Draft Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

This statutory instrument is an attempt to replicate current arrangements with the EU and to enable the current statutory regime on waste to continue after Brexit day. However, we believe there are very good reasons why that regime may not be effective after Brexit day, and we are sceptical about whether this SI will be able to remedy that. It also revokes some EU legislation that the Minister tells us it is not necessary to retain, but I re-state our profound concerns about the rate at which SIs are being driven through, and the lack of available time to scrutinise them before they come to Committee. It would be very serious if any of the revocations turned out to be of regulations that were not adequately replicated elsewhere.

This is a very important matter; if waste is not properly regulated in this country there could be a significant additional contribution to our carbon footprint, and thus climate change, and also to the pollution of our seas, air and countryside. Labour is extremely concerned that without the regulatory umbrella of the EU, recycling and waste management will take a major step backwards. I am seeking cast-iron guarantees from the Minister. If she does not feel able to give us those guarantees, I am afraid we will have no option but to vote against this SI to register our unease at the situation.

The UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020 is important. It is of great public concern at a time when plastic and the lack of recycling more generally is often highlighted as causing damage to our natural world, blighting our countryside and coasts. Clearly, the lack of recycling does not of itself cause litter, but a strong social focus on recycling, particularly a regime that gives every citizen a financial incentive to recycle, as in Germany, will tend to reduce littering and pollution. Adequate recycling facilities in the UK would remove the need to export our waste, and so would bring an end to much of the outrageous pollution of our seas from materials supposedly being recycled in Malaysia and Indonesia.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the Committee why he thinks the United Kingdom is incapable of providing these policies and legal frameworks for ourselves?

[Sandy Martin]

I do not believe that the United Kingdom is incapable, which is why I am asking the Minister to give us a cast-iron assurance that these things will be put in place.

The recycling rate in Labour-run Wales is 57.7%. Wales is already meeting its target, but the rest of the UK is falling below the 50% recycling rate. The rate in England has flatlined at about 40% to 45% for the past 10 years. We all know some of the reasons for that: the lack of resources for local government and the complete lack of a joined-up national strategy. The Secretary of State has bombarded us with Bills, strategies and consultations over the past few months, so it certainly appears that the Government recognise the need for action, but the appearance of action here in Westminster does not necessarily translate into actual, practical action on the ground. The 50% target and future targets are critical to hold the Government to account and ensure that there is a materially significant driver to remove the hurdles to increased recycling. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that the progress report provided for in the SI does not in any way reduce or dilute the requirements imposed on the UK as a current member state by article 11.2 of the waste framework directive, which stipulates a minimum 50% recycling rate by 2020? Will she reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to the 50% recycling rate by 2020 target?

Under current EU legislation, it is a requirement for the UK Government to report to the European Commission on their record with regard to meeting targets. If targets are not met, the report must include the reasons for failure and the actions that the member state intends to take to meet them. Under the new rules set out in this SI, the Government will produce a progress report on whether the 50% recycling target has been met by 2022,

“in a manner which the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

So far as I can tell from this SI—I invite the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—that will be the only action required if the UK fails to meet its targets. That would drastically erode the importance of the UK’s obligation to meet the 50% target. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that, in the event that the 50% recycling target in the waste framework directive has not been met as required by 2020, the report that the Secretary of State must produce by January 2022 will include, as the directive would have required, the reasons for failure, the actions that the Government intend to take, and the date by which the target will be met?

Recent additions to EU legislation require member states to recycle staged, enhanced target percentages of municipal waste—55% by 2025, 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035. If we are to maintain our current good standing as a nation and, depending on future trade arrangements, if we are to maintain some of our trade with the EU, particularly in the field of waste management, we need to ensure non-regression with the EU. Will the Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that those enhanced targets will form part of the UK statute book, alongside the current 50% target?

If an EU member state were to be found guilty of failing to meet its targets in a directive, the EU penalty formula would be applied—in this case, a maximum fine of about €700,000 every day if we do not meet the target in 2020 and continue not to meet it for a significant period. To try to replicate that level of deterrent, we would require a strong, accountable watchdog, completely independent of Government, with the power to impose significant financial sanctions on the Government, which would have to be spent outside the immediate remit of the responsible Department if it was to have any chance of concentrating the minds of those responsible for the targets in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This SI simply states that the Secretary of State must produce a progress report in a manner that they consider appropriate. That is a policy change. We are going from a compulsory and obligatory target with strict fines to an advisory target with no consequences for targets being missed. Will the Minister give us a cast-iron guarantee that the watchdog proposed in the Government’s draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill will be set up within a reasonable timeframe and will have the power to impose actual and significant sanctions on the Government in the event of recycling targets being missed—including any missed before it came into operation?

Current EU legislation requires member states to report progress—a requirement that currently covers the entire UK—but the SI requires the Secretary of State to publish a report only on whether the UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020 has been met with respect to England. It sets no obligation for the devolved Administrations to publish such a report. Wales is well ahead of England in meeting recycling targets and there is no reason to suppose that Scotland might not be well ahead of it in the future, but, while waste and recycling policy are devolved matters, there are UK-wide issues that will affect the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ ability to continue to improve their levels of recycling. Will the Minister therefore give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that a UK-wide report is produced on the extent to which the 50% recycling target has been delivered by the 2020 deadline, as well as separate reports for each country?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member. He will recall how much work we did on trying to reinforce the linkages between Whitehall and the devolved Adminstrations and the relationships between the devolved Parliaments and this Parliament, and to create consensual frameworks around exactly the kind of thing that he is discussing. I hope that the Minister will treat his request extremely seriously.

[Sandy Martin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I am sure that if he agrees with me the Minister will be able to do so, too.

The Opposition are concerned about the potential significant weakening of the UK’s obligations to meet existing EU recycling targets. No legislation is set to be in place on exit day to hold the Government to account for their action or inaction on recycling rates and other crucial environmental targets, and the least that we can do is demand a firm guarantee from the Minister that the Government intend to abide by them.

The Minister claims that the SI simply replaces the reporting requirements in the waste framework directive with an equivalent domestic requirement. However, in effect it changes the important recycling rate targets from obligations to advisory targets that can be easily ignored. We need strong targets that the UK must stick to, and an environmental watchdog that is funded, well resourced and independent of Government, to hold the Government to account. It will need the power to impose sanctions that will deliver real compliance with those important environmental objectives.

We are still waiting for the details of the office for environmental protection, and to know whether it will have powers to issue fines equivalent to the EU powers currently in operation. It should not solely be down to organisations such as ClientEarth, in the case of air quality, to bring cases against the Government for failure to hit their own targets. Only a statutory body with independent statutory powers will do. I await the Minister’s response with interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to respond to the questions, starting with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. The Government absolutely recognise the devolution arrangement. The hon. Member for Ipswich effectively complains that reporting requirements apply only to England, and is trying to get the UK Government to make sure other Administrations prepare reports. It is not our obligation to do so.

The 50% target is not advisory; it is already in domestic legislation, and that is not changing in any way. Such targets are not imposed on the United Kingdom; we vote for them in the Council. We also voted for the adoption of the circular economy package. We said in the resources and waste strategy that we intend to bring that package into effect, but the detail of the transposition of directives has yet to be resolved, because elements are still going through certain processes.

[Sandy Martin]

The Minister is well aware that, although it is certainly the case that EU targets are derived from decisions made by all EU members working together, which is why some of us believe that the EU is a fairly democratic body, none the less once those decisions have been made, they are imposed on the member states. Imposing something on a member state is very different.

[Dr Coffey]

I do not accept that—the decisions are not imposed on the United Kingdom. We have that system of decision making. It is a collaborative process at the moment, so they are certainly not imposed; we agree to them. That is why we put them into our legislation. The 50% target is already in domestic law.

The hon. Gentleman is right to praise Wales, which is ahead of the target already. At the moment, Scotland is the lowest of the four nations, but I know that active work is being done to improve that. We have already started to see improvements in Northern Ireland. I really hope that hon. Members are aware of the current consultations on how we are considering changing the recycling system, the exchange of producer responsibility, with the packaging recovery network process, and other fiscal measures that we believe will stimulate an increase in recycling.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the office for environmental protection is now going through pre-legislative scrutiny. The Secretary of State and I gave evidence yesterday to the Environment, Food And Rural Affairs Committee. We are due to give further evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee. We await their views, which we will consider as we go through to the next steps in the creation of the new body. It is worth pointing out that only the European Court has the ability to submit fines. To date, I am not aware of any fine that has been imposed on the United Kingdom regarding an environmental matter, although I recognise that we may have been on that journey in several places regarding infraction.

There is a desire to ensure that we improve recycling. I believe that the regulations do exactly what they are supposed to. As I said, we updated part 2 using the European Communities Act 1972. The rest of the regulations simply provide that what happens today will happen the day after exit day. It is important that we have that level of regulation, recognising the issues that have been raised about the challenges on what we need to do to ensure that we still have an effective waste system. I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.

Question put.

Draft International Waste Shipments (amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The Opposition acknowledge the need for legislation to ensure that, post-Brexit, waste shipments can continue in a timely and effective manner between the UK and the European Union, but we will abstain on the regulations because of our concern about how the Government are tabling such secondary legislation with limited means of scrutiny.

The Government’s last-minute rushing through of SIs has massively constrained our ability to examine in depth their real implications. We have not had the necessary time to consult all stakeholders or to satisfy ourselves that this SI raises any problems. We do not think that the Government have allowed themselves enough time to do that either, which is worrying.

The Commons sifting Committee agreed with the Government that the SI did not require debate in Parliament, but the Lords Committee disagreed. I understand that its decision was made in response to a EU document and because it had concerns about the lack of approvals issued by the UK and EU competent authorities that authorise the shipments of waste.

At the time of the Lords decision, there had been only 61 responses to the 533 letters seeking agreement to roll over the process of waste shipments after Brexit. The Minister assures us that now only 11 approvals have not yet been agreed and that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is working with Spanish authorities to authorise the shipment of UK waste to Spain. However, that accounts for only 68,700 tonnes of waste, and there is a worrying degree of uncertainty for the exporters of that waste.

I thank the Minister for her update, but I must ask her how many businesses are waiting on these approvals. What happens if those approvals are not agreed before the UK leaves the EU on 29 March, and what would the cost be to businesses if there were no approvals? If the Spanish Government do not agree to those 11 approvals, is there a plan B in place? If so, can she tell us what it is? Given the risks involved, why have the Government not produced an impact assessment?

In the longer term, how are we going to proceed with waste policy? If, for reasons such as non-alignment between UK and EU waste legislation, we no longer have access to EU recycling facilities in future, where will that waste go? Will material that has previously been recycled at European facilities be incinerated in the UK? How can we ensure that it will not go to less suitable countries that have a dubious record in recycling waste that is registered as having been recycled?

China stopped taking UK waste about a year ago, but during the 12 months to October 2018 the UK exported 611,000 tonnes of recovered plastic packaging to other countries, such as Malaysia and Indonesia, which are both in the top 10 countries for the quantity of waste plastics polluting the oceans. The Basel convention supposedly prevents shipments of waste to countries without sound environmental management, but that has not stopped the UK shipping huge quantities of plastic to Malaysia and Indonesia, where much of it ends up in the sea. What confidence can we have in UK regulations preventing unsustainable waste exports in future? We need a comprehensive and robust strategy to reduce waste and improve UK waste and recycling infrastructure, to not only be more responsible for where our rubbish ends up but to benefit the UK economy and create green jobs.

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

On the long-term vision, does my hon. Friend agree that rather than having a vision for building the nation’s recycling infrastructure and dealing with core issues right now, the Government’s waste strategy merely talks about voluntary action and distant target deadlines?

[Sandy Martin]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is not a debate about the Government’s waste strategy, but leaving the European Union will have an impact on it. The Government need to be cognisant of the fact that without an effective waste strategy that prevents pollution and encourages recycling, leaving the European Union will exacerbate the problem.

The SI cannot guarantee anything, because it is just an administrative tool, but there is a real danger that the UK will become a cheap and less regulated alternative for EU member states to offload their waste on us. What expert advice has the Minister obtained about whether the new arrangements could result in any additional environmental impact compared with our current legislative arrangement with the European Union?

This instrument is about the status quo and ensuring that the current environmental protections on the shipping of waste remain in place on the day of Brexit. However, it is clear that when it comes to the UK’s waste and recycling strategy, the status quo is far from adequate. Plastics and other recyclable materials are piling up in the UK and are being dumped illegally on the other side of the world. Like every other SI in preparation for Brexit, this may be portrayed as simply a copy-and-paste job that amends references to the EU and replaces them with UK equivalents, but we fear that there may be real problems associated with leaving the EU that the Government have still not fully understood.

Draft Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. The Opposition understand the importance of this ozone-depleting substances and F-gas regulation statutory instrument, which seeks to ensure that the relevant legislation continues to operate effectively at the point at which the UK leaves the EU. However, we will be abstaining today, due to our concern about the limited timeframe in which the Government are scheduling this secondary legislation and the limited means of scrutiny that that offers us.

The last-minute nature of many of these SIs has made it extremely difficult for us to examine in depth the real implications they will have or to involve other organisations in that examination. In particular, the explanatory memorandum that came with this SI was clearly written at some stage during the middle of last autumn and therefore leaves all sorts of questions unanswered. The Minister attempted to answer some of them just now, but it would have been extremely helpful to have those answers in writing. If I ask her any questions that she has already answered, I hope she forgives me for not having been able to twig exactly which questions she was answering.

If the Government allow the United Kingdom to leave the EU without a deal, it is critical that regulations are in place to prevent the dangerous emission of unregulated ozone-depleting gases and F-gases. If the UK regulatory framework turns out not to be as effective as it could have been, that will be one more extremely good reason for us not to leave without a deal.

Only a few decades ago, we were close to destroying our planet by emitting ozone-depleting substances, creating holes in the ozone layer and allowing harmful ultraviolet light to pass through the earth’s atmosphere, damaging animals, plants and, of course, human beings. We are still seeing a huge increase in the number of skin cancers around the world as a result. However, the Montreal protocol in 1987 was spectacularly successful. It is a very good example of how international agreements can make a real difference to the way people behave, and the ozone layer is now showing signs of gradual recovery.

As the UK continues to phase out the use of ozone-depleting substances, we cannot allow the success of the Montreal protocol and our international commitments to be put at risk. Will the Minister therefore give me an absolute assurance that the regulatory regime will not fail to keep the use of ozone-depleting substances to an absolute minimum, and that the UK will continue to abide by its international treaty obligations, as stated in the 1987 Montreal protocol?

The maximum limit values for the use and emission of certain ODSs have been set at 12.4% of EU values, on the basis that when the EU regulation was made in 2009, the population of the UK was 12.4% of the population of the EU. What scientific advice has the Minister received about whether that figure is justifiable? It strikes me as an arbitrary figure that is based on populations 10 years ago. I suggest that changes in population, in industrial practices or in other regulatory regimes may mean that the use and emission of ODSs is higher in Britain than in other European Union countries. Surely, Britain is more advanced in many ways than an awful lot of other European Union countries. The Minister said—again, forgive me if I misinterpreted her—that her Department’s examination of companies using F-gases in Britain showed that 11.2% would be a more sensible limit. What is the basis of the 12.4% limit? Is it purely arbitrary and based on population?

Man-made fluorinated gases are less harmful to the ozone layer but very harmful in respect of climate change, so it is really important that we restrict their use. Given that we have fewer than 12 years to act to limit the catastrophe of climate change, we really need to ensure that emissions of those very powerful greenhouse gases are kept to an absolute minimum.

The Committee on Climate Change stated recently that policies had failed to produce the expected reduction in emissions. The 27% reduction in F-gases we should have achieved actually turned out to be a 3% rise. Does the Minister agree that that is not a particularly good marker for the ability of the UK regulatory regime to reduce F-gases in the future? What more does she believe the Government need to do to ensure that emissions of F-gases do not continue to increase?

Leaving the European Union without a deal would leave an enormous governance gap in climate change laws after our exit. Although the Committee on Climate Change monitors, reports and advises, it will not be given the power to enforce those laws, and it is not clear what will happen in the gap before the proposed new office for environmental protection is set up. I would be most obliged if the Minister told us what will happen in that gap.

The explanatory memorandum says the Secretary of State will publish details of the mechanism for allocating quotas and the format for companies to report on the use of ODSs and F-gases through an IT system that will be “completed in early 2019.” How early in 2019 will that be? Is it ready now? Will it be ready by 29 March? Will it overrun, as IT systems have in the past?

The explanatory memorandum states:

“The Secretary of State will have a power to increase each company’s HFC quota”

in the event that it becomes apparent that we should have a higher quota. I am not sure whether the Minister has adequately addressed that point. It occurs to me that allowing for such an increase could lead to companies that would benefit financially from a slightly higher quota claiming the maximum possible level of quota. How do the Government intend to prevent that?

The explanatory memorandum suggests the Government still do not know how much HFC is being used in the United Kingdom. I am not quite clear why they do not know and why, given that this was likely to be a problem, it has not already been worked out. How can we be sure that the regulations will only allow the power to use HFCs to be used within the limits as set down?

We are told that F-gas training certificates that have been issued in the European Union will be valid in Britain, but will certificates issued in the United Kingdom be valid in the EU? Are any certificates issued in the United Kingdom? Do we train any of these technicians ourselves? Do we have any intention of training any such technicians, or will we continue to rely on the EU for all our training and all our technicians?

It is clear that the explanatory memorandum was written in the autumn of last year. It would be much easier to examine the SI and hold the Government to account if we knew the up-to-date answers to the questions that were asked in the autumn of last year, when the explanatory memorandum was written.

The Environment Agency is being used to deal with charges to businesses, but we do not know when those charges will be ready to proceed. Has the guidance been published? Will the charges be ready to be put in place on 29 March? How will the system be financed during the period before the charges come into operation, if they are not ready to come into operation on 29 March?

There are so many unknowns with these regulations, and I believe that a lot of that is due to this Government being ill-prepared for a no-deal Brexit. It is another example of how leaving the European Union will create more, not fewer, regulatory problems for the United Kingdom. Some of the regulatory problems will be visited on the businesses that are trying to operate under this scheme. Legislation is being rushed through without substantial time for scrutiny. I am deeply appalled by the difficulty of holding the Government to account on these draft regulations, the provisions of which, if they were to go wrong, could prove a real danger to the health and happiness of the people of this country.

Draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment Etc.) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 General Committees

[George Eustice]

These are two of a number of affirmative statutory instruments to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, as provided for by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They ensure that pesticide regulations remain operable after 29 March when we leave the European Union.

Plant protection products, commonly called pesticides, are currently regulated by means of EU regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, and associated regulation 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. Those two regulatory regimes are closely related and currently rely on centralised EU processes and mechanisms, although much of the business of the regimes is already conducted at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, such as those undertaken by our Health and Safety Executive.

In future, those evaluations will inform a national decision rather than informing UK input to an EU decision. That means that much of the infrastructure and expertise we need is already in place in the UK, which will provide a good degree of continuity when we implement the UK-wide regime. The Chemicals Regulation Directorate, which sits within the HSE, already has around 150 staff working on pesticides, which is a considerable resource. We are known as probably the most advanced and developed country in Europe in terms of technical expertise.

Under the current system, a chemicals company that seeks an authorisation for a new active substance will go to a member state to have its technical information and scientific data evaluated. Those technical evaluations are currently conducted in the UK by the Chemicals Regulation Directorate. UK authorities already do around 30% of all the assessments of new products that take place in the European Union—we are known to be very efficient at doing that work and chemicals companies often choose to come to the UK.

The CRD then produces a draft assessment report, which contains a technical evaluation, looking at issues such as eco-toxicity, human health impacts, the fate of the chemicals in the environment and their efficacy. That draft assessment report is then submitted to the European Food Safety Authority which, in some cases but not all, runs a simple peer review process using a committee of experts. Following that process, EFSA reaches a final conclusion and makes a recommendation to the Commission. That recommendation is ultimately approved as a decision by one of the European Union’s standing committees—in this case the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed.

In future, we will still run all that information. Instead of having an EU peer review process, we will use the UK Expert Committee on Pesticides, and rather than the EU running a public consultation, there will be a requirement on the HSE to run the public consultation.

The regulations are designed to achieve a number of things. First, all decision-making functions and powers are repatriated from the EU to national level in the way that I have explained. That includes approval of all active substances and a number of related functions, such as the precise nature and format of the documents required and some of the renewals processes that are currently provided for in EU law.

Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national decisions by listing approved active substances on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database. This replaces the current EU mechanism for giving effect to decisions through a large volume of tertiary legislation that establishes the register.

Thirdly, other EU tertiary legislative powers will be repatriated. These are the powers to set out the principles and decisions and the thresholds and end points that should inform decisions. The powers will be exercised in future through statutory instruments rather than through tertiary legislation from the EU. A few very minor things, such as the precise format of dossiers and of assessment reports, can be dealt with administratively.

As I have explained, EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context. Examples are consideration of specific technical issues specified in the regulations, public consultation on active substance applications, provision for consultation with independent specialists where appropriate, and final decision making.

National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place. We already have advisory committees of experts and academics—the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food. They are preparing to meet the challenge of any additional advice that they will need to give. They are already looking at the forward pipeline of potential renewals and new product applications that they would need to consider, and reviewing whether they have the right skills balance in their existing committee structures and seeking to recruit additional ones where they deem that necessary.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Under the current regime, the EU produces in the order of 50 additional regulations per year. Once the powers have been repatriated to this country, will there be very close alignment of this country with the new regulations being produced in the EU? If not, how will we be able to maintain our ability to trade with the EU given our need to demonstrate that our pesticide standards are at least as good as the EU’s?

[George Eustice]

It is obviously open to us as an independent country to choose independently to adopt processes and have things similar to those in the EU if we want to. There is nothing to prevent us from doing that, but I believe that, when it comes to pesticides, it is very important to base our decisions on the correct scientific and technical interpretation of the risk to the environment and to health. We have instances where European countries have sometimes done the calculations wrong and authorised products that they should not have authorised. We would not want to follow them if they had made errors in their analysis. The important thing is that, as I have said, the CRD has the best scientific experts on pesticides in the EU definitely and possibly in the world. It is very important that we rely on that to protect the rigour of the process and do not simply slavishly follow decisions that come from elsewhere.

The EU regime’s power to establish a rolling active substance renewals programme will be replaced with a power to establish a national renewals programme to ensure that we are able to take renewal decisions as necessary from day one of exit.

Some elements of the current regime that rely on EU membership will no longer be able to operate. For example, the mutual recognition provisions for fast-tracking product approvals between member states in the same zone will no longer be relevant. However, as I said earlier, the UK will be able to take account of relevant assessments by other countries’ regulators in our own national assessments. Similarly, parallel trade permits for products rely on the sharing of information between member states and will no longer be relevant. Current parallel trade permits at the point of exit will remain valid for a transitional period of two years after exit or until the extant expiry day—whichever comes sooner. Transitional measures have been put in place, ensuring that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, we have measures to ensure that all current approvals and authorisations remain valid after the point of exit and measures to make provision for the handling of applications in train at the point of exit.

We are also taking forward a separate instrument, as I mentioned at the start, that was laid on 12 February. The Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 make some further minor changes relating to plant protection products and maximum residue levels. Those regulations are being made under the negative procedure. It is essentially a wash-up revocation and miscellaneous amendments SI to deal with changes that have come late in the day from the European Union. As Members will understand, there is a constant torrent of regulation in this space, so it is important that we make any necessary updates at the end of the process.

Those separate regulations also reinstate the original wording of article 46 of regulation 1107/2009 in place of the replacement article 46, which was to be substituted by regulation 5(24) of the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which we are debating. That reinstatement is because the correction of article 46 made by the original drafting inadvertently altered the grace periods permitted under the article as it operates currently. In the new regulation, we have reverted to the original text.

The main changes in the Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are very similar to those in the first instrument. First, the regulations repatriate all decision-making functions and powers, such as the setting of maximum residue levels, from the EU to the national level. Secondly, a mechanism is established to give effect to national maximum residue limit decisions by listing them on a new statutory register in the form of a publicly available online database.

EU processes set out in the regulations are replaced with new national processes. The functions are retained where they remain relevant in a national context, such as the valuation functions specified in the regulations. National arrangements for independent scientific advice and assurance are in place with our two highly respected expert committees. The requirement for reviews of EU maximum residue levels to ensure that they are set appropriately has been replaced by a provision for reviews at the national level. That has been necessary to ensure that it is practical and realistic for the UK to deliver acting alone. More realistic timelines to undertake reviews in a national context have therefore been set. They better match the real time that this work takes in practice in the EU at the moment.

The power to establish an EU residue monitoring programme has been replaced by an equivalent national power to put in place a national monitoring programme. The current EU programme looks three years ahead, so the UK’s obligations under the programme for the next three years are retained. That will ensure that the same standards of protection are maintained after exit. Transitional measures have been put in place to ensure that changeover to the national regime is smooth. For example, all MRLs in place at the point of exit will be carried over.

I make one final point clear to the Committee. There is a constant flow of EU tertiary regulations, typically with several each month giving effect to decisions on active substances and maximum residue levels. Two minor transitional provisions in the regulation on maximum residue levels, which were laid before Christmas and relate to regulation 396/2005, and which convert EU MRLs into our new statutory register, have already become redundant due to amendments made to that regulation by the EU in January. As I mentioned earlier, last week we introduced the draft Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Among other amendments, it will revoke the two transitional provisions that have been overtaken by events in the EU. Both SIs will be made together once the draft instrument laid last week has passed through the necessary parliamentary processes, which will ensure that our regulations link correctly to retained EU law as it is on exit day.

I want to make one final point. I appreciate that the SIs are very lengthy—they are longer than many of the other exit SIs. Hon. Members will note that there are large schedules at the back of the regulations that contain a long list of revocations of EU regulations that we no longer need, since those pieces of tertiary legislation were essentially the vehicle that delivered a message that will be recorded on our statutory register in the future. The vehicle itself is no longer needed and is redundant, which is why there are so many revocations at the back of these statutory instruments.

I hope I have explained the process to hon. Members and reassure them that we have a very high degree of technical expertise. Although we operate under an EU regime, in practice most of the technical work is done by our national authorities, which are well equipped to continue to do this task after we leave the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

It is very much the case that I would be open to saying that, as part of any future partnership, we should still have wider European technical working groups, so that the European Union can continue to benefit from British expertise but, at the moment, we are obviously not at the point of being able to advance discussions at that level of detail—as things stand, we are struggling to get a withdrawal agreement agreed by both sides at all.

[Sandy Martin]

Is there not a danger, Minister, that the people with the expertise will find that there is a more ready market for their expertise in the rest of the European Union, and that they will take their expertise back to the European Union rather than remaining in this country?

[George Eustice]

I do not think so because we will still need to comply with the regulations in the UK. The opportunities offered by Brexit to all DEFRA agencies add up to an exciting time. Rather than slavishly following EU law as we have had to do for decades, we have the opportunity to think through from first principles what good policy looks like, and to shape it independently.

Let me give hon. Members a sense of the scale of the renewal programme. Each year, usually around seven new active substances come on to the market, so the workload involved in assessing those is relatively modest, but dozens of active substances need to be reviewed every year. As the shadow Minister pointed out, currently under EU law the maximum residue limits are supposed to be reviewed within a 12-month period, which never happens. The European Union routinely breaks its own rules and typically takes up to three years to do that job.

We have to ask ourselves an important question. Is it better to rush things through in a hurry to hit some 12-month deadline, and to do things in a rather slipshod fashion, or is it better to take the time it takes to do the job thoroughly so that we have an absolutely proper understanding of any changes in the science on MRLs, and ensure that we have available all the necessary data on which to base a decision, and then be realistic about that timescale? The position we have taken, having discussed that with the HSE, is, “If you are going to do the job, do it properly; and if you are going to do it properly, be realistic about the time it takes to gather the raw data.” The HSE believes that a three-year window makes more sense than 12 months, and that in practice the EU works to that deadline anyway regardless of its own rules. We think it is better to have rules that we can abide by and that make sense than to have rules, as the EU does, that are routinely broken.

On peer review of the scientific advice, as I pointed out, we have the Expert Committee on Pesticides. Just as the EU currently puts together a peer review panel to look at the technical assessments done by the CRD, we envisage that the Expert Committee on Pesticides and the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food will be able to carry out a peer review process on the work done by our CRD officials.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of accountability. It is important to recognise that, under the current system, there really is no political accountability. As I said, the blizzard of tertiary regulations that come from the European Union go to a standing committee, where things are decided. After that, there is no parliamentary process in the European Parliament. As far as our Parliament is concerned, those regulations do not even warrant an explanatory memorandum to tell hon. Members what has been done. This is the simplest of all delegated Acts, of which there is zero political scrutiny at present.

In the future, there will be a maintained register, a national consultation run by the HSE and a peer review process run by the ECP, with its minutes published in the same way they are now for product authorisations. We will have a very open and transparent process that people with technical expertise will be able to probe and challenge, and people who seek to understand why a particular product is on the statutory register will readily be able to find the information they require.

In conclusion, I believe we have the expertise in place to run both regimes effectively. We have also taken on a scoping exercise to recruit additional staff and provide additional resources to the CRD. We have the expertise. The statutory instruments will ensure that we have an operable set of regulations that change nothing and bring across the EU regime. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Resolved,

That the Committee had considered the draft Pesticides (Maximum Residue Levels) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(George Eustice.)

Oral Answers to Questions

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

All the geographical indications that Scotland’s outstanding food producers and other producers enjoy will be protected in the future. The real danger to Scotland’s food producers is a Scottish Government who are not prepared, I am afraid, to use the Agriculture Bill that is currently before the House to provide our outstanding food producers with the legislative framework that they need. In that respect, I am afraid that the Scottish Government are being negligent, and not for the first time.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

The Labour Administration in Wales have instituted household food waste collections across the nation. The anaerobic digestion industry in Wales is flourishing because it guarantees regular feedstock, and the amount of food wasted in the first place in Welsh households has reduced because people are thinking about what they do with their food. Meanwhile, in England, we get yet another consultation to add to the impressive mountain of strategies and consultations produced by the Department. Will the consultation lead to comprehensive doorstep food waste collections in England, will the Secretary of State’s Department seek the funding needed to enable local authorities to do the collections, and why will it take England four more years to do something that is already being done in Wales?

[Michael Gove]

Yes, yes, and I yield to no one in my admiration for Wales.

Exiting the European Union (Aquaculture)

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

I put on record the Opposition’s general concern about how the Government are scheduling secondary legislation and the limited means of scrutiny it offers. Given the serious dangers that would accrue if we get any of these statutory instruments wrong, it is regrettable that, nearly two years after invoking article 50, we are now having to rush everything through in the last few days. Neither Opposition parties nor other stakeholders can have any confidence about when each statutory instrument will be debated. Even when they have been scheduled, we sometimes do not know from hour to hour.

The explanatory memorandum states:

“Without this instrument… This may prevent trade between Northern Ireland and the EU and Third Countries after the UK leaves the EU.”

It also states:

“If this legislation is not progressed then this would result in an incomplete statute book on Day 1 of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”

The Opposition will support these regulations today, but I would be grateful if the Minister addressed our questions about the process, about what replaces EU procedures and, specifically, about the replacement for Council directive 2006/88.

Some stakeholders were not able to comment on this statutory instrument because they needed to prioritise many other much larger, more contentious pieces of secondary legislation, such as the Floods and Water (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Fisheries (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, both of which we opposed recently. We run the risk of exposing ourselves to unintended consequences if we continue to pass rushed legislation that has not had external scrutiny.

We have, at most, 90 minutes to consider this statutory instrument, and there is no real chance for amendments. There has been no time for impact assessment and only very limited consultation. Can the Minister be absolutely certain that no mistakes have been made, such as the blunder on the revocation of some of the powers of the inshore fisheries conservation officers as part of the Government’s so-called red tape challenge?

The explanatory memorandum states that this statutory instrument has

“no, or no significant, impact”.

Can the Minister tell us how significant an impact would have to be before it is reckoned to be significant?

One consequence of leaving the EU will be the potential loss of pan-European scientific expertise. We currently have access to Europe-wide research and analysis to shape our decisions. What steps are being taken to ensure that the scientific advice will be of the same technical and authoritative standard after these regulations are transposed? What additional funding will be allocated to Northern Ireland research to plug this gap? How will we continue to tap into EU scientific expertise, and what negotiations are taking place on continued participation in the EU’s intelligence-sharing networks?

Although we do not doubt our scientific community’s expertise on aquatic animal health and plant life, unless we adhere doggedly to European Union standards, over which we will no longer have any control, we will be placing an extra workload on our scientific advisers, which they may not have the resources to fulfil.

The Minister mentioned the changes to directive 2006/88 but, for the avoidance of doubt, what will replace the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health in Northern Ireland? Given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting, and probably will not be sitting after 29 March, what elected body will take on the responsibilities of the European Parliament in this matter, as per the procedure referred to in article 62(2) of the directive?

The explanatory memorandum states:

“Whilst the UK will be under no legal obligation to adhere to EU rules for aquatic animal health following EU exit, failure to do so could result in the UK being unable to trade in aquaculture…products with EU Member States and third countries.”

The UK exports a very large proportion of fish and shellfish, so it seems important that there should be a similarly rigorous system for establishing disease-free zones—one that mirrors the current EU process—otherwise there would be a very real likelihood that the EU would refuse to take Northern Ireland’s produce in future. What plans does the Minister have to mirror the current level of scrutiny for declaring disease-free zones?

This statutory instrument changes the Northern Irish law that implements directive 2006/88, and it is designed to preserve the existing level of environmental protection by maintaining the current approach to aquatic animal health and the management of aquaculture. The Minister mentioned regulation 2016/249, which will apply from 2021, and I fail to understand some of the links in this statutory instrument—I apologise for that, but I could not find anyone who does understand them—so will he explain what his Department will do?

What are the Minister’s plans to introduce UK legislation to implement the commitments provided for in the new EU animal health strategy? What assessment has the Department made of the influence of climate change on the emergence of new diseases, the prevalence of existing diseases and the geographic distribution of disease agents and vectors, as mentioned in the EU animal health strategy 2007 to 2013? If the Department has not undertaken any such assessment, and has no plans to do so, does it not mean that we will need to continue to rely on the EU to do this work for us and that we will have to adhere to whatever further directives the EU comes up with?

We will support these regulations because we need to address the deficiencies in domestic legislation that will arise from Brexit. Northern Irish law must be able to operate after the UK leaves the EU, and it must not leave Northern Ireland unable to trade with European Union countries including, of course, the Republic. We must be careful there are no unintended consequences that would risk the health of aquatic animals or that would fail to facilitate trade, so I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the points I have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that confirmation. There was indeed consultation, but it was led by DAERA. It is important to recognise that we are doing this on DAERA’s behalf and at its request. DAERA has co-operated and consulted widely with stakeholders in Northern Ireland, and I understand that the regulations have their support. In conclusion—

[Sandy Martin]

The Minister has not fully answered my question about the way in which directive 2006/88 is being replaced by regulation 2016/249. He mentioned something about an automatic carry-over, but I do not really understand how that works. The statutory instrument says:

“After regulation 21(6), insert—

‘(7) For the purposes of paragraph (1), regulations 19(3)(c) and 21(1) and paragraphs (1)(c)(iii) and 4(d) of Schedule 1A, Part A of Annex 3 to Directive 2006/88’”

and so on. It is almost impossible for anybody to work out what is actually happening. Will the Minister describe how we are going to take on regulation 2016 rather than directive 2006, as a result of this statutory instrument?

[George Eustice]

The point that hon. Gentleman describes in some detail is a point that I explained in my opening speech when I talked about cross-references. If the retained EU law retained a reference to an EU directive, that would no longer be operable, because EU directives would no longer apply in the UK. The only way to make such provisions operable is to have a reference point in UK law. The 2006 regulations will become retained EU law on a UK legal basis. All we are saying is that we will change references to the original directive that gave rise to the regulation and make them references contained within the regulations themselves, so that they will remain operable. It is quite complicated, but essentially it boils down to this: EU directives will cease to have effect in the UK after we leave, but retained EU law will continue to have effect, so if there are provisions in directives that we wish to retain, we must bring them over in the retained EU law. In this case, we do that with the regulation concerned.

We have explored some of the key areas of this statutory instrument. I hope I have been able to reassure Members not only that this instrument is essential to ensure that we have an operable rulebook in this area on day one of exit, but that we are not creating any policy changes or new policy through this statutory instrument. We are simply ensuring that the arrangements that pertain today can continue. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Draft Environment and Wildlife (Legislative Functions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. Once again, we are discussing a statutory instrument that tries to make provision for a workable regulatory framework after Brexit in the event of our crashing out without a deal. Each time, Labour Members have spelled out our objections to the Government’s approach to secondary legislation, but I make no apology for doing so again because the volume of EU exit secondary legislation undermines accountability and proper scrutiny.

The Government claim that no policy decisions are being taken, but establishing a regulatory framework necessarily involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity. The potential cumulative impact of all this secondary legislation will be immense, especially in some sectors. Because of the limited accountability that it allows, secondary legislation ought to be used only for technical, non-partisan, uncontroversial changes. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious legislation without the opportunity for proper in-depth scrutiny. In that light, the Opposition put on record our deep concern that the processes regarding the draft regulations are not as accessible and transparent as they should be.

The draft regulations need to be seen in the context of the withdrawal agreement and the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill. The draft Bill is not capable of maintaining current EU protections because it does not create an effective body that can make judgments binding on public bodies or Departments, or impose meaningful sanctions. The public can have no confidence in the Government’s proposed environmental watchdog if it is appointed by and reports to DEFRA. In any case, there will be an environmental governance gap from leaving the EU until the date when the proposed watchdog starts to function, even if the proposed Bill is not delayed.

It is essential not to allow Brexit to be used as an excuse to reduce or weaken our environmental protections. If we are to keep in step with any environmental improvements, the Government must ensure that the UK commits to non-regression on environmental standards with the EU, and they must give that commitment legal clout in the environment Bill.

The explanatory memorandum to the draft regulations states:

“This instrument does not make changes to substantive policy content.”

It will, however, allow UK authorities, particularly the Secretary of State, to make changes that could have a significant environmental impact. The powers of the EU Commission under the persistent organic pollutants regulation will be transferred to the Secretary of State, who will be empowered to amend the draft regulations by statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. There is nothing in the draft regulations to prevent the present Secretary of State or any subsequent incumbent from watering down the regulation of POPs. If they did so, the negative procedure would give Parliament precious little control over their decision.

The aim of the European Parliament in passing the POPs regulation was to phase out their use as soon as possible or restrict their production and use, minimise POP releases and establish provisions regarding POP waste. The Commission currently has the power to amend POP waste concentration limits and ban or restrict their use in accordance with international agreements, but where is the provision in this SI to ensure that the Secretary of State will only tighten the regulation, or that he will do so in step with other countries? The devolved nations will have their own arrangements, which may afford more democratic control, but in England, Parliament is not taking back control of the regulation; it is passing it to the Secretary of State.

The European pollutant release and transfer register is a publicly accessible electronic database that implements a protocol of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe to facilitate public participation in environmental decision making, as well as contributing to the prevention and reduction of environmental pollution. But where is the breadth and depth of expertise available throughout Europe—let alone the resources—to inform a British version of the register? How can we possibly do anything other than take our cue from Europe on these matters, without any longer having the power to influence them? Surely the same is true of the Nagoya protocol. The Commission has the power and duty to establish and monitor the use of a register of genetic resources collections. Transferring them to the Secretary of State will take away the valuable shared knowledge and practice that we currently enjoy.

Again, with the shipment of waste regulation, the Commission has the power to establish the technical and organisational requirements for the practical implementation of electronic data interchange; to establish procedures governing the export of wastes; to maintain a correlation table to support enforcement; and to amend to reflect international agreements and changes in other EU legislation. Those functions are to be transferred to the Secretary of State, but what possible sense does it make to replicate all that activity at a national level? How much additional cost will be involved? How will the UK keep in step with any changes in EU legislation? If we do not, how will we be able to maintain our shipments of waste to EU countries for treatment? It is all very well for the Secretary of State to talk about developing our own recycling facilities, but we cannot do that for all our waste by December 2020, let alone by 29 March.

In the regulations regarding wildlife and trade, the powers to amend, for example, to add a country to the list of approved countries from which we will be allowed to import animal pelts, will transfer to the Secretary of State. However, whether he or any subsequent Secretary of State decides to stiffen or relax such regulations will be a matter for further regulation and not easily challengeable by this Parliament or anyone else.

[Kerry McCarthy]

That was going to be my question to the Minister. There is keen public interest in ensuring that we do not promote the fur trade in any way, shape or form. It is one thing to say that discussion at the European level does not have direct democratic oversight, but it is a big discussion, involving lots of countries and with a big political debate around it; if we are talking about a Committee such as this one, or perhaps the Secretary of State or an official exercising functions in an office somewhere in Whitehall, I worry that the policy agenda will move on without our realising that something we would not have accepted is happening.

[Sandy Martin]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. We would much prefer provision in every single regulation to make it clear that the Secretary of State cannot relax or move backwards on any current EU regulations under a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. That is the major flaw of a large number of such instruments. With most of the transferred powers, the functions can be exercised by the Secretary of State without a requirement to obtain expert or technical input or the need for consultation with those likely to be affected. That is a recurring theme.

Despite the reassurances of the Secretary of State— I mean, of the Minister—sorry, an instant promotion there.

[Dr Coffey]

In my dreams!

[Sandy Martin]

Despite the reassurances of the Minister, the draft regulations do not contain a requirement for future changes to be agreed with the devolved Administrations. It is hard to see how the regulations will operate effectively.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Austin. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he prefers any strengthening or reduction of environmental matters to be done remotely from the UK in the corridors of Brussels by a Commission of people whose names he does not even know and over whom we have little influence? The UK has almost no decision-making powers. To have them domestically, open and transparent to all, is surely a way forwards in strengthening or changing legislation in accordance with what the UK wants, rather than the rather remote practice now. I find it surprising that he denigrates domestic Ministers but seems to praise greatly those he does not even know the names of. Is that a correct summary?

[Sandy Martin]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention goes to the very heart of whether it is sensible for this country to be a member of the European Union. I could answer him in the course of a two-hour speech, but I will limit myself to the basic point that most of the provisions in the draft regulations, if not all, cover things that can only be done effectively if all countries agree to do them together. That is the whole point of the European Union: it is a way to ensure that all European countries agree to do things together. What will most likely happen is that we will continue to have to follow the same sorts of regulations that the European Union follows; the only difference will be that we have no say over what they are.

Despite all that, however, the amendments proposed in the draft statutory instrument do not alter the operation of existing EU regulations, so we do not intend to oppose them.

Draft Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 General Committees

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. We are already in contravention of our international obligations and have been since 2016. We have had since 1999 to implement this provision, so I am not quite sure why there is a sense of urgency to do it now.

Badgers, otters and pine martens are already protected under our pre-existing UK regulations and there are not yet sufficient beavers in the wild for them to be affected. Basically, the only species that will be materially affected by this statutory instrument is the stoat. It is stoats for whom the trapping regulations are being delayed by a further—and, I argue, unnecessary—year. Unless we introduce regulations for stoats at the earliest opportunity, I cannot see the point in passing the statutory instrument. Even if we pass it, we will still be in contravention of our international obligations until the new traps are in place and the new regulations are enforced on stoat trapping.

I cannot really understand what Government Members have against stoats; the date of 1 April 2019 for the new compliant traps should be perfectly achievable. I cannot see the point of passing this statutory instrument and continuing to allow stoats to be trapped in inhumane traps.

Ivory Bill

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

Before closing, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. I also thank my noble Friend Lord Gardiner for the work he did in the other place. I want to put on record our thanks to the many officials who worked on the Bill, and to the Opposition, who were very constructive in Committee and in taking it to this stage. I hope that I have explained to the House the effect of the Government amendments tabled in the other place. I have not referred to each of the 78 amendments individually as the majority are minor and consequential, but I hope that this House will agree with the other place that amendment 1 and amendments 2 to 78 be made.

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Both the Asian and the African elephant are threatened with extinction. Just over 350,000 African elephants were counted in 2016, but that is over 100,000 fewer than in 2006. There is no reason to suppose that the number of elephants is not continuing to decline. The decline is almost certainly due to poaching for ivory. No species can continue to lose numbers at that rate without eventually becoming extinct. Unless there is a step-change in the rate at which African elephants are being poached, there will not be any African elephants in the wild in 30 years or so. We cannot possibly stand by and see such an iconic creature become extinct.

CITES estimates that 40 tonnes of ivory were illegally traded in 2016, which is the highest ever recorded. If the trade continues, the poaching will continue. The UK needs to be at the forefront of measures to stop this trade, to prevent the illegal trade that comes through markets in the UK, to enable other countries to close loopholes that traders linked to this country can exploit, and to provide an example to others.

Despite the existing laws governing the ivory trade, the UK is still a major exporter of ivory products. So long as it is legal to trade in pre-1947 ivory without a permit, and to trade in post-1947 ivory with a permit, it becomes far easier for illegal traders to disguise their fresh ivory as antique. Thirty-one per cent. of the total EU exports of ivory items between 2005 and 2014 came from the United Kingdom, and we know that there is a substantial illegal trade, because seizures have continued, and indeed increased, between 2010 and 2014. All those facts led to the consultation that preceded the Bill, and the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) and the Minister made moral and consensual judgments in allowing and encouraging the evolution of the Bill.

The fundamental problem with the pre-existing legislation on the trade in ivory is that it gives far too wide an exemption for there to be any chance that the trade will come to an end. If, as is intended, the trade in fresh ivory is to cease completely, the expectation that there will be any legal supply of ivory also needs to cease. We need to close down the demand for ivory by rendering the whole trade morally, socially and legally unacceptable. In these circumstances, it is understandable that there are some who find any exemptions unacceptable. The Labour party would tend to support the narrowest possible range of exemptions, and during the passage of the Bill, several attempts have been made to reduce the scope of exemptions. However, during the Bill’s passage through the Lords, all the possible loosening or tightening of these exemptions has been debated, and it would be unhelpful to try to unpick any criteria now.

The Lords amendments that would make the operation of the Bill more effective are most crucial to achieving the closing down of the ivory trade, and we are pleased to see that these amendments are being proposed by the Government. It is entirely right that the details of the operation of the Bill should be laid down in regulations. It is sensible to limit the powers given to accredited civilian officers, and we wholeheartedly support the amendments that the Government have accepted. When there is an appeal against the refusal or revocation of an exemption certificate, it is sensible and effective for the appeal body to be the first-tier tribunal and for that to be on the face of the Bill. I put on record my party’s gratitude to all the Members of the upper House who have helped to steer this Bill through, and in particular, to Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

One issue, however, was raised repeatedly before and during the passage of the Bill: other animal sources of ivory. For the purposes of the Bill, ivory is defined as being from elephants. There is a very real danger that the number of other animals killed for their ivory will increase to try to maintain a supply. This particularly relates to other animals in the CITES schedule of endangered wildlife: walruses, narwhals, hippopotamuses, orcas and sperm whales. We would argue that whether or not there is a consequential increase in the killing of these species, it is wrong and damaging to their chances of survival for trade in the ivory derived from these creatures to continue.

We all want the maximum protection for elephants to commence as soon as possible, so it would be unhelpful to make any attempt to disrupt the Bill’s progress now. However, the opportunity to extend the definition of ivory, and hence the range of species protected by the Bill, rests with the Secretary of State through the making of regulations under the affirmative procedure. We urge him to take that opportunity as soon as possible to cover all the relevant animals in the CITES schedule, as well as others, such as warthogs. Unicorns are apparently very popular at the moment, although, of course, they do not exist. What a terrible shame it would be if, because of our inaction, narwhals, whose horns quite possibly prompted the invention of the unicorn myth, were themselves to become non-existent.

All those who want to live in a world that possesses a rich variety of living animals will welcome the passage of the Bill. By passing it, this Parliament will be making a powerful statement that will carry weight throughout the world, but for that weight to have maximum impact, the Government must use all the instruments and influence at their disposal to persuade other countries to take a similarly strong stance, so that we can stamp out the international ivory trade for good.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) on Second Reading. We must send a clear message at home and internationally that the only ivory we will value is that on a live elephant in the wild. I would like to see a world in which all those attributes that make our diverse species so varied and special—turtles’ shells, tigers’ stripes, ostrich feathers, butterflies’ wings—are appreciated in their proper place, as part of the living creature, and not by killing the animal and cutting off part of its body. We are taking an important step forward here today. Let us not stop with elephants.

Palm Oil

Sandy Martin Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Westminster Hall

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on his excellent speech. I agreed with much that was said by the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I welcome the debate engendered by this e-petition, and congratulate its proposers and everyone who signed it.

We have heard plenty of evidence that the amount of palm oil being produced is increasing, the amount of land used for its production is increasing, the amount of deforestation taking place in order to make that land available is increasing, and the environmental, biodiversity and health effects of that deforestation are increasing. If we care about having an area of rainforest the size of a football pitch cleared every 25 seconds in Indonesia alone; if we are at all troubled by the race to extinction of the orangutan and a whole host of other creatures, some of which are probably yet to be identified; if we are sickened by the bullying, intimidation and violence that are driving inhabitants off their land, and poisoning their water and their air, we must first ask ourselves what we can do differently.

Whatever regimes and arrangements are currently in place to attempt to ensure that palm oil comes only from sustainable sources, and whatever the various reports from various bodies might say, the evidence is there in plain sight that the depredation on the world’s rainforests continues. We can all be delighted that in 2012, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pledged to work towards 100% UK sourcing of credibly certified, sustainable palm oil by the end of 2015. However, while the Government’s response to this e-petition claims that “substantial progress” has been made—there is a fairly impressive list of declarations signed and commodity user groups set up—I do not think that the Minister will try to claim that all the palm oil used in all the products consumed in the UK is currently sourced from genuinely sustainable palm oil plantations.

Palm oil is by far the most prevalent form of oil in processed foods in this country. Many people and organisations would like to campaign for a total ban on all palm oil in this country. Those of us who have had the opportunity to watch the advert promoted by Iceland as part of its decision to rule out palm oil would feel moved to agree as an initial reaction, but under the present circumstances it would not be feasible to halt the production and use of all palm oil, at least in the short term. There does not appear to be conclusive evidence that palm oil cultivation is inherently more damaging to the environment than any other crop. Serious, in-depth analysis of the total sustainability of various cultivation regimes, in order to identify which practices in the cultivation of palm oil are more damaging than others, would help to achieve more sustainable international agriculture.

It is certainly not the case that deforestation is the only reason why palm oil might have an unacceptable effect on the environment. I am certain that those who are campaigning against all use of palm oil will not be satisfied with any so-called sustainable palm oil accreditation that is not based on scientific and objective measurement of all the possible detriments that palm oil cultivation might involve.

The current definition of sustainable palm oil is based on the standards and criteria laid down by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. That body has over 400 members, the majority of which are from the palm oil industry—businesses involved in the import of palm oil or businesses involved in the sale of products that contain palm oil—as well as banks and other organisations that are investors in the palm oil industry. So far as I can tell, of the 400 members, only five have no vested interest in the continuation of the palm oil industry. I am not suggesting that the roundtable is not genuine in its concerns about the environment or that its definition of sustainability is not motivated by a deep concern for the environment, human rights or the biodiversity of our planet, but I am certain that some considerations have not been made, because those organisations that would have been able to consider them, including scientific bodies that monitor environmental detriment, have not been involved. However genuine the concerns of the RSPO might be, environmental campaigners who are opposed to the use of palm oil will not believe any definition of sustainability that emanates from such a body.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What more have the Government done to try to reach the 100% goal, which was laid down by DEFRA to be achieved by 2015? What plans does her Department have to reform the RSPO or to set up an additional body to produce a definition of sustainable palm oil that might command the respect of campaigners and the general public? How can her Department ensure that an effective, independently-led and scientific audit trail is done of the current sources of palm oil consumed in this country, rather than relying on the assurances of those who have a vested interest in giving assurances? Will her Department investigate the effectiveness of other nations’ adherence to their promises, so that we can determine where the responsibility for the continuing destruction of our rainforests lies?

The Government say that they wish to halt deforestation by 2030. The world is not even going in the right direction. Following the current trend, if deforestation does halt in 2030, it will be because there are no forests left to deforest.