Environment Agency: East of England

11:00:00

I beg to move, That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP. As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.

I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?

The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office. This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste. We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.

I will give another example from Kent. In Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, the River Grom often has very high levels of ammonia due to sewage being dumped in the river. When that is reported to the Environment Agency, it claims a lack of funds, does not send its own investigators and often passes the matter to Southern Water, which is perhaps to blame for the problem in the first place. Does that not contribute to a lack of democratic oversight of our environment?

The hon. Member absolutely catches the point raised earlier about the lack of accountability and transparency, and the highlights fact that, although the EA has had more money and resource, it is not targeting priority cases or long-standing issues, while often telling Members of Parliament that they are priorities. I will come on to that, because there is a wider issue of which the Minister needs to be aware: the slowness to act and lack of accountability. Turning to the east of England, and my own constituency in particular, let me give three examples that cover a range of scenarios. The first is the dumping of more than 122,000 tonnes of waste at Saxon Pit in Whittlesey between October 2017 and February 2018. The EA’s initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped—but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act. In its initial response, the EA said that the operator must dispose of all the non-conforming waste by 10 October 2018; yet seven years on the waste remains in situ. The EA also promised prosecutions, because this was such a serious case. I will quote just one of many letters that I exchanged with the EA over this period. In 2021, the then-chief executive Sir James Bevan promised that “Saxon Pit is being treated as a priority”. The EA’s investigation took a further 14 months to complete, but in June 2022 it said that a “final set of interviews…will take place shortly”. In October 2022, the chief executive asked me to, “be assured that my teams are prioritising this work over other competing criminal inquiries”. Three years ago, the EA said it was prioritising this serious case, with more 122,000 tonnes of waste, over other cases. It was a priority case. Yet three years on, and seven years on from the incident, we still have no prosecutions. To go back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said a moment ago, what cases is the EA prosecuting with its additional resource, if it is not prosecuting at Saxon Pit? I thought that the Minister might reflect, “Perhaps that was simply an issue of the past Government. Perhaps things have changed—the Environment Agency has perhaps changed its approach.” I therefore thought it would be helpful to give a second example, from the last year: a very serious pollution incident at King’s dyke, in Whittlesey, the same town as Saxon Pit. I have seen internal papers from the Environment Agency that show that it described the problem, and reported it to the Department, as a category 1 pollution incident. For those not familiar with the term, a category 1 pollution incident is the most severe level, involving a “serious, persistent…or extensive impact…on the environment, people…or property”. The BBC reported that an estimated 900 fish were killed in close vicinity to an Anglian Water overflow pipe, and that the pipe had discharged for 23 hours due to a suspected pump failure. When I spoke to Anglian Water and the Environment Agency, no other credible reason was given for the serious incident. I was then told that water samples had been taken and would be quick to establish whether the overflow pipe was the cause of the category 1 incident. I was told on 10 October 2024 that the lab tests were under way, that it would take a week for them to determine the cause, and that an internal decision would be taken on enforcement in November. November then became December. December became January. We kept chasing, and we were told, “No, it’s no longer January; it’s May.” We chased again in May, and were told September. This is an issue that Ministers say—and I do not doubt for a minute their sincerity—is an absolute priority for the Government. We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category 1, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year—even though I suspect that, internally and within the Department, it is already known whether Anglian Water was the cause and whether, therefore, a criminal investigation should follow. I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability. Let me give a third example. As a former Minister, I thought I would try to pitch these examples in a way that is constructive across the House. One debate that the Minister may recall was led by one of her parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). In it, he raised cross-party concerns—indeed, there were a number of the Minister’s colleagues present, though it was one of her colleagues on the Front Bench—around the environmental damage of incinerators. That is something that many charities usually more closely aligned with the left of politics, such as Friends of the Earth, have raised concerns about, but it is also an issue that many on the Government Benches have highlighted, and one that I have consistently raised myself. We now know that DEFRA’s own analysis suggests that there is enough national capacity for incineration. As more waste is recycled, the requirements for incineration come down. A BBC report highlighted the serious damage caused by these incinerators and by waste being burned because of anaerobic digesters. Most of that is now plastic, and it is the dirtiest way to generate power. No one would have thought a Government committed to the environment would want to see more incinerators being built. Incineration is on a par with coal as the dirtiest form of energy generation, yet we still do not have clarity from the Government on whether environmental permits will remain in force for incinerators that have not yet been built. One of those is in Wisbech. To put this incinerator in context, it is so big that one half its size in the neighbouring constituency was turned down—so they doubled it in size to make it a national scheme and take it outside local planning. It is sited 700 metres from the largest school in the district, accessed solely by single carriageway roads, with a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the fens. The Environment Agency, in issuing a permit, says it does not consider any of the environmental harm of transporting waste from six different counties to this small market town, because the permit only applies to the curtilage of the site itself. I simply ask, given the cross-party support on this issue, whether that decision by the Environment Agency is fit for purpose. I will add one further point. Is it not very odd that the decision to grant an environmental permit was made during the general election purdah period, a time when organisations are not supposed to take controversial decisions? I hope the Minister will follow up on that, because I know that many of her own Government colleagues are concerned. Where incinerators have not yet been built, we should not be embedding the environmental damage that so many charities and environmental groups, and so many of our own colleagues have expressed concern about.

The right hon. Member represents North East Cambridgeshire; as the Member for South West Norfolk, I share a border and very similar geography with him, and I recognise many of the concerns he raises about pollution. Does he share my concerns about the EA’s performance on the time taken to issue permits, licences and other permissions? In our part of the world, that is a real barrier to growth and prosperity for businesses, because the performance is so poor—it takes months, if not years, for businesses to get approvals from the EA.

I do share them. Just for the Minister’s benefit, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be materially affected by the Wisbech incinerator in terms of transport; when the developers doubled its size in order to take it out of the local planning process, they created a different problem of how to get sufficient waste to run it. Therefore, it has to take in waste from further and further afield. As Wisbech is a market town, accessed by single carriageway roads—the A47 is single carriageway into Wisbech—bringing waste through my neighbour’s constituency will cause huge traffic there, as it will in many other constituencies across the eastern region. A BBC report highlights the severe environmental damage that would be caused by the proposed incinerator, but the hon. Gentleman also highlights a wider point about lack of transparency. As in the King’s dyke fishing example, as a constituency MP one chases on behalf of constituents to get them some answers, yet organisations feel they are unaccountable. That brings me to my final point. It will not surprise the Minister that, as a member of the last Government, I quite frequently raised my constituency concerns—before I was in the Department—with relevant Secretaries of State, and I know that they raised those with the EA; yet, as we see with Saxon Pit, it still failed to take prosecution action over seven years while saying to people locally, “It is a priority case.” As Secretary of State myself, I found the organisation so unresponsive that I had to take the unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. In fact, I issued two in my six months in the Department, where none had been issued in the seven years before. I fear that Ministers now need to look at the accountability to democratic control of not just the Environment Agency, but Natural England—not least given the three interventions we have heard from colleagues across the House.

I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?

It does need fundamental reform. I became Secretary of State very close to the general election, but one of my first acts was to issue an instruction to take more rigorous enforcement action more generally on water pollution. I know that current Ministers want to see a more robust set of actions. I come to my final point. Not least given the Government’s majority and where we are in the parliamentary cycle, there is an opportunity to look at the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care is going through that exact process with NHS England. I encourage the ministerial team to reflect on that, not least for when in some years’ time they are explaining how, if there is lack of action, that sits with some of their priorities. Irrespective of that, as we heard in interventions from across the House, the EA’s lack of transparency and accountability on its operational performance needs to be addressed. I encourage the Minister to focus some time in her busy schedule on doing that.

11:18:00

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me. I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point. More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation. I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon. In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively. Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation. The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up. The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators. We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.

The Minister and I have talked on many occasions. I do not envy the scale of the challenge that she has, particularly in relation to pollution. She and I have talked about internal drainage boards, which is another issue that is shared across constituencies. In relation to permits and licensing, we are proud to have a growth agenda as a Government. Does the Minister recognise that focusing on encouraging the EA to improve its performance in that regard could help to unlock growth in many areas in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and improve growth opportunities for businesses? I appreciate that there is an awful lot to do in the Department, but can that issue be given some focus as well?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point. We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.

The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is completely right: constituents want to action when they see pollution incidents. Of course, if he is not satisfied with the outcome and he feels that action has not been taken to the standard that he wants following the meeting, I am more than happy to pick that up. I will finish on that point. Question put and agreed to.

11:26:00