Environment Bill - Lords amendment 3 and other amendments discussed

Mr. Rodda interjected briefly to express sympathy towards Rosamund Kissi-Debrah and her family, and agreed with his colleague's arguments for a tougher approach from the Government on air quality. He also raised concerns about water quality issues in his constituency.

Welcomes Lords amendment 1 to set a stringent target for cutting PM2.5 by matching WHO limits by 2030, urging the Government to expedite setting an air quality target before October 2022 and engage widely in consultation.

Intervened to suggest the establishment of a taskforce to integrate various agencies and address air pollution, highlighting the need for strategic focus.

Intervened to propose focusing on 500 towns and cities committed to sustainability under UN goals, emphasising the importance of practical actions.

Disappointed with the length of time the bill has taken to pass. Expresses concerns about exemptions for MOD activities and their impact on Scotland's environment. Criticises UK Government for not seeking consent from Scottish Government before inserting amendment 29. Seeks support in pressing Lords amendment 29 to a vote, urging respect for devolution.

Neill expressed concern about the removal of Lords amendment 3 without a firmer action in place. He emphasised that for targets to be achievable, public consultation and transparency are crucial. He mentioned the importance of honesty with the British public regarding the changes and choices involved. Neill also raised concerns over pollution levels near his constituency's schools and suggested the need for more targeted funding and coordination among agencies.

Benn argued in favour of Lords amendment 31, which relates to the office for environmental protection. He questioned why the Government wanted a power to issue guidance to the OEP about enforcement. Benn suggested that this guidance power could undermine the independence of the OEP and asked for clarification on how this power would be used.

Bell acknowledges the impact of poor air quality on physical and mental health in his constituency. He supports Lords amendment 3 but believes that rushing to put unachievable targets into law is unwise. He calls for a thorough consultation process, highlighting the need for public acceptance and understanding of necessary sacrifices.

Loughton interjects to emphasise the importance of having accurate air quality monitoring equipment that people can trust. He notes a lack of functioning equipment in his constituency, which has provided false readings for three years.

I support Lords amendment 3 as it sets World Health Organisation air quality targets, which I believe are essential for public health. Additionally, I oppose the Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 28 due to its exclusion of important Departments from environmental policy considerations. Lastly, I argue that amendments 31 and 33 weaken the office for environmental protection, making it less independent and effective in enforcing environmental law.

I support Lords amendment 3 to set legally binding World Health Organisation limits on air pollution now. This measure would address the current health crisis, including dementia and mental health issues linked to poor air quality, and align with global standards for prevention and productivity improvement.

Intervenes to support Caroline Lucas's argument on tackling air pollution. He suggests that improving rail infrastructure, such as the western rail link to Heathrow, would help reduce road travel and its associated emissions.

Expresses condolences for Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire but does not provide a position on the specific amendments under debate. His speech focuses more on personal reflections rather than policy arguments.

Supports Lords amendment 3 to address air pollution in her constituency. Cites data from the Taskforce for Lung Health showing high PM2.5 levels and mentions the case of Ella Kissi-Debrah. Emphasises the health impacts on children, including those at St Anne’s Primary School.

Echoes support for Lords amendment 3 and discusses the impact of air pollution in Bristol. Criticises weak justification from the Minister regarding WHO targets, citing 40,000 deaths annually due to air pollution. Also supports Lords amendment 1 on formal recognition of climate emergencies.

Responds to debate, reiterates condolences for the late MPs and clarifies devolution issues. Disagrees with Lords amendments 1, 2, and 43 formally during the vote.

Raises concerns about devolution and Scottish Government's authority. Seeks to discuss mechanisms for better focus on environmental issues with Rebecca Pow.

Introduced the debate on several amendments and motions related to sewage pollution and deforestation.

Supported the direction of Lords amendment 45 but questioned why lines 7 to 14 were omitted, which would legally compel water companies to take immediate action against sewage pollution.

Asked the Minister for reassurance regarding the pace of change and implementation under her proposals, expressing concern about delays in tackling sewage issues.

Asked the Minister if it was possible to include a more tightly drawn, concise and effective duty on water companies beyond just reporting.

Inquired about specific targets or deadlines for making all English rivers free of sewage pollution.

Expressed disappointment that the Minister's proposals did not include measures from a private Member’s Bill by Philip Dunne that would have made illegal sewage discharges after a certain date. Asked about cost implications and consumer water bills.

Asked how the Bill would help address bathing water quality issues caused by sewage works upstream of his constituency on the River Wharfe.

Inquired about discussions with the National Farmers Union regarding pesticides and cooperation in farming.

Argued that legal deforestation is as problematic as illegal deforestation and questioned the Minister's stance on allowing products linked to deforestation into UK supply chains.

Asked about when a review of UK timber regulations is envisaged and welcomed the Minister's response.

Supports amendments to protect bees by regulating pesticides; demands stronger action on river pollution from sewage discharges, citing environmental damage and public health concerns. Urges Government to take decisive measures against water companies and improve transparency in the chemical approval system for pesticides. Advocates for better habitat protections and ambitious tree planting targets.

[INTERVENTION]: Agrees with concerns about sewage pollution in rivers, noting its increasing frequency and impact on local tourism industries. Supports maintaining the stricter provisions of Lords amendment 43.

[INTERVENTION]: Agrees that large water companies must take responsibility for sewage pollution in rivers affecting local residents and tourism industries. Calls for firm action from Thames Water.

[INTERVENTION]: Questions the distinction between legal and illegal logging, suggesting a need for stricter regulations on deforestation risks to prevent global environmental degradation.

Supports the aims of Lords amendment 45, which includes a duty on water companies to progressively reduce harm and improve sewerage systems. Expresses concern that Government amendment (a), while positive, does not have statutory force necessary to compel action from water companies. Mentions significant public support for his private Member's Bill addressing sewage discharge issues.

Suggested that the Minister could come up with tough regulatory targets to enforce sewage discharge reduction without creating absolute legal guarantees, as an alternative to Government amendment (a).

Called for time discipline among Members due to the number of speakers wishing to contribute.

Warned that Lords amendment 43 inappropriately constrains Scottish Ministers' authority over environmental matters, arguing such decisions should be made by the Scottish Government and Parliament.

Acknowledges progress in the Bill regarding storm overflows, including statutory plans to address discharges and real-time reporting. Supports the requirement for a report before 1 September 2022 detailing actions needed to eliminate storm overflows, costs, and benefits. Expresses frustration with the lack of legal duty compelling immediate action by water companies but understands current limitations related to cost implications. Emphasises the need for transparency from the Government and water companies regarding progress on storm overflow elimination. Raises concerns about a proposed ban on netting by fisheries authority in Cornwall to protect salmon populations, suggesting data gathering before such measures are implemented.

Supports the retention of Lords amendment 43 to ensure transparency in pesticide use decisions, emphasising economic costs due to pollinator decline. Criticises lack of scientific understanding on combined effects of pesticides and notes the negative impact of neonicotinoids beyond just honeybees. Highlights past decision-making failures regarding sugar beet crops and neonicotinoid exemptions, arguing for a consistent approach based on expert advice rather than political pressures. Calls for broader adherence to EU regulations in this area.

The speaker is concerned about the refusal to accept Lords amendment 43, which aims to address long-term impacts of pesticides on bees and other wild pollinators. He notes that untreated sewage often goes into waterways during regular weather conditions rather than storms alone, affecting communities in Cumbria severely. The Lake Windermere suffered from significant pollution due to sewage overflow for an extended period, impacting a vital tourism site. He advocates for immediate action against polluting companies and better regulation of septic tanks.

The speaker managed the debate's timekeeping, ensuring that all MPs seeking to speak will have a chance within the constraints of the session. No specific stance or arguments were provided regarding the amendments.

Mr. Loughton supports the amendment due to Southern Water’s poor record of sewage discharge in his constituency. He argues for a legally enforceable obligation on water companies to stop routine discharges, which are currently causing harm without any guarantee of immediate action.

Ms. Lucas emphasises the need for a legal duty on water companies to tackle sewage pollution following Southern Water’s record fine and poor discharge practices in her constituency.

Mrs. Baillie supports the amendment, citing personal experience with river pollution issues and the potential for technological advancements to improve water quality once legal measures are in place.

Mr. Shannon brings attention to protecting pollinators from pesticides and highlights the need for environmental protection, though he does not directly address Lords amendment 45.

Mr. Moore supports the amendment while emphasising the importance of legally binding targets to improve water quality, specifically referencing the River Wharfe in his constituency.

Mrs Pow argued that new section 141A of the Water Industry Act 1991, introduced by Lords amendment 45, was redundant. She proposed her own amendment to leave out lines 7 to 14 of that amendment. She also discussed measures for protecting ancient woodlands and conservation covenants. Additionally, she mentioned the Government's commitment to address pesticides carefully while maintaining existing regulations.

Mrs Laing stated that it would be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 85, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments in lieu. She did not provide detailed arguments but set the stage for further discussion.

Mr Pollard welcomed the Minister's actions to address concerns about single-use plastics, including extending the single-use charge to other items. He acknowledged that while there are aspects he would like to see improved, the Bill represents a step forward in addressing environmental issues and reducing waste.