DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (BIODIVERSITY) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WOODLAND AND TREES OUTSIDE WOODLAND) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (WATER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (MARINE PROTECTED AREAS) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (FINE PARTICULATE MATTER) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TARGETS (RESIDUAL WASTE) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2022

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Nick Smith
Monday 23rd January 2023

(1 year, 3 months ago)

General Committees
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner
- Hansard - -

Obviously, we want crabs to flourish wherever they may be found, but I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are discussing the legislation in England.

Let me return to the Minister and ask her a simple question. Will she tell us how she plans to safeguard the health of our rivers without committing to an overall target for water quality?

Nick Smith Portrait Nick Smith
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I asked the Minister for an idea of the number of face-to-face staff who would be able to help our farmers across the country produce good-quality water, but she was not able to answer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to have an assessment from the Department of the number of people who would be needed to support our farmers across the country to prevent poor-quality run-off and ensure that we have better water for the future?

Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. The issuing of advice to farmers is very important. It is one of the welcome things that has come through the environmental land management schemes. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head: we need to know exactly how much advice will be available, to whom it will go, and whether it is likely to achieve a change in behaviour.

Last year, 2022, was a very dry year of high temperatures. Water shortages were a reality, with hosepipe bans across the country. The former Environment Agency chief says that lack of water presents an “existential” threat. Treating wastewater and delivering clean water to households is also a big emitter of carbon dioxide. A target to reduce water demand is therefore vital, but the one in the SI is framed as a relative target based on population. With a rising population, that means that overall water abstraction—the process of taking water from a natural source, often for industrial use—can continue to increase unchecked.

We cannot reduce shortages without addressing one of the key causes: over-stressed infrastructure in need of repair. The system is creaking at the seams, and plugging those leaks will require an investment of perhaps £20 billion. Does the Minister not agree that private sector investment is likely to fall without a legal target for scrutiny and accountability?

Finally, let me touch on enforcement and regulation. In the consultation, the Government promised to allow for objective scrutiny and accountability of their progress, but the statutory instrument fails to achieve that goal. The Environment Agency is unable to properly inspect the practices of water companies. Let me therefore use this opportunity to reaffirm Labour’s commitment to giving the Environment Agency the power to properly enforce the rules. We will deliver mandatory monitoring of all sewage outlets. We will introduce automatic fines for discharges, and a standing charge penalty for discharge points without monitoring in place. Water bosses who routinely and systematically break the rules will be held professionally and personally accountable, and illegal activity will be punished.

We see nothing of that strength in this SI. That is why we will be opposing it—because it falls short. It does not guarantee an improvement in the freshwater environment in England and it does nothing to hold water bosses accountable.

Cabinet Office

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Nick Smith
Thursday 20th January 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

5. When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to reform public procurement.

Nick Smith Portrait Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

7. When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to reform public procurement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Nick Smith
Thursday 13th January 2022

(2 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

5. When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to reform public procurement.

Nick Smith Portrait Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

7. When the Government plan to bring forward legislative proposals to reform public procurement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Daniel Zeichner and Nick Smith
Thursday 9th March 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner Portrait Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on transitional arrangements for the UK leaving the EU.

Nick Smith Portrait Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

17. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on transitional arrangements for the UK leaving the EU.

David Davis Portrait The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We will want to have reached agreement on our future partnership within two years of the article 50 process. Article 50 is clear—we did not write it—that it should take two years to negotiate the withdrawal, and any deal must take into account the new relationship. We recognise that a cliff edge for business or a threat to stability would be in neither side’s interest. A phased process of implementation in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new relationship is likely to be in our mutual interest, and that will be to everyone’s benefit if that is what we agree.