Environment Bill
Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020.
Examination of Witnesses
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Good morning. I thank the witnesses for attending. This is an important Bill, and it is important that we have the opportunity to hear expert evidence. You are probably aware that members of the Committee have already received the briefings that you issued, so I do not propose to request that you go through yours; you can assume that people have read it, so we will go straight into questioning. I ask each witness to introduce themselves for the record, from left to right—purely topographically—and to say which organisation you represent.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Good morning. This may be a bit of a challenge, but for the Committee’s edification, could you—between you, or one or two of you—give us a little scene-setting about the impact of air quality on human health, with regard to asthma rates, disability, causes of death and so on, and then briefly set out for us where you think we are with Government action in this area? That is particularly important for what we may put into the Bill.Q126
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q I guess you were surprised that the Bill does not require legally binding targets to be set until October 2022 and does not go any way towards ensuring that the UK meets World Health Organisation clean air emission limits, for example. Are there particular measures that you think should be put in the Bill to enable those things to be addressed properly? How might we ensure that the limits are properly reflected in the legislation?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I shall bring in the Minister responsible for the Bill, Rebecca Pow.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Thank you all for coming in. I want to pursue this subject a little further. It is clear that we recognise how damaging PM2.5 is to human health, as we have made it the only legally binding target in the Bill. I hope you welcome that.
I want to address Professor Alastair Lewis first, from a more scientific perspective. While the WHO has said that it might be possible to get to that target quicker, it did not say how to do that or what the economic impacts were. I would like you to go into the detail of why that is so difficult to do right now. One key aspect of the Bill is that experts will be involved in consultation right the way along the line. How important is it that we do not rush into something, but take important guidance and expert advice?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Some of it comes from Europe, doesn’t it?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Just to encapsulate that, is it right to have the legally binding PM2.5 target and to set the other targets when we have more evidence, given that we all want to be really ambitious for the health aspects?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
There is no obligation to do so, but if any other witnesses want to add anything to that, they are very welcome to.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. Diedre Brock, do you have any questions?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Not particularly at this time.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
In that case, I call Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore (Conservative, Keighley)
Professor Lewis, what sorts of measures would you expect the Government to have to implement to meet the World Health Organisation levels by 2030Q ?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I am going to start taking questions in twos because we do not have a lot of time left, but is there a follow-on question specifically on that?
Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)
How does what the UK does to tackle air pollution compare to other countriesQ ?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you. I will take two questions now. Perhaps the witnesses will decide between them who is the most appropriate person to respond in each case. I know that might be asking a bit much, but try and think about that.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
I want to ask about the respective contributions to air pollution made by road, air and sea transport and other emission sources such as energy from waste, incinerator plants, wood burning and ammonia from farming.Q
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
Professor Lewis, I was very interested when you talked about the different chemical reactions and the effect of agriculture upon the PMQ 2.5 particulates in the air, and how we should be fully aware that it is not just car exhaust fumes. Bearing that in mind, would you be cautious about putting into law something that the Government would not necessarily have control of or the ability to fully manage themselves, and might potentially end up as a big problem?
Bim Afolami (Conservative, Hitchin and Harpenden)
And indeed the interaction between different bits.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
And on Abena’s point?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I will take two more questions. We really are pushed for time, so if Members could make their questions as concise as possible, that would be really helpful. We will start with Kerry McCarthy and then go to Cherilyn Mackrory.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
My question is specifically directed at ClientEarth. You have taken the Government to court over their failures on air Q pollution three times now. Do you feel that the Bill gives sufficient powers to take action against the Government if there are future failures? Also, my concern is about the buck being passed to local authorities to a large extent. In the wider picture, I have just heard that Bristol has finally got its directive from the Government today, but unless funding is released for transport, housing and all the things that go with it, it will be very difficult for local authorities to do what is required, so where is the balance? Who should be held to account, and can they be held to account under the Bill?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)
I suppose that my question follows on from that. I am lucky enough to represent a coastal rural community. My confusion is about how we measure these targets. I do not know what success looks like where I live, compared with London, for example. We might also set targets in the Bill, but where I live might have met them already while London has not. Who are we setting the targets for? I find it a bit too complex, which is why I am leaning towards using secondary legislation to manage that. Following Kerry’s question, I would also like to hear a little more about the role of local authorities.Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I am afraid we have time for only one more question, and I am not sure that we will have adequate time for all the witnesses to respond. Alex Sobel, please be very brief.
Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)
I will try. My city, Leeds, has some of the worst air quality in Europe. We are getting a clear air zone, but it is nine months late due to Government methods. A DEFRA fact sheet says that NOx—nitrogen oxides—emissions fell by only 33% between 2010 and 2018, and PMQ 2.5 by only 9%. The NOx limits are the same for the EU and the WHO, but the WHO’s PM2.5 limits are much lower than the EU’s. How can we get to a safe level by 2030, given where we have got to at this point and what we can do with the Bill?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Very quickly.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for their forbearance. I know it has been difficult to squeeze in all the information, but I am sure the whole Committee has found it very informative and helpful in shaping our views.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Good afternoon. We will now hear evidence from Water UK, Blueprint for Water and the Marine Conservation Society. We have until 1 pm, but it has been very difficult to get through all the questions in the time allocated. As Members of the Committee do not seem to understand what “concise” means, I ask them to condense their questions. Our witnesses are very welcome. Do not feel that you have to answer every question if you do not have anything to add to what the others have already said.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Good afternoon. I want to start with some thoughts about water efficiency, and specifically the extent to which it is widely thought that the Bill perhaps misses the opportunity to strengthen water efficiency targets and encourage homes and businesses to reduce their water usage. Do you think there should be powers and targets included in the Bill to enable those efficiency measures to be expedited?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q I want to touch on the other aspect of water that we have heard rather a lot about recently, namely flooding, and observe that the Bill likewise holds no powers or duties on flood defence or work on drainage of waste water to reduce flood risk. Do you think that is an omission in the Bill, or are there other ways in which such measures could be reliably incorporated into legislation?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Minister, would you like to add to our proceedings?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q I would love to. I want to be clear about resource and water efficiency, which was mentioned earlier. That is catered for in clause 49. I take the points about needing to look at the wider issues of all water resources. We have to set a water target in part 1 of the Bill. I am interested to know your thoughts on what sort of target you would like to see, because we have that opportunity in the Bill.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
But it mentions the natural environment, and to be clear, that includes marine. That is why you are here.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Can I quickly follow up on something? In the light of what you have all said, we already have a pretty heavy legislative framework for water and the water space; we already have water management plans, catchment plans—a raft of information—which is why a lot of that is not reiterated in the Bill. The message I am getting from you is that there are myriad targets that we could set. I would say that the Bill offers the opportunity later to set any targets that we want. Do you agree that it is good that a water target will be set in the beginning? I think our marine lady particularly welcomed that. This shows how complicated setting targets is, and that we would need to take a great deal of advice in the secondary stage of the Bill in order to do that. This is what the Bill offers us the opportunity to do. Do you welcome that general approach?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q I have been doing quite a lot of work examining issues around munitions dumps around the coast of the UK. In fact, I called for an environmental audit—on both land and sea—of the Ministry of Defence’s activities. 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 interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q You think a blanket exemption is not appropriate.
Saqib Bhatti (Conservative, Meriden)
Mr Colville, you spoke about the water industry. Do you agree the Bill is a step forward with respect to the regulation of the water industry? Obviously, the current process can constrain water companies and increase uncertainty about regulation and so on, but bringing the process in line with other sectors can strengthen Ofwat’s ability to improve the way water companies operate and the information they receiveQ .
Saqib Bhatti (Conservative, Meriden)
Yes.
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
I am interested in the panel’s views on the role of local government and, more broadly, on the regulatory framework once we have decided what the medium and longer-term targets may be. As I observe the water economy—if I could use those terms a little loosely—it seems very fragmented. We have water providers, water treatment, marine, canals, x, y and z. How do you see the regulatory framework, as that develops, once we have decided what those targets should be? I just want to make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse, if that makes senseQ .
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
Q It follows on from Mr Hepburn’s comments earlier on integrated thinking. Given the fragmentation of the whole environment around water, it is a complicated equation.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q Can I just ask a quick question about chemicals in the water supply and whether the Bill does enough to increase the monitoring of pesticides and other pollutants in the water? You are all nodding, but nobody is answering.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
Q There are a few requirements for consultation on water quality in the Bill, but they are only to ask the Environment Agency. If any changes made under this section of the Bill are subject to the negative resolution procedure, do you feel that that level of scrutiny is enough, or do you think it should be extended? I just wanted to hear your general thoughts on that.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
Yes, I should have been clearer.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
You said parliamentary scrutiny.
Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)
Q The River Wharfe in my constituency and in Robbie’s has significant sewage outflows when it rains, with E. coli levels 40 to 50 times the EU bathing water 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 our rivers? Chris alluded to this earlier, so perhaps she wants to respond.
Robbie Moore (Conservative, Keighley)
Q I have a question for the Marine Conservation Society, although I am happy for the other witnesses to comment. How important do you think that the waste and resource efficiency measures in the Bill are as a means of tackling pollution in the marine environment?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)
Q I believe clause 81 sets out the same powers that we already had under the European Union with regard to ensuring that water quality is maintained. The only way is up, in my opinion, on that. I wanted to come back to the run-off from agricultural land. I believe that that is covered more in the Agriculture Bill than in the present Bill, with incentives given for good stewardship of land, and so on. I wanted to get your feelings on that. It does not change the wider regime for assessing and monitoring water quality that is enshrined in English law under the 2017 environment regulations. Do you feel that the Bill sufficiently sets out the direction of travel on leaving the European Union? As I say, the only way is up. Does it give you sufficient comfort that there will no regression?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)
Q To my mind it feels as though the Secretary of State is able to leave that open to do things differently from before, and that it is not an intention to regress.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
We have a couple more minutes. This is not a question, but an observation. The whole purpose of the Bill is to significantly improve the natural environment; that is why the targets are set there. They should achieve what has just been referred to. We have not touched on water abstraction, on which there is a measure in the Bill.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We will have to be very quick.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Do you agree that amending the water abstraction licences regime will help us to better manage our water resources? Perhaps our water company specialist might comment.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses for the very thorough and informative way in which they have responded to the questions.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We now come to the first panel of witnesses this afternoon. We will hear oral evidence from Mr George Monbiot, a journalist and environmental campaigner, and Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of the Wildlife and Countryside Link. Welcome. I have already introduced you, but can I invite the two witnesses to say a few words about who they are and what they bring to proceedings?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We have until 2.45 pm before we reach the end of this session. I will call Dr Alan Whitehead to open up with one or two questions and then go to the Minister.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Good afternoon. A pretty direct, straight initial question: do you think this Bill is up to the task of protecting the environment in its own right? If you do not, what do you think is missing from the Bill that would enable it to do that job betterQ154 ?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Sorry to interrupt, but the acoustics are not brilliant in this room. If people could speak up a little, it would be helpful.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Thank you for that; it very much coincides with my general thoughts about the Bill. I guess that, as part of your homework for your appearance this afternoon, you may have had the misfortune of having to read through the entire Bill, from end to end.
I wonder whether you have any thoughts on how the Bill, though its various clauses and powers and permissions, actually does the task that it needs to do between Administrations and different stages of the process of protecting the environment, which will take place over a number of years. I am talking about how the Bill really does the job of surviving between Administrations and perhaps doing something like the Climate Change Act 2008 is doing—not necessarily binding future Administrations, but standing there as something that has to be done, so that an Administration must have very good reasons why they should not do the things subsequently, even if they are not as well disposed towards environmental improvement as the one we have at the moment.
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
You should chip in!
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Thank you so much for coming in. How lovely to have some enthusiasm! I will build on that enthusiasm for a second. I know there are probably lots of things that people think ought to be tweaked. Overall, can you sum up what you think the opportunities from this Bill will present to us?Q
Given that we have left the EU, I personally see this being a much more holistic system. I would like your views on that. You might also touch not only on the opportunities for improving the overall environment, but how this will touch on our society and business; we have to bring those people along with us.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q It does say “significantly improved”. That is the purpose of the Bill.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Thank you very much, gentlemen. The 25-year plan is being enacted through the Bill, and the plan does touch on the area that you mention, but thank you.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
I will ask two questions that I put to previous witnesses. The first is about clause 18, and the exemptions for the armed forces, defence or national security, and Q for taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within Government, and whether you think that is appropriate. I have been doing some work on munitions dumps around the UK coast. I have also called for environmental audits to be done of the Ministry of Defence’s activities—for example, on land and sea—so I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.
On clause 20, and the requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report on international environmental protection legislation every two years, do you think it might be more appropriate for the OEP to do that, and to decide what international legislation is really important, rather than the Secretary of State?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Mr Monbiot, do you have anything to add?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Dr Benwell, thank you for sharing your favourite targets and your points. I want to pick up on two points that you made. One was around operating as a system, and the other was around opportunity. Clearly, through the Bill, the Government are looking to lead on this, but I think it is widely acknowledged that it is going to take everybody. In terms of local nature recovery strategies and their production, what role and opportunities do you see as part of that system for your organisation and for the wider partnerships?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Is that where your organisation might step in? How will your organisation and the wider partnerships contribute to that production?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
I must have revised the questions I was about to ask about 20 times, Richard, because you just kept saying, “And another thing,” so I was like, “That one is gone.” There are a couple of things that you both touched on, but not in that much detail.Q
We heard from one witness that the Bill is slightly lacking an overarching vision, which they thought could be addressed by having not just environmental objectives but objectives on health and wellbeing—I see that they are debating that in the Lords today—a bit like in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The other issue mentioned was resource use, because there is stuff about reducing single-use plastics but not about consumption patterns overall. Decarbonisation was mentioned as well. Do you feel that the Bill could encompass those things without being unwieldy?
The other thing, which is slightly connected, is the global footprint, and I have put down some amendments on that. I entirely agree that there is not much point in doing things here if you are buying in stuff that causes environmental degradation elsewhere, or if we are funding it. I wonder whether you can say a bit more. George, on that point, one of my amendments would add to the four priority areas of the global footprint. What would be the sort of targets that we would be looking at? What would be the first things that we would address on that front?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q On the health and wellbeing point, it was mentioned as a possible objective, but we took evidence this morning about air quality and water quality, and witnesses in both sessions suggested that we were ignoring the impact on the human population. Should there be something in the Bill that talks about people, or should it be a Bill that talks about the environment? Should we bring people into it as well?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Conservative, Truro and Falmouth)
Thank you for your evidence so far, which has been really informative. I want to take you back to the discussion on targets—we are hearing about these things quite a lot from different stakeholders—and to your example of Dartmoor, if I may. You might know more about this than I do, but it is my understanding that about half a millennium ago Dartmoor was actually an ancient woodland, and they cut down the trees to make the ships to build Henry VIII’s navy. I do not know whether I am right about that, but that is what I have heardQ . I do not know whether the target for somewhere like Dartmoor should be to keep it as moorland or to regenerate it to woodland, if that was case.
I feel that the Bill is the overarching framework for a positive way forward, and that were we to try to lock in all sorts of specific targets it would lose what it is trying to achieve, because there would be so much going on. What is your opinion on taking the matter to secondary legislation in the future so that we could listen to experts? I do not know what the experts would say about somewhere like Dartmoor. They might have differing opinions, and then how would we know what success looks like?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
IQ wanted to follow up on your earlier comments about the target framework, when you said it needs to have more teeth—I agree about that. You specifically talked about how environmental improvement should be linked to targets. As you know, when it comes to targets, this Bill hangs a lot on significant improvement tests. Can you tell me more about those tests, and whether you think they are appropriate metrics?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
Q George, do you have any comments on that?
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
BuildingQ on what you said a few moments ago, do you feel that the Bill sufficiently empowers all Government Departments to protect and improve our environment?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I am afraid there will not be time for any further questions; we have to move on. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid we have a very tight timetable. I will try to make it up subsequently to those who were unable to get in, but we have to conclude this session by 2.45, and it is now 2.44 and 35 seconds. Anybody who asked a question would be unlikely to get anything like a coherent answer in the time available, so we have to close this session.
I thank our two witnesses for the benefit of their experience and the advice they have given. We are very grateful. It has been useful and helpful to our deliberations.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We will now hear evidence from Keep Britain Tidy and the Green Alliance. We have until 3.15 pm for this session. I ask our witnesses to briefly introduce themselves and their organisation.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q The framework I am looking for, particularly in the waste and resources section of the Bill, is something that encompasses all the stages of the waste hierarchy, and particularly reflects how that waste hierarchy is put forward in the waste and resources White Paper, which is supposed to be taken on board as part of the Bill. Do you have any thoughts about the extent to which the Bill focuses on the design, reuse and minimisation stages of the waste hierarchy? If you think that it does not fully do that, are there ways that it could be made more useful in that respect? Do you have any particular thoughts on how the Bill might be pointed more in that direction?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Those are excellent succinct responses. The circular economy directive already exists, but we are not now bound by it, as we are not an EU member. Do the measures in the Bill reflect the UK moving on from that directive—capturing what is in it and moving ahead of it? Are there things that could be done in the Bill to ensure that that happens?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q On that point, one of the ideas is that we can do our own thing on our environmental targets. We do not have to do what Europe says, and potentially our targets could be better.
Yesterday, we had some business interests explaining how the measures in the Bill would help them change the design of their products so that they are more reusable and recyclable, longer lasting and so forth. What are your views on measures in the Bill that would help consumers to take more considered actions towards reducing waste and recycling? I am thinking particularly about the requirement for local authorities to be more consistent in their waste collections.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q I have a quickfire question. We have our resources and waste strategy, which sets our long-term targets for reducing waste and for sending zero biodegradables to landfill by 2030. Overall, do you see the measures in the waste and resources section of the Bill, which is large, as a big step forward in putting all this together?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q I want to ask about the targets timeframe. In the Bill, the targets do not have to be met until 2037. Does that date reflect the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q What do you think might be a realistic but slightly more ambitious target?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We have 14 minutes left and six people who want to use up that time. It is highly unlikely that I will get all six people in, but those who do get the opportunity to ask questions, please be as rapid as possible.
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
Do you feel that sufficient consideration has been given to the impact the Bill has on local authorities?Q
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
That is exactly what I mean by a well-targeted question.
Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)
The Government have brought forward legislation to ban certain types of single-use plastics, including straws, cotton buds and stirrers. Last year I ran a campaign in my constituency called “Sachet Away”, which reduced the use of single-use sauce sachets. How do you think the Bill could help in that? You mentioned charges, Richard. What do you think the effects of the Bill will be?Q
My second question, quickly, is that on the Environmental Audit Committee we had a lot of evidence, including from Zero Waste Vietnam, that our waste that was being exported was not being recycled or reprocessed, but was literally being dumped. Do you think that the Bill can raise people’s confidence that that that will no longer happen?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We are really running short of time now, so I am going to take two questions and put them to the witnesses. First, Richard Graham, and then Jessica Morden.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
My questions will be very quick, but they are separate ones for you both, if that is all right, Chairman, and please—swift answers.Q
Richard, you have said how important it is to have the cost of collecting waste separated, so that people know what they are paying for, are incentivised and so on. Do you think that those opportunities are actually in the council tax? That is what people are really paying, is it not?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Sorry, I did say that we would take two questions first. Jessica Morden.
Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)
Very quickly, as a Welsh MP, thanks for pointing out that there are lessons to learn on recycling from Wales, as the fourth best recycling nation in the world. Are the provisions in the Bill effective in tackling fly-tipping and organised waste crime?Q
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
My question was only for Richard.
Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)
Q Yes, fly-tipping and organised waste crime.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Next, for Libby, if I may—
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Sorry, is this an additional question?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q Yes, I had one question for Richard and one for Libby.
Libby, clauses 49 and 50 spell out in huge detail the opportunities for businesses to consider redesigning their products in a more environmentally friendly way. The Bill also talks about food collection, not only from households but from businesses. What encouragement do you think that gives to businesses to redesign products, and also to local councils to get stuck into anaerobic digesters?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Before you answer that, can I bring in Abena Oppong-Asare to ask a very quick question, and then it will be the final two?
Abena Oppong-Asare (Labour, Erith and Thamesmead)
Q Mine will be very quick, Chair. What powers, duties and resources does the Bill need to clean up litter on highways and road verges?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Can we have a 10-second answer to Abena’s question, if possible?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you very much.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We will now hear oral evidence from the CHEM Trust, the Chemical Industries Association and Unite. We have until 4 pm. I ask the three witnesses to introduce themselves briefly and state which organisation they represent.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Good afternoon. My reading of schedule 19 to the Bill is that it enables the Secretary of State to change REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—although there are a number of protected areas within it. However, the schedule does not appear to require consultation with the chemicals industry or wider public bodies that might have an interest, or that any consultation responses be made public. Are you, like me, concerned about that omission, or do you think that the way the Bill is structured regarding the possibility of change and consultation is adequate given the importance of the issues?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Sorry, may I stop you there? The acoustics are very bad in this room, so may I ask our witnesses to speak up a little?
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q On the subject of protected articles, I share your view: I am somewhat mystified as to how those have landed on the Bill in this way, and about what is protected and what is not. Are there particular areas that you consider ought to be in the Bill as protected articles, in addition to the ones that we have at the moment, and are there any ways in which you think the protection element of REACH regulations—securing proper standards, inter-trading of chemicals and so on—might be better reflected in the Bill, or do you think the protected articles that there are at the moment fulfil that requirement?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Thank you very much for coming in to talk to us. Obviously, exiting the EU provides us with opportunities for industry, such as integrating the most current scientific knowledge into the decisions we make concerning chemicals. In the Bill, we have the flexibility to amend REACH while retaining its aims and principles; I just wondered whether you could summarise what you thought the right balance was.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q So do you welcome the requirement in schedule 5 for consultation?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q I want to pursue the question about whether we would be better off in or out of REACH. Do you think there are concerns that the new regime would not provide the same level of consumer environmental protection? There is a particular issue about keeping pace with changes in the EU and whether our standards would fall below it. Do you have concerns?
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q There is a balance between getting up to speed dealing with current regulations and keeping pace with innovation, which presumably will have an impact on some of the industries that you might be involved in.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
Q This is part and parcel of the same question—
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Sorry, Kerry, but we are a little short of time.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
I was trying to clarify what I was asking about.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Very briefly.
Kerry McCarthy (Labour, Bristol East)
The UK, in “The Future Relationship with 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 trying to keep up?
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
Q What are your views, please, on the safeguards in the Bill to protect against deterioration of chemical standards?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I think that this might be the last question to these witnesses.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q There has been quite a lot of discussion about the value of creating a UK REACH, but in a sense the principles behind those decisions have already been established, so the key thing now is really all about implementation. I welcome the fact, Mr Hudspith, that you are broadly supportive of schedule 19, which is really all about—
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Good. But you are supportive of it, I think you said.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q So what is there in schedule 19 that causes you concern, other than the greatest fear being fear itself? You have made a huge contribution to REACH. It has not always been popular with UK businesses. There have been plenty of complaints over the last decade. REACH has not done anything and everything perfectly, as we all know, so surely you have confidence that, with the range of businesses that we have in this sector, we can create a regulatory body that can do a good job—or do you think that we are now so incompetent that we cannot?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q I get that, but I am interested in why you think that will be more dangerous under UK regulations than the existing REACH ones.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q But the resources, in terms of the councils that Dr Warhurst was just describing, have not been there as it is. Why will it suddenly deteriorate?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q No, but you could take the view that this is an opportunity to increase and do things better.
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q Dr Warhurst, what is your position? You have said that you are worried that there are chemicals on the high street that are not great, because we do not have people from the council wandering around having a look at them and so on. What is your solution to that?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q That is a lobbying opportunity, effectively, for you in the chemicals sector, with the negotiators and so on. At this stage, in terms of what is in schedule 19, is there anything that gives you concern?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Q How many UK officials are there in REACH at the moment?
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Nishma Patel, in your view—it is the easiest thing, and I understand it, for everyone to say, “We’re very worried it won’t turn out quite as well as the Government hope it will,” and, “What’s in the Environment Bill looks fine, but how’s it actually going to work?”. What is the opportunity, rather than just the concern?Q
Richard Graham (Conservative, Gloucester)
Yes, in terms of UK REACH, the Environment Bill and the measures in it.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I think this will be the last question.
Alex Sobel (Labour/Co-operative, Leeds North West)
Q It is interesting that this is the first panel where we have had representatives from the ownership and the workforce of the industry. The chemicals industry is huge in this country, with a turnover of £32 billion and more than 100,000 workers. It also has a lot of workers who are highly skilled and on good wages and terms and conditions, as I am sure Bud would agree. Does the Bill go far enough, first, to protect jobs and workers in the industry and, secondly, in terms of the business and the potential additional costs to business that could affect the industry?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
We do not have any further questions, so I thank the three witnesses. It has been a really useful session, and we are very grateful for the expertise that you brought to our deliberations. Thank you very much.
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I welcome the three witnesses. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to come and act as witnesses before the Committee. I hope that starting slightly earlier has not inconvenienced you too much. The session has to conclude by 5 pm, although it does not have to go on until then if there are insufficient questions. We will open the questioning with Dr Alan Whitehead.
Alan Whitehead (Labour, Southampton, Test)
Q Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Bill contains many sections that run on from a central theme and have what looks like pretty comprehensive legislation for the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Administration. I appreciate that you may have to act as a proxy for everybody rather than just for Scotland.
One of my concerns, about which I do not know enough, is the extent to which we are putting things in the Environment Bill and expecting everything to happen in the same way in all the different Governments and Administrations within the UK, which all clearly have quite different practices. Are you confident that the Bill, certainly as far as Scotland is concerned, will enable us to have UK-wide environmental protection standards that are good for everybody, bearing in mind that species, waste and various other things do not worry too much about borders and are of particular concern to the whole of this part of the world? Are you happy that the Bill does that job, or are there things that could go into it to better reflect the particular circumstances in different parts of the UK, particularly for the Scottish Government?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Before anybody answers, I neglected to ask people to introduce themselves, so would you perhaps make up for my deficiency by introducing yourselves as you go along?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Thank you for coming. We have had extensive consultation already with all the devolved Administrations, which you welcome. Each of the areas is 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 benefit citizens of Scotland?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Potentially, water would be the same.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q I am sure we will learn some lessons from watching your deposit return scheme. That will prove useful.
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q Will you welcome as much alignment as possible through your version of the OEP? We have made it clear who comes under that and where people go to report. Would you like to see a similar body?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Good afternoon, and thank you for coming down. The Bill leaves a number of things out of its scope, including tax and spend and allocation of resources by the Treasury, and MOD activities, among others. Do you think that is a sensible way to go about things? Perhaps I should not say sensible. What are your thoughts on those exemptions?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q While recognising that devolution can mean deviation, and that that can have some positive effects, some of those opportunities can also turn into risk because the environment is transboundary and business is transboundary too. What do you see as the risks if the Scottish body took a fundamentally different approach to that of the Office for Environmental Protection?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Do you think that is a problem of clarity? It is incredibly important for people to understand exactly what the protections, standards and targets are, in order to be compliant.
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q Could that difference be confusing, if there were different standards and different targets?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
Q On that risk, what do you see as the most important areas for both Administrations to work most closely on together?
Caroline Ansell (Conservative, Eastbourne)
No, areas within the Bill.
Jessica Morden (Labour, Newport East)
Q It is getting quite complicated, isn’t it? I know that you cannot speak for Northern Ireland or for Wales but, as far as you can answer this, are you aware that there has been strong collaboration so far between interested bodies and the Government on the Bill? If you are, do you think that has been working well so far? How effectively do you think co-operation on nature recovery networks might be?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
Q I found this really interesting, actually. My general observation is that you are very keen on close co-operation, which is clearly something that this Government are very keen on, because there are no boundaries in the environment—in the air, as you have clearly explained, and water and all of those things. Would I be right in surmising that you would like as close co-operation as possible?
Rebecca Pow (Conservative, Taunton Deane)
No, I understand that.
Marco Longhi (Conservative, Dudley North)
Q Given what you know about the OEP’s governance framework and the concerns you have highlighted about divergence and risks—race to the bottom and that type of thing—I am trying to gauge what importance you would place on there being a structure in the devolved Administrations equivalent to the OEP here in England.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q With a view to trying to learn from the possible mistakes of others, there is a provision in the Bill that would prevent public bodies from making complaints to the OEP. We could find ourselves with the possibility that one public body could be aware of another committing a breach of the law without having the option of raising that complaint with the OEP, or perhaps one council being aware of another council breaching the law and not being able to take action with the OEP about it. Should we be looking at amending that in the Bill?
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Q Sure. I like the idea of the race to the top that you mentioned, Mr Austin. I noticed in your briefing, John, the air quality issues and the more stringent 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. In your Law Society of Scotland briefing paper, you raised a couple of concerns that I am keen to hear a little more on.
Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith)
Good points. Thank you.
Saqib Bhatti (Conservative, Meriden)
I welcome your comments on closer collaboration. Are there any parts of the Bill that you like and think should be adopted in ScotlandQ ?
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
I think this may well be the final question. Robbie Moore.
Robbie Moore (Conservative, Keighley)
Carrying on with the theme of collaboration, do you think that the benefits of the Bill outweigh the risks associated with having separate bodies? In my view, there are potential risks that follow from having separate legislation and bodiesQ .
George Howarth (Labour, Knowsley)
Thank you to our witnesses. It was really important for the Committee that we got a Scottish perspective on this. I think we got that very thoroughly, and we are very grateful for it.