priority species in England declined between2013 and 2018.

I was concerned, however, to read the reports fromGreener UK, which is a coalition of 13 major conservationand environmental organisations. It says that the variousstrategies may be undermined by the way they arewritten and the way they are enforced, actually resultingin faster development with lower standards. That cannotbe the aim of the clauses at all. Were the strategicpowers to be managed badly or applied to inappropriatespecies, they could become the loopholes that developerswould use straightaway to put costs before speciesprotection, and to get away with undermining speciesprotection. That would be as a result of these clauses,which cannot be right.

I am concerned that it has been raised by GreenerUK that experienced operators of existing licensingsystems are not currently providing protection for animals

such as great crested newts, so the district licensing doesnot work at the moment. Has the Minister met thoseorganisations? Has she talked about these issues and theoutcomes on the ground?

I ask the Minister to look again at this clause, whichmust be amended to explicitly state that site surveysshould take place when existing data is inadequate. Ifthe barrier is too high to progress with the site survey, itwill not be done, except in abnormal situations or whenit is too high a bar. It will not be done in all the placeswhere conservation is failing, which is why we arehaving this decline. Such an amendment would be vitalto this clause so it will be enacted in a way that meanswe can conserve species.

There is no room for error on this. We cannot wait for10 years then review this, and find out that lots ofhabitats have been decimated, and that species have notbeen conserved and have gone because of this. We needto be on it right from the start. What will be the monitoringof the impact of these clauses? Will the monitoring befast and rigorous, to ensure that the outcome is conservationand protection of special sites, rather than seeing developersriding roughshod over the regulations and using therules as a loophole for continuing decimation of ourimportant sites?

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for their comments.As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, he has raiseda large number of points in one go. He has given me alarge task, and I will write to him if there are points thatI miss out, because it was an awful lot to take in atspeed.

The hon. Gentleman is right to be asking thesequestions because we need to make sure that we havegot this right. I give him the assurance straight awaythat new clauses 25 to 27 will not diminish the Bill, butwill add to it. That is what we have in mind and therehas been a lot of discussion in order to come to thatconclusion. We have listened to a lot of comments. Thatis why clause 93 strengthens the biodiversity duty, tobetter effect the ambition set out in the 25-year environmentplan and to give public authorities a much better approachto building biodiversity into their core activities, so thatthat is part and parcel of everything rather than beingdone on an itsy-bitsy, one-off basis.

Daniel Zeichner: No one on the Opposition Benchesquestions the Minister’s commitment to this, but whywas it introduced at a late stage? If she can explain that,it would go some way to assuaging some of our fears.

Rebecca Pow: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Billhas been in the making for a very long time. It beganlong before I came along as the Environment Minister.We have spent a whole year working on it, which hasenabled us to strengthen it and to work more closelywith all the bodies and organisations, particularly NaturalEngland.

The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about NaturalEngland, with whom we have worked really closely. Infact, it will play a big role in all this and we have had fulldiscussions with it. Indeed, Natural England launcheda project about 10 days ago. I would have gone, had itnot been for the lockdown, so all I could do was aspeech. The project was about how nature recovery


[Rebecca Pow]

networks, which is a generic term, and strategies will bepulled together with the protected sites. The launchwent well and about 500 people attended the Zoomevent, to show how these things will work as we goforward and make sure that in the future biodiversity isembedded into all that we do.

Daniel Zeichner: I will not keep intervening, but myconcern is about the section on nature in the 10-pointplan that the Prime Minister launched yesterday. Thereis no mention of net biodiversity gain, which seemed tous to be surprising. That is why we are suspicious. It isdifficult, because we have new proposals coming forwardfrom other bits of Government and our worry is thatthe strength of this Bill has been undermined.

Rebecca Pow: I thought the 10-point plan was brilliant.It put a massive focus on decarbonising and the renewableenergy sector, which I know the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test is particularly interested in. It wasaddressing other elements of the whole green recovery.We were really pleased that we got the tree mentioned inthere.

12 noon

The whole area of net gain and biodiversity is anotherhuge agenda for this Government. We have made it atop priority in everything that we say. It was in ourmanifesto to improve the environment and leave it in abetter state. I can assure the hon. Member for Cambridgethat the Prime Minister is fully on board with this.

The hon. Member for Cambridge was asking abouthow these strategies will work with the new planningsystem. They are designed to support better and fastergreening of planning decisions. The intention is thatthey will support development. We all agree on that. Wemust have our housing, hospitals and schools. There is amassive demand, regardless of party, for those things.The intention is that they will support the developmentby creating improved processes to meet requirementsunder the habitats regulations. They are designed to befully compatible with the reforms set out in the “Planningfor the future” White Paper. They will not reduce existingprotections; they should make it easier to make existingprotections successful.

The hon. Member for Cambridge alluded to the stateof the sites of special scientific interest. Yes, there is agreat amount of work to do on that. It must be donethrough this new system. Our net biodiversity reportingrequirement, which is being introduced in the Bill, willhelp towards that, as will the other measures such as thelocal nature recovery networks. All those things shouldmeld together in a fabric to create a better environment.

Conservation is explicitly in the legislation; developmentis not. The strategies are for conservation, enhancementand protection of species and protected sites. That mustbe pointed out. The Government are working closelywith MHCLG on this, so that we can develop this greenstrand going forwards. We fully intend to do that. Theplanning reforms will reinforce the implementation ofthese measures, including the biodiversity duty. Theyshould not contradict them.

I want to say a bit about the individual strategies. Wehave protected site strategies and conservation speciesstrategies. The protected site strategies will be targetedand designed to help protect specific sites where theycan be most efficient and effective. They will be particularlyuseful where we have problems. Maybe it is all hunky-doryin Cambridge, but in Somerset we have had a recentissue with nitrates. We have to come up with helpfulplans, so we can look after our wonderful Somersetlevels, which are an internationally acclaimed wetlandsite where lots of great work already goes on, but we donot want to stagnate everything to do with development.Coming up with strategies for that would be helpful.

We already have some good examples of that. TheSouth Humber Gateway is an award-winning scheme. Ido not know if the hon. Gentleman has visited it, butI think it would be a good plan. We cannot do any visitsnow, but when we can, we should go on a joint visit.That mitigation scheme successfully unlocked thedevelopment of hundreds of hectares of land, helpingto deliver an anticipated £2 billion of investment and15,000 associated jobs. At the same time, funding hasbeen secured to create 275 hectares of new wet grasslandhabitat. That will be an enormous benefit for the birdsthat go there in numbers of up to 175,000. That is agood example of a scheme developed by people involvedlocally. Having this better protected site strategy willreally help.

I visited another project in the Solent, where theyalso have an issue with nitrates —now we will have aphosphates issue as well—because too much nitrate isgoing into the Solent, and they had to work out howthey could build the houses, because a lot of nitrate isassociated with waste water and increased housing, aswell as agriculture. They have offset some land. Thefarmer will reduce his usage of fertilisers and nitrates,and they can build the houses: everybody is happy.

That is a really good example. We have now launchedfive pilots on schemes like that one across the countryto assess them, see what they are doing and whether wecould copy them or tweak them for other areas. That iswhat the protected site strategies are. The hon. Memberfor Cambridge asked—it was a good point, and aquestion that I have asked myself—whether they alterexisting legal protections on designated sites; they donot. They are still there. Where a development projectimpacts adversely on a protected site, a habitat regulationsassessment will be needed. The protected sites strategywill make it easier and quicker to find solutions wherewe have problems. I hope that that gives some clarity. Iam convinced that it is a very sensible idea.

Let us move on to species strategies. The hon. Memberfor Cambridge mentioned district-level licensing for greatcrested newts, which everybody keeps talking about.I am a great newt lover. Some 85% of fundinggoes directly towards habitat creation and habitatrestoration management and monitoring, comparedwith 16% approximately under the traditional licensingapproach. He had some information that showed thatthose schemes were not working. We have lots of datato say that they are very successful, on the whole. Theadditional investment is really working and early monitoringdata shows that 34% of new ponds are colonised in thefirst year, which is more than double the rate that wouldnormally be expected. There is a lot of good data to say


that those schemes are working. Natural England hasbeen very involved in developing those schemes andscaling them up so they can be used elsewhere.

The idea is to then come up with other strategies forother species. Of course, they would not be the same asfor newts. Bats, for example, have different habitats—theylive in roofs and churches, have different flightpaths andneed to have avenues of trees where they can do theirecholocation to get to their roosts. I have actually madea few films about lesser horseshoe bats, which I wouldlove to share with the Committee—I think they are onYouTube.

I know what the hon. Member for Cambridge meansand great care has to be taken. There is potential tocome up with a specific approach for other species—forexample, bats or dormice. The idea is not to be detrimentalto our lovely bats and dormice; it is to help them. Thatis the idea behind this measure.

Natural England has been piloting a system for self-licensing by independently accredited surveyors. Thehon. Member for Putney touched on that point, whichis really important. Who will do all that work? NaturalEngland is already working on that and has some pilotsrunning.

I will write to the hon. Member for Cambridge aboutthe points on the Wildlife and Countryside Act, becausethey were very specific and very detailed. I hope that Ihave covered a lot of the issues he touched on.

All the measures in the Bill will be knitted together sothat they work together for the overall fabric, whichshould be better for our nature and the environment,and we have to work with MHCLG on the planningWhite Paper so that the environment is absolutely integratedinto our building back faster and better, which is somethingI believe the people of this country want.



Clause 94

BIODIVERSITY REPORTS

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 142, inclause 94, page 95, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—

“(a) all public authorities and persons or bodies exercisingfunctions of a public nature, and”.


Amendment 186, in clause 94, page 95, line 30, at theend insert—

“(d) Natural England and the Environment Agency”.

Daniel Zeichner: I assure the Committee the goingmay be slightly lighter for the next period. That wascomplicated. I appreciated the Minister’s response, butI think there are two takes we can have on this: one isthe optimistic take, which she presents, but others are alittle more sceptical and suggest that even if the bulldozeris hydrogen-powered, it is still a bulldozer, so we need tobe careful.

We welcome clause 94, because it remedies a weaknessin the Natural Environment and Rural CommunitiesAct 2006, which lacked a reporting duty for publicauthorities with regard to the biodiversity objective.The world moves on and we want to do better, so the

clause is good. Those reports will be important inregularly recording the actions that public authoritiestake to conserve and enhance biodiversity.

I am grateful to the Minister for her letter referring tothe burdens on local authorities. She was very swift inwriting to me. I am not certain that my council colleagueswill be totally convinced, but apparently there is a newburdens doctrine, which sounds slightly severe. In herletter, she was very specific about some elements thatwill apparently be funded, but I suspect that, with allthese measures, whether it is the reporting duty oranything else, many local authorities will ask where theresources will come from to enable them to do it.Nevertheless, we would like it to be done, because wethink that these reports will help to improve informationon protected sites, priority habitats and priority species.

The clause could helpfully be amended, to realise thefull potential of those reports, so I will continue mytheme of trying to strengthen the legislation and achievethe outcome that we all want. Extending the range ofpublic authorities that are required to provide reports,providing more direction on report content and expandingthe list of topics that public authorities should reporton would be helpful. Currently, the requirement toproduce biodiversity reports applies only to local authoritiesin England other than parish councils, local planningauthorities in England and designated authorities. Wethink that it would be beneficial to extend the range ofpublic authorities required to provide reports, to makesure that all bodies that have influence over the naturalenvironment are properly included. Our amendments 142and 186 seek to do that.

Amendment 142 would make it a requirement that

“all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functionsof a public nature”

have to produce these reports, spelling out how they aremeeting the biodiversity objective; and amendment 186would add Natural England and the Environment Agencyto the list of designated authorities required to publishbiodiversity reports. We think these amendments wouldbe helpful. We will not pursue a vote, but it would behelpful to hear the Minister’s response.

Rebecca Pow: You will be very pleased to hear that Iwill not speak for as long as I did previously, Mr Howarth.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments.Importantly, the addition of a reporting requirementstrengthens the Bill. The reports will be a valuablesource of information, facilitating the sharing of bestpractice and providing both transparency andaccountability.

Clause 94 designates some public authorities andprovides the Secretary of State with a power to designatein secondary legislation which other bodies will berequired to report. We are clear that local authoritiesand other planning authorities have important contributionsto make to restoring nature, so we have designatedthose authorities in the Bill. We will require reportingfrom other relevant public authorities, includingGovernment Departments with large estates and bodiesthat undertake statutory requirements, such as the publicutility companies.

Amendment 142 would significantly broaden the dutyto report on action taken under the biodiversity duty,which would not be appropriate for some public authorities


[Rebecca Pow]

that are small and have few resources. Parish councils,which we have mentioned previously, are a clear exampleof such authorities, but there will be others for which itwould not be a sensible use of their limited resources toproduce and publish biodiversity reports. I am sure thatthey will all want to have their say, but they could feedthat in to their local authority.

Under amendment 186, Natural England and theEnvironment Agency would be named specifically inthe 2006 Act as needing to produce biodiversity reports.The decisions on which public authority should beasked to report are best considered in detail as wedevelop the regulations that will flow from the Bill. Allinterested stakeholders will have the opportunity toengage with us to make sure we get the list of publicauthorities right. I think it is important that that isdone. Consideration and consultation are importantparts of the process, and while Natural England and theEnvironment Agency undoubtedly have crucial roles inour effort to enhance biodiversity, there are other importantpublic authorities. I urge the hon. Member to withdrawhis amendment.

12.15 pm

Daniel Zeichner: I anticipated that response, but I dothink there is a missed opportunity here. Part of theproblem goes back to the existing pressures on organisationslike Natural England and the Environment Agency.They have to prioritise. The danger is that they will notbe able to do some of the things we are asking them todo unless we actually specify and lay them out. Theworry that has been expressed to me is that they sometimesstruggle to carry out their biodiversity duties. Unless weactually press them and make it an obligation, they arenot going to report on it or be able to do it. That is not acriticism of them; they are working with limited resources.

It comes back to the very basic point that it dependson how important one thinks any of this is. We think itis really important. I will gently say that, in the lead-upto COP26, where nature-based solutions are going to bea key theme, we could be setting a lead here by showinghow we are pushing nature and biodiversity up theagenda—not at No. 9 on the 10-point plan, but muchhigher up, which is certainly where we would put it. Ithink it is a missed opportunity.

On parish councils and other authorities, which wewill perhaps come on to a bit later, perhaps I am slightlyobsessed by environmental land management schemesbecause of my role on the Agriculture Bill, but it seemsto me that an awful lot is being put on these schemes. Isaid during the discussions on that Bill that there was aclear opportunity for local input, and it would be localknowledge that made these measures work. There is arole for these authorities, and this is exactly the kind ofplace where we could set that obligation.

Rebecca Pow: I have been wanting to intervene andgive reassurances on that very point that everything inthe Bill will also dovetail with the measures in theAgriculture Bill and the environmental land managementschemes. That is essential, I am working very closelywith the Farms Minister and the Secretary of State tomake sure the Bills work together. The environmental

land management schemes will deliver much of thebiodiversity and nature enhancement, and public goodsincluding clean water, carbon capture and climate changemitigation, in large part through nature-based solutions.The measures in this Bill will help towards that, and thelocal authority biodiversity reports will particularly help,as well as the local networks that are developed. Theyshow what nature is where, what needs enhancing where,and how different groups of people can join up throughcatchment-based approaches. I think what the hon.Gentleman wants to happen is what has been designed.Does he agree?

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister forgiving me the opportunity to say how disappointed wewere that the Government did not take the opportunitywe offered in our amendment to link the Bills together,not least because they came in the wrong order, beingdriven by a Brexit timetable rather than an appropriatetimetable to do this in the right way. We are not convincedthey have been integrated in the correct way. We areonly a few weeks away from that new system potentiallybeginning, and there is a lot of work to do, to put itmildly.

We think that there should be local input from thevery beginning, much like the schemes we are losing—economic development, leader schemes and so on—thatworked on a local level before. Who knows where thesustainable investment is going? A lot is being lost at themoment. To return to the amendment, we feel that astrengthened reporting obligation would actually helpthe Government, as we are trying to do, to achieve theoutcomes they are seeking more effectively. None theless, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



“(e) an analysis of how actions taken have contributed todelivery of priorities identified in the Local NatureRecovery Strategies.”

This is a continuation of the same discussion, ineffect, because we are looking at how the biodiversityreports could be improved. In the Bill, in the list oftopics that the biodiversity reports should contain, thereis no reference to any consideration of local naturerecovery strategies. I have already spoken with somepassion about the need to link all these things up tomake them work. We agree that if we are going to tacklethe biodiversity challenge, co-ordination is needed. Thelocal nature recovery strategies are designed to do justthat, so tying them into biodiversity reports would helpto achieve that core purpose of directing local naturerecovery activity.

Our amendment would do that by adding to theclause that biodiversity reports must contain analysis ofhow the actions of public authorities have contributedto the delivery of the priorities identified in the localnature recovery strategies. Our concern—this is a consistenttheme—is to lock in a guarantee that something actuallyhappens. The danger is that often good intentions areparked somewhere within authorities that, quiteunderstandably, have many other things going on, andnothing happens. We need to ensure that things areconsidered in key decision-making processes and thatactions are properly monitored, with decision makers


held to account. Again, the amendment is a probingone to tease out of the Government how they think theprovision will work. There will be no need to divide theCommittee.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for theamendment. We intend the biodiversity reports to beproportionate and flexible. Designated public authoritieswill report every five years on how the measures throughoutthe clauses dealing with nature and biodiversity deliverthe intended improvements for nature. To achieve thataim, we should not be too prescriptive by specifying inthe Bill what the reports must contain.

There will be considerable variety across the publicauthorities designated to report. For many, it might wellmake sense to frame reports against the context of therelevant local nature recovery strategy. The requirementin the clause to “have regard” to the strategies whiledetermining what action to take will encourage that.Indeed, we anticipate that biodiversity reports will be avaluable source of information for local nature recoverystrategies when they are reviewed and republished. Thisshould be a two-way process.

For many public authorities, however, having to specifythe contribution to every relevant strategy would be adisproportionate burden. A public authority with nationalreach would find it challenging to provide a meaningfulanalysis of its contribution across a very large numberof strategies. As I said, the idea is that the report isworkable, is flexible, but that people are actually able todo it. A lengthy analysis could prevent the public authorityfrom producing a report that is clear, readable andfocused on the most important action that it has takento help nature recover.

We therefore believe that such detail is best left toregulations and guidance, which allow for greater flexibilityand, where suggested, content can be better tailored toindividual circumstances. On those grounds, I urge thehon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment—I thinkhe said it was just a probing amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: Once again, I might have anticipatedthat response. My concern continues to be that insufficientleverage is being applied to ensure that such thingsactually happen. That is the only point at issue. Havingheard the Minister’s response, I am happy to beg to askleave to withdraw the amendment.



This is our familiar “may” or “must” discussion. Inthis case, clause 94 currently outlines that the Secretaryof State “may” make regulations to

“require biodiversity reports to include specified quantitativedata relating to biodiversity”.

I want to say a little about some of the data issues, becausewe think that this is rather important. Paragraph 846 ofthe explanatory notes makes a very good case for theamendment. It says:

“This will ensure key quantitative data is reported in a consistentfashion across all reports, thereby making comparisons across thereports easier. Having such data defined in regulations will alsoallow for it to be updated in the future as required.”

The Minister will say that that means it is good to haveit in the regulations, but we think it should be stated upfront.

We believe that good data will make a big differenceto how effective public authorities can be in improvingbiodiversity outcomes. This carries over into some ofthe discussions around the environmental land managementscheme, which is why we pressed very hard for anenvironmental baseline to be established. Sadly, thatwas not taken up by the Government, but we think thatthey will probably have to do it at some point anyway.None of these worthy processes will be possible withoutgood data. Of course, the world has changed in thatthere are many new and innovative ways of scanning,recording and assessing that may not have been possiblea decade ago.

The Secretary of State himself said in his speech onenvironmental recovery in July:

“We want everyone to be able to access an accurate, centralisedbody of data on species populations so that taking nature intoaccount is the first, speedy step to a”

planning application. That is a laudable ambition, whichwe absolutely support, but to do that the Governmenthave to get the data in place. I pay tribute to the army ofvolunteers who gather data at the moment. We havefantastic volunteers in this country. I suspect that manypeople here watch and count butterflies, bees, birds andso on, which is all helpful. I have been very impressed bythe Bumblebee Conservation Trust—I have alreadymentioned the ruderal bumblebee—which does excellentwork in recording what is happening to bumblebees.

All such organisations require support and the volunteerssometimes need training, because is not always obvioushow to gather the data. There then needs to be a processof recording, verification and infrastructure, and thereare costs to all of that. Although we have some wonderfulnot-for-profit organisations and there is a good traditionof volunteering, we feel that it is important that theGovernment provide support to ensure that we get thecentralised, accurate body of data that the Secretary ofState referred to. That, of course, will then allow thedata sharing, the comparison and the mechanisms thatare needed to ensure that we get the biodiversity gainsthat we are looking for.

I have said on many occasions that we think thatlocal authorities are already struggling to fund, resourceand support the kind of work that will be needed tomake all these good intentions come to fruition. Fewerthan a third of them have an in-house ecologist orbiodiversity officer, and we fear that Natural Englanddoes not even have the required resources, as I havesaid, to carry out its current statutory duties in somecases, let alone the extra responsibilities. We think thatthere needs to be an investment from Government inthe right data and environmental information infrastructureto ensure that nature conservation can work.

Again, this is not an issue on which we wish to dividethe Committee. However, I would be grateful to hearfrom the Minister how she proposes to make sure thatthat fantastic pool of data is going to be put in placeand maintained, to ensure that we can make the progresswe are all looking for.

Rebecca Pow: I will narrow my comments downbecause this is a “may” and “must” amendment again.As I have previously explained during discussion ofsimilar amendments from the hon. Member and others,


[Rebecca Pow]

primary legislation consistently takes this approach tothe balance between powers and duties. I assure thehon. Member that the Government intend to makethe regulations.

12.30 pm

We cannot ask public authorities to produce suchreports unless we set out via regulations which bodiesshould do so and what the report should contain.However, as I have said previously, it is entirely appropriateto provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as tohow the provision is given effect. To turn a power tomake regulations into a meaningful duty risks rushingconsideration of the potential content of reports whenan alternative approach may be more suited as some ofthe potential content. For example, we will want reportsfrom local planning authorities to include detail aboutbiodiversity net gain, but we will want to ensure thatthat fits with the implementation of those measures.

The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance ofdata and how crucial that will be to informing all theplans and strategies. I want to reassure him that we areexploring the potential for an environmental census,which was recommended by the Natural Capital Committeeas I am sure he will know. That would ensure that we getgood baseline data against which to measure progresstowards improving the environment. I am particularlyinterested in that, and believe it is important. Work isgoing on exploring that. I hope that gives the hon.Gentleman some reassurances.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that citizen scienceand the army of volunteers are so wonderful, helpfuland knowledgeable in many cases in gathering a lot ofour species data, so we want to harness that too. As hesays, they already feed a lot of valuable data into ourenvironmental record centres, for example, to which ourlocal authorities often go when they need data in discussingplanning applications and such like. Those things willremain important.

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Governmentintend to make the regulations and that the Bill providesan appropriate power for the Secretary of State to doso. As such, we believe the amendment is not needed. Irespectfully ask him to kindly stick to what he suggestedearlier and treat this as a probing amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I find much of that reassuring.

Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): As atrained mathematician, I fully support the use of datasupporting policy and as chair of the Government’sRegulatory Policy Committee, it was my job to ensurethat we had evidence-based policy making. However, Ido not think it is good enough just to say that thereshould or must be data unless we specify what that datais. The risk, otherwise, is that we come up with thewrong sort of data.

Given our shared belief in data, I have been doing abit of data gathering myself—not counting butterfliesand so on, but counting “musts”and “mays”. In clause 94,I counted not just one or two—not three, four orfive—but six “musts” and only two “mays”. That showshow strong the paragraph is, with the “musts”outnumberingthe “mays” by three to one. Do Opposition Committeemembers welcome that fact?

The Chair: Order. We are straying into the territory ofthe Shakespearian debate about the use of “thee” and“thou”. Interesting though it is, I am not quite sure itadds any edification to our proceedings. It is for thehon. Member for Cambridge to decide whether thatintervention has any influence on him.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful, Sir George, and I amgrateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Memberfor South Cambridgeshire. As the chair of the all-partygroup on data analytics, I, too, can bore for Britain onthat. He is right about the “musts” and the “mays”, buta lot depends on where they come in the paragraph.Sadly, there are lots of “musts” and then, quite often,whether something will be implemented or not is followedby a may. There is a hierarchy of “musts” and “mays”that also needs to be taken into account, which showsthe difficulties that sometimes arise with using data. Itdoes not always tell the whole story.

Data will be important, particularly as we go downthe environmental land management route. I have concernsabout that because of the complexities involved. Theonly way they will be able to work, I suspect, will bethrough good collection of data. If we are going tomove to outcome-based measures—and I think thatthat is where many people want to get to, finally, onmany such issues—it will be essential to be able tomeasure, record and draw conclusions. I think that weare probably all going in the same direction, and Isuspect that we all want the things that are proposed tohappen. It is just a question of how quickly they happen,and when. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.




Clause 96

PREPARATION OF LOCAL NATURE RECOVERY STRATEGIES


This is one of the most exciting provisions. I do notwant to be in danger of getting over-excited, but wethink that the set of provisions that we have nowreached is very important. That is why I must go backto the ninth of the 10 points yesterday, and say that Ifound the references—and there is a reference to a localnature recovery network—slightly confusing, as it wasin the context of landscape recovery projects.

We are in danger of drowning in a sea of acronyms, Ifear, and one thing that we would look for from theMinister is clarity about how all those things will worktogether. We want a coherent framework that will drivean approach that will reverse nature’s decline across thecountry. We genuinely believe that that can be done, butwe feel that the potential for the local nature recoverystrategies is constrained by the current wording and, yetagain, we are trying to suggest improvements to helpthe Minister.

We have already touched on some of the weaknessesof the duty in question, and the need for monitoring inbiodiversity reports. The amendment has been tabled tounderline the point that the full positive impact of local


nature recovery strategies will be realised only if authoritiesare given clear and effective procedures to follow whenthey are preparing, producing, reviewing and publishingtheir local strategies. I am afraid that it is again amay/must issue.

Also, it is a concern of ours that in some instances theaffirmative procedure will not be used. There is a strongfeeling that, were there to be wider discussion, thelegislation would be improved. Allowing third parties,including experts in a sector, to have input into theprocedures through public consultation, would be onlyto the good. We seek the Minister’s comments on whethershe can make sure that happens.

We worry, also, about the timing. There is no date tobegin the preparation of some of the things in theclause and our worry that they could go on the backburner. Will the Minister give some indication of whenshe thinks they will be in place and implemented, andwhen the good work is to begin? Once again, we aretrying to find out information. We do not seek to dividethe Committee—I can anticipate the Minister’s response.I should like to hear what she has to say.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for theamendment, but it will not surprise him to hear that wedo not believe it is necessary. The backbone of the localnature recovery strategy clauses is a series of duties onthe Secretary of State: first, to ensure that there arelocal nature recovery strategy areas covering the wholeof England; secondly, to appoint responsible authoritiesto lead local nature recovery strategy preparation; and,thirdly, to provide the responsible authorities with thenecessary information. The Government are also seekingthe power to create regulations to establish the processfor preparing a local nature recovery strategy. That is toenable that process to work smoothly and to createconsistency in what each responsible authority produces.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridgeis aware, but just for information, I point out that fivepilots are already running on local nature recoverystrategies. One is in Cornwall. There were lots of areaswhere the pilots on the strategies could have run, but onthe whole the areas chosen were those that had alreadydone quite a lot of work in this respect and so had lotsof good processes and plans and thoughts. My hon.Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth probablyknows about that initiative, given that it covers herpatch. I hope that that explanation gives assurances.The work is ongoing, so the lessons will be learnedabout all that. That will help for the quick roll-out ofthese things; others will be able to copy what has beendone and put them in process.

We have developed local nature recovery strategies tobe an important new tool in delivering a wide range ofenvironmental commitments, such as tree planting, peatrestoration, natural flood management and the creationof the nature recovery network, which was touched onby the hon. Member for Cambridge. These commitmentsfor this overarching improvement of nature—that is,the nature recovery network—are set out in the 25-yearenvironment plan. The environmental improvement planclauses in the Bill will establish duties to monitor andreport performance against the commitments—it shouldbe remembered that the first environmental improvementplan is the 25-year environment plan; that is how this allknits together—creating ample incentive for Government

to ensure that local nature recovery strategies workeffectively to help to meet all our commitments. Thatwill very much be part of it.

I would like to provide reassurance that we intend towaste no time in producing the regulations followingRoyal Assent to the Bill. It has to happen that we get onwith these things pretty fast. Changing this proposedpower to produce regulations into a duty to do sowould serve no purpose. The Government are clearlycommitted both to the establishment of local naturerecovery strategies and to the role that the regulationswill play.

I hope that what I have said gives a bit more clarityon the direction that the hon. Gentleman was askingabout and I ask him whether he would kindly withdrawthe amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: We still do not feel that there issufficient speed. That is our concern. Pilots are great,but we have seen with the environmental land managementscheme that we can go through pilots and pilots andpilots; the question is whether the crisis is being addressedsufficiently speedily. We would like things to move morequickly, but I hear what the Minister says, and on thatbasis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Clause 97

CONTENT OF LOCAL NATURE RECOVERY STRATEGIES


“(c) a statement of how the strategy is expected tocontribute to achievement of relevant environmentaltargets.”

We move from pace to content. We would like to saya little about this—we have a number of amendments,which we can probably go through fairly swiftly—becausewe think that some things could be done to strengthen thecontent of local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 143is to underline that we believe that there need to beclearer links between these requirements and the target-setting framework established at the outset of the Bill.

We believe that the strategies should be required to bedeveloped with regard to the need to contribute todelivery of the environmental targets. We fear that,without that, there will be no means to measure howwell the nature provisions are contributing to the overallgoal of nature recovery. A clear link would ensure thateach local nature recovery strategy delivered local andnational objectives, as intended.

Local nature recovery strategies need to be the primarymeans by which ambitious national environmentalcommitments, priorities and investments are targeted todeliver maximum public and ecological benefits—thewhole range, from tree planting to nature-based flooddefences. In combination with those clear national prioritiesand ecological advice, working with local knowledgeand expertise, they can be channelled into deliveringmeasurable achievements through the local strategies.That is the way to make these strategies a success.


[Daniel Zeichner]

We think this amendment is helpful, provides clarityand knits the Bill together. From the outset, our worryhas been that the Bill is a rather disparate set of measures.Through the amendment, we could tie it all togetherand make it work better. Once again, the amendment isan attempt to draw out from the Minister the Government’sthinking on the issue, and we will not seek to divide theCommittee.

12.45 pm

Rebecca Pow: I understand the hon. Member’s intentin tabling the amendment, but I do not think it isnecessary. The Government already have ample measuresat their disposal to ensure that the local nature recoverystrategies play their part in meeting the relevant targets,once those have been determined. As time goes on therewill be opportunity for all manner of targets on natureto be set. That link has already been made.

First, as we have discussed, the Bill gives the Governmentthe power to issue regulations setting out how eachlocal nature recovery strategy must be prepared. Secondly,it will enable Government to issue statutory guidanceon what local nature recovery strategies must contain,expanding on the detail on the face of the Bill. Thirdly,it will require the Government to provide the responsibleauthority with information to assist in preparing thesestrategies. That information includes a national habitatmap as well as the location areas that the Secretary ofState believes could contribute to the establishment of anetwork of areas across England for the recovery andenhancement of biodiversity in England as a whole.

In combination, these measures provide the opportunityfor Government to set out a national spatial frameworkfor the nature recovery network and to shape how it isreflected in each local strategy. The Bill also introducesa duty on the Secretary of State to meet the long-termenvironmental targets. All that reporting and monitoringwill feed into that, starting from the ground upwards.All these measures will feed into achieving those targets.

The duty will be sufficient to ensure that the Secretaryof State will use the tools referred to and provideresponsible authorities with clear information on howlocal nature recovery strategies should contribute toachieving those specific targets. It will ensure thatthe Secretary of State has every incentive to monitorthe effectiveness of these contributions. I urge the hon.Member to remember that the framework of reporting,monitoring and being held to account will all be part ofmaking sure that we improve nature. I urge him towithdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw theamendment.



“(e) a description of how actions intended to meet thenet gain objective and land management changessupported by public funds should be spatiallytargeted through Local Nature Recovery Strategies inorder to contribute most effectively to environmentalimprovement.”

This amendment clarifies the relationship between LNRSs, net gain,ELM and other policies.

I suspect that we are trying to achieve the same thingsthrough slightly different means. Amendment 144 seeksto ensure that local nature recovery strategies arecomprehensive and bring all an area’s environmentalgains into a cohesive plan. They should co-ordinate allthe local biodiversity net gains arising from planning aswell as from the land management changes pursuedunder ELM schemes. As I have said, we think thatlinkage to ELM is absolutely key to ensuring a cohesiveapproach. Again, we think the amendment wouldstrengthen the Bill, which is rather important. I havereferred to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which Ithink needs to be strengthened.

We are helping the Minister here; she could win manybrownie points by pointing out to her colleagues that,given that COP26 is nature-based, this is an opportunityto absolutely deliver on nature recovery. I am offeringher an early Christmas present, really, and I am afraidthat on this occasion we will divide the Committee,because it is a perfect opportunity for her to show thatshe wants to join us in strengthening her very own Bill.

The Chair: Christmas seems to come earlier and earlier.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for Cambridgefor the amendment and for his constant endeavour tostrengthen the Bill, which we want to be a strongone—he is right about that—but I do not believe thatthis amendment is necessary, and I will set out why.

Local nature recovery strategies will be a powerfulnew tool to help us take a more strategic approach tohow we plan for nature’s recovery and to how we usenature-based solutions to address wider environmentalchallenges. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right aboutnature-based solutions, but they are very much part andparcel of this new will to deliver for nature and for allthose other benefits—flood control, better water quality,carbon capture and sequestration, and so on—so Ithink we are on the same page on that.

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Ithink the point that the Minister is trying to make,which I reiterate, is that a lot of those schemes are intheir infancy. We have just discussed the five pilot plans,one of which my constituency is involved in. If the Billis too prescriptive, we will be unable to tweak thoseplans later if they do not work. It is important that weset out the intention on the face of the Bill and let thepilots do their work, so that Ministers and experts in thefield have the flexibility to learn from and use bestpractice moving forward.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for highlightingthat; I could not have put it better myself. That is whywe are running the pilots, and it is great that they arealready running. The hon. Member for Cambridge askswhen we are going to do all this, but we are actuallyalready doing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right tosay that each area will be different: Cornwall will bequite different from south Humber or Keighley. Thoseareas’ requirements and demands will vary and that iswhy we need to run pilots.

We do not want the pilots to go on forever—the hon.Member for Cambridge is absolutely right about that—andthe Secretary of State and I are at pains to say, “Yes, we


want all the data and feed-in, but we do need action.” Ilike to think that we will see action. The Secretary ofState said on Second Reading that we have to ensurethat we work to promote actions through the environmentalland management scheme and that those actions workwith what we are putting into our local nature recoverystrategies. The idea is that those will all work togetherand that we will then deliver our biodiversity net gain,which will also be helped by the strengthened biodiversityduty on public authorities in the Bill.

Beyond the Bill, the strategies will support localauthorities in protecting and enhancing biodiversitythrough the planning system, and encourage morecollaborative working between the public, private andvoluntary sectors, to establish and achieve commongoals. We are keen that each responsible authorityleading production of a strategy properly understandsand considers the different mechanisms through whichthe net gain and adding to nature could be achieved.The responsible authority will not always have directcontrol of all those different delivery mechanisms, however,so they will need to work collaboratively with otherorganisations, as we have proposed.

Simply requiring the responsible authority to give itsopinion on processes that it does not control will addlittle to the strategy and could deter partners fromengaging constructively. My intention is instead to usethe statutory guidance provided with the clauses toexplain how the responsible authority should take accountof potential delivery mechanisms when preparing itsstrategy. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge:he is absolutely right that we are coming up to a crucialyear, with COP26. However, I hope he is very pleasedthat nature and adaptation are part of the COP. That iswhy it is so important that we demonstrate that we aregoing to lead by example, with the pilots and all themeasures in the Bill, which show that we are takingthese issues seriously; it can work and add to nature. Itherefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw theamendment.

Daniel Zeichner: That was a helpful set of interchanges,but I have to say that we need something stronger than,“I’d like to think that we are going to see some action.”The urgency is much more pressing. There is a dangerof ending up with perpetual pilots, and we want to gomuch more quickly and more strongly. On that basis, wewill press the amendment to a Division.



Division No. 37]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move amendment 145, inclause 97, page 98, line 23, before “are” insert

“an ecologically coherent network of sites that”.

This amendment clarifies that local habitat maps should contribute to acoherent ecological network.

Obviously, I am very disappointed that the Ministerfelt unable to accept my Christmas gift, but we willmove on.

Amendment 145 seeks to ensure that local habitatmaps, which are included in local nature recovery strategies,are set out in an ecologically coherent way. It is importantto get some clarity, because the sites should relate toeach other in a coherent way to form part of a widerintegrated network for nature’s recovery. We do notwant to see local habitats stagnating in isolation; theyshould relate to one another.

Our understanding is that the intention is for localnature recovery strategies to be produced, as the Ministerhas already made reference to, in a bottom-up way, tocreate a nature recovery network at a national level byway of creating corridors of habitat across the country.

I wonder slightly about the national level. As hasalready been referenced, we have quite clear regions andsub-regions, and it depends on the landscape. Our pointis that there should be some coherence. There is a slightrisk that there will be a lack of coherence. For instance,we could see a situation where a local authority prioritisesa green space for people, quite rightly, but neglects thefact that it could be a crucial stepping-stone betweentwo vulnerable habitats, which could be resolved bycreating a corridor of trees that links those habitats.

The basic point we are trying to address is that thereshould be some integration. By linking strategies together,we believe they can form the building blocks of a nationalnature recovery network—a joined-up system of nature-richplaces, as originally envisioned in the 25-year plan forthe environment. We will not seek to divide the Committeeon this amendment, but we want to get a sense ofwhether the Minister shares our aspirations.

Rebecca Pow: I have to go back to the last commentsfrom the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that,“I’d like to think” we might have some environmentalimprovement. I am thinking about it all the time, as myteam know. All my thinking will lead to action, throughthe Bill—I just want to make that very clear.

I understand that the intention behind the amendmentis to ensure that local nature recovery strategies considerthe ecological coherence of any areas that they identifyin their local habitat map, and I reassure the Committeethat I recognise how important ecological coherencewill be in the strategies. The current clauses allow us topublish statutory guidance to set out in more detailwhat each strategy must contain, so we intend to drawon examples of existing good practice in spatialprioritisation for nature, to ensure that ecological coherenceis reflected in the strategies. Quite clearly, “link up” and“join up” are very important, and wildlife corridors areexceptionally important.

1 pm

Without ecological coherence, local nature recoverystrategies will not be able to perform their essentialrole of proposing suitable locations to create or improvehabitat in order to establish the nature recovery network.


As I have said before, the nature recovery network is

obviously a key commitment in the 25-year environment

plan, and the Bill makes that plan statutory. I have

already referred to the national partnership that was

launched earlier this month by Natural England to

bring together key bodies to support the establishmentof the network. It is really important that we pulltogether all those that might have an influence on alarge area’s ecological coherence, so that they can allwork together.

The amendment would limit the consideration ofecological coherence to only part of the strategy, excludingexisting protected sites, which are the areas of greatestvalue for nature. I am sure that is not what is intended,but that is how it might be interpreted. Nor would therequirement apply to locations where the recovery orenhancement of biodiversity could make a particularcontribution to other environmental benefits, which isa key aspect of the strategies. I do not believe that is the

intention of the hon. Member for Cambridge. I thereforeask him to consider the reassurances I have given and towithdraw the amendment.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful to the Minister for herreply. We probably have slightly different views on thisissue, but we are both trying to get to the same place.My concern—it goes right back to the planning WhitePaper, where these issues are touched on very lightly—isabout the lack of integration, rather than having acoherent, planned overall approach. That makes thewhole approach less effective. We have heard what theMinister says, however, and we do not seek to push theamendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdrawthe amendment.



1.3 pm




OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Nineteeth Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS


SCHEDULE 17 agreed to, with an amendment.

CLAUSES 123 AND 124 agreed to.





Adjourned till Tuesday 24 November at twenty-five minutes past

Nine o’clock.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than













(Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)† Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)








(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

2 pm


Clause 98

INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY THE SECRETARY OF

STATE

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to moveamendment 146, in clause 98, page 98, line 45, at endinsert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State must produce a strategy toinform the development of a Nature RecoveryNetwork, including a spatial description of theopportunities for recovering or enhancing theenvironment through actions to protect or restorebiodiversity, in terms of habitats and species, inEngland.

(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines thatset out a process for review and approval of LocalNature Recovery Strategies by Natural England toconfirm the priorities and proposals identified in theLocal Nature Recovery Strategy would contributeadequately to the delivery of a national NatureRecovery Network and relevant environmentaltargets.”

The amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake themapping and planning work necessary to carry out their functions inrelation to the national habitat map.

We welcome the provisions of the clause. It requiresthe Secretary of State to assist public authorities inpreparing their local nature recovery strategy by publishinga national habitat map for England, and to help identifynational conservation sites and other areas of particularimportance to biodiversity. Predictably enough, we haveone or two concerns and comments about that, whichour amendment 146 allows us to address.

If this national habitat map is to be effective ininforming the preparation of local nature recovery strategies,it needs to be available in good time for the preparationof local nature recovery strategies. As we touched onearlier, we want that to be done speedily, so the nationalmap needs to be done speedily.

It will not be sufficient simply to present nationalconservation sites on the map. We will also need criticalinformation—on, for example, the condition of sitesand the opportunities for recovery—to help direct publicauthorities in their important work to improve andrestore national conservation sites.

The Government’s proposal is a start—it providessome of the information that authorities will need—butgood planning for the natural environment requiresmore than the identification of isolated patches ofnature on a map; it requires a strategy for enhancing

and linking sites, throughout urban and rural areas, tofacilitate nature’s recovery. What is missing from theclause is provision for the Government to undertakework to identify habitat opportunities. Nor is there anynational system of review of the local and nationalrecovery strategies put in place—any quality control tocheck that each one is making a meaningful contribution.Our amendment 146 would address these omissions byrequiring the Secretary of State to

“produce a strategy to inform the development of a NatureRecovery Network”;

to

“set out a process for review and approval of Local NatureRecovery Strategies by Natural England”;

and to confirm that each one

“would contribute adequately to the delivery”

of the national nature recovery networks that we need.Those requirements would give the Secretary of Stateresponsibility for knitting local nature recovery strategiestogether, which is what the Minister said she wishes todo, so that they function as a coherent national network.

As this is a good opportunity to help the Minister inher endeavour to rescue and strengthen the Bill, I willgive her one last opportunity to accept our assistance;we will seek a Division on the amendment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Iwelcome the hon. Member’s ambition of providing anational framework to inform the development of thenature recovery network, but the Bill already providesfor a framework.

Part 1 of the Bill requires the Government to publishan environmental improvement plan, setting out thesteps that they intend to take to improve the naturalenvironment. It also establishes the 25-year environmentplan, which, as I said this morning and so many othertimes, is the first environmental improvement plan.That first plan commits the Government to establishinga nature recovery network, and to publishing a newstrategy for nature that includes the network. We haveno intention of reversing any commitments made in the25-year environment plan. Of course, the Office forEnvironmental Protection will also hold the Governmentto account on their progress in implementing theenvironmental improvement plans, including for thenature recovery network.

The clause requires the Secretary of State to provideinformation that we intend will offer a national spatialframework for the network. This framework includes anational map of areas of existing value for biodiversity,as well as areas where there are opportunities to enhancebiodiversity and associated wider environmental benefits.There is also provision in the Bill for the Secretary ofState to issue statutory guidance on what the localnatural recovery networks should contain and regulationson how they should be protected. These mechanismswill allow the shaping of how each responsible authorityreflects the information provided under clause 98.

Natural England has a key role to play in supportingthe establishment of the local nature recovery strategy,as I explained earlier. We want them to help producenational guidance to support the responsible authorityin producing each strategy and to be the responsibleauthority themselves where needed. These roles are


provided for in the Bill. Regulations produced underclause 96 will be crucial for establishing roles andresponsibilities. Provisions for local nature recovery strategiesin the Bill will form part of environmental law. Thismeans that the Office for Environmental Protection willhave oversight of these provisions, as it does over allaspects of environmental law.

I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that theBill, as a whole, provides a suitable framework for thenature recovery network, as well as appropriate mechanismsto ensure that local nature recovery strategies contributeto its development. Therefore, I request that amendment146 be withdrawn.

Daniel Zeichner: I am grateful for the Minister’sresponse and to her for reintroducing the OEP at thisstage. As she will recall, this side were not entirelyconvinced of the efficacy of this new organisation, andsome of us do worry that it will just be a desk in theDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairsin the early new year, and we want it to be much tougherthan that. I suspect her response on this has been thesame as on many of these attempts from our side tostrengthen and add vim and vigour to this process.However, I am afraid I am still not persuaded or convinced,but I do thank her for the charm and courtesy she hasshown in our exchanges. I would still caution her tobeware the bloke on the bulldozer, and we do thinkthere is a danger that this Bill’s good intentions areundermined. We would like to press the amendment toa vote.



Division No. 38]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



Clause 99

INTERPRETATION

Amendment proposed: 147, in clause 99, page 99,line 16, leave out “95”and insert “93”.—(Dr Whitehead.)



Amendment proposed: 148, in clause 99, page 99, line 31, atend insert—

“(4) ‘Public Authority’ means—

(a) a Minister of the Crown, a government departmentand public body (including a local authority), and

(b) a person carrying out any function of a public naturethat is not a devolved function, a parliamentaryfunction or a function of any of the followingpersons—

(i) the OEP;

(ii) a court or tribunal;

(iii) either House of Parliament;

(iv) a devolved legislature;

(v) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, aNorthern Ireland department or a Ministerwithin the meaning of the Northern Ireland Act1998.”—(Dr Whitehead.)




Clause 100

CONTROLLING THE FELLING OF TREES IN ENGLAND



That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.


Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Iappreciate that there are no amendments in this group,but I think it is worth having a brief stand part debatehere to mark the fact that we have moved from talkingabout nature and biodiversity to a very brief section inthis Bill on trees. I say very brief section, because eventhough the heading above clauses 100 and 101 andschedule 15 is “Tree felling and planting”, it does notactually deal with planting at all. It only deals withcutting trees down.

We think, among other things, that is a tremendousopportunity missed. Although we are limited in thisparticular group to talking about the clauses and schedule,I ought to draw the Committee’s attention to our proposednew clauses later in the Bill on this particular subjectthat do address tree planting. As we know from thePrime Minister’s 10-point plan, the question of treeplanting is very much on everyone’s minds, and for theobvious reason that tree planting is going to be crucialto reaching our future net zero targets.

There have been various estimates of how many treesneed to be planted over the next period to sequester therelevant amounts of CO2 to create a significant negativecontribution to our net zero target by 2050.The tree-plantingambition is not a question of running on to a site,sticking a number of saplings in the ground, runningaway again, and hoping that they will all have growninto large trees in 30 years and will sequester carbonsatisfactorily. The process of planting trees requires anenormous amount of loving care and attention, both inthe planting and in the subsequent maintenance of thetrees.

2.15 pm

If we were running around planting large numbersof trees, squirrels, deer and various other animalsmight get to them over a short time, or landowners


might decide, after a rush of enthusiasm for planting ontheir land, that they did not like the trees very much—wewill discuss nature covenants later. Come 2050, if thosetrees are to count not just for the sake of counting, butfor the purpose of sequestration, they have to go throughtheir lives more or less intact, subject to some naturallosses.

At the moment, there are some agreements and controlson planting trees in return for grants for management,stewardship and development, but one would have thoughtthat on planting, the Bill presents an opportunity to putprecisely those sorts of protective measures in place toensure that trees are not only planted, but actually goahead in their careers and become the best trees thatthey can be for the purpose of sequestration. Indeed,the Government are drawing up a tree strategy at themoment, but it does not seem to have come anywherenear the Bill. We have no clear understanding of whatlegislation that strategy might lead to or whether it willend up being entirely voluntary, which would be aterrible idea if we want to ensure that planted trees livetheir lives in the best way possible.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): My hon. Friend ismaking a powerful point. After all, page 99 of the Billincludes “Tree felling and planting”, which are the twosides of the coin, but the whole of the next page giveseverybody the authority to cut down trees, as he hasquite rightly pointed out. Does he agree that that is arather negative way forward?

Dr Whitehead: My hon. Friend makes an importantpoint. If someone chanced upon the Bill, flicked throughit, looked at the contents at the front and said, “There isa section on tree felling and planting; that’s good,because we want to know about tree planting,” and thenfound that there was no tree planting, that would berather an odd outcome, yet that is what we have in frontof us. I would like to know, at the very least, what theMinister thinks can be done to rectify that omission andwhether she intends, when the tree strategy is mature, toamend the Bill or, if this Bill has already gone throughthe whole of the House, introduce a subsequent Billthat will match up with what will be in the EnvironmentAct, to give whole-life regulation and protection to treeplanting, which is absolutely necessary for our ambitionsfor the future. Although we do not want to amend theseclauses, because we accept that they are within thelimitations written into the Bill, we give notice that weintend to proceed to rectify at least part of the issueconcerning the heading of the clauses as we move on tothe new clauses.

There is an indication, certainly in schedule 15, thatthe problem of maintenance and stewardship for thefuture is not anticipated, even on the question of fellingand restocking trees. Schedule 15, which is an amendmentto the Forestry Act 1967, requires restoration orders tobe put in place—a good thing in itself—where peoplehave felled trees when they should not have done orwithout the proper provisions being applied for.

Schedule 15 provides a welcome advance, in thatthere is clear regulatory guidance on restocking, butthat guidance then starts to fall down, inasmuch asthe restocking orders last for only 10 years. The preciseproblem that we have outlined with replanting could

arise for the restocking orders. The person who hasknocked the trees down might grudgingly replant moreunder the restocking order, but 10 years later, he or shecan pull them all up again.

That is certainly not in line with the sort of stewardshipthat we think has to take place for trees, both in generaland in particular with regard to the restocking orders.I would appreciate it if the Minister could commentthis afternoon on whether she thinks the provisions inschedule 15 for the duration of restocking orders aresufficient in the light of our discussion, or whether shemight review that for future reference.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I know that I representmillions of people across the country in wanting tospeak more about trees and seek more about trees in theBill. There are some things in these clauses that we canagree on. I know that the Minister is a lover of ancientwoodland and that the clauses are close to her heart as achair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancientwoodland and veteran trees.

Rebecca Pow: I am no longer allowed to be the chair.

Fleur Anderson: As a former chair, she has said ofancient woodland:

“It is an absolute travesty that only 2% remains and we mustensure that no more is lost.”

We agree on proposed new section 96A(1) of theHighways Act 1980, as inserted by clause 101, in whichit becomes statutory for local authorities to

“consult members of the public before felling a tree on an urbanroad”.

Constituents in Putney will welcome that measure, becausein many cases, they do not know why a tree has beenfelled and they would like to have had a say. It gives ourfantastic volunteer tree wardens more power to look atthe trees in our urban areas.

We also agree that the Bill is landmark legislationthat legislates for urgent action on the biggest environmentalchallenges of our time. Therefore, it is disappointingthat clause 100 is sadly lacking. We will talk about a treestrategy later when we debate new clause 19, but that iswhere this clause could have come in. Putting an Englishtree strategy on a statutory footing is key to deliveringthe commitments in the 25-year environment plan, alongsidewhich the Bill sits.

The 25-year environment plan has targets for net zerocarbon emissions by 2050 and for planting 30,000 hectaresof trees a year across the UK. We need interim andoverall targets in the Bill to ensure that we deliver onthose targets. Why is that? Trees sequester carbon,support biodiversity, protect against floods, stabilise thesoil, improve our physical and mental wellbeing, filterair pollutants and help to regulate temperatures. TheEnvironment Bill seeks to do all of these, and more ontrees would enable us to do it better and make it thatlandmark legislation. However, 53% of UK woodlandwildlife is in decline. Woodland expansion is well belowthe rate necessary for the future. DEFRA has a woefultrack record of missing tree planting targets. It cannotbe left out of this Bill and just left to happen. Historyshows that it does not just happen. We really need astatutory England tree strategy.


There is currently no formal mechanism to set targetsfor protection, restoration and expansion of trees andwoodland in England. Here is the opportunity to legislateand address the importance of trees in tackling theclimate and nature crisis we face. This Bill aims torestore and enhance green spaces, yet it falls short in notcontaining a necessary clause about a tree strategy.There should be a strategy with the following objectives:increasing the percentage of tree cover in England,increasing the hectares of new, native woodland creationby planting and natural regeneration, and increasingthe hectarage of plantation of ancient woodland undergoingrestoration.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): I pay tribute tothe work of the Woodland Trust, which has helpedschools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, I am sure, aswell as those of all members of the Committee. Doesshe agree that the sort of projects it leads will help theGovernment to achieve their goals of planting massesmore trees across the country and involving schoolchildren?

Fleur Anderson: I thank the hon. Member for hisintervention noting the work of the Woodland Trust,which is in agreement with the points I have just made.In fact, this is exactly what it is calling for. Indeed, giventhat he has talked about the excellent work of theWoodland Trust, I hope he will be supporting newclause 19 when we come back to it. The WoodlandTrust would like an English tree strategy to be put on astatutory footing and gave evidence to that effect to thisCommittee previously, and many constituents from acrossthe country have written in to support this also.

Richard Graham: The point I was trying to make wasto highlight the good work that the Woodland Trust isdoing alongside the Government, rather than to necessarilysupport the Opposition’s suggested amendments to theBill.

Fleur Anderson: I understand the clarification. I wouldsay that the Woodland Trust is doing fantastic work,but it is also calling for this statutory framework. I putMembers on notice that we will return to this issuewhen we come to new clause 19. Therefore, I ask allCommittee members to hastily look that up and, Ihope, support it when it comes. Alternatively, as theshadow Minister has mentioned, let us see an actual,whole tree Bill come to Parliament with all urgency.That would be excellent as well.

Rebecca Pow: It will not surprise those hon. Memberswho have spoken that I share their passion for trees andancient woodland particularly. Indeed, I also praise thework the Woodland Trust does and has done, particularlywith young people, schoolchildren and all those whowant to get involved with this future environment, aswas intimated by my hon. Friend the Member forGloucester.

Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP): Iwonder whether the Minister will also pay tribute to thework of the Scottish Government, as over 80% of newplantings in 2018-19 were in Scotland. Are there lessonsto be learned there?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for EdinburghNorth and Leith for that intervention. Indeed, it is allcredit to Scotland. It has a different, much wilderlandscape, where trees are very well adapted to thelandscape. I do take my hat off to the tree planting thatScotland does, and we all like to learn from goodpractice across borders. Forestry is, of course, devolved,and that is why introducing a statutory target for theUK is not appropriate for this stage. I just want totouch on general points about tree planting before Iaddress what the actual clause is dealing with, whichreally pertains to tree felling.

Yes, we do have an England tree strategy, which doesset out the means to protect existing trees and see moreplanted across the country. We have a massive commitmentto more tree planting to the tune of 30,000 hectares by2025. It is ambitious, but we do have, and we arebringing forward, the measures to make that possible.That long-awaited and talked-about tree strategy willbe launched in the spring of 2021. A huge amount ofwork has gone into liaising on that consultation.

2.30 pm

Richard Graham: The Minister is quite right to highlightthe good work that has already been done. Does sheagree that there is a specific opportunity in many partsof the country in recycling centres? As more councilsgradually get out of the business of landfill, there is anopportunity to transform the landscape of these existingrecycling centres into places that can generate eco-woodlandand green energy and fulfil lots of good environmentalpurposes.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for a slightlyoff-the-wall intervention. I bet he has a recycling centrein his own constituency in mind. There will obviouslybe opportunities.

I will not say that the whole tree planting industryhas to be kick-started, because there was a brilliantpiece on “Farming Today” this morning—I do notknow whether anyone was awake that early—aboutmassive tree planting going on in the north. There is ahuge private forestry scheme; it is private and has lots ofinput by Natural England and the Forestry Commission.It feeds into a big sawmill; the sawmills need the wood,and we want to stop the wood being imported, so weneed to grow it at home. Although one may not thinkthat the word “trees” is mentioned enough, all thepolicies we are putting in place to deliver biodiversitynet gain and local nature recovery, or a great many ofthem, will involve tree planting.

Ruth Jones: Does the Minister not agree that, althoughit is great to have the tree planting strategy coming upnext year, this is a missed opportunity to put it in theBill, making it a really good, comprehensive, joined-uppiece of work?

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for that.While she makes a good point, I point her to the factthat we did a public paper this summer, which exploredwhether a statutory target for trees in England would beappropriate under the target-setting process of theEnvironment Bill. Perhaps the shadow Minister missedit, but it shows that all of this work is ongoing. We havethis target-setting measure in the Bill, and this will be aprime example of where a target ought to be set.


[Rebecca Pow]

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

Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con): Will the Ministercommend Solihull Council, which in line with itscommitment to plant a quarter of a million over thenext 10 years has linked up with the Woodland Trust toplant nearly 12,000 trees in the first year? It did notneed a statutory footing to do so.

Rebecca Pow: I absolutely applaud Solihull if it hasalready planted that many trees. There is a massiveamount of voluntary work and other initiatives goingon. I will also point out that tree planting will completelydovetail with the environmental land management schemeto deliver lots of those big projects, especially the landscape-scale projects. That will obviously help the climatechange, the carbon sequestration work and all the thingsMembers have touched on.

Richard Graham: Does the Minister agree that theQueen’s Commonwealth Canopy has also played a helpfulrole? Many of these plantings were done specifically byprimary school children.

Rebecca Pow: I meant to reference that just now, so Iam glad my hon. Friend mentioned it. I believe that allMPs got sent three trees—I cannot remember what yearthat was, but we were—and I planted my three using theinstructions. Some other MPs called me up to say,“Gosh, what do I do with these things that look liketwigs? How do I plant them?” I talked them through it,because some of the trees had obviously been in the boxfor quite a long time. It is a great project to link up theseareas and to get children, in particular, planting trees.

I am going to deal now with what is actually in theclause. I would not belittle this clause about tree fellingand planting at all. It is very important. We havecommitted to planting and protecting all these trees,and the clause will help us to protect the trees we plant.Street trees are often the closest green infrastructure topeople’s homes—the hon. Member for Putney talkedabout how much value people in urban areas get fromtrees.

Clause 101 places a duty on local highway authoritiesto consult before felling street trees, guaranteeing thelocal public an opportunity to understand why a treemay be felled and to raise concerns if they wish. That isreally important, because we have had issues elsewherein the country, where it has caused an absolute stormwhen the council has come and cut down trees andpeople simply cannot understand why that was beingdone. It is really important to get the messaging right.

Local highway authorities should have regard toguidance the Government will publish. This will providecertainty on how the duty should be implemented, aswell as consistent street tree management across thecountry. Under certain circumstances, however, treesare exempt from the duty, thereby not impeding actionto address trees that might have to be urgently felled—forexample, due to a tree disease, which would then makethem a danger. The introduction of this duty reflectsthe Government’s commitment to protecting our urbantrees, which people value so highly and which are importantin the urban space.

While reported illegal tree felling rates are low, nolevel of illegal felling is acceptable. We propose toaddress this through clause 100 and schedule 15. Thefelling licence system works well, but is now over 50years old. Since its introduction, the driving forcesbehind illegal felling have changed, and statutory protectionsno longer serve as a deterrent to some illegal felling.Our forestry enforcement measures resolve this andsupport effective enforcement of the felling licence regime.

First, we will increase the penalty for illegal felling toan unlimited fine, addressing the gains that can be madefrom illegal felling to realise the value of the land.Court powers to compel replanting will also be increased.Secondly, the measures will ensure that potential buyersor new owners of illegally felled land are made aware oftheir obligation to replant that land. That will ensurethat restocking is achieved, regardless of whether thatland is sold.

The hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised theissue of restocking and the 10-year issue in the schedule.If a person replants following the restocking order, butthen fells the trees again, that is breaking the law. Thetrees can be felled only with a licence, so a fine could beapplied in those circumstances. It is thanks to otherchanges in the Forestry Act 1967 and the changes thatthe Environment Bill is making that that will be thecase. I hope that clarifies the issue.

The public obviously care very deeply about trees,and clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 will ensurethat we have powers to protect and value them. Thatwill allow us to retain the benefits they deliver forus—capturing carbon, providing shade in our streetsand homes, creating homes for wildlife and, not least,looking beautiful. When I chose my flat to live in inLondon with my allowance, one of my chief criteriawas that I could see a tree from the window, which Ican. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and makes mebreathe easy.

Dr Whitehead: I am sure that the Minister knows thisalready, but there are many ways of getting rid of treesother than felling them. The issue here regarding proposednew subsection 3(b) relates to the requirement

“to maintain those trees in accordance with the rules and practiceof good forestry for a period not exceeding ten years”.

Maintenance in terms of the practice of good forestrymight include various things, such as making sure thatthe trees do not get eaten, or making sure that they aresufficiently watered so that they do not die, and variousother things that do not involve felling. However, thepenalties in the legislation at the moment are for felling.She may want to have further thoughts about this10-year rule in the light of that particular observation.


This issue is not just about felling; it is about a numberof other aspects of good forestry management of treesas they grow to maturity.

Rebecca Pow: I think I have given a very clear answerabout the felling. If someone replants, that is an offence;they will be prosecuted for it. I think I have made thatvery clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman thatmaintenance is important; quite clearly it is. I also agreethat planting a tree is not a simple thing; it has to beplanted, watered, maintained and protected from pests,and there is a great deal of work to be done. However, Ithink there is an understanding of that for anybodywho plants trees. Indeed, particularly when we bringforward these bigger schemes, maintenance and all thatside of it will be an important part and parcel of thoseprojects and those schemes.

I hope that I have covered this issue quite clearly inmy explanation and answered the questions, and I askthe Committee to agree that clause 100 stand part ofthe Bill.


Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of theBill.



Clause 102

CONSERVATION COVENANT AGREEMENTS


The Chair: With this, it will be convenient to discussthe following:

Clauses 103 to 106 stand part.


Government amendments 224 and 225.



That Schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to theBill.


Rebecca Pow: Can I just check that I am speakingabout all those clauses in one go, because that was a lotto take in?

The Chair: Yes.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you. This part of the Bill isbased, by and large, on the excellent work done by theLaw Commission; I thank the Law Commission for theongoing support that it has given us.

Conservation covenants are private agreements enteredinto voluntarily to deliver a conservation purpose forthe public good. They can cover conservation of thenatural or heritage features of the land; that is set out inclause 102(3). Importantly, they can bind subsequent

landowners, giving them the potential to deliver lastingconservation benefits for future generations; that isreferred to in clause 107.

Conservation covenants are crucial, because there iscurrently no simple legal tool that landowners can useto ensure that conservation benefits are maintainedwhen land is sold or passed on. Current workaroundsare costly, complex and have limitations, so opportunitiesto secure long-term conservation outcomes are beinglost. Our consultation last year found significant supportfrom a range of bodies, including farmers, landowners,and conservation organisations, for the whole idea ofconservation covenants. The covenants will provide away of giving biodiversity net gain sites and other keyareas for nature the long-term conservation managementthat they need, and will make it easier for businessesand others to fund nature recovery.

2.45 pm

Conservation covenants are made between a landownerand a designated responsible body, such as a conservationcharity or a public or for-profit body. Organisationsmust apply to the Secretary of State to be designatedand show that conservation is one of their core functions.Applications will be assessed by the Secretary of Stateagainst published criteria, as outlined in clause 104.Responsible bodies will monitor delivery of the covenantsand can take enforcement action if necessary.

Conservation covenants are a flexible tool: the partiescan design them to suit their own circumstances, andthe duration of a covenant will be whatever the landownerand responsible body specify and agree. If they choosenot to specify a duration, it will default to an indefiniteperiod for freeholders and to the remainder of the leasefor leaseholders, as covered in clause 106.

Conservation covenants can include positive as wellas restrictive land management obligations. A conservationcovenant might be used, for example, when a wildlifecharity that is a responsible body identifies an area ofland containing the habitat of a key species. The responsiblebody could offer to make a payment to the landownerin return for the landowner’s agreement to maintain theland as a habitat for that species. The conservationcovenant agreement would set out the steps that thelandowner would need to take, such as coppicing woodland,maintaining a wild flower meadow, or any other kind ofland management that might be required.

A conservation covenant agreement must be in writingand signed by the parties, and it must appear from theagreement that the parties intend to create a conservationcovenant, as referred to in clause 102. Our guidance onconservation covenants will emphasise those requirementsand include suggested wording that could be used todemonstrate that an agreement is intended to create aconservation covenant. We have engaged with stakeholderson our draft guidance, and we will continue to do sobefore it is finalised. I have had meetings and discussionswith a range of organisations, including the NationalFarmers Union, which particularly wanted to talk aboutthe issue. As outlined in clause 107(5)(b), a conservationcovenant has to be registered on the local land chargesregister to bind subsequent landowners, and that registeris available to the public.

Finally, Government amendments 224 and 225 toclauses 107 and 116 respectively will clarify that thereference in the clauses to section 3 of the Local LandCharges Act 1975 is to the version that has been substituted


by schedule 5 of the Infrastructure Act 2015, and not tothe original version. I have covered quite a lot there,Sir George.

Dr Whitehead: We have no feelings this afternoonthat we want to oppose these clauses. On the contrary,we think that the establishment of conservation covenantsis a good idea, provided that those covenants can reallylast in the way they work. The Minister has given agood account of how the covenants will work and canbe enforced. Although this is a lengthy number ofclauses in a lengthy part of the Bill, I hope hon. Memberswill not feel that we have failed to examine it. Indeed,having examined it, we think that these are a properseries of measures to take, and we hope that conservationcovenants will, as the Minister mentioned, be an importantpart of the process in years to come.


Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of theBill.


Clause 107

BENEFIT AND BURDEN OF OBLIGATION OF LANDOWNER

Amendment made: 224, in clause 107, page 105,line 10, after “1975” insert“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the InfrastructureAct 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 107(6) tosection 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text assubstituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text.The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to whichthe new text does not yet apply.




Clause 116

POWER OF RESPONSIBLE BODY TO APPOINT

REPLACEMENT

Amendment made: 225, in clause 116, page 109,line 13, after “1975” insert“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the InfrastructureAct 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 116(4) tosection 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text assubstituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text.The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to whichthe new text does not yet apply.



Clause 121

DUTY OF RESPONSIBLE BODIES TO MAKE ANNUAL

RETURN


I will be brief. This is a further clause concerningmays and musts. I am sure that my hon. Friend theMember for Cambridge will be fascinated by this clause.He will observe that, in the clause, two musts arecancelled out by one may. The clause states that adesignated body must make an annual return to the

Secretary of State and that the annual return must giveany information that is prescribed under subsection (4).However, that subsection states that the Secretary ofState may by regulations make that provision in the firstplace. Basically, clause 121(1) and (3) put in two mustsand, indeed, there are further musts below that. I amsure that my hon. Friend will want to reflect that in hiscalculations on these matters in the future. Perhapsthere will be further opportunities to reflect further asthe Bill progresses, but I do not want to press theamendment to a Division. I merely wish to point outthat the musts and mays continue in substantial numbersas we progress through the Bill.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for welcomingthe conservation covenant, and I am tempted to askwhether it has driven him to excitement.

Dr Whitehead: Steady on. I would not go quite thatfar. I am sort of elevated.

The Chair: Order. This is all very entertaining, but itis not getting us any further with the Bill.

Rebecca Pow: Sorry, Sir George. I could not resist it,because we were referring to the hon. Member’s excitementon Tuesday. I thank him for his proposed amendment.

Clause 121 places a duty on responsible bodies tomake an annual return to the Secretary of State. Thereturn must state whether they held any conservationcovenants during the relevant period, the number ofcovenants and the area of land that each one covers. Asthe duty is already on the face of the Bill, in clause 121,no regulations will be needed to require responsiblebodies to provide that information. However, conservationcovenants are a tool that are intended to be used overthe long term. It is therefore important that the Secretaryof State should be able to obtain additional informationin annual returns, if that proves necessary in the future.

Consequently, the clause also provides the Secretaryof State with the power to make regulations about theannual returns. That power can be used, if needed, torequire from responsible bodies more information thanthat already required by the Bill. I cannot anticipate atthis point what such additional information might be,but any information required to be provided must beabout, or connected with, the responsible body, itsactivities, any conservation covenant that it held duringthe relevant period, or the land covered by any suchcovenant.

As I have previously explained about similar amendments,it is therefore entirely appropriate to provide the Secretaryof State with flexibility as to when and how the regulation-making provision is given effect. Primary legislationconsistently takes such an approach to the balancebetween powers, which are mays, and duties, which aremusts. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdrawwhat I think is just a probing amendment anyway.






Schedule 17

APPLICATION OF PART 7 TO CROWN LAND

Rebecca Pow: I beg to move amendment 71, inschedule 17, page 222, line 36, leave out from beginningto end of line 9 on page 223 and insert—“Demesne land

3 (1) Where land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crownbut is not held for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession—

(a) Her Majesty in right of the Crown is to be regarded forthe purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holdingan estate in fee simple absolute in possession in theland, and

(b) any estate granted or created out of the land is to beregarded for those purposes as derived from thatestate in fee simple.

(2) The land referred to in sub-paragraph (1) does not includeland which becomes subject to escheat on the determination ofan estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land if—

(a) it is land to which an obligation under a conservationcovenant related when the estate determined, or

(b) it is not land to which such an obligation related at thattime and Her Majesty in right of the Crown has nottaken possession or control of the land, or enteredinto occupation of it.

Land subject to escheat

3A (1) This paragraph applies where land becomes subject toescheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolutein possession in land to which an obligation under a conservationcovenant relates.

(2) The conservation covenant is not terminated on thedetermination of that estate, even though the appropriateauthority has no liability in respect of the obligation unless anduntil the Crown—

(a) takes possession or control of the land, or enters intooccupation of it, or

(b) becomes the holder of—

(i) an estate granted by the Crown out of the land, or

(ii) an estate in land derived (whether immediately orotherwise) from an estate falling within sub-paragraph (i).

(3) If the Crown takes possession or control of the land, orenters into occupation of it—

(a) the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple inpossession in the land, and

(b) that estate is to be regarded for those purposes asimmediately derived from the determined estate.

(4) If the Crown grants an estate out of the land after havingpreviously taken possession or control of the land, or enteredinto occupation of it, the estate is to be regarded for the purposesof Part 7 and this Schedule as immediately derived from theestate mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a).

(5) But if the Crown grants an estate out of the land withouthaving previously taken possession or control of the land, orentered into occupation of it—

(a) the acts of the Crown in granting that estate are not tobe regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and thisSchedule as taking possession or control of the land,or entering into occupation of it, and

(b) the new estate is to be regarded for those purposes asimmediately derived from the determined estate.

(6) In this paragraph and paragraph 3B ‘the Crown’ meansHer Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster,or the Duchy of Cornwall, as the case may be.

Bona vacantia

3B (1) This paragraph applies where an estate in land to whichan obligation of the landowner under a conservation covenantrelates vests in the Crown as bona vacantia.

(2) The appropriate authority has no liability in respect of theobligation in relation to any period before the Crown takespossession or control of the land or enters into occupation of it.”

This amendment replaces paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 with threenew paragraphs. Paragraph 3A is new and deals with the application ofPart 7 to land to which a conservation covenant relates which becomessubject to escheat to the Crown (for example where the land isdisclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy). Paragraphs 3 and 3B arederived from the current paragraph 3, subject to some minor changesarising from consideration of paragraph 3A.

This amendment ensures that conservation covenantssurvive when land passes to the Crown through a processknown as escheat. Doing so provides consistency in ouroverall policy on conservation covenants, which is toensure that they can continue to affect land when itchanges hands. The Bill as introduced has the effect thatconservation covenants survive when land passes to theCrown as bona vacantia, or ownerless property. Landpasses on bona vacantia in various circumstances, suchas—in some cases—when a person dies without a will.That actually happened to the house I bought: theycould not find who the house was left to in a will, so itwent to the Crown and was sold by auction. ThisGovernment amendment replicates that effect for landthat passes to the Crown by virtue of a process knownas escheat. That can happen in a range of circumstances—for example, when a liquidator disclaims freehold landthat belonged to a company that is wound up. Thepurpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in thosecircumstances, the conservation covenant is not extinguishedby the escheat of the land.


Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.




3 pm

Schedule 19


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 187, inschedule 19, page 229, line 9, at end insert—“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope orpurpose of REACH regulations as applied prior to the amendedregulations being enacted”.


Amendment 3, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9, at endinsert—

“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must notregress upon the protections or standards of any Article orAnnex of the REACH Regulation.

(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—

(a) must make regulations under this paragraph tomaintain, and

(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceedparity of all protections and standards of chemicalregulation with any new or amended regulations ofthe European Parliament and of the Councilconcerning the regulation of chemicals.”

This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACHand remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lowerstandards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for themto set higher standards should they choose.


Amendment 198, in schedule 19, page 229, line 13, atend insert—

“both in general and, in particular, the precautionary principlereferred to in Article 1(3).”

This amendment would require Ministers, in considering consistencywith Article 1 of the REACH Regulation, to pay specific attention tothe precautionary principle.


“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope orpurpose of the REACH enforcement regulations as applied priorto the amended regulations being enacted”.

New clause 11—Ongoing relationship with EU-REACH—

“(1) The Secretary of State must not use regulations underSchedule 19 to diminish protections provided by REACHlegislation.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations seek tomaintain regulatory parity with any new or amended regulationsof the European Parliament and of the Council concerning theregulation of chemicals after IP completion day.

(3) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government as part ofany trade negotiations with the European Union to seek tosecure associate membership of the European Chemicals Agencyfor the United Kingdom after IP completion day to enable it tocontinue to participate in the EU-REACH framework.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to theaffirmative procedure.

(5) In this section, ‘IP completion day’ has the same meaningas in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement)Act 2020.”

This new clause would require continued parity with REACH.

Dr Whitehead: As you have indicated, Sir George,amendment 187 is being dealt with alongside a numberof other amendments, in my name and those of otherOpposition Members, and a new clause, which we fullysupport, in the names of a number of Members whowere on the Committee but are on it no longer.

Hon. Members will be aware that we have now movedaway from conservation covenants, trees and biodiversitytowards a very important new issue: chemical regulation,imports, exports and trading in this country post January2021. The amendments, and indeed the schedule thatthey amend, deal with a particularly perverse decisionby Her Majesty’s Government upon leaving the EU.They do not wish to have a negotiation or a discussionwith the ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, aboutassociate membership of the agency, under which theREACH regulations—on the registration, evaluation,authorisation and restriction of chemicals—sit, and Iwill come to that in a moment. Instead, they wish towholly recreate a UK series of REACH regulations tobe regulated by the Health and Safety Executive ratherthan the ECHA.

The REACH regulations are one of the substantialachievements of the EU. They are a series of regulationsthat comprehensively sort out the transportation, trade,appearance on particular markets, and safety of chemicalsacross the EU. They also provide a comprehensiveregime for identifying chemicals—a sort of institutionalmemory of what has gone on with chemicals. Companiesthat deal with chemicals have to systematically provideadditions to the European database of chemicals, whichnow stands at something like 23,000 different chemicals.That database is available to all EU member states toinform their policies relating to what they consideracceptable for chemical trade and chemicals landing in

their countries, what they can avoid bringing into theircountries, and what safety regulations should be appliedto the chemicals. All of that has a tremendouslyadvantageous effect on how we steward our environment.

I would go so far as to say that the REACH regulationshave played a tremendous role in protecting Europefrom all sorts of chemical harm, chemical malpracticeand dumping of chemicals in markets an. It is generallyenvironmentally advantageous to have regulations insuch a good form, in such a comprehensive way andavailable for all to look at.

I might add that the REACH regulations were broughtabout in the EU substantially through the agency of theUK. It was UK regulations and the advance of thesituation that we had in the UK at the time that persuadedthose involved and assisted the development of theREACH regulations. What we did for European chemicalsafety is something we can proud of.

One might think that one threw all that away at one’speril, but that is precisely what the Government havejust done. They have decided that, despite quite strongindications that the UK could have engineered an associaterelationship with the ECHA. The EU would have beenhappy for that to proceed, not least because a close,harmonious relationship in dealing with activities relatingto various chemicals across Europe is a great advantagefor everybody across Europe. Close harmony on chemicalstandards is beneficial all round. Frankly, the Governmenthave made a perverse decision, which I cannot fullyunderstand, to effectively completely recreate everythingthat was in EU REACH on a free-standing basis,subsequent to the HSE in the UK.

Ruth Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerfuland important point from a safety perspective. Does heagree that it is odd that the Government have yet toprovide a single good practical reason or advantage forsevering ties with the world-leading EU chemicals system?

Dr Whitehead: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. Ihave not found anyone who has said what the reason isfor doing it. On the contrary, every professional bodyand every joint industry body in this country—all thebodies concerned with chemicals; there is not onedissenter—has said that a close relationship with theEU and a continuing close association with or withinthe REACH regulations would be immeasurably to theUK’s advantage, and, indeed, would be an advantageall round.

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

Among other things, the suggested system does nottake account of a lot of the checks and balances andarrangements in the original REACH articles, which wewill come to later. The database that I have talkedabout, if it is recreated in the UK, will take an estimatedsix, seven or eight years to get to a position where it willbe even remotely comprehensive regarding chemical lists.Again, that is a huge amount of work for no purpose,


other than us apparently having a sovereign REACH—nowknown in the trade as British REACH or BREACH. Ithink that describes fairly well what it looks like therewill be in the UK REACH arrangements as set out inthe Bill.

The amendments that we will put forward this afternoonwould not on their own make up for the Government’scalamitous decision to go their own way on REACH inthe UK, but would at least ameliorate some of theworst effects of that changeover. I will not speak to theamendments in the first group individually, but theyseek, in different ways, to try to make sure that thestarting point for UK REACH is that we do not, atleast consciously, regress from what there was before, sothat its starting framework is as close as possible, includingthose articles, to what REACH consists of at the moment.Yes, that does mean we would be duplicating something,but at least it would be duplicated properly, with anumber of safeguards and checks and balances. I willcome later to protected and non-protected articles, which,frankly, the Government appear to want to play gameswith.

3.15 pm

The amendments would set a framework for howREACH is to be brought about for the UK. Newclause 11 was tabled by the hon. Member for Hendon(Dr Offord) and by my hon. Friend the Member forLeeds North West (Alex Sobel), who was previously amember of the Committee. I think my name and that ofmy hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge were addedto it. Nevertheless, we want to support it.

The new clause sets out clearly:

“The Secretary of State must not use regulations under Schedule 19to diminish protections provided by REACH legislation.”

It continues:

“The Secretary of State must”—

I emphasise must—

“by regulations seek to maintain regulatory parity with any newor amended regulations of the European Parliament and of theCouncil concerning the regulation of chemicals”

and that it should be

“an objective of Her Majesty’s Government as part of any tradenegotiations… to secure associate membership of the EuropeanChemicals Agency for the United Kingdom”

if possible. The Government would therefore be rowingback on some of the decisions made about going italone.

Other amendments state how there should be noregression, which is a principle we stand by. That is theminimum we would expect from any new regime in theUK, even if it is not based on associate membership ofthe ECHA. I therefore commend the amendments tothe Committee and ask it, for the sake of good chemicalregulation, whichever route we take, to think aboutthem carefully.

We have one go at this and, if we do not demand inthe legislation now that the new regulations are as goodas the existing ones, we may open all sorts of doors tofuture chicanery, malpractice, poor decision making,chemical dumping and so on. I am sure the Committeewants nothing to do with any of that, and by agreeingto the amendments and setting down a series of principlesby which REACH will be undertaken in the UK, we

have an opportunity to have nothing to do with any ofit in the future, with REACH working properly, even ifit is separate from its EU counterpart.

The Chair: I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind atrest. His memory was not defective: he has attached hisname to new clause 11.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for his comments.Like him, I take this whole area extremely seriously. It isimperative that we establish our own independent chemicalsregulatory framework for Great Britain, UK REACH,and that we do not diverge in terms of our standards. Imust say that EU REACH will continue to apply inNorthern Ireland under the terms of the NorthernIreland protocol.

We are absolutely committed to maintaining highstandards of protection for the environment, consumersand workers, but we want the autonomy to decide howbest to achieve that for Great Britain. We will considerthe best ideas from both inside and outside the EU,alongside the best evidence within the UK, but there areno plans to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we wereinstrumental in designing the whole process in the firstplace, which we kicked off during our presidency in1990. That should provide some reassurance about howseriously we take this and how there is no intention toregress. I assure stakeholders that our regulatory systemwill be developed and managed in line with what is bestfor the UK and reflect our commitment to high levels ofenvironmental protections.

I understand what hon. Members are aiming for inamendments 187, 3, 198 and 174 and new clause 11 asregards not reducing standards of protection, but I donot believe that the amendments are necessary. Thereare already a number of safeguards in schedule 19. Anychanges to REACH must be consistent with article 1,which includes the purpose of ensuring a high level ofprotection of human health and the environment. Weare not moving away from that and schedule 19 clarifiesthat.

There are 23 protected provisions—principles thatcannot be changed. These include provisions relating tothe fundamental principles of REACH, such as theprogressive replacement of substances of very high concern.I think the hon. Member is going to deal with those shortly,so I will not go into any more detail about them yet. TheSecretary of State must also consult on any proposedamendments and obtain the consent of the devolvedAdministrations in respect of devolved matters.

I particularly do not agree with amendment 3 or newclause 11(2). What they seek to do is impose dynamicalignment with the EU going forward. They would lockthe UK into the EU’s orbit. We must be able to followthe evidence and have the freedom to adopt approachesthat are the most appropriate for us. We should be ableto look inside this country and elsewhere in the world,not just in the EU, for the best ideas.

New clause 11 goes further still. It would require theGovernment to seek to negotiate associate membershipof the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA. We continueto push for a chemicals annex to a free trade agreementto enable data sharing, but the Government have beenclear that the UK will not agree to any outcomes thatbring with them an obligation to align with EU laws or


[Rebecca Pow]

give jurisdiction to any EU institutions, including EUagencies or the European Court of Justice. Associatemembership of ECHA would bring all of thoseconsequences with it.

Dr Whitehead: Will the Minister give way?

Rebecca Pow: I am loth to give way, but I will be kindand will do so.

Dr Whitehead: I want to tease out what the Ministeris saying about the fact that there is a proposal to try toget some data sharing under way with the EU. I presumeshe is referring to access to the wonderful database of23,000 products that ECHA controls. The Ministerappears to be saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we hadaccess to that database, without any of the obligationsthat go with maintaining the database in the first place?”I would not have thought it likely that anyone wouldagree to that in a hurry. Would she agree with it, if itwere the other way around? I do not think so. Surelythat is not a serious proposal and should only go aheadon the basis that some sort of obligation sharing wasalso part of the offer.

Rebecca Pow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemanfor that long intervention.

Daniel Zeichner: I thought it was short.

Rebecca Pow: It was short for the shadow Minister.The Government’s approach to negotiating a futurerelationship with the EU includes a proposal for achemicals annex as part of the EU free trade agreement.I thought the hon. Member for Southampton, Testmight welcome that. A deal on data sharing with theEU could mitigate the need for industry to providefull-data packages. If that were to happen, we would beresponsible for the updating of this as it went along.That is a clear direction of travel.

We continue to push for that, but the EU continues toreject any sectoral annexes. However, securing the chemicalsannex is still our preferred outcome. It would obviouslybe in the interests of both UK and EU businesses,including those that will want to continue selling theirchemicals into the GB market. The EU must, though,respect the UK’s position on no ECJ jurisdiction andno alignment.

As regards amendment 198, I recognise the importanceof the precautionary principle for each, but I do notbelieve the amendment is necessary or desirable. Article 1states that REACH is underpinned by the precautionaryprinciple: that means that it is firmly bound into thesafeguards I have already described. However, emphasisingthe precautionary principle could also have unintendedconsequences. It risks creating uncertainty about howto interpret article 1 as a whole. This is because article 1sets out a series of overarching aims for REACH, aswell as underpinning it with the precautionary principle,so I do not believe that such a consequence would bedesirable.

Amendment 174 moves on from REACH itself to theUK REACH enforcement regulations. Paragraph 2(2) ofschedule 19 says that any amendments must be “necessaryor appropriate” for the enforcement of REACH. Taken

with the protections in paragraph 1 of the schedule, Ibelieve we are already providing what the hon. Memberactually wants. There is a lot of detail there, but Itherefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw theseamendments.

Dr Whitehead: Well, the hon. Member is certainly notgoing to withdraw these amendments, because we thinkthey are crucial to the establishment of any reasonableREACH regime in the UK. In a minute, we will come tosome further particularly bad elements of schedule 19,which even allow the Secretary of State to chip away atprotected areas that are in that schedule in the firstplace. What we are doing is laying down a marker thatseeks to hold a line somewhere, as far as diminutionand dilution of REACH regulations in future are concerned,so it is important that we put these amendments toa Division. We would particularly like to ensure thatamendments 187, 198 and 174 and proposed new clause 11are all recorded as a divided vote this afternoon.



Division No. 39]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 3, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9,at end insert—

“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must notregress upon the protections or standards of any Article orAnnex of the REACH Regulation.

(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—

(a) must make regulations under this paragraph tomaintain, and

(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed

parity of all protections and standards of chemicalregulation with any new or amended regulations of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council concerning the regulation ofchemicals.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACHand remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lowerstandards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for themto set higher standards should they choose.


Question negatived.

3.30 pm

Amendment proposed: 198, in schedule 19, page 229,line 13, at end insert “both in general and, in particular,the precautionary principle referred to in Article 1(3).”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This amendment would require Ministers, in considering consistencywith Article 1 of the REACH Regulation, to pay specific attention tothe precautionary principle.



Division No. 40]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 107, inschedule 19, page 229, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

This amendment removes the high degree of discretion when settingREACH Chemical regulations afforded the Secretary of State byClause 127 in the Bill. Without this amendment the Secretary of Stateis able to make wide provisions to chemical regulations.

This amendment illustrates the continuing problemwe perceive with the way that the REACH regulations—or the breach regulations, as I call them—are to be setout in the Bill and implemented as the new regime.Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 19 refers to

“protected provision of the REACH Regulation”,

which are set out in the schedule. Having indicated thatthere are protected provisions in the REACH regulations,sub-paragraph (4) states that there is nothing to

“prevent any protected provision…being amended by provisionmade under this paragraph by virtue of section 127(1)(a).”

What appears to be the case here is like other elementsof the Bill. The protected provisions of the REACHregulations under paragraph 6 of the schedule includethe articles that deal with its principles and scope,animal testing, information for workers, and so on. Bythe way, we shall later consider the fact that a number ofthe articles that we think should be protected do notappear in the list, and our amendments would includethem in it. However, we must first address the point thatthe list, even once it is agreed, seems to be infinitelymalleable.

I wonder what is the purpose of our agreeing theprotected list this afternoon if there will continue to bea sub-paragraph in the schedule stating that if someonedecides in future that they do not particularly like it,they can zap particular protected provisions, which willno longer be protected. That is a rather cavalier way, atthe very least, of going about translating protectionsthat were in the REACH regulations into a UK equivalent.It must be apparent to anyone that the measure is not,aside from the good intentions of present Ministers,worth the paper it is written on for recreating a REACHregime with similar standards to the previous EU ones.

If paragraph 1(4) is left in the schedule, we willsimply be digging a hole in which to bury the protectedclauses for the future. They will not really be protected,and we shall not be able to refer to them in the longterm as the substance of the REACH regulations in theUK. The amendment would simply remove the sub-paragraph so that the protected provisions would actually

be protected, as they should be. The Secretary of Statewould not have the ability to remove the protectedarticles.

The Minister has already referred to several assurancesthat can be based on the fact that article 1 is protected.It is, indeed, in the list of protected articles, but it is notexempt from the Secretary of State’s ability to removearticles. It is nonsense, to be honest, and pretty shabbynonsense, looked at in any reasonable way.

Daniel Zeichner: My hon. Friend makes a powerfulcase. I find myself wondering what he thinks the purposeof all that is. He sets out clearly that the protections wehave now can be swept away. Who benefits from that?

Dr Whitehead: I presume it would be someone at afuture date who did not particularly like the idea thatwe should have high standards of chemical protection,perhaps because they thought we should have a let-it-all-hang-out, free trade, laissez-faire arrangement that wouldlet all sorts of stuff come in from all over the world thatwas not subject to that high standard of chemicalprotection—someone who would be quite happy forthose items to flood into the country at a future date—andthere would be nothing we could do about it, becauseour protections would have been knocked over by ourown Government.

Rebecca Pow: Amendment 107 relates to provisionsthat are listed in the table in paragraph 6 of schedule 19.If I hold up my copy of the Bill—it is slightly disintegratingthrough overuse—Members will see that I have highlightedthe table, which lists different articles relating to theprotected provisions. I agree with the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test about the importance of the provisions,which enshrine the fundamental aims and principles ofREACH. That is why we have set out a sizeable list ofthem and they will not change.

It may be helpful if I explain the reason for sub-paragraph (4). An ability to make

“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving”

provisions is a standard provision in legislation. Theaim is to make sure we avoid inconsistencies, discrepanciesor overlaps developing in the statute book, but it wouldnot enable us to make wholesale changes to the protectedprovisions. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman isseeing shadows. He is seeing malign opportunities andthings that will occur in the future, when they are notthere.

Article 1 of the REACH provisions, on aim andscope, sets out the purpose as ensuring a high level ofprotection of human health and the environment,promoting alternatives to animal testing and the principlesthat are primarily responsible for the chemicals that aresold and used. REACH is underpinned by theprecautionary principle.

I want to pick out a number of the provisions—hon.Members may wish to turn to page 231 of the Bill.Article 5 is on the “no data, no market” principle.Access to the market is dependent on registering thechemical with the Health and Safety Executive. Article 25(1)is the principle that animal testing should be carried outonly as a last resort. Article 35 covers the right ofworkers to access information received by their employersconcerning the safety of chemical substances or mixtures.


[Rebecca Pow]

Article 55 covers the aim of the authorisation process toprogressively replace substances of very high concern.Article 4A covers the principle that decisions that affectdevolved matters can be taken only with the consent ofdevolved Administrations. Article 109 covers the dutyon HSE to adopt operational rules to ensure transparencyin matters of chemical safety. None of those things isgoing to change. They are all in there. The annexes areincluded among the protected provisions, as REACHalready contains all the necessary powers to amendthem. Duplicating powers in the Bill would cause legalconfusion and uncertainty.

I want to give an explanation of where a little bit oftweaking might be required, as an example of how wecould use the consequential amendment power, which Ithink is what the hon. Gentleman is worried about. Oneof the REACH protected provisions, article 35, statesthat workers and their representatives shall be grantedaccess by their employer to the information they receiveon chemical safety under articles 31 and 32. However,articles 31 and 32 apply only to substances such asindividual chemicals and mixtures of chemicals—forexample, commercial preparations such as paints andcleaning fluids. They do not apply to substances in whatare called articles—for example, toxic heavy metals thatmight have been used in a piece of electronic equipment.The worker does not have that knowledge at this date intime.

If we decided to expand articles 31 and 32, so thatinformation on dangerous substances in items such aselectrical products must be sent down the supply chain,we would want to make consequential amendments toarticle 35, so that workers would have the right to accessthat information. As we gather more evidence andscience moves on, more comes to light about all thosedifferent chemicals and whether, for example, somethingused in my hairdryer, which I use every other day, isdamaging me. We want the right to amend that so thatthe people who produce those items, and everybodyelse, would know.

3.45 pm

Dr Whitehead: The Minister is making quite a substantialcase. She is stating that the apparent contradictionbetween paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of schedule 19 isresolved by reference to clause 127(1)(a), which includes

“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”,

meaning that those protected articles could be amendedso that, at a subsequent date, they would do what theyare supposed to do rather better. Clause 127(1)(b),however, states:

“A power to make regulations under any provision of this Actincludes power to make…different provision for different purposesor areas.”

Will the Minister explain how that complete power todo something different if she feels like it does notundermine the idea that amendments should only be

“supplementary, incidental, transition or saving provision”?

The Chair: Order. I have been very tolerant of thelength of interventions, because I genuinely believe thatsometimes an intervention can help to progress thediscussion. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for

Southampton, Test, but I hope that future interventionswill be kept to a single point and will be as brief aspossible.

Rebecca Pow: Thank you, Sir George. It was a detailedintervention. I reiterate what I said about the purposeof the consequential amendments and how useful theywill be. I will not run through the whole example again,but there are others like it. Those provisions are in theBill with a view to protecting people, not to undermineor regress.

Richard Graham: I was not going to come in on thepoint about hairdryers, which we do not all use. Thegeneral element of scaremongering from the Oppositioneffectively amounts to a feeling that once we are out ofreach of the REACH regulation, we are going to bevulnerable to all sorts of horrors. In fact, pages 187 and188 of the explanatory notes are clear that the Billallows the Secretary of State the future power to amendthe REACH regulation, but only in very specific ways,and almost everything currently in those regulationswill be recreated under a UK banner. Does the Ministeragree that we should be more confident of what thefuture will look like?

Rebecca Pow: I wholeheartedly agree. That is what Iwas trying to get at in the beginning: given that webasically helped to set up those regulations in the firstplace, we are hardly likely to want to lower standards.Indeed, I would say that we might want to raise them.That will all have to be done on the advice of the expertsand the rest. We have no intention whatsoever of loweringour standards.

Ruth Jones: The Minister says that the Governmenthave no intention of lowering standards, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—has an annual budgetof approximately £100 million and 400 staff, while theGovernment have promised only £13 million to coverthose costs. How can that be commensurate with theprotection that we need?

Richard Graham: By using it better and more efficiently!

Rebecca Pow: In the chuntering from the Back Benches,some sensible points are being made. Work is ongoing,but given that we were so influential on this in the firstplace, we have a lot of specialists and experts who areand will be engaged in setting up the system.

I am going to wind up now, Sir George. I think I haveaddressed all the points I wanted to address, and givenquite a detailed explanation. I ask the hon. Memberfor Southampton, Test if he will kindly withdrawamendment 107, but I am not holding out much hope.

Dr Whitehead: We will not withdraw this amendment.The Minister’s attempted explanation has increased ourresolve, because I do not think it took account of whatis in the legislation. By the way, explanatory notes arenot legislation—we ought to bear that in mind.



Division No. 41]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel


NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 174, in schedule 19, page 229,line 32, at end insert

“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope orpurpose of the REACH enforcement regulations as applied priorto the amended regulations being enacted”.—(Dr Whitehead.)



Division No. 42]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendments made: 72, in schedule 19, page 230, line 47,leave out

“the National Assembly for Wales”,


See Amendment 28.

Amendment 73, in schedule 19, page 230, line 48,leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(RebeccaPow.)

See Amendment 28.

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 227, inschedule 19, page 231, line 22, at end insert

“and take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advicethrough the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.

This amendment requires the Secretary of State and any relevantdevolved authority to take into account the relevant independentscientific advice when making decisions.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussamendment 228, in schedule 19, page 231, line 30, atend insert

“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice throughthe Agency’s science advice mechanisms, and”.


Dr Whitehead: These two amendments are what onemight call blindingly obvious amendments. They seekto ensure that, before making regulations, the Secretaryof State should not only consult with the bodies andpersons indicated, but

“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice throughthe Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.

Be guided by the science, quite simply. That might bequite important in terms of some of our concerns aboutother clauses.

That is why we have tabled the amendments. I fearthat they will not get a very positive hearing, but I feelsure that the Minister will agree with the sentimentsbehind them. I would not like us to end up as Trumptown-on-Sea and go in the opposite direction. I offer theamendments for the purpose of elucidation. We thinkthat it is a very important principle, albeit a ratherobvious one, and will therefore divide the Committee ifthe Minister is unable to take the amendments onboard. It would be nice if she took some amendmentson board, given that they are meant in the best possibleway, but I fear that that will not be the case.

Rebecca Pow: I understand why the hon. Gentlemanhas tabled amendments 227 and 228. It is obviouslyreally important that decisions in the field of chemicalsregulation are based on strong science and robust evidence.That is a no-brainer. That is why any proposals toamend REACH in the future must be subject toconsultation, and the agency in particular must alwaysbe consulted. We are absolutely in agreement on that. Itis up to the agency to decide how to mobilise its variousscientific advice mechanisms and then reflect the opinionsthat emerge in its consultation response. That is the roleof the Health and Safety Executive, as it has the necessaryexpertise and experience. The Government will of coursetake the agency’s considered advice into account.

To that extent the amendment is necessary, but it goesbeyond that, requiring the Government to go back andtake those opinions into account directly. That wouldrequire the Secretary of State to bypass the agency’sexpert assessment and potentially replace it with hisown interpretation. Perhaps the current Secretary ofState would be quite capable of that, but who is goingto come along afterwards? We do not want that tohappen, and I do not believe that it would be a desirableoutcome or a good use of HSE’s scientific expertise.

Amendment 228 has the same aim, but in respect ofthe REACH enforcement regulations. Again, I understandwhy the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment.Obviously, I absolutely agree with him about the importanceof science and the evidence, but the amendment risksthe same undesirable consequences as amendment 227.I am sure that that is not really his intention, andtherefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I am sorry to have to do this again,but we do not think that such an obvious addition canbe subject to the undesirable side-effects in the way thatthe Minister describes. We think that the amendmentsshould simply be added to the Bill and we wish toemphasise that by dividing the Committee.



Division No. 43]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel


NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Amendment proposed: 228, in schedule 19, page 231,line 30, at end insert

“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice throughthe Agency’s science advice mechanisms, and”.—(Dr Whitehead.)



Division No. 44]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


4 pm

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 229, inschedule 19, page 231, line 31, at end insert—

“(4) The Secretary of State, or any relevant devolvedauthority, shall make transparent the reasons for all decisionstaken under this regulation by publishing this information in thepublic domain.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State, or any relevantdevolved authority, to publish an explanation as to how they reached adecision.

Although the amendments are set out for individualdebate, they all refer in one way or another to a requirementto operate the UK REACH regulations transparently,publicly and openly. They mandate giving access toinformation by providing requirements to publish andfor Ministers to report. Later amendments address thequestion of why the elements that are in the REACHarticles at the moment are not included in the protectedarticles that the Minister has already talked about—articlesconcerned with the right to know, the publication ofmaterial and so on.

The question we want to ask through these amendmentsis related to basic issues around transporting chemicals,the harm that they might do and what might happen topeople if they ingest products that have not been properlycertified—all those things. Why are protections in termsof the publication of documents or decisions and thepublic right to have access to the decision-making processall missing from this part of the Bill? I would havethought that the Minister would agree that they shouldbe present in some form or other. I do not knowwhether it has just been overlooked or whether there isany reason—I am jumping forward a little—why the

very good protections in terms of transparency, publicaccess and so on in the original REACH articles shouldnot be translated directly into protected articles inthe UK.

We will seek to divide the Committee on some of theamendments. In different ways, they are designed toplace in the UK REACH regulations those issues of theright to know, public access and the interrogation ofdecisions. I am sorry that they are not in there. Theyshould be. I do not think, Sir George, that we needseparate debates on all these amendments, because theyall address that principle in different ways and, for thatreason, they should all be supported.

The Chair: I will have to take the further amendmentsthe hon. Gentleman refers to, because they are all onthe amendment paper, but if Members do not want toproceed with them, that is relatively easily dealt with—ifnobody wishes to speak to them or move them, theyeffectively fall.

Rebecca Pow: I understand why the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test tabled amendment 229, which I willtalk to now. The amendment calls for transparency indecision making, which I completely support, but I donot think that the amendment is necessary. There mustbe consultation on any proposals under these provisions,as set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 19. The timelypublication of responses is a fundamental part of theGovernment’s consultation principles. Any legislativechanges as a result of that consultation will be subjectto the affirmative procedure, which gives the opportunityfor explanation and scrutiny, which I know the hon.Gentleman will welcome.

There is an important difference in procedure betweenthe powers in the Bill and decision making under REACH.The Secretary of State’s decisions under REACH aregiven effect through a statutory instrument using thenegative procedure or through Executive action, whereaspowers in the Bill are exercised through the affirmativeprocedure, with the higher levels of explanation andscrutiny that that entails. I therefore ask the hon. Gentlemanto withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: I am anxious not to overthrow procedurecompletely, but it might be acceptable to the Committeeif we were able to indicate that we would, in principle,wish to divide the Committee on a number of amendmentsthat we feel particularly strongly about, without actuallyproceeding to divide the Committee. Might the Committeethink that that was an acceptable procedure at this timein the afternoon?

The Chair: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentlemanproposes. Can he be a bit clearer?

Dr Whitehead: Yes, I can. We face a debate on essentiallythe same points about transparency, public access andso on, which we feel strongly about. We particularlywant the Minister to explain why articles are missingfrom that list of potential REACH articles. We mayhave a brief debate about that subsequently. However,we intend, in principle, to divide the Committee on allthese amendments, which would of course take quitea while to complete. However, if we were able to state


that, in principle, we wish to divide the Committee onthose amendments, we could perhaps have an indicativeDivision on this this particular amendment.

The Chair: I think I now understand what the hon.Gentleman is saying. It would be an ingenious newaddition to the rules of the House, but I am afraid thatthat is way above my pay grade.

Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con): On a point of order,Sir George. Would it be helpful to suggest to the shadowMinister that we debate the current amendment, butthat he does not press the subsequent amendments to aDivision?

The Chair: The situation is straightforward. If thehon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to make hispoint about the issue, the best way to do it is to have aDivision on the lead amendment. When we come to thesubsequent amendments, it is a question of saying,“Not moved,” or of saying, “Moved formally” and wewill then take a vote. There will have to be some sort ofDivision, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Testdoes not have to take part in it if he feels that the pointhe is trying to make has already been established withregard to the lead amendment.

Dr Whitehead: Thank you, Sir George. We wish toseek a Division on this amendment, and we may seek aDivision on subsequent lead amendments when theycome up.



Division No. 45]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 108, inschedule 19, page 231, line 37, at end insert—

“Article 13 (General requirements for generation of information onintrinsic properties of substances)”.



“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)

Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registeredsubstances)

Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.


“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a rightto know for consumers)”.

This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH(communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended underSchedule 19.


“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.


“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.

Dr Whitehead: As I said, these amendments deal withelements of the REACH articles as they stand that wewould seek to be protected in the translation into UKjurisdiction. We are concerned that the articles mentionedin the amendments have been left out, all of which areconcerned, one way or another, with public access, theright to know and transparency. My hon. Friend theMember for Putney may say a few words on that in aminute, so I will restrict my remarks to that.

I also indicate to you, Sir George, that although wewould in principle seek to divide on all the amendmentsif the Minister is not able to accept them or to give afully satisfactory explanation, we will seek to divide onthe lead amendment only.

4.15 pm

Fleur Anderson: The Bill gives the Secretary of Statefor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power toamend UK REACH and the REACH EnforcementRegulations 2008—REACH being the registration,evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals,for the benefit of those reading in Hansard. However,specified elements of REACH are excluded, as we saidearlier, from the Secretary of State’s amending power. Weare referred to the table that the Minister mentionedearlier and told, “It is all there and included.” It is notall there and included.

We would like to highlight some articles that have notbeen included in the protected provisions—specifically,article 13 in amendment 108, articles 26, 27 and 30 inamendment 109 and—an interesting set of articles—articles 32, 33 and 34 in amendment 176, which are highlyimportant to the REACH regulations actually workingfor consumers and those within the supply chain ofchemicals. The provisions refer to everyday productsthat we and our constituents would all use, includingpaints, cleaning products, clothes, furniture, electricalappliances and, as already mentioned, hairdryers.

In article 32, which I would argue should be a protectedprinciple, there is the duty to communicate informationdown the supply chain free of charge and without delay.In article 33, the duty is to communicate information onsubstances in articles for the consumer free of chargewithin 45 days. In article 34, the duty is to communicateinformation on substances and preparations up thesupply chain.

There are duties up the supply chain, down thesupply chain and to the consumer. That is all protected,and it absolutely should happen to ensure that, as theMinister has said, when more information, science and


[Fleur Anderson]

data come to light as we go along with new productsand chemicals, the consumer and all of those in thesupply chain have a right to know what that newinformation is, and what is up and down the supplychain. The consumer should know what is in the productsthat we consume.

Under article 33, suppliers of articles that contain asubstance of very high concern are required to providesufficient information in response to consumer requestsabout those products to allow their safe use, includingdisclosing the name of the substance that is used.However, that will be taken out of a protected requirement.There are substances that, for example, meet the criteriafor classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic toreproduction and persistent bioaccumulative toxic. Thisis an essential public policy safeguard, and it is unclearwhy the Government wish to exclude it from the list ofprotected provisions. Other things are included in thatlist. It is seen as beneficial to have a list of protectedprovisions. Why are those provisions not protected?

That is the question we are asking by tabling theseamendments. We are saying that it is important to thewhole of the REACH regulation that these things areincluded and cannot be subject to change by the Secretaryof State.

Rebecca Pow: I thank hon. Members for amendments108, 109, 176, 110 and 111. I understand the desire toprotect further provisions of UK REACH in theEnvironment Bill. However, I do not believe that theseamendments are necessary or, in many cases, desirable—shock, horror!

The protected provisions of REACH are intended toensure that the fundamental principles of REACHcannot be changed, while allowing a flexibility to ensureUK REACH remains fit for purpose. The intention isnot to freeze detailed processes. Any proposed amendmentsby the Secretary of State are subject to consultation, tothe consent of the devolved Administrations in respectof devolved matters and to the affirmative procedure,ensuring a full debate in Parliament, which I knowOpposition Members will welcome.

Amendment 108 applies to article 13 of REACH,which sets out detailed provisions about alternatives toanimal testing, including when animal tests can bewaived—I think the hon. Member for Putney was referringto that. She wants us to avoid unnecessary animaltesting and to promote alternative approaches. We agreewith that aim, but adding this article to the list ofprotected provisions could make that more difficult.For example, it could prevent us from extending therange of tests for animal testing that may be omittedwhere there is appropriate justification.

The same objections apply to the articles that wouldbe affected by amendment 109, that is, articles 26, 27and 30, and by amendment 176, that is, articles 32, 33and 34. These articles are not just about the principlesof information sharing. They also include prescriptivedetails about how information should be shared withthe REACH supply chain and how the agency shoulddeal with inquiries. We should not bind ourselves tothese detailed procedures going forward but insteadremain free to adopt new ways of working that draw onour experience of applying REACH in the UK. Thewhole idea is that we will improve and benefit.

Amendment 110 would protect REACH article 40(2).Again, the point is that we do not want to freeze thedetail of how REACH operates. Instead, we need theflexibility to amend REACH, to ensure that it works forthe UK. In this case, article 40(2) includes specificdetails, such as timescales for publishing information.

I do not believe that amendment 111 is necessary ordesirable. I agree that we may consider it appropriate toamend the REACH annexes to drive the use of non-animalalternatives, but the power to amend the REACH annexesis already within REACH itself, which makes it unnecessaryto add an overlapping power to the Bill.

I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton,Test to consider withdrawing his amendments.

Dr Whitehead: I think I have already indicated thatalthough we do not wish to withdraw these amendments,we will seek—for the purpose of the record, as itwere—an indicative division on amendment 108. However,the fact that we will not press all the subsequentamendments to a vote does not mean that we would notideally like to divide on them. However, we are doingthis for the sake of the comfort and sanity of theCommittee this afternoon, and I hope that will beappreciated.



Division No. 46]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Jones, Fay

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


The Chair: Before I put the question on amendment109, which again was tabled by Dr Whitehead, I wonderif it would be helpful if I try to explain the hon.Gentleman can achieve what he wants to achieve. Withadvice, I think there are two options, which apply toamendments 109, 176 and 110. I take it that the hon.Gentleman, in principle, does not want to have a Division,but does not want to concede the principle; I think thatthat is approximately his position. When I call eachamendment and he says, “Not moved”, then therewould not be a Division. The other option is that he canmove each amendment, but then simply remain silentwhen I put the question. So, when I say, “As many ofthat opinion say aye”, he should just not say anythingand then there will not be a Division in that instanceeither. Those are the only two options available to thehon. Gentleman, so I will leave them with him. Theadvice I have given is intended to be helpful to him andto the Committee.

Amendment proposed: 109, in schedule 19, page 231,line 38, at end insert—

“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)


Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registeredsubstances)

Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.


“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a rightto know for consumers)”.

This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH(communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended underSchedule 19.


Question negatived.


“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.


“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.—(Dr Whitehead.)


Question negatived.


Clause 126

CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION

Amendments made: 58, in clause 126, page 113, line 28,leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert“Senedd Cymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 59, in clause 126, page 113, line 36, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 60, in clause 126, page 113, line 37, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.


Clause 127

REGULATIONS

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 149, inclause 127, page 114, line 11, leave out subsection (1)(b).

I have alluded to this amendment previously. I mustadmit that, having read the clause on a number ofoccasions for different purposes, I cannot come to any

other conclusion than that subsection (1)(b) is a seriousattempt to destabilise what happens before it in theclause. One has to read it differently from commonEnglish to conclude that

“different provision for different purposes or areas”

means anything other than that the Minister can dowhat he or she wants. That should not have a place inthe Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister wouldexplain briefly—I mean briefly—why that is in the Bill.We do not intend to divide the Committee, but wewould like to hear something from the Minister to thatpurpose.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Gentleman for hiscontribution on this matter. Clause 127 sets out thescope of regulation-making powers as well as the proceduresto be used when making those regulations. Subsection (1)(b)makes it clear that regulations made under the Bill areable to make

“different provision for different purposes or areas.”

That is a standard provision that has been used formany years in any Bill that includes delegated powers. Itis necessary to provide clarification as to the flexibilityof the delegated powers. Different circumstances mayrequire different provisions. The amendment would removenecessary, proportionate and appropriate flexibility fromthe delegated powers, making it more difficult to deliverthe ambitions set out in the Bill, including settingtargets, creating deposit return schemes or deliveringbiodiversity net gain. I hope that was brief enough toclarify what is meant. I ask the hon. Gentleman towithdraw the amendment.

4.30 pm



Amendments made: 61, in clause 127, page 114, leaveout line 32 and insert “Senedd Cymru”

See Amendment 28.

Amendment 62, in clause 127, page 114, line 35, leaveout “the National Assembly for Wales”and insert “SeneddCymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)

See Amendment 28.



Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Leo Docherty.)

4.32 pm

Adjourned till Tuesday 24 November at twenty-fiveminutes past Nine o’clock.


Written evidence reported to the HouseEB82 Letter from Rebecca Pow to Dr Alan Whitehead

re: Resource efficiency requirements (Schedule 7)EB83 Letter from Rebecca Pow to Daniel Zeichner

re: new burdens on local authorities (Clause 54)



OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Twentieth Sitting


(Morning)

CONTENTS


New clauses considered.


PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than













Hillsborough) (Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)








(Morning)


Environment Bill

9.25 am

The Chair: This may be entirely disorderly, but to givethe shadow Minister time to collect his thoughts, I amdelighted to be able to advise the Committee that myfirst grandson, Frederick Evelyn Gray Barker, was bornthis morning at 6 o’clock. [HON. MEMBERS: “Hear, hear!”]That is something that can go into Hansard and it canbe put on his nursery wall.

Clause 130

EXTENT

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): Ibeg to move amendment 231, in clause 130, page 116,line 31, at end insert“except that section (Use of forest risk commodities in commercialactivity) and Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercialactivity) (use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity)extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.”

This amendment provides that NC31 and NS1 extend to England andWales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.


Government new clause 31—Use of forest riskcommodities in commercial activity.

Government new schedule 1—Use of forest riskcommodities in commercial activity.

Rebecca Pow: May I be the first to congratulate youon becoming a grandfather, Mr Gray, and to welcomeFrederick to the world? He has arrived on a reallyauspicious day for our global footprint. I hope that hewill be very proud when he is a bit more grown-up andreads in Hansard what his grandpa said—hopefully hemight just read long enough to read this speech as well.I think that he will be rather proud also that his grandpawas part of this Committee.

The Chair: That is enough congratulations, but thankyou very much.

Rebecca Pow: I am delighted to discuss amendment 231,new clause 31 and new schedule 1. Consumers in thiscountry are increasingly concerned that they arecontributing to environmental destruction overseas, andthey are right to be concerned: almost 80% of deforestationis caused by agriculture, including produce that we usehere in the UK. Globally, half of all recent tropicaldeforestation was the result of illegal clearance forcommercial agriculture and timber plantations. Shockingly,the figure increases to 90% in some of the world’s mostbiodiverse forests, including parts of the Amazon.

We will be the first country in the world to legislate totackle this illegal deforestation by setting a frameworkof requirements on business. Businesses will be prohibitedfrom using forest risk commodities produced on landthat was illegally occupied or used. They will be requiredto establish a due diligence system for regulated commoditiesto ensure that their supply chains do not support illegaldeforestation, and will have to report annually on thatexercise. If businesses do not comply, they should besubject to fines. The measures will extend across thewhole of the UK, so that we can work across ournations to tackle illegal deforestation.

As the first country in the world to legislate on thisissue, we want to continue to lead the way internationally.Therefore, the measures also require us to review thelaw’s effectiveness every two years. The review will setout any steps that we intend to take as a result, ensuringthat we will take action if we do not see progress. Theenabling powers in the framework allow us to adjustcertain aspects as deforestation patterns change andtechnology advances.

The law before us today is not only a win for theenvironment. It is a win for UK consumers, who willhave confidence that the food they eat and the productsthey use have been produced responsibly. It is a win forresponsible businesses in the UK, which will no longerbe undercut by those who do not follow the rules. And itis a win for our international partners in producercountries, because this approach will deliver for tradeand economic development as well as for the environment.We have seen that in Indonesia, where the introductionof a timber licensing scheme meant that confidence inthe provenance of its timber grew, leading to an increasein trade. The value of Indonesia’s worldwide exports oftimber products doubled from $6 billion in 2013 tonearly $12 billion in 2019.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): As the PrimeMinister’s trade envoy for Indonesia, I had the greatpleasure of working closely with colleagues from theDepartment for International Development and in ourembassy in Jakarta on helping the Indonesians to find asolution to what was a significant problem for them.Does the Minister agree with me that this measureshows what the UK can do abroad on our environmentalpolicies, as well as at home?

9.30 am

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend so much for hisintervention, because he is right to point that out. Imust applaud him for the work he did with the UKGovernment. It was a tricky issue. Timber is an importantexport for Indonesia, but that must not come at theexpense of cutting down its precious rainforests andother forests, with all the knock-on effects that bringsfor the wider environment. We have the solution fortimber, with sustainable timber regulations sorted out,and we are now working on other products. My hon.Friend is right to point out how beneficial that can beall around, with the knock-on effects, and I thank himfor that.

As a result of that work in Indonesia, the amount ofmoney made went up, as I said, and deforestation rateswere three times lower in areas producing timber coveredby the scheme than in other areas, so it worked all


around. That shows how driving demand for sustainableproducts helps not just the people there but nature andthe climate—it is an all-round win.

I assure the Committee that the Government intendto move swiftly to bring legislation forward and will laythe necessary secondary legislation shortly after COP26,which we will hold in Glasgow next November. We willconsult again to gather views as we develop secondarylegislation, and Parliament will have the opportunity toscrutinise many of the regulations.

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): Atthe risk of incurring your wrath, Mr Gray, I will add mycongratulations to those of the Minister on the birth ofyour grandson. I observe that your grandson shares aname with an esteemed public servant in my city ofSouthampton, and I trust he will live up to the achievementsof that individual even if he does not indeed pursue agreat career in environmental conservation andmanagement, which perhaps would be appropriate totoday’s proceedings. That is all I am going to say.

The Chair: Order. I am most grateful to everyone, butno more congratulations. Thank you. But he was bornin Brighton, just down the road from Southampton, sopretty close by.

Dr Whitehead: There we are: the coincidences areraining on each other now.

The Government new clause and new schedule representa tremendous step forward in action not only in the UKbut, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, abroad.That demonstrates how we can reach beyond our shoresin environmental protection and action, as well as indue diligence for conservation, environmental managementand climate change purposes. The Opposition whollywelcome these measures. However, why were they solate in coming?

I think we can claim we nudged the Government alittle in that direction, because our due diligence newclause, which we will discuss later, is about the widersubject that the Minister mentioned in her remarks andpoints the way. We hope that the Government will gobeyond forestry products and into other areas. Wetabled our new clause, which substantially anticipatedthe Government’s action, before Parliament went intorecess for the lockdown. Can the Minister reflect onwhy these measures were as late as they were? In heropinion, did the nudging of not only Labour but also alarge number of national and international environmentalgroups, who banded together to develop the due diligenceway of doing things, have a substantial hand in makingsure—albeit a little late in the day—that these newclauses came into being? It was just in time because theBill will now have these clauses in it, and I hope theywill fully survive the rigours of the Bill’s passage throughthe House and come to be a substantial part of it. Ithink it will be a very welcome and progressive part ofthe Bill.

Rebecca Pow: I welcome the fact that the Oppositionare in agreement and welcome this. Nobody in theirright minds would think this is a bad idea. I welcomethat and we do share a good relationship, so I thankthem for that. Yes, the amendment was tabled and weall listened to it, and indeed we had plenty of people on

our side pushing for it as well. This is a global issue. Letus tackle it together globally, which I think the hon.Gentleman will agree is what we are doing.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): While we aresinging from the same hymn sheet and all in harmony,would the Minister agree with over 90% of respondentsto the public consultation—there were 63,000 respondents,which is a fantastic result— who felt the legislationcould go further and that local law should be strengthened?

Rebecca Pow: A great deal of consultation went intothis and all of those views were looked at, and then itwas considered what would be the best and most positiveway forward. Tackling this issue is not straightforwardand requires dealing with other governments aroundthe world. One has to tread a careful path, and I believewe have come up with a really workable solution.

To answer the comment by the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test about why we did not do this morequickly, the consultation took a long time and we hadto take into account a great many views and discussions.We must remember that a lot of this originated from thework done by Sir Ian Cheshire and the Global ResourceInitiative. We referenced that way back in March, whenI was being asked why the Government were not doingthis fast enough. We had the GRI’s summary and wewere working up how we could continue to work fromits recommendations. That is where we engaged with somany NGOs, particularly the Royal Society for theProtection of Birds and WWF, because they are valuedpartners with a great deal of experience. They have beenhelpful in inputting into what we have come up with. Ihope that is helpful to the shadow Minister and I thinkwe will have a bit more discussion about this later, but Iwill leave it there.


Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.

Clause 131

COMMENCEMENT

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 2, inclause 131, page 117, line 21, leave out “on such day asthe Secretary of State may by regulations appoint” andinsert“at the end of the period of six months beginning with the day onwhich this Act is passed”.

This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from choosingnot to enact parts of the Bill. Currently multiple provisions includingthe whole of Part 1 (environmental governance), Part 6 (nature andbiodiversity) and Part 7 (Conservation Covenants) could never beenacted, even after the Bill has received Royal Assent.


Amendment 151, in clause 131, page 118, line 2, leaveout “on such day as the Welsh Ministers may by regulationsappoint” and insert“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day onwhich this Act is passed”.

Amendment 152, in clause 131, page 118, line 23, leaveout “on such day as the Scottish Ministers may byregulations appoint” and insert“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day onwhich this Act is passed”.


[The Chair]

Amendment 153, in clause 131, page 118, line 29, leaveout “on such day as the Department of AgricultureEnvironment and Rural affairs in Northern Irelandmay appoint” and insert“at the end of a period of six months beginning with the day onwhich this Act is passed”.

Dr Whitehead: The amendments all essentially saythe same thing, but face towards different Secretariesof State. They refer to the back of the Bill, which weare now considering. I recommend to those Memberswho perhaps have not ventured to look at the backsof Bills to any great extent in their time in this Houseto have a good look at the back of this Bill and anyBill that comes before the House. If hon. Membersare on Committees on future Bills, it is always worthhaving a look at the back of the Bill to see what isintended for all the legislation that has been draftedand discussed assiduously. What I mean by that is thatthe back of the Bill is where things actually happen ordo not.

For this Bill, it is more than important that what wehave discussed and made passionate speeches aboutactually happens, and the provisions come into force ingood time, so that our intentions are carried out. Theproblem with intentions on many occasions is that theyare not actually reflected on the back of the Bill. Whathappens is that the ability to implement a part of thelegislation is reserved to the Minister by regulation.For people who want to take their search of the backof the Bill seriously, the statute books apparentlyinclude a large amount of legislation which just has notbeen enacted—a complete education Bill, for example,from a while ago. None of it has been enacted, becausewhat is on the back of the Bill has simply not takenplace.

I mentioned earlier the Office of Gas and ElectricityMarkets regulations and the Energy Act 2013. Why isthat important? Well, part 5 of the 2013 Act, as hon.Members will recall, was about the designation of astatement on policy for Ofgem, concerning the environmentand climate change. We tabled an amendment suggestingthat the Government should press Ofgem to revise itsmandate to ensure that it has the environment andclimate change at its heart. What hon. Members mightbe surprised to know, and I do not recall if it wasspecifically mentioned when we moved that amendment,is that already in legislation is a complete section of aBill—not just a clause—saying that the Governmentshould introduce a strategy and policy statement requiringOfgem to have an environmental and climate changebrief.

That was agreed by a similar Committee to this one,thinking in 2013 that that was going to happen. It hasnot happened, simply because, on the back of the Bill isa provision that section 5 of the 2013 Act comes intoforce when the Secretary of State by regulation decides.Ofgem has never had such a brief in its armourybecause Ministers have simply declined to implementthat bit of the 2013 Act. They have sat on their handsand not carried out the work necessary to implement it.We are trying to ensure that those important parts ofthis Bill, which we have laboured mightily over, comeinto force and do what we think they will do in reasonablygood order.

9.45 am

Hon. Members will see that the things that do notcome into force at an early stage, or at all, are quitesurprising. For example, part 1 of this Bill, whichthe Government have highlighted as a flagship of theBill’s targets, does not come into force unless theSecretary of State decides so by regulations. I am notsuggesting that the present Minister or Secretary ofState would simply sit on their hands such that it didnot come into force, but the wording allows for that.The following parts of the Bill are also subject to theMinister’s discretion to introduce by regulations: theseparate collection of household waste, in clause 54;hazardous waste, in clause 57; charging powers, inclause 61; littering enforcement, in clause 65; smokecontrol areas, in schedule 12; and water managementplans, in clause 75.

For the sake of good governance, we think it isnecessary to change those provisions. Hon. Memberswill see that other clauses come into force on the day onwhich the Bill becomes an Act. It is not a principle thatcannot be agreed; it is about where different parts of theBill fall in terms of those provisions.

I recognise that the provisions that I have mentionedmay be somewhat separate from the provisions thatcome into force on the day the Bill becomes an Act,because additional work is required on regulations toenact those parts of the legislation, but the same is trueof any Bill that goes on to the statute book. We suggestthat allowing a six-month period to enact those sectionsshould give ample time for the additional regulationsto be passed through the House. We simply suggestthat in the parts of the Bill over which the Secretary ofState has complete discretion about when they areimplemented, that provision should be replaced by thesuggestion that they come into force within six monthsof the passing of the Act. Amendments 151, 152 and 153would do the same thing for those elements of thelegislation that are currently within the discretion ofthe Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and forNorthern Ireland.

Amendment 2 would make a substantial difference tothe Bill. It would assure the Committee that our workwill not just gather dust on a bookshelf, and that theBill really will do the things that we want it to do andhave worked hard to make it do.

Rebecca Pow: I support the shadow Minister in urgingme to look at the back of the Bill. What goes on at theback of a Bill is the powerhouse, and I have becometerribly interested in that. One must look at the back ofthe Bill, as he says. I must say, however, that I think he isbeing terribly negative. First, these measures will be inlegislation. Secondly, the strength of feeling about improvingthe environment is now so strong, not just among oursuper keen Committee members, who are stalwarts inthis area, but among everybody out there—we onlyhave to look at Twitter. I want these measures as muchas he does.

I thank the hon. Member for the raft of amendmentson the same point, which would have the effect, sixmonths after the Bill receives Royal Assent, of commencingall the remaining provisions of the Bill that can becommenced by the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers,Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture,Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.


That one-size-fits-all approach would cause very seriousproblems when the Bill is implemented following RoyalAssent. For example, if the amendment were to beaccepted, it would very likely delay the establishment ofthe Office for Environmental Protection by nine months.We have already launched and concluded a recruitmentcampaign for the chair of the OEP. Far from not doinganything, we have already started, and I hope the hon.Member will commend that.

Many parts of the Bill will be at least partiallycommenced much earlier than six months after RoyalAssent, and other provisions will need at least in part tobe commenced somewhat later, requiring further evidencegathering and public consultation, for example. That isnot to mention the impact on local authorities. We willhave to work very carefully and closely with them,because they are absolutely key to implementing quite anumber of measures, not least in terms of biodiversity,as well as the waste measures.

I assure the hon. Member that the Government havenot brought this vital piece of legislation to this Houseonly for it to languish uncommenced in a cupboard. Hegave an example of another piece of legislation. TheBill will not be like that, particularly not after allthe time that has been invested in it. It has gone on forthe whole year of my life as the Environment Minister.It has come and gone, and it has returned, and it is thestronger for it. It is certainly not going to languish.

We are setting ourselves legally binding targets underpart 1 of the Bill, and we will need all the tools later inthe Bill to support the delivery of those targets. Thetargets are legally binding—that is what the Bill says.Work is already going on with many organisations andthe Department to work out how we will devise thetargets, what the best targets to start with would be, andwhat later targets would be. An awful lot of work needsto go on—consultations, further detailed guidance andthen new regulations—as I am sure the hon. Memberwill appreciate.

As we have said, we will bring forward at least onetarget in each of the four priority areas as well as atarget for fine particulate matter, PM2.5, by the Bill’s31 October 2022 deadline. All that work has to takeplace before that. Every time I speak on air quality—thehon. Member will understand this point—we are beingheld to account. We need to do this and we will do it. Heasked whether we would trigger any of the work and themeasures. We published the targets policy paper on19 August, detailing the roadmap for delivering thetargets.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that we aredemonstrating that this will not be a Bill that sitsin a cupboard getting dusty. Ministers in devolvedAdministrations need a measure of flexibility incommencing the provisions in many parts of the Bill aswell. Other parts of the Bill can safely be commencedon Royal Assent or two months later. Hon. Memberswill know that that is the customary approach for Bills.Therefore, the commencement of provisions in the Billalready strikes the right balance between automaticcommencement and providing the necessary flexibilityto Ministers. I hope that clarifies the position, and I askthe hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Dr Whitehead: We do not want to divide the Committeeon the amendments. I welcome the Minister’s enthusiasticintimation that she has no intention that this Bill should

sit on a covered shelf. I am sure she is right on that,given her commitment so far to making this Bill work,and the effort that she has put into ensuring that wemove forward. Indeed, I welcome her indication thataction has already started on ensuring that these provisionswork. However, that does not undermine the fundamentalpoint about the legislation, namely that it is possible forMinisters who are less dedicated than she is simply to siton their hands. That is the central concern behind ouramendments. I strongly take on board her point thatshe is not a Minister who is going to sit on her hands.

I wonder whether she has considered the green CabinetSub-Committee as part of her approach. I am not surewhether she sits on it, but if she or a colleague of hersdoes, she might take the opportunity gently to remindthe Ministers in the Department for Business, Energyand Industrial Strategy that they also have a responsibilityto implement legislation, and that the fact that theyhave not done so has a substantial effect on some of thethings that we want to do in this Bill. She might take theopportunity to say, “Get on with it—seven years downthe road, you ought to have implemented this.”

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Gentleman makes a verygood point. I was not specifically going to comment onthat, but I am sure he will agree that as a result of theBill, other Departments will have to look at what theydo on the environment. Many already do, but there willnow be much more of a requirement that they do so.Does he agree that one reason why we must bringforward a lot of these measures, particularly on diversity,is that they will dovetail with the new agricultural landmanagement system? It is important that the two schemeswork together.

Dr Whitehead: I very much take on board the factthat the Bill is primarily about DEFRA, but it cannotwork properly unless all other Departments play theirpart in ensuring that that happens. That point is verywell made, and it underlines my request for the Ministerto have a quiet word with another Department tosuggest that it does as she intends, as far as this Bill asthis concerned, with its areas of responsibility in relationto environmental and climate change outcomes. I beg toask leave to withdraw the amendment.



Clause 132

TRANSITIONAL OR SAVING PROVISION

Amendments made: 63, in clause 132, page 119, line 38,leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert“Senedd Cymru”.See Amendment 28.

Amendment 64, in clause 132, page 119, line 39, leaveout “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)See Amendment 28.

Clause 132, as amended, ordered to stand part ofthe Bill.


New Clause 4

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

“(1) The OEP and the Committee on Climate Change mustprepare a memorandum of understanding.


(2) The memorandum must set out how the OEP and theCommittee intend to co-operate with one another and avoidoverlap between the exercise by the OEP of its functions and theexercise by the Committee of its functions.”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause requires the OEP and the Committee on ClimateChange to prepare a memorandum of understanding, setting out howthey will co-operate with one another and avoid overlap in the exerciseof their functions.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and addedto the Bill.

New Clause 24

GUIDANCE ON OEP’S ENFORCEMENT POLICY AND

FUNCTIONS

‘(1) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP onthe matters listed in section 22(6) (OEP’s enforcement policy).

(2) The OEP must have regard to the guidance in—

(a) preparing its enforcement policy, and

(b) exercising its enforcement functions.

(3) The Secretary of State may revise the guidance at any time.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, andpublish, the guidance (and any revised guidance).

(5) The OEP’s “enforcement functions” are its functions undersections 29 to 38.’—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause provides that the Secretary of State may issueguidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) (OEP’senforcement policy). The OEP must have regard to the guidance inpreparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcementfunctions.


New Clause 25

SPECIES CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy forimproving the conservation status of any species of fauna orflora.

(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “speciesconservation strategy”.

(3) A species conservation strategy must relate to an area (the“strategy area”) consisting of—

(a) England, or

(b) any part of England.

(4) A species conservation strategy for a species may inparticular—

(a) identify areas or features in the strategy area which areof importance to the conservation of the species,

(b) identify priorities in relation to the creation orenhancement of habitat for the purpose of improvingthe conservation status of the species in the strategyarea,

(c) set out how Natural England proposes to exercise itsfunctions in relation to the species across the wholeof the strategy area or in any part of it for thepurpose of improving the conservation status of thespecies in the strategy area,

(d) include Natural England’s opinion on the giving byany other public authority of consents or approvalswhich might affect the conservation status of thespecies in the strategy area, and

(e) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that itwould be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate orcompensate for any adverse impact on the conservationstatus of the species in the strategy area that may arisefrom a plan, project or other activity.

(5) Natural England may, from time to time, amend a speciesconservation strategy.

(6) A local planning authority in England and any prescribedauthority must co-operate with Natural England in thepreparation and implementation of a species conservationstrategy so far as relevant to the authority’s functions.

(7) The Secretary of State may give guidance to local planningauthorities in England and to prescribed authorities as to how todischarge the duty in subsection (6).

(8) A local planning authority in England and any prescribedauthority must in the exercise of its functions have regard to aspecies conservation strategy so far as relevant to its functions.

(9) In this section—

“England” includes the territorial sea adjacent toEngland, which for this purpose does notinclude—

(a) any part of the territorial sea adjacent to Walesfor the general or residual purposes of theGovernment of Wales Act 2006 (see section158 of that Act), or

(b) any part of the territorial sea adjacent toScotland for the general or residual purposesof the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126 ofthat Act);

“local planning authority” means a person who is alocal planning authority for the purposes of anyprovision of Part 3 of the Town and CountryPlanning Act 1990;

“prescribed authority” means an authority exercisingfunctions of a public nature in England which isspecified for the purposes of this section byregulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) Regulations under subsection (9) are subject to thenegative procedure.’—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause gives Natural England the function of producingspecies conservation strategies and makes related provision.


New Clause 26

PROTECTED SITE STRATEGIES

‘(1) Natural England may prepare and publish a strategy for—

(a) improving the conservation and management of aprotected site, and

(b) managing the impact of plans, projects or otheractivities (wherever undertaken) on the conservationand management of the protected site.

(2) A strategy under subsection (1) is called a “protected sitestrategy”.

(3) A “protected site” means—

(a) a European site,

(b) a site of special scientific interest, or

(c) a marine conservation zone,

to the extent the site or zone is within England.

(4) A protected site strategy for a protected site may inparticular—

(a) include an assessment of the impact that any plan,project or other activity may have on the conservationor management of the protected site (whether assessedindividually or cumulatively with other activities),

(b) include Natural England’s opinion on measures that itwould be appropriate to take to avoid, mitigate orcompensate for any adverse impact on the conservationor management of the protected site that may arisefrom a plan, project or other activity,


(c) identify any plan, project or other activity that NaturalEngland considers is necessary for the purposes ofthe conservation or management of the protectedsite, and

(d) cover any other matter which Natural England considersis relevant to the conservation or management of theprotected site.

(5) In preparing a protected site strategy for a protected site,Natural England must consult—

(a) any local planning authority in England whichexercises functions in respect of an area—

(i) within which any part of the protected site islocated, or

(ii) within which a plan, project or other activity thatNatural England considers may have an adverseimpact on the conservation or management of theprotected site is being, or is proposed to be,undertaken,

(b) any public authority in England—

(i) that is undertaking, or proposing to undertake, aplan, project or other activity that Natural Englandconsiders may have an adverse impact on theconservation or management of the protected site,

(ii) the consent or approval of which is required inrespect of a plan, project or other activity thatNatural England considers may have an adverseimpact on the conservation or management of theprotected site, or

(iii) that Natural England considers may otherwise beaffected by the strategy,

(c) any IFC authority in England which exercisesfunctions in respect of an area—

(i) the conservation or management of which NaturalEngland considers may be affected by thestrategy, or

(ii) the sea fisheries resources of which Natural Englandconsiders may be affected by the strategy,

(d) the Marine Management Organisation, where—

(i) any part of the protected site is within the MMO’sarea, or

(ii) Natural England considers any part of the MMO’sarea may otherwise be affected by the strategy,

(e) the Environment Agency,

(f) the Secretary of State, and

(g) any other person that Natural England considersshould be consulted in respect of the strategy,including the general public or any section of it.

(6) In subsections (4) and (5), a reference to an adverse impacton the conservation or management of a protected site includes—

(a) in relation to a European site, anything whichadversely affects the integrity of the site,

(b) in relation to a site of special scientific interest,anything which is likely to adversely affect the flora,fauna or geological or physiographical features byreason of which the site is of special interest,

(c) in relation to a marine conservation zone, anythingwhich hinders the conservation objectives stated forthe zone pursuant to section 117(2) of the Marineand Coastal Access Act 2009, and

(d) any other thing which causes deterioration of naturalhabitats and the habitats of species as well as disturbanceof the species in the protected site, in so far as suchdisturbance could be significant in relation to theconservation or management of the protected site.

(7) A person whom Natural England consults undersubsection (5)(a) to (e) must co-operate with Natural England inthe preparation of a protected site strategy so far as relevant tothe person’s functions.

(8) The Secretary of State may give guidance as to how todischarge the duty in subsection (7).

(9) A person must have regard to a protected site strategy sofar as relevant to any duty which the person has under—

(a) the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations2017 (S.I. 2017/1012),

(b) sections 28G to 28I of the Wildlife and CountrysideAct 1981, or

(c) sections 125 to 128 of the Marine and Coastal AccessAct 2009.

(10) Natural England may, from time to time, amend aprotected site strategy.

(11) The duty to consult a person under subsection (5) alsoapplies when Natural England amends a protected site strategyunder subsection (10) so far as the amendment is relevant to theperson’s functions.


“England” has the meaning given in section (Speciesconservation strategies);

“European site” has the meaning given in regulation 8of the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2017;

“IFA authority” means an inshore fisheries andconservation authority created under section 150of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“local planning authority” has the meaning given insection (Species conservation strategies);

“marine conservation zone” means an area designatedas a marine conservation zone undersection 116(1) of the Marine and Coastal AccessAct 2009;

“MMO’s area” has the meaning given in section 2(12)of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;

“public authority”has the meaning given in section 40(4)of the Natural Environment and Rural CommunitiesAct 2006;

“sea fisheries resources” has the meaning given insection 153(10) of the Marine and Coastal AccessAct 2009;

“site of special scientific interest” means an areanotified under section 28(1) of the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981.” —(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause gives Natural England the function of producingprotected site strategies and makes related provision.


New Clause 27

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: LICENCES

‘(1) In section 10 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981(exceptions to section 9 of that Act), in subsection (1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), omit the final “or”;

(b) at the end insert “or

(c) anything done in relation to an animal of any speciespursuant to a licence granted by Natural Englandunder regulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitatsand Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) inrespect of an animal or animals of that species”.

(2) In section 16 of that Act (power to grant licences), insubsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (h), omit the final “or”;

(b) at the end insert “or

(j) in England, for reasons of overriding public interest”.

(3) In that section, after subsection (3A) insert—


“(3B) In England, the appropriate authority shall not grant alicence under subsection (3) unless it is satisfied—

(a) that there is no other satisfactory solution, and

(b) that the grant of the licence is not detrimental to thesurvival of any population of the species of animalor plant to which the licence relates.”

(4) In that section, in subsections (5A)(c) and (6)(b), after “twoyears,” insert “or in the case of a licence granted by NaturalEngland five years,”.

(5) In that section, in subsection (9)(c), after “to (e)” insert “or(j)”.

(6) In the Conservation of Habitats and SpeciesRegulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012), in regulation 55(10), for “twoyears” substitute—

“(a) five years, in the case of a licence granted by NaturalEngland, or

(b) two years, in any other case.”’ —(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause makes provision relating to licences granted underregulation 55 of the Conservation of Habitat and SpeciesRegulations 2017 and section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act1981.


New Clause 31

USE OF FOREST RISK COMMODITIES IN COMMERCIAL

ACTIVITY

‘(1) In Schedule (Use of forest risk commodities in commercialactivity)—

(a) Part 1 makes provision about the use of forest riskcommodities in commercial activity,

(b) Part 2 makes provision about enforcement, and

(c) Part 3 contains general provisions.

(2) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule(Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) aresubject to the affirmative procedure—

(a) paragraph 1;

(b) paragraph 2(4)(c);

(c) paragraph 5 (except for paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5));

(d) paragraph 7;

(e) Part 2.

(3) Regulations under the following provisions of Schedule(Use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity) aresubject to the negative procedure—

(a) paragraph 3;

(b) paragraph 4;

(c) paragraph 5(2)(b) and (5).”—(Rebecca Pow.)

This new clause inserts NS1 and specifies the Parliamentary procedurefor making regulations under that Schedule.


New Clause 1

THE ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE

‘(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain ahealthy natural environment.

(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions,remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced,allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing toachievement of the environmental objective.’—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying togetherseparate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between thetarget setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus deliveryon targets.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.


Division No. 47]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 2

ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS: NON-REGRESSION

‘(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure that there is nodiminution in any protection afforded by any environmentalstandard which was effective in UK domestic law on IPcompletion day.

(2) In this section, “IP completion day” has the same meaningas in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement)Act 2020.”—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause looks to set a floor of environmental standards bytaking a snapshot of EU standards at the end of the implementationperiod and giving the Minister a duty to uphold those standards as aminimum.


Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): I beg to move,That the clause be read a Second time.

10 am

I echo the earlier congratulations. It is a pleasure topick up the baton from my hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test, and to continue the dialogue withthe Minister on a really important point. I rememberthe 2005 election. My party had a particularly incisiveslogan, “Forward, not back”. It got us through theelection, but I remember wondering at the time whetherit was the most incisive view of the world. It representedan assumption that we do all look forward rather thangoing back. There is a risk in thinking that, which wecan see in global politics at the moment—in America.Many of us feel that, hopefully, we are going forward,but when the previous President took the US out of theParis agreement, in many people’s point of view wewent backwards. There can be no presumption that thegains made in the past are necessarily guaranteed forthe future.

Much as I admire the Minister’s enthusiasm andoptimism, readings of history show that gains are notalways maintained. As my hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test has pointed out, even when legislationlooks as if we have done stuff, we can find that notmuch has happened when we go into the fine detail.There can sometimes be a deliberate attempt to pull thewool over the eyes of the public, or there can be otherreasons.

The non-regression issue is really significant, becauseenvironmental law was an area on which we madeprogress when we were members of the European Union;


people might take different views on our relationshipwith the EU, but we would still be able to agree that wemade progress on environmental law. Much of thebusiness of the Bill has been about how we move thatinto our domestic legislation.

The headline that the Government want from ourdiscussions is that our aspirations are to be world-leading,as the Minister has said. But without tackling theregression issue, it is harder to make the case that wewill be at the forefront. I strongly suggest that theMinister looks at the new clause, because it providesclarity and certainty. It sends a signal to the wider worldthat we are absolutely serious about our ambition toensure that we are at the forefront of environmentalprotection.

There is a danger in thinking that this is just re-runningthe Brexit debate again; people tried to raise that on anumber of occasions. In my reading ahead of discussionof the new clause, it struck me that environmental law isnot simple. Environmental lawyers are a slightly nichespecies, but they explain that this is a question not ofslavishly following whatever the EU chooses to do inthe future, but of establishing that we do not go back.Some people in the field think that non-regression is anexciting and emerging norm for environmental law, withwhich we should be associated. They point us tointernational instruments, such as the 2015 InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature draft internationalcovenants on environment and development, the 2017 draftGlobal Pact for the Environment, and the 2018 Escazúagreement for the Americas, which mirrors the Aarhusconvention.

The point is that how we make progress globally isnot always linear. It is complicated and in some casesinvolves difficult trade-offs and difficult historicalunderstandings of the advantages that we have as adeveloped nation, as we try to balance the pressuresthat we put on other nations as they try, rightly, toimprove their standard of living. It is a complicatedratcheting process that requires difficult trade-offs.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,Test suggested, trade-offs have to be made within ourown Government, but there are also complicatednegotiations with others. Other countries, such as France,have recently incorporated non-regression into theirenvironmental codes, which has allowed the courts tomake a number of judgments on the application of thatprinciple. Mr Gray, I think this issue is sufficientlyimportant for a Division, but first I want to make oneor two more comments.

In my reading, I looked at a paper by ProfessorAndrew Jordan and Dr Brendan Moore, who have beenlooking closely at what we do in this place. They haveanalysed the statutory instruments that so many of usenjoy sitting and discussing. Sadly, they have come tosome rather worrying conclusions. I suspect that all ofus who read such instruments do not necessarily getinto the small print, but they have discovered that manyof the EU provisions had review and revision clauses inthem, which allow legislation to be considered again tosee whether it is doing what we thought it was going todo. It is one of the shortcomings of the work we do inthis place: we pass many laws but do not necessarilycome back to them in a timely way to check whether theoutcomes were as we hoped and whether they needupdating. Apparently, a development in EU law hasmeant that this has become more and more the case.

When Ministers make those SIs—I frequently moanabout this—we are told that they are just technicalchanges bringing the legislation into UK law. It appearsthat there may be a little bit more to it than that. Thepaper analysed some 24 SIs; the authors found that88%—21 of the 24—of EU laws

“contained review clauses and 79%...contained revision clauses.”

Unfortunately, in many cases we have not moved thosereview and revision clause across.

“The Government removed the clauses across a number oftopic areas, spanning climate change, waste, agriculture, andheavy metals.”

To my dismay, I discovered that some of those werethe very SIs that I have been working on recently,including the Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT(EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which apparently did havea review and revision clause when they were part of EUlaw, but no longer have them under our law. There was asimilar case in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels)(Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

My point is that, when one looks at the fine detail,not all was as it seemed. Sadly, our protections are notas strong as they were. That is the theme of most of mycontributions. We will be less well protected next monththan we are today. That is why the non-regressionprinciple is so very important. I commend it to the Ministerand ask her to take the advantage that we are yet againoffering her and which would strengthen her Bill.

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): The clock is ticking:we are only five weeks away from the end of the famousimplementation period. This amendment seeks to freezethat in time and say that in five weeks’ time there will beno regression or diminution in any protection affordedby any environmental standard effective in UK domesticlaw. Surely that is the most important part of the Bill.At least we could say that the Environment Bill is beingbrought forward to replace, renew and look beyond allthe environmental protections that we will not havewhen we are not an EU member: that we will do betterthan that—or at least, not regress. If the amendment isnot agreed to, we are worried that we will not have thatsafeguard.

The Government have frequently stated their desireto improve the quality of our environment and protectour existing environmental standards. Why, then, dothey stop short of enacting an unambiguous and bindingrequirement not to regress on existing rules, as would beenacted through the amendment? This is not aboutstaying tied to EU rules. As the shadow Minister says,we are not re-enacting Brexit at all; rather, we areensuring that the UK rules get better and better overtime and are protected from deregulatory pressure.

Non-regression is an exciting and emerging norm ofenvironmental law, and we need to harness its potential.That requires a positive trajectory for environmentalstandards, with the ultimate goal of progressively improvingthe health of people and the planet. There is a precedent,as was mentioned, in other international laws andinstruments. Non-regression can be found explicitly ininternational instruments, such as the 2015 InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature draft internationalcovenant on environment and development, the 2017 draftglobal pact for the environment and the 2018 Escazúagreement, which mirrors the Aarhus convention forthe Americas. It is important to mention those because


[Fleur Anderson]

there is precedent. We cannot say that such a provisionis unnecessary and does not need to be done. It shouldbe added to the Bill.

To underscore why we, as the Opposition, feel sostrongly about the issue, one need only look at howmuch the UK’s environment has benefited from the EUframework that the Bill is replacing. In the 1970s, wepumped untreated sewage straight into the sea, but EUlaws and the threat of fines, as well as good enforcement,forced us to clean up our act. Now, more than 90% ofour beaches are considered clean enough to bathe off. Ihave yet to hear a meaningful reason why the Governmentwould not at least commit to the new clause. To say thatit is not necessary is just bluster and evades the issue,and it is just not good enough.

If we are to put our money with our mouth is, thenew clause should be added to the Bill, especially becauseit would match our ambition as we host COP26 nextyear. It would be a meaningful legal commitment tonon-regression, and in turn a powerful endorsement ofthe Government’s stated ambitions to be world leaderson environmental matters. It would create an authoritativeplatform from which the UK could seek to improveglobal green governance. There is nothing to lose byadopting the new clause and everything to gain.

10.15 am

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Members for Cambridgeand for Putney for their input. The hon. Member forCambridge seemed to suggest that my optimism andenthusiasm are negative assets, but I would never evenhave started my journey to this place if I had not hadsuch optimism and enthusiasm; I am sure the samecould be said of every Member here.

I vowed all that time ago that I would engage withenvironmental issues should I ever make it to Parliament.Lo and behold, here we are discussing the EnvironmentBill. I know that the hon. Gentleman is very passionateabout the environment, and I like to think that he is justteasing me, because he knows that while I and mycolleagues are in office, we will stand up for everythingin the Bill. We hope that future Governments will do thesame, because that is the purpose of the legislation.

The new clause, which aims to tie the UK to EU lawat the end of the transition period, is unnecessary. Toput it simply, we have left the EU and we should notbind ourselves to the legislative systems of the past. TheGovernment made it very clear that the UK will continueto be a global leader, championing the most effectivepolicies and legislation to achieve our environmentalambitions. I believe that we have demonstrated thateven today with the due diligence clause. We will continueto improve on our environmental standards, buildingon existing legislation as we do so.

Ruth Jones: The Minister is making some interestingpoints, but does she agree that this is not about stayingtied to the EU’s apron strings but about UK rulesgetting better and better? The new clause provides uswith a baseline to improve on.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Lady leads me neatly on tosay that the UK does not need the EU to improve theenvironment; our high regulatory standards onenvironmental protection are not dependent on EU

membership. Rightly, one could say that over the yearswe have taken on board standards, such as those governingsewage in water, but we have actually influenced a lot ofEuropean policy. Now we are going further. We oftenled the way, as members of the EU will acknowledge.

To continue with the same approach as the EU is notgood enough. I know that many members of the Committeeare well aware of the damaging effects of some EUpolicies, in particular the common agricultural policy.The thought behind it was good, but the environmentalconsequences are not necessarily to be lauded. That iswhy we now have this great opportunity to change it, aswe must. We will do better.

Lest everyone always thinks that the EU offers somegold-plated system, let me give some examples of wherewe have already gone ahead of it. For a start, wewere the first major economy to legislate for net-zeroemissions by 2050. Another good example is the UK’slandfill tax, which is one of the highest in Europe andhas been effective in reducing waste disposal and increasingrecycling. The UK has also introduced one of theworld’s strictest ivory bans to protect elephants frompoaching, whereas the EU has yet to legislate on that.Similarly, our clean air strategy has been applauded bythe World Health Organisation as an example for therest of the world to follow.

I must also mention the UK’s microbeads ban, whichshows the power of the Back Benchers who worked onit; just the other day, my involvement and that of manyothers was cited in the Chamber. That ban came intoeffect in 2018, but the EU did not move to introduce anequivalent ban until a year later. Those are just a fewexamples, not to mention our recent ban on single-useplastics—plastic straws, drink stirrers and cotton buds—coming into force in October 2022. We are ahead inmany cases.

There are concerns about non-regression, but surely,after we have sat here for weeks going through the Billwith a fine-toothed comb, it is obvious that we have areal, detailed framework of targets, monitoring andreporting. We are then to be held to account on whetherthe improvement is actually occurring: Parliament willbe able to scrutinise. There will be a closer watch onthese things than ever before, which is a good thing. TheSecretary of State is required to report to Parliamentevery two years on what is happening on the environmentalfront internationally—to look at the new environmentallaws being introduced, sift through them and work outwhich ones would benefit us.

Dr Whitehead: Would the Minister at least agree thatnothing in the new clause suggests that we should bepegged to EU law, as we were in the past? It simply saysthat a snapshot should be taken at the point of departure,so that there is something to stand on when it comes tothings that we wish to carry out in the future. Far frompegging us back, it actually supports the sort of thingthe Minister is suggesting.

Rebecca Pow: We have reached that point already. Wehave been in the EU, so have had all the same laws. Weare not going to sweep them all away, but we will buildon them. When that review of international law is done,the EU laws will also be looked at.

I think we have covered what the hon. Member forCambridge is asking for. On the SI points—I am veryinterested that the hon. Gentleman has looked at that


report about the SIs—I should say that, three to fiveyears after Royal Assent, the responsible Departmentmust submit a memorandum to the relevant Commonsdepartmental Select Committee, published as a CommandPaper. The memorandum will include a preliminaryassessment of how the Act has worked in practice,relative to objectives and benchmarks identified duringthe passage of the Bill and in supporting documentation.

The Select Committee, or potentially another Committee,will then decide whether it wishes to conduct a furtherpost-legislative inquiry into the Act. Perhaps we shouldsend that to the authors of that report, because perhapsthey were not aware of it. I think it is really helpful, andI hope that it helps.

I have not yet mentioned the OEP, which will help touphold our standards as well. It will be absolutelyessential, ensuring Governments are held to account forthe environmental performance I mentioned before. Allthat goes further than the EU’s environmental governanceframework, with stronger binding remedies available tothe courts and a wider scope to hold all public authoritiesto account on the environment. It is much wider.

Our sovereign Parliament must be able to fully realisethe benefits of regulatory autonomy in order to takeaction on improving environmental protections in thefuture. To support parliamentary scrutiny of our ambitions,the Bill contains provisions in clause 19 that allowParliament to hold the Government to account ondelivering their commitments to improving environmentalprotections, and where a new Bill contains environmentalprovisions, the Ministers in charge of that Bill—whowill potentially be Ministers in other Departments—willbe required to make a statement confirming whether itmaintains the level of environmental protection in placeat the time of the Bill’s introduction. I hope that hasbeen helpful, and I ask the Opposition if they nowmight withdraw the new clause.

Daniel Zeichner: I do not think the Minister will besurprised to hear that I am not convinced and will notbe withdrawing the amendment. The reason we are notconvinced is that there is nothing wrong with optimism,but it has to be tempered by realism, and frankly, as wehave seen at the very top of this Government over thepast few months, optimism does not always produceresults. Looking at the state of our economy, I suspectthat we are facing a hard winter and the pressures thatwill be put on environmental protections will be intense.It is not unreasonable for us on the Opposition Benchesto once again remind Government Members aboutcomments made by the current Prime Minister andprevious Conservative leaders. The green crap is still thegreen crap, as far as some are concerned—[Interruption.]That was said by a Conservative Prime Minister.

Rebecca Pow: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdrawthat remark and stop referring to that. We have movedechelons from there, and it is really unfair that thiskeeps being dredged up by the Opposition, who themselvesdo not have a great record on the environment. Does heagree?

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister might well wish it had notbeen said, and I wish it had not been said, but it was.

Richard Graham: You heard it, did you?

Daniel Zeichner: It was widely reported and not denied.

The Chair: Order.

Richard Graham: On a point of order, Sir George. Isit appropriate in this Environment Bill Committee, wherewe are discussing serious issues, for a Member, howeverwell intentioned, to raise a supposed quote by a formerPrime Minister from several years ago, which he certainlynever heard—none of us heard it—in language that isarguably not particularly parliamentary?

The Chair: That, of course, is not a matter of order; itis a matter of content.

Daniel Zeichner: The point I am making is that allGovernments will face a dilemma and a pressure whenit comes to economic imperatives and environmentalprotection. We have seen as much in the response toquestions I raised about the impact of the planningWhite Paper, which have not been addressed by theGovernment. I understand why they have not beenaddressed—because they are not addressable. There is atension, and the question we are asking is: when thosepressures come—as they will—is this legislation strongenough to protect our environment? The Minister saysit is; I say it is not, and that is the difference. I am surethe hon. Member for Gloucester appreciates the point Iam making, because it can hardly be denied that there isa tension. If he thinks there is not a tension, thatis great, but that is a different world from the one I amliving in.

The non-regression issues go beyond the EU question.The point we are making is that a worldwide set ofnegotiations will continue, hopefully in a more positiveway with the new American Administration, and non-regression will be part of those wider discussions. Exactlyas my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Testhas said, this new clause does no more than establish abaseline from which we believe we should be moving,and we see no reason to not put it in the Bill.

I hear what the Minister says about the review andrevision clauses that were in the transposed legislation,but I gently say that when that comes up, it will be avery big piece of work, given the number of statutoryinstruments we have been discussing. In fact, as I thinkmost of us appreciate, once we start digging into them,it often opens up a cornucopia of riches in terms ofissues to look at, and we see that what looked like a verysimple transposition is actually extremely complicated.We think non-regression is really important, and that iswhy we intend to press this new clause to a Division.



Division No. 48]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Thomson, Richard

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca



New Clause 3

WELL CONSENTS FOR HYDRAULIC FRACTURING:CESSATION OF ISSUE AND TERMINATION

“(1) No well consent which permits associated hydraulicfracturing may be issued by the Oil and Gas Authority (‘OGA’).

(2) Sections 4A and 4B of the Petroleum Act 1998 (as insertedby section 50 of the Infrastructure Act 2015), are repealed.

(3) Any well consent which has been issued by the OGAwhich—

(a) permits associated hydraulic fracturing and

(b) is effective on the day on which this Act receives RoyalAssent shall cease to be valid three months after thisAct receives Royal Assent.


‘associated hydraulic fracturing’ means hydraulic fracturingof shale or strata encased in shale which—

(a) is carried out in connection with the use of therelevant well to search or bore for or get petroleum,and

(b) involves, or is expected to involve, the injection of—

‘well consent’ means a consent in writing of the OGA tothe commencement of drilling of a well.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause, as a response to recent hydraulic fracturingexploration activity including in Rother Valley, would prevent the Oiland Gas Authority from being able to provide licences for hydraulicfracturing, exploration or acidification, and would revoke currentlicences after a brief period to wind down activity.


10.30 am

Dr Whitehead: I beg to move, That the clause be reada Second time.

This new clause concerns well consents for hydraulicfracking: cessation of issue and termination. Hon. Membersmay ask themselves, “What has fracking got to do withthis Bill? Why is there a new clause about fracking whenwe are talking about other issues entirely?” I wouldcontend that fracking, or potential fracking, is centralto many of the issues that we have discussed. Thecurrent fracking regime and whether or not wells arebeing fracked cut across, potentially considerably so,the Bill’s protections and provisions relating to thenatural environment, biodiversity and various otherissues. There are a number of worrying issues relating tohow fracking is carried out, how its consequences aredealt with, and how its by-products come about and areor are not disposed of.

I am sure that hon. Members will have access to a fairamount of information about the fracking process andthat they will be aware that, as far as this country isconcerned, it has not got very far. The Cuadrilla well inPreston was paused on the grounds that it causedearthquakes when the fracking process began. Althoughthe then BEIS Secretary, the right hon. Member forSouth Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), used aprovision to direct that that particular drilling companyshould not proceeded, that provision also allowed forcorners to be cut on standards, so that it could get goingwith the fracking process. The standard relating toseismic disturbance was only a small part of the substantialenvironmental consequences to which the widespreadintroduction of fracking would give rise.

Mercifully, fracking is not used substantially in thiscountry, but it is in other countries. When I visitedTexas some time ago, I went to Austin, which is right in

the middle of the fracking industry, in the large, relativelyeasy-to-access basin that covers a lot of Texas and inwhich a lot of fracking wells have been drilled. As wecame into the airport, we could see ahead of us whatlooked like a moonscape. There was a large number ofcircular pads with extraction equipment covering thelandscape as far as the eye could see. It also glinted inthe sun, inasmuch as attached to those fracking padswere a number of what looked like ponds or smalllakes. It looked like a landscape of lakes, but it was not.It was a landscape of tailing ponds associated with thefracking pads, and in which were placed the results ofthe fracking process—the fracking fluid that had beenused to blast the rocks apart, which contained substantialchemicals to assist in that process. If they were to beproduced in this country in the quantities suggested—atleast 10,000 or so cubic metres of fluid per frackingpad—they would be classed as hazardous waste andwould need to be disposed of very carefully. There areactually very few hazardous waste sites in this countrythat can take that kind of waste. The solution in theUnited States was that, on some occasions, they injectedthe waste back down into deep basins, which is notideal. Alternatively, they just kept it on the surface intailing ponds on the landscape. That could be the futurefor us, if we were to develop fracking to any great extent.

As I say, we have had only two goes at fracking in thiscountry so far. They happened to be in two areas of theUK that contain the seams from which gas can beextracted through the fracking process. One is the Bowlandshale in the north-west of the country, which happensto encompass the Lake District national park. Theother is across the Weald and into South Downs nationalpark, an area of outstanding natural beauty that goesacross Sussex and into Hampshire. If we had a substantialfracking industry in the UK, wells would be drilled inthose two concentrated areas. There would be aconcentration of wells in that precious landscape, possiblylike the concentration that I saw in Austin, Texas.

The Infrastructure Act 2015 placed restrictions onwhere fracking can take place, but it did not have a greatdeal of traction in this country. Modern fracking canproceed by diagonal drilling; it does not have to involvedrilling down. An interesting discussion emerged aboutthe extent to which parts of the country could bedeclared to be surfaces on which fracking should nottake place. The Government of the day identified someareas of outstanding beauty and national parks as areaswhere fracking should not take place, but all peopleneed to do is set up a fracking plant right on theboundaries of a national park and drill diagonally.

Fleur Anderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that ifthe new clause is not agreed to and fracking is notstopped, that will undermine a lot of the biodiversityand ecosystem protection elsewhere in the Bill? It is badfor the climate, the environment and pollution, andlocal people do not want it either.

Dr Whitehead: I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friendabout a regime of substantial fracking. All that hashappened at the moment is that fracking has beenpaused. All the infrastructure requirements and legislationallowing fracking on a reasonably unrestrained basisare still in place, so it is more than possible that a futureGovernment, or indeed this Government, might decidethat they no longer wish to pause fracking. Everything


is ready to go. As she said, this raises the question notonly of what happens to the fracking fluid but of theescape of fugitive emissions between the well beingproduced and the gas being conveyed. Indeed, it is thepractice, when fracking has been completed, to have aso-called flare-off to clean the well’s tubes, as it were.Enormous amounts of gas mixed with elements of thefracking fluid are released into the atmosphere andsimply flared.

We understand that fracking sites will have multiplewells drilled with a very large amount of transportinvolved, with traffic coming to remote countrysideareas, the levelling of an area several football pitcheswide to make the pad, and a host of other things thatresult in environmental despoliation in pursuit of fracking.There are also the long-term consequences when thewell is depleted: will it be re-fracked? If it is depleted,will it be properly capped off? One of the problems inTexas now is that the fracking wells have not proved tobe as bountiful as had been thought––what a surprise––andseveral have simply been abandoned with little done tocap them off. There can be a regime for doing thatproperly, but in the countryside where the fracking hastaken place, there is continuing danger and concern inrespect of surface water and water in seams underground.

Ruth Jones: My hon. Friend is making a powerfulpoint. Does he agree that it is the unforeseen consequencesthat are so dangerous with fracking? We do not knowwhat we do not yet know. In the mining industry nearmy constituency, we have mountain-top villages that areat risk of subsidence because of the extensive mineworkings underneath. We need to be very careful aboutwhat we wish on future generations.

Dr Whitehead: That is an important point. Thesethings do not appear and simply go away. An exampleof something that does appear and then go away isonshore wind. When the turbine’s life is up, it cansimply be taken away. That is an advantage of that formof power, but this form of power leaves in its wakeenormous environmental scars and a substantial legacyof worry for the communities in which it has takenplace, even after it has finished its life. If the well is to beproperly exploited, there is the potential legacy ofre-fracking on several occasions when all that stuffstarts again to keep the well producing. It is a grubby,dirty, environmentally unfriendly, legacy-rich businessthat we surely should not be inflicting upon ourselves inpursuit of something that we should leave in the groundanyway.

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

That is why we have given the Bill an opportunity toinclude protection against that happening—and, indeed,protection against the conflict that I believe exists betweenthe Infrastructure Act 2015 and this Bill, in terms of

which permissions override which protections, particularlyas far as fracking is concerned. We have an opportunityto set out in the Bill that no well consents will be given,and that fracking will not take place in this country. Thenew clause essentially says that the Oil and Gas Authoritywill not issue well consents, with all the consequencesthat I have set out; and that permits that have beengiven should lapse over a period of time and the workshould not be undertaken.

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

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

10.45 am

Rebecca Pow: In the last 25 minutes, we have been allthe way to Texas and back, we have been up north andwe have been all over the place. I thank the hon.Member for Southampton, Test for his proposedamendment. The Government continue to recognise theimportance of natural gas as a source of secure andaffordable energy as we aim to reach net zero emissionsby 2050. Natural gas still makes up around a third ofour current energy usage, and we will need it for manyyears to come, even as we decarbonise. I know that theshadow Minister has a great deal of knowledge andinterest in the energy sector, but I am sure he understandsthat.

The Government have always been clear that thedevelopment of domestic energy sources, including shalegas, must be safe for local communities and for theenvironment. With regard to fracking and shale gasdevelopment, the Government have taken a science-ledapproach to exploring the potential of the industry,underpinned by world-leading environmental and safetyregulations. In addition to a traffic light system tomonitor real-time seismic activity during operations—witha clear framework of stopping operations in the eventof specified levels of seismic activity—the Governmentalso introduced tighter controls over the shale gas industrythrough the Infrastructure Act 2015.

A well consent is essentially permission to drill an oilor gas well, and it is required from the Oil and GasAuthority before an operator can explore for oil and gasonshore in the UK. All well consents issued by theOGA on or after 6 April 2016 contain a further requirementfor operators to obtain hydraulic fracturing consentfrom the Secretary of State for Business, Energy andIndustrial Strategy before carrying out any associatedhydraulic fracturing. That consent ensures that all necessaryenvironmental and health and safety permits have beenobtained before activities can commence.

The current definition of “associated hydraulicfracturing” is based on the approach taken by theEuropean Commission, which I am sure the shadow


[Rebecca Pow]

Minister welcomes. Using that definition sets the rightbalance between capturing hydraulic fracturing operationsand not capturing techniques used by conventional oiland gas operations, or more widely in the water industry,where processes such as acidisation are commonly usedto clean wells after drilling.

The Environment Agency reviews any proposal involvingthe use of acid on a site-specific basis before decidingwhether the activity is acceptable. The agency’s regulatorycontrols are in place to protect people and the environment,quite clearly. If the proposed activity poses an unacceptablerisk, a permit will not be granted.

We have had such an eloquent description of whatgoes on in the US. The hon. Member for Southampton,Test paints a very clear picture of that lovely trip—although,it was probably not all that lovely, seeing that moonscape.Comparisons are not necessarily helpful because, ofcourse, in the UK we have an entirely different regulatorysystem. Construction standards in the UK are robustand regulators have the tools to ensure that the risk ofpollutants entering groundwater is minimised.

The EA also assesses the hazards presented by frackingfluid additives on a case-by-case basis and will notallow hazardous substances to be used where they mayenter the groundwater and cause pollution. The EA hasthe power to restrict or prohibit the use of any substanceswhere they pose an environmental risk. The shadowMinister touched on hazardous waste and flow-backfluids, which include fracking fluids. They are deemedto be mining waste and require an environmental permitfor management onsite. Disposal of flow-back fluidsmust be at a regulated waste treatment works, which arealso regulated by the EA. Shale gas operators mustdemonstrate that where any chemicals are left in thewaste frack fluid, it will not lead to pollution in groundwater.I think it is quite clear that we have a very tight systemalready in place, which will address many of the issuesraised by the shadow Minister.

Let us move on to what has happened recently, whenI was involved as a Back Bencher, as were many colleagues.The Government announced in November 2019 that,although any application would be considered on itsmerits, in the absence of compelling new evidence, theywill take a presumption against issuing any furtherconsents for hydraulic fracturing for shale gas extraction,creating a moratorium.

The Government set out their position in full via awritten statement to the House on 4 November 2019,and we are satisfied that the current regulations ensurethat appropriate safeguards are in place. We thereforehave no plans to repeal sections 4A and 4B of thePetroleum Act 1998, as inserted by section 50 ofthe Infrastructure Act 2015, and nor will we direct theOGA to withhold well consents that include provisionsfor associated hydraulic fracturing.

There are no plans to turn the moratorium on shalegas extraction into a ban. The moratorium will bemaintained unless—this is absolutely crucial—compellingnew evidence is provided to address the concerns aboutthe prediction and management of induced seismicity.Such evidence is, it must be said, yet to be presented. Itherefore respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdrawhis amendment.

Dr Whitehead: The Minister has kindly and gentlymade quite a good case on our behalf. She has confirmedwhat we have said: in the UK, we are not talking aboutan end to or a ban on fracking, or indeed a resiling fromthe circumstances under which fracking was set up asan activity in the UK. The word “moratorium” means apause; it does not mean the end of anything. It can be amore or less lengthy pause, as the Minister suggested,but it is still a pause, so the way is open for fracking tocome back to this country if, as the Minister said, thecircumstances permit that.

I agree with the Minister that the regimes in thiscountry and in the US are not the same. The moonscapenear Austin that I mentioned is a worse-case scenario—that is true—but even in the early applications forfracking in this country, there was pressure on theGovernment to cut corners. There were applications fortailing ponds, however briefly they would have been inplace. A number of the environmental issues aroundfracking that I have mentioned would come to thiscountry—not to the same extent as in the US, but theycertainly would be part of the fracking process were itto recommence.

There are other differences between the US and theUK in terms of who owns the surface of the land. Inthis country, the Queen effectively has a hand in theownership of the surface of the land, while in America,people can buy the rights to what is underneath someone’sland, drive a truck on to it and start drilling, becausethey have the right of access through the land to what isunderneath it. That is not the case in this country.Indeed, as the Minister set out, the Infrastructure Act 2015introduced a number of constraints on what can andcannot be done, and what cannot be done is along thelines of exactly what is done in America. The Governmenthave nevertheless put forward, in a number of papersthat they have published, a prospectus on how muchfracking there would be in this country and where itwould be undertaken. That would have a substantialimpact on the environment in a country that is nothinglike Texas.

Texas is enormous and, as everyone knows, this countryis not. Not only is this country not enormous, but theshale to frack is specified as being concentrated inparticular parts of it. Those areas, as I have emphasised,cover some of the most precious and beautiful parts ofour country, and we should really go out of our way topreserve them and ensure that they continue, as much aspossible, in their present state.

11 am

I was disappointed by what the Minister had to sayabout the fracking regime generally, but I accept herpoint that the intention in this country is to try toensure that there are much higher standards forfracking permissions than in other parts of the world.I therefore do not think that I can withdraw the amendment.We need to make the point that we think this is importantand should be part of the Bill, and to express ourconcern that the Minister does not agree with usand countenances—I would not say she is happy about it—the continuation of a regime that will allow this tohappen in the future if circumstances permit it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Secondtime.



Division No. 49]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 5

ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DUE DILIGENCE:DUTY TO PUBLISH DRAFT LEGISLATION

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of sixmonths beginning with the day on which this Act is passed,publish a draft Bill on mandatory environmental and humanrights due diligence which imposes a duty on specified commercial,financial and public sector persons to—

(a) carry out due diligence in relation to all environmentaland human rights risks and impacts associated withthe exercise of their functions, and

(b) identify, assess, prevent, or mitigate (where preventionis not possible) the risks so that the impacts arenegligible.

(2) The objective of the due diligence provided for pursuant tosubsection (1) is to ensure that the target set pursuant to sub-paragraph(e) of section 1(3) is met.

(3) The due diligence must be undertaken by specified personsin relation to—

(a) risks and impacts wherever they arise, and

(b) the entire supply chain and investment chain of theperson specified.

(4) In order to address, in particular, ecosystem conversion anddegradation and deforestation and forest degradation (“deforestationand conversion”) the draft Bill must seek to ensure that all goodsplaced on the UK market are—

(a) sustainable;

(b) traceable back to source through fully transparentsupply chains; and

(c) do not cause adverse environmental and human rightsimpacts including deforestation and conversion.

(5) The due diligence required to be carried out in accordancewith subsection (1) by providers of financial services mustinclude (but not be limited to) the risk of deforestation andconversion which may arise from or be enabled by the provisionof the financial services.

(6) The provisions of the draft Bill relating to due diligencemust require compliance with international standards andobligations relating to human rights, including the rights ofindigenous peoples and local communities.

(7) The draft Bill must—

(a) establish or designate a body to oversee implementationof and compliance with the provisions of the Bill;

(b) provide proportionate, effective and deterrent sanctionsfor entities failing to comply fully and promptly withtheir duties under the Bill;

(c) provide for an independent, transparent and publiccomplaints mechanism;

(d) establish a system which ensures effective and appropriateredress for any person affected by environmental impactsand human rights violations;

(e) require persons to report publicly on—

(i) their plans for due diligence,

(ii) the implementation of their plans, and

(iii) the action taken to comply with their plansincluding the effectiveness of the action;

(f) require the regulatory body or other appropriate institutionto undertake periodic and public audits of theeffectiveness of the due diligence requirements, focusingon specified persons, sectors or supply chains; and

(g) require the Secretary of State to include in the annualreport on environmental improvement plans anassessment of the application of the duties imposedin accordance with subsection (1), and to review theeffectiveness of those duties after 3 years (includingby commissioning an independent assessment).”.—(Daniel Zeichner.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a draftBill on mandatory environmental and human rights due diligence withinsix months of the Act passing.


Daniel Zeichner: I beg to move, That the clause beread a Second time.

To some extent, this is part 2 of a discussion that wehad a little earlier. The new clause was tabled by myhon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (KerryMcCarthy) and for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel),former Committee members who have now gone on toother, greater things—perhaps not greater, but different.I am delighted to move it on their behalf. OppositionMembers give it our full support.

My hon. Friends were very far-sighted, in the sensethat they tabled the new clause before the Governmentcame up with their own proposals. However, the newclause goes further, which is why we believe it is worthpursuing. I will go back to why this matters. GreenerUK tells us that about 28% of the UK’s overseas landfootprint—nearly 6 million hectares—is in countries athigh or very high risk of deforestation and which oftenhave weak governance and poor labour standards. Atthe same time, about 1.6 billion people depend directlyon forests to secure their livelihoods. The food andeveryday products that we buy could be destroyinghabitats for endangered wildlife and impacting livelihoodsoverseas. This is a big issue, which I think we all agreeon, on the basis not only of the discussion this morningbut of those facts.

The new clause would create a duty on the Governmentto publish draft due diligence legislation within sixmonths of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, consistentwith our earlier discussion, covering all environmentaland human rights risks and addressing the impactsassociated with the activities of specified bodies, includingwithin business, finance and public authorities. It is thehuman rights risks and finance issues that we particularlyadd to the earlier discussion. The new clause wouldrequire any goods placed on the UK market to havefully traceable and transparent supply chains and to notcause adverse environmental and human rights impacts,including deforestation, forest degradation and ecosystemconversion and degradation.

Since the new clause was first tabled, as the Ministermentioned earlier and as my hon. Friends have alsoreferenced, there has been a consultation on whetherthe UK Government should introduce a new law designed


[Daniel Zeichner]

to prevent forests and other important natural areasfrom being converted illegally to agricultural land. Asthe Minister reported, there is strong support for action,with 99% of respondents agreeing that there should belegislation to make forest risk commodities more sustainable.The Government were good to their word and haveintroduced new schedule 1 and the associated clauses,which we discussed and agreed to earlier. However, wethink this new clause would go further. Its scope iswider, which means it would have a greater impact andwould do more to tackle what we sadly see as ourcomplicity in deforestation.

The evidence base is there. The Global ResourceInitiative taskforce recommended back in March that:

“The government urgently introduces a mandatory due diligenceobligation on companies that place commodities and derivedproducts that contribute to deforestation”—

whether that is legal or just illegal under local laws,which is an important distinction—

“on the UK market and to take action to ensure similar principlesare applied to the finance industry.”

The financial industry can be supportive in those markets.That, again, goes further than new schedule 1.

We think that a mandatory due diligence frameworkwould formalise and obligate responsible practicesthroughout the UK market-related supply chains andcould ensure comprehensive accountability and helpprevent deforestation and other global environmentaldamage. The Government are right to set their sightshigh. We had discussions earlier about how ambitious—ornot—the legislation is. We think we should be worldleaders; the problem is that we are not entirely convincedthat this does enough.

Greener UK says of what we have already agreed inthe Bill:

“This does not accord with the urgency needed to tackledeforestation and falls short of the government’s ambition for aworld leading approach.”

That is the view of the major environmental organisations.They also think—and we reflect this point—that thereshould be more dialogue, both with themselves andothers who understand how the processes emerge. Theyare also concerned that, because this was a late additionto the Bill that came in through a Government amendment,it would have been helpful to have produced moredetailed explanatory notes as to how it should work.They have a range of detailed questions, which I willnot trouble the Committee with this morning. However,it suggests to me that there is more work to be done andthat our new clause would help with much of that.

We hope the Government will go further in future,but it is striking that, Greener UK draws a comparisonbetween the due diligence system and the approachtaken to the EU timber regulation, which we havebrought across through secondary legislation. It thinksthat our approach is weaker by comparison.

That feeds into my overall sense of what is happeningwith the Bill: sadly, the rhetoric is good but the deliveryand actuality is weaker. We wish to make the Bill stronger.Again, this is an important point for us so we want todivide on it, but I want to hear why the Minister thinkswe should not be strengthening in that kind of way.

Rebecca Pow: I assure the hon. Gentleman that weare already one step ahead and, in fact, voted to includethe world-leading legislation in the Environment Billthis very morning. We are making more progress thanany other country. I understand his sentiments but, yetagain, he is being negative about the enormous step weare taking.

Our amendments will help us protect the world’smost precious forests. They will allow us to set mandatoryrequirements on businesses that use agriculturalcommodities associated with deforestation. As we havesaid before, there are other regulations that deal withtimber; our amendments will deal with other productswhere trees are cut down to grow crops such as palm oil,soya, rubber, beef and the associated leather, and cocoa.The hon. Gentleman will agree that those are crucialcrops to be looking at as we proceed, and that that willmake a genuinely big difference. We have heard thegreat example of what happened in Indonesia whentimber was tackled. The same thing could happen withother crops in reducing the cutting down of forests. Ihave seen some of those on my travels.

Our framework is designed to work with Governmentsaround the world, who are the custodians of the world’sprecious forests, by requiring businesses to ensure thatcommodities they use have been produced on land thatis legally occupied and used. I have pointed out previouslyhow so many countries are not even adhering to theirown legislation, so that is the crux of where we areplacing our intentions. Our amendments will becomepart of the Bill now, allowing us to act quickly on thisimportant issue, as opposed to within six months ofRoyal Assent, as in the new clause.

The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned theconsultation, which had a fantastic response. It highlightedthat we need to act urgently, which is why we are takingaction. That is in line with the recommendation of theGlobal Resource Initiative to introduce due diligencelegislation. That is what we are doing urgently, as wascalled for. We are listening to feedback and I reassurethe Committee that we intend to move swiftly to takeforward this legislation, laying the necessary secondarylegislation shortly after COP26. We hope that our settingthis path will be a big talking point at COP26, potentiallyencouraging others to follow.

The hon. Gentleman made a sound point on humanrights. We agree that, in some circumstances, there is arelationship between commodity production and humanrights. It does not necessarily follow that the best solutionis to tackle those two issues at the same time. Tacklinghuman rights abuses requires an approach that is tailoredfor that purpose, rather than through the narrow lens ofthe subset of commodities, examples of which I havejust listed, chosen for their impact on forests.

The Government support the United Nations guidingprinciples on business and human rights—an internationallyagreed framework for addressing human rights risks inall kinds of business activities. Those principles encouragebusinesses to adopt due diligence approaches and toaddress any negative impacts, where appropriate. The UKwas the first state to produce a national action planfor the guiding principles, and we have already announcedmeasures to strengthen the approach of the UK’s ModernSlavery Act 2015, as part of that plan. I am sure the hon.Gentleman is fully aware of that really important step.


The hon. Member for Cambridge touched briefly onfinances. I want to clarify that the due diligence legislationis designed for a specific purpose, which is to ensurethat companies in the UK are not using products thathave come from illegally used or occupied land. Weanticipate that information included in the reports publishedby the regulator will provide data, which others, includingthe finance sector, can use, thus helping inform investorsof the extent to which the companies they invest in areinvolved in illegal deforestation. That is the way in towhat the hon. Gentleman was addressing. I hope that ishelpful. I will wind up and ask the hon. Gentleman, inthe light of my assurances, to withdraw his proposednew clause.

Daniel Zeichner: Frankly, I do not think that theGovernment are one step ahead, given that our proposalwas tabled long in advance and is far more extensiveand far reaching. I heard what the Minister said, and Iknow she is very proud of what is being done. We justneed to go further.

I gently point out that I am not the one saying thatwhat is being done is not achieving what was hoped for.It is many environmental organisations, some of whichthe Minister cited earlier. I suspect she will find that thedebate will continue. No one is saying the matter is easy;it is complicated and difficult, and this has to be done insome cases through international negotiation. Weunderstand and appreciate that, but we believe it isbetter to be more optimistic and ambitious.

Again, I heard what the Minister said on the linkageto human rights, but the evidence is pretty clear thatenvironmental degradation and disrespect for humanrights go hand in hand. That is why we believe the newclause would give a sensible way forward. On that basis,Mr Gray, we will divide the Committee.



Division No. 50]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 7

WASTE RECYCLING: DUTY TO MAINTAIN AN END USE

REGISTER

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Actcoming into force, by regulations make provision for a register ofthe end use of all recycled waste created, collected or disposed ofin England.

(2) These regulations must apply to—

(a) public authorities; and

(b) private businesses.

(3) The register must be made available for public inspection.

(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmativeprocedure.”—(Ruth Jones.)


11.15 am

Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

As we approach the end of Committee stage of thisimportant Bill, I rise to speak to new clause 7, whichappears in my name and those of my hon. Friends herein the Committee Room, but also, more importantly,those of colleagues from right across the House. This isa cross-party new clause and an important addition tothe Bill; I hope Ministers will recognise that it willsimply enhance the scope and reach of the Bill and takeit closer to being fit for purpose.

The new clause calls on the Secretary of State foraction and leadership, introducing a requirement forthem to maintain,

“a register of the end use of all recycled waste created, collectedor disposed of in England.”

As things stand, only voluntary policies exist for monitoringthe end use of recycled material, and that approach failsto provide sufficient data to understand recycling ratesand end markets.

Like many Opposition colleagues, I commend theEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on itsrecent inquiry into food and drink packaging. It was athorough and comprehensive review and I hope it willinfluence what we do and how we do it. As part of thatreview, the EFRA Committee highlighted the lack ofdata, stating:

“In order to make evidence-based policies and assess theirimpact, the Government needs access to reliable data. It is shockingthat it does not know how much plastic packaging is placed onmarket in the UK, nor how much is really recycled. ”

A new end use register for recycled waste would improveexisting data. That is important, because it would meanthat the Government—whichever Government, ofwhichever party—were able to deliver evidence-basedpolicies and to better understand the end use of recycledmaterial. The information gathered from and by theregister that this new clause provides for could help toimprove transparency, reduce waste and, in turn, increasepublic confidence in the recycling system.

That confidence is a key point, and I want the Ministerand her colleagues to think about it. We will not get thebuy-in we need from residents across England if we donot ensure that we can point to crude, hard facts. AsGreener UK pointed out in a typically helpful andcomprehensive briefing, that public confidence has been

“damaged by growing awareness of waste exports”—

I have spoken about those previously, for instance in theSri Lankan debacle—

“and confusion caused by inconsistent recycling schemes acrossEngland.”

In other words, the new clause would help any Ministerwith responsibility for recycling to get the job done, andit would help to ensure that our country takes all thesteps necessary to tackle the climate emergency andpreserve our planet.


Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Lady for the newclause and join her in thanking the EFRA Committee;the Committee does a lot of really helpful inquiries, andthe waste and packaging one helps to add to the weightof knowledge and information. As hon. Members willknow, I was on that Committee for a long time, and onedoes feel that the recommendations that come out ofthose inquiries are often useful and can help in thatwhole mix of listening, consulting and reporting.

The Government are absolutely committed to monitoringwaste throughout its journey by improving the datacaptured on the generation, treatment and end use ofwaste. As I have said numerous times, I am keen to seeimproved transparency in where waste is ending up andto make that information more accessible to and usablefor businesses, regulators and Government as well asthe public. As the hon. Member said, people do wantinformation and to understand, and that is why ourlabelling requirements—another measure introducedthrough the Bill—will be so helpful.

Waste tracking is reliant on largely paper-based recordkeeping, making it difficult to track waste effectivelyand providing organised criminals with the opportunityto hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste.That is why clauses 55 and 56 provide the regulation-makingpowers needed to introduce mandatory electronic wastetracking across the UK. The powers, which I know thegreen NGOs will welcome, will enable us to monitorwaste through its entire journey from production to enduse. The hon. Member was slightly critical about someof the NGOs’ comments, but actually those measuresmet with a great deal of positivity. The clauses willenable us to track all controlled waste and waste frommines and quarries, and that will include informationon waste that is being recycled as well as on productsand materials produced from waste.

I am pleased to confirm that we will consult on thedesign of a waste tracking system next year and that theconsultation will address both access to and use ofwaste tracking data as suggested by the new clause. Itherefore do not consider it necessary to introduce aseparate clause placing a duty on the Government tolaunch a specific register for the end use of recycledwaste, as that would duplicate effort for both publicauthorities and businesses.

The new clause would place a further duty on theSecretary of State to introduce the measures in Englandonly, but clauses 55 and 56 give us the necessary powersto establish a system that covers the whole ofthe UK. We are working closely with the devolvedAdministrations—that includes the Scottish Government—to develop that. While I support the intention behindthe new clause, I consider it unnecessary and ask thehon. Member kindly not to press it.

Ruth Jones: I am glad that the Minister agrees withthe comments of the EFRA Committee about the lackof hard data. That is why we need a register, and that is

why we tabled the new clause. I am also glad that sheacknowledged the importance of ensuring we bring thepublic with us. Public confidence is so important; otherwise,they will not buy into any new recycling schemes.

The Minister mentioned mandatory electronic wastetracking, which is to be welcomed. However, the newclause is not about having an either/or system; it wouldenhance the system. The register would be a usefuladdition to that electronic waste tracking system.

Rebecca Pow: Is the hon. Member aware—I touchedon it in my speech—that local authorities already collectand report data on their waste and many publishinformation about recycling performance? Informationreported to local authorities is published, including onthe destination of recyclable material where available.Does she agree that one does not want to put extraburdens on local authorities when they are alreadydealing with a lot of what she is arguing for?

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for her comments.The problem is that we have a voluntary code with sometaking part and others not. That is the issue. No onewants duplication of anything, but we do want toreinforce and enhance the current system so that wehave a coherent and comprehensive system across Englandand—she mentioned the devolved nations—for all areas.

The Minister mentioned the public consultation, andI take that on board. My only worry is that suchconsultations have been known to be a cause for peopleto drag their feet. We urge her to ensure that theconsultation is speedy, with suitable results at the end ofit. I will not press the new clause, so I beg to ask leave towithdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chair: I suspect that no one wishes to move newclause 8, unless I hear to the contrary.

Rebecca Pow: On a point of order, Mr Gray. Newclause 8 is the weeds one, tabled by my hon. Friend theMember for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). Iknow she has a great interest in these things, and weacknowledge that. As a gardener, I am a great weedsperson—a weed is just a plant in the wrong place—andI thank her for her continued work on pollinators.

The Chair: The Committee has already sent the hon.Member for Chatham and Aylesford our warmest andbest wishes in the current circumstances, and we canadd the Minister’s words to that.

11.25 am





OFFICIAL REPORT

GENERAL COMMITTEES


ENVIRONMENT BILL

Twenty First Sitting


(Afternoon)

CONTENTS

New clauses considered.

Adjourned till Thursday 26 November at half-past Eleven o’clock.

PBC (Bill 009) 2019 - 2021


not later than













(Lab)† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)Jones, Fay (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)








(Afternoon)


Environment Bill

New Clause 9

ANIMAL TESTING: REACH REGULATION

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations set targets forthe replacement of types of tests on animals conducted toprotect human health and the environment within the scope ofthe REACH Regulation, and for the reduction pendingreplacement of the numbers of animals used and the sufferingthey endure.

(2) A target under this section to reduce the suffering ofanimals must specify—

(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable ofbeing objectively measured, and

(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.

(3) Regulations under this section must make provision abouthow a set target is to be measured.

(4) A target under this section is initially set when theregulations setting it come into force.”—(Fleur Anderson.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set targets toreduce animal testing.


2 pm

Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab): I beg to move, Thatthe clause be read a Second time.

I am honoured to be called to speak about thisimportant new clause. Indeed, it is so reasonable that atthis stage of this iteration of the Environment BillCommittee, the seventh day, this might be the newclause that is agreed by all its members. We are notsetting specific targets; we only ask that targets be set.We are not saying how they should be measured; we arejust saying that measurements should be done. It is anew clause, surely, that must be agreed by all.

The issue is not only of concern to constituentsacross the country and to members of the Committee, itis a huge concern to my constituents. More than 200 peoplehave taken the additional time and effort to write totheir MP about animal welfare issues, from testing towarfare experiments and sentencing. I have long believedthat the UK should lead the world with high animalwelfare standards. I am proud that the UK bannedcosmetic testing on animals back in 1997 and extendedthat to cosmetic ingredients in 1998. I was one of thosewho had been campaigning since the 1980s for that. Wehave made some good progress and agreeing on the newclause and putting it into the legislation would entrenchthose gains and make sure we go further.

It is welcome that animal testing practices have improvedand advanced greatly over recent years, and non-animalmethods for research have also developed and improvedover time. However, I remain concerned at the lack oftransparency around animal testing project licenceapplications, as well as the continued permissibility ofsevere suffering as defined in UK law. Again, the newclause does not aim to be entirely prescriptive about theconclusions of that—it leaves that for secondarylegislation—but it asks for it to be included and considered.

Animal testing is not the answer to protecting peopleand the planet from potentially harmful chemicals.Tests on animals are unreliable and their value is increasinglybeing questioned in scientific literature. It is a matter ofcorporate pride for many businesses to say that theyhave animal cruelty-free products, because that isincreasingly what the public wants.

There are better ways to ensure chemical safety andbetter assess risks to environmental and human healthwhile also reducing and eliminating the cruel sufferingof animals in laboratories. Cruelty Free Internationalestimates that since 2006 more than 2.6 million animalshave been used in chemical tests across the EU, includingthe UK, with many more tests planned. The UK reportsconducting more animal tests than any other countryin Europe. EU chemical legislation—the REACHlegislation—already discussed in Committee, has resultedin a huge increase in the use of animals in Europeanand UK laboratories. Now is our chance to be betterand to provide that world-leading legislation. We need aproactive plan to reduce and replace chemical tests onanimals. If the UK is serious about its commitment toanimal protection, the Government must adopt a forward-looking Environment Bill that moves away from crueland ineffective animal testing and write into law a target-based, science-led strategy for reduction and replacement.

TheParliamentaryUnder-Secretaryof StateforEnvironment,Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow): I agree with whatthe hon. Member for Putney wants to achieve in newclause 9. Just like her, I am an animal lover. As a formerchair of the all-party parliamentary group for animalwelfare, I think I speak for everyone on the Committeein terms of being animal lovers. The UK was consistentlyone of the strongest voices in the EU, applying downwardpressure on animal testing—I am sure the hon. Lady iswell aware of that—including changes to REACH toenforce the use of alternatives. The UK’s presidency ofthe European Council in the late 1990s was one of thedrivingforcesbehindthereformof thechemicals regulationsand we referred to that in a previous session. We arecontinuing with that clear aim now that we have left theEU, and we are already enshrining the last resort principleas one of the protective provisions in the Bill. Underarticle 138(9) of REACH, the Secretary of State willalso be under a duty to review the testing requirementson reproductive toxicity within 18 months of the end ofthe transition period. That review must be carried out inthe light of the objective of reducing the use of animaltesting.

In addition, the powers in schedule 19 of the Bill toamend REACH would enable us to build such targetsinto REACH, if that were felt to be appropriate. Anyamendment would have to be consulted on and to beconsistent with the aims and the principles of REACHas set out in article 1, including that we must maintain ahigh level of protection for human health and theenvironment, seek alternatives to animal testing, andthat REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle.I believe that would be the better route, if we concludethat targets are desirable. For those reasons, I hope thatthe hon. Lady will withdraw new clause 9.

Fleur Anderson: I thank the Minister for looking intothe issue and for some assurances that targets could beincluded in future, and that we will be seeking alternatives.I note the concerns and considerations that we all want


the same thing, which is stronger animal welfare. I amdisappointed that we will not agree on this matter thisafternoon, but I will not press it to a Division. I beg toask leave to withdraw the clause.


New Clause 10

OEP: PENALTY NOTICES

‘(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed tocomply with a decision notice, the OEP may, by written notice (a“penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEPan amount in sterling specified in the notice.

(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a publicauthority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEPmust have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).

(3) Those matters are—

(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;

(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;

(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;

(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, inorder to remedy the failure and mitigate the possibleadverse effects of the failure;

(e) the manner in which the infringement became knownto the OEP, including whether, and if so to whatextent, the public authority notified the OEP of thefailure;

(f) the extent to which the public authority has compliedwith previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;

(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionateand dissuasive.

(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHSand local authorities to be used for pollution reduction measures.

(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set theminimum and maximum amount of penalty.

(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmativeprocedure.”—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause would allow the OEP to impose fines.


Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): I begto move, That the clause be read a Second time. Thisproposed new clause was originally put forward in thenames of my hon. Friends the Member for SwanseaWest (Geraint Davies) and for Leeds North West (AlexSobel), who no longer sit on the Committee. With ournames added, we certainly support the sentiment.

The proposed new clause contains a simple propositionrelating to the Office for Environmental Protection andits functions. Hon. Members will recall that we havehad substantial discussions about the extent to whichthe OEP has powers to make its functions work well. Itis a question of giving it not just general authority butenforcement powers, notices and so on, which we havedebated. As the Bill stands, although the OEP wouldhave a number of powers concerning notices and theability to bring court proceedings, it would not have thepower to levy fines.

That argument is sometimes raised where a no-fineoutcome is concerned, when the question arises regardingthe bodies on which the OEP would levy fines. Thatwould, by and large, be public authorities. The argumentthen runs about what it would mean to levy a fine onpublic authorities. I remind hon. Members that that wasnot the case before we took powers over from the EU, in

running our own environmental importance. Nor is itsomething that other agencies do not have as shots intheir locker.

The clean air regime, for example, allowed the EUCommission the power to levy fines on infracting countries.In the case of clean air regulations, there was a suggestionthat the fines that the EU authorities had the power tolevy could be applied to infracting local authorities thatwere not adhering to clean air regulations. Indeed, therewas quite a to-ing and fro-ing between the Departmentfor Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and localauthorities, because it was suggested that authoritiesthat had been identified as infracting, and thereforeneeded to draw up clean air plans, would bear the bruntof the fines, rather than the UK Government. The UKGovernment were the public authority that was infracting,but they had passed on their infraction responsibilitiesto other public authorities, so those public authoritieswould be fined. That was a real issue with regards toclean air just a little while ago, but it has not beenpassed on to the Office for Environmental Protection,which would be the agency in that instance with UKpowers.

Similarly, Ofgem has considerable powers to finecompanies that do not undertake proper managementof their customer bills or their responsibilities for energysupply. Indeed, a considerable number of fines havebeen levied, running to millions of pounds, on energycompanies. Ofgem has that clear and workable power tolevy fines, but the OEP does not.

We are saying that the OEP should have the power tofine. Indeed, the new clause would give it that power.The other part of the problem is what the agency woulddo with the fines once they have been collected—is itnot just a circular process? The new clause states that,once collected, penalties must be distributed to theNHS and local authorities to be used for pollutionreduction measures. The fines would be recycled, butin a positive way for environmental management andimprovement.

Having that power to fine, and being able to publiclystate that authorities had been fined, are potentiallystrong weapons in the OEP’s locker, not necessarilybecause the fines would be punitive in their own right,but because they would be a mark against that publicauthority and because, through the transfer of the finepayments, the sins of that public authority would beeffectively transferred into positive action on environmentalimprovement in other areas.

We think the new clause is a sensible, straightforwardmeasure that would generally improve the efficacy ofthe OEP. The fact that nothing like it was thought aboutemphasises the general theme that we have been talkingabout in Committee of the power, independence andforce of the OEP being downgraded through a numberof Government amendments that have been made as wehave gone through the Bill. This would be one back forthe OEP, so I hope the Committee will view it in afavourable light.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for the intentionbehind tabling the new clause. The Government completelyagree that effective enforcement of public authorities’compliance with environmental law is vital. That is whywe are establishing the OEP to hold public authoritiesto account, as we have clearly talked about many times


[Rebecca Pow]

in Committee. However, in our domestic legal system itis unnecessary to make specific provisions for fines toachieve that.

Fines play an important role in the EU infractionprocess, as the hon. Member points out, but only becausethe Court of Justice of the European Union is unable tocompel member states to take a specific course ofaction through a court order. It is the only penalty thatit has in its armoury. It is therefore reliant on thesignificantly less effective approach of penalising themember state until they take some form of remedialaction, although the UK has never been fined for anenvironmental infraction.

2.15 pm

The enforcement framework provided for in this Billwill be more effective at bringing about compliancethan the EU infractions process, due to the more targetedand timely remedies that will be available. On anenvironmental review, if the court finds that a publicauthority has failed to comply with environmental law,it will have access to judicial review remedies. Thisincludes court orders, subject to appropriate safeguards.These remedies can ensure compliance is achieved. Forinstance, a mandatory order can require a public authorityto take a particular action.

The stronger remedies available in our domestic courtsystem therefore dispense with the need to make anyadditional provision for fines, and will resolve casesmore quickly than the EU. The whole process that hasbeen set up—that framework—is to work through problemsand issues through remediation, discussion and advice,long before we get to the point of a court issuing a fine,which, I put to the shadow Minister, will be far moreconstructive than any massive stick of a fine would be.

Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): My hon. Friendis making a strong case as to why it is much moreeffective that the OEP works with public authorities totry to make the sort of environmental improvementsthat everybody here wants to see, rather than acting as afining mechanism. Does she agree with me that on thisoccasion unfortunately the Opposition have confusedtrying to replicate a European measure with a muchbetter way of doing things here in the UK?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for making mycase for me. A great deal of thought has gone into it,which I was going to come to at the end. The shadowMinister suggests that this has not been thought about;I think those were his exact words. To reiterate what myhon. Friend said, this has been thought about in greatdetail, to come up with a system that will be better atsolving problems and improving the environment thanthe one the EU has on offer.

Furthermore, the Committee might wish to note thatthis new clause would give the OEP powers that eventhe European Commission does not have, so it cannotclaim to be ensuring equivalence between the OEP andthe European Commission. The European Commissioncannot fine a member state government, only the Courtof Justice of the European Union can do so, a point thatreally needs clarifying with the shadow Minister. AsI have already mentioned, we have stronger remediesthan the CJEU. It would be wholly inappropriate for

the OEP to directly impose fines. Effectively that wouldmean the OEP could prematurely sanction publicauthorities, without reference to the courts, and with noappeals mechanism for the public authority to challengethe decision.

Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab): Does the Ministeragree that enabling the OEP to issue penalty noticeswould help to give its investigatory work a degreeof clout, and serve as a meaningful contribution toefforts to improve public authorities’ compliance withenvironmental law?

Rebecca Pow: I do not think the OEP is going to haveany problem at all operating its clout. We will have a newchairman and a supporting board, and that will be theirraison d’être. They do not need fines. In fact, I wrote anexclamation mark as I thought it was a bit of a joke whenI saw that the shadow Minister had suggested that theOEP should become a funding body. That would be asignificant expansion in its scope, and not consistent withits role as a watchdog to hold Government to account.

In summary, the OEP’s enforcement framework hasbeen designed to resolve cases as robustly, quickly andeffectively as possible. The powers already available tothe courts to grant and enforce remedies make a systemof fines unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Memberto withdraw the new clause.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for that response.There are arguable cases. What we want to see as anemphasis on enforcement is a matter of opinion as towhat is most effective, rather than a fundamental discussionabout having a power or not. I remind the Minister thatwe had a debate about the fact that OEP appears to bepushed further away from its ability to go through thecourts by the debate on who should decide whethersomething was a serious breach, and the role of theOEP and the Minister in that. At the very least, thisidea, that the OEP could introduce penalties in its ownright, would be a step to rectify that particular problem.

I take what the Minister has to say about the extent towhich there are, at least in principle, reasonable methodsof enforcement as far as the OEP is concerned. It is nota wholly unreasonable point to make that that shouldnot necessarily include fines. However, this is a routeworth considering, and it may be that, as the OEPdevelops and we see how it manages to enforce things,the idea of fines might be revisited. I do not intend topress the clause to a vote this afternoon, so I beg to askleave to withdraw the clause.


New Clause 12

DUTY TO FOLLOW RECOMMENDATIONS

(1) A “public authority” must follow the course of action setout in a recommendation made by the OEP in a report issuedunder sections 25 or 26 unless the public authority has determinedthat there are reasons of public interest demonstrating that it isnot necessary for it to do so in order to comply with the law.

(2) If the authority does not follow a recommendation, it mustpublish a report setting out the reasons for not doing so and setout what alternative course of action it proposes to take.

(3) In this section public authority carries the same definitionas in section 28(3). —(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause requires a public authority to whom the OEP hasissued a recommendation to normally follow that recommendation.




Interestingly, this new clause comes at the same pointfrom a slightly different direction. On the basis of whatthe Minister had to say just a moment ago, she mightconsider how this clause might work in enhancing theability of the OEP to secure importance in an appropriateand robust manner.

The new clause—and I shall not dwell on it greatlength—requires a public authority to whom the OEPhas issued a recommendation to normally follow thatrecommendation. That is an onus in law, on the publicauthority, to follow the course of action set out in therecommendation made by the OEP. There can, of course,be exceptions to that, and there may be circumstancesin which an authority considers it does not have tofollow a recommendation. However, if that is the case,the new clause provides that it should publish a reportsetting out the reasons for not doing so and, positively,what alternative course of action it proposes to take.

The new clause would considerably enhance the powerof the recommendations of the OEP as the defaultposition would be that an authority should follow itsrecommendation; it could not get away with saying“Well, we don’t particularly want to do that. There arereasons for this; trust us—don’t worry. We don’t have todo it”. Instead, it would have to go public on why itcould not do it, and it would have to publicly say whatalternative course of action it would take, rather thantaking no action.

This does not go down the fine route, but it does godown the enforcement route in a different way—apotentially equally important way—and I would beinterested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this particularway of further enhancing the enforcement credibilityand robustness of the OEP.

Richard Graham: I am slightly concerned about thetrend of the hon. Gentleman’s line of thinking, which isvery authoritarian and along the lines of “Let’s have thecourts say as a default that the police are normallyalways right; that the county council are normally alwaysright on issues of child welfare and so on.” That is notthe way that this country operates; we believe fundamentallyin freedom and an objective decision by the courts onthe rights and wrongs of a particular case. Surely thereis no reason why the OEP should be some sort ofmagical exception to that overriding rule.

Dr Whitehead: If the hon. Member for Gloucesterwere pursuing a principled position on that, he wouldhave to undo the whole structure of regulation in thiscountry to ensure the freedoms and the way of life thathe suggests that we should follow, because that is whatregulators by and large do—they quite often produceregulatory decisions and regulatory outcomes that applyto those who are being regulated. I gave the hon.Gentleman the example of Ofgem, which levies fines onbodies that appear to transgress what Ofgem has decidedas a regulator. That is not a court action but relates tohow the regulator works and how those who are supervisedby that regulator are expected to behave. There is adirect relationship between those two, and that is the

case with a range of other regulators in all sorts ofother areas. For example, the hon. Gentleman will beaware of Ofcom’s regulatory activities on a numberoccasions, and those of Ofwat.

I am not suggesting an exceptionally authoritarianproposal that comes out of thin air in a desire toregulate people beyond what they can bear. It is basedon the relationship between the regulator and the regulatedand their respective actions. Normally, those who areregulated should do what the regulator suggests shouldhappen. To me, that is not akin to the Stasi going in toeveryone’s life and regulating their private thoughts outof existence. What is proposed is a reasonably standardregulatory process, as carried out on a agreed basis inthis country.

Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab): As ever, my hon.Friend is developing an interesting argument. I suspectthat in some ways it goes back to where our regulatoryframeworks first emerged. He and I are probably of anage to remember those discussions, which originallyarose around some of the privatisations of publicauthorities. A regulatory framework grew up and it wasinitially intended that it would melt away because themarket would weave its magic. Of course it quicklybecame apparent that we did need regulatory authorities.Does he agree that, over the past 20 to 30 years, we havehad an emerging regulatory structure that is quite differentfrom how it was originally envisaged?

The Chair: Dr Whitehead, strictly on this new clause.

Dr Whitehead: Indeed, Mr Gray; I will not be too fartempted on to the history of regulation and privatisedindustries and how that has worked out, other than tosay that the checks and balances of the regulator are animportant part of the process. What the new clauseproposes does not depart from that practice, and Ireally do not agree with the suggestion that it is somehowfollowing an authoritarian course.

I have been tempted to make a lengthier speech onthe new clause than I intended by the interventionsfrom the hon. Member for Gloucester, so I will not sayany more at this stage, but I hope that the Minister willreact favourably to the new clause.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test for tabling the new clause because itallows me to provide some detail on the OEP’s scrutinyfunction as well as its interactions with Governmentand public bodies.

The new clause refers to recommendations madeunder clauses 25 and 26, which cover the OEP’s scrutinyof the Government’s environmental improvement plansand targets, as well as the implementation of environmentallaw. Many of the OEP’s recommendations, if implemented,are likely to require changes to law and policy, andthose changes need to be carefully assessed alongsidemany other considerations. The responsibility for makingchanges to policy as well as introducing changes tolegislation lies firmly with the elected Government, notan independent body. That was highlighted in theinterventions by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.

I also want to use this opportunity to explain how theOEP will interact with Government and public authoritieswith regard to its scrutiny function. In terms of the


[Rebecca Pow]

OEP’s report issued under clause 25, it will be addressedto the Government, as the Government are ultimatelyresponsible for delivery of the environmental improvementplan and targets. Clearly, public authorities will helpGovernment meet their objective of improving the naturalenvironment, but, when the OEP makes recommendationsas to how progress could be improved, Government arebest placed to determine how, and by whom, thoserecommendations should be implemented. That isparticularly important because it is the Government,obviously, who have the statutory duty to respond tothe OEP’s recommendations, and are therefore heldaccountable. The Government must respond to theOEP’s reports; they must publish the reports and laytheir responses before Parliament. That means that theGovernment will be held to account for their actions bythe OEP, Parliament and the public.

2.30 pm

Ruth Jones: The Minister has talked about the OEPholding the Government to account. How will it dothat, as it will be part of the Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs? It will be appointed by theGovernment, and will, surely, be hand in glove with theDepartment. It is very difficult to say that it will actuallybe able to hold the Government to account.

Rebecca Pow: I will not go into a huge amount ofdetail in my answer, as it was all covered in the earlystages, but I could send the hon. Lady a page on howand why the OEP will remain independent. It will be anutterly independent body, and the Secretary of Statehas to be mindful of the independence of the OEP; thatis a crucial part of some of the detail written into theBill, and, if she wants to be referred to those sections, Iam sure that we could clarify those with her.

Clause 26 enables the OEP to assess how environmentallaw is implemented; it is not simply about compliancewith—or deviation from—the law, but will be moreabout whether the law is effective and delivering itsintention. The OEP will seek information from publicauthorities to undertake this duty but, again, its findingswill be addressed to Government, and only Governmentare required to respond.

This will work as one big machine, and local authoritieswill clearly play an important part; that is not to saythat public authorities cannot implement any of theOEP’s recommendations which are applicable to them,if appropriate. However, this is very different from thesuggestion that public authorities must comply with theOEP’s recommendations unless they publish a reportjustifying an alternative approach.

For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member forSouthampton, Test to withdraw the new clause.

Dr Whitehead: I thank the Minister for her reply. Shewill not be surprised to know that we do not entirely goalong with all of it, but I appreciate what she has said.Indeed, it may be that her remarks are taken intoaccount when we discuss the next new clause. On thatbasis, I have no intention of pressing this to a vote, andI beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.


New Clause 13

OEP REGISTER

“(1) The OEP must maintain a register of communicationsbetween it and Ministers (or government departments).

(2) The OEP may omit from the register communicationswhich it considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest tothe public.

(3) The OEP must publish the register.” .—(Dr Whitehead.)

This new clause requires the OEP to keep a public register ofcorrespondence with the Government.



This is an innocuous-looking new clause, but it ispotentially quite important. Indeed, we think it shouldbe an important part of the process, precisely becauseof what the Minister just said in response to the suggestionfrom my hon. Friend the Member for Newport Westabout the stated and apparent independence of theOEP, as far as the Department is concerned.

The new clause simply states that the OEP shouldmaintain a register of communications between it andMinisters or Government Departments. Obviously, thereis a statement in that clause to say that trivial things—suchas the Minister ringing up to ask whether they had aspare sandwich—should not be included in the register,but significant communications between the OEP andMinisters should be recorded in the register, and thatregister should be published.

What that would mean, quite simply, is that therewould be on the record a transparent adumbration ofthe occasions on which there has been conversationbetween Ministers and the OEP. While obviously it isnot suggested that the record should go into detail onwhat the communication was—it is not a public recordto that extent—it would show the extent to which theOEP was acting independently or the extent to which itmight be under duress, shall we say, from ministerialquarters in its doings. If the Minister is serious in whatshe says about the independence of the OEP, despitesome of the apparent constraints placed on its independencein the Bill, I would have thought she would welcome thenew clause as a pretty good way of enabling us to see onthe table what was going on and enabling the OEP, if itneeded to, to show that it had been placed underpressure by Ministers. If, indeed, it was placed underpressure by Ministers, that pressure would be in a publicplace, it would be seen by all and it could therefore beremedied.

Rebecca Pow: I thank the hon. Member for the newclause. I share his interest in ensuring that the OEP actstransparently in the exercise of its functions. That iswhy we have created, in clause 22, a duty on the OEP tohave regard to the need to act transparently. We havealso required the OEP, in clause 38, to make publicstatements when it carries out various enforcementactivities. In carrying out the duty in clause 22, the OEPwould normally make information about its work publiclyavailable—perhaps the shadow Minister has missed thatelement.

However, there may be certain situations where it isinappropriate and unhelpful for it to do so. There is adifference between what is in the public interest andwhat might be of interest to the public or to some


members of the public. In particular, the OEP will needto communicate with public authorities, includingDepartments, in the exercise of its scrutiny and enforcementfunctions. Those communications will require a degreeof confidentiality if the OEP is to engage effectively andproductively on sensitive issues with public authorities,and avoid prejudicing possible enforcement action. Theeffect of the new clause might be to remove that necessaryconfidentiality from the OEP’s interactions.

The new clause would require the OEP to maintain acontinuous running commentary on its communicationswith Ministers and their Departments, which would beadministratively burdensome and a poor use of resources,given the other provisions we have included in the Billon transparency, reporting and public statements. Thehon. Member asked whether ringing up to order asandwich should be recorded. That is a good point,because it is not at all clear in the new clause whatexactly the register would have to contain. Is it the fulltext of the communication? Potentially, if one washaving to record everything, one would have to recordthose things as well. It is just a small point.

Richard Graham: The Minister is making a very goodcase for the new clause being entirely redundant. I amsurprised that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test,whose judgment is often very sensible, really considersthat creating a register of communications, with all thearguments about what might be considered trivial ornot trivial, is a good idea when setting up the veryimportant Office for Environmental Protection. Doesthe Minister agree that this is another new clause thatwe should move on from swiftly?

Rebecca Pow: I could not agree more. I thank myhon. Friend for clarifying that point, because he isabsolutely on the money—not that the OEP is a fundraisingbody, of course.

There is nothing in the Bill, of course, to prevent theOEP from setting up a register of significantcommunications should it choose to do so, but we donot believe that it should be required to do so as a legalobligation. It is, after all, an independent body. To clarifyhow independent it is, I should say that it will obviouslybe operationally independent from the Governmentand governed by the non-executive members appointedthrough the regulatory public appointments process.

On the question of the OEP potentially deciding itwants to set up a register, I should mention that theOffice for Budget Responsibility has a register similarto that proposed by the hon. Member. That is not astatutory requirement; rather, the OBR produces it ofits own accord, and we believe it must remain for theOEP to decide how to fulfil its duty to have regard tothe need for transparency. The new clause is somewhatinappropriate and unnecessary, and I ask the shadowMinister to consider withdrawing it.

Dr Whitehead: I am not sure that I will any more,actually. The Government’s suggesting that the Committeeshould move swiftly on because they do not particularlylike an Opposition new clause does not strike me as fullparticipation in the spirit of what we are supposed to bedoing—that is, we, the Opposition, get the opportunityto put amendments forward, they are discussed andanswered properly, and then we move on. That is what Ihope will happen with this new clause.

I am not sure whether the Minister is saying that, ifthe OEP thinks it would like to set up a register—sandwichesnotwithstanding—of its communications with Ministersand to publish those communications, Ministers wouldbe happy to go along with that and would not in anyway seek to impede it. Alternatively, is the Ministersaying that because she thinks the correspondence andcommunications between Ministers and the OEP musttake place in an air of confidentiality, she would discouragethe OEP from doing that if it wanted to?

The new clause would clear that up; it says thereshould be a register. Its subsection (2) states that the OEPdoes have discretion, and the word “may” creeps in:

“The OEP may omit from the register communications whichit considers trivial or otherwise unlikely to be of interest tothe public.”

That is what you might call a sandwich clause. It doesnot need to put that stuff in; it merely needs to maintaina register to indicate the general degree of communicationthat is going on and how that communication is working.

Rebecca Pow: To clarify, there is nothing in the Billthat prevents the OEP from setting up a register. Icannot reiterate any more than I already have that it isan independent body: if it decides it wants to set up aregister, that is purely up to the OEP. I reiterate againthat we do not believe that that should be a legalobligation on the OEP—after all, it is an independentbody and it will think through these things for itself.

Dr Whitehead: That was not quite the question that Iasked the Minister. What I asked was: if the OEP diddecide to set up its own independent register, whatwould Ministers have to say about its being a transactionalregister—not a register of independent actors, but aregister of things happening between people, includingMinisters?

Would the OEP be encouraged to do that by Ministers?Would Ministers be happy to go along with that if theOEP did it? Alternatively—we would probably neverfind this out because we would not know what thecommunications were—would Ministers say, for thereasons the Minister has outlined, “That is a pretty badidea, OEP. You don’t really want to be doing that. Wemight say, in theory, that you are able to set up yourown register, but we as Ministers seriously discourageyou from doing it.”

We would be considerably comforted if the Ministersaid this afternoon that not only could the OEP set upits own register, but she would positively encourage it todo so, in the interests of transparency and of ministerialcommunications being as public as possible.

2.45 pm

Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): Iam just trying to clarify something. We have had variousdebates on the independence of the OEP and now thehon. Gentleman is asking Ministers to give their pre-emptiveinfluence as to whether the OEP should do one thing oranother. It might just be me, but I find that the Oppositionamendments and new clauses are trying to pre-empt theOEP’s own terms of reference, which it will decide foritself.

Dr Whitehead: What I was doing was engaging in abit of what-iffery. The Minister came back to me andsaid that the OEP could set up its own register, if it


[Dr Whitehead]

wanted to do. That is not what we want to do in the newclause; we just want a register to be set up—that is quiteclear and straightforward. The OEP would have somediscretion over what it consisted of, but the registerwould be there on the table for public record. Thatsystem operates in a lot of other legislatures andjurisdictions, to a greater or lesser extent. It does notbring the world tumbling down; it brings transparency.

Rebecca Pow: To back up the strong point made bymy hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth,would the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole pointabout the OEP is that it is an independent body andMinisters cannot encourage it? That is the whole pointof its independence.

Dr Whitehead: That is indeed absolutely what wehope will happen and what the new clause is intended tounderpin. The Minister, I think, has just made a furtherpoint in favour of the new clause—the effect of herwords often goes considerably beyond what she thinks.That is very good and positive.

I do not wish to say too much more about the newclause. I have been tempted by interventions to go downparticular routes, but I emphasise the simple, centralpoint. This is about fresh air, light and transparency,and actions taken by public bodies, for the public good,being available to the public. It is as simple as that. Thefact that there would be a requirement does not put anyconstraints on anybody’s actions; it simply makes surethat the light of transparency is properly shone, and isguaranteed to be shone. That is what the public wouldexpect to happen in the case of an independent bodythat nevertheless appears to have close relations withthe Government, in terms of its independence.

The Chair: I am unclear as to whether the hon.Gentleman is seeking to divide the Committee.

Dr Whitehead: Sorry, Mr Gray. I have been goadedbeyond endurance in this particular debate, so I ask fora Division.



Division No. 51]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 14

PRIMARY DUTY TO SECURE RESILIENCE

“(1) Section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (general dutieswith respect to water industry) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2A), at the end insert—

“(c) to contribute to achievement of any relevantenvironmental targets set under the Environment Act2020.”.

This new clause places duties upon the Secretary of State and theDirector General of Water Services in the Water Industry Act tocontribute to targets in the Environment Bill.—(Dr Whitehead.)



Let us see how we get on with this one, Mr Gray.Again, this is a very simple new clause; I thought thelast one was simple, but there we go. It places anenvironmental responsibility on Ofwat—in the sameway, I talked a while ago about what does not happen atthe moment, but I sincerely wish would happen,with Ofgem.

The new clause sets out that the director general ofwater services, who is mentioned in the Water IndustryAct 1991, which was put in place before modern Ofwatcame into being—the director general of water servicesnow works closely with Ofwat on regulation of thewater industry—and the Minister, which is effectivelyOfwat,

“contribute to achievement of any relevant environmental targetsset under the Environment Act 2020.”

It would mean that any targets for water companieswould have an obligation attached to them: that Ofwatmust work towards those targets.

This is an important point for water regulation and,indeed, any other form of industry regulation. Whatregulators do is based on a brief from the Governmentabout their overall activities. Even though it is independent,the regulator will, to a considerable extent, ensure thatwhat it does is guided by that overall requirement.

If, for example, the general direction is simply to gofor value for money for customers, important thoughthat is, and if that is the guiding light for that particularregulator, it will stick by that at the expense of otherconsiderations that could balance it out in the interestsof, for example, environmental targets.

The new clause seeks to balance what the regulator isdoing on those targets. It is quite proper that it shouldhave an interest in the targets. Surely that is one of theaims of the targets in the Bill—to ensure that we areworking together to get them achieved. If importantparts of the water industry are not bound into seekingto achieve those targets, that weakens the overall pushforward.

The new clause is not authoritarian. It is not trying toget anything done that should not be done. It simplytries to make sure that everyone is bound together inmaking sure that the targets work well in the waterindustry.

Rebecca Pow: The Government recognise the hon.Member’s intention that the water industry should playits role in achieving targets set under the Bill, particularlyin the priority area of water, but I do not believe thatthe new clause is necessary, given the legislative requirementto achieve long-term environmental targets.

Clause 4 will place the Secretary of State under aduty to ensure that the targets set under clause 1 aremet. At least every five years, the Government must


review their environmental improvement plan and, aspart of that, must consider whether further measuresare needed to achieve its targets. The Government mustalso periodically review its long-term targets set underthe Bill, alongside other statutory environmental targets,to consider whether meeting them collectively woulddeliver significant environmental improvement in England.

In addition, both the Secretary of State and Ofwatare already placed under environmental duties by section 3of the Water Industry Act 1991, which was referred toby the hon. Member. Section 2A of the Water IndustryAct 1991 enables the Secretary of State to set outstrategic priorities and objectives for Ofwat, which wehave already heard about, as it relates to water companies,wholly or mainly in England, through a strategic policystatement. In preparing that statement, the Secretary ofState must already have regard to environmental matters.In future statements, those matters could include targetsset under the Environment Bill.

The existing legislative framework, together withprovisions in the Bill, are therefore sufficient to ensurethat targets, including water targets, will be achieved.While the duty to achieve targets rests with centralGovernment, of course public authorities, includingregulators, will have their role to play. As I have pointedout, the legislative framework already in place, plus theprovisions in the Bill, should drive us towards ensuringthat targets will be achieved. Therefore, I ask thehon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw thenew clause.

Dr Whitehead: The new clause specifically talks abouttargets, and in the 1991 Act targets did not exist. Whileit is true that there are general environmental obligationsin that Act, they do not relate to the Bill’s aims in termsof its targets. We have already discussed that. TheMinister implies that it is more than conceivable thatthe general framework relating to environmentalconsiderations could be nudged towards targets, whenthose are in. To some extent, it is a question of lookingat whether Ofwat is doing the right thing, as thosetargets come in.

Rebecca Pow: There are other areas that will helptowards this. We need a whole range of levers to meetthe targets, but the targets will be set through theEnvironment Bill. Thinking is already going on aboutthe relevant targets for water and they are priorities forme, so we are moving on that.

A river-based management planning process, whichthe Environment Agency is currently revising, will alsobe a key measure and stage in identifying some of theother levers that will be needed to complement thepowers over the regulatory stuff, as well as the targets inthe Bill. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

Dr Whitehead: Since I have only just heard that, I amnot sure I can completely agree with it. The Minister issuggesting that there is a mesh of things there already,which could lead towards moves unpinning the targets.I hope the Minister is right about that process. I am notabsolutely sure that they are as strong as we might likethem to be in terms of what the new clause suggests, butI am sure that the Minister would be able to review thatposition, if it turns out that, once those targets are set,the mesh is not strong enough to impel those regulatorsin the direction that should be taken.

On that basis, and with confidence in the Minister’spowers of persuasion for future arrangements, I beg toask leave to withdraw the clause.


New Clause 15

RESERVOIRS: FLOOD RISK

“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to grant theEnvironment Agency additional powers to require watercompanies and other connected agencies to manage reservoirs tomitigate flood risk.

(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmativeprocedure.”—(Fleur Anderson.)


Fleur Anderson: I beg to move, That the clause beread a Second time.

I speak as a representative of a constituency that isno stranger to flooding. In Putney, we regularly havevery high tides along the river. There is even a “high tideclub” of car drivers who had not realised that the waterwas going to come, and found themselves water loggedand stranded. People love to go and take photos ofthem, but it is not very good for the drivers.

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause, which hasan unusual range of support—perhaps it will be thefirst that attracts the support of the whole Committee. Ihope that all Committee members have noticed that ithas the support of the Conservative hon. Members forColne Valley (Jason McCartney), for Shipley (PhilipDavies) and for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) andthe SNP hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally),alongside my hon. Friends the Members for BristolEast (Kerry McCarthy), for Leeds North West and forHalifax (Holly Lynch). I pay tribute to my hon. Friendthe Member for Halifax for all the work she has donechampioning the use of reservoirs and reservoirsmanagement in mitigating flood risk for communities.

This Environment Bill will mean more collaborationbetween water companies to deliver the infrastructurewe need and ensure that we have clean and plentifulwater, now and for decades to come. That is in the bag.This new clause takes the Bill further in strengtheningthe powers of the Environment Agency to managereservoirs to mitigate flood risks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax introduceda private Member’s Bill on this issue last year, as a resultof many years of conversations and learning betweenagencies, including the Environment Agency, watercompanies and local authorities for the area of Calderdale,about what will really help to stop communities being atrisk from flooding.

Currently, the legislation that underpins water companiesand their regulation has a focus on mitigating droughtrisk rather than flood risk.

The new clause seeks to redress the balance, as is onlyappropriate. Reservoir management is vital to mitigationof the damage and havoc that floods can wreak oncommunities such as those in Calderdale, and trials offlood management are already under way in such areasas Thirlmere in Cumbria and the reservoirs in the upperDon valley. We know that it will affect reservoirs acrossWales and Scotland, as well as Wessex in England.


3 pm

The new clause would place into legislation the importantfunction of reservoir management for flood risk mitigation.That is what is deemed to be working in best practice.We should therefore listen to that and learn from it, andput it into the legislation. We know that extreme weatherwill increase the frequency of flooding in the years tocome, and reservoirs are key to ensuring resilience withinour water infrastructure if we are to manage bothdrought and flood risk. The difference is that reservoirsneed to be relatively low to manage flood risk but highto manage drought risk, so we need the ability to movewater between reservoirs, and that requires a lot ofinfrastructure.

We have infrastructure here on the Thames, so Iknow how important it is. The Thames barrier was putup for the 194th time last week. It has stopped floodingall the way down the Thames, and a similar amount oflarge-scale infrastructure needs to be put in to enableour reservoirs to work effectively to stop flooding. Thenew clause would enable the Environment Agency todo that.

The new clause would enhance current flood mitigationmeasures by ensuring that there are agreements in place,long in advance of any actual floods, between theEnvironment Agency, water companies and “connectedagencies”—those may be bodies such as local authorities,though the new clause provides for that to be locallyunderstood and decided. They could identify what capacitylevel is appropriate at which reservoirs, when the reductionwould take place and what evidence base is needed tosupport those decisions.

Water companies are currently regulated by Ofwat,and inevitably there is a strong focus on preventing theover-obstruction of water sources, particularly in thecontext of fears that climate change will bring aboutprolonged periods of hot, dry weather. However, theEnvironment Agency warned in May last year thatentire communities may need to be moved away fromrivers if we are properly to prepare for a predictedterrifying average global temperature rise of 4° C. Again,regulation must find the appropriate balance betweenthe two threats of drought and flooding.

The water industry in England and Wales is diverse,and pressures in one area are not the same as those inothers. This is not a one-size-fits-all new clause; it fullyunderstands local needs. The new clause will strengthenthe Bill by leaving the space to allow for water companies,locally relevant connected agencies and the EnvironmentAgency—with the Environment Agency, importantly,taking the lead—to respond to local risks and reactaccordingly.

The new clause recognises the need to strengthenflood risk mitigation with regard to reservoirs specifically.There may be many other advances that the Ministercould, and should, talk about, but the new clause specificallyrefers to reservoirs, where it has been identified in bestpractice that there needs to be this additional provision.The new clause will allow us to respond in real time tochanges in our climate that mean that we can face, atthe moment, both drought risk and flood risk withinmonths of each other. Any plans will be based oncurrent trials that are already happening.

In an ideal world, the ability to transfer water betweenreservoirs and even across the country would enable themitigation of flood risk by the release of excess water,

which could be sent elsewhere without wasting a singledrop. Yorkshire Water, for example, has recently beenexploring the possibility of directing the water releasedfrom its trial reservoirs into its nearby treatment works.That is exactly the kind of approach that we would liketo see, and it would be enabled by the new clause.

With that in mind, I hope it is clear to all Committeemembers why the new clause is needed and has attractedso much support from across the House. It will rebalancethe risks of drought and flood. It will transfer powers tothe Environment Agency and result in investment ininfrastructure and localised plans, with flexibility tomove water with ease as needed to protect both theenvironment and communities from flooding.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to speak in support ofnew clause 15 and to follow my hon. Friend the Memberfor Putney, who made so many powerful points in herspeech.

I want to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friendthe Member for Halifax, who has long campaigned foraction to protect communities vulnerable to floodingand for the Government to act to mitigate the risk offlooding in her constituency and across England.

She has been joined by a number of Members, includingmy hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (StephaniePeacock), who I know supports the action to which thenew clause would give effect.

On 1 May 2019, the Opposition forced the Governmentto agree to the UK Parliament becoming the first in theworld to declare an environment and climate emergency.It was the right thing to do, and that declaration and thenecessary action to tackle the emergency have underlinedevery word uttered by the Opposition in Committeeand, importantly, influenced every single amendmentand new clause. Earlier this year, we saw storms Cara,Dennis and Jorge demonstrate the reality of the climatecrisis and showed that more extreme weather will happenmore often and with devastating consequences for jobs,lives and communities. I saw the impact water damagecan have on communities. Newport West itself hadminimal damage, but we saw considerable flooding inour parks and green spaces. Sadly, other parts of southWales were severely impacted—the Rhondda CynonTaf area in south Wales was the scene of 25% of theUK total of homes damaged by the floods in early2020—and there was also significant damage in placessuch as Shrewsbury and other small towns on the banksof the River Severn. So this is real. It is important thatwe get to grips with the dangers the water poses andlook to adopt a policy of prevention, because that isbetter than cure.

I am deeply concerned by the deep, long-term cuts toNatural England and the Environment Agency thathave seriously undermined their ability to tackle theenvironment crisis and deal with the impact of theclimate emergency. That is important to note, becausenew clause 15 seeks to enhance the powers and reach ofthe Environment Agency, and we cannot do that withoutacknowledging the huge hit to its finances, abilities andreputation inflicted by the Government. The new clauseis a focused, clear and coherent attempt at mitigatingrisk, but would also show that the House is determinedto respond to the climate crisis, as well as to lead ourway out of the many problems caused by water damageand flooding.


The amount of homes at risk of flooding has morethan doubled since 2013, reaching an approximate totalof 85,000 homes, so we need a joined-up approachacross regional water authorities, local government andregulators to provide a single flood plan for an area tomanage flood risk and better co-ordinate the responseto flooding. That is why the new clause is important. Itis about more than just preventing flooding from reservoirs:it should look to identify opportunities where existingand proposed reservoirs could be used to provide floodstorage capacity and other benefits.

The damage caused by water has destroyed lines and,in some devastating situations, has taken lives too. Thisafternoon, we need to make sure that the new clausepasses, because I am sure the Government share ourambition to ensure that this is enshrined in law.

Richard Graham: I rise very briefly, to my Whip’sdismay, to comment because the points raised by thehon. Member for Newport West have a lot of merit tothem, as the Minister will agree. In particular, the hon.Member is not far away from the same river that hasfrequently flooded my own city of Gloucester, mostnotably in 2007. It is worth noting that we do havesomething called the Severn Partnership, which bringstogether the MPs the whole way along the river—around40 of us—to work very closely with, for example, ShropshireCounty Council, the Environment Agency and otherimportant stakeholders. Indeed, it is very importantthat it is a cross-border partnership, talking closely withcolleagues in Wales and the authorities there.

The key point, which I am sure the Minister willtouch on, is that I am not convinced the Secretary ofState needs to make regulations granting the EnvironmentAgency these additional powers. However, I do thinkthat it is incredibly important for the Secretary of State,and his or her Ministers—the Minister in her place hasalready done this—to show huge commitment toencouraging and working with all those partners inorder to resolve a fundamental problem in this country,which is that half of it has too much water and hasfloods, and the other half has too little and has droughts.If we could store water high up, in the Welsh or Shropshirehills, and avoid flooding in places such as Gloucester,we could then transfer it by pipe all the way down toThames Water, and make a turn at the same time, whichwould be good news for all concerned. I am sure thatthe Minister will explain why she agrees with the principlebut does not necessarily see the point of the amendment.

Rebecca Pow: I thank all hon. Members who havecontributed to the debate, and particularly the hon.Member for Putney for sharing her experiences of flooding.Clearly, my sympathies lie with anyone who has experiencedflooding. I saw it for myself at first hand when theSomerset levels flooded.

I want to reassure the Committee that flood riskmanagement is a top priority for this Government. Ifully recognise the desire to look at all the options, butthis Bill is not the place for new flood managementlegislation. There are currently over 200 reservoirs operatedby the Environment Agency that are used for flood riskmanagement, and that are deliberately kept low in orderto maximise the amount of rainwater they can store.

Water company reservoirs have a different purposeand play a significant role in ensuring that we haveready access to water whenever we want and need it.

Indeed, water companies have statutory duties, enforceableby Ofwat and the Secretary of State, to maintain securewater supplies, under the Water Industry Act 1991.That is a key point to highlight, because the security ofwater is so essential. This primary purpose of watercompanies must be considered first, before any additionalduties are placed on them, even if those duties wouldhelp with flood risk management.

However, there is nothing to stop a water companyusing its reservoirs for flood risk management purposesand as a risk management authority. Under the Floodand Water Management Act 2010, water companieshave a duty to co-operate with all other risk managementauthorities, including the Environment Agency. I amaware that some water companies across the north ofEngland have undertaken trials to explore how andwhere this approach might offer the most benefits.Those trials have shown some positive results, but theyhave also identified some risks, such as prolonged dryweather, which need to be fully understood.

We should not forget that not many months ago wewere facing a potential drought in the north-west, andeveryone was on the phone to the water Minister. Thatwas exacerbated by unusually high demands for water,because of the hot weather and changes in people’sbehaviour and routines during the pandemic, with morepeople using hosepipes to fill paddling pools, wash theircars and water their gardens. Similarly, in the summerof 2018 the country dealt with very dry and warmweather, with water companies experiencing high demand.We must pay as much attention to the problem of toolittle water as we do to too much. Indeed, as the hon.Member for Newport West highlighted, we should expectmore frequent extremes of weather as a result of climatechange, so that all impacts on this situation.

There is a formal agreement between the EnvironmentAgency and Yorkshire Water in relation to Gorpleyreservoir, which demonstrates that, through effectivepartnership working, such agreements between the differentwater bodies and organisations can be secured locally. Itherefore believe that local agreements and partnershipworking form the most appropriate approach. My hon.Friend the Member for Gloucester highlighted the SevernPartnership, which involves a whole range of bodiesworking together, including local authorities and all theMPs representing constituencies up and down the valley.That is proving to be something of a model in drivingforward the whole issue of water infrastructure, howto get water from A to B, and how to deal with thedemand. That has been a voluntary arrangement.

As I have said, flood risk is a top priority for theGovernment. We have published our flood and coastalerosion risk management policy statement, which setsout our long-term ambition to create a nation that ismore resilient to flood and coastal erosion risk.

The hon. Member for Newport West touched onfunding. From 2021, the Government will doubleinvestment in flooding to £5.2 billion in the next six-yearcapital investment programme for flood defences. Thatinvestment will better protect 336,000 properties fromflooding. Additional funding of £200 million oversix years will help 25 local areas to take forward somemuch wider innovative approaches to improve floodresilience and coastal erosion. That touches on thewhole issue of water supply.


3.15 pm

The Government are bringing forward a range ofreally exciting initiatives in this space. We have alreadybrought forward £170 million-worth of shovel-readydefence schemes across the nation, which will createjobs along the way and help economic growth. Thoseprojects were announced in the summer.

The more resilient approach is reflected in clause 75.The improved consultation requirements provide forthere to be earlier and better consultations and thereforea more integrated approach to water planning, requiringwater companies who share borders to talk to each otherand think about how their plans dovetail together.

However, there is currently no legislation that stopswater companies using their assets for flood riskmanagement. In fact, water companies are risk managementauthorities under the Flood and Water ManagementAct 2010 and they have a duty to co-operate with allother risk management authorities, including theEnvironment Agency, local authorities, internal drainageboards and others, as is being put into practice by theSevern Partnership. I therefore ask the hon. Memberfor Putney to withdraw the new clause.

Fleur Anderson: I thank the Minister for all thosepoints and for her impassioned argument in favour ofthe new clause. The change in water use under covid hasbeen recognised. It has been seen in London, wherefewer people are working in the city and more areworking at home. Better powers granted under the Bill,and local management plans, would make it possible torespond to those changes.

The Gorpley reservoir partnership is a great model ofhow to work together, as is the one in Calderdale thatled to a private Member’s Bill last year and to this newclause. The new clause seeks only to put into legislationwhat is seen to be good practice. This is a top priority ofthe Government, so it should be in the Bill. Why wouldit not be? I absolutely agree that the security of water isvery important, but we are asking for balance withflood mitigation.

The new clause would give specific powers to theEnvironment Agency and would provide joined-uplegislation across the Government. The Minister hastalked about the top priority of flood mitigation; thenew clause balances that with the top priority of aworld-leading Environment Bill. This is the right placefor the new clause, so I seek to divide the Committee onthe motion.


Division No. 52]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 16

WASTE HIERARCHY

“(1) In interpreting responsibilities under Part 3 of this Actand in all matters relating to waste and resource efficiency theSecretary of State must take account of the requirements of thewaste hierarchy.

(2) In this section, ”waste hierarchy” has the same meaning asin the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 2011/988).”.—(Ruth Jones.)


Ruth Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read aSecond time.

I rise to speak to new clause 16 in my name and thoseof my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton,Test, for Cambridge, for Erith and Thamesmead (AbenaOppong-Asare), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire)and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle).The new clause is a specific and targeted addition to theBill, and I do not intend to speak on it for long.

As colleagues will know from our recent discussionson waste and recycling, it is important that we act ascomprehensively as possible and that we show realleadership on these important issues. For us to takethese matters seriously—actually and theoretically—weneed the Bill, when it leaves Committee, to be made upof a comprehensive plan backed by a coherent agendathat will deliver real results now and into the future. Ihope the Minister recognises that the new clause will donothing other than enhance the scope and reach of theBill, taking it a great deal closer to being fit for purpose.

The Minister and Government Back Benchers willknow that we have not sought to divide the Committeefor the sake of it in recent weeks. Truth be told, all ouramendments are worthy of a vote and of being added tothe Bill. Alas, the Minister and her loyal colleagues haveput paid to any chance of those additions. I wish topress new clause 16 to a vote, however, for a number ofreasons, the most important being that people out thereneed to know that although efforts to make recycling fitfor purpose, to tackle waste and to fight the climateemergency head on in England were on the table, theywere all rejected. I would be delighted if the Ministerrose to inform the Committee that she will accept thenew clause and, even at this late stage, I urge her toscrap her notes and do just that.

Rebecca Pow: The hon. Lady will be pleased to knowthat I will not be recycling my notes just yet. I thank herfor tabling new clause 16, which seeks to ensure that theSecretary of State must take account of the requirementsof the waste hierarchy when considering all mattersrelating to waste and resource efficiency. Organisationsthat produce or manage waste in England and Walesare already legally obliged to comply with the wastehierarchy duty, as set out in the Waste (England andWales) Regulations 2011—the hon. Lady is perhaps notaware of that.

The Environment Agency is responsible for enforcingthat in England. Government policy in this area has, fora long time, been developed with the principles of thewaste hierarchy in mind, and that commitment wasaffirmed in our resources and waste strategy in 2018—anexcellent strategy that I urge the hon. Lady to read—whichsets out our plans to move away from an inefficient“take, make, use, throw away” model, to a more circular


economy that keeps products and materials in use for aslong as possible. We discussed that at length in many ofthe earlier waste clauses.

We intend to ensure that waste is prevented in thefirst place and that we recycle as much as possible oncewaste is created. Measures in the Bill have been developedwith the waste hierarchy as our guiding light. At the topof the hierarchy, clause 50 and schedule 7 allow forregulations to be made about resource efficiencyrequirements, to drive a shift in the market towardsproducts that last longer and can be reused and repairedmore easily, as well as towards those that can be recycled.Those regulations would be used, for example, to requirefitted furniture to be easy to disassemble and reassemble,or for parts to be easily repaired or replaced. The hon.Lady is absolutely right: the public are really welcomingof such measures.

Our producer responsibility powers in clause 47 andschedule 4 can be used to help to prevent products ormaterials from becoming waste. By imposing obligationson food producers, for example, we can hold themresponsible for surplus food and food waste. That is ahuge step forward: collecting food waste but also urgingpeople not to create so much waste in the first place.

Our other producer responsibility powers in clause 48and schedule 5 will also help prevent waste by makingproducers accountable for the full cost of managingtheir products at the end of life. I honestly believe thatthat will be a game-changer in terms of the amount ofwaste created. As I have mentioned before, that willencourage businesses to reduce the amount of packagingthat they use and to use reusable and recyclable packaging,so that less waste is produced.

Clause 54 will ensure that we make recycling simplerfor households, by stipulating a consistent set of materialsthat must be collected from all households and businessesin England, which, as I have just mentioned, will includefood waste. I can therefore reassure the hon. Lady thatwe do not need the new clause, having touched oneverything that she raised. She said that she intended topress the new clause to a vote, but surely I have convincedher that that really is not necessary.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Minister for those helpfulcomments and for raising the awareness of the importanceof the 2011 legislation and the other relevant legislationwhich, of course, is compulsory bedtime reading on thisside of the Committee.

We have discussed at length the importance of thecyclical nature of recycling, but it is so important thatwe begin to break it down. As the Minister rightly said,it is not just about the end product, but the startingpoint and how we ensure that products, when they arefirst created or built, are designed so that they can befully recycled. My hon. Friend the Member forSouthampton, Test spent a great deal of time explaininghow car parts can be broken down and used again indifferent ways, and we all took that on board.

Rebecca Pow: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not registerthe producer responsibility, which will put the onus onthe person who invents and designs the product in thefirst place. They will remain responsible for the cost ofthat product through its life and where it ends up, sothat will make them think, “Goodness, I don’t want to

be responsible for that, so I’ll think about how I designit in the first place,” and that will reduce waste. Maybeshe missed that.

Ruth Jones: I did not miss it, and I am perfectly clearabout the producer responsibility. However, I am alsoclear on the need for public co-operation, because allrecycling and waste management begins at home. Wemust ensure that we have the public on board. Althoughwe are talking about the waste hierarchy, we need toensure that the public out there in the real world understandfully what is expected of them. We need to make it easyfor them, which means that they must have clearinstructions—hopefully universal instructions rather thandifferent authorities doing different things, confusingpeople. On that basis, I am sorry to disappoint theMinister, but I am going to press this new clause to avote.



Division No. 53]

AYES

Anderson, Fleur

Furniss, Gill

Jones, Ruth

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Zeichner, Daniel

NOES

Afolami, Bim

Bhatti, Saqib

Browne, Anthony

Crosbie, Virginia

Docherty, Leo

Graham, Richard

Mackrory, Cherilyn

Moore, Robbie

Pow, Rebecca


New Clause 17

TREE FELLING AND PLANTING

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish andexecute in conjunction with the devolved administrations a targetfor the percentage of land in the UK under forest or woodlandcover by 2050.

(2) The target shall be at least 19% of UK land under forest orwoodland cover by 2050.

(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish andexecute a target for the percentage of land in England underforest and woodland cover by 2050.

(4) The target shall be at least 14.5% of land in England underwoodland or forest cover.

(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establishinterim targets for the increase in hectares of land in Englandunder forest or woodland cover for each five year period up to2050.

(6) The interim targets shall be not less than an additional80,000 hectares of land under forest or woodland cover for eachfive year interim target period up to 2030, and not less than anadditional 10,0000 hectares of land for each five year interimtarget period thereafter.”—(Dr Whitehead.)




The Chair: With this it will be convenient to discussnew clause 19—Duty to prepare a Tree Strategy forEngland—

“(1) The Government must prepare a Tree Strategy forEngland as set out in subsection (2) and (3).

(2) The strategy must set out the Government’s vision,objectives, priorities and policies for trees in England includingindividual trees, woodland and forestry, and may set out othermatters with respect to the promotion of sustainablemanagement of trees in these contexts.

(3) The Tree Strategy for England must include theGovernment’s targets and interim targets with respect to—

(a) the percentage of England under tree cover;

(b) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved bytree planting;

(c) hectares of new native woodland creation achieved bynatural regeneration;

(d) the percentage of native woodland in favourableecological condition; and

(e) hectares of Plantation on Ancient Woodland (PAWS)undergoing restoration.

(4) The Government must keep the Tree Strategy for Englandunder review, and may, if they consider it appropriate to do so,revise the strategy.

(5) If the Government has not revised the Tree Strategy forEngland within the period of 10 years beginning with the day onwhich the strategy was last published, they must revise thestrategy.”

The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government prepares atree strategy for England. It will ensure that the Government has toproduce targets for the protection, restoration and expansion of treesand woodland in England.

Dr Whitehead: Hon. Members will recall that weheralded the arrival of this debate on new clauses 17and 19 a little while ago in our debates, when we drewattention to clause 100, which comes under the strangeheading of “Tree felling and planting”because “planting”does not appear in the text of the clause. New clauses 17and 19 are similar—new clause 17 has more detail in thenumbers—and seek to ensure that a proper strategy fortree planting is in place and that that strategy bearssome relation to the reality of the numbers that will berequired if we are actually to have a real effect on thiscountry’s emissions, particularly our net negative emissionsas we go towards our net zero target, which the Ministerand I have already mentioned in Committee on severaloccasions.

We all agreed that we were to move towards a net zerotarget for emissions by 2050, and trees play an incrediblyimportant part in that net zero target, because they arenature’s almost perfect method of carbon sequestration.Particularly as trees grow from their sapling stage totheir mature stage, they have a burst of sequestration.Fortunately for us, that burst of carbon sequestrationas the new trees grow exactly coincides with the periodahead of us up to 2050, when we have to get to our netzero target.

3.30 pm

Our tree strategy therefore ought to be aligned withthat net zero target, and informed by an understandingof not just what we have to do to get to net zero butwhat happens in terms of sequestration by these trees.That is the biggest net negative weapon in our arsenal,because there will inevitably be substantial carbon overhangsin all sorts of other areas of activity, which we will haveto account for in getting to the overall net zero target.

The net negative effect of sequestration by a largeplanting of trees could go a long way to account for thecarbon overhang in other areas of our economy.

It is probably a good idea to try to get a handle on thenumbers that we are talking about by consulting ourold friend the Committee on Climate Change. Itspublication “Land use: Reducing emissions and preparingfor climate change” of about two years ago looked atthe number of new trees that we will need to plant, inthe context of the present forest cover in the UK. Hon.Members will not be surprised to hear that we are oneof the worst countries in Europe in terms of forestcover. We inherited a land that was richly forestedacross almost its length and breadth, and we havereduced it to a land that in England has no more than10% forest cover overall. It is considerably higher inScotland, but altogether in the UK there is only about13% of forest cover. That compares very badly withFrance, which has 35% and Scandinavia, which has50% to 60%.

We are a tree-bare country as far as carbon sequestrationis concerned. It seems to me not only a good idea to getour skates on to plant a lot more trees, but an imperativeto restore the forest cover substantially, not just forclimate reasons but to enhance biodiversity, and to joinup the various isolated pockets of species’ existence inthe country to create continuous corridors of speciesruns. We could immensely enhance, particularly in ruralareas, the forest industries, which are very remunerativefor the country, and make the country a much betterplace overall as a result of our efforts.

The Committee on Climate Change estimated that inorder to produce the sort of sequestration that wouldmake a real net negative contribution and save betweeneight and 18 megatons of carbon dioxide we wouldneed to plant something like 1.5 million hectares ofland, which would take the forest cover of the UK upfrom the present 13% to 19% by 2050. Looking atcreating forest cover lets us understand the extent of thetask ahead of us and what we need to do. By reasonableextrapolation, it gives us a handle on the numbers thathave been bandied around recently about who is plantingwhat trees, how many they are planting and what goodthat will do.

If we take the rough number of trees that can reasonablybe planted per hectare—there are different amounts,depending on species and the purposes for which theyare being used—it comes to about 1,600. If we multiplythe 1.5 million new hectares of planting that the Committeeon Climate Change suggests we should undertake bythe number of trees per hectare, it equates to notmillions, but billions of new trees: 2.4 billion to beprecise. That puts in context some of the recent chatterabout who is planting how many trees. For example, the25 year environment plan includes an impressive figure.It states:

“We will increase tree planting by creating new forests andincentivising extra planting on private and the least productiveagricultural land, where appropriate. This will support our ambitionto plant 11m trees.”

That sounds a lot, but when you put it into the contextof the data I described, it comes to about 6,000-oddhectares.

Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con): Across the wholeUK, there are about 17.6 million hectares of productiveagricultural land. Does the hon. Gentleman therefore


agree that it is about striking the correct balance? Withthe Prime Minister announcing 30,000 hectares for treeplanting annually, does he agree that that will contributetowards reaching the target? It is about striking a balance.

Dr Whitehead: The hon. Gentleman is absolutelyright and may well have anticipated my next comments.He referred to his miniature oracle—the mobile phone—tolook up the number of hectares in productive use in theUK. In a tree strategy, it is important not to substituteproductive land for tree cover if that can be avoided. Wemust ensure that marginal land, or land that is not inparticularly productive use, can be afforested, and thatland that is in productive use or has a high yield cancontinue to operate on that basis. We should not try tosequester land that could be used for other purposes toput trees on.

On the overall target, we must ask ourselves—indeed,the Committee on Climate Change has asked itself—whether it is possible to get that number of trees on theland in the UK, bearing in mind the constraints that thehon. Gentleman mentioned. The answer is yes, absolutely,it is possible. The Forestry Commission and ForestResearch have done a lot of research on the amount ofmarginal land in the UK that could have forest coverwithout impinging on grade 1 agricultural land, nationalparks, areas of outstanding natural beauty and so on.The answer is that roughly 5 million hectares are availablein England for that sort of activity. There is landavailable.

A tree strategy would have to take account of thepoint that the hon. Member for Keighley made aboutwhat land was available and how it might be afforested,as well as the incentives that might be needed to do thatbecause a lot of that land is in private ownership andsome might be purchased for forestation and madeavailable to the public. Other land could be made availablethrough covenants, which the Minister mentioned. Butoverall, the purpose would be to ensure forestation thatincreases overall forest cover while making room for thevarious things that need to be done on the land upto 2050.

I want to come to the 30,000 hectares, which the hon.Gentleman mentioned and which we have recently heardabout in the press. One is not entirely clear what thatfigure means. A blog from the DEFRA press office on12 June was headed—I am not sure about the grammarhere—“Tree planting on the up in England”. Actually,it talked about tree planting not being particularly onthe up in England, because not only have present targetsbeen missed by up to 70% in recent years, but althoughtotal new planting in 2019-20 was indeed up, it was onlyup to 2,330 hectares, which is a tiny proportion ofwhat is required annually to get anywhere near thatfigure by 2050.

Indeed, the figure very much squeezes the definitionof what has been planted by taking into account thetotal number planted with Government support overthe last three financial years and those hectares that theDepartment thinks have been planted without support—because people like planting trees. It suggests that totalnew planting, taking into account everything in theUK—Scotland and England as well—comes to about13,000 hectares altogether. Therefore, even by squeezingthe statistics as hard as we can, we still get a pretty lowversion of that tree planting figure.

Nor is it clear from that press release whether the30,000 hectares of trees that we hear mentioned is anannual tree planting target or a target up to 2025. Itstates that

“tree planting in England increased last year but was below therate needed to reach the manifesto commitment to plant30,000 hectares of trees across the UK by 2025.”

That is very different from 30,000 a year. If the target isindeed 30,000 a year, that goes some way towardsbeginning to meet what the Committee on ClimateChange has said is the imperative for planting up to2050, but only halfway. We would probably need to plantabout 50,000 to 60,000 hectares a year if we are to reachCommittee on Climate Change target.

That is why the new clause sets out targets withparticular percentages, because that is the key point: thepercentage of land in the UK under woodland or forestcover, now and up to 2050. That is what the targeteffectively works around. We also need to understandclearly that the target has to be met between Governments,because half of the UK’s new trees were planted inScotland last year and a substantial amount of theoverall UK forest cover target would have to be metthere. Therefore, not only would the target have to relateto English planting; it would have to relate to mutualaction and discussions between the UK Governmentand the Scottish Government—and indeed the WelshGovernment and the Northern Ireland Assembly—aboutwhat is to be done on tree planting in the UK as awhole. As a matter of interest, Wales comes somewherebetween Scotland and England in terms of its percentageof forest cover. Northern Ireland is very bad in its forestcover, so there are further areas to be made up in thatcontext.

3.45 pm

I hope the Minister, when she replies, can providesome information about the thinking in Governmentabout a tree strategy that actually addresses the issues Ihave raised this afternoon and is not about digging treesin here and there by boy scout groups—I am sure it willbe about that, but as a small part of the process. We aretalking very large numbers here, and the tree strategywill need to genuinely address those large numbers. Notonly that, a tree strategy will need to address all theprocesses of how to get there and how to make sure thatgetting there is a sustainable process, because that is theother really important point in any tree strategy. As Ihave said previously in Committee, it is not just aboutgoing around with a bunch of saplings in a truck andputting 1,600 in per hectare: it is about making sure thata few years hence there are still 1,600 trees per hectare,not a couple of hundred, because the rest of them havebeen chewed up by deer and squirrels, or have diedbecause the wrong species have been planted in thewrong place, or the land was not suitable for plantingthe trees in the first place. The strategy needs to be quiteintricate, to get right where the trees are planted; toensure the balance between marginal land and productiveland, as the hon. Member for Keighley mentioned; andto make sure that the trees are maintained properly.Indeed, the Forest Stewardship grants and the WoodlandTrust grants for planting trees are not just for plantingtrees, but provide for the stewardship of those treesover a period of time once they have been planted, andthat is a necessary condition to get the grants in thefirst place.


Documents

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES · 2020. 11. 27. · PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT GENERAL COMMITTEES Public Bill Committee ENVIRONMENT BILL First Sitting Tuesday 10