Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 62 of 120.
“The explanatory memorandum says that it “allows for each UK administration to design and implement their own agricultural support schemes within an amber box spending envelope.” These provisions stem from part 6 of the Agriculture Act, and they were criticised at the Committee stage by the devolved Administrations. There were concerns that, despite agriculture being a devolved area, the Act gave the Secretary of State the centralised power to decide how farm support payments everywhere in the UK will be classified in relation to international trade rules, and to set limits on how much can be paid out by each Administration. In Committee, Labour sought to amend the Bill Agriculture by requiring Ministers to consult with each devolved authority on a draft of the relevant regulations.”
“These include obligations relating to the classification and notification of domestic support and the UK’s commitment to reduce its aggregate measurement of support. As the Minister said, this instrument specifies the amount of amber box payments that may be given in each country of the United Kingdom—amber box payments being those that have trade-distorting effects, which are limited under the WTO agreement on agriculture. This instrument also outlines the procedure for classifying such schemes and permits the Secretary of State to request information where this is needed to enable the United Kingdom to satisfy its obligations.”
“I understand that this is a largely technical change following our withdrawal, so this SI was not reported on by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. While the UK was a member of the EU, it interests at the WTO were represented by the European Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that the UK complied with WTO agreements. That included the WTO agreement on agriculture, which sets out a number of general rules and commitments that signatory nations must follow on agricultural trade practices, including disciplines on domestic support, market access and export subsidies. Following withdrawal from the EU, the UK will now represent its own interests at the WTO, and the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that the UK complies with its obligations and commitments as an independent WTO member.”
“We know that different parts of the UK will now be pursuing different payment support schemes for farmers, as agriculture is a devolved area. How will the Government ensure that we do not see market distortions emerging across the UK? Given its past performance failures, can the Minister guarantee that the Rural Payments Agency is competent to administer the many changes and parallel systems emerging over the next few years? Finally, let me turn to perhaps the most complicated of the three SIs before us, on WTO compliance. This instrument has been made under the Agriculture Act but relates to the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It introduces a legal framework to ensure UK-wide compliance with WTO commitments on the use of domestic support for agriculture.”
“Will the Minister confirm that there is nothing here that will restrict devolved Administrations from making their own choices? While we understand the concerns about the active farmer provision, we still believe that measures are needed to ensure that money goes to farmers, not just landholders. This is a continuation of direct payments to farmers for next year, which is welcome, but we know that the Government are planning to cut direct payments for next year. What support are they going to give farmers facing a 5% cut in their income next year? Has DEFRA undertaken an impact assessment on what direct payment cuts would look like to farmers in different sectors and farm sizes, and will they release that impact assessment?”
“The draft regulations that she has come forward with today provide farmers with direct payments for just 2021. Will regulations need to be laid every year for the seven years of the agricultural transition period to continue direct payments in their current form prior to phasing out? When are the Government going to come forward with regulations for phasing out direct payments? These provisions remove a number of elements of direct payments that have not been applied in England but have been elsewhere in the UK. These include the redistributive payment and voluntary coupled support schemes that have been used in Wales and Scotland. They also take out the active farmer provision and basic payment scheme agri-environment transfer.”
“The Rural Payments Agency will be administering new payment schemes—we all know that it has had a troubled history, although it has improved in recent times—and there remain real doubts about the capacity to deliver new systems alongside administering legacy payments. The high-risk approach to our farmers’ future security is, I am sorry to say, of a piece with the highly ideological approach that the Government have taken to farming post Brexit. The Government still refuse to back British farmers with a legal guarantee that they will not be undercut by cheaper, lower-standard food allowed in through trade deals that, despite the claims, will still lack proper parliamentary scrutiny. I will not go over familiar ground again, the Minister will be glad to hear, but let me put some specific questions on this instrument.”
“What was once envisaged as a bridging sustainable farming incentive payment will not be available for farmers until 2022, and in the view of many, including Labour Members, there is still too little detail of the schemes to help farmers to plan for uncertain times ahead. On the basis of DEFRA’s own statistics, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. We fear that many farms will be left financially unviable under the Government’s proposals. A recent survey of landowners and farmers by the Country Landowners Association found high levels of concern about the implementation of the new ELM schemes, with 76% of respondents fearing that the payments would not be sufficient and 57% thinking that administration would be poor.”
“We predicted that we would be back later in the year—and here we are, with the Government using the Agriculture Act as that mechanism to use this SI for 2021. We welcome the shift from supporting land ownership to helping farmers restore land and improve our natural environment, but farmers are rightly concerned about how they are going to survive during the transition the Government propose. On Monday, it was revealed that direct payments will start to be cut next year, and will be cut by 50% by 2024, but the new environmental land management schemes will not fully up and running until 2024.”
“The instrument sets rules about the financial ceilings used to calculate farmers’ direct payments, giving the Secretary of State time to determine the ceilings for the 2021 claim year before the start of that year, as the current financial ceilings extend only to the 2020 claim year. It also removes from 2021 elements of direct payments that have not previously been implemented in England, some of which have been used in the rest of the UK. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee notes that separate legislation will be required for the Government’s planned reforms to phase out direct payments from 2021. Back in January, when we discussed the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act, Labour pressed the Government on the need for a legislative mechanism for direct payments to farmers to be continued beyond 2020.”
“The Government have confirmed the continuation of direct payments for 2020 in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which we discussed back in January, but as we heard earlier this week, some of the payments will be phased out in England under the new Agriculture Act from next year over the following seven years, beginning with a 5% to 25% cut in farmers’ income next year. This statutory instrument has been noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. According to DEFRA, the instrument aims to maintain the status quo as far as possible for farmers next year.”
“It appears that Livestock Information Ltd will cost £32 million of taxpayer money that is immediately handed to a subsidiary in which DEFRA has a minority stake. Will the Minister explain why that is? Looking at the direct payments instrument, I see that we have been here before. The draft regulations are laid under the new Agriculture Act 2020 and need to come into force on 1 January 2021 to ensure that direct payment support will be available for farmers in England for the 2021 claim year.”
“Under the provisions of the instrument, each devolved Administration will have their own database. How will we be able to trace animals as they move across borders? On the implementation of the system, will there be an instant switchover, or a transition period in which both old and new systems operate alongside one another? What is the timeframe for getting the new traceability system up and running? Farmers currently pay a levy for the use of AHDB services. In bringing the new traceability system under the remit of AHDB, DEFRA says there are no plans for a new levy to fund any of the services the regulations bring in. “No plans” is a term that is regularly used, often euphemistically. Can the Minister give a guarantee that there will not be a levy?”
“Further collective work involving all four Administrations is aimed at agreeing a UK view of key data to support traceability. As I said, the AHDB has established a subsidiary company, Livestock Information Ltd, to carry out the services on behalf of the AHDB and DEFRA. We are told that the estimated cost is £32 million over three years, and the projected monetised net benefit using a 10-year appraisal method is conservatively placed at £30 million. The AHDB says that improved traceability data will enable a range of other benefits, including reducing the impact of endemic diseases, increasing our ability to act quickly and proportionately in the event of an exotic disease outbreak, and improving livestock business productivity. Some questions follow from that, however.”
“The existing systems are also designed to collect rather than share data, and, extraordinarily, are paper-based. I am told that the AHDB will also run a unique number identification service on behalf of England and Wales, which will control the issuing of official individual identification numbers to animals. The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland have noted that they will pursue their own systems for issuing identification numbers to animals. The service will operate in England but because, as has been said, animals can and do move across borders, the instrument applies across the UK so that the AHDB may handle data on animal movements and traceability systems outside England where necessary to allow a complete picture of animal traceability.”
“The proposals set out by the AHDB for a new livestock information service system are important. It will provide a multi-species traceability system, and DEFRA tells us that it will enable the Department and the Animal and Plant Health Agency to trace all livestock movements through a single, more efficient system, which would be welcome, because livestock are currently identified through three separate livestock traceability systems: one for cattle, one covering sheep and goats, and one for pigs. The service was introduced over the past two decades as various pieces of EU legislation came into force. As the Minister said, the existing systems are species-specific, so keepers with more than one species of livestock need to switch between databases.”
“The hon. Member tempts me further and further away from the instrument. I can assure him I will be coming to some of those points, because it is obviously key that we resolve these issues of movement within the island of Ireland. They are complicated and pressing for many, many people. We are told that this instrument does not relate to withdrawal from the European Union, which is a welcome relief, I suspect, given the number of instruments we have been discussing in recent weeks. Indeed, it comes from the newly passed Agriculture Act 2020. It makes provisions for better traceability. It was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the Minister has outlined many of the proposals, so I will not repeat all of that.”
“Finally, as I suggested at the outset, the bald statement that “For Northern Ireland, separate legislative arrangements will be needed in order to maintain alignment with Sanitary and Phytosanitary related EU regulations and specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland” is an understatement. Could the Minister outline what those separate legislative arrangements will look like and when they will be ready? As ever, there are many questions. Ensuring plant health really matters. We are an island, but sadly, we need to be careful, and that is why we have a body of established law. It should not be weakened in any way, and while there is no desire for unnecessary extra checks, we all benefit when we stay safe.”
“Is it really presumed that there will be no impact on businesses at all? The logic of paragraph 12.4 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 is, frankly, Alice in Wonderland stuff. It outlines the extra checks that will be done, which I applaud, but goes on to say that because they are a result of the terms of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and therefore do not reflect a change in policy, there is no need for an impact assessment. Can the Minister say whether there has been an impact statement somewhere else? If so, where?”
“How long is temporary, and how much risk? I am not entirely sure that I like the sound of that. It sounds like an excuse to me. There has been no impact assessment of these regulations on businesses, yet there are clear indications that businesses will be impacted. Under these regulations, the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from January 2021 to “stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls.” Businesses moving plant-passported commodities within GB will need to modify the reference code that they use when issuing plant passports from EU to UK, so why has there not been an impact assessment of these regulations?”
“Will the Minister explain why the EU examination procedure could not be replicated within the UK context to provide clear democratic oversight of amendments? Will she outline how the Government propose to ensure that levels of scrutiny for secondary legislation pertaining to “the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety, of humans, animals or plants” will not be weakened as a result of these changes? I am grateful to Greener UK for finding these detailed points. As I said, I do not necessarily require a reply today. I will conclude with some more basic questions. In paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes for the Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 we are told: “This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement for plant health controls”.”
“For example, regulation 29(17) replaces a requirement to follow the examination procedure with: “The appropriate authority may by regulations amend Annex 9 to the Phytosanitary Conditions Regulation where the amendment is appropriate in the light of a risk assessment in relation to a plant, plant product or other object.” Removing a defined process for strong committee-level scrutiny—that is, us—and decision making and replacing that with a standard reference to the right of the appropriate authority to make regulations represents, in the view of Greener UK, an unhelpful weakening of oversight, and I rather agree. This will be particularly pertinent if the Government choose to pass future regulations via the negative procedure.”
“The examination procedure was designed to provide an additional level of scrutiny to implementing decisions relating to specific areas of concern, including the environment, security and safety, or protection of the health or safety of humans, animals or plants. These references to the examination procedure are replaced now with a power to amend regulations that does not feature an opportunity for scrutiny.”
“It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could explain the reasoning, and outline how the Government propose to ensure the legitimacy of claims of equivalence from third countries and whether investigations will form a part of this approach. That seems to me to be a rather important point. As I say, I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but it would be helpful to have one at some point. The third point raised by Greener UK concerns amending regulations. In a number of places, references in EU regulation 2016/2031 via article 107(2) to a specific examination procedure for scrutinising and adopting amendments to regulations, as contained in article 5 of regulation 182/2011, are removed.”
“Will she also tell us whether the Government have any plans to change the current list after the end of the transition period, and whether any changes will be subject to the same risk assessment process used currently by the EU? On equivalence investigations, regulation 30(7) amends paragraph 2 of article 44 of regulation 2016/2031, and removes a reference to the Commission’s ability to carry out investigations in third countries to determine whether equivalence is being properly achieved. It does this without replacing it with a reference to an appropriate UK body. Determinations of equivalence in biosecurity and control measures will be vital to protect the UK’s natural ecosystems in future. This reference appears unhelpful, and the reason for deletion is unclear.”
“However, from the measure also adds a line, proposed new paragraph 4A, disapplying that requirement to any priority pest removed from that list before the same date. While the intent behind that may be simply to clarify, it would be superfluous to create a plan for a pest that is no longer considered a threat. In the view of Greener UK, this explicit reference appears to potentially incentivise the late development contingency plans. It may well be that that is covered by some of the points that the Minister has already made about the differing threats that we face. However, will she outline the UK’s progress in developing such plans to date, clarify whether the Government still intend to produce such plans for further priority pests currently listed in the EU level, and provide any details on intended timescales?”
“I am eternally grateful to Greener UK, which has found the time to look at them in some detail. It raises some points, as it often does, that I suspect the Minister may wish to write to me about, because they are detailed and I would not expect her necessarily to have an answer to hand. She may do—she may surprise me. Greener UK tells me that regulation 28(24)(c) changes the requirement in article 25(4) of EU regulation 2016/2031. This is in the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020—the first one, I think. Deep in that regulation there is a change in the requirement for the UK to establish priority pest plans for all listed pests within four years of the 2019 EU regulation. Instead there is a deadline of 1 January 2023. This is in line with the previous timescale.”
“Therefore, we expect no extra impact on business from this change.” Some questions follow from all of that. In Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory notes for the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 says that under these regulations our risk-based plant health controls will now “focus on risks to GB, rather than risks to the EU”. I was going to ask the Minister to explain what that means in practice. I think she has made reference to it already, but to repeat my question from previous debates around report and review, can she tell us when these policies will be reviewed and where that sits in relation to reviews already promised to be undertaken by the EU? Should the EU tighten its standards, would we be doing likewise, and vice versa? These are very, very lengthy, detailed instruments.”
“This will be a temporary and risk-based transitional arrangement, with the aim of ensuring consistent and technically justified import controls which apply to all countries exporting to GB.” The instruments also include a requirement to use UK rather than EU plant passports for intra-GB movements of plant-passported commodities. This will require businesses that move plant-passported commodities within GB to modify the reference code they use when issuing plant passports, replacing EU with UK. The process for authorising businesses with plant passporting, we are told, will not change. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tells us that “businesses who will need to use the system from 1 January 2021 are likely to already be registered.”
“The Government tell us that the current policy of risk-based plant health controls applied under EU legislation will continue, and that the GB risk assessment process will follow the same internationally accepted principles and approach used in previous pest risk analysis under the EU regime. Internal controls will also continue to apply to the movement of goods within the GB internal market. We are also told that the revised approach for EU imports will be phased in over six months from 1 January next year, in the Government’s words, to “stagger the operational implementation of controls on EU products to allow trade to continue to flow whilst businesses adapt to the application of third country import controls.”
“The draft Plant Health (Phytosanitary Conditions) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 define at some length, as I have said, the list of regulated products and pests, and prescribes the requirements for entry and movement of regulated items into GB and within GB to reduce the risks in connection with those pests to an acceptable level. Since the result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is that the UK leaves the EU single market, the operability amendments contained in this instrument create a single market covering GB and the Crown dependencies. The EU will thus become a third country and, as a result, will be subject to third country import controls.”
“That is what is said, of course, of many statutory instruments and we may beg to differ at some point. It appears that no impact assessments have been carried out, and that the regulations were not reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and had not been raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As we have heard, the draft Plant Health (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make operability amendments to the retained EU plant health regulations, as well as consequential amendments to domestic law.”
“The Animal and Plant Health Agency and the Forestry Commission will be delivering the measures in these regulations, and we are told that they are developing an implementation plan and that associated guidance will be published on gov.uk. We are also told that separate legislative arrangements will be needed for Northern Ireland in order to maintain alignment with sanitary and phytosanitary-related EU regulations and to specify requirements for GB goods entering Northern Ireland. Well, that is probably an understatement. I would echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I will return to that later. The Government say that the amendments introduced are technical operability amendments and do not include any policy changes.”
“That is why it is so important that these controls are in place and that they are transposed in the correct way. We are told that these two SIs have been laid using powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and that their stated aim is to protect biosecurity and support trade by ensuring that effective phytosanitary controls continue to operate within GB and between GB and the EU at the end of the transition period. We are also told that they establish the future plant health regime for Great Britain by ensuring that EU legislation related to phytosanitary controls is retained—and corrected as necessary, as the Minister has explained—to maintain the existing risk-based approach.”
“I echo the Minister’s points about just how important these measures are. At first sight, they perhaps seem slightly impenetrable and very lengthy. The two instruments run to some 272 pages and 76 pages, and I doubt whether any of us has the energy or the expertise to be absolutely certain that everything is correct. As we have said in many other statutory instrument debates, it is probably only the people who are drafting them who really know that for sure. So there is always some cause for concern. On a personal level, I remember visiting the fantastic Sainsbury laboratory in the University of Cambridge a few years ago to be briefed on ash dieback. It is striking to see not only the excellent work that is being done to tackle these issues but the constant threats that we are facing.”
“It is estimated that the change will “add to the staffing costs of a proportion of the 21,600 firms who are estimated to be involved in” these import activities. Will the Minister give us some indication of the level of those additional staffing costs? It clearly is not the case that things are going remain exactly the same. The Opposition do not see anything further to clarify at the moment, and we will not oppose the measures.”
“Paragraph 7.5 in the explanatory memorandum—I think the Minister touched on this—recognises that imports into Great Britain using existing health certificates will be maintained “for a period of time after 31 December 2020”, without any reference to how long that process will continue. Again, the Minister may not have the answer to hand, but there is always a danger that temporary and interim arrangements can drag on in the future. It would be good to have some clarification and on how long that situation may last. On the impact side, an impact is actually recognised with the import and trade SI, specifically on the pre-verification procedure and the differing computer systems that will be needed.”
“I do not think that we in this place have the capacity to scrutinise such things closely enough. If someone wanted to slip something through, it really would not be hard to do, and it would be hard for people to spot it. We rely on people elsewhere to draw attention to these things, but there is nothing else on the official controls SI that requires further questioning at the moment. Moving on to the second SI on the import of and trade in animals and animal products, I have one or two questions around the pre-notification requirement, which appears to be changing.”
“I cannot quite imagine exactly how that works, so I would be grateful if she will explain that. There is not much more that I wanted to ask about other than the impact question because—Labour has made this point with other SIs—it seems hard to imagine that there are no impacts. On detail and the accuracy, I could not help notice that the previous time this matter was discussed—in the pre-no-deal discussions when it was in the form of SI 2019/1488—the then Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee highlighted a couple of things that were, in effect, errors or needed clarification. I just wonder how we can be sure, as one looks through the huge array of changes, that it is all entirely correct. I suspect it is not, but that is no criticism of those who are doing the drafting.”
“There has, of course, been considerable controversy on this around the links between GB and Northern Ireland and, of course, safety issues are in our minds given avian flu and, sadly, the African swine fever in much of the rest of the world. Getting these things right and making sure that our defences are strong are really important, so there are some important questions. Turning to the official controls SI, paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum outlines our current “appropriately designated border control points and other points of entry” and says that controls are “also carried out at other locations, such as slaughterhouses, to verify the compliance of imported SPS goods with Official Controls Regulations”. Will the Minister say a little more about where those kinds of places are?”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I echo the Minister’s opening comments: I think we are all keen to hear the action going on in the main Chamber. These SIs appear to be largely technical and uncontroversial, although I am always loth to say that when I read through the many pages of changes—and I will come to that in a moment—but the Opposition will not oppose them, because we, too, want to ensure that UK trade remains as robust as we can make it after the end of this period. However, these are very important issues, and it is hard to overstate the importance of sanitary and phytosanitary controls.”
“Out there in the world, which is sadly not following proceedings on the Bill as closely as some of us would hope, there is an appetite for this more ambitious approach. After the Secretary of State has made the report, we would then very much hope that he or she would act on it and ensure that the environmental targets and environmental improvement plans were appropriately ambitious and would set out not just one long-term target in each area as required in clause 1, but set and outline the adequacy of those targets and lay out adequate plans to address each of those major issues within six months. If it is an emergency, it needs addressing urgently. We do not believe the Bill does that at the moment. New clause 29 would help.”
“We think the report should specifically be required to address issues of water, biodiversity, the capacity of natural and agroecosystems to mitigate global warming, resource efficiency, waste reduction and the promotion of the circular economy. That should be helpful to Government. As my hon. Friend said, we support the Prime Minister’s signing up to the UN leaders’ pledge for nature, and this includes the circular economy in our thinking. We have taken a number of these ideas from the climate and ecological emergency Bill, which we believe is right to place emphasis on the importance of expanding and enhancing natural ecosystems and agroecosystems to safeguard their capacity as carbon sinks, as well as on the need to restore biodiverse habits and their soils.”
“New clause 29 would give additional bite; it can stand on its own, so there is still time for the Minister to redeem herself. Exactly as my hon. Friend said, we take issue with the lack of overall clarity in the Bill. It needs a clearer thread running through. The new clause, which would require the Secretary of State within six months of the Bill becoming law to report on the adequacy of current environmental law and policy in meeting the climate and ecological challenges the UK faces, would be tremendously helpful, not least because—as we saw yesterday—it seems the Government do one thing one day, and completely different things another day. They fail to face the challenges when they make big policy announcements. The new clause would make it much tougher for the Government to crawl out of their obligations.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me yet again. We are such regular correspondents that I am half expecting a Christmas card any time soon. She wrote on the debate we had on new clauses 25 and 27. It is a very detailed reply and it does give some reassurance, but I have to say that it shows why we should have had a discussion about those clauses in an evidence session, rather than have them inserted late in the day. I suspect there will be other lawyers who will take a different view on some of these matters, but I am sure that can be pursued as we go through the later stages of the Bill. On new clause 29, I very much echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. We believe that new clauses 29 and 28 together would strengthen the Bill.”
“No such scheme exists at present and the clear up and waste reduction of cigarette butts are not covered by other Directives. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(3) The scheme will ensure that those tobacco companies will have no operational or other involvement in the scheme other than to provide financial support in accordance with guidance from the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and the Department of Health and Social Care. (4) The regulations will set a target for a reduction in smoking related waste by 2030. (5) The regulations will set out an appropriate vehicle to deliver the scheme including governance and criteria for funding related initiatives. (6) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an annual report of the scheme and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”— (Ruth Jones.) The aim of this new clause is to ensure that the Government creates a producer responsibility scheme for smoking related waste.”
“I am grateful, as ever, but disappointed by the Minister’s response. I do not think we need to divide the Committee, but I doubt whether even the Office for Environmental Protection will be established in the next months. Let us hope that it will go more quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 30 Smoking related waste “(1) The Secretary of State will by regulations introduce a producer responsibility scheme in England to tackle smoking related waste. (2) The scheme will compel those tobacco companies operating in England, as defined in the regulations and subject to annual review, to provide financial support to the scheme based on a market share basis.”
“As I have said many times—she has quoted it many times—we started with the 25-year environment plan, but we now find ourselves with the “Planning for the future” planning White Paper. Will she write to me on this issue—another item in our endless list of correspondence—and explain how the planning White Paper proposals will impact on net gain? This is one last chance for redemption. I live in hope.”
“In their response to the net gain consultation, in which the Government outlined their intention that nationally significant infrastructure would not be subject to the requirement, despite the fact that there was considerable support from many respondents, the Government said that they will “continue to work on exploring potential net gain approaches for these types of developments”. What alternative net gain approaches have been considered for NSIPs? I understand that the Government have commissioned a study into the costs and benefits of bringing the large infrastructure projects into the scope of mandatory biodiversity net gain. What are the findings from that study, and is the Minister able to share them with the Committee? I have one final plea for the Minister to find redemption in this whole process.”