Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 6th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)]

6. What mechanisms exist to supply safe drinking water to homes without access to mains water.

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

Private drinking water supplies are regulated by local authorities, which receive scientific and technical advice from the Drinking Water Inspectorate. Local authorities sample and identify water-quality risks, can serve notices to correct any issues identified and have remedial powers if those responsible for the supply do not comply with the notice. Private water supply compliance is steadily improving. In 2022, 96.4% of private supplies were compliant, up from 91.4% in 2010.

[Sir Simon Clarke]

The nine homes of Aysdalegate near Charltons do not have access to mains water. Over the last decade, Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council has performed drinking water checks nine times, and on all occasions, the supply has been judged unsatisfactory owing to bacterial contamination, including E.coli and enterococci. A regulation 18 notice, which specifies that the water requires boiling before drinking, has been in place permanently since December 2017, and residents report to me finding tadpoles and other life in their drinking water. This is a Dickensian scandal in 2023, but Northumbrian Water has advised that it will cost these low-income homes over £100 each simply to give them a quote for mains water connection. That is obviously unacceptable. Will my hon. Friend agree to meet me urgently so that we can discuss how to help my constituents?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am sorry to hear about this issue, which my right hon. Friend has already brought to my attention. Our legislation does allow for those on a private supply to request a connection to the mains supply, but it is right that the legislation allows a water company to charge for the cost of making a new connection, because otherwise it would impact on all customers’ bills. The local authority can give advice, and I urge him to keep contacting it, but if there is anything more we can discuss usefully, I would be happy to do so.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Like yourself, Mr Speaker, I am of a generation that can well remember when water came from the wells, and it was pure and clean. Times have moved on, and we have realised that such water is not available to everyone, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) said. I ask the Minister this question ever mindful of the discussions that she will have had: have there been any discussions between the Government and the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to ensure that grants are available for people who need to go on to mains water and that their water is pure, as it was many years ago but is not always today?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; I, too, have a well, but it does not supply our drinking water. I think a lot of people have wells on their properties, or locally on their roads or wherever. The issue he has raised is a matter for the Northern Ireland Administration, but here the Drinking Water Inspectorate has commissioned research into the impact of future private water supplies, as well as the whole regulatory model and legislative framework.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to support farmers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

A couple of weeks ago, I visited Yorkshire Water’s sewer improvement project. This £15 million scheme under the A65 in Ilkley is only happening as a result of a huge campaign by the Ilkley Clean River Group and our passing the Environment Act 2021, which the Opposition voted against at every stage. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government are purely focused on cleaning up the water quality of our rivers?

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

I could just say yes, but I will add a bit more. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is this Government who have got water quality on the radar. We are cleaning up our rivers and our bathing waters, 93% of which are classed as good or excellent. Our plan for water will ensure that we provide the clean and plentiful water we need for generations.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Gateshead food bank and Feeding Families, both of which operate in my constituency, have seen huge increases in the demand for food parcels over recent years. With food inflation running at 18.3%, the situation will only get worse. What will the Minister do to tackle food inflation, so that people do not have to rely on those organisations?

[Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)]

The use of storm overflows is of huge concern to my residents in Southend-on-Sea. Due to this Government’s actions, Anglian Water was supposed to have its plan for mitigating the use of overflows on the Secretary of State’s desk last Friday. Was it there, and when will my residents be able to see it?

[Rebecca Pow]

Every water company was asked to put a plan for every storm overflow on the Secretary of State’s desk. I can tell my hon. Friend that all the plans have arrived and are being analysed.

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

What should I say to my twin grandsons, who are here today, about their future given that they live in Cambridge, where air quality is poisoning young people, pregnant women and many others? What will the Secretary of State really do about cleaning up the environment for that generation?

Draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Plates etc. and Polystyrene Containers etc.) (England) Regulations 2023

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Protection (Plastic Plates etc. and Polystyrene Containers etc.) (England) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mrs Harris—and particularly in those glasses, if I may say so. I think you are the envy of the room. The regulations were laid before the House on 23 May and their purpose is to restrict the supply of single-use plastic plates, bowls and trays and to ban the supply of single-use plastic cutlery, balloon sticks and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drink containers, including cups. This statutory instrument applies to England only as environmental protection is a devolved matter. I will cover both its purpose and its impact, starting with the former.

It is the Government’s ambition to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. Our 25-year environment plan and resources and waste strategy outline the steps we will take to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. Government measures focus on extracting maximum value from plastic materials by making sure that we keep them in circulation for longer, moving away from the take, make and throw model and shifting towards a circular economy. Single-use plastic items are especially problematic as they are typically littered or discarded to general waste, rather than recycled, because of the difficulty in segregating, cleaning and processing them.

The statutory instrument will restrict and ban commonly littered single-use plastic items that we so often see polluting our environment and that are, sadly, frequently reported in beach litter surveys. Such items can then endanger wildlife and damage habitats. As well as the items causing damage to biodiversity, there are costs associated with their clean-up. It is estimated that the UK spends more than £15 million each year just on removing beach litter. I think all those present will agree that that is a colossal waste of money that we should not really have to spend. That amount does not include the costs imposed on our tourism and fishing industries, which are also impacted.

As is well understood, plastic eventually breaks down into microplastics that end up in our soils and seas and eventually permeate our food chains. The full impact of microplastics, especially on human health, is still being uncovered. To build on the success of the bans of other single-use plastic items and our carrier bag charge, further action is needed to curtail the use of problematic single-use plastic items and their release into the environment.

Let me turn to the statutory instrument’s impact. We acknowledge the ongoing voluntary action that industry is taking to reduce the use of the relevant items. That action is led by the UK plastics pact, which has done really beneficial work. The new regulations will provide support and ensure that all businesses move to more sustainable alternatives.

To inform the regulations, we gathered the views of key stakeholders by running a public consultation on the measures, between November 2021 and February 2022. The consultation showed overwhelming support for the measures, with more than 80% of respondents supporting their introduction. We also consulted a range of businesses, the NHS and charities to determine the regulations’ scope. To minimise the impact on small businesses, we have given a nine-month lead-in time since the announcement of the ban. It is intended that the instrument will come into force on 1 October this year, from when it will be an offence to supply single-use plastic cutlery, balloon sticks and certain types of polystyrene, with no exemptions.

The ban on the supply of single-use plates, trays and bowls will apply only when the items are supplied to the end user—typically, a consumer will then use the item for its intended purpose. Businesses can continue to supply the items to other businesses, thereby allowing the continuing use of single-use plastic plates, trays and bowls for packaging, as defined in regulation 3 of the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2015. This will avoid confusion with the Government’s proposals for extended producer responsibility for packaging, which will make producers responsible for the costs of their packaging throughout its cycle. Those items will, then, be captured elsewhere, although it is important to stress that in all cases we encourage businesses to use reusable alternatives where practical.

We are determined to get this right and it is vital that businesses and the public are informed about what they can and cannot do. We have recently published guidance for businesses, and we will publish our guidance for local authorities in advance of the instrument coming into force. The guidance will assist manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and the public in understanding the enforcement and sanctions regime. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs intends to raise awareness further by meeting local authority representatives to provide clarity and support on the restrictions and the exemptions, and to empower trading standards officers to carry out effective enforcement.

The instrument also amends the Environmental Protection (Plastic Straws, Cotton Buds and Stirrers) (England) Regulations 2020 and the Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017. It amends the civil sanctions provision in those instruments to provide for fixed monetary penalties instead of variable monetary penalties. There was a great deal of discussion and consultation about this. The change was actually called for, because fixed penalties would be easier to understand and to apply. The amendments will ensure consistency with the civil sanctions provisions in the instrument before the Committee and will make enforcement easier for local authorities. The amendments to the 2020 regulations also remove a transitional provision relating to medical devices, which is no longer needed.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I know the Minister is about to finish, but before she sits down, will she say whether local authorities, which are broadly the enforcers of the measure, will be given extra resources?

[Rebecca Pow]

There has been full consultation on the funding that will be required for trading standards departments to carry out the duties that will fall to them. It amounts to approximately £660,000 a year over three years, and local authorities have agreed that that is an adequate sum. There was much negotiation with them to make sure that the funding was in the right ballpark, but such measures are always reviewed three to five years after implementation to see how they are working and whether any tweaks are needed. I can therefore assure the right hon. Lady that resources have been discussed and clarified.

Finally, I have to mention a typographical error in the draft instrument. The heading preceding regulation 40, “Part 1: Amendments”, should be “Part 6”. I am glad that somebody spotted that. Our intention is to correct the error before the instrument is made.

I believe the regulations send a strong signal to industry and the public that we need to think really carefully about the products we buy, the materials from which they are made, and what is being put on the market. The instrument will definitely bring us a step closer to protecting the environment and reducing the risk of harm to human health and marine life. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

First, although there were a number of questions—I have come to expect nothing less—I thank the shadow Minister for welcoming the regulations. I think we are all agreed that the measure is necessary and that we need to get behind it. It is certainly incredibly popular with the public, who want to see us doing the right thing for the environment. That is certainly what we are doing on the Conservative Benches, and it is good to have the Labour party supporting us in that.

The hon. Member for Newport West asked a number of questions. If I do not cover them all, I will of course write to the Committee, as there was quite a list pouring out. She asked about the consultation process and mentioned 15 days. Actually, prior to those 15 days we consulted extensively on the issues. We did so in 2021 and throughout 2022 before announcing our intentions this January. We have worked really closely with stakeholders throughout to shape the policy, because we need it to work for businesses.

I thought the hon. Lady would mention the 15-day issue, but it applies only to this statutory instrument to implement the policy, not to the details of the policy, which were all thrashed out in the 12-week consultation. The requirements for the London Gazette consultation, including the minimum length of time, are all specified under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and are, therefore, deemed suitable for Parliament. DEFRA chose to go a bit further than required by the Act and consulted for longer and published the SI alongside the Government’s consultation response, to ensure that it reached as wide an audience as possible. I hope that the hon. Lady is satisfied with that.

The hon. Lady asked how engaged we have been with businesses. Obviously, that is really important. Our response to the consultation was published in January. As I have said, we have engaged extensively with businesses, trade groups and even individual organisations such as the NHS. We also published guidance on gov.uk back in May, giving industry ample time to prepare. When we first announced our intentions, I went out and did a whole lot of media. I seem to remember that we went to the Co-op and did a whole lot of items about single-use plastics, which got wide coverage and, indeed, wide support from the public.

The hon. Lady asked about the WTO. We did not expect to get comments back from it. Lots of its members have implemented measures on plastics, so it is something that it was expecting. I will not say that it was a formality as such, but it is something that we had to go through, as she will well know.

The hon. Lady also raised the devolved Administrations. Of course, this SI is for England only, but as ever we collaborate really closely with the devolved Administrations. We are doing so right now on our other, wider measures to reduce plastic packaging, particularly the extended producer responsibility regime. Just the other day, I chaired a meeting with all my counterparts in the devolveds. Officials are working incredibly closely. In devolved areas, other nations are perfectly able to act as they wish in their own circumstances. There was an exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act for a number of single-use plastic items, including straws, stirrers, cotton buds, plates, cutlery, balloon sticks, and expanded and extruded polystyrene food and drink containers. That was largely because Scotland brought in its ban in June and ours will come in October, so that seemed a perfectly sensible thing to do just for those few months. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees with that.

I think that that more or less answers the points that have been raised. I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her support. I reiterate that we believe that these measures are a really important part of our much wider strategy to tackle plastic pollution, not least on the international stage, where we are heavily involved in the international plastics treaty, and that they are an important marker for us in all the other, wider things we are doing as a Government. I thank Members for listening so intently and hope that they are reassured that we are doing the right thing for the environment. I certainly believe that we are doing so and therefore recommend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put.

2.49 pm

Committee rose.

Fishing Industry

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

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

My goodness! What a passionate and vociferous lot we have on all Benches. They are all champions for the fishing industry. We have even had some fishing-activity rivalries between constituencies—I see all that as very healthy, as, I am sure, do you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) for stepping in at short notice to lead the debate. He is, of course, a huge champion for the fishing industry and speaks with such great knowledge given the ports in his constituency, including Peterhead and Fraserburgh, and the rich fishing grounds that he so often talks about in this place. We also send our best wishes to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who was going to lead the debate but could not be with us.

A lot of important points have been raised. I will try to deal with as many of them as I can in the time available. Those that I do not cover I will pass to the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), and I promise that he will reply to Members on any outstanding issues that must be dealt with.

Many Members have mentioned what a dangerous job fishing is in the UK. The collision last October between the Guiding Light and the Guiding Star, off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan, was a reminder to us all of the dangers that our fishers face day in, day out. Fortunately, the crews of both vessels were rescued safely and no lives were lost, but we know that the outcomes of such instances are often sadly much more tragic, and I want to remember those who have lost their lives, not least— I am sure she will not mind me mentioning it—the husband of our hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray).

I will put out a few key points before I turn to the points that have been raised. First, I am really proud, as I believe we all are, of the contribution that fishing makes to the lifeblood of this nation and to our coastal and rural communities. We have only 22 miles of coast in Somerset, but we still love it and are very proud of it. Every time a fisherman goes to sea, they are helping to support their local communities and economies and to provide healthy, low-carbon, nutritious food.

Secondly, the fishing industry relies on a healthy ocean, and no one knows that more than the fisheries industry itself. I am so aware of it, as the Minister responsible for environmental quality. We must have a joint approach of achieving both economic sustainability and environmental sustainability; those two things go hand in hand for our seas.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister talked about water quality. She heard my speech about the issue affecting the north-east coast. Does she agree that we have to step up the testing not just on Teesside and off the North Yorkshire coast but across the country, if we are to ensure that our sea is healthy and sustaining sea life?

[Rebecca Pow]

I was going to come to the hon. Gentleman’s point later, but it is this Government who have increased the testing and brought in all the monitoring. We have a real focus on the bathing water areas along our coasts. That has been made a top priority through our storm overflows discharge reduction plan and our plan for water.

Let me touch quickly on the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about the area around Whitby and Scarborough. He will know that our chief scientific adviser invited a group of independent scientists to join a crustacean mortality panel to review all the evidence, and that panel was unable to identify a clear, convincing single cause for the mortality. We continue to monitor it—he is right: that is critical—and to look at any reports of dead sea life on the north-east coast. Everything we do must be based on scientific evidence, and monitoring is key to that.

The health of our fish stocks in our waters is improving. For 2023, 40% of total allowable catches were set consistent with International Council for the Exploration of the Sea advice, compared with 34% in 2022. That is the biggest improvement we have had since the metric was introduced in 2020. We look forward to ICES publishing its scientific assessments of many of our key stocks tomorrow.

We know that much more needs to be done to ensure that more of our stocks are fished at levels in line with the maximum sustainable yield and that we protect important species and habitats, ultimately reaching our goal of good environmental status. It was great news that the Shark Fins Bill received Royal Assent today, which is just one indication of the care we take with the species around our coasts—and even the other ones being fished off our waters—and of the steps we have taken.

Thirdly, I recognise that one of the greatest concerns of the sector is spatial pressure or spatial squeeze, to which many Members have referred, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Banff and Buchan and for South East Cornwall. These pressures are significant. I was made well aware of that when I had offshore wind in my portfolio as the marine Minister. In Grimsby I met lobster farmers in the Holderness Fishing Industry Group who were concerned that growing offshore wind development, which is important for the nation, would reduce the industry. But through liaison and close working, they have worked out a good model so that they can continue to catch lobsters in a healthy, sustainable way and we can have offshore wind. That is a very good example.

In England, the cross-Government marine spatial prioritisation programme is helping to support a more strategic approach to managing all the pressures. The matter is devolved, and other nations will have their spatial issues. We are dealing with this in England, but it is important that everyone talks together and deals with it. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, everything going on around our coasts is important, and we must try to make these things work together. It is only with the input and involvement of the fishing industry that we can understand its views, with everybody having a piece of the sea—if we look at a map, we see that everybody does want a piece of it. It is a complicated picture, but we must work together to steer through it.

Fourthly, this Government have grabbed the opportunities offered by EU exit to start reforming our fisheries management arrangements here in the UK. We are moving away from the one-size-fits-all straitjacket of the common fisheries policy, which was so disliked by fishermen, to a fisheries management system that will better reflect the needs of our diverse industry here in the UK, support our coastal communities and better protect our marine environment. We have to take every opportunity.

The SNP and the Liberal Democrats wanted to stay in the common fisheries policy, but it is this Government who took the step to move out of it, and we have to take the opportunities of doing so. That includes the joint fisheries statement, which will provide a framework for sustainable fisheries management for years to come. It also includes our fisheries management plans, which are being developed with the fishing industry, the first six of which are due to be consulted on shortly. The idea is that they will become the gold standard for fisheries and used as a template. We have also consulted on how to share out from 2023 and beyond the additional fisheries quota gained from our exit from the EU and put in place reforms to strengthen the economic link conditions.

There has been a lot of talk today about trade and about the trade and co-operation agreement. The TCA set out a new quota-sharing arrangement for UK and EU fish stocks, with a significant uplift for UK fishers— 25% of the average annual EU catch from UK waters is being phased in over five years from 2021, with further increases each year until 2026. There has been a lot of discussion about what will happen in 2026. In 2026, access to waters will become negotiable as part of the UK-EU annual consultations, and this could be used to pursue several possible objectives, such as increased quota shares in the stocks we fish and sustainability improvements. We have already begun talking with stakeholders to seek their views, and this will be increasingly important. I hear all the calls, which I will pass on to the Fisheries Minister, about making the most of the Brexit opportunities. Clearly, fishers want to see that, and we must ensure that it comes about.

Another key issue raised by many Members across the House was labour. I am pleased that the Home Secretary has offered seafood businesses a package of support to help them use the skilled worker route. In May, the Home Office announced that various fishing jobs, including trawler skippers and experienced deckhands on larger fishing vessels, would be added to the shortage occupation list this summer, and they will qualify for a lower salary threshold and lower visa application fees.

I hear the point about the English language made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan. I will raise that and ensure that the Fisheries Minister is made aware of it, but the Home Office is the lead Department on these things, as it would be for the issue raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) about how many people have applied for that visa. I urge her to contact the Home Office about that.

Mr Deputy Speaker has asked me to wind up, but I must mention seafood promotion. We have our £100 million seafood fund, which is being shared between large companies and small and medium-sized enterprises. Officials are working closely with the industry on small haddock. I loved the idea from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about regional fish food markets, even though it caused a bit of a storm between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). We all want to eat more locally caught food.

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must touch on the issue of medical certificates raised by my hon. Friends the Members for South East Cornwall, for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), for Totnes and for Waveney. I fully support the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s focus on improved safety, which I understand has unearthed significant non-compliance, but I recognise that those measures have caused concern in the fishing industry. The Fisheries Minister has been meeting with Baroness Vere. He will continue to have those meetings, and all the points raised in this debate will be passed to him, because we have to make this work for everyone. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) cannot be here, but I am delighted to report that her husband, who is a fisher in the under 10 metre group, has been through the process and has just got his certificate. I am sure that she will be pleased to share their experiences, but she does raise the challenges for that sector.

I will get the Fisheries Minister to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes about water quality and oysters. We have had a meeting about water quality. With my water quality hat on, I will just say that there should be opportunities to sort out any issues for shellfish fishermen by working on the wider catchment basis that is in our plan for water, with catchment plans. That is the kind of thing we could be working on with our farmers and those all the way up the catchment, to sort out the problems that end up on the coast. If necessary, I am happy to look into that issue at another time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, you have been incredibly patient, but we have had so many questions; I have not been able to get through them all, but as I said at the beginning of my speech, it has been a really vibrant debate. The fishing industry has shown resilience, adapting to a new, changing world post Brexit. Obviously, there is still work to do. Our fisheries management plans will be a big step towards our new future. It is all about balance, working together and feeding in to make sure that we get the right outcomes economically, for the environment and for our communities. I thank everyone for taking part, and I will follow up on any outstanding issues with the Fisheries Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call David Duguid, who has two minutes.

Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the financial resilience of the water industry.

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

Water is what makes life possible on our planet, and it is essential for our health and wellbeing, as well as for our economy, including the production of food and clean energy. The Government are taking significant steps to ensure that the water industry is delivering the outcomes that bill payers expect and deserve. Water companies have invested £190 billion since privatisation in 1989. In April, the Government published the plan for water, bringing together more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement capacity for regulators in relation to those who pollute.

Ofwat and the Government take the financial resilience of the water sector very seriously. Ofwat is the independent economic regulator for the water sector and has responsibility for its financial resilience. The sector as a whole is financially resilient. Ofwat continues to monitor the financial position of all the key water and waste water companies. Ofwat reports annually on the sector’s financial resilience, and Ofwat’s latest annual monitoring financial resilience report shows that the water sector is financially resilient.

Market confidence in the sector is demonstrated by new acquisitions, such as Pennon’s purchase of Bristol Water, and by shareholders being willing to inject new capital. Ofwat has taken steps in recent years to strengthen the sector’s position. That includes action to update the ringfencing provisions in water company licences to better safeguard the interests of customers, and barring water companies from making payouts to shareholders and removing money or assets from the business if they lose their investment grade credit rating. Ofwat has outlined that water companies must be transparent about how executive pay and dividends align to the delivery of services to customers, including environmental performance. Since privatisation, total capital investment has outstripped dividends by 250%.

On 20 March 2023, Ofwat announced new powers that will enable it to take enforcement action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance for both customers and the environment. In December 2022, Ofwat strengthened its powers on executive pay awards by setting out that shareholders, and not customers, will fund pay awards where companies do not demonstrate that their decisions or pay awards reflect overall performance. We support Ofwat’s work, and we urge all water companies to take this opportunity to review their policies.

The scale of Government commitment to the water industry is highlighted by the integrated plan for water, and by our commitment to the financial resilience of the sector in delivering for customers and the environment.

[Jim McMahon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question, but it is a concern that the Secretary of State did not proactively make a statement to the House on an issue of such importance. Indeed, where is the Secretary of State? One of the largest water companies in Britain is potentially going to go to the wall, and the Secretary of State is missing in action.

It was clear to anyone looking on that a culture that allowed vital investment in ending the sewage scandal and tackling water leaks to be sacrificed in favour of a goldrush for shareholders was never sustainable. Just last year, as raw human sewage was being pumped out across the country, £1.4 billion was paid out to shareholders. Now, all that was warned about is coming to pass: leaks are leading to water shortages; sewage dumping pollutes our rivers, lakes and seas; and the only thing on the up is debt, at £60 billion. The Conservative party’s cycle of privatising profit, usually for multibillion-pound foreign sovereign wealth funds, and nationalising risk is not sustainable, and neither is it a fair deal for working people.

The news we are seeing is the result of the Conservative party’s failed “profit above public interest” experiment, in which it handed over the water industry at a knock-down price to private enterprise, together with the entire infrastructure serving the nation. That was almost unique to water. For instance, when rail was privatised, the tracks were not sold off. With water, however, the lot was handed over, with few safeguards for our national interest, our national security or bill payers.

When was the Minister’s Department first made aware of the financial situation at Thames Water? Has her Department had any reason to believe that those responsible at Thames Water would not be able to meet their licence conditions or legal obligations? If this means a taxpayer-funded bail-out, how much will that cost and how will it be paid for? What assessment has she made of the liability of UK pension funds that are invested in Thames Water, and in other water companies considered to be at risk? Given where we are, will she confirm her confidence in the financial regulator? Finally, given what we see with Thames Water today, does she have concerns about any other water companies, or does she consider this to be an isolated case?

[Rebecca Pow]

In the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we have our individual portfolios, and I am the water Minister. The Secretary of State has full confidence in her Ministers when sending them to the Dispatch Box.

The shadow Minister raised the issue of debt. For information, debt to equity fell last year by 4% in the water industry, actually making it more resilient. Since privatisation, capital investment in the water industry has been 84% higher than it was pre-privatisation—we need to get that out there and on the table.

In terms of Thames Water, it is not for me to comment on the individual financial position of a water company. We have an independent regulator that is doing that; indeed, that is what the regulator, Ofwat, is for. Water companies are commercial entities, and it is for the company and its investors to resolve any issues. The Government, of course, are confident that Ofwat, as the economic regulator of the water industry, is working closely with any company that is facing financial stress.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Sewage treatment plants are all too often overwhelmed at times of heavy rain. As well as installing stormwater tanks, such as the new 4 million litre stormwater tank in Scarborough, does the Minister agree that we should do more to encourage homeowners to harvest grey water, which can buffer the effects of heavy rain, and use that for such things as flushing the toilet?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for broadening the scope of the debate. We are in discussions with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—many of these issues involve working with other Departments—on grey water harvesting and better using the rain that does fall. A farmer in Devon whom I visited was collecting all the water from his farm buildings roofs to supply his animals.

[Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

In assessing, as the Minister has explained, the resilience of the water industry, what assessment is she making of the impact on UK pension funds if a major company such as Thames Water fails, as is being widely suggested in the press?

[Rebecca Pow]

There is a structure and a process for working through this matter. It is up to the individual water companies and the regulator working with them to ensure that they are resilient. That is why Ofwat reports annually on how resilient each water company is. If that flags any issues, Ofwat works closely with them, because we need our water companies to be fully functioning. We need to attract investment—a huge sum of money has been invested since privatisation, as I mentioned earlier—in infrastructure to give our customers the kind of service they deserve. We should also be mindful that it is not all piled on to customers; we have to share the load.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is worth making the House realise that it was the Opposition who voted against the Environment Act 2021, which gave Ofwat more powers. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the water regulator Ofwat will be able to clamp down on excessive cash payouts and ensure that water companies put their customers first?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out. He is absolutely right: whatever the Opposition say today, one of the measures they did not vote for in the Environment Act 2021 was to enable Ofwat to hold water companies to account where they do not demonstrate a link between dividends and performance. They must have sound performance and be performing for their customers, otherwise they cannot pay out their dividends.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The staggering complacency we are hearing from the Minister will come as no comfort to my constituents who were flooded out three years ago in the west London floods, which were the second 100-year event in less than a decade. If Ofwat has been doing such a good job in holding the water companies to account, as she is now apparently telling us, why are we in this situation? What exactly has Ofwat been doing?

[Rebecca Pow]

It has to be remembered that privatisation occurred in 1989. We have had a succession of different Governments during that time, and it has been this Government who have accelerated clamping down on water companies and opening up transparency. The hon. Lady asks what Ofwat has done, and I will name just a few things. Since 2020, Ofwat has updated the licences so that if a water company loses its investment credit rating, it is barred from making payouts to shareholders. In July 2022, it set out additional proposals to increase financial resilience, including companies having a stronger credit rating. In March, it announced that it would take enforcement actions against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. We have done more than any Government before to ensure that we have a fully functioning, strong regulator.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

On financial resilience, has the Minister taken the opportunity to consider the hotchpotch of policies coming from Opposition Front Benchers on the subject? Under their prescription, they would seek to take all the profit of water companies to invest in capital expenditure. That would undermine the financial resilience of those companies that rely on private capital for investment in tackling this problem. In the one part of the country where Labour does have responsibility—Wales—has she noticed that the sewerage overflows are almost double the rate per overflow pipe as in England?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. Friend for pointing that out; I cannot support more strongly what he said. We have a private system, and Ofwat says that it is financially resilient. We need investment in these companies to make them function properly. Obviously, we need to hold the companies to account, but we need to see enormous investment. Everything in the Government’s plan for water, including the storm overflow discharge reduction plan, is fully costed. We are not pulling the wool over people's eyes; we are telling them clearly what this will mean and how it will deliver the water services that we need.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Thames Water, which is on the verge of going under, provides a quarter of the population with their water supply. When was the Minister told about its financial plight? What is the plan if the worst comes to the worst and it does go under?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Member is right that Thames Water supplies an enormous part of our population. Ofwat has been working closely with Thames Water, as it does all water companies, and the Government work with Ofwat, giving it our strategic policy statement on what its priorities will be. Overall, the water companies are considered resilient, and much work is going on behind the scenes with Thames Water to ensure that customers will not be affected. If necessary, there is a process in place to move us to the next stage.

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

Swindon residents will be concerned about the future of Thames Water, so I ask my hon. Friend please to keep me and colleagues updated on any issues relating to that. Underlying this issue, Labour’s model will clearly never work—we must understand that only the private sector will be able to invest. [Interruption.] Labour Members bleat now, but they did nothing about it when they were in government. Is the point not that where we have in effect a private monopoly, the regulator must be as effective as possible? Will my hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that Ofwat is working in the full interests of customers? Aspects of its operation do not seem to pass that test.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Thames Water is a big water company that delivers on a wide scale. Ofwat is working very closely with the company on its plans, which will be looked over and submitted, and accounts will be submitted in due course, so that we have a resilient pathway. Customers, including his constituents, should rest assured that both their water and wastewater supplies will be protected.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This privatised industry knows that, at the end of the day, the banker of last resort is the British taxpayer. That is exactly where we are with Thames Water, which has been taking profits for the last 35 years and not investing for the future. Regardless of what went on before, we must have investment in what is in front of the industry, but Thames Water has failed to plan ahead. It has taken money but not done the job expected of it while being in charge of such an essential public service. What will the Government do to protect consumers and ensure that we plan ahead for the industry?

[Rebecca Pow]

Ofwat is the independent regulator and, as the hon. Member will know, the Government direct it through the strategic policy statement. It is Ofwat’s job to ensure that in the price review, when the water companies submit their plans—they are going over the draft plans now—they demonstrate that they will deliver on the Government’s targets on storm overflows, leakage and demand reduction. It is for Ofwat to ensure that companies will be resilient in delivering that infrastructure. There is a firm structure in place. Ofwat also constantly monitors companies’ gearing—debt-to-equity—levels, and the Government are confident that the regulator is taking reasonable measures to challenge companies to reduce those gearing levels where appropriate.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

About a quarter of the country’s economic output is in sectors under regulators, including the water industry. With Ofwat and in other sectors with Ofgem and the Financial Conduct Authority, we have seen regulators not performing to the standards that the public, or indeed industry, would expect. If we are honest, we in this House and in Parliament do not have the toolkit to assess regulators’ performance on a systemic basis year in, year out. Will my hon. Friend work with ministerial colleagues to see whether we can improve the regular oversight of regulators such as Ofwat so that we can take a more rounded view on such issues, rather than have them come through urgent questions as brought by the Opposition?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is essential that we have fully functioning regulators. Since the Government came to power, Ofwat has done an enormous amount to streamline what it does, improve transparency, change licences and make changes so that dividends are not paid if any environmental damage is being caused. The Government have directed that through the strategic policy statement. Indeed, our targets will ensure that the regulator enables the water companies to put the right measures in place. He is right, however, that one should never be complacent, and if things need to be improved through the regulators, they should happen. But I assure him that a big effort is being made.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of my constituents are hugely worried about reports of Thames Water being on the brink and what that could mean for their bills. Thames Water has been managed appallingly: leaks have not been dealt with, sewage has been continually dumped and the former chief executive officer Sarah Bentley needed to be asked to forgo her bonus. All the while, the Government have been missing in action. Why are the Government yet again running to catch up—nothing in the Minister’s statement gives confidence that they have a grip—with our constituents paying the price?

[Rebecca Pow]

Where water companies underperform and do not meet their targets, a process is in place whereby basically they have to credit the money back to their customers. Last year, £143 million was credited back in that respect. So the regulator does have the tools to do that. It has tightened up so many of its measures, all of which will affect all the water companies.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

The Minister will not be able to comment on Thames Water’s finances in detail, but can she assure my constituents, who will be really worried, that, whatever happens, their day-to-day services will be protected and the much-needed upgrades will still be delivered?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. He is right that customers come first, and Thames Water customers will be assured their water supplies and wastewater services. I am happy to meet him to discuss that.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Residents in Twickenham, Teddington and the Hamptons will be extremely worried to hear that Thames Water is on the brink of collapse, but they are also fed up to the back teeth with this company. Not only does it pump sewage into our precious River Thames, but recently we have seen sewage flooding our streets at times of flooding from rainfall, and there are now plans to pump treated sewage into the Thames at times of drought. That is indicative of the company’s underinvestment in fixing leaks and being stripped to the bare bones while lining executives’ pockets. All the while, the Government have been missing in action and the regulator has failed. Will the Minister back the Liberal Democrats’ proposals to reform water companies into public good companies, transforming their boards and priorities in the interests of the environment and consumers?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will highlight the Thames super-sewer—it will be ready to open in the not-too-distant future—which is a tremendous project for the people of London, including many of her constituents. We have a privatised system, whose financial resilience, as I have reported, has increased rather than decreased in the last year. These companies attract money from investors so that we can get what we need. The Government have costed plans. The Liberal Democrats have no costed plans for what they suggest they might do with the water companies, nor plans for where the money will come from.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

It is worth pointing out to Opposition parties that 93% of all UK coastal bathing waters meet good or excellent conditions. In North Norfolk we have lost three blue flag beaches, which went from excellent to good. But guess what? There is not a single reason why they lost that flag. Under the Environment Agency’s marking, it looks like it is down to not combined sewage overflows but entirely natural phenomena. Could the Minister help me get my blue flags back and hold the Environment Agency to task, to ensure that it has a proper testing regime that transparently shows that we have excellent bathing water quality all over North Norfolk?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of bathing water quality. Since privatisation we have virtually the best quality water coming out of our taps of almost anywhere in the world. We also have phenomenal results for our bathing water areas—93% are classed as good or excellent. He has concerns about his area, but I hope those beaches will soon be back up to blue flag status. The Environment Agency works closely on individual cases where concerns have been highlighted. I am happy to put him in touch with the Environment Agency or work with him to find out what those individual cases were, so that we can get those beaches back up to the fantastic standard that they deserve.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Today, not for the first time, most of my constituents have little or no water supply. Two years ago, not for the first time, hundreds of my constituents had their homes flooded with raw sewage. Year after year, Thames Water has failed its customers while obscenely rewarding its management and shareholders. No one will miss the asset strippers at Thames Water if it goes under. All we want is working infrastructure and good customer service at a reasonable cost. Is that too much to ask?

[Rebecca Pow]

That is what we want for all our customers. That is why we have launched our plan for water to pull everything together to ensure that we deal with any pollution incidents, water supply issues and the future of the water industry. It is why we have set our targets and produced our storm sewage overflow plan, and why the water companies will have to spend £56 billion on capital investment by 2050 to address that. Every water company, including Thames Water, has to make an action plan for each of its storm sewage overflows. Thames Water will do that.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

When they were privatised, water companies had all the debt written off, so they started with zero. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, much of which has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. The investment has been made by borrowing and putting it on to customers’ bills. Now, the ratings agency S&P has negative outlooks for two thirds of the UK water companies it rates, because they are over-leveraged and took out too much debt in an era of low interest, which they now have to pay back. This is not a triumph but a huge problem for the resilience of our water industry. What will the Minister do when water companies start falling over?

[Rebecca Pow]

For information, Thames Water itself has not paid any dividends for the last six years. Ofwat will rightly hold companies to account when they do not clearly demonstrate the link between dividends and performance. We made that possible through the landmark Environment Act.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I want to bring the Minister back to the figures we have just heard. Water companies had no debt when they were privatised. Since then, they have borrowed £53 billion, and much of that has been used to help pay £72 billion in dividends. Meanwhile, we have an appalling sewage scandal, particularly in the south-east of England. The failing company Southern Water, which my constituents have no choice but to rely on, is considering raising bills by £279 per year by 2030, largely to pay for the investment that it should have been making in previous years. Does that not show that the privatisation of water was a serious mistake that needs to be permanently rectified?

[Rebecca Pow]

Privatisation has enabled clean and plentiful water to come out of our taps. It has unlocked £190 billion of funding to invest in the industry. That is the equivalent of £5 billion annually, and is double what we had pre-privatisation. I am not saying that there is not still a lot of scope for improvement. I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times, as has the Secretary of State, to say that some actions of water companies are completely unacceptable. That is why we have introduced the storm overflow plan and our plan for water.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

As two Members have said, funding and loans to the water companies are a huge issue, as that is where they have paid their dividends from. On shareholders, we have foreign investors taking huge amounts of money away from this country, and we need better fund managers who are able to assess where they put their money. They should be held accountable, too.

Ofwat has not been doing what it is supposed to do. I believe that the chief executive of Ofwat applied for a job at Thames Water. That shows what the companies are doing and how Ofwat works with them—rather than scrutinising them, people are looking for the next job. We have to stop that and stop my constituents paying more for water. They need decent water in their homes and in the environment around them. That is what we want the Government to ensure. This Tory policy has failed for years.

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not sure what the question was. We want the same things: value for customers, and clean and plentiful water. We want to hold the water companies to account. We want them to invest the money needed to deliver the right services. That is why we have a plan for water, our targets and the measures in the Environment Act. It is why the regulator Ofwat has taken all the actions I mentioned to increase the transparency of water companies and to ensure that money is not being paid out if there is any environmental impact or performance negativity.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

In the last year, a number of my constituents on the Westfield estate have had their homes and gardens flooded with raw sewage. Yorkshire Water accepts that it is its sewage, but does not accept responsibility to help with the clean-up. Will the Minister look at the legal position to ensure that water companies are held accountable? In the meantime, we should put pressure on Yorkshire Water and others to pay for the clean-up that my constituents are having to fund themselves.

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have put huge pressure on the water companies, which now have to invest £56 billion in infrastructure to deal with sewage issues. If he wants to meet me to talk about that issue, I will be happy to.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Back in January I asked the water Minister whether she thought that the current system of regulation was fit for purpose, and she said yes. I ask her again: does she still think that it is?

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

Water companies were sold with no debt when they were privatised in 1989. In fact, they were given a £1.5 billion green dowry by the Government. Since then, they have taken on borrowing of £60.6 billion, diverting income from customer bills to paying dividends and interest payments. As a result, water bills have increased by upwards of 40% in real terms. Does the Minister honestly think that consumers hail privatisation as a success?

[Rebecca Pow]

Ultimately, the customers pay for investment in the industry, but over a very long period, as the hon. Lady will know. If a company did not pay out dividends it would struggle to get access to finance to fund future investment. That would limit the level of investment and have an impact on future customers. Companies have to pay up front for a lot of that investment, because they need to secure a large amount of funding to pay for it. To avoid customer bills increasing drastically to pay for that, companies have to secure the money by raising debt or equity. She knows how it works. The regulator has to ensure that that system is fully functioning, the water companies are resilient and we have all the resilient water supply that we require.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It has been reported that the companies are drawing up their business plans for 2025 to 2030 and that, on average, they are looking at a 25% increase in bills. Given what we have heard today, would billpayers in my constituency not think that rather than paying extra to water companies, they may as well just flush their money down the drain for all the good it will do to improve water quality, services and investment in infrastructure?

[Rebecca Pow]

All those plans are being assessed right now. The draft plans go to Ofwat, where they are analysed with a fine-toothed comb. All the things I have mentioned today will be scrutinised, so that we can deliver the infrastructure that is needed and have the clean and plentiful water supplies we require as well as a clean and healthy environment, with no undue impact on customer bills. All those things have to be taken into account to deliver the water supplies that the people we meet and the people we serve deserve.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

The British public should not be asked to cover the cost of failures by the water monopolies and their shareholders. They have borrowed extensively to pay dividends while failing to make necessary investments in infrastructure and resilience. Does the Minister agree that if the Government are compelled to take Thames Water into public ownership, it should stay in public hands?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am not aware of the situation the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Ofwat is working very closely with Thames Water to ensure that the business is viable, that customers are not impacted, and that water supply and waste water services are delivered. As I mentioned, Ofwat has strengthened many measures so that we have a much more resilient industry in the future. Indeed, those changes and the fall in the debt to equity ratio demonstrate that we do have a more resilient industry.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

We have seen bonuses and dividends put ahead of investment in infrastructure or maintaining sufficient reserves. Our area of Devon and Somerset is covered by South West Water; the company has paid out £112 million in dividends this year, despite having just £144 million in reserves, which is £2.5 billion less than it had two years ago. This week, a water firm chief executive officer has resigned, but no Conservative Minister has ever taken responsibility. When will a Conservative Minister finally take responsibility and get a grip, or step aside?

[Rebecca Pow]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Ofwat has announced new measures to enable it to take action against water companies that do not link dividend payments to performance. That is just not happening. I think he needs to look again at some of the stats he has just quoted, because I think they might relate to the wider Pennon Group. I have just visited South West Water to have a really forensic look at its systems and how it delivers water. That is what we do with our water companies. It is Ofwat’s job to hold water companies to account, and it has just got measures through the Treasury so that it has another £11.3 million to tackle enforcement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers. We are ever mindful that house building is important, and development opportunities are critical to the future as well, so with developers being charged more and more to connect to the network but facing delays in those connections being installed, what plans does the Minister have to make the connection system for new developments more affordable?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. We always have be mindful of costs, not just to customers through their bills but to developers building houses. We are working closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on a range of measures and on its planning guidance, so that we can tackle a range of issues connected to water, working with developers on things like rainwater harvesting and sustainable urban drainage systems, which will really help the whole of our water infrastructure.

[John Cryer]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. She said clearly that Thames Water has not been paying out dividends. The reality is that Thames Water has not been paying out dividends in the usual way, but it did pay dividends last year to the parent company, so it has been paying out dividends.

[Mr Speaker]

Does the Minister wish to respond?

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes, Mr Speaker. I will check the wording, because I would hate to mislead the House. If I have inadvertently said something incorrect, I will happily put it straight on the record.

[Mr Speaker]

Right.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to reduce the environmental impact of waste incineration.

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

We want to see less waste being sent to incinerators, which is why we set a statutory target to halve the 2019 level of residual waste by 2042. The Environment Agency inspects and audits energy from waste plants to ensure that they are complying with the requirements of their environmental permits, which include strict emissions limits and associated strict requirements to monitor those limits.

[Elliot Colburn]

Only about 20% of the waste that goes into the Beddington incinerator in my constituency is plastic, but it makes up three quarters of the harmful particulates that come out of the chimney stacks. Technology is available to extract plastic before it is burnt, and is being trialled around the country. Does the Minister agree that all waste incineration plants should be installing this technology as soon as possible?

[Rebecca Pow]

We have legislated to prevent incinerators from accepting separately collected paper, metal, glass and plastic unless they have gone through a recycling facility first. We are trying to reduce all our waste but particularly plastic, and our plastic packaging reforms, which are under way, will mean that, overall, less waste will be incinerated.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As the Minister has said, we need to reduce the amount of waste that is being incinerated. One way of doing that would be to develop a truly circular economy, which could also result in the creation of many more green jobs. This is a DEFRA responsibility, but we do not hear much from DEFRA about its plans. Will the Minister tell us what action she is taking?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Lady is right, and we are committed to measures to introduce a much more circular economy. We must cut the amount of resources that we use, and recycle more, reuse more and refill more. Work is under way, and data is being gathered on our extended producer responsibility scheme, which we will introduce in 2024, and the deposit return scheme will be introduced in 2025. Those, along with consistent collections, will reduce the amount of waste that we, as a society, throw away.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

Waste incinerators are three times more likely to be built in the UK’s most deprived neighbourhoods than in the least deprived, and people in those communities are twice as likely to have a lung condition and seven times more likely to die from one. Is the Minister confident that she has enough monitoring in place to provide accurate, timely and consistent data to ensure that these incinerators do not breach our emissions targets and thus put local people at risk of further harm?

[Rebecca Pow]

It is crucial for waste incineration plants to have the correct permits and to be correctly monitored, which is why the Environment Agency has imposed strict emissions limits and applies the permit scheme to a number of pollutants to ensure that people who live near incinerators are completely safe. All operators of incinerator plants must carry out their own monitoring and report back constantly on the safety of their plants, because human health is, of course, critical.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

8. What progress her Department has made on its target to halt species decline by 2030.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)]

T6.   Seven parish councils along the River Severn from Aust to Sharpness have joined forces under the chairmanship of local resident Mr Barry Turner to ask the Environment Agency for improvements along the riverbank, in preparation for rising tide heights and more extreme weather events. Will the Minister meet me, Mr Turner and the local councillor, Matthew Riddle, to discuss their concerns and help find a solution?

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

I believe the Environment Agency has already met Mr Turner and his group, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend too. Obviously, I must stress that managing coastal change in those legacy landfill sites, some of which have historical issues, is very much the responsibility of the local coastal protection authorities. The Government are taking action, looking at what priority action we could take on these historical landfill sites to find a way forward in these many and varied areas.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

T3.   Yesterday, we learned that sugar prices have risen by a massive 47% in the past year, and industry experts predict that they will rise again this autumn, because of the high energy costs of extracting and refining sugar. What steps is the Minister taking to support the food and drink sector throughout this period of extreme inflationary pressure, so that these costs are not, yet again, passed on to consumers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis2002 (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

T4.   Should not the cost of cleaning up our waterways be met by the profits of water companies, not higher bills paid for by hard-pressed consumers?

[Rebecca Pow]

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that dividends and profits of water companies cannot come from customers—[Interruption.] If the water companies want to compensate people and they have not done the right thing by the environment, that will not come out of customers’ pockets. This Government have put in a huge plan for £56 billion-worth of investment by the water companies to clean up our waters—this is more than ever before.

[Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Dog-loving constituents of mine have expressed concerns about a potential ban on e-collars. They say that in Wales, where e-collars are banned, attacks on sheep have increased exponentially, with the result being electric fences that are far more harmful to dogs. Will my right hon. Friend consider some form of licensing or regulation of usage, rather than an outright ban?

--- Later in debate ---

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

On Monday, BBC’s “Panorama” programme examined the continuing misery being inflicted on my constituents by Walleys Quarry Landfill, and, as you will know, Mr Speaker, the Staffordshire waste site in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) is also affecting my constituents. We have a situation where not one, but two rogue operators are making the lives of the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme a misery, and the actions of the Environment Agency are too slow and not robust enough, so what will the Minister do to ensure that we get justice and accountability for what we are going through?

[Rebecca Pow]

I know that my hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on the issue of Walleys Quarry, and that the Secretary of State has visited the area recently. I know, too, that there was a “Panorama” programme about the site. An enforcement notice was issued by the EA on 5 May requiring the operator to take further action around waste acceptance procedures on the site to reduce the risk of sulphate-bearing material entering the landfill. I have spoken many times to the EA and know that it is working very hard to reduce the dangers, potentially, that locals may feel come from this site.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

Will the Minister be prepared to meet me and representatives of the Horticulture Trades Association to discuss what further steps the Government could take to support the horticultural sector in developing responsibly resourced, high-quality alternatives to peat that can be produced at volume?

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

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure, as ever, to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 20 April. They amend the Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) Regulations 2023. Since those regulations came into force, further engagement with stakeholders has brought to our attention two key issues that the regulations before us today seek to resolve. We have also taken the opportunity to pursue additional amendments that improve the clarity of provisions.

The regulations introduce two key changes, but I assure the Committee from the outset that the changes being introduced are not a change of policy. Instead, they seek to rectify ambiguities and correct omissions. The data reporting requirements require producers of packaging to collect and report data on the amount and type of packaging that they place on the market, and that will be used to calculate the fees that producers will pay to cover the costs of managing the packaging as part of the extended producer responsibility scheme from 2024.

The regulations add to the obligations of importers. Erroneously omitted from the original statutory instruments, importers will need to report packaging that they import and then subsequently dispose of without supplying onwards. It was always our intention to include such packaging, and it is packaging that importers already collect and report under the original and ongoing packaging producer responsibility scheme. The amendment is crucial to ensuring a properly functioning extended producer responsibility scheme, and we estimate that the amount of packaging it relates to is approximately 1 million tonnes, or about 8% of the packaging placed on the market every year in the United Kingdom. If that packaging went unreported, it would seriously hamper the proper functioning of the packaging recovery note system and would also lead to a distortion of the producer fees that will be payable under the EPR.

The SI makes changes that reduce uncertainty around the definition of brand owner. The amendments address two main scenarios. The first is where there is more than one brand printed on the packaging. For example, a limited edition chocolate Easter egg—I know Easter is over—might have a separate brand’s toy inside. The amendments make it clear that it is the brand who first sells the packaged product who is responsible. In that instance, it would be the brand owner of the Easter egg, not the brand owner of the toy.

The second scenario is when multiple items from different brands are grouped together in a single sales unit. An example would be the Sunday Times wine box. The amendments make it clear that the brand who brings the other products together into one product should be responsible for any packaging it adds. So The Sunday Times would be obligated for the cardboard box, and the wine producers would be obligated for the wine bottles inside the box. I am not sure how many Members shop at Harrods, but a second example would be a Harrods hamper. Harrods would be responsible for the basket and straw, while the producers of the champagne and caviar that you had purchased, Sir Gary, would be responsible for the glass bottle and the container.

The regulations also make a number of other changes, which I will discuss briefly. The amendments will provide further clarification on the data reporting requirements for reusable and refillable packaging, and will simplify the reporting process. At the moment, producers would need to report whether their reusable product was refilled at home or in store; a range of models are used for this sort of scheme, as hon. Members may or may not know from partaking in some of them.

Let me give the Committee an example for clarification. When my Ecover washing up bottle is empty, I take it to a store in my nearby town of Wellington, where I refill it from the store’s big canister. The amendments remove the need to describe the type of reusable system being used—that is, that I went to a store to do it—and that will reduce burdens on producers. However, the key data will continue to be reported to inform policy development ahead of introducing new measures to increase the uptake of reuse and refill systems in 2025, which is obviously to be encouraged and will very much be encouraged at a later date.

The key data is the amount of reusable packaging a producer has supplied and whether it is termed “primary packaging”. Primary packaging is the packaging that surrounds a product and forms a sales unit to the customer—for example, a reusable Ecover bottle. Secondary and tertiary packaging is packaging that businesses interact with and that is typically removed before the product is sold to a consumer—for example, cardboard boxes used for display purposes or pallets used in distribution. The changes will also allow producers that have instituted reuse systems of their own to offset the packaging at the end of life, giving them a discount on their EPR disposal fees when they have collected and sent the packaging for recycling once it has become waste. The amendments also include minor corrections to the drafting and fix some incorrect cross-references.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

May I take the Minister back to her Sunday Times wine club example—other wine clubs presumably are available—when she said that the cardboard would be the responsibility of the Sunday Times wine club and the glass bottle would be that of the wine producer? Would I be right that if the wine were imported, as I think is the case for nearly every Sunday Times wine club bottle that my wife has ever had, the Sunday Times wine club would be responsible for the glass as well and not only the box?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will need to think about that for a minute. My hon. Friend is talking about imported products. The glass bottle will come under a different system of recycling anyway; it could go into our other kerbside schemes that are currently being developed—potentially deposit return. [Interruption.] I waited for a bit of inspiration, and apparently the answer is yes, if the wine club imported it.

I am sure there will be some other examples, because in getting the data gathering system up and running, lots of tiny nuances have arisen. That is why producers have come to us to point out the anomalies, which we have to fix; and that is what we are doing today. These amending regulations will apply to England only, but similar regulations are being progressed and amended where needed in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. My officials have worked closely with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.

In conclusion, the measures in the draft regulations are crucial for enabling the effective implementation of the extended producer responsibility for packaging and realising its associated environmental benefits. I commend them to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Plastic Pollution in the Ocean

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Christopher. You might be pleased to hear that I may not go on for half an hour, but that will give a little time for my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) to respond. I thank her for bringing this matter before the House. She is a great champion for her constituency, particularly on subjects connected with water and the coast. I do not think that anyone could ask for more on that front. She has to be praised for all the work that she has done, and particularly for bringing this subject for us to debate today.

While Members across the House have our differences, there is an awful lot of common ground. Plastic in the ocean is unacceptable, and we have to do something urgently to tackle it. To the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), we have probably all been in and out of schools. It is honestly the No. 1 subject that children want to talk about. I went into Oake, Bradford and Nynehead Primary School the other day, and it was top of the agenda. I share with the children all the things the Government are doing on the environment, on plastics and on waste and recycling. I usually leave them knowing that we are genuinely tackling a lot of these issues, which are so important not just to children but to us all.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon sent a letter to the Secretary of State, and I will respond. I was waiting until today, just in case any matters arose from the debate, but she will get her response very shortly. I thank her for all the work she does in North Devon. I will expand a bit on what we are doing both domestically and internationally, because they work together, as has been highlighted today.

[Margaret Ferrier]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will make a little progress, just to set the scene.

As Members have said, the annual plastic flow into oceans will triple between 2016 and 2040, which is a pretty shocking thing to think about. Plastic has already had a devastating effect on the environment and it is due to get worse, which is why we have to take urgent action both domestically and internationally. Although it would be wonderful to take out all the plastic in the oceans—we have heard some really good stories about how that has been done in many places, and credit to all the organisations doing that work, many of which are voluntary—the absolute key is to tackle the problem at source and to reduce the amount of plastic going on to the market, so I will talk about that in some detail. It is what the Government’s focus is all about.

Our environmental improvement plan 2023 states that we have targets for reducing all forms of marine plastic pollution where possible, and our 2018 resources and waste strategy sets out how we will do that. In our environment improvement plan, we have set a target of achieving zero avoidable plastic waste by the end of 2042. How will we do all that? There is a step-by-step process, and it will be done through a whole range of measures that focus on maximising resource efficiency; reusing, recycling and reducing the overall amount of plastic on the market; and keeping what plastic we do use—because there are no doubt some really important uses of plastic—in the circular economy for much longer. As we have heard from various colleagues, the key element of our packaging and waste regime and reforms is the extended producer responsibility scheme, which puts the onus on the manufacturer that places the packaging on the market and makes them responsible for its lifecycle and where it ends up. We also have the deposit return scheme, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues. It is due to start in October 2025, but intensive work is being done on both schemes right now.

I welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon about Scotland. We obviously welcome the involvement of the devolved Administrations, because it would all be much simpler if we had the same scheme. We are working very closely together. Scotland’s scheme has been held up, but we are working to progress ours as quickly as possible. The third element is our consistent collection, so that we collect the same products from our local authorities. That will help us to get good-quality recyclates, and it will help the whole system to work effectively. We are pressing on with that and will shortly announce the results of our consultation. I will also slip in at this point that we will also announce our consultation on the ban of wet wipes shortly. I recognise that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Putney, has done a lot of work on this issue, as have many people in this room and other colleagues across the House.

The Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), mentioned his party’s policies for recycling. He seemed to be slightly behind the curve; we are already introducing all of the schemes to tackle plastic packaging and plastic waste. We are well on the case, and realise how important those schemes are.

We have done a lot already. We have significantly reduced major supermarket retailers’ use of single-use carrier bags, as was outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, by over 97%. That was enabled, or triggered, by the 5p charge. We have since introduced the 10p charge and extended it to all retailers. That is really making the extra difference we need on carrier bags.

[Richard Foord]

The Minister says that the Government have already taken account of the proposals I talked about on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Does that include the points I made about cigarette butts? Will she tell us what the Government are doing to crack down on cigarette butts in the ocean?

[Rebecca Pow]

Yes. I have spent a lot of time working on cigarette butts as well. They are a nasty, poisonous, polluting litter item. In fact, in terms of numbers of items littered, they are the largest. A lot of work has been done on that front. We work very closely with WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—on options for tackling the littering of cigarette butts, which include making the industry more responsible for the cost of dealing with them. We are considering next steps now. The hon. Member may not be aware that, with the stick hanging over the industry, it has come up with £30 million to voluntarily deal with cigarette butt littering. We will watch closely to see how that proceeds.

In October 2020, we introduced measures to restrict the supply of plastic straws, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) mentioned, as well as plastic drink stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds, which we did ahead of the EU. We are building on that progress with our recently announced bans on single-use plastic plates, bowls, trays, containers, cutlery and balloon sticks from this October. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent reminded us, quite starkly, why we need to do this—those things stay in the environment for so long; she gave the figure of 400 years. We are doing absolutely the right thing in bringing in those bans. As time progresses, we will review those bans to see whether they are effective and to make sure that we have the right processes in place—I think the shadow Minister asked about that.

The form of marine litter with the greatest known impact on marine life is abandoned, lost or discarded fishing gear, known as ghost gear. That has been estimated to cause a decline of between 5% and 30% in some fish stocks. The Administrations of the UK are committed to working together, and with industry, through the British Irish Council, to develop solutions for the collection and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear—the gear left lying about on the quayside—of which there is a large quantity. To fulfil that commitment, the UK is reviewing domestic measures for end-of-life fishing and aquaculture gear with the intention of moving the sector towards a circular economy model, finding ways to recycle that material. It is quite complicated, because the gear contains a lot of different materials. We will ensure that any new requirements do not create a competitive disadvantage for our fishing industry.

Regional sea conventions can also play a key role in co-ordinating action, sharing knowledge and monitoring the state of the ocean, and as a contracting party to OSPAR—the regional seas convention for the protection of the north-east Atlantic—the UK participates in monitoring programmes to assess regional trends in marine litter and develops and takes action in co-operation with our nearest neighbours. In 2021, OSPAR contracting parties agreed the north-east Atlantic environment strategy. The strategy has a number of objectives on tackling marine litter in the north-east Atlantic, including a strategic objective to prevent inputs of, and significantly reduce, marine litter, including microplastics in the marine environment. Under the strategic objective, contracting parties also agreed to publish an updated regional action plan on marine litter, which was published in 2022.

The strong programme of domestic and regional action means that the UK is well placed to be a leading voice in tackling plastic pollution on the wider international stage. The UK was proud to co-sponsor the proposal to prepare a new international, legally binding plastic pollution treaty, which was agreed in the United Nations Environment Assembly in February 2022.

[Margaret Ferrier]

With Malaysia’s high contribution to plastic pollution, and its status as a comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-pacific partnership country, does the Minister believe that our recent accession to the bloc could be a good opportunity to drive environmental change with trading partners?

[Rebecca Pow]

One of our key focuses is on environmental protection. We are doing a great deal of work, as I am outlining, on the international stage to work with our partners, and influence them on things that we are doing at home—demonstrating that a lot of those things can be done nationally. The aim is to reduce, reuse, recycle, and limit the amount of plastic going on to the market in the first place.

The process for negotiating the new agreement that the UK co-sponsored is under way. The first intergovernmental negotiating committee was in November last year. The UK took an ambitious stance on that, supporting a treaty that will restrain the production and consumption of plastic, address plastic design and encourage more recycling and reuse. Those are the things we think are critical.

The UK is also a founding member of the High Ambition Coalition to end plastic pollution, which is a group of 50 countries that are calling for a target under the treaty to stop plastic from flowing into the environment by 2040. That very much reflects our approach at home. We reiterated that commitment at the recent G7 meeting in Japan, where all G7 nations committed to ending plastic pollution, with the ambition to reduce additional plastic pollution to zero by 2040. We are going to continue to push for ambition at future negotiation sessions, including the forthcoming one in Paris, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon. My officials and I will go to that, and we are hoping for real, useful progress there. Every colleague in the Chamber has mentioned the importance of international treaties and work.

We already support a range of initiatives to remove or remediate plastic in the marine environment. We support the Fishing for Litter initiative and many other local schemes. Fishing for Litter is a voluntary, unpaid litter bycatch removal scheme for commercial fishermen, run by KIMO, a network of local authorities, which provides fishing boats with bags to dispose of marine-sourced litter collected during normal fishing operations. Fishing for Litter South West England is currently funded by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affair’s fisheries and seafood scheme. In 2018, we also changed marine licensing measures to make it easier for divers to recover marine litter, including fishing gear. That is something they highlighted to us, and we had to make a tweak to enable them to be able to do that and safely dispose of it when they brought the litter back on to land.

Under the OSPAR Commission’s regional action plan for marine litter, the UK works with other contracting parties to implement actions. The plan includes an action to prevent, locate and handle abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear.

I also agree with the importance of monitoring plastic pollution. The UK co-funds the Marine Conservation Society’s recording of litter from sections of our coast. That helps us to monitor plastic pollution levels and trends. That data is used in combination with other monitoring data to measure the impact of our policies and inform our decisions about how to tackle marine litter. Its information was really useful in informing our work and regulation on the ban of cotton buds. We looked at the things that rocked up most frequently on beaches, which included balloon sticks and so forth.

I note the valuable work done by the Ocean Cleanup, which is an interesting initiative. I cannot say that we have a pot of money to put into that, but we are certainly grateful for the work it does and we are obviously looking very closely at what will proceed from that.

We are working closely with other countries around the world to understand how to tackle legacy plastic pollution through the treaty. As mentioned, we are working hard to prevent plastic from entering the environment in the first place by making producers responsible for their plastic.

We are also supporting a lot of other international action. In 2021, the then Prime Minister announced the new £500 million blue planet fund, which lots of colleagues are familiar with. The fund aims to protect and enhance the marine environment and reduce poverty. It includes a focus on tackling marine pollution and supporting coastal communities. That point was raised; we have to bring the communities along with us in all that.

Through the UK’s blue planet fund, we are working with the Global Plastic Action Partnership to take collaborative action on tackling pollution in developing countries, including Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam. Through that partnership, the UK is supporting the creation of national roadmaps to address plastic pollution, which outline the action, finance and innovation needed to achieve national commitments. In Indonesia, for example, the partnership is working towards a target of reducing mismanaged waste by 70% by 2025.

The blue planet fund’s ocean country partnership programme is also supporting countries to tackle, reduce and mitigate marine pollution through the development of science-led policy and the strengthening of marine expertise. Everything must be science based. That is what they are working on.

The UK also appreciates the critical role that young people play in paving the way for change. Since 2019, we have supported the United Nations Environment Programme’s Tide Turners plastic challenge badge. That has developed a community of over 500,000 young people doing work on plastic pollution.

The UK also contributes to PROBLUE, the World Bank’s multi-donor trust, which supports the sustainable and integrated development of marine and coastal resources. A key component of that is prevention and management of marine pollution. PROBLUE projects aim to address the threats posed by such pollution, including litter, plastics and land-based sources that are contributing to what goes into our seas. Additionally, the UK co-chairs the Commonwealth clean ocean alliance alongside Vanuatu. I think the shadow Minister mentioned that. We work very closely with them on the Commonwealth blue charter’s action groups. We have delivered the Commonwealth litter programme, which is delivering scientific technical assistance across all Commonwealth countries. It is proceeding very constructively.

I have just a couple of questions left to answer. I think I have answered the question about the evaluation of the effectiveness of our bans because we have to qualitatively and quantitively analyse the difference that our policies are making. We are committed to doing that, and we are evaluating the impact of the plastic straw ban. The timing of that evaluation is dependent on our progress in introducing our other packaging reforms, but it is currently scheduled for 2026-27.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) is a great advocate of the work on plastics and microplastics. He always talks about nurdles, and he did not fail to do so today. They are pre-production plastic pellets—the raw materials used in the production of plastic items—and they can be lost all over the place. It is shocking how much we find them on our beaches and in the sea. In 2019, the British-Irish Council recognised the need to address that source of microplastics, and it committed to learn from a trial supply chain approach that is taking place in Scotland. We are watching that carefully. The Administration supported the development of a publicly available specification developed by the British Standards Institution, which set out how businesses handling or managing the pellets can reduce pellet loss. It is the first initiative of its kind, and it was published in July 2021.

Hon. Members raised overseas exports of plastic waste. We plan to consult later this year on options to ban the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The Government have committed to that, and it is being rolled out.

I hope I have demonstrated the enormous amount of work that is being done on this front, but that is not to say that there is not an enormous amount to do. There is: this is a huge problem. We are taking action domestically through the new initiatives that we are rolling out. They are a game-changer for lots of people and local authorities, so we will have to bring people with us. I think we will do so, because there is such a positive attitude towards reducing our plastic waste.

I once again thank everyone who took part in the debate. It is good to get this issue on the agenda. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon for securing it.

Draft REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

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

It is a pleasure, as ever, to have you in the Chair, Sir Graham. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 April and amend UK REACH, the UK regulation on the regulation, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, which is one of the main pieces of legislation that manages chemicals in Great Britain.

In line with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, UK REACH retains both the fundamental approach and key principles of the EU REACH regulation, with its aims of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. The statutory instrument introduces two changes. I can assure the Committee from the outset that those changes do not affect the key principles and that UK REACH will continue to provide the highest levels for protection of human health and the environment.

First, the SI amends the deadlines in article 127P(4B) of UK REACH for the submission of information to the Health and Safety Executive, extending them by three years. That applies to grandfathered registrations and chemicals being imported from the EU under the transitional arrangements. Industry will have to submit technical information—that is, the full data package—on the hazards and risks of substances by 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030, depending on the tonnage and toxicity of the chemical. Those dates are changed from 27 October 2023, 27 October 2025 and 27 October 2027 respectively. The most toxic and hazardous chemicals will be in the first tranche that will be required to be registered.

The changes are needed as part of my Department’s work to address the significant potential cost of obtaining or accessing the full hazard information required to meet UK REACH registration requirements. Those costs are estimated to be between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion, which represents a major concern for the industry as it will be a significant financial undertaking for businesses in Great Britain transitioning to UK REACH. We recognise business concerns, which is why we are working really closely with business and engaging with all stakeholders to develop an alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH.

We are working with the industry and non-governmental organisation stakeholders to find a solution that will reduce the costs associated with obtaining hazard information while still ensuring that they are responsible for the safe use of chemicals throughout the supply chain. The model we are developing aims to reduce the need for businesses to access or obtain expensive EU REACH data packages and will place more emphasis on improving our understanding of the uses and exposures of chemicals in the Great Britain context—that is, on making it much more specific to our market and our needs. Extending the deadlines will provide certainty to industry so that it can avoid making unnecessary investments in obtaining data while the Government continue to develop and implement an alternative approach.

The second change is that the SI will move the timelines for the HSE to complete its compliance checks to ensure that the information submitted by industry is of sufficient quality. The changes will now align with the extended deadlines for submitting data to the HSE. That is necessary because the deadlines for compliance checking, as set down in article 41(5) of UK REACH, would otherwise fall before the amended dates for submitting the relevant information. Basically, it just links everything together.

The HSE will now have to complete its compliance checks by 27 October 2027, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2035, corresponding to the three extended submission deadlines. This is the first time we have prepared an SI using the powers to amend REACH that are set out in schedule 21 to the Environment Act 2021. Some colleagues present served on the Bill Committee for that Act and will I am sure remember that.

We have followed all the safeguards that we attached to the powers. In doing so, we sought and obtained consent from the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland; consulted widely with our stakeholders and interested parties on our plans to extend the submission deadlines; and published a consistency statement, as required by the 2021 Act. Our aim was to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Am I right in thinking that the redesign of the registration process that my hon. Friend is currently considering, which the three-year extension will allow her to bring into play, will not diminish the levels of care for the environment or, indeed, for human health, but rather enhance them, and that the whole purpose of the redesign is to do that?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend is very astute. In no way will we reduce any of the protections—we have to make a statement to say that we will not do that—and this change does give us an opportunity to work with the industry to look at the kind of data it provides and its knowledge of the chemicals, as well as to focus on how we use those chemicals and the actual exposure for our own population, because it is different in different countries. It should provide us with a really focused understanding and knowledge of the chemicals that we place on the market—of course, each company is responsible for the chemicals it places on the market.

As I said, we laid the statement, as required by the Act, to provide the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with article 1 of UK REACH. We will continue to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment.

As we outlined in the consistency statement that accompanied the public consultation, our assessment demonstrates that overall the UK REACH regime will still be able to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment because of the information on and knowledge of chemicals registered under EU REACH that is available to HSE and Great Britain registrants; because importers from the EU will continue to receive EU REACH-compliant safety data sheets from their EU suppliers, which will enable them to identify and apply appropriate risk-management measures; and because of the HSE’s ability to seek risk management data from other sources—there are sources other than the EU system—if necessary, as it did when acting as a competent authority under EU REACH. That seeking could include things such as calls for evidence and using data from EU REACH and other relevant sources that can provide Great Britain with specific hazard and exposure information.

Alongside the public consultation, we also published a full impact assessment on extending the deadlines, which I am pleased to say was awarded a green fit-for-purpose rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has formally considered this SI without comment. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, and the devolved Administrations were engaged in its development and are content. I am confident that the provisions in the regulations mean that we will continue to ensure the highest levels of protection for human health and the environment.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend will know, I have the headquarters of Johnson Matthey, a major environmental business, in my constituency. Is it not right that the instrument will give duty holders the right amount of time to prepare and submit full dossiers for all the substances that need to be registered, and will therefore have a positive effect in terms of better regulation?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that. It is a really significant industry in his constituency, and he is right to speak up for it. I am sure that he has engaged with industry, as we have, because we have to make this work. It is a huge industry for Great Britain—a £30.4 billion industry. The industry has worked with us, and was very positive in the consultation about wanting the extension of the deadlines. We are already working with various key companies to work up some dossiers with individual companies to see how it could work. We will learn a lot from that, and we obviously need this time to work our way through that and see all the different impacts and costs, what sort of information they need to provide, and how they are managing to do that. My right hon. and learned Friend is right, and I thank him for that question.

I am confident that the provisions in the draft regulations mean that we will continue to ensure the highest levels of protection of human health and the environment based on robust evidence and strong scientific analysis. At the same time, we are taking steps to provide industry with the legal certainty that it needs to operate and to preserve the supply chains for the chemicals that we depend on. I will leave it there for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

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

[The Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household (Jo Churchill)]

We will never know!

[Rebecca Pow]

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Extended Producer Responsibility for Packaging

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Sharma; I know this subject is of great interest to you, as is litter, which the House just had an Adjournment debate on. It all comes into the sphere we are dealing with. I thank the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) for bringing this debate on extended producer responsibility to Westminster Hall. I am pleased to have the opportunity to outline our schemes in more detail. She asked a great raft of questions, so if I do not cover all the answers, we will write to her on some of the outstanding issues, although I know some of issues have been dealt with in answers to parliamentary questions.

The hon. Lady and I share some agreement about the need for the schemes we are introducing and the fact that they are complex. The schemes will definitely take us in the right direction on reducing our waste. We agree on the shared goal, which is to implement a successful UK-wide scheme that serves to improve recycling and the availability of recycled materials for reuse, to drive down pollution, and to ensure that the cost of packaging waste no longer relies so heavily on the public purse. After four years of extensive engagement across the packaging sectors, the policy framework to introduce an extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging across the United Kingdom was outlined in the Government response published in March 2022. Work is continuing to make progress in preparation for its implementation.

Although affected businesses have consistently expressed their support for high-level extended producer responsibility objectives and outcomes, some concerns have been raised about costs, implementation and timelines. I am well aware of that, as other colleagues in this Chamber have raised some of these matters with me. I reassure the hon. Member for Llanelli and others that my Department remains committed to continued intense engagement with affected businesses to ensure that we deliver our UK extended producer responsibility scheme in a way that delivers on the shared goals to transform a linear economic model of “take, make, use, throw away” to a circular economy. Our aim is for legislation to be in place in time to start the EPR in 2024-25, as the hon. Lady mentioned.

Before I go further, I will outline how we got to this point and the rationale for the delivery of the EPR programme. In December 2018, the Government published the resources and waste strategy, which set out how we will preserve our stock of material resources by minimising waste, promoting resource efficiency and moving towards the circular economy. Three significant commitments in the strategy form the collection and packaging reforms programme. Those are the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging—the EPR—which we are discussing; the deposit return scheme for drinks containers, known as the DRS; and the consistency in recycling collection scheme, known simply as consistency. That is the consistency of collection at the doorstep by local authorities.

The idea is that they dovetail together. They will help us to deliver our goals on protecting the climate, driving green growth and driving down unnecessary waste—all goals set out by this Government and the devolved Administrations in their policy documents. As a result of our reforms, particularly in relation to the EPR, we expect the figure for recycling rigid plastics—excluding drinks bottles in the DRS—to reach 48% by 2025, broadly comparable with what Wiltshire Farm Foods are doing at the moment. By 2030, we expect that to rise significantly to about 62%. That is the direction in which we aim to drive all packaging producers.

The overall objective of the EPR scheme is to encourage businesses to consider how much packaging they use, and to design and use packaging that is much easier to recycle, and to encourage the use of reusables, refillables and so forth. We have committed to setting ambitious new packaging waste recycling targets for producers. The EPR measures will be key to achieving the targets. We propose minimum recycling target rates from 2024-30 for each of the six packaging materials: plastic, wood, aluminium, steel, paper and card, and glass. We will introduce targets for fibre-based composite packaging in 2026.

EPR will allow businesses to make their own arrangements to collect and recycle their packaging, where local authorities are not required to collect those packaging items for recycling. EPR will incentivise producers to recycle packaging that is reused multiple times, such as milk bottles, and to offset the packaging that they recycle against their obligated disposal costs. However, EPR will not allow for offsetting of packaging where it is collected by more than 75% of local authorities, except where it is part of a reuse system. That is primarily because we will take steps, through our consistency measures, to place requirements on local authorities to collect, for recycling, at least the common set of materials that I outlined.

If we incentivise producers to collect their own packaging, which we are also requiring local authorities to collect, that will reduce the efficiency of kerbside collections overall and therefore increase costs for producers. It will undermine that system, which will be a cornerstone of the whole triage.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

What plans does the Minister have to sort out where the recyclable rubbish ends up? One of the big concerns is that not every local authority takes it to a place where it is 100% reused.

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a really important part of the circle and of our engagement. It is a question of ensuring that we have industry capable of taking all that material. We are working together in a pipeline, because clearly the system will not work unless that is all joined up.

To go back to my previous point, if producers all start to do their own thing and the kerbside collection is undermined, that will increase costs for the producers that are going through that system, because it will mean that the costs are spread over a lower tonnage of packaging waste collected. If we look across industry as a whole, we see that that would not be in the interests of the development of our circular economy ethos. We will publish the Government response to the consistency in collections consultation shortly. That will give more clarity to the whole issue very soon.

Through payment of disposal costs, businesses will pay for the collection and management of their packaging from households. We want to increase kerbside recycling through consistency and the EPR measures, and to do so in a way that optimises efficient and high-performing services. When the payments are calculated, that will be based on the efficient services of local authorities. We do not want that to be based on a less efficient authority, so we will follow the best models and expect local authorities to do that. We have complete agreement on that with business. I think that that particular point was raised.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. What did my hon. Friend the Minister make of the suggestion from the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) that there should be more private sector involvement in the operation of our EPR system?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend, who has made valuable contributions to this discussion and debate. I cannot stress enough that we are working closely with industry and want to continue to do so. I have had a lot of conversations about this particular issue, and it is really important that we involve business as much as we can. I cannot say more now, but that has definitely been noted, because after all, businesses are the ones with the experience and the knowledge. We need them to get on board with us.

We want to incentivise reusable and refillable packaging. The hon. Member for Llanelli outlined in some detail the example of Wiltshire Farm Foods, which made really significant strides before all these schemes came on board, thinking outside the box and doing its own recycling, and so forth. There must be even more potential, one would have thought, for it to look at reusing its packaging and encouraging reuse takeaway-style. I would be happy to meet that company. It would be interesting to explore further what we might learn from it or how it could take on the model that I am suggesting to make it work. A next phase of policy development that we are looking at is to encourage the use of reusable packaging, because that is a really important part of this.

We appreciate that these reforms affect business operations. We have been listening to the feedback and have already amended the proposals, following the consultation. We will continue to work closely on the design of the scheme and the delivery. We have run some eight-week workshops, like speed dating, and lots of useful material has come out of that. We will be doing much more.

EPR is a longer-term endeavour in the continuous improvement and reform of our collection and packaging services and we are looking at other schemes around the world. I went with a whole team from DEFRA and others to Belgium to look at their system, as they are world leaders in this and have been running their scheme for a very long time. Ours is different because we are introducing it later, when lots of businesses have had their own thoughts and ideas. We cannot just completely copy what they are doing in Belgium, because we are a slightly different example, but we certainly learned some very good lessons from going there. We will continue to engage with business and industry.

[Robin Millar]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rebecca Pow]

I will very quickly before I wind up.

[Robin Millar]

The Minister has twice mentioned that she has been over to the continent to see exemplars and learn from those who are further down this path than us, which I think is a terrific step. Has she given consideration to her point about the reuse of recycled materials? I hear concerns that the availability of that material is becoming a key issue. Larger players are consuming or using up large amounts, making it less available for smaller manufacturers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which we are discussing with industry. It is critical that we have enough material to put back into the system and that our measures on exporting and so forth all play into that space, in terms of how much goes abroad, whether that is being constructively used, and cracking down on illegally exporting waste and keeping it in this country. All those points are part of the whole circular economy issue.

We will continue to focus on delivering our EPR scheme, and the overall ethos is to protect the environment, improve management of packaging waste and transition us towards implementing the scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Rebecca Pow Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair this evening, Mr Vickers. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 23 March. The purpose of the statutory instrument is to make nine minor amendments to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 as applied to groundwater activities.

Groundwater is a critical national resource. It provides a clean and reliable source of drinking water, plays a vital role across many industry sectors and supports our ecosystems. The Government are committed to ensuring that the quality of our groundwater resources is protected. In the face of growing pressures from climate change and population growth, it is important to optimise the regulatory tools available for managing and protecting groundwater.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 are an effective tool for managing groundwater activities. However, several limitations with the way the regulations implement groundwater protections have been identified, and that has led to inconsistencies in approach in the wider environmental permitting regulations regime. Those limitations can be resolved by the nine amendments, which will support many industries by reducing regulatory burden and costs; facilitating green energy production from, for example, geothermal and ground source heat pumps; and promoting growth, and so they will accelerate permit delivery.

I stress in particular that the statutory instrument aims to provide the Environment Agency with what is really an improved hierarchy of regulatory controls for groundwater activities. It in no way reduces protection of groundwater. These amendments create the right regulatory conditions to promote and allow innovation in the wider circular economy, allowing the appropriate and safe re-use of materials where it is environmentally acceptable.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Minister will know that in former mining areas, we still have lots of former mine workings where mine water interacts with groundwater. Could she reassure us that there is no loosening of the controls here, and that stuff cannot be done to move that water around and risk having dirty water put where we do not want it? There is nothing here that changes that protection at all, is there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I stress that we are not changing the permits that are already in place and that, critically, must be in place; in fact, we are opening up the opportunity to have a better look at how the whole system works. Indeed, some things will now need to be permitted that were previously not looked at as closely as the mines, for example, so I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance.

Currently, groundwater activities can be permitted only through the use of bespoke environmental permits, which are the highest level of permits—they would relate to coal mines and so forth. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley raised a good point, and that will not change. However, in many cases it can result in unnecessary costs and, in some cases, unnecessary regulatory burden to business. The statutory instrument will give the regulators the ability to grant other types of permits, such as standard rules permits and mobile plant permits. These non-bespoke permits are significantly less costly and will reduce the administrative burden on businesses while, importantly, maintaining environmental standards. The statutory instrument will also introduce exemptions from the requirement to have an environmental permit for new cemeteries that pose a low risk of pollution to the groundwater environment. 

The public consultation that we conducted on all the measures that I am describing received 264 responses, and almost all the proposals received majority support. The only exception was the proposal on cemeteries, which received some significant opposition. I have engaged with our all-party parliamentary group for funerals and bereavement, and I met them to listen to all their views. The APPG, too, consulted widely in the industry, so following the feedback and further discussion with key stakeholders, adjustments have been made to the cemetery-specific amendments to enable greater clarity and ease of implementation.

Clarity has been added to the draft statutory instrument so that existing cemeteries will be exempt automatically from permitting, unless the regulators are made aware of proven groundwater pollution. The adjustments have been tested in targeted engagement with stakeholders. Controls will be applied to prevent groundwater pollution by currently uncontrolled pollutants such as heat and micro-organisms.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

If I understand paragraph 7.15 of the explanatory notes correctly—that is the one about exemptions for cemeteries from the requirement for an environmental permit—the draft regulations will mean that existing cemeteries do not need an environmental permit, and new cemeteries will be exempt if their risk of pollution is calculated as being low, but there will be some further explanation of that definition of low risk. Is that correct?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so clear, because that is exactly what is stated. If a cemetery is in an area where there might be some implications for the groundwater, the Environment Agency will become involved and permits might be needed. I will get some clearer detail in a minute, but with particular procedures in some burials—potentially involving certain chemicals—one might want permits to be involved. I can get more clarity on that for my closing speech, if that is all right with him.

Heat is now being added as a pollutant. The majority of closed-loop ground heat pump activities will be exempt from the requirement to have an environmental permit. That is to deal with the growth in the ground source heat pump industry. The fact is that they are closed-loop systems—the water is not going into the ground, because it is in a closed loop—so they are considered to be suitable for exemption from requirements unless they are near a protected site or ancient woodland, in which case they would need a permit, just to be super-sure that there is no potential impact from any heat on the flora.

The draft statutory instrument will also help to fix a loophole in the general binding rules for small sewage discharges, which are being exploited, resulting in harm to nearby environmental habitats and local water quality. Thus, the new rules will reduce the risk of groundwater pollution. An example of that is caravan sites, where landowners might be escaping the need for any kind of regulation because each caravan gets rid of its own sewage, instead of it all coming into one area. The measure is considered necessary and was raised in the consultation.

The existing wording of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 is unclear about the defence that applies to the breach of permit conditions. The draft statutory instrument will help to bring clarity around the liability of sewerage undertakers for breaches of permit conditions that are due to specific circumstances beyond their control. One example of such a breach is an unlawful discharge of waste water into the sewer that breaches the chemical limits of the water company’s permit. The statutory instrument clarifies all that. It does not reduce any protections; in a way, it strengthens them.

The current list of exemptions from the prohibition on direct discharges to groundwater needs to be updated to bring regulations in line with current operational practices and facilitate energy recovery and the latest green technology. The instrument updates that list. There will be a requirement for operators of onshore oil and gas facilities to apply to surrender their groundwater activity permits. They will need to satisfy the regulators that any pollution issues are remediated and that there are no ongoing risks to the groundwater environment at the point of decommissioning or that may arise in future. This measure will ensure that the environment is better protected.

The draft regulations will bring about benefits for groundwater quality, reduce unnecessary costs to businesses and help to ensure that Government resources are being used most effectively to protect and preserve groundwater quality for future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Pow]

Thank you, Mr Vickers; that gives me no time to get my answers together. I thought that perhaps our former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth, would contribute.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can I give the Minister some more time?

[Rebecca Pow]

No—I am fine, honestly.

[John McDonnell]

I have a question anyway.

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

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

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

[Ruth Jones]

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

[Rebecca Pow]

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

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

[John McDonnell]

Before I vote on these things, I do occasionally try to understand them. Paragraph 7.22 of the explanatory notes clarifies the defence of sewerage undertakers who are in breach of permit conditions. That relates to regulation 7(c), which inserts new sub-paragraph (5A) into schedule 22 to the 2016 regulations. New sub-paragraph (5A) states that a sewerage undertaker is not guilty of an offence, first, if it did not do it —understood—and, secondly, if it

“could not reasonably have been expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works.”

Understood. But sub-paragraph (5A)(b) states that the undertaker is not in breach if it

“was not bound to receive the discharge into the sewer or works or was bound to receive it there subject to conditions which were not observed”.

That seems to be a huge blanket exemption from the sewerage undertaker’s responsibility for ensuring that discharge is leaked properly and complies with any conditions attached. If the Minister wants to clarify the answer to that question in writing, I am happy for her to do so.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right that it is important to understand what we are talking about. This is very detailed. I do have some notes here, but if it suits him, I will put the answer to his question in writing, and I will share it with the shadow Minister as well, because I think it is important to clarify that. We have done so, because we have updated that particular section of the explanatory notes, but I will get back to him on that.

I think that brings me to the end of my points. I thank the shadow Minister for supporting this SI, albeit with some testy questions, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.