Grand Committee
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, welcome to the Grand Committee—a plastic-free Grand Committee for the first time in a long time. If there is a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (EUC Report)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Kinnoull
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee The Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (9th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 66).
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has never been far from the news since it was agreed. Activity over just the last few days shows how timely today’s debate is. The encouraging thing is that dialogue is seen by all as the correct route forward. The two reports provide analysis of the protocol approximately seven months before and seven months after it came into effect on 1 January this year. I will introduce the first report, undertaken by the former European Union Select Committee, which I chaired. My noble friend Lord Jay of Ewelme will introduce the second report, which was undertaken by the new Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland.
I thank the Chief Whip for bringing forward this debate at this time. I also most warmly thank the staff of all the committees concerned. I particularly thank Chris Johnson, who was the principal clerk at all the relevant times, and Stuart Stoner, who has the unique distinction of being the clerk to both committees when the reports were settled.
The European Union Committee’s report on the protocol followed its previous scrutiny of the revised withdrawal agreement and political declaration negotiated by this Government in October 2019. That report included a much shorter initial analysis of the protocol and was published in January 2020. It was clear to us that, as it was such a technically complex and politically contentious document, further detailed work on the protocol was a necessity.
Our fresh inquiry started in February 2020. There followed a careful process which included discussions on the ground with politicians north and south, business leaders and academic experts. The Government published a Command Paper on 20 May on their approach to the protocol, which we took into account. We published our report on 1 June 2020. The report was intended to be a reasonably complete guide to the protocol on which any interested party could rely, with analysis of the protocol, its recitals, its 19 articles and seven annexes. In our conclusions and recommendations, we highlighted the main elements of the protocol, the tensions and contradictions at its heart and the “many unanswered questions” about its operation that remained outstanding. The government response of August 2020 was commendably on time and addressed some of the issues we had raised but was less helpful on many others, on which the Government were simply silent.
A moment ago, I said “tensions and contradictions” because there is not only the matter of the recitals at the front of the protocol and how they relate to the true construction of the articles, and especially their implementation, but also the matter within the articles themselves. In particular, there is an inherent tension, or perhaps an apparent contradiction between and among, Articles 4, 5 and 6. Article 4 states:
“Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the United Kingdom”.
This is reinforced by Article 6, which states:
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom's internal market.”
However, these are offset by Article 5, which applies the entirety of EU customs legislation, including the union customs code, to Northern Ireland. Article 5 thus retains a single regulatory zone for goods on the island of Ireland, achieving the key aim of avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Yet this requires the imposition of new customs processes and regulatory checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
The first paragraph of our summary noted that:
“On the one hand, the UK Government has been unable to explain precisely or consistently what it agreed with the EU. On the other … the EU’s insistence that ‘the rules are the rules’ has left Northern Ireland businesses fearing that there will be no flexibility to apply the Protocol proportionately. This has led to a diminution of trust between the two sides, with the upshot”—
in the words of a witness—
“that Northern Ireland has felt like ‘a pawn in the game’.”
Those words date from 1 June 2020 and events since then, notably in the last few days, suggest that the drafting has withstood the test of time. A good number of the issues that we highlighted in June 2020 remain matters of contention today. Indeed, the report anticipated many of the concerns set out over a year later in the Government’s Command Paper, Northern Ireland Protocol—Next Steps, published on 21 July this year. There are many potential illustrations of this point. To pick just two, in paragraph 25 of our report we said:
“The Protocol must ultimately be viewed through the lens of the peace process, and therefore judged by the impact it has on the people, communities and economic prosperity of Northern Ireland and Ireland.”
The first of a few questions for the Minister is: will he confirm whether or not he agrees with that assertion?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I was just drawing the Committee’s attention to a couple of paragraphs in our report in which we referred to issues that we felt were most important in 2020, and which are still current today. The second of my two examples is in paragraph 91:
“There is a real danger that businesses based in Great Britain could conclude that it is economically unviable to continue to operate in Northern Ireland … thus undermining Northern Ireland’s economic model, its future prosperity and, potentially, its political stability.”
Perhaps the Minister might comment on that as well.
Chapter 12 of our report concerned the governance of the protocol. This is in three layers: the Joint Committee, which sits at the top of the withdrawal agreement; a specialised committee on Northern Ireland; and the joint consultative working group. Much of the detail of how the protocol should operate lies within these very powerful bodies. The Joint Committee, after all, has even the power to alter the withdrawal agreement itself. We were concerned in June of last year that it was not meeting and beginning to crack through the many matters of implementation detail. Indeed, the Minister has answered more than once at the Dispatch Box questions from me on this topic. Perhaps he might give us an update as to the recent and currently planned meetings of these bodies and their current workstreams.
In our final conclusion, we said:
“it is incumbent on all parties, including the UK Government, the EU, the Irish Government, and the political parties in Northern Ireland, after the divisions of the past four years, to work in a common endeavour to prioritise and urgently address the interests, stability and prosperity of the people and communities of Northern Ireland. As we concluded in our 2016 report, anything less would diminish the efforts of all those who have worked so hard for peace and good relations across these islands.”
These issues will be resolved only by dialogue in a spirit of trust. My final question to the Minister is therefore this: in the light of the publication of the Government’s July 2021 Command Paper and the further extension of the grace periods announced last week, what steps is he taking to ensure that the ongoing talks with the EU will take place in such an atmosphere of co-operation and trust, above all putting the interests of the people of Northern Ireland first?
Our report highlighted many other issues, and I am sure we will hear about many of them. In particular, it highlighted the vital importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the operation of the protocol. I was therefore delighted when, in December 2020, the Liaison Committee of this House agreed that the new European Affairs Committee, which I chair, should appoint a dedicated committee on the protocol. At this point, I will pass the baton to the Chair of that committee, my noble friend Lord Jay of Ewelme, to introduce his own report.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend the Earl of Kinnoull. The appointment of a dedicated sub-committee on the protocol was a welcome and important step, and it is an honour to chair it. Its appointment has enabled the House to take advantage of a formidable range of experience in Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships’ House, much of which is around us today. I am delighted that many members of the committee will be speaking in this afternoon’s debate.
The sub-committee’s membership includes strong and divergent views, both on the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and on the protocol itself, yet we were united in our determination to agree a report unanimously and by consensus. We did not consider that our task was to argue for or against the protocol itself, but rather to scrutinise its operation in an objective and evidence-based manner. That is what we have tried to do, and we hope that that gives added force to our conclusions.
The report takes account of evidence given to the sub-committee by the Minister. We were very grateful to hear from him, and we trust that he will be willing to appear before us again in the future. The report also takes account of oral and written evidence from business, community and civil society representatives, political parties in Northern Ireland, academic and political experts, and the Irish and EU ambassadors in the UK.
The report is billed as an introductory report by the protocol committee, which first met on 21 April. It endorses the six key elements of the committee’s remit, as set out in the Liaison Committee report: document-based scrutiny of new or amended EU legislation within the scope of the protocol; scrutiny of the implications of relevant domestic UK legislation and policy for Northern Ireland; scrutiny of the Northern Ireland-related work of the governance bodies established under the UK/EU withdrawal agreement; monitoring the protocol’s political and socioeconomic impact on Northern Ireland; reviewing the impact of Brexit and the protocol on the UK/Irish bilateral relationship; and developing interparliamentary dialogue in relation to the protocol, including with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Oireachtas.
I emphasise in particular the importance of the committee’s scrutiny of EU legislation as it applies to Northern Ireland. We are no longer able to examine draft legislation round the EU’s council table, so parliamentary scrutiny of the legislation that will affect Northern Ireland really matters. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for recognising the importance of comprehensive and comprehensible explanatory memoranda.
Chapter 2 gives an account of the negotiation and implementation of the protocol and of developments since it came into force on 1 January. The committee identified five interlocking problems or failures by the Government or the EU that have contributed to the tensions that have arisen: lack of transparency about what was agreed; lack of readiness, notwithstanding the best efforts of business, for the protocol’s provisions to be implemented; lack of balance and understanding of the protocol’s impact, in particular on Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the UK; lack of flexibility in the application of the protocol; and a lack of trust between the two sides.
Chapter 3 sets out the economic impact of the protocol. The initial negative impact of the protocol in the first weeks of its operation had many causes and was more limited in scope than some media reports would have us believe, but businesses were undoubtedly hindered by the lack of clarity in advance about the protocol’s operation. The long-term impact of the protocol on trade flows is not yet clear, but there are early signs of a growth in north/south trade. On the other hand, businesses told us of repetitive and disproportionate new logistical processes for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. We heard serious concerns about the impact of the expiry of the grace periods and the absence of mitigating measures, and fears that businesses in Great Britain will withdraw from the Northern Ireland market because of the actual or perceived administrative burden of the protocol. Yet we also identified potential economic benefits under the protocol, given Northern Ireland’s unique access to both the UK and the EU single markets, including as a destination for foreign investment. However, political stability is a prerequisite if such benefits are to be fully recognised.
Chapter 4 sets out the political and social impact of the protocol. We acknowledge the destabilising impact of first Brexit and then the protocol on the political situation in Northern Ireland and on the delicate equilibrium encapsulated in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement as questions of borders and identity have once more come to the fore. We heard about the concerns of the unionist and loyalist communities that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom has been undermined by the protocol. Yet the unrest and sense of alienation in loyalist communities has several deep-seated causes, and there are also deep concerns over the democratic deficit at the heart of the protocol whereby significant aspects of EU law apply to Northern Ireland without its consent. While that deficit can be mitigated, it cannot be eliminated. This is a difficult issue, to which the committee will return later in the autumn. We also stress the importance of meaningful engagement by both the UK and the EU with the people and communities of Northern Ireland, including women and young people who have felt sidelined in discussions so far.
Chapter 5 of our report considers mitigations and solutions. We called on the UK and the EU, in a renewed spirit of urgency, partnership and trust, to agree practical solutions to ensure the proportionate application of the protocol in order to meet the commitment that it should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland. Business leaders and others proposed over 20 practical mitigations, including a UK-EU SPS veterinary agreement. We also called for measures to maximise Northern Ireland’s influence both within the UK and with the EU, and stressed the key roles to be played by the Northern Ireland Executive and the intergovernmental institutions established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Some witnesses argued that the disruptive effects seen since the protocol came into force already justify the use of the safeguarding mechanism in Article 16. Others argue that any unilateral action by either side had destabilising political and economic consequences. In any event, Article 16 is not a means to abandon the protocol, and is a measure underpinned by an obligation to continue dialogue to resolve the issues of concern. It would surely, therefore, be preferable for both the EU and the UK to seek to identify mutually acceptable solutions.
Our report also acknowledged the principled opposition of many in the unionist and loyalist communities to the protocol and the alternatives that some of them have put forward; yet, for many nationalists and republicans, the protocol is a necessary and the only means to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland. We stressed that the UK and the EU had an obligation both to consider alternatives and to work together to seek resolutions within the protocol.
Our report was agreed a matter of hours after the Government’s Command Paper was published on 21 July. It does not therefore take account of the Government’s specific proposals. The committee’s intention is to scrutinise the Command Paper and the EU’s response in the coming weeks as talks between the two sides continue and, we hope, make progress. In that context, I note the Minister’s announcement last week that the current arrangements for the protocol will continue and that the grace periods will be rolled over, and the European Commission’s response that no new infringement procedures will be opened for now. We all hope that this opens the way for constructive discussions between the UK and the EU, but the gap between the two sides remains large. The cliff edge has, if you like, been replaced by a slippery slope.
What updates can the Minister give us today on the discussions that have taken place since the Command Paper was published? How long can those discussions realistically continue? What assurance can he provide that the opportunity that this breathing space has provided will not be wasted and that both sides will explore the room for compromise that will be necessary if agreement is to be reached?
I finish by reiterating the final conclusion of our report:
“addressing the issues of conflicting identity that first Brexit, and then the Protocol, have brought to the fore seems for the moment an insoluble problem. That was also true of the political situation in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. But through a slow and painstaking process led by political leaders in Northern Ireland and successive governments in London and Dublin, the peace process took root and flourished, leading to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the subsequent steps towards a power-sharing arrangement … This process took time, patience, dialogue, and most of all trust. The same is true in addressing the problems that Brexit and the Protocol present for Northern Ireland. There is therefore an urgent imperative for all sides to make concerted efforts to build trust by recommitting themselves to that process of dialogue, repairing the damage caused to relations across these islands during the past five years, in the interests, as the Protocol rightly acknowledges, of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland.”
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of both the former EU Committee of this House and the current European Affairs Committee, I want to start by thanking not just my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has led both committees with skilful even-handedness and good humour but, as he did, the staff of both committees. Their professionalism and excellent work are on show in these two reports, particularly over a period as challenging as that experienced since the onset of the pandemic, and testify to the calibre of those on whom we rely so much here in this House.
The core insight of the June 2020 report was simple: that there is a clear contradiction between the protocol’s rule that EU customs legislation applies in its entirety to Northern Ireland, and the Government’s long-standing and continuing claim that the protocol, which they co-authored, would guarantee “unfettered market access” for goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. It is a contradiction between the reality of a signed treaty and the political claims that continue to accompany it. The contradiction is still worth noting, not to re-run the Brexit debate nor to score points, but because only by understanding that it is a contradiction and that trade flows both ways between Northern Ireland and Great Britain cannot remain unaffected or unchanged by adherence to the protocol will we be able to distinguish real, lasting solutions to the current impasse from illusory solutions.
Once we understand the fundamental nature of the protocol in that respect, a few things about the way forward become clear. First, the problems of the moment are not merely differences of interpretation or implementation; they are more fundamental, and the ultimate compromises required on all sides to achieve a durable solution will be correspondingly greater. Secondly, there is no solution to the problem that can be engineered by simply dismantling the protocol. It was an essential pillar of the Brexit agreement for both the EU and the UK sides, in complex ways. Simply scrapping the protocol would have knock-on consequences for Northern Ireland, the UK and the EU, and for stability, democracy, borders and trade, that would make things considerably worse for all rather than better. Thirdly, it becomes clear that the current phase of delicately fudging the protocol with a litany of grace periods subject to shifting deadlines offers short-term respite but cannot provide a way out of the impasse.
The truth is that the multiple problems of the operation of the protocol, which the report of the sub-committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has done such an excellent job of conveying, did not arise out of the blue during the implementation phase; they were baked into the treaty the Government signed. The Government know this to be the case, as do Northern Irish unionists, whose opposition to the Brexit deal was crystal clear from the outset and who now oppose the protocol for the same reasons they opposed it before it came into operation.
The protocol made Brexit technically doable by accepting rules that changed the commercial arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That is the nature of the beast to some significant extent, whatever tweaks to the protocol might be achieved in the months or years ahead by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his team. I make this point because it is important for a Government demanding changes to the protocol, as our Government have done now for some months, to be candid and transparent about what the true negotiating space is. I am not clear that that is the case at the moment.
Of course, both the EU and the UK Government need to shoulder responsibility for some aspects of the current state we are in. The EU has clearly acted inflexibly in some respects. In particular, as the July 2021 report shows, the supplementary customs declarations required for moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are not suited to the regional supply chains where the risk of goods moving into the EU single market is low, but the problems of the UK Government’s position are more serious, because they continue publicly to demand “interpretive” changes to the protocol which are in fact substantive alterations to it. Their rhetoric, such as that on unfettered access, continues to fuel unrealistic notions that a revision of the protocol can get rid of all commercial restrictions on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Yes, more flexibility on the part of the EU is required, but getting rid of contradictory ambitions is a more pressing requirement on the part of the UK Government.
In the short term, I am sure that Members across the House will welcome the idea of grace periods on existing terms of trade being extended to allow more time for discussion on the timetable for introducing the protocol’s provisions. From the standpoint of stability, it is obviously far from optimal to have unilaterally declared grace periods that keep getting extended. However, given the position in which we find ourselves—the DUP withdrawing from North/South Ministerial Council, and the threat possibly to withdraw in the near future from the power-sharing structures altogether —the extension of grace periods as a temporary measure last week by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, was a necessary move, and one that looked to be co-ordinated, at least in some tacit way, with the European Union.
However, extending grace periods on SPS rules, agri-food certification, customs declaration arrangements and so on is not a long-term way out of the current mess. Indeed, while, in the short term, the greater risk is that differences over the protocol threaten peace and devolved power-sharing arrangements inside Northern Ireland, the longer-term danger is that the fudges required to delay the protocol and avert these threats never get unblocked—a situation in which the temporary fixes become permanent simply because the politics do not exist to go any further. It is a world in which grace periods, extended serially, would become the norm—governance by grace periods, if you like.
There may be a temptation for many to think that this would not be such a bad place for Northern Ireland to be in eventually; after all, the world is full of impasses with interim arrangements whose fundamentals never get sorted, because political moves beyond the interim are unmanageable. It would be a mistake, however, to contemplate this as a durable future state of affairs for Northern Ireland, in part because the UK signed an international treaty, of which the protocol was a key aspect. Avoiding its implementation as part of a long-term political strategy would do immense damage to the UK internationally. More importantly, it would be a very bad outcome for Northern Ireland. In the medium term, investment in Northern Ireland requires the economic, institutional and political certainty that continuously extended short-term grace periods just cannot provide. It is also crucial for Northern Ireland, especially given its history and the intricate web of bespoke institutions, rules and understandings on which the Belfast agreement was built, that the arrangements on which economic and social life depend continue to enjoy basic consent. That is not the case at the moment, but it has to be an ambition if the protocol is to enjoy long-term confidence.
We already know something about what the solution to the protocol might look like: it will be messy, complex and please no purist on any side. What we do not know is whether those party to bringing this solution about will have the political courage to make the compromises required. However, we do know something about the political conditions that will be conducive to a successful outcome. They will require the Government to reject the dangerous idea, suggested by some on their Back Benches, that the protocol can be abandoned without thereby creating serious consequences for stability, democracy and prosperity in Northern Ireland. They will require those in Northern Ireland who are passionate about the union to work within, rather than outside, the multiple structures established since the Belfast agreement. They will also require the EU to seek resolution through long, patient negotiation rather than through taking legal action. I hope we can all agree that, whatever our party and whatever our view on Brexit, we will do whatever we can to make all those conditions come to pass.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate both the European Union Committee and the new Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland on producing two excellent, balanced and detailed reports. I also add my thanks to the staff, not least Christopher Johnson and Stuart Stoner, for the work they continually do on these committees.
I had the privilege of serving on the EU Committee for four years with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and, indeed, went on an excellent fact-finding visit to Dublin, Belfast and Derry/Londonderry shortly after the referendum. The European Affairs Committee and its sub-committees do an extremely important job and have produced some excellent and highly detailed reports since Brexit. It is perhaps a shame that the Government do not always pay quite as much attention to their findings as I believe they should. It is also testimony to the finely tuned diplomatic skills of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that he has managed to produce such a balanced report from what we might call a diverse membership with such a wide cross-section of views.
Back in December 2016, the House of Lords European Union Committee published a report on UK-Irish relations following Brexit, highlighting the potential issues that would be faced politically and economically by the people on both sides of the border on the island of Ireland. That report also regretted that there was not a more honest debate about these issues during the referendum campaign.
In debating the current post-Brexit situation in Northern Ireland, it is hard not to repeat the simple fact that the Government promised three fundamentally incompatible things: no north-south border, no east-west border and their insistence on their red line that we had to leave both the single market and the customs union. It is also worth recalling that the Northern Ireland protocol we are debating today is the Government’s own policy and that it was their choice to sign up to it in order to “get Brexit done”. However, to coin a phrase, we are where we are. It is equally important to try to find a way to move the debate forward.
As other noble Lords have already indicated, quite a lot has happened since both the committee reports we are debating today were published—not least the publication in July of the Government’s own Command Paper on the protocol. At the end of last week, we also had Commission Vice-President Šefčovič’s visit to Northern Ireland, where there were some very welcome changes of tone.
I will concentrate my remarks this afternoon on three areas raised by the sub-committee’s introductory report. The first point is the very urgent need to reach agreement on a UK-EU SPS/veterinary agreement. As paragraph 246 of the introductory report states,
“an SPS/veterinary agreement of any form is manifestly in the interests of Northern Ireland”.
Does the Minister agree with the report that not to reach such an agreement, when it would make such a positive difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland, would indicate that the Government consider regulatory sovereignty a higher priority than political and economic stability in Northern Ireland? Can he further say whether there are areas he may be willing to compromise on to reach such an agreement?
The second theme that I would like to highlight from the report—already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jay—is trust. Paragraphs 317 and 318 highlight the importance of the dialogue and political leadership over several Governments and many years that helped bring about the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That dialogue, trust and constructive leadership have sadly been lacking in the last five years since Brexit.
There was a welcome change of tone, as I have referred to already, from the European Commission Vice-President last week, when Mr Šefčovič ended his visit by saying that the EU was not looking for a political victory in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will adopt a similar tone. The business community and the majority of the wider community in Northern Ireland want certainty and solutions rather than dialled-up rhetoric. For there to be trust, there has to be a level of openness and transparency that has been very much lacking up until now.
In an extremely thoughtful article in response to the publication of the Government’s Command Paper in July, Professor Katy Hayward from Queen’s University highlighted some of the political consequences in the months ahead—in particular, that the protocol will inevitably feature heavily in next year’s Assembly elections. In their dialogue and negotiations over the next few months, I hope the Government will factor in the potential impact of these negotiations, as well as their tone, on the forthcoming Assembly elections. The Government’s July Command Paper highlights that the lack of unionist and loyalist buy-in has brought tension into the Executive and Assembly, but the Government never publicly acknowledge that there is a parallel lack of buy-in to the whole Brexit process from the majority of Northern Ireland voters.
My third and final point follows on from this: that is, the need for enhanced political dialogue and inclusion at all levels. As paragraph 205 rightly states:
“There is a widespread perception that the Protocol was imposed on Northern Ireland without meaningful engagement with its communities, and without a full and transparent explanation of the impact it would have.”
There has also been extremely little done to sell the potential positive benefits of the protocol for Northern Ireland, with its unique access to both EU and British markets. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to provide an information campaign on these potential benefits and how they plan to improve dialogue with all sectors in Northern Ireland, including civil society? As we approach the next stages of negotiations ahead of the end of the various grace periods in the weeks and months ahead, will the Minister give very serious consideration to the proposals contained in paragraph 269, which sets down some very constructive suggestions for strengthening Northern Ireland’s influence within both the UK and the EU?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this important debate today, and a privilege to serve on the European Affairs Committee’s Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland Sub-Committee, so expertly chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. Our committee, as has been said, brings together a wealth of experience on Northern Ireland including three former Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive, a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and my own rather more modest contribution as a special adviser for some 13 years. We not only represent all strands of opinion in this House, but also the main unionist and nationalist traditions in Northern Ireland. For the avoidance of doubt, while I strongly associate myself with the former, I will always value and deeply respect the latter. The fact, therefore, that our committee was able to produce a unanimous report does, I believe, give it a significant weight, and I trust that it will be regarded as a serious and well-informed contribution to this vexed issue of the Northern Ireland protocol.
I played absolutely no part at all in the negotiation of the current version of the protocol, as my time in the Northern Ireland Office came to an end on 24 July 2019, at the time Mrs May relinquished office. I did, however, have what might be described as a walk-on part in some of the discussions that formed the backdrop to the previous version of the protocol. I would like to share a couple of thoughts on that today which I believe are still relevant.
First, it always seemed to me that in that crucial period after the triggering of Article 50 and in the run-up to what became the joint report of 8 December 2017, the UK Government far too readily accepted the EU-Irish interpretation of what was required to protect the single market, prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and preserve the Belfast agreement in all its parts. It did so, I regret to say, with very little involvement of the department of state responsible for Northern Ireland. Indeed, the first time most of us saw the draft of the joint report was on the morning of Monday 4 December 2017, while the Prime Minister was on the train to Brussels to finalise it.
Our Democratic Unionist confidence and supply partners had been given an oral briefing the night before—but, crucially, no text—on the basis of which, Mrs May’s political advisers assured her that everything was fine. Well, it took little more than a few seconds to glance at the text to see that this could not possibly be the case. We were frankly shocked at what we saw. On seeing it, even the then Permanent Secretary at the Northern Ireland Office rushed into the Secretary of State’s office and said, “I don’t see how the DUP could possibly agree to this”, at which point I added, “I don’t see how the Secretary of State and I can possibly agree to this”. At a meeting the following day in the Cabinet Room, I stated that the document had every hallmark of having been drafted in Dublin, at which point one very, very senior official replied, “That’s because it largely was”.
As a result, as is well known, Mrs May was forced to return from Brussels that day, and there then ensued four days and late nights of discussions with the DUP, including my noble friend Lord Dodds of Duncairn, and the Commission in an attempt to salvage the situation and keep the Government together. In classic EU negotiating fashion, we were unable to remove any of the agreed text and therefore had to resort to adding language, including paragraph 50, on unfettered access, to counter paragraph 49, which contained the dreaded backstop, in an attempt to come up with something we could live with. Early on the Friday morning, Mrs May did indeed fly to Brussels and sign the joint report. Regrettably, the die had been cast and whatever way we tried to present the situation, the principle that Northern Ireland would be treated separately from the rest of the United Kingdom had been conceded. Thereafter, the debate was about how that separate treatment might manifest itself. To me, this was a fundamental mistake that has dogged us ever since.
My second, briefer, point concerns the EU, which, for whatever reason, seems to see Northern Ireland through predominantly nationalist eyes and the 1998 agreement almost exclusively through strand 2, the north-south relationship, with everything else subordinate to that. This was made very clear to me at a meeting with the apparently now Eurosceptic Monsieur Barnier in Brussels in June 2018. To my astonishment, I found myself having to explain to him that the 1998 agreement did not establish Northern Ireland as some kind of hybrid state—half in and half out of the UK—that the only choice in the agreement is full membership of the United Kingdom or a united Ireland, and that by disregarding the views of the pro-union majority, he risked undermining the very stability ushered in by the agreement that he was purporting to uphold. At that point he rather bizarrely accused me of wanting no deal, to which I had to reply that, as a remain voter in the referendum, I wanted to leave in good order, consistent with the constitutional and economic integrity of the United Kingdom. It was not a very happy encounter, but it did underline the apparent unwillingness of the Commission to consider all strands of the 1998 agreement equally.
As is frequently said in Northern Ireland, and as was just repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, “we are where we are”. To paraphrase Burke, we need to confront the world as it is, rather than how we would like it to be. For my part, I do not doubt the intentions of the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Minister in agreeing the protocol in good faith, and I do not for a second underestimate the near-impossibility of the predicament they found themselves in in the autumn of 2019. I also strongly supported the commitments around unfettered access as set out in the Northern Ireland Conservative manifesto at the 2019 general election, sections of which I drafted. But what is abundantly clear is that, however well-intentioned the protocol is, in its current form it is simply not working, and our report contains many examples to support that view. It has disrupted trade, damaged businesses, hit consumers and contributed to growing political instability in Northern Ireland. It has to change fundamentally, and in this respect I warmly welcome the Government’s Command Paper published in July and the approach of my noble friend.
Let me conclude with a few thoughts. We have been told throughout that checks are an essential part of protecting the EU single market and, as a rules-based construct, the EU’s position is one we all respect. However, it seems to many of us that what has been insisted upon is wholly disproportionate to the actual risk. Leaving aside the utter absurdity of having to check products going from Great Britain to supermarkets in Northern Ireland owned by retailers who have no stores outside of the United Kingdom, it has always seemed to me that the notion of using Northern Ireland to flood the EU single market with illegal produce is somewhat exaggerated when one considers the logistical and transportation challenges involved. To make any money, one would have to be doing it on such a grand scale that it would quickly and easily be detectable by any law enforcement or intelligence agency, of which we still have an extensive capability within Northern Ireland.
Therefore, while I accept that some checks might be necessary, they should only be proportionate to the risk. The Government, our committee and others, including both the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists, have set out positive and constructive proposals as to how such checks can be mitigated. After all, the EU has obligations under the laws of international trade and treaties it has signed to adopt a proportionate approach to border-related checks and control. It accepts in the protocol that it should
“impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland”.
I sincerely hope that the EU engages seriously around the alternatives because, as my noble friend and the Prime Minister have both made clear, the current situation is not sustainable; indeed, it is becoming increasingly dangerous. It is no good Maroš Šefčovič insisting in Belfast last week that the protocol is not the problem but the solution. Such a position is regrettably a conflict with reality. Without urgent action and remedy, we now risk rushing headlong into a full-blown political crisis from which the institutions established under the 1998 agreement could take years to recover—if they do at all. It would be a supreme irony if the EU’s theological and dogmatic interpretation of the protocol that it insists is designed to protect the 1998 agreement resulted in the destruction of that agreement; an agreement that a number of members of this Committee, on all sides, have spent many years trying to uphold, myself included.
Common sense, pragmatism, proportionality and an understanding that arrangements that do not command widespread consent across the whole community in Northern Ireland can never work are needed from the EU now—perhaps that common sense and pragmatism which were in such short supply in early 2016 but which, had they been forthcoming, might have prevented us from being in this position in the first place. Of course, addressing overzealous implementation of checks does not deal with some of the more fundamental constitutional and democratic issues thrown up by the protocol, something to which I hope the committee will turn its attention shortly, but it would be a start and I wish my noble friend every success in his endeavours.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, on chairing these committees. Although the principal committee’s report is over a year old, many of the issues that it pointed to on publication have come to pass. It has been an excellent reference document for those of us who are concerned with what is going on and, indeed, anticipated some of the problems. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, can take some pride in the fact that the sub-committee—a pretty diverse bunch—managed to get a unanimous report. We are therefore here to praise him, but perhaps the day will come, on subsequent reports, when we are here to denounce him, so we had better not get too carried away.
There is an interesting and significant point in the fact that people were able to agree this report. It illustrates that you can achieve something. Enough people in this room sat for years trying to negotiate what became the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As it was possible to sort out some of those problems, which literally dealt with blood and guts, it is surely not beyond the bounds of possibility that we can sit down with our European partners and deal with this.
The whole thing was not properly thought through from the beginning and people did not grasp the significance of the relationship that we had built up with the European Union over 40-odd years. I am no spokesperson for the EU and do not believe in its federalist tendencies, but the fact is that this Parliament signed up to every single, solitary thing. In many respects, it did so carelessly. Being on the committee dealing with those matters in the other place was almost like being put in a sin bin. We agreed to things of far-reaching significance, which many in this Parliament did not fully appreciate. We are living with the consequences of that now.
To take a case in point, throughout the reports are many criticisms of the fundamental contradictions that exist in the Government’s position—from the point of the referendum to the present circumstances. I will just illustrate one, which our helpful Library note spells out from the start, in its first sentence:
“Under the terms of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland agreed between the EU and the UK as part of the Withdrawal Agreement, Northern Ireland has a unique status.”
That is the fundamental point: our status has changed. People can huff and puff, but that is a fact. It goes on:
“It is part of the UK’s customs territory but is subject to the EU’s customs code, VAT rules and single market rules for goods … SPS … rules to protect animal … health”,
et cetera. So it has changed. For proof of that, when some people decided to take legal action against the Government and challenge the protocol, what was the Government’s defence? “Oh, but we’ve changed the act of union” was their defence. That is being appealed and it would not be appropriate to comment further on it, but I am just making the point.
In parallel with that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said in the earlier part of this year that there was no border. When he was interviewed later in the year, before the Summer Recess, he had to concede that it was a comment that had not aged well. It was nonsense when it was made and it is still nonsense. The Government have to be much more realistic about where they are. As a former colleague of mine in local government who made malapropisms from time to time said, the cows are coming home to roost. That is what is happening to us now. All these contradictions are confronting the business community and people who are trying to make a living. We as a country are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on providing mechanisms, through the trader arrangements, to deal with the paperwork and to try to keep businesses going. This is an unsustainable position.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, on numerous occasions used the word “trust”. We have to have a negotiation. We can call it whatever we like—discussions, chatting to the vice-president, or whatever it is—but we have to sit round the table. The European Union is our nearest and most significant trading partner. Looking at the world in the past few months, one can see the necessity for this. The EU was willing to play a significant part in solving our problems in Northern Ireland from the days of Jacques Delors, who was the first person to agree the funding streams that are still going on, so surely, with that sort of approach, it ought to be possible to get a negotiation going that will deal with the downstream consequences of all this.
Under these rules, we are effectively being treated as a third country. My noble friend Lord Caine was talking about Sainsbury’s sausages, but that is what he meant. What nonsense this is. Our committee was given statistics by Professor Shirlow of the University of Liverpool. He pointed out that trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is equivalent to 0.0008% of European GDP and that only a very small proportion of that would be at risk of entering the EU single market. People on the island will know immediately if there is any attempt to flood the EU single market with inappropriate goods. My party has called for the law to change—I was delighted to see this in the Command Paper—to make it an offence to use the territory of the United Kingdom to send unregulated goods into the single market. That would send a signal to the EU and our traders that that is not something we will allow.
Other issues in the report and the Command Paper can be used as a strong basis. One thing stands in the way of taking the positives from this. If you are trying to get people to invest in the unique situation of having access to both markets, there is one roadblock, which is the requirement for the Assembly to approve it after four years. If you are going to market something to an inward investor, that is a huge roadblock. That is saying that there is a question mark over the investment before you even get started.
While we have that sort of arrangement, which is not satisfactory anyway, getting any gain or advantage will be hugely challenging. There could be potential, but we also have the democratic deficit. I think that the phrase used during the referendum was of a “vassal state”; well, we are the vassal region. We are taking rules over which we have no say or input whatever. It is a constitutional carbuncle. When my noble friend replies, can he tell me and the Committee on what basis did the Government attempt to establish what consent existed for the protocol? Who indicated consent for the core elements within it? How did they judge that?
What we should now be doing—I hope that our committee addresses this—is to encourage a dialogue, sitting down away from the war that goes on in the press. We are in a difficult period in Europe, with elections coming up for the French president and a new chancellor in Germany. These are important times. As my noble friend said, we risk instability in Belfast if we do not deal with this now. We have to sit down with our colleagues in Europe and settle this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
Before the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, addresses us, I just let the Committee know that the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Bhatia, are not speaking today.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as a member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, to take part in this debate today, particularly as it is happening physically. This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak in Grand Committee in this format. That is not to detract in any way from the excellent work that our staff have done to make our meetings happen virtually and work so well and smoothly in the circumstances, but it is so much better to be able to debate these things in person, in my view. Indeed, for me, it is the first time that I have been able to interact with other members of the committee in this way, so I really welcome that.
I welcome the report and thank both our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for the work that they have carried out to bring us to this point, as well as our excellent staff, particularly Stuart Stoner. Before I come on to the report, I allude to one aspect of the work of the committee, which is that it also carries out an enormous amount of scrutiny work of legislation, statutory instruments and delegated legislation affecting Northern Ireland. It is just worth putting on record, as the Minister is here, that this is an extremely important part of the committee’s work. Given the lack of any other real role for the Northern Ireland Assembly, the other place or this House in that, it is absolutely essential that we get the widest possible and most generous co-operation from the Government as we carry out our important work.
On the report, I welcome the fact that we have been able to reach a consensus; that is an extremely powerful statement. It was done on the basis that we came to the finalisation of its contents without prejudice to the views that each of us held on the substance of the issue of whether the protocol was a good idea or not. We looked at the factual situation and what could be done so long as the protocol exists. There is a fundamental division, nevertheless, as is reflected in Northern Ireland, on the suitability of the protocol as a matter of principle. There is no shying away from that. My noble friend Lord Caine has gone into some of the background and history and has most helpfully put on the record some of the narrative of what happened in the lead-up to the events of January 2017 and some events since.
The issues at stake in Northern Ireland in terms of trade, sovereignty, the democratic deficit and political stability affect everyone and not just the unionist community. Diversion of trade, obstacles to access to goods at a reasonable price—and to the same range of goods as previously—access to medicines and access to a whole range of manufactured goods for businesses and consumers are issues that affect everyone and not just unionists. It is vital therefore that we address them in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland.
On the trade aspect, which is looked at mainly in the first report, we have found quite significant disruption. There is no doubt that many firms based in Great Britain, even where there is no technical reason why they cannot bring goods from Britain into Northern Ireland, have just given up on the grounds that it is too much hassle and too much work to get their heads around the processes. It is staggering that, between them, the trader support scheme, the digital assistance scheme, the veterinary arrangements and all the other checks amount to some £560 million of public expenditure. At a time when we are talking about other pressures on public expenditure and the need to introduce measures of taxation to plug the gaps, these are enormous sums of money being spent on administrative schemes that do not produce a single contribution in any shape or form to our economy and our productivity. It is pure bureaucracy.
We have the issue of the diversion of trade. There is reference to increased trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. I urge noble Lords to look at the recent comments of Esmond Birnie, an economist at Ulster University, who says that that needs to be looked at carefully, because it is not necessarily the advantage that people talk about but adds to the costs of business. If it had been advantageous for Northern Ireland businesses to bring goods in through the Irish Republic, they would have been doing it before now, because they are businesspeople and it would have been easier to do so. It must be an added cost.
We have heard it argued that we have the best of both worlds. Yes, one can send goods into the single market of the European Union without checks and restrictions, but one has to be able to get the raw materials and so on into Northern Ireland, mainly from Britain. If we have that problem, the advantages of getting things into the single market are not what they appear at first sight.
So this trade and economic aspect to the protocol is immensely concerning and causing enormous problems. Esmond Birnie has referred to an £850 million per annum detriment to Northern Ireland, which I am sure the committee will want to look at in more detail in future deliberations. However, it is not just the trade aspect; we also have the issue of sovereignty, which other noble Lords have referred to, and the serious issue of the Government’s admission that they have altered the Act of Union 1800 to accommodate the protocol, which is a direct admission that the sovereignty of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom has been impacted significantly by the protocol. That cannot be dismissed lightly. The direct application of laws of a foreign jurisdiction on a part of the United Kingdom without any say whatever by anyone in the legislature in Belfast or here at Westminster is quite simply in this day and age totally and utterly unacceptable. The issue of taxation without representation led to cataclysmic and far-reaching consequences previously and it will lead to far-reaching consequences if it is not addressed in the Government’s approach going forward.
Then we have the effect on stability in Northern Ireland, and the Belfast agreement, the St Andrews agreement and subsequent ones. You cannot have a situation where people are saying, as Vice-President Šefčovič was, that the protocol is there to protect the Belfast agreement and is the only way to do so, when in fact the result of its application—without the consent of anyone in Northern Ireland—is to undermine all those agreements and to cause the sort of instability we now see being played out in Belfast. It will have an inevitable consequence. A noble Lord referred earlier to the fact that, if the institutions come down, it will take a long time—as we have found from bitter experience—to get them restored again, and it would be very difficult to suggest how quickly this might occur if it were to happen in this situation.
The Government have produced their Command Paper. I welcome the narrative in it and the very strong commitments made to look at renegotiating Article 13(8) and the principles they have outlined, but I say to the Government that there is urgency to this. Do not forget that on 29 January—this has not been mentioned thus far—the European Union took steps, though thankfully withdrawing from the ultimate step, to instigate and trigger Article 16, undermining at a stroke the whole rationale of the Northern Ireland protocol. That caused enormous impact, not just for the unionist community but throughout Northern Ireland. We are still feeling its reverberations.
When he responds, I urge the Minister to clarify that he notes the urgency of this matter and to give a timescale in which he can come forward with some idea to replace our current arrangements.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have very little experience of Northern Ireland and am in awe of the expertise in front of me in this Committee. I did work under the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, in his chairmanship of the European Union Committee and on the first of the reports he described today, but I was then exiled for bad behaviour to the icy wastes of the International Agreements Committee. I learned a very great deal from this new report and have very little to add to it, except three glosses.
However, I will first comment on one or two things that have happened since, particularly the July White Paper, the speech the noble Lord, Lord Frost, made in Oxford on 4 September, Vice-President’s Šefčovič’s speech the other day and the statement at the weekend from Sir Jeffrey Donaldson. I should say at the outset that I too dislike the protocol intensely. Like the previous Prime Minister and the present one, I thought that a customs frontier inside a state was something no Prime Minister could possibly accept. I was a bit surprised when the present Prime Minister enthusiastically signed up for it. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, memorably said, we are where we are.
I am surprised to see the White Paper attack the protocol so strongly. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson calls for it to be thrown away, but he does not tell us what he thinks should replace it. I must say, in my view, the return of a hard border across the island of Ireland would be a complete disaster, not just for Northern Ireland but for the United Kingdom and its reputation and external relations, particularly with the United States—I used to work there and know about that. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, at Oxford was more constructive, but only marginally. The core of his attack on the protocol came when he said that
“solutions which involve ‘flexibilities’ within the current rules won’t work for us. The difficulties come from the way the Protocol is constructed, not just the way it is being implemented.”
So why did we agree to it?
I confess I find Mr Šefčovič’s answer rather plausible:
“Everyone around the table understood what these compromises meant in practice,”
he said on 9 September.
“And the implementation of this agreement will continue to require compromise from both sides.”
That is, of course, a central theme of the Committee’s report: the need for both sides—the UK and the EU—to demonstrate greater flexibility in operating the protocol. I agree.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is perfectly correct when he says that the protocol could be changed by mutual agreement, as Article 13(8) acknowledges. I suspect that some of our EU friends would be perfectly willing to consider certain of the changes demanded in the White Paper—for example, Article 10 of the protocol, in respect of subsidies in Great Britain. Certain other proposals would plainly never secure mutual agreement—for example, the suggestion that the EU should concede that the application in Northern Ireland of their single market laws should not be under the jurisdiction of their court, as the protocol says, but should be a matter for international arbitration. It seems to me that Mr Šefčovič was again nearer the mark when he said:
“The Protocol is not the problem. On the contrary, it is the only solution we have. Failing to apply it will not make problems disappear.”
Renegotiating it
“would mean instability, uncertainty and unpredictability in Northern Ireland.”
Now for my three glosses on the report. First, I recall from my Foreign Office days how, following the Good Friday agreement and the Belfast treaty, we immediately strengthened inward investment teams in the United States and other diplomatic missions, and it worked: the end of the Troubles, as we saw it. Northern Ireland’s highly educated and efficient workforce made it a very attractive destination for investment. It should be even more attractive, now it is the only place in the world where manufactured goods will circulate freely throughout the EU and the UK—a point the report makes. It is not a point the White Paper makes. Finding the next Bombardier would be much easier if the Government were to stop attacking the protocol.
To me, the most surprising passage in the committee’s report is at paragraph 122, where the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is quoted as, not seeing
“a case for the Government setting out”
the inward investment benefit of the protocol and adding, rather elliptically:
“I do not think it totally makes sense to encourage a situation that generated more of something that is a problem”
I am not absolutely sure I understand exactly what that means, but in my book, inward investment is not a problem and deterring it by encouraging uncertainty and instability is. Do we not owe it to Northern Ireland to do better? Surely, a Government who believe in the market should not be complaining about the relative growth of intra-Irish supply chains and direct trade flows between Northern Ireland and the rest of the single market directly, rather than over the land bridge across Great Britain. Water tends to flow downhill, and the more efficient the Northern Irish economy, the better for the people of Northern Ireland. I believe the Government should start to sell the single market opportunity.
Secondly, I was glad to see that the committee intends to come back to the question of the democratic deficit. For me, that is a central and serious problem. Since Northern Ireland is not represented in Commission, Council or Parliament, ways must be found to ensure that these institutions take account of Northern Irish concerns in the single market laws they write, and Northern Ireland must apply. The report lists a number of ways. For my part, I strongly agree with the suggestion from both the DUP and the UUP that Northern Ireland Ministers must be allowed to play central parts—not merely attending as observers—when the withdrawal agreement Joint Committee considers EU laws that would apply in Northern Ireland. I also believe the Dublin Government could help. I have long been impressed by the pleas from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, for greater use of the north-south institutions created by the Belfast treaty. I was very sorry to see Sir Jeffrey Donaldson’s threat to boycott them. I think that would be a serious self-inflicted wound.
My additional suggestion would be to consider the precedent of the informal arrangements the EU makes to inform acceding states about laws that will apply to them on or shortly after accession. I was in COREPER and saw ambassadors from non-EU states sitting in on our debates, in working groups, before their countries joined the European Union. Such arrangements might be hard to negotiate, but we should be trying. Something similar, specific to Northern Ireland and to single market laws, might be possible. It would be completely outside the treaties and so would depend on trust and good will.
This brings me to my final point. For me, the sub-committee’s key finding is at paragraph 223, where it concludes:
“in order to maximise the prospect of the EU taking a flexible approach to the implementation of the Protocol, the Government needs to rebuild trust by demonstrating its good faith. This requires open and constructive engagement, meetings its legal obligations and fulfilling its outstanding political commitments.”
I was in Washington when John Major and Tony Blair transformed our standing in America with Bill Clinton and John McCain by demonstrating that they were trustworthy on the Northern Ireland issue.
Of course, it would be possible to cut down the number of supplementary customs declarations. I am sure that point is absolutely correct; it is an absurd number now. I suspect that that is what Mr Šefčovič had in mind when he said last week:
“Let’s see what can be done to further ease the supply of goods”.
We should take up that offer from him. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, I find it implausible in practice that he would reject
“solutions which involve ‘flexibilities’ within the current rules”.
I hope the noble Lord drops the confrontational chest-beating tone. A good rule in negotiation is not to insult the other side.
I end with an olive branch—something the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said which seems 100% correct. In paragraph 268 of this admirable report, the sub-committee has him saying:
“it is important that we all try to act in a way that is conducive to a good negotiation”.
That is quite right. “Physician, heal thyself.”
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to serve on the Northern Ireland sub-committee, under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. I pay particular tribute to Stuart Stoner for his contribution, and to Breda Twomey, who was in charge of the administration. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, achieved something that is quite surprising: agreement, by all members of the committee, to this interim report. As the noble Lords, Lord Caine and Lord Empey, both pointed out, a diverse bunch of people were on that committee and to get them to agree an interim report was quite something.
But things have moved on. If I may coin a phrase, we were where we were. On the day we published our report, 21 July, the Command Paper that has been referred to was published. Paragraphs 45 and 70 called for UK-EU negotiations so substantive as to create a new settlement to supersede parts of the protocol. The response of the EU was:
“we will not agree to a renegotiation of the protocol.”
Two days later, the Minister formally requested a standstill of current arrangements in accordance with paragraph 77 of the Command Paper and a freezing of the EU’s existing legal actions. While not obliged to do so, the Commission halted its proceedings arising out of the British unilateral action last March to extend the grace periods.
Then we had the ministerial Statement on 6 September, which was another unilateral declaration to continue the grace periods and easements currently in force to which the European Commission had not assented. The Commission replied the same day to the effect that both sides were legally bound by an international agreement to fulfil their obligations under it, emphasising that it would not agree to renegotiation. At the moment we are in a position of stalemate. The European Commission said:
“Our focus remains on identifying long-term, flexible and practical solutions to address issues related to the practical implementation of the Protocol”.
To my mind, that sounds an admirable aim. The question is: will it happen? The Commission also said:
“Our approach to the Protocol is based on the achievement of stability, certainty and predictability in line with the objectives of the Good Friday (Belfast) Agreement and in order to protect the Single Market.”
That is a statement of intent which, again, seems perfectly reasonable and desirable.
The next thing to happen was the speech of Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, which introduced the fantasy world in which he threatened to break up the power-sharing Government in Northern Ireland if the protocol was not abandoned. The Belfast Telegraph described it in terms such that Boris’s bridge to Northern Ireland would be built before that happens. The Minister said in his speech to the British-Irish Parliamentary Association on 4 September that his purpose is not to scrap the protocol but to rebalance it. Does he support the new stance taken by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson? I am sure he will answer that question in his reply. If he is not prepared to do what Sir Jeffrey Donaldson suggests—to abandon the protocol—why is he not prepared to use the dispute mechanisms he agreed to in the protocol? Why has he proceeded by unilateral diktat?
This was anticipated many years ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, said in 2017, when she was a member of the European Union Committee:
“Going forward, the Government will have to ensure that it can agree a clear, certain and robust enforcement mechanism to ensure that any rights and obligations under the Withdrawal Agreement (and subsequent partnership arrangements with the EU) can be upheld in the event of a dispute.”
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, told us just now that the protocol is not sustainable. But is it beyond resolution? There are problems and one of the concerns I have voiced in the committee has been about the democratic deficit—which is an important issue of principle that has to be resolved.
Professor Katy Hayward of Queen’s University Belfast, in an article for UK in a Changing Europe in July, said:
“Such matters can be resolved largely through the work of the Specialised Committee, whose continuing technical talks are leading to some legislative change in the EU to allow flexibilities for Northern Ireland. Or, if more substantial, the Joint Committee could adopt a decision to amend the Withdrawal Agreement if ‘necessary to correct errors, to address omissions or other deficiencies, or to address situations unforeseen when this Agreement was signed’ … The UK government is seeking fundamental changes of the type and scale it thinks requires renegotiation, but fails here to present evidence as to what cannot be resolved through the existing means.”
Why did the Minister agree to the European Court of Justice being the final arbiter? Why did he concede that final jurisdiction to Michel Barnier of all people, who revealed last week that he believes that the legal sovereignty of France is threatened by the rulings of that court? Perhaps Monsieur Barnier is trying to tune in to the populist urges of his right-wing party in his bid to be its leader. The impression is strongly given in this country—the Minister can perhaps deal with this—that he cannot now stomach the role he agreed for the European court and therefore now avoids, shies away from, the dispute mechanisms he agreed to in the withdrawal agreement.
Analysis from the Institute for Government shows that between 2003 and 2016, compared with other EU member states, the UK resolved its cases in the ECJ early, ended up in court less often than most and won more often than most. This was due to the quality of British lawyers—well, I would say that wouldn’t I?—and their skill in presenting and arguing their case. We have nothing to fear from that court. Why replace it with a set of unknown, ad hoc international arbitrators as the final decision-makers?
We on these Benches did not seek to leave the European Union, and I suggested at the time that it would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, a threat which has not gone away as the cold light of day falls upon the promises that were made, but my approach within the committee, as committee members will know, has been to be more optimistic for Northern Ireland. I see that there is a prize to be grasped: the prize of prosperity due to the unique circumstances of its access to both the single European market and the UK, a point strongly made by my noble friend Lady Suttie and recently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I was heartened to find that my perception was strengthened by our witnesses, who spoke of the increased trade with the Republic of Ireland and the many business inquiries from all over the world. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the constitutional carbuncle that will take place in 2024 when a decision is to be made about the continuation of the protocol. That puts considerable pressure on the political parties that will be fighting next May’s elections.
The possibility of prosperity is the future which Sir Jeffrey Donaldson should grasp. That is what this Government at Westminster should be working for: to sort out and minimise the practical problems by negotiation within the terms of the dispute mechanism. That is the way we will find certainty and ultimately stability for the whole of Northern Ireland and its people.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the report from your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee and its Northern Ireland sub-committee and the introduction to both by our two chairs do not stand alone. They need to be considered alongside the Government’s July White Paper on the same subject. Indeed, the fact that the Government chose to table their proposals for modifying the Northern Ireland protocol just 24 hours ahead of the committee’s report without waiting to consider its views or, indeed, without taking the opportunity to provide in evidence, which the noble Lord gave to the committee not long before, their own thinking was, I fear, a singular and lamentable act of disrespect to Parliament.
Although a member of the European Affairs Committee, I can without immodesty say that the report is a balanced, unvarnished account of the difficulties that have arisen over implementing the protocol, since we did not modify or criticise any of the sub-committee’s findings. I wish I could say the same of the White Paper, but it is an altogether more partisan document, designed as much to dismantle and renegotiate as to implement what was agreed so recently between the UK and the EU.
The hard fact is that the protocol was agreed by the two parties to it and was then endorsed and ratified by the two parliamentary institutions on both sides, thus becoming binding international law. It must seem odd to some looking at this that its principal negotiators on our side, the Prime Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Frost, now find so much in it to challenge despite probably having more experience of the way the EU operates than any of their predecessors in these jobs. Did they really not understand what it meant, or did they understand and conclude the agreement without any intention of implementing it? I shall be interested to hear which of those two the noble Lord, Lord Frost, opts for.
No one disputes that implementation raises a number of sensitive and complex problems which need solutions. They are reviewed in detail in the committee’s report. They cannot and must not be ignored. No one disputes either that solutions need to be found in a spirit of pragmatism and flexibility, but pragmatism and flexibility are two-way streets; they are not something you can ask just one side to show. You have to be prepared to show it yourself as well. I am afraid that pragmatism and flexibility are not encouraged by modifying deadlines and the protocol unilaterally, as the Government did earlier in the year, nor by threatening to invoke the main safeguard clause if we do not get our way, nor by seeking pretty fundamental changes in the governance procedures laid down in the protocol, nor by dismissing out of hand the idea of negotiating sanitary and phytosanitary conditions on a temporary basis, which would remove many implementation problems. Better surely to practise the qualities we are calling for, pragmatism and flexibility, and to eschew megaphone diplomacy.
A clear example of megaphone diplomacy was last week’s speech by the relatively new leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson. That sort of bluster and blackmail will serve no useful purpose, provoking, as it has already done, a reiteration of the EU’s refusal to renegotiate the Northern Ireland protocol, so recently concluded. It reflects too a refusal by the DUP to recognise the validity of a protocol which was agreed by the UK Parliament despite the DUP’s objections. That is the very conjunction which resulted in Britain’s exit from the EU despite the majority of Northern Ireland voters having voted to remain. Surely what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.
There are obviously major issues at stake here, including the overall health of the UK-EU relationship, which can hardly be said to be flourishing. We should not forget that triggering the Article 16 safeguard clause would open up the possibility for the EU to retaliate. Do we seriously accept the assertion that it is the protocol which endangers the Belfast agreement rather than a breakdown over implementing it being the immediate cause, with the main cause, of course, being Brexit? I know that that last statement will be considered a bit provocative, but how else is one to interpret a reversion to pre-Belfast agreement rhetoric by the leader of the DUP, which we heard last week?
Then, what price the prospects for a UK/US trade deal in circumstances where the protocol fails to be implemented or is set aside? The Government quite rightly take the view, and have often said so from the Dispatch Box, that Britain’s interests are best served by upholding the rules-based international order, but this protocol is part of that order. A post-Brexit Britain whose word is no longer its deed will pay a heavy and unnecessary price. It is surely preferable to negotiate calmly and purposefully to implement the protocol that we put our name to. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, when he replies to this debate, will confirm explicitly that that is the objective that the Government are pursuing.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, the Northern Ireland protocol stands on a palpable absurdity, namely the idea that checks on goods between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will upset the political equilibrium, possibly even threaten the peace, but that such checks on goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain are just fine and dandy. It is because we have all been dancing around that anomaly that we are meeting here in this Committee. All the ripples have been caused by trying to come to terms with something that is simply absurd.
I add my voice to all those who have complimented our chairman. Our committee indeed has, to use his phrase, “strong and divergent” views. There speaks nearly 40 years of diplomatic experience. That is one way of putting it. None the less, we have come up with some serious proposals with consensus. I think that we were able to do so for one reason, which is worth bringing out: of all the witnesses we heard from, there was not one that was actively pro-protocol. There was certainly a variety of views. I was very impressed. It was the first time that I had been on a Select Committee and everything that people said about the balance, fairness and thoroughness was absolutely right. We heard from every different quarter of opinion. There were those who thought it was a price worth paying, those who did not, those who put the blame on Brexit and those who put the blame on the protocol, but there was not one voice arguing that the protocol was an improvement on the status quo ante—not one.
I can broadly group under two headings the complaints that I heard from the various witnesses who appeared before us. One lot are what we might call the practical objections. They were uniform, I think, across Northern Ireland. You could not tell which tradition someone was from when they voiced them. They were concerns to do with sausages, pet passports and all the other pragmatic difficulties of overzealous implementation. I think there would, in theory, be quite easy solutions to them if there were a modicum of good will. The second lot, I think it is fair to say, were objections voiced largely from unionist and loyalist sources and had to do with what we might loosely call the democratic deficit—the idea that Northern Ireland will have laws, even taxes, imposed on it by people that it cannot vote for. Those are much harder to deal with, at least within the protocol. We can safely disregard the various ideas that they can be resolved by somehow allowing Northern Ireland to be politically further annexed by the EU. They are a very difficult set of problems to resolve.
If I were an EU negotiator, I would be super-flexible about the first lot, thereby maximising the difficulties of any UK Government wanting to deal with the second lot. It would not really be any skin off my nose. We heard my noble friend Lord Empey quote the figures of the miniscule amount of the EU economy accounted for by Great Britain/Northern Ireland trade—0.008%. However, it seems that the Brussels negotiators do not have the same diplomatic skill that I see arrayed on the Bench opposite, albeit with a little gap now with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, having absented himself. Instead of showing flexibility on the practical side and digging in on sovereignty—which is what we might expect them to do—they have been difficult and obstreperous about every issue, even requiring rabies shots for pets moving from Great Britain. It is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that they relishes our discomfort and are seeking to use the protocol as a pressure point, a way of exerting pressure on the UK to secure our long-term adherence to EU standards. We heard some of the figures: 20% of EU external checks are applied to 0.5% of its trade, if you count Great Britain-Northern Ireland trade as external trade. Why are they doing this?
It is extraordinary, listening to the debate in this Chamber, another Chamber, more widely in the media and, I have to say, from three speakers so far how often the only answer we get is, “Well, you signed it”. Seriously, is that all you have? How does that take us forward? It is true that it was signed, as what we might call an unequal treaty. History is littered with examples of treaties that ceased to be valid and were then abrogated or annulled. An apt example, given both the subject matter and this being its centenary year, is the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921. It was repudiated in stages by successive Irish Governments, first breaking their residual constitutional links with the UK, then declaring a republic and leaving the Commonwealth. I note en passant, as we old Brussels hands say, that when that the final break was made in 1949 the UK Government were remarkably affable about it. In fact, King George sent the following message to the Irish President:
“I hold in most grateful memory the services and sacrifices of the men and women of your country who rendered gallant assistance to our cause in the recent war … I pray that every blessing may be with you today and in the future.”
I wonder whether the European Union will be similarly accommodating if a similar repudiation happens. Somehow, I doubt it. Maybe that is something we can all agree on around this Room.
When a treaty is not working, when a treaty is a product, as this one was, of the Benn Act and of a Parliament that was not working to get the best possible terms, it will obviously have to go in one way or another. It seems to me that there are three options. In declining order of drama, there is outright repudiation, the triggering of Article 16 or asking for some changes within the existing structures. The first is the cleanest, and there is precedent, but so far I see little appetite for it.
There is already ample justification for the second. Article 16, just to remind members of this Committee and other noble Lords, contains the following clause:
“If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist, or to diversion of trade, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate safeguard measures.”
Leaving aside “environmental”, it seems to me that we have already passed that threshold on the others. In terms of economic disruption, Northern Ireland sells more to Great Britain than to the Republic of Ireland, the rest of the EU and the rest of the world put together. We heard from one of our witnesses that Northern Ireland-Great Britain trade is now subject to £10 billion of extra costs, and three-quarters of Northern Ireland businesses said they had been negatively impacted. As for societal difficulties, when, according to the opinion polls, half of Northern Ireland is against it—it is now almost exactly half and half—that is normally taken in the Northern Ireland context as a pretty good argument to desist from your course of action and try something more consensual.
As for trade diversion, that is not in doubt. We heard that north-south trade increased by 50% as businesses in the Province shifted their sourcing and trade, but to portray this as a good thing, to portray the cause of extra cost and bureaucracy forcing trade diversion as somehow an economic step forward, is rather like arguing that it was a great thing that the blockade in the Second World War led to people growing more potatoes in their gardens. The most basic principle of trade is that we should trust businesses to do what is rational and profitable. If they cannot do so because of needless paperwork—applied, to repeat, not in any proportionate spirit but for the sake of making trouble—it seems to me that must be reckoned a net cost.
So one way or another, the current deal is going. The only question is whether it goes in agreement with our European partners or through unilateral action. I have to say—I know this goes against the spirit of the meeting—that my noble friend the Minister has shown heroic restraint so far in asking nicely for changes, rather than making them unilaterally. When we think that the European Union triggered Article 16, albeit briefly, on no grounds beyond pique that the UK vaccine programme was ahead of its own, we have ample cause in terms of the economic and societal impacts that we have already seen.
I hope we can do this consensually. I hope that Northern Ireland becomes a bridge between the UK and the European Union, but there is no veto here: one way or another, the protocol has to go.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I used to appear at referendum campaign rallies with the previous speaker, I always made it clear that I would only speak before him. Unfortunately, today, I have to follow him and can say what a great speech that was. I also pay tribute to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Caine. I am really looking forward to the book, which will be well worth reading. We were all enlightened today to hear a little more about the negotiations going on way back under the former Prime Minister.
Like most committee reports, by the time they have been published and debated, they are a little out of date as events have moved on, but I welcome the reports, as far as they go, and accept that they are preliminary and that this project is ongoing. I suggest the committee tries to meet some of the younger pro-union loyalists next time, who are now beginning to speak out in Northern Ireland. The problem for establishment committees such as this is that they go for the well-known, regular commentators, and they know what they are going to say before they turn up. Those at the grass roots of what is happening in Northern Ireland get ignored, not listened to.
We saw that just last week, when Vice-President Šefčovič—I apologise to him for my pronunciation—spent two days in Northern Ireland. He refused to meet the leader of one of the main unionist parties, the Traditional Unionist Voice party, Jim Allister. He did not meet any of the loyalists I am talking about in their communities. The whole idea of outreach, which the EU has made a great deal of, needs to be looked at.
There are two points I want to put on record at the beginning. First, there is a tendency for those who voted to remain in the referendum to tell us leavers that we own Brexit, that we own the protocol and that it is our fault. I campaigned for Brexit very strongly and I would do it again, but I campaigned for the whole United Kingdom to leave the European Union in totality. I did not see on my ballot paper a little bit put off saying, “Do you want to leave the United Kingdom, but to leave out Northern Ireland?” I strongly believe that we do not have Brexit in Northern Ireland, and that is part of the problem.
Secondly, we hear a lot from many people, including those in government, that Brexit made an Irish Sea border inevitable, but anyone who says that is actually stating that Northern Ireland voters did not have the right to take part in a nationwide referendum on the same basis as those in the rest of the United Kingdom, and that the outcome of that referendum applied in Northern Ireland without any qualifications. Those who say that do not really believe in the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If they are being honest, they should say that they are not unionists. The trade checks are not done in the Irish Sea, anyway. They are on the land of the island of Ireland, at Larne, Belfast, et cetera. All those who said we could never have a land border on the island have exactly that; the only difference is between one part of the United Kingdom and another, not between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
In Northern Ireland, the good, decent, honest people who feel British and believe that they were guaranteed the right to be British unless there was a majority who did not wish to be, are expected to put up with this. Would noble Lords be sitting here debating in the same way if it had been the other way round—if it was a nationalist community saying, “We don’t want a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic”? The pro-union community is expected to put up with it. We know why we have this. It is because the collusion between the Irish Government and the European Union, and the threats of violence, led our Government to go along with saying that there can never be a trade border on the island of Ireland at the frontier—which is where any normal country would think it should be. The Belfast agreement would be broken, according to nationalists and many here, by a land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, but it is not broken by having a border between one part of the United Kingdom and another. The Belfast/Good Friday agreement was based on balance and the balance has now gone completely the other way.
I am very surprised that the committee did not say more about the court judgment at the end of June, which I know the Lord Speaker has said we can refer to, when Mr Justice Colton confirmed that
“the government has removed critical aspects of the Acts of Union 1800; the legislation that effectively created the United Kingdom.”
As one of the applicants for the judicial review along with Jim Allister, Ben Habib, Arlene Foster, Steve Aiken and the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, I find it very concerning. It has huge political ramifications as well as legal significance. It represents a direct challenge to what the Prime Minister said in response to Sir Jeffrey Donaldson in Prime Minister’s Questions, when he said explicitly that this provision had not been repealed by the withdrawal agreement and the protocol. We are going to appeal. The case raised complex legal issues, but they will eventually be settled, and I am sure many noble Lords here will be delighted that it will be going to the Supreme Court and keeping our lawyers in business. The Acts of Union are a constitutional statute and the courts do not seem to have considered a case like this before where constitutional statutes clash.
As there are many lawyers here and I am sure they read the European Journal of International Law, I want to refer to a recent, excellent article by Professor Joseph Weiler. He has written about the treaty of Versailles, Brexit, the Irish protocol and the Versailles effect. As someone who used to be head of the European University Institute in Florence and a very strongly pro-EU person, he quite explicitly argues very coherently about why the European Union has been so wrong in the way it has handled the whole of the Northern Ireland protocol. I suggest that Members might like to refer to that.
The grace periods have been extended and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for all that he has done. I know he is battling against very difficult European Union representatives who still seem to want to find ways of punishing us more for leaving. The grace periods have been extended, but that does not change what is currently happening. They were going to bring in much worse things, both in trade issues and in other ways; those have now been put off, but it does not change what is happening. There are still checks in Larne and companies in Great Britain not wanting to send anything to Northern Ireland. Not a week goes past but there is something else and another company says, “We can’t really be bothered with this; it’s not worth the hassle, we really don’t want to do it.” Tinkering with the protocol is not good enough. Even if we manage to get trade flowing freely, as long as we in Northern Ireland are left under European Union rules and the European Court of Justice, that will not be acceptable to people in Northern Ireland who want to stay part of the United Kingdom.
When people talk about compromise, they have no understanding of the strength of feeling. The United Kingdom Government cannot compromise any more. They need now to stand up, be strong and speak up for the country they are meant to be running. This Government have a choice to make. I am very pleased that Sir Jeffrey Donaldson—I am not a member or necessarily a supporter of the DUP, but I support anyone in Northern Ireland who speaks up for the union whatever their political party—has come out and said that since the east-west dimension of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement has been broken, why should we carry on with the north-south?
I think it is rather sad that one Unionist is now saying let us have more north/south bodies. Would that really make things better? I do not agree with that, and I am very pleased that Sir Jeffrey has spoken about this. We need to take his warning very seriously. The Government have now got to make it clear that the protocol is not sustainable, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and others said. It is not sustainable; it has to go. The Government have to choose: do they want to see stability in Northern Ireland, do they want to see institutions maintained and to keep that balance that has been so difficult over many years, or do they want to keep the protocol? They cannot have both. That is the dilemma the Government face. I hope that committees like this will understand that this is a crucial time. There is no point in having more committees, meetings and lots more reports over the next six months. We do not have six months. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, understands that and I hope the Prime Minister understands that and will now recognise that this protocol has to go, one way or another.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it was my pleasure to be a member of the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, under the direction and chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. I acknowledge the work of our staff, led by Stuart Stoner, because they have undertaken sterling work on our behalf. I also acknowledge the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the chair of the parent committee, because the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and I went to that committee along with our chair to find if it would approve our consensus report. I am very glad to say that happened.
I am pleased that the Minister is present today and I hope that he will be able to give details of the timeframe for discussions with the EU on the protocol. I hope that these discussions will lead to solutions and provide for much-needed political and economic stability in Northern Ireland while, at the same time, ensuring that the people, communities and businesses can avail themselves of the unique opportunities and benefits of the protocol, because there are benefits: being able to trade in the UK internal market and the EU single market.
I devote my remarks to our committee’s report. I believe it should form the basis of future inquiries, including examinations of the Government’s Command Paper, which came out a number of days prior to the publication of our own report in late July, the EU’s response to that Command Paper, the ongoing discussions between the UK and EU, the way forward and subsequent political and economic developments since July 2021 up until today. Our committee contains members from different political perspectives on Brexit, the protocol and the constitutional issue. There are three of us from Northern Ireland who all served together on the Northern Ireland Executive as Government Ministers, but we come from different political perspectives. I come from a Democratic Irish Nationalist background, while the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Dodds, come from a Unionist perspective, but I believe there is beauty in diversity. There are benefits in diversity. I hope that the necessary solutions to the protocol can be found in those diverse perspectives.
I campaigned to remain within the EU and feel that the root cause of the current economic and political problems lies with Brexit and particularly the hard Brexit that the Government sought, and which some elements of Unionism also sought. I believe the protocol is a practical solution to a difficult issue: to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland. I am also opposed to any other border in the Irish Sea or anywhere else, as are my political colleagues. As we have said, on numerous occasions, borders create impediments, they create barriers and they do not lend themselves to solutions. It is important that a solution is finally found to all this.
Unfortunately Brexit and the protocol are also aligned with political identities and the constitutional issue in Northern Ireland and Ireland. Bearing in mind the political statements of the past few weeks, it is not a binary choice between the protocol and collapsing political institutions and withdrawing from north/south bodies and the North/South Ministerial Council, as suggested by the leader of the DUP. It is not the protocol versus devolution. The issue is recognition of the reality that Northern Ireland needs a bespoke and unique post-Brexit solution to trade and normal relationships because of our unique geographical position on the island of Ireland and the nature of our politics, whether we are from a unionist or nationalist perspective. That fact was recognised by the former First and Deputy First Ministers in a letter to the former Prime Minister in August 2016. Devolution cannot be sacrificed because some parties choose to put their narrow self-interest above the interest of our communities.
A point highlighted by Professor Hayward in her recent paper is that Northern Ireland business representatives do not want a cancellation of the protocol. The Minister should take heed of that. What they have been requesting since before the end of the transition period is certainty, stability and clarity of procedures. They complain about the complexities of the situation. Our report reflected that position and the difficulties and challenges that the business community have faced. There are those who think that there are benefits in the protocol, and Manufacturing NI referred to the increased opportunities for inward investment. None of us should gainsay that fact.
Our committee also concluded that the EU and the UK
“have a continuing obligation to consider alternatives”
to the protocol and
“an equal obligation on all sides to find resolutions within the Protocol.”
Of course, we also referred to the fact that proposed solutions have to prove how they can be compliant with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. In our view, technical solutions to
“ease some of the burden of the Protocol’s practical operation can be found, as long as there is goodwill and flexibility on all sides”.
We concluded that like the negotiations, which have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, which culminated in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement,
“time, patience, dialogue and most of all trust”
need to be applied to addressing the problems that Brexit and the protocol present for Northern Ireland. As our committee declared, rather than taking unilateral action, it would be
“preferable for the UK and the EU … urgently to identify mutually agreeable solutions”.
Those are the words that I heard coming back to me last week from Vice-President Šefčovič. He talked about not wanting a victory, but to listen, understand and try to provide solutions. I hope that that is the way forward and that the UK and the EU can find solutions to the protocol within the protocol that will provide a solution to the business problems that have been encountered and which do not wreck our existing political institutions.
I urge those who have indicated that they wish to walk away from those institutions that there is far too much work to be done in Northern Ireland, in terms of the Executive, the Assembly and the north-south bodies, in terms of the current pandemic, in terms of the climate emergency and in terms of the plethora of other legislation that has to go through before the Assembly elections in May of next year. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of those discussions and say how far down the road we are to finding solutions? Let us always remember that there is beauty and benefit in the diverse views that have been presented today. Let us hope that that helps provide solutions that also address the democratic deficit and allow Assembly Members a greater say in how the protocol is effected and is worked out in terms of the wider community and businesses in Northern Ireland.
Lord Moylan (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise in the wake of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick. I want to make a small preliminary remark, which is that, although I count myself as a unionist in the general terms of supporting the United Kingdom, I am not and never have been connected with the unionist tradition in Northern Ireland. In fact, before I entered your Lordships’ House, I do not think I had met a unionist politician from Northern Ireland, with the exception of one meeting with the former First Minister, Peter Robinson, and even then, he was judiciously balanced by his deputy, Martin McGuinness. That is the extent of my connection with the unionist tradition.
I make that point because the points I want to focus on today in the time allotted are ones that I regard as having constitutional and democratic significance for every part of Northern Ireland and every person there, irrespective of which community they belong to and whether they belong to any community at all. In my doing so, it may be thought that I am making some remarks about the report of the committee which are less than wholly obliging. If that is the case, let me assure noble Lords that it is not meant to detract from the report as a whole, which I found extremely valuable, informative and useful, and I have learnt much both from the report and in sitting in this debate. I can say that without hurt to anyone since I appear to be the last Back-Bench speaker.
Let me come to my three points. First, there is a tone throughout the second, more recent report of a parity of treatment of the two parties to the Northern Ireland protocol, the British Government and the European Union, and that, in so far as the mechanisms are not working, blame can be equably distributed in a sort of Olympian fashion between the two. This is a huge mistake. While it may be perfectly true that, looked at purely from the point of view of the Northern Ireland protocol, the two parties have entered it as sovereign equals, the responsibilities of the British Government in Northern Ireland go way beyond simply the management of trade and a trade border in a way that is simply not true of the European Union. It is the British Government, working with the devolved Administration when appropriate under the devolution settlement, who are responsible for housing people, for their health, for their transport, for their connectivity and, crucially, for their safety and security. Those responsibilities are not shared by the European Union and they place a different burden on the British Government as they approach and interpret the protocol.
His Excellency the EU ambassador is quoted in the report as saying that the EU has
“an economic, diplomatic and even an emotional and financial commitment to Northern Ireland”.
That is all very well, but that is not to share in the responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland and the accountability to the world at large and to the democratic world at large for how the country is conducted. That should be recognised. In my own case, that would lead me to cut the British Government a bit more slack in this Olympian allocation of blame between the two parties. The pressures and demands on them are so very much greater.
Secondly, as referred to in the report and explicitly referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the fact is that a significant constitutional change in Northern Ireland has been imposed. I know that the Northern Ireland protocol, in paragraph 1, page 1, or something—really early—says that it represents no change from the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. I have always thought, however, that that is a little bit like the burglar leaving a note saying that he has not actually burgled you. It reads well, but it bears no relation to the facts. The fact is that there has been a very significant constitutional change and it is one that clashes with the Good Friday agreement. We have seen, for example, that the vote that is to take place in the Northern Ireland Assembly has required legislation since the protocol was put in place in order to change the Good Friday agreement so that the vote can take place on the basis that the protocol agreed.
That seems to leave us in no doubt that, whereas the pre-eminent constitutional document under which Northern Ireland was governed until recently was the Good Friday agreement, it now seems that, without that being abrogated or abolished, none the less the pre-eminent document that now governs it is the Northern Ireland protocol. Nobody in Northern Ireland has been asked about this. The riposte that people in Northern Ireland voted by a majority of 55% to stay in the European Union just does not cut it, because people were not asked should Northern Ireland stay in the European Union. In fact, that would have been to ask a question that invited a major contravention of European Union law, because the European Union does not admit bits of states to membership, only whole states. The question asked was whether the United Kingdom should leave or stay, and the answer was not necessarily what the people of Northern Ireland wanted, but the outcome was clear by a majority vote. It was a vote for the status quo; I think we can all agree on that. And I think we can all agree that what they have got in return is not the status quo. That is why I think that argument simply fails.
This deserves more prominence. If we were talking about a change in Government and a change in constitutional status for another country, there would be many people in your Lordships’ House who, quite understandably, would say that such a change would require the consent of the people involved. That has not been achieved. After all, we offer referendums for much lesser matters than this. The people of London were offered a referendum, in which they voted yes, in order for the introduction of the Greater London Authority. That is merely, if I may say so—even though I had some involvement with the Greater London Authority—a modest constitutional change compared with what has happened in Northern Ireland, yet the people of London were consulted and asked. This is the sort of thing that should be high on the committee’s agenda and something that the Government, if I may say to my noble friend the Minister, should be much more voluble about. However implicated they may be in it, it simply is not right.
My third point, which is also mentioned in the report—I trespass on dangerous ground for me because I am not a lawyer—is the reference to Article 3 of the first protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which of course guarantees as a human right, without any qualification on the face of the convention that I can see, the right to a regular, secret vote for a legislature. That is presumably the legislature that is making your laws, as opposed to a different legislature. That is implicit, and I think we can all agree on that.
A judge in Northern Ireland has decided that the current situation does not breach that convention right. I understand this is subject to appeal, but I will not go further into the legalities of that. My reading of the judgment was that he did not actually dispute the facts, but felt that there were circumstances justifying departure from the application of the right, but I am not a lawyer and will be careful what I read into that.
I will make a slightly different point. Even if it turned out that the current situation—in which amendments to the existing legal framework can be made without any say by the people of Northern Ireland in laws that they are obliged to live under—was compliant with the convention, is that what we would want in Britain? Would the rest of the world welcome that? My noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere disappointed me slightly when he said that these are difficult issues. They are not difficult: the response to a lack of democracy in a democratic state is democracy. We should start to address that.
I would like to see these issues brought more to the fore in the discussion. They affect the entire community and we would expect other countries to address them and put them at the forefront, if we were talking about them. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and ourselves to do the same when discussing their affairs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, as a Scottish Borderer, I want to tread lightly in this debate on the Northern Ireland protocol. I am a creature of the multifaceted and complex union. I love it with all my heart. As a Borderer in the Scottish Borders who often refers to a different act of union, it has been fascinating to be here, in the context of this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Caine, added an extra level of complexity and perhaps contradiction to the debate, as I heard him powerfully say that the May approach was unacceptable and the Johnson approach now requires substantial change. I look forward to the book I hope he writes. If he does not mind, I would be tempted to flick through to the end to see if there is a happy ending.
My version of my noble friend’s comment is that we do not like where we are, but the destination is not necessarily where we want to get to either. At its heart, it is why many of us have struggled with Brexit. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, the sub-committee report was published on the same day as the Government’s Command Paper, and any reader of them both on that day, at the same time, would have seen the strength of consensus and unanimity in one and the relative weakness of going alone in the other. One called for building trust in dialogue and discussion; the other, for unilateral argument and renegotiation. One showed what a destination of travel may be; the other faced a dead end already.
As others have, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for introducing this debate so comprehensively and setting the tone. I am a happy member of the European Affairs Committee and a great admirer of the sub-committee’s work, not least its ability to bring about unanimity and consensus. I thought about which of his previous postings would have required the noble Lord, Lord Jay, to have the greatest skill and diplomacy to bring about this consensus, but I suspect it was a combination of them all. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, the committee sought to make, and in many ways made, sense of the tensions and contradictions described within the protocol.
The Government have been trying to deliver two competing narratives within our union for a number of years: that the freedoms now enjoyed as a result of leaving the EU single market, for GB, will liberate us; but for the other part of the UK, remaining in the EU single market will enrich it. Neither is necessarily true, no matter how many times it is said. This debate laid bare that concern.
The Minister in charge, Michael Gove, described the Northern Ireland protocol as the “best of both worlds” in this regard. He is in accord with the EU Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, who cited a Northern Ireland businessman last week describing it as
“jam on both sides of the bread.”
However, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who negotiated this “best of both worlds” deal now says he does not “entirely buy this”, giving evidence to the sub-committee to that effect. His own agreement, which he negotiated and which Michael Gove was so pleased to initial, represents what he now says is an
“unacceptable disruption to day-to-day lives”
of people in Northern Ireland.
There are two paths ahead: either to work to resolve problems and be open and honest about the consequences of this form of Brexit, or to seek to frame this as an EU intransigence argument. This is not a new approach—we have heard it quite a lot since 2016. The difficulty with saying that it is the EU intransigence in others is that tension is built and temperatures are raised. I believe the Government’s position is to take the undesirable parts of the protocol, rework them—rebalance them, as they said—and take away its worst aspects. However, their narrative has been challenged by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, whom we heard last week. To quote from his speech:
“There are those who say the Protocol is here to stay and advocate working it and there are some who limit their ambitions to addressing its worst aspects. However what flows from the protocol is so fundamental and the problems it creates so great that the consequences of adopting such a strategy would damage Northern Ireland.”
These tensions and contradictions are still in play today.
The contradictions arising from compromises, as the sub-committee said, were a result of the form of Brexit the Government chose. To avoid a border on the island of Ireland, a sea border within our trading area was inevitable. To honour the treaty obligations, Northern Ireland would continue to be part of the EU—in law-making, judicial processes and taxation agreements—but with no representation. That is deeply unpalatable, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, indicated, as any unionist within any part of these islands would have done.
These compromises were a result of that type of Brexit. As the Vice-President put it last week in the speech the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, referred to:
“This solution required compromise. Everyone around the table understood what these compromises meant in practice.”
I think Ministers did too, but for political reasons then chose not to outline the consequences. Whatever the motive, I agree with the sub-committee in paragraph 70:
“Yet the Government did not make adequately clear to the people of Northern Ireland what the Protocol would mean in practice.”
We are where we are. But where we need to be is honouring these treaty obligations. A year ago almost to the day, Sir John Major said:
“Over the last century, as our military strength has dwindled, our word has retained its power. If we lose our reputation for honouring the promises we make, we will have lost something beyond price that may never be regained.”
As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, indicated, that means time, patience, dialogue and trust. Concerted efforts to build trust in this area are for the Government and for all parliamentarians to address.
I am glad that the sub-committee will address the issues of democratic deficit in its next work. I look forward to its work, because these are deeply problematic challenges. As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, put it, permanent grace periods deliberately setting aside some of these difficulties are not the response. In my view, perpetual grace is perpetual grievance, because it means that areas of complexity are not resolved in a consensus-building way but continue to be blamed on the others. For example, there are elements the Government Command Paper did not mention; decisions made by the Johnson Government, not the EU, over the last year have meant challenges to trade within our union. For the first time in our history, a Government of the UK are compelling UK businesses that trade within the UK to Northern Ireland to register with them as an exporter. Any goods from GB to Northern Ireland will have to be separately conformity assessed and separately labelled.
This has been delayed for a further year by the Government—to the great relief of the business community, because it is not ready for it—but nevertheless, this is the Government’s policy. Since last month, over the summer, new parcel and shipping taxes for consumers, set by a foreign power and over which they have no representation, are now being paid by people within the United Kingdom. There is no mention of any of them in the Command Paper. Will the Minister say whether these measures will stay? If the Government want to rebalance the approach to remove these challenges, what is their response to the challenges that they have put in place?
I asked the Minister previously about this, and he said in reply
“we are proposing … an extremely light-touch measure to allow trade to flow freely within the UK customs union and single market”.—[Official Report, 21/7/21; col. 268.]
However, there are barriers and restrictions and what the Government have not done in building their case to say that there are costs and burdens on business is to strip out the areas that they have introduced compared to those that the EU has asked for in its interpretation of the protocol. It is now up to the Government to own the areas of their agreement so that people can believe their word. They indicated in their Command Paper that they have paid £1.2 billion to ameliorate the costs. What is the likely ongoing cost of trade support for businesses?
Finally, I turn to an area where I simply cannot understand the Government’s position. The Vice-President of the Commission indicated in his speech last week that there were significant potential gains for Northern Ireland from being part of the single market. The Government have indicated that that is not the case. Will the Government and the European Commission work together to promote Northern Ireland as a place of investment and of economic prosperity? Whatever destination we may end up at, we know that Northern Ireland will still be part of the European single market under this treaty obligation. It is not just for the Northern Ireland business community to make it a success; it is for the Government and the European Union working together to ensure that Northern Ireland flourishes as a wonderful part of the union.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, especially as he ended on something of an optimistic note. There was not a lot of optimism in his contribution, but he at least spoke of future prosperity for Northern Ireland, which I think is a desire we all share.
I thank the committees, and especially the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for their excellent work in leading this important task. The noble Earl began by recalling someone saying that being in Northern Ireland at the moment has felt like being used as a pawn in a game. It is a dreadful assessment, and it ought to stop us all in our tracks. Both reports emphasise the value of establishing a relationship of trust between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, about scrutiny of EU legislation as it affects Northern Ireland is important and I look forward to the Minister’s response to his question.
The committee sees some reasons for optimism about Northern Ireland’s ability—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but, as we have all been anticipating, there is a Division in Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for five minutes—I believe that is the accepted time—in order to allow Members to record their votes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The five minutes we were allotted for voting have elapsed, but a significant number of Members of the Committee seem to have gone elsewhere. Since we are on winders, I am afraid we cannot really proceed without them. Anybody who knows where they are and could chivvy them might be doing us all a favour.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, rather than delay the Committee any further, I think we will proceed, although I believe we are still missing one Member, who, let us hope, will return shortly.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure that the lure of a cup of tea was probably greater than the speech that I am about to finish, or that the Minister will provide as well.
The committees have done vital work but, so far, the Government have been unable to clarify a way forward. Perhaps not today—that might be too much to ask—but we look forward soon to the Minister providing answers to the question of what the future will look like for Northern Ireland and when we will see arrangements on a long-term, secure and predictable footing. As the noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, said, the Government need to be candid—as candid as they can—about what the protocol does, as opposed to what the Government say or have said in the past it does. Does the Minister agree with the noble Lord that failing repeatedly to implement the protocol and having government by grace period is disastrous for the UK’s international reputation?
Various solutions have been proposed, but we all seem broadly to agree that a red line needs to be that any suggestions requiring border infrastructure on the island of Ireland should be disregarded. Many issues will have to be overcome, but I do not want to have to explain to the next generation of young people in Northern Ireland that a hard border, with all the consequences we fear that would bring, came about because this generation wanted the freedom to reduce food standards despite saying that they had no intention of reducing standards. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, regulatory sovereignty should not be prized at the expense of political stability. I realise that that is a very stark way of putting this. I expect the Minister will say we can have both—I do hope so—but it would be useful to know how he intends to do that.
I enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Empey, very much. It was really engaging. I was just saying to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I could listen to him all day.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sure they do. He urged realism and pragmatism, and encouraged dialogue, and he is obviously right on all those points. We used to hear a lot of talk about technological solutions to this problem. Can the Minister update us on whether the Government are still pursuing those technological solutions and describe to us what they could involve?
The current situation of deadline followed by extension followed by deadline is a nightmare for business. Options are available: alignment, equivalence, domestic legislation. The choices we have are sometimes considered in a very rigid and limited way, posing alignment against equivalence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, we need a bespoke solution for Northern Ireland.
The Government have rejected alignment, and the EU has rejected equivalence. That is fine, but we need flexibility and compromise, and, as we have heard repeatedly today, we need trust. We could introduce domestic legislation, for instance. What response have the Government had from the European Union to the option of imposing penalties on businesses which are found to have failed to comply with the rules?
In his speech at the British-Irish Association on 4 September, which was referred to by other contributors, the Minister said that these are
“existential issues of territory, of identity, of borders, all against a background of a peace process and institutions in Northern Ireland which can only bear so much weight … So we badly need to look reality full-on. To put our arrangements here onto a more durable and sustainable footing, one that represents genuinely mutual benefit”.
I welcome this. I could not agree more. This is the kind of approach that we need from the Government. I note that the tone from the European Union also seems to have changed in recent weeks. However, other than saying in the Command Paper that Article 13 of the protocol allows for subsequent agreements to replace it, the Minister does not really tell us what he thinks should be done. Still, this is a change of tone, and we should welcome it.
While we have the Minister here, I want to ask him about Article 10 of the protocol, which has not received much attention today. Can he provide the Committee with his assessment of whether, and in what circumstances, Article 10 has any impact on state subsidy in Great Britain, not just in Northern Ireland? What legal advice was sought before agreeing to Article 10? Did he know that restrictions on subsidy in Northern Ireland could “reach back”—which I think is the legal term used—into the rest of the UK? I ask this because not only because I am interested in the answer but because I know from the Command Paper that the Government think that Article 10 is now redundant. I can see why they would make that claim, but it reveals their approach to these negotiations. After all, the Prime Minister described the protocol at the time as an ingenious solution. Did he know when he made that comment that he was potentially compromising on state aid? If he did not, he really should have done.
The Government have an appetite for immediate gratification, agreeing things to get through the immediate crisis. This can work; we get it—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I am terribly sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness again. She is most unfortunate to have had both these votes in her speech, but there is a Division again in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn for five minutes to allow Members to record their votes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I sense the Committee is anxious to be under way again, so let us say five minutes have passed.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Thank you, I feel like I should appeal for injury time or something. I was talking about the Government’s appetite for immediate gratification and was about to ask the Minister whether he has reached the point where he accepts that a change in approach is needed.
It seems very clear that in their haste to sign an agreement the Government either did not do their homework and think through the implications or, perhaps more likely, knew what they were signing up to but did so with insufficient regard to the UK’s need to keep its obligations. This is particularly troubling when we seek to establish new trade relationships around the world. The country and our partners abroad will be asking themselves whether this is just bad faith or incompetence. Whichever it is, it is coming at a real cost for Northern Ireland and the UK.
We need serious long-term solutions, and it seems pretty obvious to most people, from contributors to this debate to the CBI and the Ulster Farmers Union, that we need a veterinary agreement. We have nothing to fear from cast-iron commitments to high standards. After all, that is a commitment the Conservatives made in their manifesto. Finally, I stress to the Minister that instability is once again building, and we cannot have another year of stop-gap solutions. We need a long-term agreement which will reduce the barriers to which the Government agreed.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate, and everyone on the two committees, the European Union Committee and the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, who prepared the two reports that we have discussed today.
It has been an incredibly rich debate and very many interesting points have been raised. It is fair to say that quite a lot of them have been discussed extensively already, one way or another, over the last five years, but I will do my very best to deal with the points made in the limited time I have available. Much has of course changed since the European Union Committee’s report from last year. Nevertheless, as has been noted, the report correctly anticipated many of the difficulties we are now facing, in particular, as many noble Lords referred to, the complexity of balancing the commitments in Articles 4 and 6 of the protocol with those in Article 5.
The introductory report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, identifies many of the issues that we must confront if we are to deliver a sustainable solution for Northern Ireland. Of course, as has been said, the date of its finalisation coincided with the publication of the Command Paper, which means that the very latest evolution of the position could not be fully taken into account. The report is no less powerful and useful for that in its scrutiny of the operation of the protocol and I am grateful to the committee for it. The Government will respond later this month; lots is happening but, in doing so, we will of course provide the most up-to-date response possible, with an eye on the situation in Northern Ireland and on talks with the EU, which both continue to evolve rapidly. That timing will also us time to comment on the planned joint consultative working group which—to the point from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—will take place tomorrow and on a potential specialised committee, which may take place during this month. If that is the case, we will reflect those in our response.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for his comments on scrutiny. It is of course our intention—I repeat it again—to ensure that the committee has what it needs to do its job in these very unusual circumstances.
As I was listening to the debate, I was reminded of the very well-known opening line from Anna Karenina:
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.”
What I have heard is nobody being particularly happy about the protocol, but everybody having a different set of problems with it. Unfortunately, it is the responsibility of the Government not just to analyse but to act, and that is what we intend to do. That is what we have set out in the Command Paper and that is how we intend to take things forward.
Against the background of the comments on the two reports that we have been debating, the Government of course agree with the analysis that there has been significant economic disruption in Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, noted, this affects everybody in Northern Ireland, not just a part of it. Much of the problems that we face can be attributed to the EU’s rigid focus on protecting the single market over and above other elements of the protocol. This has forced businesses to engage in these burdensome and disproportionate customs and agri-food requirements and has caused significant trade diversion as companies reorganise their supply chains. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that companies could consider—indeed, they arguably are, in the worst case—the viability of operating in Northern Ireland at all.
We have also seen a degree of political instability and community unrest, exacerbated by concerns—about which we have heard today—that there is a democratic deficit with large volumes of EU law applying without any say for the people of Northern Ireland. I agree that significant constitutional and democratic issues are raised by the protocol. My noble friend Lord Moylan put them very clearly. They are also touched on in the court case, the judicial review, which several noble Lords referred to. I will not go further on that as it is under appeal, but it is obviously a significant case.
I will pick up a couple of points made by a number of noble Lords. The issue of why the Government agreed the protocol in the first place was, not surprisingly, touched on by many—the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lords, Lord Thomas, Lord Kerr and Lord Empey, and, perhaps most strongly, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Many noted that the protocol was agreed by this Government and wondered why we agreed a deal the difficulties of which are so evident. In answer, I refer to my noble friend Lord Caine’s description of the circumstances that led to the unsatisfactory joint report at the end of 2017. As he rightly said, that shaped everything that followed.
In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Command Paper, we set out our analysis of the situation. We point out the consequence of the then Parliament’s decision to undermine the Government’s negotiating hand at a critical moment in these talks. As we say in the Command Paper, in those circumstances, it was right to agree the best compromise we could, which allowed the UK as a whole to leave the EU in a genuine and meaningful way, without being locked into the backstop and enabling a free trade agreement such as that which we subsequently agreed. We feared that some of the elements of the protocol that were forced upon us in those final days and insisted upon by the EU would turn out to cause problems, and we were right in that analysis. Nevertheless, as many noble Lords said, that is how we have got to where we are now.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, asked whether this is the best of both worlds, having agreed the protocol. Is the right to access the single market important? I am with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on this: he pointed out, as is correct, that Northern Ireland’s economic links are overwhelmingly with Great Britain. Access to the single market does not, in our view, compensate for disruption of those links. The important thing is the economic unity of the UK; the protocol purports to protect the UK single market, but it does not, at the moment.
If there is relative calm in Northern Ireland at the moment, it is because the proposals in our Command Paper are recognised as serious and enjoy a lot of support, and because there is an expectation that the EU will take them seriously. We therefore agree with the assessment of the committees’ reports that the UK and EU must collectively take urgent action to address the situation as it now is. If our proposals in the Command Paper were agreed, they would satisfactorily address many of the reports’ conclusions, including those on at-risk goods, supplementary declarations, parcels, medicines, livestock, pets, VAT, quotas—the list goes on.
As we know, the problem is that the protocol is not delivering in its current form. It is not delivering on its core objectives: to minimise disruption to everyday lives, to respect Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK’s internal market and, above all, to preserve the delicate balance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, in all its dimensions. Once again, I very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the protocol must ultimately be viewed through the lens of the peace process.
This situation needs to be fixed. We would prefer to do so by negotiation and have set out proposals to that effect. We believe they are extremely reasonable. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, noted, they work with the grain of the protocol. They do not scrap it or sweep it away. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wood, that simply scrapping the protocol is not a solution. There will always need to be a treaty relationship between the UK and EU covering Northern Ireland. The question is: what? Our proposals would put that on to a different and more sustainable footing.
Substantively, they would differentiate goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland according to destination and we, as the UK Government, would take on the responsibility of managing those processes ourselves. They would enable goods of both standards, UK and EU, to circulate within Northern Ireland, thus eliminating one of the major impediments in practice to maintaining the UK’s single market.
In this context, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, again raised the question of an SPS agreement. Our proposals as set out in the Command Paper would deal with the issue of agri-food and food standards by this dual-standard proposal for Northern Ireland. As we say in the Command Paper, a tailored SPS agreement could certainly help support those arrangements, but they are not essential to them. We have put forward such a proposal. It has not been discussed as much as we would like, but perhaps it will be in the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, also raised Article 10, which, as she rightly noted, is touched on in the Command Paper. It is correct to say that Article 10 is to a large extent superseded. We will soon have a clear, legally binding framework for state aid and subsidy policy within the UK. It makes sense to fit arrangements in Northern Ireland into that context rather than the other way round.
To make all this work, we are ready to put in place exceptional arrangements for data sharing to reassure the EU, and, as has been noted, we are ready to penalise those looking to export to the EU goods which do not meet EU standards. These would be significant changes to the protocol, but they are still highly unusual by international standards. They would represent a huge compromise by the Government: to enforce others’ rules within this country.
If these arrangements under the protocol are to be sustainable, they must be underpinned by an amended governance framework. I am afraid I do not share with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, the benign view of the European Court of Justice and the way it has worked. Our view is that, in the sensitive situation of Northern Ireland, the best way forward is to remove the role of the EU institutions and the jurisdiction of the court by negotiation if we can. I have met many in Northern Ireland. I know that the pre-eminence of these institutions has fostered a sense that Northern Ireland is being treated like an EU member, to be held in compliance in relation to rules over which there is no say and without any of the checks and balances that apply if you are a normal member state.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, raised north-south bodies and went a little further by suggesting that a sensible way forward would be for Northern Ireland to have some representation within the EU institutions while these arrangements applied in Northern Ireland. It probably will not surprise the noble Lord to hear that I am not a fan of that solution. The UK is not a member state of the European Union; it is not represented in the EU institutions. It could not make sense for a part of the UK to be so represented. More to the point, I do not think it would help reassure those concerned about their identity and the status of Northern Ireland within the UK if we went down that road. It is not a useful way forward. As my noble friend Lord Hannan noted, it would pull Northern Ireland further into the EU’s orbit in a way that would exacerbate some of the difficulties rather than help resolve them.
The reality is that disputes in Northern Ireland are best resolved not through imposing the EU’s legal order but by finding compromises through arbitration that can balance all the objectives of the protocol and win the support of everybody in Northern Ireland. We believe that is the right way to proceed.
As I have said, we would prefer to proceed by negotiation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the conclusions of the committee that this is the most constructive way forward. I welcome the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, that she has noted a change of tone in the way that we have pursued things in recent weeks.
We now need the space to conduct the necessary discussions with the European Union as part of a meaningful political process. That is why, straight after publishing the Command Paper, we proposed a standstill in operating the protocol to create room for exactly those negotiations. That is also why, as I have noted, last week we announced that the protocol will continue to operate on its current basis for now. The current processes for moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are maintained, and the grace periods and easements remain in place.
The Commission has noted this decision and has said that the current legal actions are on hold. We too welcome this change in tone from it, which I think allows room for discussion. It will also ensure that businesses can have confidence that there are no cliff edges in operating the protocol and that consumers in Northern Ireland can continue to be supplied. However, the extension of grace periods is not and cannot be a permanent solution to this problem and something more durable needs to be found. I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, that our aim is not to continue this situation indefinitely. The current situation is designed to create space for discussions; that is its purpose.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Can the Minister please give way? I am grateful. For clarification, regarding the democratic deficit and the need for consultation, in paragraph 71 of the Command Paper the Government are calling for
“more robust arrangements to ensure that, as rules are developed, they take account of their implications for Northern Ireland—and provide a stronger role for those in Northern Ireland to whom they apply”.
Can the Minister outline what the Government intend by some of these mechanisms, because they do not state it in the Command Paper?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The point that he mentions in paragraph 71, the issue of engagement of the Northern Ireland institutions in this process, is one of the most sensitive of all and I do not think it would have been right for us to set out a specific way forward in the Command Paper.
The difficulty we have is the lack of democratic consent for specific measures as they come through from the EU’s law-making process. At the moment those are imposed without consent. We are proposing a reordering of the governance arrangements of the protocol so that the consent, if it exists in Northern Ireland for such measures, can be more real, meaningful and based on genuine debate. There are a number of ways of achieving that if the EU wants to go down that road and that is a pre-eminently political question for people in Northern Ireland, as well as one for the UK Government. That is why we have set out the issue without proposing a specific way forward, but it is very much an issue for discussion.
We want to proceed by negotiation and that is part of it. I want to be clear about what is possible for us in doing so. First, the Command Paper sets out how the tests for Article 16 are, in our view, met. I urge the European Union to take that judgment seriously. It would be making a significant mistake if it thought we were not ready to use Article 16 safeguards if that were the only apparent way forward to deal with the situation in front of us. As my noble friend Lord Hannan commented, there is ample justification for doing so.
Secondly, if we are to avoid this situation there needs to be real negotiation between us and the European Union. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, correctly referred to the need for an atmosphere of co-operation and trust. Others, such as the noble Baronesses, Lady Suttie and Lady Chapman, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, echoed that. The question of trust has come up a lot in these discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked for assurances that the time we have before us would be used constructively and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked for an assessment of progress on that negotiation. We have had several technical discussions. I will give the floor to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The noble Lord mentioned Article 16. Can he answer two questions? First, does he agree with the view expressed in the debate—which I do not agree with—that the European Union triggered Article 16 in January? My understanding is that the Commission sought the powers to trigger but never triggered. The more important question is: have the Government done any analysis at all of the sort of compensatory measures the European Union would likely take if we triggered Article 16 in circumstances it considered unjustified?
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The issue of what the European Union did or did not do at the end of January deserves a bit of comment. There are two aspects to this. The first is the question of Article 16: was it triggered or not? In a way, obviously, the intention is as important as the fact. It is our view that it was triggered, however briefly. It was certainly the intention to do so. The second aspect of what the EU did in January—the reason why Article 16 was used—sometimes gets less comment. It intended to use it to put in place a process across the land border on the island of Ireland, something that for the previous five years we had been told was impossible, undesirable and disastrous. That is as much why this struck and changed the debate so much as the very fact of Article 16.
On the second point, if we were to use Article 16, it would obviously be open to the EU to consider countermeasures if it wished. I do not want to get too far down the hypothetical road, but it is obviously a possibility. Of course, there has been a good deal of analysis of that. We would have to see what the situation was in those circumstances, but everyone has an interest in avoiding needless deterioration of trade and needless further economic difficulties for either side, at a time when supply chain and trade costs are so significantly raised already. That will obviously be a matter for the European Union, and we have to take it as such.
To return to my flow, regarding where we are in talks at the moment, we have had a series of technical discussions with the EU and continue to do so. These have been quite helpful, but they are nevertheless talks about talks; they are not yet a process that gets to the fundamentals, and we need to get into that. We must get into something more substantive as a matter of urgency.
A real negotiation does not mean the EU coming up with its own plans for solutions within the framework of the existing protocol and presenting them to us, take it or leave it. To be honest, I have been a bit concerned by a couple of the comments I have heard from Commission representatives in recent days, which seem to suggest they might be considering that way forward. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, picked up the comment by Maroš Šefčovič the other day, when he said:
“A renegotiation of the protocol … would mean instability, uncertainty and unpredictability in Northern Ireland.”
Unfortunately, we already have all those things in Northern Ireland. The question is: how do we move on from them? I do not take Commissioner Šefčovič’s words as a dismissal of our position. I take them as acknowledgement of it, but also as a fairly clear indication that there is more to be done. I urge the EU to think again on that point and consider working to reach genuine agreement with us so that we can put in place something that will last.
I am conscious of time and will wind up quickly. The negotiations need to begin soon. I will not put a timescale on that, but it needs to be urgent as the situation is urgent.
Finally, I would urge the Commission to be sensitive to the situation in Northern Ireland in its actions. The EU has a treaty with us, and as my noble friend Lord Moylan made very clear, that does not make it a part of the Government of Northern Ireland. We are very happy to receive representatives of the Commission in Northern Ireland at any point, so that they understand the situation there, but I gently suggest that they should be cautious in coming to public judgments about the situation, or suggesting it is for the EU itself to decide how to resolve it. I do not think that will make the situation calmer; it will make it more difficult.
The situation we face is complex and challenging, self-evidently, but there is still a real opportunity for us both to find durable arrangements. That is our intention and our wish, and that is where we will be putting all of our effort in the next few weeks—in arrangements that can win the confidence of communities in Northern Ireland. We are ready to seize this opportunity and we urge, as strongly as we can, the EU to do the same. Bold action is needed to build a new, sustainable consensus. Once again, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and I look forward to continuing it, as I am sure we will, in many different fora in the future.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
I suppose the refrain of the afternoon is that we are where we are, which is almost at the end. I would like to add my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been an absolutely absorbing and very high-quality debate, with views from every side of this very difficult set of problems.
I want to make three very brief observations. First, I note the sheer scale of the achievement of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and his committee in producing a punchy and very helpful report by consensus, knowing what strong feelings there were sitting around that table. I hope that the Government, when they read the output of that committee’s work now and in the future, will listen all the more carefully knowing where it has come from. It is a remarkable achievement. My second point was prompted in this debate by what the noble Lord, Lord Woods, said, right at the start: a grace period extension is not a solution. It was very heartening to hear the Minister grapple with this issue and say that dialogue is the way forward, and to see him look very determined indeed to get that dialogue going. It will not be an easy road. This brings me to my third point, one I think everyone has raised this afternoon, which is trust and the importance of it. Trust is the necessary fertilizer of any successful dialogue, and it is important to carry on building that trust. Every single thing communicates in trust, which needs to be built by all sides. It is not just the Government or just the EU; it is also the concern of other parties involved in this very difficult negotiation. Everyone here should be part of that process and, having said that, I beg to move.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
I too am grateful for all those who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. I am grateful too, to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for the answers he has given so far. I look forward to further answers in response to the committee’s report in the days to come. It has been a fascinating debate and it shows that you can discuss even the most difficult issues—and there are some pretty difficult issues here—with calmness, a certain dignity and, from time to time, a historical aperçu, if I may use that expression.
The committee will be looking at some quite tricky issues in the months ahead. Ahead of that, I have taken very careful note of the Gypsy’s warning issued by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Introductory Report (EUC Sub-Committee Report)
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Report from the Sub-Committee on the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland: Introductory report (2nd Report, HL Paper 55).
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Casey of Blackstock
Armed Forces: Gambling Disorders
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to legislate (1) to require annual medical screening questions related to gambling disorder in the military, and (2) to annually assess the prevalence of gambling disorder among members of the armed forces.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I ask the Question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, this Government have no such plans. We take problem gambling seriously and monitor for the emergence of problem gambling instances within the Armed Forces. We provide welfare support and financial awareness training for our people. The Ministry of Defence also blocks gambling websites on its networks to reduce their accessibility. I am satisfied that our existing approach to awareness of gambling-related harm, where it is identified, is appropriate and proportionate.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn
I thank the Minister for her reply. Compared with the United States of America, there is a real dearth of UK literature reviewing the gambling habits of serving personnel and veterans. What plans do the Government have to encourage, or possibly fund, academic research into this area as part of an evidence-led approach to reviewing the issue of problem gambling in the military?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The right reverend Prelate will be aware that a study by Swansea University, sponsored by the Forces in Mind Trust, is currently taking place to understand the levels of gambling participation and attitudes to gambling in ex-service personnel. We have not seen the report, but we hope that it will enable officials within the MoD to evaluate the extent of gambling participation, its nature—that is, leisure pursuit by comparison with addiction—and if there is anything more that can be done.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, military veterans are eight times more likely to become problem gamblers than those in the general population. That is the view of the Army Headquarters Regional Command, in its headline facts on page 3 of its transition IPPD information sheet which itself is entitled Gambling—A Serious Risk to Military Personnel. The appropriate questions are: why are soldiers more vulnerable to gambling, why do military veterans have such a heightened prevalence of problem gambling as opposed to the general population, and what is the MoD doing to understand what lies behind that prevalence and how it can be tackled before the vulnerability forms?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
These are all pertinent questions, and we are looking closely, as I say, at what this University of Swansea study will disclose. There is anecdotal evidence that people who go into the Armed Forces may be innately more inclined to take risks and therefore may be of a disposition that predisposes them to acquiring a gambling addition rather than to recreational gambling. We try to inform and educate by activity within the Armed Forces, giving advice and support within the chain of command and from other agencies. We certainly try to support our veterans both in the transition programme for them to re-enter civilian life and then through, for example, Veterans UK’s veterans welfare service and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, internationally the evidence is very clear that gambling problems are greater among military veterans than they are among the general population yet, as we have heard, the Minister is unclear whether that applies in the UK. While I welcome and look forward to the Swansea report, does she recognise that there would great merit in getting the King’s cohort study, which is already being funded by the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, to also look at this? Will she also consider whether some of the very welcome additional funds for the Veterans Mental Health and Wellbeing Service should be directed to help veterans with gambling problems?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to know whether there is a problem and, if there is, its nature and where it is to be found before trying to deploy solutions and remedies to address it. He will be aware that every year the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey is conducted. It includes a question on debt management. There is a free text box at the end of the survey that personnel are encouraged to fill out with any issues they wish to raise outside the survey question set. Gambling has never been raised as an issue.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I know the excellent work done by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans on gambling. I support him very much in what he has been trying to do about online gambling and advertisements for gambling. However, in this case, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, I think it would be quite unfair to suggest that soldiers who are doing their duty by this nation should be subjected to special tests, and that is what the Question says. Of course we must look into mental health problems and indeed extra problems with gambling—if there are any—among veterans, but veterans are no longer subject to military discipline.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend echoes the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Browne of Ladyton. As I indicated, we are anxious to ascertain what we can. Your Lordships will understand that there is always a problem with the collection and collation of data for a variety of reasons. We shall await with interest the report from the University of Swansea and look at that carefully. I have also indicated that the Armed Forces continuous attitude survey could certainly be a vehicle to explore further if we feel there are concerns about the activities and habits of serving personnel.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the military has been gambling for hundreds of years but it is much easier now because it can all be done online. We now also know the dangers to an individual’s mental health. Are individuals encouraged to seek help within their units? This really should be from independent support staff and not from any organisations that sit within the military.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I seek to reassure the noble Baroness by telling her that new recruits to the Armed Forces receive comprehensive briefings on the importance of financial security and the values and standards expected of them, during which the issue of gambling is raised. They are signposted to a full range of support and assistance. She may also be aware that we rely on experts in the field, including the Royal British Legion’s Money Force initiative, which aims to assist all service personnel, their partners, families and dependants to be better equipped to manage their money.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Building on what my noble friend Lord Browne said, when he quoted an Armed Forces paper that said that gambling was a very serious problem for Armed Forces personnel. I think the House will want to hear from the Minister how the Government will collect evidence about the prevalence of gambling, when that evidence will be available and what they are going to do about it. Here is one suggestion. Perhaps the Minister could outline to us how the Ministry of Defence is working with DCMS on its gambling White Paper to ensure that the MoD and DCMS are working together on that serious issue.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have already outlined a variety of activities and range of support measures we deploy to help both serving Armed Forces personnel and veterans. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, referred to evidence from a previous University of Swansea study about the higher prevalence of gambling among veterans. We are conscious of that and, on the basis of the information we have, we do everything we can to signpost support.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, while we would certainly not want to curtail the recreational activities of our military personnel, gambling is extremely addictive. What conversations have the MoD had with its American counterparts about the effectiveness of the US military gambling screening and research programme, as required by the 2019 US National Defense Authorization Act?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We in the MoD believe that we are already taking many of the measures that the United States has enacted and deployed. We are doing that in a variety of ways, as I have said. Part of it is done within the services themselves, but an important point was raised about servicepeople’s confidence in speaking through the chain of command: there might be an inhibition about doing that. They can then access the independent expertise of the Royal British Legion. We have a wide range of support measures to assist where a problem pattern of gambling emerges.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we move to the next Question.
Transport: Hydrogen
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential of (1) hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, and (2) internal combustion engines fuelled by hydrogen, as alternatives to battery-powered electric vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s recently published hydrogen strategy and transport decarbonisation plan both make clear that hydrogen has a key role to play in decarbonising transport, particularly in areas where batteries cannot reach. Our support is therefore focused on the use of hydrogen in heavier road vehicles, such as trucks, buses and coaches, as well as in rail, ships and planes.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer, but are the Government looking at an alternative to the rush to battery-powered cars—in particular, to avoid range anxiety and electricity overload? Can the excellent government hydrogen strategy be used to avoid putting all our eggs in one technical basket, so that zero emissions need not, as Jeremy Clarkson pointed out recently, lead to the end of the internal combustion engine? Finally, will the HydroFLEX train developed by Birmingham University be used at COP 26, and how about a flight for the key leaders at COP 26 in the ZeroAvia commercial aircraft developed at Cheltenham airport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is certainly making the most of his Question today. It is important to say that the Government are not putting all our eggs in a single zero-emission basket. We take a technologically neutral approach to meeting our ambitions —we are not outcome-neutral, of course: the end goal must be zero emissions from the tailpipe—and therefore many of our programmes invest in both electric and hydrogen systems. For example, the £23 million Hydrogen for Transport programme is funding the deployment of about 300 hydrogen vehicles and six new refuelling stations.
Turning to the noble Lord’s question on HydroFLEX, Network Rail has been working with Porterhouse, a British company, alongside the University of Birmingham, and the HydroFLEX train will be on show at COP 26; indeed, it will be running daily on a loop out of Glasgow Central.
Lord Bamford (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register. Also, my son, Jo, is chairman of Ryze Hydrogen, a green hydrogen business. The UK Hydrogen Strategy recognises that the hydrogen combustion engine could play a key role in decarbonisation. This is most welcome. My noble friend will be aware of my company’s prototype JCB machines, which are powered, with zero emissions, by hydrogen combustion engines. However, unlike hydrogen-powered cars or diesel-powered machines, those hydrogen-powered machines are not licensed to travel to and from job sites on the public highway. Indeed, the same applies to hydrogen farm tractors. What steps are being taken by Her Majesty’s Government to rectify that situation?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend and his company on their world-beating innovation, and I look forward to visiting his facility soon to see it in action. My department is working very quickly to update our regulations to create GB type approval schemes for all types of vehicles and engines following our exit from the European Union. The first step along that road will be a consultation to be published in the autumn. However, in some circumstances, it can be possible to grant a vehicle special order to provide some access to roads. I am happy to look into that further.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the UK Hydrogen Strategy and transport decarbonisation plan both highlight the potential for hydrogen and electric aviation. Given that the UK is truly a leader in the world in this technology, can the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to accelerate the R&D of that technology in the UK and what consideration she has given to airports acting as hydrogen hubs to generate and support more UK-manufactured hydrogen vehicles, planes and ships?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is quite right: aviation is one of the modes that we think will have a great future in using hydrogen for propulsion. She mentioned airports, and I know that work is being done on whether some of the tenders used at airports can be switched to hydrogen. Obviously, a significant amount of torque is needed to drag planes across the tarmac. She will know that we consulted over the summer on jet zero as a whole. We anticipate that many of the responses will cover hydrogen. We will be collating those responses and looking at them in detail, but I reassure her that significant funding is going into R&D for many sources, be that for planes or the vehicles in airports.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
Britain has three major manufacturers producing zero-emission buses, including hydrogen fuel cell buses. If those manufacturers are to be able to compete in international markets, they need the stimulus of a large domestic market. The Scottish SNP-Green alliance has proposed a target to scrap half of Scotland’s diesel buses by 2023, to be replaced by zero-emission buses. Would Her Majesty’s Government consider pursuing a similar objective throughout the UK by mandating local authorities and bus companies to purchase zero-emission vehicles?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I could happily spend many hours answering that question, but I will not on this occasion. The Government have a target of supporting 4,000 zero-emission buses by the end of this Parliament, and we are about to start a further consultation on the phase-out date for new diesel buses. We are investing £120 million in the ZEBRA scheme—the Zero Emission Bus Regional Areas scheme—which does precisely what the noble Lord is asking: it encourages local authorities and the bus operators in their area to switch over from diesel buses to either battery electric or hydrogen fuel cell buses.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
It costs around £1 million to install a hydrogen delivery system, so at this stage, at least, the Government need to encourage companies that run fleets of vehicles—not necessarily just heavy vehicles—to utilise hydrogen. What are the Government doing to incentivise and encourage companies that run vehicle fleets to take up this option for zero emissions?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Actually, the focus at the moment is on making sure we have the right data and information from R&D to further develop and commercialise large-scale hydrogen refuelling systems. I mentioned previously the £23 million Hydrogen for Transport programme, which is looking at refuelling infrastructure alongside the vehicles themselves. We also have the zero-emission road freight trials, which are trialling hydrogen among a group of vehicles—it is not only about the infrastructure but about making sure that the range is appropriate for the vehicle in which it is going to be used.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister has made reference to rail and funding. Trains powered by hydrogen are already in traffic in Germany, and successful trials have been undertaken in at least four other mainland European countries. What are the Government’s objectives, and what are the timescales for that funding for the development and introduction of hydrogen trains in the UK?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government have invested £4 million through Innovate UK’s “first of a kind” competition for new traction technologies for hydrogen and rail. We have funded both hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen combustion-engine alternatives for rail. The timeline for introduction is unclear at the moment because it depends on wider considerations re electrification, but we know that the Network Rail-led transport decarbonisation network strategy estimated that possibly around 10% of non-electrified tracks might be better used with hydrogen for propulsion.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the APPG on Hydrogen. Does my noble friend agree that it is most encouraging to see that momentum is building across industry, both in the UK and overseas, to develop engine-based solutions using hydrogen? Will Her Majesty’s Government commit to supporting UK engine manufacturers to further explore the potential for this technology, thus creating considerable numbers of jobs to bolster our economy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend, and that is precisely what we are doing with these many different pots of money, which are either modal focused or net-zero focused as a whole in terms of developing ways forward for all types of use of hydrogen. Another example is the £14.6 million that we have funded jointly with industry on a project to develop a combustion engine to cater for medium and heavy-duty commercial vehicles. This project is led by Cummins, and it is really good that we have the private sector involved. It is forecast to save 17.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that there will not be sufficient hydrogen to fuel heavy transport vehicles, let alone private cars, unless we accelerate the production of hydrogen through attracting more private capital into the sector? Will the Government incentivise such investment by revising the renewable transport fuel obligation to cover all green hydrogen, not just that connected directly to a renewable generator?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Yes, the Government will. The Department for Transport consulted earlier this year on measures to make the supply of renewable hydrogen into transport more cost-effective within the RTFO. We will publish a response on this consultation. I have to say to the noble Lord that I do not think that is going to be enough. We will be focused on the generation of both blue and green hydrogen. As he will know from the hydrogen strategy, the Government will be consulting on hydrogen business models and the net-zero hydrogen fund so we can figure out how we are going to unlock the greatest amount of private investment using the £240 million the Government will invest.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Social Care: Family Carers
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to providing extra support for family carers given the delay to social care reforms.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
On behalf of my noble friend, and with her permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise that family carers play a vital role. When we announced an additional £4.5 billion over three years for social care, it included a commitment to take steps to ensure unpaid carers have the support, advice and respite they need. We will publish a White Paper later this year with more detail. The Health and Care Bill also places a duty on integrated care boards to promote the involvement of unpaid carers.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has acknowledged that our 1.6 million unpaid carers are reporting high levels of fatigue and stress and are worn out and exhausted by caring during Covid-19. On average, carers have lost 25 hours a month of crucial support over the past 18 months, and 81% are providing more care. Essential daily support services for them and their loved ones are still not up and running in many areas. Was it not therefore reasonable for carers to have expected immediate funding support from the Prime Minister’s health and social care funding announcements last week? The situation is desperate and needs addressing now, not just with more kind words and another “White Paper tomorrow” promise.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do acknowledge the pressures on unpaid carers and pay tribute to the incredible contribution they have made during these very difficult 18 months. We are continuing to work with local authorities, in collaboration with ADASS and MHCLG, to support local authorities in meeting their duties, particularly in the area of respite, which the noble Baroness rightly pointed out. We have also made contributions to Carers Trust, Carers UK and to “See, Hear, Respond” services to support unpaid carers. In the long term, our commitment is to social care reform and the financial proposition that we will bring forward in the White Paper.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that he just said there would be only £1.5 billion a year going to social care from the large increase in national insurance? Can he confirm that nearly half of that will be absorbed by the need to pay for the extension of free social care to those with valuable homes? That means that nothing will be left to help domestic carers.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the maths that my noble friend has done is a little bit premature. The White Paper will come out later this year; it will spell out the precise financial arrangements, and I am looking forward to that.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has already indicated an understanding that many carers sacrifice a huge part of their lives in trying to care for a loved one. Many of the community support services that used to be available are no longer available. When these arrangements break down and a crisis occurs, it is understandable that the only option left is to call an ambulance, which places increased pressure on the health service. Will the Minister champion a new approach, which is this: “Protect the NHS by supporting carers”?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Yes, I would endorse that sentiment. That has been one of the learnings of the pandemic. It is instinctively true in any case, and the evidence base during the pandemic was quite right. They are interlinked; that is one of the reasons we are bringing forward a Health and Social Care Bill that brings both services much closer together and brings a responsibility on the ICSs to combine health and social care at the same time. Our population-wide measures will try to bring those care responsibilities much closer together, as the noble Lord suggested.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we will now have a virtual contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Disabled Children’s Partnership reports that parents of disabled children say that two-thirds were not able to access care at home during the pandemic. In the two years prior to the pandemic, large numbers of respite care beds for disabled children had already been shut down. Given that none of the new social care levy is targeted towards disabled children and young people, can the Minister say whether urgent funding will be provided for this vulnerable and too-often forgotten group, where unpaid carers are often on duty 24/7?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do recognise the problem: 23% of carers—1.3 million—provide care for 50 hours or more a week. That is an absolutely astonishing figure, and I pay tribute to the contribution they make. The overall contribution by carers is around £56 billion a year. We cannot undervalue that contribution in either emotional, care or financial terms. The precise allocation of funding for this new financial package is not yet confirmed. When it is, I will make sure that the reasonable points the noble Baroness made are heard clearly in the department.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in his first Answer, the Minister mentioned the Health and Care Bill and a more general duty to promote the interests of underpaid carers. Can he tell me why, at the same time, the Government are getting rid of the current provision in law of a carer’s right to an assessment when they take on a new caring role and the right to be consulted on whether they are willing and able to care? It is a crucial right of carers to have a proper assessment. Why is it being taken away?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree that the carer’s assessment is the building block of our system. It is incredibly important; we do a lot of work to encourage more carers to get it. I do not know specifically about the point that the noble Lord makes on this additional component, but I would be glad to enter into correspondence with him on it. The broad principle of the importance of the carer’s assessment is one with which I wholeheartedly agree.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, research shows that, pre pandemic, 600 people a day had no choice but to leave work to manage their unpaid caring responsibilities and that, since Covid began, an additional 2.8 million workers now juggle work and unpaid care. Having access to carer’s leave would help millions of carers and support many of them to remain in work alongside their unpaid caring responsibilities. When will the Government publish their response to their consultation on carers’ leave, which closed on 3 August last year?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the challenge referred to by the noble Baroness. Some 2.9 million carers are employed; that is more than half of all carers. One can only imagine the pressure that they feel trying to juggle their roles as carers and employees. The consultation has been tied up by the pandemic, but we are keen to get a response out soon. Now that we have announced this package, it makes that all the easier. I very much look forward to bringing the response to the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, was not present in the Chamber so all supplementary Questions have been asked. We will now move on to the next Question.
Human Rights Priority Countries
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent representations the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has made to its counterparts in the human rights priority countries listed in its report Human Rights and Democracy Report 2020, published on 8 July; and what assessment they have made of the potential for inserting clauses on human rights into future trade agreements with human rights priority countries.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we regularly raise human rights with our counterparts in human rights priority countries and multilateral fora. Trade will not come at the expense of human rights. Both are important parts of our relationships with other countries, including human rights priority countries. We continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations and hold those who violate human rights to account, including by using powers provided by the Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, a lot of promises were made on human rights during the passage of the then Trade Bill, committing the FCDO and the DIT to work together. From the evidence we have seen so far, that is not happening. Labour’s policy report, Putting Workers First, which was published at this week’s TUC, shows that the FCDO’s concerns over workers’ rights in Colombia were not taken into account during trade negotiations. When will we see the Government keep their word? What steps will the FCDO take to ensure that future trade agreements contain human rights protections?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, we will not pursue trade to the exclusion of human rights. We regard both as an important part of deep, mature and wide-ranging relationships with all our trade partners, including those in human rights priority countries. In line with our international obligations, the Government will continue to ensure a high level of protection for labour standards in new trade agreements as well.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the report is silent on how stabilisation clauses in foreign direct investment agreements reduce the capacity of many developing countries to protect human rights. Through such clauses, corporations demand compensation if host Governments change tax, environmental or workers’ rights laws and prevent local courts adjudicating on disputes. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the clauses imposed by UK companies do not violate human rights?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have put the protection of human rights around the world at the heart of what we do, including through the publication of the integrated review and our presidency of the G7. On labour standards, the Government share the public’s high regard for worker protections and have made it clear that we will not compromise them; in fact, we have embedded labour objectives in the UK’s approach to proposed new trade agreements with the US, Australia and New Zealand.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate that this is a difficult area, but I want to press the Minister a little further. In his Question, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, asked about inserting clauses into trade agreements. The Minister did not really respond to that. Is this because the Government have, in principle or for some other reason, an objection to inserting those clauses? How can we hope to police and implement commitments if they cannot be written down in the agreements?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of human rights. Our annual report makes that clear. We will continue to show global leadership in encouraging all states to uphold international human rights obligations. Our international obligations and commitments, including on human rights, are always of paramount importance when we make decisions on our trading relations. The Government will continue to take a balanced and proportionate approach, delivering the best outcome for the UK, maximising the benefits of trade and ensuring that we stay true to our core values.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I quote the report on South Sudan:
“Conflict-related … rape and abduction of women and girls for sexual slavery, continued to be prevalent.”
What representations has the FCDO made to its counterparts there since the laudable visit by Her Royal Highness the Countess of Wessex last year to champion the eradication of sexual and gender-based violence, and with what results?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we continue to make representations on this important issue. Most recently, UK officials in Juba raised human rights concerns with the deputy Foreign Minister on Friday last week, as well as with the Minister for Presidential Affairs on 16 August. We also continue to press for human rights progress, supported by robust monitoring, at the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council, as well as through funding programmes to support victims and tackle the drivers of violence.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, although I have huge sympathy with the motivation behind the Question, does the Minister agree that human rights clauses in trade deals work best where there is high interdependence and leverage on the part of the asking party—in other words, the UK—as opposed to the trading partner? In the example of China, which is also on the list, that simply is not the case. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government are working with the United States and the EU, which are the only two powers that would have any leverage with China?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a strong history of promoting human rights and its values globally with countries of all sizes. By having strong economic relationships with countries, we are able to have more open discussions on a range of issues, including human rights. On China, I point to the action that we have taken in relation to human rights concerns in Xinjiang. Indeed, since their inception in July last year, we have used powers provided by our Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations to impose sanctions on 78 people involved in serious human rights violations or abuses around the world.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the wonderful Belarusian musician, Maria Kalesnikava—a nominee for the Council of Europe’s Václav Havel Human Rights Prize—has been sentenced to 11 years in prison for being one of the three brave women who led the protest against the dictator Lukashenko? Will the Minister please ask the Foreign Secretary to make representations to the Belarusian authorities for her immediate release?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we continue to raise our concerns directly with the Belarusian authorities via their embassy in London and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Minsk. We continue to speak out in international fora, including on individual cases. I will certainly pass on the noble Lord’s message and update him in writing on the individual case he mentions. We continue to follow the situation in Belarus closely and attend trials, and we have requested access to political prisoners too.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that, when we left the European Union, it was said that there would be plenty of opportunities in the Commonwealth? Given that there are Commonwealth countries that do not recognise LGBT rights, and indeed prosecute and sometimes persecute gay men and women, what sort of attitude will the Government take towards a trade deal with Nigeria?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, sadly some EU member states also do not have an unblemished record when it comes to these important rights. LGBT rights are an important part of human rights, and they feature heavily in our Annual Report; they are exactly part of the concerns and values that we wish to uphold as we trade internationally.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, respect for human rights exemplifies a civilised society, and I wonder whether the Minister might take the question of human rights one step further. Did the British Government receive any indication from our ambassador, or any other forms of intelligence, of a programme of torture and other atrocities being conducted at the Bagram base, in Afghanistan? Can he assure Parliament that no UK agency, official or military personnel was ever complicit in any such programme? Would he agree that such actions would be illegal, reprehensible, send messaging of double standards and could come to haunt the West, as retribution might be inevitable, possibly directed at those who remain in the country or increasing the likelihood of a terror campaign in the West?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Afghan national detention facility in Parwan was an Afghan-managed and operated facility on the US military base at Bagram and was captured by the Taliban on 15 August. The Government unreservedly condemn the use of torture and remain committed to their obligations under international humanitarian and human rights law, including the UN convention against torture. All UK counterterrorism co-operation with the Afghan Government is suspended. All co-operation before August was in strict compliance with human rights standards and international humanitarian law and subject to the guidance on providing overseas security and justice assistance.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights says that climate change threatens the effective enjoyment of a range of human rights, including those to life, water and sanitation, food, health, housing, self-determination, culture and development. There are widespread reports that appear to confirm that binding temperature commitments under the Paris Agreement have been cut from the Australian free trade deal. How can that be reconciled with any commitment to human rights?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the main elements of the free trade agreement with Australia were signed by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Australia at a meeting in Downing Street in June. A final agreement in principle was published on 17 June and is available on GOV.UK. The deal will help us better to address global challenges together, including combating climate change. Australia and the UK have committed to a chapter on trade and the environment, which will contain provisions affirming commitments under multilateral environment agreements, including the Paris Agreement, and also to maintain and effectively enforce domestic environmental laws and policies across a broad range of issues. We have also committed to undertaking co-operative activities, including those targeted at key technologies in the transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Environment Bill
Monday 13th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 43-IV Fourth marshalled list for Report - (13 Sep 2021)
15:50 - Division on Amendment 40 - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 167 - Amendment 40 agreed.
18:17 - Division on Amendment 52 - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 174 - Amendment 52 disagreed.
18:32 - Division on Amendment 53 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 177 - Amendment 53 agreed.
20:05 - Division on Amendment 60 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 60 agreed.
“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would broaden the proposed power in Clause 55 to enable regulations to be made about charges on all single use items, including plastic. This would provide a tool for Ministers to address single use culture and prevent existing materials being replaced by alternatives which cause similar levels of environmental harm.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving Amendment 40 in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. This amendment broadens out the powers in Schedule 9, which currently allow charges to be levied against sellers of single-use plastic items. Our amendment would make it clear that a new charging regime should be for all single-use materials, not just plastic. It would ensure that single-use plastics are not simply replaced with other single-use materials that also cause environmental damage.
This is a simple but important amendment. It goes to the heart of the throwaway culture. There is a real concern that an inability to charge for single-use alternatives to single-use plastic might see the market switch to those alternatives rather than driving down consumption. We have seen evidence that the switch from plastic to single-use alternatives made from wood, paper or compostable materials is already happening, even when reusable options are already available. Far from helping to save the planet, these materials risk adding to our carbon emissions and depleting precious materials and forests elsewhere. For example, the Green Alliance has already calculated that switching consumption of plastic packaging to other materials used for packaging could triple carbon emissions.
These concerns were echoed by the businesses involved in the Aldersgate Group, which have written to noble Lords to say that the risk of plastic substitution in the Bill, as written, could undermine the drive towards a more circular economy and ending the throwaway society. The Commons EFRA report of 2019 concluded that
“reduction is the most important way to reduce waste, and … A fundamental shift away from all single use food and drink packaging, plastic or otherwise, is vital”.
We believe that the current wording in Schedule 9 is flawed and will encourage behaviours which the Government have not intended. If the Government are serious about resource efficiency and the circular economy, they must address this anomaly.
In response to a debate in Committee, the Minister stressed that plastic was a particularly pernicious material which persists for hundreds of years, and that this is why particular measures were necessary to address its unnecessary use. Of course we recognise that, but these provisions, as they stand, address only one element of the problem and do not address the inevitable move towards substitution which is bound to occur when charges for single-use plastics are introduced.
The Minister has also said that the Government already have wider powers to tackle alternatives to plastic through other measures, such as the extended producer responsibility scheme. But as we debated in Committee, the introduction of the extended producer responsibility scheme is already delayed, with the first such scheme on packaging already two years behind. Would it not be easier and more straightforward to introduce this simple amendment, which is properly scoped and provides for a precise power?
It is also worth noting that the delegated powers memorandum says of Clause 54:
“While these powers would be new, the provisions are modelled on existing powers to make regulations about carrier bag charges”.
Nevertheless, it stresses that these are new powers. Our amendment would simply extend these powers to all single-use materials.
In a previous debate we highlighted the need for a holistic approach to tackling the throwaway society and encouraging reuse of materials. This is exactly what is needed here, and it is what our amendment would achieve. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on our amendment and commit to bringing back a government amendment along these lines at Third Reading. But if he is not prepared to make a concession along these lines, I give notice that I am minded to press for a vote on Amendment 40.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward the amendment, and also my noble friend the Minister for the work that the Government have done in this regard. May I take this opportunity to press my noble friend on one issue? The Government have been quite clear on single-use plastics and a potential returnable bottle scheme, as well as cotton buds. I am not clear what the position is on wet wipes, which I know cause huge problems for water companies and can block cisterns quite badly. Another growing problem, which may not be addressed by this amendment but appears elsewhere in the Bill, is fat balls from cooking that uses large amounts of fat. Where are we are on those issues?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer support to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, on this cross-party, broadly backed amendment and to encourage noble Lords to press it to a vote if we do not see progress.
We are in a situation rather like the “dieselgate” scandal, where we saw encouragement of a shift to diesel vehicles, with severe deleterious effects on human and environmental health. Those effects were multiplied by corruption and fraud in the car companies, but there was an underlying error in the decision being made. We need systems thinking to look holistically at the environmental impacts of laws, regulations and policies. The waste pyramid tells us that the first thing we should be doing is reducing the use of all materials—plastic is particularly pernicious, but all materials have an environmental cost—and then looking to reuse, with recycling a poor third choice.
It is important that the House offers strong support for this amendment in light of the article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. We were told—indeed, we seemed to be pressured by the Government—that too many amendments might embarrass Alok Sharma as chair of the COP 26 talks. Well, it is terribly important that we acknowledge—I hope the Minister will—that just as a puppy is not just for Christmas, the Environment Bill is not just for COP. A strong Environment Bill to show the world at COP is a positive side-effect, but what we are actually doing is creating the framework for the next decade and beyond in the UK. The Government’s focus must be on getting the strongest possible Environment Bill, as has clearly been the focus of this House.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Colville has today had to go to a family funeral, so he asked me to deliver his speech. I am very happy to do so, and I absolutely support this amendment. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and I completely agree with her about the shocking revelations in the press yesterday.
My noble friend Lord Colville says that many of our single-use items, particularly drinks containers, are made of aluminium. Not only does the manufacture of aluminium create 1% of global carbon emissions but the mining of bauxite, from which aluminium is refined, leaves behind a toxic waste called red mud. Its high alkalinity is extremely corrosive, damaging soil and destroying life forms. Aluminium smelters generate an additional 150 million tonnes of red mud each year. We must work to reduce such emissions; I believe this amendment would do that.
On the first day of Report, the Minister said:
“Globally, we extract three times the amount of resources from nature as we did in 1970, and that figure is set to double again within a generation”.—[Official Report, 6/9/21; col. 706.]
The Bill has so many laudable aspects, but it still does not bear down hard enough on the problem of our excessive and wasteful use of the planet’s resources and our careless discarding of single-use items. The attention the Bill gives to recycling is crucial and very welcome, but I urge the Minister to be more ambitious.
Like many noble Lords, I welcome the power in Schedule 9 to charge for single-use plastic items, but the Government already have plans to confront much of that problem, through the existing ban on plastic stirrers and cotton buds and the launch of a consultation this autumn on banning plastic cutlery and plates. If these are successful, the power in Schedule 9 to charge for single-use plastics will hardly be needed, but it does not deal with the threat of the substitution of single-use plastics with aluminium, wood or other precious materials.
The extended power put forward in the amendment for a charge to cover plastics or any other single-use material would deal with the problem quickly and reduce our resource use dramatically. When asked to support the amendment in Committee, the Minister responded that it was not necessary and said:
“Items that are not captured by Clause 54 could be captured by other measures, such as EPR or resource efficiency.”—[Official Report, 30/6/21; col. 914.]
Resource efficiency can do much to make producers responsible for the reduction in the use of raw materials, but to implement a scheme for each category of single-use item will take an amazing amount of work to design and a great deal of time and difficulty to implement. Look at the excellent ecodesign that introduces resource efficiency into energy-related products; it has taken four years of consultation and co-operation with stakeholders to get to a final scheme. That is a long time when we are threatened with the facts.
I am concerned that, as the Government progresses through resource efficiency schemes for big product areas such as textiles, they are never going to get round to the efficiency of wooden stirrers or paper plates. So will the Minister explain why he believes the amendment would not deal with this problem much more quickly and efficiently?
Wildlife and Countryside Link, representing a wide range of environmental organisations from CPRE to Keep Britain Tidy, said in its response to the consultation that there needs to be
“a clear focus on reduction and waste prevention to meet the UK’s ambitious climate change targets.”
The EPR policy could change its focus to emphasise further reduction of single-use items, or the Government could just accept this amendment, which would quickly and effectively mitigate many of these concerns. I ask noble Lords for their support on the amendment, because I do not want the good work of the Bill to be undermined by unintended consequences.
That is my noble friend Lord Colville’s excellent speech, which I was very pleased to deliver. Before I sit down, I would like to add a couple of points myself about the involvement of the fossil fuel industry in the world of plastics, which I think is often missed. The raw materials used to make fossil fuels and plastics are one and the same, but demand for fossil fuels is now on the decline in many parts of the world, so we see these two industries coming closer together. In fact, in the face of decreasing profit margins and the increasing demand for renewable energy, fossil fuels are finding new ways to keep themselves afloat—and, unfortunately, they have found plastic production.
Plastics are the fossil fuel industry’s new plan B. Most plastic is made from fossil fuels: we extract oil or gas from land and the seabed and transport it to something that is known as a cracker. Crackers are plants that use huge amounts of heat and pressure to break fossil fuels into the molecules that become the building blocks of polymers. For instance, propane gets cracked into propylene, which is turned into polypropylene, and then you have a plastic bottle. In the past, the industries were fairly separate, but now they are trying to integrate. Both face challenges.
According to UNEP, more than 127 countries have introduced regulation, but way more is needed. Every day it seems we can learn a new thing about what bad stuff plastics do. I did not know until recently that plastic aids the transmission of antibiotic-resistant genes, or that traces of plastic are found in human wombs—so babies can be swimming in microplastics. No country has fully banned it to my knowledge. There are so many kinds of single-use plastic that it is like cutting one of Medusa’s snakes just for three more heads to pop up. But we need something more systemic, and the Bill puts us on the right foot. We need to halt subsidies for petrochemicals, internalise the cost of plastics through taxes and extended producer responsibility, and consider the climate and biodiversity aspects of the plastics lifecycle before we grant permits for the construction and operation of these plants. We need to pass this amendment, and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have campaigned against plastic and support most of the Government’s plans because of the permanent damage that plastic can cause, especially to our seas and rivers. I support the wide powers that the Government are taking in this area. However, focusing on single use is not sensible. I remember that, when I was in retail, a single bag for life needed to be used 80 times to match the efficiency of the light single-use plastic bag. We also need to think about the consumer. I feel there will be similar nonsenses if we try to ban the single use of other items. What is wrong with a coloured paper straw or a paper spoon to eat an ice cream? It will rot afterwards. I am also happy to see cans of Coke, especially if they can be recycled, as they would be if we made it a great deal easier for people to recycle. So I may be in a minority of one, but I think this amendment goes too far.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, on single-use plastic and other single-use material. As I indicated last week, we have become a throwaway culture and seem unable to motivate ourselves out of this. We as a country, therefore, need additional help for this to happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has introduced this amendment with her usual depth of knowledge and experience. On Monday, we had an extremely informative debate, with contributions on a number of aspects of the harm caused by different types of plastic to the environment. There are amendments for later days, when we will return to some of these aspects. Then, as now, we will refer to other single-use items that cause harm to us and our environment. Great care is needed in finding alternatives to single-use plastics so that we do not create a greater problem of carbon creation. The problem is with the throwaway culture, not with plastic alone.
According to a 2018 study by the Danish Ministry for Environment, environmental and social impacts associated with the paper supply chain are considerable, and include ozone depletion, human and ecosystem toxicity, and air and water pollution. The study found that a paper bag would have to be used 43 times to have an overall impact lower than that of the average plastic bag. Although its degeneration rate is far higher than that of plastic, it is the creation of the paper that has the carbon impact. It is important to be clear that we cannot move away from plastics to other non-sustainable, one-off alternatives, such as paper, without fully assessing the consequences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, speaking on behalf of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and in her own right, made some very powerful points. The Government are currently consulting on banning further single-use plastic items, such as plates and cutlery. What are the Government intending to use in place of plastic? Will it be bamboo? What effect will using bamboo in this way have on the supply and growing of bamboo? This is just one example.
I support completely the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. We as a nation should have regard to the overall impact of single-use items, such as disposable nappies, which we will debate later. If we are to be a world leader on environmental issues, as the Government want us to be, reducing the use and impact of single-use items is key. We on these Benches fully support this vital amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which will ensure that the overall impact of the Environment Bill has a chance at being successful.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Government are committed to promoting resource efficiency and moving towards a circular economy. Before I start addressing Amendment 40, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I feel obliged to add my comments on the article that appeared yesterday in the Telegraph. I do not think any names were attached to the article, so it is very hard to know who to take this up with, but it certainly seemed to me to be almost entirely mischievous and not true. We do want to get this Bill done by COP 26—we do not have to, but we want to, for obvious reasons that we discussed in Committee—and we feel that it is in the national and international interest that we should pass the Bill in the strongest possible form before COP 26. No one involved in the passage of this Bill would put their name, privately or publicly, to the comments that appeared in the newspaper.
Turning to Amendment 40, the noble Baroness is absolutely right to highlight the impact of materials other than plastic on the environment. A number of other noble Lords have done the same. I will not go into all the reasons why that matters, as we have covered the issue well during the passage of the Bill, and it has been covered again today. We know that our reckless and wasteful use of resources is putting the natural world under intolerable pressure. However, there is a particular and acute need to reduce consumption of single-use plastic and the particular and enormous environmental harm that it causes. That is why we have included specific powers in the Bill to impose charges on single-use plastics. These will provide a powerful and targeted tool to specifically address the issue of single- use plastics by directly incentivising consumers to use fewer of them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, since we have raised the subject of the Telegraph, I want to add my quick twopenneth to that. I thank the Minister for what he said. I think we are all pleased to hear that he disassociated himself from its comments, because it is fairly clear to everyone involved in the Bill that we have been dealing with it in good faith and that nobody is trying to score any political points. I would also say that we are working to a timetable that the Government themselves set, and there is indeed plenty of time if we work together to get the Bill through in time for COP 26. We all understand the advantages of that, but we want to go there with a Bill that we genuinely feel proud of. I think that that is what everyone here is attempting to do.
I thank all noble Lords for their comments. My amendment is very simple and is about substitution. Businesses themselves are beginning to flag up and identify their concerns about that. That is why they have written to noble Lords on this subject, because they are seeing that this is the likely conclusion if we focus just on plastics. As noble Lords have said, there is a real danger of unintended consequences if we are not careful, so let us make sure that we drive down the use of single use overall. That is the way to deliver a reduction in consumption. We will do that only if we have a consistent approach across the board.
Either the powers already exist to deliver the ban on not only single-use plastics but other materials, in which case I do not quite see why Schedule 9 has been put in the Bill in the first place, or new and more simplified powers are needed, as per Schedule 9, in which case that is what we are attempting to do: to add our amendment to that schedule to make sure that the powers apply equally to plastics and plastic substitution. We have rehearsed the arguments as to why that is very well. So if we are in favour of the circular economy and reducing consumption, one step towards doing that is by supporting our Amendment 40. I therefore would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under inserted section 45AZE of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning the separation of waste to be laid before Parliament and published.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am grateful for the efforts of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and other members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. My Bill team and I were greatly reassured by the assessment that the committee made of the Environment Bill, and I agree that there is an opportunity for us to go further. That is why I have accepted all the DPRRC’s recommendations and am pleased to table these amendments.
These technical amendments will increase parliamentary scrutiny in areas such as littering enforcement, vehicle recall, land drainage and local nature recovery strategies. I have also tabled Amendment 43, which was requested by the Scottish Government so that they will be able to make provision under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to be able to impose civil sanctions relating to electronic waste tracking. This will bring the Scottish Ministers’ powers in line with those of the Secretary of State in England, Welsh Ministers and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
Finally, I have tabled Amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49. These are minor and technical amendments to measures on fly-tipping enforcement to clarify that authorised officers would be able to exercise their Schedule 10 powers relating to the search and seizure of evidence without a warrant in circumstances where consent has been given. This will enable enforcement officers to determine whether pollution control legislation is being complied with. This was always the intention; however, these amendments expressly set out that, where consent has been given, a warrant is not required.
I hope that noble Lords welcome these technical changes, which will increase parliamentary oversight and improve the Environment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. It would be churlish of me not to congratulate my noble friend and the Defra Bill team on making these technical amendments. They were the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I am privileged to chair. On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and the Defra team for making them. One of the powers has moved from negative to affirmative—no big deal, but we are very grateful for it. The others are textbook examples of what departments can do to improve parliamentary scrutiny. We were not demanding that the SIs be affirmative or that they be negative; we were simply saying, “Please lay them before Parliament and publish them.” They have agreed to do so.
In the report that we publish today on the police and sentencing Bill, which the House will consider tomorrow, we will be scathing in our condemnation because the Home Office has failed to do those simple things in its legislation. Let this be a lesson to it on what can be done.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I was going to prepare a 20-minute response to the Government’s amendments, but in the interest and spirit of getting to COP 26 faster, I will just say that we on these Benches welcome that the Government have listened to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and accepted its recommendations, which will be good for everybody involved and the wider stakeholders.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their short contributions to the debate, and I hope that they welcome these technical changes. I beg them to accept these amendments, so that they can become part of the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Scottish Ministers to make provision under the new section 34CA(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 so as to empower the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to impose civil sanctions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Environment Agency, the Natural Resources Body for Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to require payment of charges to recover the costs of their functions under regulations under Schedule 5 to the Bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to require payment of charges to recover the costs of its functions under regulations under Schedule 5 to the Bill.
“(a) the consent of a person entitled to grant access to material on or accessible from the premises, or(b) ”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the powers of search etc in inserted paragraph (ka) of section 108(4) of the Environment Act 1995 may be exercised with consent as well as with a warrant.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 10, page 193, line 23.
“(4A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish guidance, and any revised guidance, issued by the Secretary of State under this section.(4B) The Welsh Ministers must lay before Senedd Cymru and publish guidance, and any revised guidance, issued by the Welsh Ministers under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under inserted section 88B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 concerning littering enforcement to be laid before Parliament or Senedd Cymru as appropriate, and published.
Baroness Sheehan
“Air quality: speed limits
(1) The national speed limit for restricted roads in England is 20 miles per hour.(2) Nothing in this section affects the power of traffic authorities responsible for such roads to make exceptions to the national speed limit where appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the number of fine particulates released into the air from non-exhaust emissions (NEE), such as brake, tyre and road surface wear, by lowering the speed of traffic and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering. Lowering speed limits is also intended to reduce the projected increase in electricity demand on the grid as EVs replace ICE vehicles.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The amendment aims to implement 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is unable to be with us this afternoon but is keen to reiterate her support—
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I am sorry; I was so pleased to have made it here on time that I forgot to check that the noble Baroness was here. I will leave her to reiterate her support on her own behalf.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and colleagues during the Summer Recess. While we had a good meeting and I thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout, can he say whether he has looked further at the evidence that reducing vehicle speeds will be a necessary remedy to reduce non-exhaust emissions? In addition, and crucially, a lower speed limit on our roads will help to relieve the additional electricity demand that electric vehicles will put on the national grid and will help our fight against climate change.
Does the Minister accept that, in looking for solutions to reducing air pollution from transport and facilitating the rollout of electric vehicles, speed is a factor that cannot be ignored? Given the importance of improving the air we breathe in our everyday environment, I feel strongly that any remedy to reduce air pollution has a place in a seminal Environment Bill. However, I accept that it is for the Department for Transport to set speed limits. In that vein, I remind the Minister of his kind offer to facilitate a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in her capacity as Transport Minister. Will he confirm that he will do this, if he has not done so already?
In conclusion, we are speaking here of a remedy that will reduce fine particulates in our ambient air, for which the WHO has said that there is no safe limit. The rate of implementation of 20 mph speed limits is gathering pace, not just in the UK but across Europe. We on these Benches will be pursuing the 20’s Plenty agenda in the future, but we may need to leave it until the transport Bill is before us.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, after that welcome from the noble Baroness in her introduction, I feel that I should go next in speaking in support of this amendment. I should declare that I live in Cardiff, which is one of the pilot areas of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, and we have already found that the air quality has improved, but the transit time from one place to another has not increased—contrary to rumours that that had happened. The difference is that the traffic is calmer; children walking to and from school are safer; and there is less bad behaviour generally on the roads with people being aggravated and pulling away fast at lights.
I have spoken at length about the problem of non-exhaust pollution and that is all on the record, so I will not go over the damage caused to human health by that. However, I remind everyone that, as well as decreasing fatal accidents, the lower speed limit also decreases accidents where there are life-changing injuries.
Given that we are trying to increase walking and cycling and that the Highway Code has been rewritten, moving to 20 miles per hour on our roads generally is very sensible. I have noticed that in London, where some areas are limited to 20 and others are not, drivers are confused but it is easier for cyclists and pedestrians, and it is easier as a driver to see them if they are going just a little slower.
I am afraid I cannot see any arguments at all against the Government accepting this amendment, other than the theory that some people think it might take them longer to get from A to B. However, I do not think that has been proven in practice.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 55 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Randall, and to my Amendment 56 also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and co-president of London Councils, the body that represents the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation.
Amendment 55 is a development of the amendments that I moved in Committee. It would grant local authorities a discretionary power to control emissions from combustion plant where they choose to declare an area as an air quality improvement area. Amendment 56 would increase the penalty for the offence of stationary idling committed in an air quality improvement area.
As we are all only too aware, air pollution has a terrible impact on human health, contributing to some 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. The Government have recognised the seriousness of the problem of poor air quality and that local authorities have an important role to play in delivering reductions in PM2.5. Indeed, local authorities have a statutory duty to reduce emissions in their area, but they do not have sufficient powers to take effective action to achieve such reductions. My amendments seek to give substance to remedying that.
Public attention has understandably been focused more on the need to cut emissions from vehicles, but very little has been said of non-road pollution and emissions of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, dangerous carcinogens that penetrate deep into our lungs and bloodstream. Many emissions are from non-road sources, collectively referred to as combustion plant. As we make improvements in reducing emissions from vehicles, we must also shift our focus to include these other sources of pollution.
To illustrate the importance of tackling non-road emissions, I gave examples in Committee of the City of London. Under the Covid-19 lockdown last year—2020—the square mile saw a 40% decrease in levels of nitrogen oxide compared to 2019, before lockdown. However, levels of PM2.5, the pollutant most damaging to human health, remained at roughly the same level despite the significant reduction in transport activity.
Amendment 55 would insert a new clause granting unitary authorities and district councils in England, as well as the Court of Common Council of the City of London, the power under the proposed new clause to designate an area within its borders as an air quality improvement area if that area exceeds any air quality target for nitrogen dioxide, NO2; particulate matter, PM10; or fine particulate matter, PM2.5, as set out under Clause 1 or 2, or if the area exceeds the World Health Organization air quality guidance for those pollutants. This designation would in effect be a gateway to implementing a range of air quality measures provided for in regulations to be made by the Secretary of State.
The amendment would oblige the Secretary of State under subsection (5) to make regulations setting out the controls that may be applied by the local authority, providing local authorities with a menu of restrictions to choose from. That could include restrictions as to the type of plant by reference to the level of pollution emitted by that plant, or it could apply to plants such as boilers, generators, combined heat and power plant and non-road mobile machinery such as construction machinery.
The regulations could also contain restrictions on the operation of stationary generators in premises within the designated area except where the electricity supply to the premises was disrupted. Many office buildings have back-up diesel generators in the event of a power cut, but instead they are operated to lower the building’s electricity costs by selling electricity back to the grid. Providing for this restriction in the regulations would enable local authorities to set periods when the operation of these generators would be prohibited except in the case of a power cut.
Local authorities would be required by subsection (2) to specify in the designation which restrictions from the menu of restrictions set out in the regulations they wished to apply, in which area, to which types of plant, from which date and time and under which circumstances. The designating local authority would be required to publish details of any restrictions that it wished to implement at least two months before the designation took effect and to advertise the designation in newspapers circulating in the area and on the local authority’s website.
The regulatory framework established by the amendment would give the Secretary of State the flexibility to determine which restrictions should be made available to local authorities and would then leave local authorities the discretion to apply the restrictions that they knew would work best in their area. That would follow the example of the existing regulatory framework of smoke control areas, established by the Clean Air Act 1993, in ensuring that the cleanest applianceswere used in the most polluted areas.
At present, some local authorities attempt to use planning controls to regulate various types of polluting plant. Not surprisingly, that has proved ineffective because planning controls were never intended to be used in that manner. Similarly, attempts to use the environmental permitting framework to give local authorities a means of regulating polluting plants in their area do not really work. It is an unnecessarily cumbersome, expensive, bureaucratic and time-consuming way of dealing with smaller static plant, and does not work effectively for mobile plant. Neither does the existing framework of air quality management areas, set out in the Environment Act 1995, deliver the much-needed powers provided by Amendment 55.
Local authorities are keen to do more on air pollution and are in a good position to know the best way to do so in their area, but they find themselves unable to take the action required. The amendment would provide an easy mechanism for local authorities to act, providing a gateway to implementing any range of air quality measures provided for in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 56 relates to the stationary idling of vehicles. More action needs to be taken to reduce this avoidable pollution. Stationary idling is already illegal but the penalty of £20 is derisory these days and hardly a deterrent. The amendment would insert a new clause that would increase the penalty for stationary idling within the designated area to £100, rising to £150 in certain circumstances, in order to deter those who are unwilling to change their behaviour and do not respond to awareness campaigns. Above all, it better recognises the seriousness of the issue.
The amendments are intended to give local authorities the power to bring about the reduction in emissions that all of us, not least the Minister, want. They would equip local authorities with the tools to deliver on their new obligations under the Bill. We have an opportunity in the Bill to empower local authorities across the country to tackle more effectively the problem of non-road emissions, with the potential to make a significant impact in combating poor air quality.
The Minister has recognised that local authorities have an important role to play in improving air quality. The amendments would enable them to do so, and I look forward to their acceptance.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support Amendment 51, which is a no-brainer. This whole group talks about a public health disaster. We have not understood the impact of these emissions on public health—and not just their immediate impact but their long-term impact. There is huge damage to the NHS because of the problems forced on it by these emissions, and these amendments are extremely well designed to fix some of those problems. I should declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I wholeheartedly support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and congratulate him on a very thorough exposition of the reasons for it. I have signed Amendments 55, 56 and 57 because they are all very clearly linked. Quite honestly, the Bill really has to say something on air pollution.
It is worth pointing out, as the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did, that his amendment has been—I was going to say “concocted” but there must be a better word—written by some very distinct groups. They are the City of London Corporation, London Councils, Clean Air in London, a Lib Dem Peer and a Green Peer. These are people you might not think would naturally link together—but on this issue we are speaking with one voice. There is a problem and we have to fix it, and this is how you can fix it.
The Bill would quite rightly amend the Environment Act 1995 to give local authorities new functions and duties. For example, they must have regard to the national strategy and identify relevant sources of emissions. Another part of the 1995 Act would be amended to include things such as that they
“must, for the purpose of securing … air quality standards and objectives … prepare an action plan”.
Again and again, the Government give duties and responsibilities to local authorities, which is very smart. But, at the same time, you cannot keep giving such a workload if you do not give people the resources to do it. Those resources are partly powers and partly money, and these tough duties are not matched by either powers or finance. We therefore need legislation that would give local authorities the powers they need to decarbonise buildings. This is the next step; we are always talking about transport, but buildings are also a huge source of carbon emissions, as are other non-traffic emissions such as those from construction equipment and stationary generators.
We also have to give the Secretary of State powers in regulations to set common standards that could be tightened over time. Ideally, the Secretary of State would encourage the use of zero-emission or ultra-low-emission appliances to align air pollution and climate efforts. Amendment 55 would strike the right balance between duties and powers for local authorities.
Amendment 56 is very sensible. It would make the problem of stationary idling much easier to tackle; it is a plague at the moment. I make myself very unpopular by going up to people who have their engines idling outside schools and so on, and telling them to turn them off. That is one of the things I do for fun, obviously.
My Amendment 57 is a sort of super-amendment that pushes farther. As your Lordships would expect from a Green, it is more radical. It is based on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, so in principle it has support from those other authorities—but not quite enough to put that into writing. I have to declare that I am a sinner; I installed a wood-burning stove in a flat that I used to own and I am really sorry about that. In fact, I burned incredibly dry wood—which makes it slightly better—because a scaffolding yard which was next door to my flat supplied me with bone-dry pine from their scaffolding. The people there actually drove the wrong way up a one-way street and up my drive to dump their dumpy bags outside my door. It was fantastic and the wood lasted quite a number of years.
To go back to the point, my amendment builds on the excellent Amendment 55 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in three important ways. First, it would emphasise the need to include fine particles: these PM2.5s, which we have heard so much about and which are so nasty, because they not only go into the lungs but pass through them into the bloodstream and other organs. They are highly damaging and we probably have not yet caught up with all the damage that they do, particularly to children. They have to go into the national air quality target set under either Clause 1 or Clause 2. As we heard earlier, this is the most harmful form of air pollution, affecting us all at some stage in our lives.
Secondly, my amendment would give metro mayors, alongside local authorities, powers to designate any part of their area exceeding WHO air-quality guidelines as an air-quality improvement area. That is a very useful power and they could set restrictions based on regulations made by the Secretary of State. This seems only right and fair if we are to avoid a patchwork of emissions standards in our largest cities, all of which are polluted.
Last but not least, my amendment would end the sale and use of wood-burning stoves in urban areas over seven years, as the original Clean Air Act was meant to do in 1956. This is important because Defra’s latest statistical release on air pollution said that the use of wood in domestic combustion activities accounted for 38% of PM2.5 emissions in 2019, and these emissions doubled between 2003 and 2019. So we have a real problem and I very much hope that that the Government are listening on this—but perhaps they are not.
Not only are wood stoves and fireplaces a major source of the most harmful air pollution, but the Climate Change Committee is clear that wood-burning stoves should not be counted towards either low-carbon heat targets or renewable targets. So I really hope that the Government are listening.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support all the amendments in this group and have put my name to two of them. I just want to intervene briefly on the issue of idling. Last week, when I walked from my Pimlico flat to this House—which takes about 25 minutes, mainly down backstreets—I passed 15 vehicles which were stationary and idling: cars, vans, buses and trucks. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, had been with me, because I am far too diffident to bang on a roof and tell a driver to stop doing it—but next time I will invite her to join me.
Westminster City Council has a commendable campaign, public-relations wise, to stop idling—but it has no means of enforcing it. And even if the council did enforce it, the fine is so paltry that it is not a deterrent. This amendment would change that. It would make it easier to enforce and would make people take notice. It is a major contribution towards reducing air-quality problems in our cities and I hope that the House can support all these amendments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, during our debate in Committee on a similar amendment to Amendment 51 the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, said that
“local authorities already have the power to set 20 mph speed limits”—[Official Report, 5/7/21; col. 1081.]
on restricted roads, so my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s amendment was not necessary. Well, yes, it is true that they have the power, and many have used it to great effect—but it is a long-winded and expensive process. Local authorities have better things to do with their time and money, so making 20 miles an hour the default would not mean that all restricted roads would end up being limited to 20. Local authorities would still have the power to make them 30 miles an hour if they considered that would be safer and better for the local community. But surely it is right that these decisions are made locally, and in as expeditious a way as possible, particularly in areas of deprivation.
In her reply, the Minister referred to something in the Atkins report. Can she now provide the House with the evidence which she claimed suggested that 20 miles an hour limits could lead to higher casualty rates, and tell us who did that research? These allegations have been widely challenged, and the Minister needs to defend them as being robust if she wishes to rely on them.
My noble friend Lady Sheehan has outlined the benefits of 20 miles an hour limits, and I have seen them for myself in both Scotland and Wales. They are safer, quieter and healthier, they address some aspects of health inequality, they protect the national grid and they are more environmentally friendly—and that is how I would describe my noble friend’s proposal. If that is not enough, 20 miles an hour areas are also very popular with the public. They address non-exhaust emissions, as well as those produced by combustions—and we do not get rid of those by moving to electric cars; I have an electric car and I still produce small particulates from my car’s tyres and brakes. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, did not give any good reasons, in her response in Committee, why this amendment should not be in the Bill; she was not convincing.
I turn to Amendment 55, from my noble friend Lord Tope. Again, the Minister was not convincing in Committee when we covered these issues. She claimed that current regulations are adequate to clean up the emissions from non-road combustion plant—or that at least they will be by 2030. That is nine years away, by which time more people will have died from the small particulates, NOx emissions, et cetera, that are emitted by dirty generators, boilers and so on.
The powers that my noble friend proposes do not currently exist; they are voluntary and additional to what local authorities already have, but they do not have to use them. If they think, with their local knowledge, that there is no need for them—because the air is already clean or because they are happy to rely on the measures outlined by the Minister in Committee—they do not have to declare an air quality improvement area. I emphasise that the powers are discretionary. Can the Minister say what harm would be done by giving local authorities these additional, discretionary powers?
The Minister hinted in Committee that she was afraid that decisions would be made that were, in the Government’s opinion, wrong. Well that is what can happen with devolution—and indeed Governments make wrong decisions too, especially this one—so that is no good reason for failing to accept this amendment.
Amendment 56 offers the Government a very simple way of reducing or stopping totally unnecessary emissions of CO2, NOx and small particulates. The idea that idling your engine outside a school brings a penalty of only £20 is pathetic. I have often seen parents sitting in their cars outside a school in the afternoon, waiting for their children, with their engines running as if in pole position at the start of a Grand Prix. If I had approached the driver to point out that he or she was in danger of attracting a fine of £20, I would have been laughed out of the village. Much more effective would be a fine of £100, rising to £150; I might even be persuaded to bang on the window and warn the driver, like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If the Minister could tell me how many drivers have been deterred from doing this by this tiny fine I might reconsider my view, but, as things stand, I think that she should accept Amendment 56.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with Amendment 56 on stationary idling. It is an existing offence, and all we are being asked is to put the fine up to a more realistic level. It is certainly a problem that particularly concerns—I do not know if I should name them specifically—Uber-type drivers sitting waiting for fares.
I do not support any of the other amendments. I think it would be difficult if the House put some of these things through without fuller consideration and costings.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in my opinion this is quite an important set of amendments because they focus on some specific causes of air pollution. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, ably introduced her Amendment 51, on the impact of speed on air quality, as she did in Committee, and spoke passionately about why we need to reduce speed limits to reduce PM2.5. We have heard about research on the impact of road traffic, and the fact that it is responsible for up to 80% of particulate pollution in the UK, but it is also likely that this is an underestimate. The noble Baroness explained how particulates arise from the friction between tyre rubber and road surfaces and the impact of speed on climate change.
Amendment 51 in particular considers a 20 miles an hour speed limit. It is worth noting that the UK default speed limit of 30 miles an hour is 60% higher than that in most continental European towns, where 30 kilometres an hour, or 18.6 miles an hour, is the norm. Imperial College has reported that, at 20 miles an hour, brake and tyre wear is significantly reduced. When the 30 kilometres an hour zones were introduced in Germany, in the 1980s, car drivers changed gear less often, braked less often and required less fuel.
Congestion is also a factor in air pollution, as emissions from a standing vehicle are higher than those from a moving one; this was demonstrated during the debate we had on idling engines. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, also referred to the fact that lower speeds improve traffic flow through junctions and can actually help to reduce congestion.
I turn to Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and others, and Amendment 57, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I will talk to them together, because they both propose air quality improvement areas. In the introduction to his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, talked about why local authorities are an important part of tackling air pollution, and why they need the powers to make a genuine difference. He spoke particularly about the issue of combustion plants in this context.
Amendment 57 builds on Amendment 55, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained very clearly. The need to include PM2.5 when setting a national air quality target is critical. We have previously debated the importance of meeting the WHO targets for this, and we also know that, next week, there is likely to be an announcement that the guidelines will be tightened even further.
The noble Baroness then talked about how her amendment would give metro mayors powers to designate air quality improvement areas. This is important, because it helps to avoid a patchwork of different emissions standards in our larger cities, and the noble Baroness talked about how important that is.
The noble Baroness spoke next about the third part of her amendment, which seeks to end the sale and use of wood-burning stoves in urban areas. Again, we have heard in the debate how important this is in helping to reduce PM2.5 emissions in our cities. The Climate Change Committee has also made it clear that wood-burning stoves should not be counted towards either low-carbon heat targets or renewable targets.
Finally, on Amendment 56, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Tope, idling creates air pollution and is really unnecessary. An idling engine burns fuel less efficiently than when the vehicle is moving, and so it produces more emissions than when it is travelling. Additionally, the toxic gases produced by idling are emitted in the same place, which means that localised air pollution is higher. This is particularly important near schools, because research shows that exposing children to high levels of air pollution can stunt lung growth and cause behavioural and mental health problems. Those of us who are drivers have a personal responsibility here; whether we are parked outside a school, picking someone up from the station or waiting in a car park, we all must do our bit by switching off our engines to reduce our emissions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, reminded us, idling is an offence in law, but there are clearly issues around enforcement and penalties. My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the difficulties that Westminster Council is having, for example, and this was mentioned by other noble Lords. As I said at the beginning, this is an important group of amendments, focusing on things the Government can do to act quickly to reduce air pollution. I await the Minister’s response with interest.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I begin by thanking noble Lords for the quality of their contributions on the important issue of air quality throughout these proceedings, including in Committee. I agree that ambitious action is needed, which is why the Bill requires the Government to set two targets on air quality, including for fine particulate matter, the particulate most harmful to human health. These will be supported by a robust set of measures in the Bill which enable the action required to meet those targets. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that the department will organise a meeting for her and the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, with the Minister, if this has not been organised already. In light of her point about the impact on electricity demand from the speeds of electric vehicles, we will write to the Department for Transport for clarification on that issue.
Turning to Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Baroness, the Government support the use of 20 miles per hour speed limits or zones in the right places, depending on local circumstances. Local authorities have the power to set these limits, and I am confident that it is better for these decisions to be taken locally, taking a balanced account of the full range of impacts of changing speed limits, including economic and environmental effects. The Air Quality Expert Group report into non-exhaust emissions from road traffic concluded that the most effective traffic pollution mitigation strategies reduce the overall volume of traffic, lower the speed where traffic is free flowing—for example, on motorways—and promote driving behaviour that reduces braking and higher-speed cornering. We agree that we need to reduce PM2.5 emissions from tyre and brake wear. In towns and cities where traffic is not free flowing, the best way to do this is by encouraging fewer vehicle journeys rather than slower journeys. We do not want our recovery from this pandemic to be car-led. That is why the Government are continuing with our ambitious plans to increase active travel, with a long-term vision for half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030, backed by £2 billion of investment over five years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked a number of questions. I believe she is mistaken about what I said in Committee. We have now checked Hansard, but I would like more time to go through it in detail. If what she said about casualty rates is relevant to that we will, in any event, write to clarify the point I made. She also asked some other questions, which I will come to later. We want to encourage more people to make sustainable, healthier travel choices that help improve air quality for local communities.
I turn to Amendments 55 and 57. Through the Bill, we are strengthening the local air quality management framework to bring in a broader range of partners to work with local authorities to improve air quality, and to make it easier for them to use their powers to tackle, for example, domestic solid fuel burning, a key source of PM2.5. I take the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about the cumbersome processes that local authorities have to go through and we are aware of the issues with procedures for making these orders. In 2020, we published a report, Traffic Regulation Orders, identifying improvements to the legislative process in England, and we plan to consult later this year on potential legislative reforms to make it easier and quicker to make orders. There are already controls in place for many of the sources of pollution of concern that noble Lords have cited, for example through environmental permitting.
I set out in detail in Committee the many levers that local authorities already have to improve air quality in their areas, so I do not propose to repeat them here, but for tackling non-road emissions, specifically non-road mobile machinery, there are already emissions standards that non-road mobile machinery must comply with before it is sold, and the Government recently agreed to increase the stringency of these standards. Our existing regulatory regime also already sets emissions controls targeting medium combustion plants. This regime requires all plants in scope, such as the plants referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, to be registered or permitted, and sets limits on the levels of pollutants that these plants can emit. Going forward, our clean air strategy committed to consider the case for tighter emissions standards for medium combustion plants to those already introduced and to consider how to tackle emissions from smaller plants which do not fall within the scope of these regulations or eco-design regulations. I believe it is better to continue to strengthen the existing approaches than to create a new framework which would add to an already complex regulatory picture. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, is aware that Defra officials recently met representatives of the City of London, and other local authorities, to understand how to tackle the specific issues that this amendment intends to address, using our existing powers.
On the noble Baroness’s Amendment 57, which would introduce a ban on wood-burning appliances, we recognise that many people rely on wood-burning stoves and open fires, which use natural fuel. Because of this, our recent domestic fuels legislation does not introduce an outright and indiscriminate ban. Instead, we have taken action through the Air Quality (Domestic Solid Fuels Standards) (England) Regulations 2020, which came into force in May, to encourage people to move away from using more polluting fuels, such as wet wood, to less polluting fuels, such as dry wood. The proposals are therefore aimed at protecting health by phasing out the most polluting fuels used for domestic combustion in England and encouraging people to burn less. This work is supported by an information campaign to encourage people to burn better and to reduce harmful emissions.
The regulations require that wood sold in smaller units must have a moisture content of 20% or less, phase out the supply of traditional house coal for domestic burning, and require that all manufactured solid fuels meet sulphur and smoke emissions limits, to tackle the most harmful emissions from domestic burning. However, we need to be mindful of the contribution that wood burning makes in areas where particulate levels are already high, such as in city and town centres. That is why local authorities already have the power to declare smoke control areas. We continue to undertake regular monitoring of emission sources to inform our work to tackle human health risks robustly, and in setting and working towards the new air quality targets we will consider whether stricter measures are needed.
Turning to Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, while this amendment would increase penalties for drivers idling unnecessarily, the priority must be to change motorists’ behaviour. With or without the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we must encourage them not to idle—which is, after all, wasting expensive fuel—and instead push motorists towards using the technological solutions now available, rather than penalise them. Vehicle technology has moved on significantly and can play a part in addressing idling, including stop-start technology and low or zero-emission vehicles. If needed, however, powers are already available to local authorities to tackle unnecessary idling. Local authorities, as the existing guidance makes clear, should utilise a range of methods to encourage motorists to change their behaviour, including public information campaigns.
Although it seems a very simple idea to increase fines, the Department for Transport undertook a study on fines and concluded that increasing the level was not the best way of addressing the issue. Higher fines of up to £1,000 on conviction may also be issued if the police carry out enforcement against idling where a driver refuses to stop running their engine. This, of course, is rather more than the noble Lord’s suggested penalty, although I acknowledge that this is on conviction, rather than an on-the-spot fine. So, although I agree with the intended outcome of the noble Lord’s amendment, the Government’s position is that higher penalties are not the best approach to address this issue, so I beg noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister. I have one quick question for her. She said that the Government do not want slower traffic, they just want fewer cars on the road, but that flies in the face of what public opinion says on slower traffic. Wherever 20 miles per hour limits have been introduced, they have been very popular. Will she quickly address that? Is it in order for me to ask her to elucidate?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am happy to elucidate. I do not believe I said I want just to reduce traffic; I said that both solutions will produce the desired outcome—both fewer vehicles and slower traffic.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Whitty
“Air quality and human health in rural areas: application of pesticides
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision prohibiting the application of pesticides for the purposes of agriculture or horticulture near—(a) buildings used for human habitation, and(b) public or private buildings and associated open spaces where members of the public may be present, including but not limited to—(i) schools and childcare nurseries, and(ii) hospitals and health care facilities.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify a minimum distance from any of the locations listed under subsection (1) to be maintained during the application of any pesticide.(3) In determining the distance in subsection (2) the Secretary of State must be guided by the optimum distance that would make a significant difference in air quality for people using the locations listed in subsection (1).(4) In this section “public building” includes any building used for the purpose of education. (5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
In order to improve air quality and thereby protect human health and the environment in rural areas, this new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and open spaces used by residents and members of the public.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment should be recognised as absolutely necessary and straightforward but it is one, unfortunately, that the Government have resisted. Like the air quality debate that we have just had, it concerns human health, but it also has wider environmental implications. The detrimental effect of chemical pesticide spraying on those who live, work and congregate close to where spraying is carried out is well established. The medical effects are now well known—although, as the Minister himself had to admit the other week, not the particular effects of specific combinations of chemicals included in the cocktail of chemicals that are often sprayed these days.
In earlier stages of this Bill and the Agriculture Bill, the detrimental effects of spraying on individuals and families over long periods have been spelled out in great detail; they are familiar to GPs and medics here and around the world. Some effects are acute and some short term, such as breathing difficulties; some are utterly chronic, and some are lethal. The most vulnerable are those right next to the spraying and, in particular, those who are subject to repeated doses because they live there.
Noble Lords will be aware of the views from most scientists, the royal commission and, broadly speaking, global medical opinion. Noble Lords will also have been made aware of particular concerns of individuals who have been affected and have suffered chronic ill health and eventual disability because of this exposure. I have met some of the victims and have heard of large numbers of others.
It is the essential human issue that we are attempting to address in this amendment, but there are, of course, wider arguments. In the terms of some of the responses during Committee and through the passage of the Agriculture Bill, the arguments got mixed up. It is true that many people, including myself, would wish to see the eventual phasing out of all chemical pesticides. The numbers of people wishing for that outcome apparently, according to the news last week, include President Macron. However, irrespective of my views on the longer term, this is a very specific issue, for now. It means that we would protect from current pesticides the health and well-being of literally thousands, or potentially hundreds of thousands, of rural residents in this country. This amendment is not about the bigger picture; it is very specifically about the protection of our rural residents in their homes, gardens, schools and public places. It is an in principle amendment, leaving details subject to the regulatory process. Protection for our rural population is essential, but the regulatory process will obviously allow opinions on the detail. If we adopt this amendment tonight, that process will start now.
Unfortunately, the Government have found all sorts of reasons for resisting this amendment, or a similar amendment, starting with the early stages of the Agriculture Bill. Ministers have adduced a whole range of metamorphosing reasons for opposing the amendment. At first, they said that it was unnecessary because Ministers already had the power to make regulations on distancing of spraying of pesticides and, at that time, they sort of did—but it was under EU law, which left it discretionary on the member state to implement it. We never used that discretion and, with the end of the transition period, that power disappeared; it was not transposed into UK law. The reality is that that power had been there for over a decade and successive Governments had never used it; that is why we need a specific amendment requiring the Government to introduce regulations to implement that principle and not leave permissive powers mouldering on the statue book for another two decades.
The Government then argued that this country’s licensing system for pesticides was world beating—to use that phrase—and did not need any improvements, and that the danger of residents spraying pesticides in their houses and gardens was negligible these days. Yet the Minister was unable to tell the House what tests were made on cocktails of pesticides and, also, on medical evidence, which in particular my noble friend—or, I should say, my noble co-signatory—Lady Finlay adduced during the passage of the Agriculture Bill and this Bill.
There are multiple incidents of acute harm, burns and breathing problems but, far more disturbingly, there are large numbers of cases where long-term effects are seen on neurological and immune systems, lung function and foetal health. These are dangerous. Of course, we are protecting other people; those who use the pesticides are protected by very strict health and safety regulations, wear protective clothing and are usually within a cab. Consumers are protected by very strict rules about pesticide residues being left on vegetables and fruit that reach our shops and markets. The people who are not protected are those who live in our countryside, right next to where this spraying is carried out. I find that omission appalling, and I do not understand why the Government are so reluctant to do something about it. I hope that I have the wholehearted support of this House in instructing the Government to do something about it. As I say, the details of that can be sorted out in regulation, but let us at least make the principle clear tonight.
In Committee, I refrained from quoting anybody, but a couple of examples caught my eye when I was going through this the other night. One woman said:
“My family have always lived next to fields sprayed with chemicals. My husband and my son died from neurological diseases. Our neighbouring farmer and his wife both have MS”—
and, she says, it is all down to those chemicals. Another said:
“I am sprayed with cocktails of pesticides by my neighbour, a fruit farmer, around 20 times per year. As a toxicologist I know that these agents are not meant to be used anywhere near residences and yet my home is covered with these chemicals every time he sprays”.
The Government themselves recognise this issue. In the codes of practice, they require farmers and others to notify nearby premises, but that is not enforced, and, in most cases, it does not happen. There is no such notification and, even when it does happen, there is no notification of what precisely is being sprayed because, by and large, by that stage, the particular application is not clear. However, it is clear everywhere else; it is clear to the medics and to the manufacturers, who put very strong warnings against inhalation or skin contact on the containers for these pesticides—and rightly so, because they are being responsible. I am asking the Government to take their responsibilities at least as seriously and today adopt an amendment that will give some hope to those families who historically have seriously suffered debilitation and sometimes worse, and to ensure that it does not affect families in the next generation.
I hope that the Minister will change course on this issue, accepting the need to look at it again and to take action to introduce regulation. Unfortunately, successive Governments have not done that, which is why I require the amendment to instruct the Government to take action. I hope that the House fully supports me on because too many people’s lives have been blighted to ignore this problem. I hope that the House can support this amendment today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have put my name to the amendment, and I support it very strongly. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, will test the opinion of the House.
We have major problems with these chemicals. First, our testing regime tests single pesticides, but does not look at combinations or mixtures of pesticides. Secondly, people are required to notify local premises prior to spraying, but there are two difficulties with this: as downwind is not necessarily a short distance, these chemicals can travel very long distances, and you cannot predict the direction the wind is blowing. Another difficulty is that they sit on the land on crops, and when the sun comes out, they vaporise. Even though people might have been warned about spraying, the vaporisation means that the amount in the air goes up again and it is spread still further towards people living in the vicinity.
I have a list of references from different parts of the scientific literature which I will not go through in detail now, as it is not the time. But I point out that pesticides can cause deformities in unborn offspring, cancers, and mutations that poison the nervous system and block the natural defences of the immune system. The irreversible effects are permanent and cannot be changed once they have occurred. I have looked after an awful lot of cancer patients, many coming from farming communities in Wales. When they are young and ask me about exposure to chemicals, it is very difficult to have that conversation, because by then they, or maybe their child, is already so seriously ill or dying, that everything is irreversible. We cannot carry on doing this and polluting the environment without thinking again. Article 3(14) of EU Regulation 1107/2009 defines rural residents living in the locality of pesticide-sprayed crops as “vulnerable groups,” and they are recognised as having high pesticide exposure over the long term.
The side effects of the individual chemical agents are quite scary. When one looks at the cumulative effects long term, we cannot continue to ignore them. The effect on rural residents will go on and on, even for those living at sizeable distances. I hope that the House will reflect on the debate we had on the Agriculture Bill, when the Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, told the Committee that we need a population in good health to cope with the threat of infection during the pandemic. We cannot carry on having a rural community that is being poisoned by its own actions in an attempt to supply us with food which is cheap and probably underpriced for the value which should go to farmers for responsible farming. I hope that this House will support this amendment.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 52 to which I have added my name, and the very important contributions, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I am of course passionate because this is a matter of great importance. As I have said previously, on both the Agriculture Bill and in Committee for this Bill, we have a history of underplaying certain risks to human health, which we only find out about later. I am thinking of tobacco, asbestos, air quality—which we have just been discussing —and various things which cause harm. It must be obvious that these chemical pesticides—because of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff—are nothing but harmful.
I am particularly concerned about cocktails of chemicals. I am not a chemist and did not do much science at school, but I know that if one mixes certain chemicals, they have a completely different effect and can be even more toxic. Do these chemicals accumulate in the soil, and not simply vaporise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said? That is something we should be looking at.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 123 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has already indicated his support, and the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury; I am extremely grateful for their support. It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Whitty, and I make a passing reference to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. There are compelling cases for both their amendments too, but I do not intend to speak to them.
The debate in Committee revealed strong support from all parts of the House for this amendment—indeed, I cannot recall anyone who spoke against it. Even the Minister himself spoke for the amendment in part, when he was persuaded by a phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that the amendment was a no-brainer. To that extent, he accepted it, but we will come to the Government’s resistance in a moment.
This amendment proposes a new clause which provides an effective regulation to protect wildlife, the environment and human health by replacing toxic lead ammunition, principally for shooting game, with alternatives. It is intended to provide regulatory protection for wildlife and the environment and to improve human health and protect humans by replacing toxic lead gunshot with much safer alternatives. It also intends to ensure a supply of healthy game for the market and meet the requirements of shooting, food retail and conservation stakeholders.
This amendment is not precisely the one that was before your Lordships’ House in Committee. The date of its provisions coming into effect has changed slightly to 31 July 2023—a move of a few months in 2023—to respond to arguments and advice that I received directly and indirectly from ammunition manufacturers that it would be more appropriate not to seek to ban the use of lead ammunition in the middle of a game season, when people had already stocked up, as it were, for the purpose of shooting. It seemed to be a compelling argument. They were on board. They also said, quite understandably, that if we are to make this change, there needs to be compulsion that has effect and is logical so that they can ramp up the manufacturing. So, there is a change in that respect.
I do not intend to go into all the 30 years of evidence there is that we should not be doing this, but we know that lead is a poison. We ban it in many other areas of life. It seems crazy that we allow it to be used in this way when it gets directly into the food chain. In his response in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, confirmed that the Government want action to ban the use of lead in a way which harms the environment and human or animal health. He is a lifelong—certainly adult life-long—proponent of that and makes no bones about it. He rejected an amendment of this nature because it was not comprehensive and did not deal with the issue of lead in target shooting and other parts of that element of the sport.
The Minister supported the Government’s preferred approach, which is to use the GB REACH process—I say the “GB REACH process” because the EU REACH process applies to Northern Ireland and, indeed, may be being debated in your Lordships’ Grand Committee—which, in my view and in the view of many other noble Lords, will take an unconscionable length of time and will unnecessarily expose tens, if not thousands, of children to potential harm. I remind your Lordships’ House that the Minister, Rebecca Pow, said in launching the REACH process:
“A large volume of lead ammunition is discharged every year over the countryside, causing harm to the environment, wildlife and people”,
and that
“Addressing the impacts of lead ammunition will mark a significant step forward in helping to protect wildlife, people, and the environment.”
In concluding, the Minister offered the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, a meeting. It took place on 5 August with the Minister, officials and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, present. I got an indirect invitation to the meeting, which I also attended. Since then, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has had further communication with the Bill team, as has the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury. I shall leave both noble Lords to share with your Lordships’ House what was discussed, if it can be shared. I thank the Minister and his team for their engagement with this process, and I thank the noble Lords for ensuring that I was included.
But I understand that the Bill team’s position on lead shot is that the time it will take for the GB REACH restriction dossier to be prepared is required to build a comprehensive case for the restriction. I think that is one of their arguments. They also argue that this requires up-to-date GB-wide specific evidence and that the Government need to make sure that the final decision on this is watertight from an evidential and legal perspective. I have not practised law for a long time, but I respect this position and understand it. But I do not accept without evidence that this is necessarily a block to dealing with what we can deal with today, which is harm to people, animals and the environment. I will come back to that.
So where do we stand today? First, lead is a poison and should be banned, except where it is a necessity to use it and there is no alternative, where it should be closely regulated. That is what we do in every other aspect of our lives. We have known that lead shot has been poisoning animals, humans and the environment for decades. We have reached the stage where, in the face of the comprehensive knowledge that we now have of the value of the environment and its biodiversity to every single aspect of our life, something has to be done about this. The obvious thing is for its use in a way that creates a poisonous effect to be banned.
There already exists a comprehensive case for this amendment—supported by specific GB evidence over decades—to protect human health, wildlife health and the environment. There exists support for the need for the change from all major stakeholders: shooters, game dealers, distributors, retailers, scientists, conservationists, and even the Houses of Parliament. Both Houses, through their committees, unanimously agreed to ban the sale of lead-shot game in our restaurants so that we do not poison ourselves. It has support from Parliament already. I have to say I find it difficult to explain to people outside why we cannot ban for their consumption what we have banned for our own. This does not seem a tenable position to be in.
There already exists acknowledgement that alternatives exist and are effective. They have existed for 25 years in Denmark. Not only do they have a burgeoning shooting business—in fact, my country, Scotland, has lots of Danes shooting there in all the shooting seasons who tell me that they do it in Denmark very successfully, and they win medals from sports shooting targets with steel ammunition. There already exists an acknowledgement of the need for change to support a market for healthy game meat, which we should encourage people to eat. So there are strong socioeconomic arguments too.
Any further unnecessary delay will result in the death and suffering of hundreds of thousands more birds, the risk of irreversibly reducing the IQs of thousands—possibly tens of thousands—more children, and the deposit of thousands of tonnes more lead shot into the environment, adding to the existing toxic legacy, all of which are unnecessary and fully avoidable.
The case for this amendment is made and is clear cut. Dealing with this now will not only save time and taxpayers’ money by avoiding another unnecessary review but give GB REACH more valuable time to research and debate the issues of lead bullets and target shooting, for which there is certainly a case but where we appreciate that more work with stakeholders may well be required.
Finally, my understanding is that it has been suggested from “sources” that the GB REACH process can achieve the objective of a comprehensive ban with effect from 31 July 2023, the date on which this amendment is due to come into force. If the Minister is inclined to offer that in his response, it will have to be considered, and I am certainly willing to do so. I know that those who support the amendment and have put their name to it are also willing to consider that as a solution to this problem.
However, I am confident that if I test the opinion of this House, a majority will support this amendment. There are two possibilities for avoiding that, as I see them. The first alternative is that, beyond the assertion that GB REACH is the only way forward, the Minister can point me and my noble friends who support this amendment to the legal provisions that support this conclusion and not just keep asserting it without doing so. I have not yet seen a reasoned argument of this nature. It has been absent from all the discussions I have been involved in thus far with the Bill team, either directly or secondarily. I have it on good authority from lawyers working on it at the moment that it is not necessary to do it down that route and that this route, which the Danes use, could be used, too, with effect and without challenge.
Secondly, if the Minister gives a strong enough commitment to persuade the House that there is a strong probability that there will be a comprehensive ban on the use of lead ammunition by a date around the one which we propose in this amendment, or by a date certain, I will consider not having to further embarrass the Government by dividing the House on this issue.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support Amendment 123, from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. I declare an interest, as on the record from previous debates on this Bill. I will not cover again all the points I made both at Second Reading and in Committee.
It is a fact that lead is a poison. I have an enthusiasm in supporting this amendment that comes entirely from my love of the shooting sports, in particular game shooting. Noble Lords will recall that I have probably been supporting all the shooting sports in this House since I came here 40 years ago, very often as a lone voice. Shooting is not exactly something that many of your Lordships are fondly in love with. I want everything I shoot to go into the food chain for human consumption. It is good, wholesome, low-calorie, low-cholesterol food that is both nutritious and delicious.
I am a realist and a very small minority of my shooting colleagues—I do not call them friends because they are not—could not give a fig whether they sell their game into the marketplace for human consumption. So far as they are concerned, they can dispose of it by other means. I find that absolutely despicable and disgusting. There is absolutely no place in my shooting world for people like that, who taint the vast majority of the game shooting enthusiasts of this country, who behave very responsibly indeed and desire, like me, to be able to ensure a growing market of consumers for the game that we produce. That is why I am standing here, pleading with your Lordships about lead.
This amendment will not affect target and clay pigeon shooters. We do not eat targets and clay pigeons. Clay pigeon shooters and target shooters shoot 60% of all the lead shot-cartridges produced in this country. Game shooters shoot 40%. Nine shooting bodies or bodies supporting the shooting sports, including what used to be the Game Conservancy Trust—the GWCT, which my noble friend Lord Caithness and I have a lot to do with—stated some while ago that they intended voluntarily to cease shooting with lead shot. That was done about a couple of years ago, in my memory. I believe that they are now backtracking, and this is another reason why I support this amendment very strongly. The amendment provides certainty for the shooters. It gives certainty to the supermarkets, which are going to stop producing food that has lead shot in it. The stated intention of these nine bodies was to give up lead in a five-year timeframe. There is your timeframe. There is nothing wrong in giving a timeframe. It gives support to the shooters. It gives support to everybody involved with the game-producing industry. We all know then what we are doing and by when we have to do it.
My shooting friends—and I had an invitation from one very nicely this morning in the post—are all saying now, “Will you kindly stop using lead on our estates? We would like you to go and use non-toxic shot, because we cannot sell the birds at the end of this coming season to the Game Dealers Association, because it has already stated that it will not take toxic-shot birds and there goes our market entirely.”
The supermarket chains, especially Waitrose, have for quite a while now had a strategy and process whereby they are stopping accepting lead-shot and toxic-shot game. They believe that the market is going to go much better for non-toxic-shot game. Waitrose mentioned to me that it can sell 1 million more units of game a year to the consumer. That is good for shooting, and that is why I am standing here saying this.
I believe that there is no earthly, legal or operational reason why Her Majesty’s Government cannot agree to this amendment, which covers only game shooting. It does not include clay pigeons shooting, which, as I mentioned, uses by far the largest amount of lead shot in the country. The Government can take on clay pigeon shooters on a different day and take them through a consultation. It will take them years to do it, but I would like to see game shooting legislated for now.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept these amendments or to accept Amendment 123, because it is sensible and easy.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 52, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to which I was pleased to attach my name. It also has the cross-party and non-party support of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I will also briefly address the other two amendments here.
Your Lordships’ House might not be surprised to know that my arguments around Amendment 123 might be slightly differently expressed, and I might have drafted the amendment slightly differently. None the less, the fact that we are still pumping lead out into our environment is disgraceful. We hear the phrase “world-leading” a great deal. As we have heard, Denmark banned lead shot for hunting 25 years ago. California did it last year. If you look around the world, it has taken an unconscionably long time but we have just seen Algeria become the last country in the world to stop selling leaded petrol. We have known for a long time the damage lead does. We cannot justify continuing to use it in this way. This might have been an amendment for which the term “no-brainer” was invented, when you think about the fact that this is damaging the brains of children in particular. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, we have banned lead-shot game here in this House but have not acted outside the House. That really cannot be defended. It is untenable.
Amendment 53 looks at protecting nature from the toxic, disastrous chemicals that are pesticides, but I really want to focus on Amendment 52. We have been debating for some time and I want to come back to briefly highlight the powerful points made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Many Members of your Lordships’ House, particularly those sitting opposite, will be able to picture the scene: an air-conditioned cab with air filtration; an operator equipped with a whole range of complex, high-tech protective equipment; and a child playing in a garden right beside where the person in all that protective equipment is applying chemicals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said she sees the other side of this in her professional practice. People—sometimes young people, sometimes very young people—with cancers, with neurodegenerative diseases. Once the noble Baroness sees them, it is essentially too late. We cannot allow this to continue. This House has many times expressed its strong support for this amendment. I stress that these three amendments are not an either/or, pick-and-match lot. All these amendments should be in the Bill.
I very much hope that, given the direction of travel and where push pressure is coming from, the noble Lord will concede on Amendment 123. We have to vote. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to put this to the vote. We have to get both Amendments 52 and 53 through. This is not an either/or option.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I just want to say a few words about these chemicals and to talk about it from the point of view of the industry and cheap food.
In 1947, the manufacturers of DDT ran an advert in Time magazine showing smiling cartoon farm animals and a rosy-cheeked housewife who sang “DDT is good for me-e-e!”, along with the claim that DDT was the “benefactor of all humanity”. That same year, they had a British colonialist sprinkling DDT over a bowl of porridge and then eating it in a bid to persuade local people in east Africa that this chemical was harmless.
We can see, if we cut forward to today, that Silent Spring was written in 1962 and DDT became recognised as something that was harmful to animals, nature, biodiversity and, indeed, humans. Yet, today, we see a very different story. In 1990, we treated 45 million hectares with pesticides. By 2016, this had risen to 73 million hectares, although the actual area of crops had remained the same. However, we were putting many times more pesticides on to those same crops, on to a weakening soil, in our attempt to keep producing ever more cheap food to feed our population.
There are very familiar names in the industry—Bayer, Monsanto and Syngenta—and it is reckoned that they make about 35% of their total global revenue by selling these sorts of pesticides around the world. Farmers get trapped into that same cycle. It is something that we have to break.
This amendment is very important to me, because I feel a great distrust of the Government at the moment, for instance over the ban of neonicotinoids. They are now banned in America and across the whole of Europe; indeed, when we were still within the European Union, we banned them as well. However, we have now let them back in and they are allowed to be used on sugar beet. This feels to me like a small open door that could get bigger. I quote Dave Goulson, from the University of Sussex, who wrote a fantastic book about the decline of insects. Mentioning neonicotinoids, he says:
“The toxicity takes your breath away—just five maize seeds treated with neonicotinoids are enough to kill a grey partridge.”
No one can spray 17,000 tonnes of poison across a landscape without doing massive damage as it spreads. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, so wisely said, we now know about DDT—and, actually, we know about this stuff too. It is no accident that it kills animals, insects and every single small thing around.
These amendments are absolutely imperative, right across so many parts of this Bill: biodiversity, habitats and human health. Also, there are other ways of doing it; there are intelligent, responsible uses of gene editing and many natural solutions to keep crops safe and ensure that we have good, healthy food that does not destroy either our planet or ourselves.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness; she has made a very powerful speech and covered a lot of the points that I wanted to raise. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, also made a powerful and passionate speech. We all know that some pesticides are lethal when applied badly or in the wrong conditions. A lot of farmers do it absolutely correctly but, sadly, a minority do not necessarily adhere to the rules or the conditions. As the food section of the United Nations has reminded us, we also need to bear in mind that crop yields currently drop by 26% to 40% if one does not have the right chemicals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was absolutely right that there are alternatives coming through in gene editing; that must be the future. It would be an ideal situation if we could get rid of most harmful pesticides through gene editing, to keep food production up. The noble Baroness also reminded us what a complete mess we have made in our farming over past years, which has affected biodiversity, the soil and nature. A serious revolution is taking place now to correct that.
I turn to Amendment 123 and support what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has said. Yes, there is an informal agreement to phase out lead shot within five years, but that is too long a timescale. It is perfectly possible to do it to an earlier timescale. It would be inconvenient for some industries, I agree, but my mind goes back to when I was a Minister and we started to phase out CFCs. Industries came to my door in their droves, saying, “You cannot do this”, “We will have to rejig our plant”, “We can’t possibly do it in the timescale you are proposing.” In fact, they did it in a quicker timescale than I wanted at the time. If one gives industries a set date, they can do it; they will meet it. It is a pity that most of the steel now has to come from China, but that is another story. I support the thrust of what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has said, and I so agree with my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury: it is for the good of shooting that this amendment is necessary.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I am afraid that I will add a little un-unanimity to this debate, which seems to have been completely one-sided so far. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register and note that there is a thriving apiary on my farm, to which the greatest threats are from weather and woodpeckers—if noble Lords want to know why woodpeckers, it is because they break into the hives during the winter and eat the queen bee.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53 in my name and shall speak to Amendments 52 and 123. All the amendments deal with different poisons that should be banned, or at least controlled. I thank the Bill team for its time and useful briefing on Friday. We have debated at length the impact of pesticides on both the population and pollinating insects during the Agriculture Bill and in Committee on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke passionately, as always—as did others—about the impact of pesticides on humans unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of spraying. That is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will have concessions to offer the noble Lord and other signatories to that amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave the excellent example of the promotion of DDT. There should not be another example similar to that witnessed with the use of organophosphate sheep dips, when it took a huge campaign on the part of those affected before the substance was banned. Pesticides have detrimental effects on humans, and the Government should acknowledge that.
I now turn to Amendment 53, relating to the effect of pesticide use on pollinators, particularly bees. I am grateful to Buglife for its briefings. I am sure the Minister will refer the House to the integrated pest management strategy, which covers some of the ground. However, this does not provide the safeguards needed. The widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides resulted in a reduction in the overwintering success of honey bee hives, significant declines of 40% in wild bee species studied and was implicated in butterfly population decline. This resulted in reduced pollination services and crop yields. However, despite the acknowledgement by the then Minister in 2010 that the pre-approval tests for pesticides were inadequate to protect pollinators, and the production in 2013 of a testing guide document by the European Food Safety Authority, the UK has yet to introduce any new tests to help ensure that future pesticides are pollinator-safe. In order to comply, an independent, competent authority is needed, as detailed in proposed new subsections (1) to (4) of Amendment 53.
I acknowledge the national action plan on pesticides and its aim to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, but it does not mean that they will be phased out. The Future Farming scheme will help with transition to a non-pesticide control, but this is yet to have effect.
The public are passionate about bees. One needs only to see the many products on sale with the symbol of bees and their honeycombs to acknowledge just how popular they are. Those can range from miracle face creams through to cushions and scarves, from socks through to high-fashion items, kitchen utensils and even furniture. There is also the huge popularity of honey—a truly natural product. The bee is popular, and the public wish it to be protected and wish to be consulted on anything which might have an impact on pollinators. This amendment ensures that that could happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to a 30% to 40% reduction in crop yield if PPPs are not used, but if crops are not pollinated because of the decline in pollinators, there is likely to be a similar loss in yield.
With reference to proposed new subsection (9), the devolved Administrations have a significant role here, and the Minister should consult them. Authorisation of use includes derogation. As a nation, we must strive to avoid a similar circumstance to where a Minister, overriding the advice of his officials, authorises the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, which can cause high levels of mortality in bumblebees. This came to public attention only due to an FoI. The public need to have confidence that the Government will do the right thing.
Different groups of pollinators are affected by pesticides in different ways, so it is important that a range of pollinators is included in the pre-approval testing process. This amendment would ensure that tests are undertaken on acute and chronic effects on honey bees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hover-flies, but also that independent science relevant to any pollinator is considered.
I regret to say that, despite the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that everything is tested, on Friday, officials said that it was impossible to test everything. The various mixtures of chemicals—the so-called cocktails—are unlikely all to be tested. There may be a shift to less toxic mixtures, but insufficient research on their effect has so far been done, and it is important to protect honey bees and wild pollinators.
Turning briefly to Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who spoke passionately about it, phasing out the use of lead ammunition has been slow. In Committee, we heard powerful evidence of the effect of lead poisoning on the health of both children and adults. No matter how careful you are in the preparation of game for the table, lead shot often escapes notice and is unwittingly eaten. I was very interested in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of lead shot in millet. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke from vast experience of shooting. Alternatives to lead shot are available. I fully support the transition away from lead to safer alternatives. This amendment, if added to the Bill, would ensure that that would happen sooner rather than later. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those three very important amendments.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted Research. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a clearly very important debate. Amendments 52 and 53 tackle the pernicious effects that pesticides are having on our environment and on human and insect health. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty once again raises the important human health implications of spraying noxious chemicals in fields next to residential and workplace areas. He asks that regulations should set out minimum distances from homes, schools and public places. We do not think this is an unreasonable request. As he said, at least farm workers have protective clothing and some sort of choice about their work environment, whereas local people have no choice and no information about what is being sprayed on particular days. As we have discovered in the past, the health implications of exposure to such chemicals can sometimes take years to be revealed, as the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, of DDT, clearly demonstrated.
Of course we welcome the Government’s overarching commitment to reducing pesticide use. We see that there are considerable advantages to precision applications and integrated pest management for the future, but the very fact that the Government are taking those steps is an acknowledgement of the dangers of widespread pesticide use. In the meantime, until those techniques become commonplace, we should at least be taking steps to protect public health, and my noble friend’s amendment is one step towards doing this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I start by assuring your Lordships’ House that, in line with this amendment, the Government’s objective is to reduce the use of and risks and impacts associated with pesticides. Logically, that has to be the objective, given everything we know about the effects of pouring so many chemicals into our natural environment over so many decades.
The national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides sets out the ambition to improve indicators of pesticide usage, risk and impacts. This was the subject of a recent public consultation. The summary of responses will be published shortly and a final revised national action plan will be published later this year. As we set out in the draft plan, the Government are committed to producing targets for the reduction of the risks associated with pesticide use. We are developing new metrics to better understand the pressures that pesticides put on the environment and will use these tools to target the most toxic pesticides.
Central to the strategy is integrated pest management. Through future schemes, we will support farmers, land managers and so on to maximise nature-based solutions and switch to lower-toxicity, higher-precision methods of pest control. The aim is to drive down dependency on pesticides and to allow our farmers to produce high-quality food with less risk to people and the environment.
On Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the Government agree that pesticides should not be used where they may harm human health. Pesticides should be authorised only where a scientific assessment shows that they are not supposed to have any harmful effects on human health. In addition, pesticide users are supposed to take all reasonable precautions to protect human health and the environment, and must ensure that the pesticide is confined to the area intended to be treated. They must minimise their use around public buildings and vulnerable groups. That includes the situations noted in the noble Lord’s amendment, such as around schools, hospitals, children, and rural residents, who could be exposed more regularly. It is an offence to use pesticides in contravention of these requirements, and one that comes with an unlimited fine.
I share concerns raised by a number of noble Lord, including in particular my noble friend Lord Randall, about the potential impact of mixtures of pesticides. Clearly it is not possible to assess directly the human health and environmental impacts of the millions of potential combinations of chemicals in the natural environment. According to the toxicologist Professor Vyvyan Howard, if you were to test just the 1,000 commonest toxic chemicals in unique combinations of three, that would require at least 166 million different experiments. That would not even take into account the need to study varying doses. So we have over the years created an enormous problem for ourselves.
However, the risks from products are increasingly tested, as well as individual active substances. This means that mixtures of active substances are assessed where they are included in the same product and where they therefore will interact with other chemicals. There are regulatory controls, and associated conditions of authorisation, which could include no-spray zones, buffer zones and so on. That should ensure that people are protected. Applied properly, these controls should permit pesticide use only where they are safe, but where the application of these existing controls has not been sufficiently robust in the past—a point again made by my noble friend Lord Randall—that will be identified in the revised national action plan.
On Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, protecting pollinators is a priority for all the reasons we discussed in Committee, which I will not repeat. We are restoring and creating habitats for pollinators to thrive and redressing pressures by supporting a shift towards greater use of integrated pest management techniques. That includes increasing the use of nature-based, low-toxicity solutions and precision technologies to manage pests, all of which will benefit pollinators. Current legislation requires that pesticide products and their active substances have
“no unacceptable effects on the environment, having particular regard to … its impact on non-target species”,
which includes impacts on bees and other important pollinators.
Risk assessments made for active substances are subject to public consultation. These assessments establish the key risks posed by pesticide substances in representative conditions of use.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, let me say briefly that we have not changed our rules on neonicotinoids; the rules now are exactly the same as the ones we inherited when we left the European Union. The Government remain of the view that the scientific advice on neonicotinoids, particularly in relation to their impact on pollinators, is correct. This year, an emergency authorisation was granted for the use of a neonicotinoid seed treatment to address a particular problem in relation to the sugar beet crop. Controls were set but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, the conditions of the authorisation were not met and the exemption was therefore not used.
We know that there has been a dramatic decline in pollinators both here and across much of the world. We recognise the need to work harder and faster to identify and reduce the causes. The revised national action plan will address this, alongside our wider action for nature, including through the national pollinator strategy and the powerful package of new policies and tools introduced through this Bill, including our 2030 target that we discussed on Wednesday last week.
Turning to Amendment 123 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, the Government recognise the need to address the issue of lead shot. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury. Incidentally, I strongly endorse my noble friend’s views on the different approaches to shooting and enjoyed the vigour with which he delivered them.
As I highlighted in Committee, the Government are committed to addressing the impacts of lead in ammunition. In March, we asked the Health and Safety Executive to produce a UK REACH draft restriction dossier considering the risks posed by lead shot in all civilian ammunition. That process has now started, and the HSE published its call for evidence last month. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne, my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and John Batley for our meeting last month, which was more positive than the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, implied a few moments ago. They will recognise from that meeting—at least I hope they do—that the Government share their ambition, although they highlighted concerns, principally around the timeframes associated with the REACH process. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that I share that frustration.
However, since then, Defra has engaged at length with the Health and Safety Executive and the Environment Agency, and I am pleased to confirm that the Health and Safety Executive is due to provide its final recommendations by April 2023. The Secretary of State then has until July of that year to decide how to proceed and to propose a draft restriction, if that is what the Secretary of State decides and what the science determines. As I understand it, that timeframe does not compare unfavourably with the proposed amendment, which would take effect from 31 July 2023; it is certainly in the same ballpark.
In addition, the UK REACH process has a far more extensive coverage of lead ammunition, as the restriction dossier will consider all civilian uses of lead ammunition in all environments. The proposed amendment seeks only to limit the use of lead shot in shotguns for the purpose of killing an animal and excludes, for example, the use of lead shot for clay pigeon shooting. Most critically, any restriction would apply across Great Britain, whereas the proposed amendment would apply only to England.
We know that there are difficulties in the detection and enforcement of the existing ban on shooting over wetlands. However, we believe that there is a strong risk that the proposed amendment will also be difficult to enforce. In contrast, we are confident that the robustness of the UK REACH process will ensure that any restriction can be enforced effectively.
For these reasons, we believe that the UK REACH process is a more effective way to address the complexity of the issue. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Browne, not to press his amendment and hope that I have sufficiently assured the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have to tell the Minister that I am deeply disappointed by that reply. He started out well by indicating that there is an historical problem that we need to tackle, but he then defended the current system as being adequate. He took almost the same line as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I ask both of them: if the present system is pretty much adequate, how come a number of cases of serious inducement of disease are still turning up in our GPs’ surgeries and our hospitals—and, in relation to pollinators, why are whole populations of bees and other pollinators in serious decline? If the present system worked, at least broadly speaking, we would not see these phenomena.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, says that we will wipe out large parts of food production if we do this, but that is not the case. We are saying that we should protect the areas where people live and are vulnerable, and we propose that regulations should be introduced to do that. We were fobbed off during the passage of the then Agriculture Bill in a number of different ways, such as being told to put things in the Environment Bill instead or that it would be in the national action programme. There is hardly a word in that programme, as currently drafted, about the vulnerability of residents and other populations.
I feel sorry for the Minister in many respects, because I happen to know that, in a previous life, he strongly supported strengthening regulations regarding the exposure of rural populations, and indeed the effect on pollinators. I find it odd that, having recognised the problem and doing so again now, he is not prepared to respond to the appeals from the Front Benches of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party to say something new or give a bigger commitment. At the beginning of his response, I sort of expected that we would at least get something. We got nothing. I regret that.
The Minister is in an impossible position, but he must accept that he needs to do something immediately to consider new regulations in this area, because it is palpably obvious that the present regulations are not working. To go back to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who suggested that the spraying of pesticides does not occur during the day or close to where children are, we recently saw a film about pesticides being produced perhaps 10 yards away from where children were playing. The system is not working; the Minister has to recognise that. He can look at what the precise details of the regulations should be, but he should accept the principle in my amendment now.
With regret, I am going to test the opinion of the House.
“Protection of pollinators from pesticides
(1) A competent authority must not authorise for use any pesticide product, active ingredient, safener or synergist unless it is satisfied that there will be no significant short-term negative effect, and no long-term negative effect, on the health of honeybees or wild pollinator populations.(2) A pollinator risk assessment report relating to the relevant substance must be published by an expert body.(3) The expert body must consist of individuals free from vested interests in pesticide use, who shall have been independently appointed.(4) The pollinator risk assessment report must include—(a) data examining acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hoverflies,(b) all relevant available scientific evidence relating to any pollinators,(c) conclusions relating to the likely acute and chronic effects of the relevant substance on honeybees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies, hoverflies and other pollinators,(d) an assessment of the likelihood of synergistic effects, and(e) the identification of any risks to pollinators where the available evidence is insufficient to reach a conclusion.(5) The expert body must consult the public on the draft content of the pollinator risk assessment report.(6) When making any authorisation decision the competent authority must—(a) aim to achieve a high level of protection for pollinators,(b) be satisfied that the requirements of subsections (2) to (5) have been met,(c) consult all relevant authorities with environmental responsibilities, (d) consult such other persons as the competent authority considers appropriate,(e) lay before Parliament, and publish, a statement explaining why the competent authority is satisfied that the requirements of subsection (1) have been met,(f) ensure the public has been informed by public notice early in the decision-making procedure, and in an adequate, timely and effective manner, that a decision will be made, and(g) ensure the public has been consulted on the decision that the competent authority intends to make, including on any mitigation or restriction measures that are proposed.(7) The consultation period for the purposes of subsection (6)(g) must be of at least three months, except for emergency derogations where the period will be at least four weeks.(8) This section comes into force on 1 February 2023.(9) In this section—“authorisation of use” includes authorisation by derogation;“competent authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;(c) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Ministers;(d) the Secretary of State when acting with the consent of either or both the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales and the Scottish Ministers in relation to Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
The aim of this new Clause is to fix a gap in the pesticide authorisation process which currently omits any assessment on the long-term effects of pesticides on honey bees and omits any assessment of the effects on wild pollinators.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this response and acknowledge the work that Defra is undertaking to restore pollinator habitats. However, the national action plan and the revised integrated pest management strategy are not sufficient protection for pollinators that have delicate systems. Food production is important and pollinators are key to this.
Given the time constraints, I will not continue. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under Clause 74 to be subject to affirmative procedure.
The Duke of Wellington
“(2A) A drainage and sewerage management plan must require the undertaker to implement, in conjunction with local authorities, the progressive separation of the foul water and surface water systems where possible.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to secure the separation, where possible, of drainage systems from the sewerage systems through a legal obligation placed on the water companies and local authorities in order to reduce harm from untreated discharges.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendments 59 and 60, in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Quin, and the noble Lord, Lord Oates, to whom I am very grateful for their support.
These are not glamorous or intellectually stimulating amendments, such as others we debated last week, but their purpose is both high-minded and supported by the public. I cannot resist referring to a petition circulating in recent days, which already has more than 90,000 signatures, calling on the Government to place a duty on water companies not to emit sewage. I had nothing to do with the petition.
The amendments simply seek to write into an Act of Parliament a legal commitment to clean up rivers. It is surprising, shocking and indeed revolting that, in the 21st century, in a civilised and developed country, there were, according to the Environment Agency, in 2020, 400,000 discharges of sewage in England and another 100,000 in Wales; that is more than half a million discharges of sewage into rivers in England and Wales.
Since the Bill left the other place earlier this year, the Government have moved a long way, and I recognise that. First, they took over some elements of a Private Member’s Bill tabled by the right honourable Philip Dunne, Member of Parliament for Ludlow, who is also chair of the Environmental Audit Committee in the House of Commons. Clause 80 of the Bill comes from Philip Dunne’s Bill. It requires the Secretary of State to prepare a plan to reduce untreated discharges.
Since Committee, the Government have tabled further amendments: Amendments 61, 62 and 63. I thank the Minister for two meetings which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I had with him during the Summer Recess. I am also very grateful to the Minister in the other place, Rebecca Pow, who asked me to meet her on Teams two weeks ago, with her officials, to inform me that these amendments were to be tabled the following day. I very much welcome the amendments, particularly Amendment 63, where, for the first time, the Government are using the word “elimination” rather than just “reduction”. Amendments 61 and 62 concern very welcome increases in reporting and monitoring.
I will now explain the need for Amendment 59 to Clause 79. This seeks to separate foul water from surface water. It is surface water from heavy rainfall that often overwhelms a sewage plant, which of course is designed mainly to deal with sewage. In his letter to Peers of 27 August, the Minister announced that the Government will review Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act. If the Minister can confirm from the Dispatch Box that this would have the same effect as my Amendment 59, we will have no need to press that amendment. However, I hope he will accept that the purpose of Amendment 59 is essential, as it is surface water that can so often cause storm overflows.
I turn to Amendment 60 to Clause 80. The clause and the further amendments are still missing perhaps the most important part of Philip Dunne’s Bill, which was the duty to be placed on water companies to take all reasonable steps to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into inland waters. My Amendment 60 seeks to put that legal duty into the Bill. In addition, the amendment would require water companies to demonstrate continuous improvement and progressive reductions in the harm caused by the discharges.
Proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 60 addresses another problem. There is considerable evidence that the Environment Agency and others are not prosecuting most of the discharges, even though many are apparently illegal. It is therefore important to write into the Bill a requirement on the various bodies to exercise their powers of enforcement.
I understand that one of the reasons why the Government are reluctant to place a legal duty on the water companies to take all reasonable steps to prevent discharges is that they have been advised that this might affect the investment decisions of the water companies and put sewage treatment ahead of other possible investments. I do not find that argument at all persuasive—in fact I think it demonstrates the absolute need for the amendment and the necessity of placing a legal duty on the companies to bring to an end these damaging discharges.
That necessity is no better demonstrated than by a press release from Ofwat, the water industry regulator. It announced, on the very day when we were debating the environment in the Queen’s Speech, a new water sector investment of £2.8 billion into the green recovery. But if we read the press release further, we see that only £157 million—just over 5% of the investment—was to help to eliminate the harm caused by storm overflows. Only a legal duty would move these investments higher up the list of priorities.
I do not underestimate the cost of modernising the sewerage network, and I understand that the Government will have reservations about imposing a required investment on the water companies. However, as I said at Second Reading, it should be possible to find a formula that involves some modest grants, some long-term borrowing, reduced dividends and above-inflation increases in wastewater or sewerage charges to residential and commercial users.
I turn to subsection (2) of proposed new section 141E, to be inserted in Clause 80. In Committee I tabled an amendment on this. As the Bill is currently drafted, a discharge is not considered to be a discharge if it has been caused by electrical or mechanical failure! That strikes me as an enormous loophole, and it can only have been included at the request of the water companies. In our meeting with the Minister, we were assured that, despite the wording of that subsection, discharges as a result of electrical or mechanical failure will still need to be disclosed. I ask the Minister to repeat that assurance from the Dispatch Box. However, I then wonder why subsection (2) is necessary at all. Will the Minister not consider deleting the subsection entirely at Third Reading? It appears totally unnecessary and possibly undermines part of the purpose of Chapter 4, and Clause 80 in particular.
While the country drives towards carbon net zero and improving air and soil quality, we surely cannot allow water quality to be compromised by regular discharges of untreated sewage into the aquatic environment. The Bill aims, and government policy is, to leave the environment for future generations in a better state. I cannot believe that any Defra Minister does not want to clean up our rivers, and the only way to ensure that is to include in the Bill a legal duty to prevent discharges. Not including such a duty will inevitably lead to delays, more plans, excuses and further delays.
On my way to the House today I received, very kindly, another email from Rebecca Pow. In it she describes everything that the Government are doing, but then in the paper produced by the department there is a section of frequently asked questions. It reads:
“Why are you not placing a duty on water companies to reduce storm overflows?”,
to which the reply is this:
“The Environment Bill places a new duty on water companies to produce Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans setting out how”,
and so on. That is my point—there is yet another plan. I am sorry to say this, and I am grateful to the Minister for alerting me to everything that the department has done.
I hope not to divide the House on Amendment 59 —that of course depends on the Minister’s response—but I intend to do so on Amendment 60. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and with his permission, I shall speak to Amendment 82. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for moving his amendment so eloquently. I have known the noble Duke since 1982, when I was a humble adviser to the Conservatives in the European Parliament, and I am delighted to follow him today.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, has been unavoidably detained in Norfolk, but he is in a very privileged position and knowledgeable in this regard: following the devastating floods in East Anglia in 2020, he took up the position of independent chair of the Norfolk Strategic Flooding Alliance. I will set out his remarks at the outset and then add a few of my own.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her support of the amendment I wish to speak to; Amendment 83, in my name, dealing with the chalk stream restoration strategy. I also place on record my thanks to the Bill team for discussions that we were able to have in connection with the extent and impact of the strategy that we are proposing. I also thank the Angling Trust for its technical support in preparing the amendment.
Throughout the passage of this Environment Bill through your Lordships’ House, noble Lords have regularly raised their concerns over the deterioration of our chalk streams through appalling neglect, to the extent that many see streams’ diverse ecosystems under severe threat to their very survival. Your Lordships are not alone. Environmental charities, not-for-profit trusts, specialist scientific bodies and even the privatised water companies have joined the call for a national strategy to restore our chalk streams. The naturalist Chris Packham for one, movingly described the deterioration of the River Itchen over time, as he walked beside the river from Eastleigh to Winchester, recalling his childhood days.
One Saturday morning this August, I was able to greet some 25 members of organisations from across the south-east of England, from Hertfordshire to the north, Kent in the east, and Dorset in the west. They were setting out on a river walk beside the Itchen, not unlike that of Chris Packham. They represented literally thousands of people, all deeply concerned about the threats to our unique chalk streams, and keenly following our proceedings in Parliament, whether it be about the River Arle, the Itchen, the Loddon in Hampshire or the Chess in Buckinghamshire, or winterbourne streams, which traditionally disappear in the summer to reappear through the chalk springs as autumn approaches—only now some of them do not.
Giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Select Committee, Mr Feargal Sharkey said, in terms, that the River Avon catchment comprises five chalk streams, with some of the rarest habitats in the country. It is designated as a special area of conservation, with some of the highest legal protection we have, and yet Wessex Water has spent close to 27,000 hours dumping sewage into five of our rarest ecosystems, home to an endangered species of salmon that finds refuge only in the Hampshire Avon.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support very briefly the amendments moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I was glad to be able to co-sign these amendments in a way that, I hope, will stress the cross-party nature of the support for them.
Public concern about sewage discharge is increasing daily, particularly among the public in those areas that are badly affected. Indeed, many people are astonished, because they did not imagine that raw sewage could be discharged into our rivers and seas, and certainly not on the scale that it is happening.
There are considerable problems around the country. Speaking to another amendment that I support, the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, talked about the situation affecting chalk streams. He mentioned, among others, the River Chess in Buckinghamshire. I would mention the River Lark, near Bury St Edmunds, which also has problems arising from abstraction. There are many other rivers around the country that are very precious natural resources, including my own home river, the River Coquet in Northumberland.
I know that the Minister has had meetings with the noble Duke and with many others, and I recognise the amendments that have been put forward, particularly on real-time reporting, which is extremely important. However, action is needed on a significant scale and, in dealing with this problem, costly though it is, we cannot just do a little in a lot of rivers: that would just be a sticking-plaster. We need a much more ambitious programme.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the amendments, and if they do not and they are pushed to a vote, I will be very happy to support them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, as this is the first time that I have addressed the Chamber in person since March of last year, I put on record my appreciation of the Zoom facility that made it possible for me to participate from home and thank all the staff who made it possible. It enabled me to play a small part in Committee on this Bill, but it was a limited contribution: while Zoom worked well for general debates, it was not ideal for committee work.
I am glad, therefore, in supporting Amendment 59, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington—and indeed Amendment 60—to build on the comments made in Committee on the important issue of water pollution and quality. I thank the dozens of people who have written to us expressing their concern about this matter—it clearly touches a raw nerve.
The factors causing us in Wales to fail to meet the “good” status designation within the water framework directive are, first, agriculture-related and diffuse pollution; secondly, metal and coal mine pollution; and, thirdly, waste water, which is a water company responsibility and the subject of Amendments 59 and 60. It is worth noting, to put it in context, that in Wales the figure for pollution arising from waste water is 14%, compared with, I believe, some 50% in England.
It is only fair to note, therefore, that Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—has put in considerable investment in regard to this matter. For example, no less than £100 million has been spent in Llanelli alone over a five-year period. That accounts for about 50% of the streets that are potentially impacted by this problem. It has spent £100 million on addressing this very issue—and that is only one of many old industrial areas that need such investment. Welsh Water estimates that it needs between £9 billion and £14 billion over three decades to fully resolve the problem. So the scale of the challenge—to resolve these issues—requires a central government capital programme in both Wales and England.
One of the sources of difficulty in Wales in not meeting the “good” status designation within the water framework arises from phosphates, emanating from animal manures and chicken farms. That of course is addressed elsewhere in our discussion.
One matter of concern to me—I would be grateful to the Minister for his observations on this—is that within England there seems to be a target of reducing spill numbers rather than emphasising water quality as a focus. Clearly, a reduction in spill numbers will help, but it is the overall impact on water quality that really matters. Despite the valid concerns expressed in Committee and today about the situation in Wales, which can impact on England when rivers cross the border, it is worth noting that the proportion of rivers which reach “good” status in Wales is twice as high as that in England.
From the viewpoint of Dŵr Cymru—Welsh Water—two other priorities are, first, banning wet wipes which contain plastic, as mentioned in an earlier debate, and which are a major factor in blocking pipes, leading to severe pollution problems; and, secondly, reversing the trend of the continual increase in impermeable areas, which worsens the impact of CSO spills as there is nowhere else for the water to run. Incidentally, one challenge for Welsh Water is the fact that there are currently over 68,000 unregistered septic tanks in Wales. That gives your Lordships an idea of the problem. The avoidance of pollution from those tanks must also be one of the challenges to be addressed.
Some of the matters which I have highlighted are purely for Wales and must be addressed by the Welsh Government and Welsh Water. Others have a cross-border dimension relating to rivers which flow from Wales to England, and yet others are general issues which need to be addressed on a UK basis. Government amendment 128 extends to England and Wales; I would be glad if the Minister can confirm that he has the agreement of the Welsh Government on that amendment’s provisions.
I commend Amendments 59 and 60 as ones which focus on these issues and give the Government a chance to show that they are serious about them. I shall certainly support the amendment of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, if he presses it to a vote.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the aim of the noble Duke’s amendments will be something that we all appreciate. I just wonder exactly how all this difficulty arises. Rainwater and groundwater are separate from sewage and will surely be very different in quality. While they may have some very small pollutants in them, generally speaking they are pretty wholesome.
It seems very strange to require that a water system should receive the sewerage system. Long ago, when I was at the Scottish Bar, I was instructed by a company that was then a water company in Scotland. The director of that company made it very clear to me that water and sewage were different things, and the last thing he would wish to agree to was to combine the two. Apart from anything else, the likelihood was that the groundwater and surface water would be greater in volume than the sewage. It therefore seems that the amendment that is proposed to change the system is very good, except that it would seem to require that it be done by the undertaker—which I take to be the water company. At the moment, the water company is under an obligation to accept the sewage. That must surely stop. It must be a ridiculous system that puts together two such completely different elements.
I very much support the amendment proposed in detail by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, a little while ago. We need to come out of the idea of putting these together and separate them, because the floodwater difficulties are great enough. To add sewerage responsibilities to those of flooding seems an extraordinary example of what one should not do.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 59 and 60, so ably spoken to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, whom I hope I can call my noble friend. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the engagement and time they have given us in discussing these important amendments. I welcome the Government’s own Amendments 61, 62 and 63. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government might go further. I also commend the work of my right honourable friend Philip Dunne, in the other place, who has done so much important work on this issue.
As we have heard, there were 400,000 sewage discharges in 2020. This is not a rare occurrence. Water companies have underinvested in sewerage infrastructure. I hope that the Government can overcome their reluctance to impose a duty on them in this Bill to act and invest urgently, as is required. Without such a statutory requirement as specified in these amendments, water companies will continue to be able to put profits and dividends above public health and protection of our precious waterways. I recognise and welcome that the Government have strengthened the duties on these companies, and the expectations to address storm overflows in the drainage and wastewater management plans that will be statutorily required by Clause 79(3)(g). But these plans will not even be consulted on until next summer, let alone be introduced or acted upon. So far, according to a very helpful briefing produced by Defra, water companies have committed just £1.1 billion to investigate and improve storm overflows. This is insufficient for the scale of the problem to be tackled.
I welcome the Storm Overflows Taskforce announced last August, which
“has agreed to set a long term goal to eliminate harm from storm overflows.”
This, too, is most welcome but, so far, this involves improving monitoring and transparency rather than meaningful action to reduce sewage overflows into rivers and waterways. So far, the Environment Agency has clearly struggled to assess compliance with discharge rules and impose enforcement action or fines to galvanise noticeable action and stop or reduce these overflows.
Research on sewerage from Professor Peter Hammond and Professor Jamie Woodward of Manchester University has found clear evidence that untreated sewage or wastewater are being routinely discharged outside the conditions allowed by the Environment Agency permits. It is vital that regulation of discharges of untreated sewage and wastewater are tightened, and these amendments would assist in this regard. The Government’s plan is to set targets on reducing pollution from wastewater, agriculture and so on, but setting targets is not an active reduction of this pollutant.
I find it difficult to understand why the Minister and his department are so reluctant to put a duty now on the water companies directly to ensure they reduce and ultimately eliminate discharges of raw and partially treated sewerage into our rivers and waterways. The companies, represented by Water UK in an interesting briefing, have urged us to move focus away from end-of-pipe to look instead at the way surface water is managed, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh was commenting upon. It is true that developers are too often connecting to sewage systems that cannot cope, but this is only part of the problem, and it needs to be resolved by implementing Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Of course, sustainable drainage systems are important, and connection to a public sewer should not be automatic and needs to be conditional on official approval.
I hope the Minister can provide the reassurances sought by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington so that he will not press Amendment 59. Amendment 60 places a duty
“on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged”
and
“demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused.”
In this ground-breaking Bill, how can we not impose that type of duty? Of course, the amendment also requires the Secretary of State and director of the Environment Agency to “secure compliance.” Too often, companies have been allowed to self-report. But, so far, the Government are saying they are fully committed to producing a report on actions required to achieve total elimination so they can fully understand the costs and impacts of doing so. But Amendment 60 would accelerate action on the ground. I hope that, ultimately, the Minister might be persuaded about the merits of supporting this amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an interesting issue. The question, of course, is: where does the blame lie? Sewage spills happen and they are intensely damaging for humans and for ecosystems, yet we have heard some explanations that almost seem conflicting. We can argue that it is we who cause the problem because of the way that we dispose of our own waste, or that it is the fault of the water companies, which are clearly incompetent at times—I shall be supporting the noble Duke’s amendment. As I argued in the debate on the office for environmental protection, we have to penalise them for these spillages. In many cases it might be the developers’ fault for building on land they should not have built on, or it might the local authority’s fault for allowing developers to build on, for example, flood plains where they should not be building. At the moment, however, it is the water companies, and we really have to take this seriously.
I am supporting all the amendments as they all seem perfectly acceptable. The Green Party’s view is that all new developments should have a proper, sustainable drainage system so that the sorts of spillages that we are hearing about simply do not happen. However, this has clearly not been achieved and it is a big problem. I have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, on chalk streams. I was going to eulogise about them, but I think I was given the same briefing, as other people have covered more or less the same territory.
I thank Feargal Sharkey, who was the lead singer in a punk band, the Undertones—I am afraid I have never heard of it. He is apparently a lifelong fly-fisherman, but is now dedicating his life to chalk streams and he sent an excellent briefing. Chalk streams are very precious and special, and we do not treat them very well. If not one of our chalk streams currently achieves a good overall environmental health status, that is quite shocking; we really need to do something about it.
I was incredibly impressed by the PR machine of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. I have had dozens of emails supporting his amendment. I admire that; perhaps he could share with me exactly how he got it to work.
This is, again, clearly an issue that the Government should have put in the original Environment Bill. This is an old Bill in the sense that it was originally written in 2019. It was pathetic then and it is pathetic still. Can the Government please do a little rethinking and include this issue in the Bill?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The arguments have been very well and fulsomely made, building a consensus. Will noble Lords who still wish to speak make their speeches as short as possible and introduce some new arguments?
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
Indeed, I have a new point to add, which has not been made—there is no point in frowning, I say to my noble friend.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the government amendments and for his commitment to reviewing Schedule 3. That was something that I asked for in Committee and I am delighted that he is going to do it. Has he been briefed on the latest research from the University of Manchester, which has demonstrated a direct link between poor wastewater management and high levels of microplastic pollution in the United Kingdom? When we have these overflows, the microplastics go out into the water system—not only the rivers, but the sea, thus negating a whole lot of good that the Government have been trying to do in reducing microplastics. If this were not enough of a bad situation before, it is now really bad.
My noble friend’s Amendment 63 proposes including a report
“on elimination of discharges from storm overflows”.
I merely ask, what next after subsection (3)? It is good to have a report and lay it before Parliament, but what action will be taken? That is the only thing that matters now. I support these amendments, and support very strongly what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said: we should be aiming to separate the sewage from the wastewater. No new developments should be allowed to discharge automatically into the current sewerage system unless agreed by the water authority; there must be other alternatives.
I have one final comment for my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If she expects a developer to make a commitment towards future expenditure on one of these systems, I am afraid she is whistling in the wind. The developers will not do so; if necessary, they would go into bankruptcy and set up a new company to avoid any liability.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, in view of the time and the Minister’s admonition, I shall be brief. I am very pleased to support the amendments in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and thank him for working so collaboratively on them. The arguments for them have been compellingly made so I will not add to them. I am also pleased to support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Chidgey on the important issue of chalk streams, and in principle support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
I hope the Government will listen carefully to the arguments but if the noble Duke chooses to put Amendment 60 to the vote, he will have the support of these Benches.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 59 and 60 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and offer our firm support should he decide to test the opinion of the House. I will also briefly talk to Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and to Amendment 83 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, to which I have added my name.
We had lengthy debates on water issues in Committee so I start by thanking the Government, as other noble Lords have done, for subsequently tabling amendments to address many of the concerns that were raised. I also thank the Defra officials for their time in meeting me and my noble friend Lady Jones to go through the amendments in detail. The Minister has clearly introduced these changes but while we welcome them, we believe that in some areas they do not go far enough to address the genuine concerns raised by noble Lords. Government Amendment 61 regarding near real-time reporting states that the duration and volume of storm overflow discharges will be reported, yet the proposed amendment does not mention volume. Will the Government consider adding volume reporting into this amendment to ensure that that is a requirement?
I commend the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his diligence and persistence in pressing his concerns in his Amendments 59 and 60. Amendment 59 covers drainage and sewerage management systems. While we welcome the new requirement that Clause 79 inserts into the Water Industry Act 1991 that enables companies to take a strategic approach to wastewater management that is clearly needed, we still believe that it should be strengthened. Amendment 59 would do this by bringing in an overarching purpose for the plans, requiring companies to deliver continuous improvement of sewage treatment plants and the separation of surface water from foul water.
I know from discussions with Defra officials that there are concerns about the huge cost of this, but I hope to hear from the Minister a commitment from the Government that this is being taken very seriously and that it will be set as a top priority for water companies and Ofwat. I also hope he will provide the noble Duke with the assurances that he has requested on this amendment.
Water UK has raised concerns about the way in which we manage surface and groundwaters as the default remains to push through these foul water systems which overloads their capacity. As this is currently out of the water sector’s remit to control, I would like to hear from the Minister whether there are any plans to review this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, also drew attention to this.
I turn now to Amendment 60. We know that Clause 80 is designed to amend the Water Industry Act 1991. As my noble friend Lady Quin said, people are horrified to hear that sewage is still discharged into our waterways. We are disappointed that this clause is weaker and less ambitious than the original Private Member’s Bill proposed by Philip Dunne MP, who was here earlier but seems to have left. We know that existing laws are completely inadequate. The Environment Agency has also conceded that with significant pressures on its funding in recent years it has had to reduce overall monitoring and enforcement activity
“below the level we would wish”.
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, drew attention to the lack of enforcement.
I remind your Lordships’ House that the Environment Agency has seen its funding cut by 60% and, according to official Environment Agency data analysed by National World, prosecutions of companies and organisations for environmental crime in England plummeted by 86% between 2000 and 2019. The number of charges also fell by 84% in that period. Does the Minister recognise that if the Government truly are serious about tackling pollution, they must fund the Environment Agency properly so that it can do the job that it was set up to do? Water companies must be made to undertake the improvements to the system needed if we are to address the current crisis in sewerage pollution. We commend the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, for his informed and persuasive arguments, and support him.
Turning briefly to Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for her introduction. We believe that a sustainable drainage hierarchy is extremely important. The noble Baroness mentioned Cumbria; I emphasise, as someone who lives in a high flood-risk area, that the importance of this for local flood risk cannot be underestimated.
Turning finally to Amendment 83 on chalk streams, I honestly am astounded that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has not heard of the Undertones. That is quite extraordinary and possibly what I have been most shocked about during these debates. Moving to chalk streams, according to Wikipedia, which I know is not always 100% accurate, there are 210 chalk streams in the world, 160 of them in England. However, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, in his excellent introduction, it seems that this is probably a bit of an underestimate.
Today and in Committee we heard eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and others, about how urgent it is to act to save our chalk streams. I hope that the Minister has listened to his concerns on this and the other areas of real concern that we have been debating today.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Tackling storm overflows in England is a government priority, and the Government are acting decisively through this Bill. I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, my noble friend Lady Altmann and many others for the pressure that they have exerted on the issue of storm overflows. These new government amendments, which the Rivers Trust has welcomed as a
“significant victory for river health and ... river users”
are a credit to their work.
I am pleased to bring forward government Amendments, 61, 62 and 63, to add further duties on water companies and the Government. This strengthens the package of government amendments brought forward on this issue in Committee. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we have secured the agreement of the Welsh Government to these amendments.
Amendments 61 and 62 are designed to increase the accountability on water companies and to provide greater transparency for the public on the frequency and impact of storm overflows. Companies will be required to report on storm overflows in near real time, meaning within an hour of them occurring, in a way that is easy for the public to access and understand. They will be required to monitor continuously the water quality upstream and downstream of both storm overflows and sewage treatment works. This will give regulators and the public crucial indicators of the health of our waters, including dissolved oxygen, ammonia, temperature and pH values, and turbidity. The information obtained from these two duties, along with the annual reporting required by the amendment that I introduced in Committee, will finally require full transparency from water companies about their impact on our waters. We have made this expectation clear in our draft strategic policy statement to Ofwat. For the first time, the Government will be telling the industry’s economic regulator that we expect water companies to take steps to “significantly reduce storm overflows”. Therefore, with respect to the noble Duke, the Duke of Westminster—
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am so sorry—Westminster, Wellington. I meant the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. My apologies; it has been a long session.
With respect to the noble Duke, it is not right to say that the Government are reluctant to influence investment decisions of the water companies. That is exactly what we are doing. We will also make it clear in the guidance that we will shortly be giving to water companies regarding the preparation of their drainage and sewerage management plans. These are a statutory requirement under the Bill and we expect them to include considered actions for reducing storm overflows and their harm. I am confident that this action, driven by the Bill, is the right approach. However, as I said in Committee, if those plans are not sufficiently ambitious, the Government will not hesitate to use our direction-making power under Clause 79 to require them to take more action. This is a direct power over the water companies and, as I said, we will not hesitate to use it.
Very briefly, in response to the comments from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, he is right in what he says, but the operation of overflows during emergencies is covered separately through permits for emergency overflows or through defences under the environmental permitting regulations—so, for example, to avoid damage to human health or even human life. It is extremely rare and covers events such as asset failure.
None the less, I know that the noble Lord and many others are keen to see a road map towards the complete elimination of storm overflows, as am I and my colleagues in Defra. I want to be clear that in the government plan, we will absolutely commit to pushing as far as it is possible to go. The reality is that, as our actions to considerably reduce overflows are successful, the remaining overflows are likely to be much more challenging to resolve and may therefore involve greater costs, with marginal, slight benefits. That is why the initial assessments suggest that elimination could cost more than £150 billion, which we foresee would likely mean increased customer bills and trade-offs against other water industry priorities.
We need better evidence to be certain of that—a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. To this end, Amendment 63 requires the Government to investigate and map out the actions needed to eliminate storm overflows and to report to Parliament, before 1 September next year, on how elimination could be achieved and the corresponding benefits and costs. The point about the report is that it will provide the public, Parliament and the water industry with up-front, clear and comprehensive information on the feasibility and cost of elimination. It will tell us what we can do. Between that government plan on storm overflows and the new elimination report, we will set out transparently and precisely how far we can then go. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, that this issue is taken extremely seriously by all my colleagues in Defra. Whatever the outcome of that report, it will inform our next steps and the commitments we make.
In the meantime, in addition to the action I have already set out, I am pleased to confirm today that the Government will undertake a review of the case for implementing Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 in England. This schedule would set mandatory build standards for sustainable drainage schemes—or SUDS—on new developments. We agree with noble Lords and others about the importance of using SUDS to reduce rainwater going into sewers, which in turn reduces the frequency of storm overflows, as well as providing multifunctional benefits for reducing flood risk and enhancing nature. Schedule 3 would allow us to do this, but we need first to ensure that it is still fit for purpose.
Commencing in October this year, Defra officials will work closely with MHCLG, local planning authorities, developers and SUDS experts as we assess the current situation with regard to the construction of SUDS and the potential for the schedule to improve this, as well as implementation options and the benefits and costs of those options. This information will also feed into the development of the Government’s plan on storm overflows, on which we will also consult in spring next year. The Government believe that this is the appropriate and best approach towards reducing the volume of rainwater entering combined sewerage systems, which is rightly a concern of both Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 82 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt.
Regarding Amendment 82 specifically, I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for conveying his message to us and for taking the time to meet me recently on this issue. The importance of sustainable drainage for managing surface water on new developments is made clear in planning policy. A hierarchy for the management of surface water on new developments is also included in the building regulations of 2010, and Schedule 3, once we have reviewed the case for its implementation, would make the connection of surface water to foul sewer conditional on local planning approval of the developer’s proposed SUDS. The noble Baroness asked why we need another review. I simply say that the Government have to understand the possible options, benefits and costs for implementing any policy and legislation. While there is a wide range of evidence on the issue of Schedule 3, since 2010 there have been a lot of changes in the planning systems and advancements in SUDS technology. The review will enable us to understand the current landscape and the issues properly and to make an up-to-date and informed decision on implementation.
In response to the noble Baroness’s questions on SUDS maintenance, Schedule 3 sets out that the maintenance body is a SUDS approval body as part of a local planning authority. The review will consider whether this continues to be the most appropriate and the right approach, as well as looking at other options.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Just before my noble friend sits down, I did ask one question: what has changed since the regulations, which were to impose exactly what he intends to do, were rejected in 2012 for being too expensive? When we met, my noble friend said that the aim of the Government’s policy now was to end the automatic right to connect and make it conditional—but conditional upon what?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
What has changed is the technology and the SUDS—for example, rain gardens and swales et cetera. The planning system has changed in any number of ways, as my noble friend knows from her time in the coalition Government and since. That has given rise to a need to re-evaluate and work out what the appropriate policy should be.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I know that we are all anxious to move on. However, I must first point out quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I certainly do not have a PR machine: I was as surprised as anyone that so many emails were sent to Members of this House.
I thank all noble Lords who took part in this debate. I particularly want to thank the Minister here and the Minister in the other place for everything they have done in recent weeks to improve the Bill; they have certainly strengthened it, and many of their amendments are very welcome to many of us.
I am grateful to the Minister for his assurances on Amendment 59. I personally am happy to accept those and will seek permission to withdraw the amendment. However, on Amendment 60, I am sorry to say, despite all the Minister’s efforts, I do not believe that more plans, reporting and monitoring will do the business, and so I intend to divide the House on that amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
“141ZA Duty on sewerage undertakers to take all reasonable steps to ensure untreated sewage is not discharged from storm overflows(1) A sewerage undertaker must demonstrate improvements in the sewerage systems and progressive reductions in the harm caused by untreated sewage discharges.(2) The Secretary of State, the Director and the Environment Agency must exercise their respective functions under this and any other Act to secure compliance with this duty.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to try to eliminate, not simply reduce, the harm caused to the environment and individual and public health by the discharge of untreated sewage into rivers, and to ensure that the various agencies use their powers of enforcement.
“Reporting on discharges from storm overflows
In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (as inserted by section 80 above), after section 141D insert—“141DA Reporting on discharges from storm overflows(1) Where there is a discharge from a storm overflow of a sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England, the undertaker must publish the following information—(a) that there has been a discharge from the storm overflow;(b) the location of the storm overflow;(c) when the discharge began;(d) when the discharge ended.(2) The information referred to in subsection (1)(a) to (c) must be published within an hour of the discharge beginning; and that referred to in subsection (1)(d) within an hour of it ending.(3) The information must—(a) be in a form which allows the public readily to understand it, and(b) be published in a way which makes it readily accessible to the public.(4) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Authority, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for exceptions from the duty in subsection (1) or (2) (for example, by reference to descriptions of storm overflows, frequency of discharge or the level of risk to water quality).(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires sewerage undertakers in England to report in near-real time on the duration of storm overflow discharges.
“Monitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges
(1) In Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 141DA insert—“141DB Monitoring quality of water potentially affected by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works(1) A sewerage undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in England must continuously monitor the quality of water upstream and downstream of an asset within subsection (2) for the purpose of obtaining the information referred to in subsection (3).(2) The assets referred to in subsection (1) are—(a) a storm overflow of the sewerage undertaker, and(b) sewage disposal works comprised in the sewerage system of the sewerage undertaker,where the storm overflow or works discharge into a watercourse.(3) The information referred to in subsection (1) is information as to the quality of the water by reference to—(a) levels of dissolved oxygen,(b) temperature and pH values,(c) turbidity,(d) levels of ammonia, and(e) anything else specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) The duty of a sewerage undertaker under this section is enforceable under section 18 by—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Authority, with the consent of or in accordance with a general authorisation given by the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make —(a) provision as how the duty under subsection (1) is to be carried out (for example, provision as to the type of monitor to be used and where monitors must be placed);(b) provision for exceptions from the duty in subsection (1) (for example, by reference to descriptions of asset, frequency of discharge from an asset or the level of risk to water quality);(c) provision for the publication by sewerage undertakers of information obtained pursuant to subsection (1).(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(7) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”(2) In section 213 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (power to make regulations) in subsection (1), for “or 105A” substitute “105A, 141DA or 141DB”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires sewerage undertakers to monitor and report on the quality of water in watercourses potentially impacted by discharges from storm overflows and sewage disposal works.
“Report on elimination of discharges from storm overflows
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on— (a) the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from the storm overflows of sewerage undertakers whose areas are wholly or mainly in England, and(b) the costs and benefits of those actions.(2) The Secretary of State must publish the report before 1 September 2022.(3) The report must be laid before Parliament once it is published.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to produce a report on the actions that would be needed to eliminate discharges from storm overflows in England, and their costs and benefits, before 1 September 2022.
HGV Driver Shortages
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the other place on HGV drivers. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to update the House on the actions that my department and others have been taking to address the shortage in HGV drivers. This is, of course, a global issue, with our supply chains adjusting to the impact of the pandemic and working incredibly hard to make sure that consumers get whatever they need. We have been working with the industry for many months, unlocking testing capacity so that UK workers can join the driving sector.
My department has already increased the number of vocational driving tests from 2,000 a week pre-pandemic to 3,000 a week—that is a 50% increase—and last Friday I announced to Parliament additional measures that will significantly increase the number of HGV driving tests, by up to 50,000 per year. First, we will eliminate the need for some car drivers who want to tow a trailer to take an additional test. Some 16 million drivers who took their test before 1997 already have that right, so we are going to allow everybody to enjoy the same privilege of the licence, allowing around 30,000 more HGV tests every single year.
Secondly, tests will be made more efficient by the removal of the reversing exercise element and, for vehicles with trailers, the uncoupling and recoupling exercise. That test will be carried out separately by a third party, so it will still be done.
Thirdly, we are making it quicker to get a licence to drive an articulated vehicle without first having to get a licence for a smaller vehicle. That will make around 20,000 more HGV driving tests available every year and mean that drivers can gain their licence and enter the industry more quickly, without removing any testing. I have instructed the DVLA to prioritise the processing of licence applications, and we are supporting the industry to get UK workers into training.
This is not the only action that we have taken. Over recent months, we have made apprenticeships in the sector much more generous; offered incentive payments to employers to take on apprenticeships in the sector; worked with Jobcentre Plus with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to direct more people towards this brilliant career; and provided funding of £1 million for the Roads to Logistics scheme, encouraging ex-military leavers, ex-offenders and the long-term unemployed to move into jobs in this sector. This is not just a transport problem or effort, but ultimately many of the solutions to this will come from standing challenges, which the industry itself will want to take on.
The Government welcome the prospect of better remunerated drivers, with better conditions and a more diverse HGV workforce.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Government have known for months and months that driver shortage issues would be exacerbated by the terms of the Brexit deal and their handling of Covid. Government Ministers are just now telling the industry to increase pay and improve conditions to recruit and retain more drivers, a much-needed step. However, how will that, or shortening the test process, or changing safety-driven driving regulations now address the immediate threat of worsening and widespread supply chain shortages this autumn? Or are the Government still sticking to what appears to have been their stance until now—which would explain the lack of timely government action—that the industry has been crying wolf over the impact of driver shortages this autumn?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, there is so much to respond to in that question. I am sure the noble Lord knows it is the case that this issue has been around for a very long time. I was talking to a colleague in the other place only recently and he said that one of the first things he did when he was elected in 2010 was go to an RHA reception at which they complained about the driver shortage. So the reality is that this has been a long time in coming. We absolutely will work with the industry to put in place all the things that they need to do.
The other thing to recall is that there are hundreds of thousands of qualified HGV drivers in this country who do not currently work in the sector. The industry must focus on getting those people back. By doing so, we have to focus on improving pay—there is anecdotal evidence that is coming through—and terms and conditions: my goodness, how simple is it to provide a clean loo, a vending machine and a comfy place to wait? Distribution centres need to absolutely step up and make sure that HGV drivers have at least those very simple things to make their day slightly easier.
There are lots of things that can be done. I do not take the point that the Government have been slacking. We have done an enormous amount and will continue to work with the industry to make sure that we keep goods flowing.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, rather than making the roads safer—Britain has always prided itself on its road safety record—these proposals seem to be some sort of cowboys’ charter. What does the Minister think about the response of Logistics UK and other representatives of the sector who believe that the longer working hours they suggest and have introduced will make the roads riskier and deter people from joining the industry? What assessment have the Government made of the safety impact of making the driving test effectively easier? This is not what people wanted when they voted for Brexit. Brexit is at the basis of this; Covid has made a bad situation much worse.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, Brexit is not the basis of this. At the current time, Germany has a 45,000 to 60,000 HGV driver shortage, France 43,000, Spain 15,000, Italy 15,000, and Poland 124,000. This is a problem that is impacting developed countries all across the EU and in the US, which has a 61,000 shortage right at this moment in time.
The noble Baroness refers to cowboys. I do not know who the cowboys are that she is referring to; I hope it is not the haulage sector, which I know is doing everything it can to make all the interventions we are putting in place work. For example, as the noble Baroness well knows, hauliers have to notify the department that they are going to use the extension of the hours and we obviously monitor the safety that comes out of that.
The noble Baroness seems to think that somehow the HGV test is getting easier. I am sorry to disabuse her: it is not. There will be no change to the standard of driving required for HGVs. The simple fact is that a certain element of the test will be delegated to trainers, who already train the HGV drivers in things such as manoeuvres. I would go on on the safety issue, but it is clear that we have some of the safest roads in the world and we want to keep it that way.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, is it not clear that, with just about 100 days till Christmas, there is an urgent short-term problem? Against that, why cannot Her Majesty’s Government produce a six-month visa for former HGV drivers who are somewhere else in Europe and recognise that they need be for only six months? I have had a six-month visa in my life as a commercial man and everybody obeys the six months. That surely will help in the short term.
In the longer term, it costs a young person of a non-academic interest over £7,000 to train. Why can we not have the equivalent of the student loans scheme for young people who want to learn to be HGV drivers, which could be repaid in the same way, so that when they have a job they can pay the loan back to Her Majesty’s Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I recognise that my noble friend wants to open the floodgates to EU drivers, but I sense that he may be waiting quite a while for the flood to arrive, because as I have outlined there is a shortage of drivers across the EU. What we must do is focus very hard on recruiting and training domestic drivers, and getting some of them to return. That is where the heart of this lies.
I note what my noble friend says on training. I do not know where the £7,000 figure comes from, because I actually phoned up an HGV trainer the other day—not for myself, of course—to ask and they said that it was around £3,000. By removing the staging requirement to get a C licence and a C+E, we will have combined the two training elements together. We would also expect training to reduce to get a C+E articulated licence. As my noble friend may know, there are private sector loans available and many of the training schools will make those available to the trainees, but of course it would be better if industry paid for the training in the first place.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent research which shows that HGV drivers dislike their conditions and having to stay away overnight? With that in mind, will the Government look again at the plans for rail freight villages and palletisation of freight? That would put a lot of freight on to the railways and allow the drivers to do the last-mile deliveries, which would keep them nearer home and be more eco-friendly. I commend it to the Government.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount for his suggestion. We in the Department for Transport are great supporters of rail freight. We have made significant investments in rail freight. It is not suitable for many of the goods moved by road, but where it is suitable we have various grants available to slightly subsidise the cost of rail freight and get that freight off the roads.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have a C+E HGV licence. I am also an out-of-date HGV driving instructor.
The chickens are coming home to roost. For years we have treated HGV drivers like dirt. Why would anyone want to become an HGV driver? We literally expect them to urinate and defecate away from fixed facilities. Go and look at the A34 trunk road, see how many lorries are parked up with the driver inside and think about what he is going to do in the morning.
We persecute HGV drivers with regulation. I do, however, have one suggestion for the Minister. I have an HGV licence, but I cannot use it commercially because I do not have a Driver CPC—a certificate of professional competence. If the Minister relaxed that requirement, she would have access to a large number of HGV drivers very quickly.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Gosh, do I have some jobs for my noble friend. He is, however, absolutely right: it may well be that some of these hundreds of thousands of people with HGV licences do not want to return to the sector because, historically, it has been seen as a sector that does not treat its employees very well. The only way to fix that is to get the haulier sector working with the customers and the supply chain in the distribution centres. The Government have already produced an internal report on lorry parking. We will look very carefully at what we can do to go beyond the changes to the planning system that we have already put in place.
I take my noble friend’s point on the Driver CPC. The House may remember that we were able to extend it last year, but that was using EU legislation. I will do what I can on the Driver CPC. It is a good safety mechanism, but we might be able to do something, although significant changes would require primary legislation at this time.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend heard the stories about considerable delays in renewing HGV licences for drivers? There seems to be a problem with the DVLA’s processing of renewal applications. Will my noble friend look at the problems in the DVLA and try to speed up the process? That would have a big impact on the number of drivers available.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
That is an excellent point. I spoke to the DVLA only this afternoon, and indeed the Secretary of State and I asked it to prioritise provisional vocational licences quite some time ago. One thing that people must realise, if they are waiting for renewal of a vocational licence, is that under Section 88 it is highly likely that they would still be able to drive even though their licence has not been renewed. If your application has been done—if it is in and it is correct—under Section 88 you can still drive. We need to get that out there. I completely take my noble friend’s point, though, and we are in very frequent discussions with the DVLA to see how we can get as many licences through the system as possible.
Ajax Armoured Cavalry Programme
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, Ajax is now a programme on an end-of-life watch. Clearly things have gone from bad to worse, with the Public Accounts Committee pursuing an inquiry, the National Audit Office accepting the need for an urgent investigation, and the Government’s own Major Projects Authority saying that delivery appears to be unachievable. Now the Government themselves in their own Statement say that it is not possible to determine a realistic timetable for the introduction of Ajax vehicles into operational service. Some £3.5 billion of money has been spent so far, for the delivery of just 14 Ajax vehicles.
My first question to the Minister is: what is actually going on? Can the Minister now guarantee that the problems of noise, instability, inability to fire if moving—among others—will be fixed, and tell us what the timescale is, or is it just trials, trials, and more trials followed by evaluation with no end? If all of this goes wrong, who picks up the bill—the taxpayer or General Dynamics? With noise and vibration issues still not resolved, despite the Government being warned in 2018, the number of personnel needing assessment has doubled to 310. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 248 Army personnel tested so far needed medical treatment, and for what? Will the Minister commit to the health and safety director’s report being published this year?
With the chair of the Defence Select Committee himself recently describing in the other place the Ajax procurement plan as a “dog’s dinner,” can the Minister tell us what alternatives to Ajax are being looked at, since Warrior is being scrapped and replaced with Boxer, which has no turret? Is it the CV-90, or an upgraded Warrior, or a Boxer with a turret? It must have a gun, as the Minister will know, to protect dismounted troops on the battlefield. What is it going to be?
The reality is stark, with jobs at risk in South Wales as the Government will know, troop numbers being cut—the decision partly based on the delivery of all Ajax vehicles—but 575 out of the 589 have yet to be delivered. And yet the £5.5 billion ceiling, which the Government tell us is an absolute maximum, is fast approaching. The £3.5 billion was spent for 14, with 575 outstanding, but not a significant amount of the budget is left.
In closing, I ask the Minister: the Government’s plan A for our armoured fighting vehicles looks like failing, so where is the plan B, and when will we get it?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister in the other place said
“I have previously described Ajax as a troubled programme.” —[Official Report, Commons, 9/9/21; col. 487.]
I could not have put that better myself.
One of the changes since Covid is that Ministers are no longer required to read out Statements from the other place, which might be a great relief to the Minister concerned, but perhaps means that noble Lords do not always hear the detail which is enshrined in the Statements we are debating.
The devil very much is in the detail here. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has pointed out, a few details need to be explored in some depth. So far, £3.5 billion has been spent, and the Minister has said that the upper limit is still £5.5 billion. Defence procurement has long been a troubled area, with projects going overtime and overbudget. The Minister in the other place has said very clearly that this project will not go overbudget; it is very clearly going to go overtime. Can the Minister tell us whether she believes that the project is actually achievable at all?
The Minister in the other place said that the problems are not “irresolvable”, but how do we know? The problems are apparently electrical and mechanical. Do we know if there is a solution to them and, if so, what that solution might be? Has General Dynamics been given any timeline for resolving these problems, or is it just being left for it to come back at some vague date in the future to tell us there are going to be yet more trials? What assessment have the Government made of the gaps in our own capabilities if the Ajax programme is not delivered in a timely fashion—indeed, if it will not be delivered at all?
Beyond that, we have already heard that 310 people are deemed to be in need of urgent assessment. Is that the total number of people who have been involved in the trials, or are there more people? Do we have any sense of the duty of care we should be thinking about when we consider who we are asking to be part of these trials, particularly given that some of the concerns about noise appear to have arisen before the trials started? If the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, were here, he would probably jump up later to explain that, actually, during trials you have teething problems. That is fine, but in this case we knew there were problems before the trials started. Can the Minister give us some indication of when the Government knew of the problems? What action are the Government planning to take to ensure that the 310, or however many people have so far been involved in trials, are not put further at risk? This procurement project seems at the moment to be a failing project, and that is clearly to the great detriment of this country.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their questions. To put this in context, the Chamber will understand that Ajax is a complex, fully digitised land vehicle project delivering transformational change to the Army’s armoured vehicle fleet. It is providing a step change in capability to the British Army and is a core part of our future soldier vision. But, yes, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are absolutely correct: this has not been straightforward. I am not going to stand at this Dispatch Box and pretend otherwise, but I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded to the problems and asked, effectively: where are we going and what are we doing? As he is aware, a safety panel has been appointed. It was established to oversee Ajax and, following its approval, trials have now restarted at the independent Millbrook Proving Ground. To reassure the Chamber, the panel consists of expert representatives drawn from the Defence Equipment & Support organisation, General Dynamics itself, Millbrook Proving Ground, an independent safety and environmental auditor and the MoD’s director for health and safety. I have to make clear that the panel must be left to do its work. I know that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness were anxious to draw me on a time but, quite simply, whatever the panel needs to do at the proving ground with Millbrook to test what is causing the noise and vibration, it must be left to do. I cannot be drawn further on that.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness also asked about personnel. Three hundred and ten personnel have been identified as requiring hearing assessments. Of these, 304 have been contacted successfully and the remaining six are UK service personnel who recently left service. I may be able to provide an update on the figure, and I undertake to write to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness about that. So far, 248 people have been assessed and, naturally, the noble Lord and the noble Baroness wanted to ascertain what is happening to them. I wish to reassure them both that we will update the House on the number of personnel affected by noise and vibration in due course, including if any trends become apparent once the data has been analysed, but we are absolutely clear about our support for those who have been affected, and that support will provide whatever is necessary to address any issues which they are experiencing.
I think it was the noble Lord who asked about the review publication date. I am unable to give him a precise date for that, for reasons that he will understand, but I can reassure him that the review is very extensive. He is probably aware of what it is looking at: the whole history of this difficult period for the MoD. It wants to do that objectively and analytically, so that it can come back with a meaningful report, and it is looking at a number of issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me about the timeline and when we knew that there was a problem. I would ask her to be patient about all these issues because I do not want to pre-empt the health and safety review. It is doing excellent work and is well ahead with that. We have undertaken to publish the reports of the health and safety department within the MoD when we have that information, and we shall do that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about the contract itself. As I think they will both be aware, it is what we call a firm price contract. That means that the price of £5.2 billion is to buy and support 589 Ajax vehicles in six variants. As of June 2021, we have spent £3,167,000. I reiterate that the focus of the MoD and General Dynamics is on resolving the problems. That is what we are focused on doing; no one is denying that issues arose with noise and vibration, but excellent engineering minds are now being directed to these matters. We await the outcome of the safety panel’s tests and trials to inform further on what is happening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked whether we can achieve progress. We are certainly all focused on doing that; we want to resolve these issues. I said earlier that Ajax is a complex but very important part of our future capability. It will be an asset for the military and make a singular difference to our capability. We want that to succeed and to be able to take delivery of these vehicles. But again, to reassure the Chamber, I wish to make it crystal clear that we will not take delivery of anything not fit for purpose.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about capability gaps. Again, I wish to reassure her that we do not anticipate any compromise on capability. A range of capabilities can be flexed to meet the required operational scenario as we know it now, and there will be a range of choices available to meet defence needs. I think the final thing that she asked was: when did problems emerge, and when were matters referred to the health and safety review? That is all within the broad umbrella of everything that the health and safety review is looking at. As I say, in due course we will publish the outcome of its inquiry. We hope that will better inform the Chamber and provide fuller information on exactly what the history of this matter is.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked whether we have a plan for the future. It is rather a reprise to say to him that because the focus is on sorting this and getting it fixed, that is a plan for the future and we know that there is a sense of urgency and purpose. All those deployed to address this challenge are working hard to resolve the difficulties.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that the UK used to have an excellent establishment for designing and developing armoured fighting vehicles, namely the fighting vehicles research and development establishment at Chertsey? It designed vehicles such as the Centurion, Chieftain and Challenger; it probably had a hand in the Warrior. Is it not the case that the party opposite closed down the FVRDE, which would never have made such a mess of a procurement project?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I know that my noble friend has presented me with a large ball and a very big tennis racket, but I am perhaps going to be slightly cautious on how I return the serve. We all understand that the part of the department to which he refers has an admirable record of design. At the same time, we are in an age where technical complexity, technical challenge and innovation are all fast-moving and swift. I was describing earlier just what a sophisticated vehicle this is, and just to underpin that, we are in an age when we are looking at a variety of capabilities across the spectrum, and one of the questions posed has been: should we retain heavy armour? The Government are in no doubt that we should, because, for example, UAVs cannot take or hold ground, and neither can they dislodge or defeat an adversary that has occupied terrain and is prepared to defend it. That is the role of armoured forces, and that is the role of the armoured cavalry. We constantly have to be vigilant about how best to innovate, and I guess that no one has a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to that.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking as a former military man. Why is this vehicle so important to our defence capability?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
We are facing the approaching era of robotics. That is the age in which we are living. It is a complicated age, as I was just describing. This vehicle is not only relevant: it is absolutely necessary because it is modular; it includes growth potential to be future-proofed by design; it offers a superb opportunity to exploit emerging robotics, autonomous vehicles and other such human-machine teaming innovation. It is therefore very relevant and will make a very important addition to our capability.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, such a vehicle forms part of a necessary spectrum of deterrence. We cannot leave it all to drones. The question I have, however, is why did it take the Government so long to identify the problems with this project? It reminds me of the Nimrod programme which finally was resolved by breaking up the aircraft, which probably—almost certainly—would not have achieved a certificate of airworthiness. The Government—all Governments; perhaps it is unfair to single this one out—seem to have quite an extraordinary difficulty with projects of this kind. It is time that we put that right. Might I offer a classical allusion to the Minister? Ajax was a hero in the Trojan War, but he eventually fell on his own sword and killed himself. Is it not time for the Ajax project to undergo the same fate?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord makes a characteristically interesting and amusing allusion. I would not agree with his assessment. As I have been illustrating, Ajax, as part of our armed cavalry programme, has a very important role to play.
I have been asked to correct something. I was reading from my briefing when I responded to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I said that as of June 2021, £3.167 million had been paid. I was reading from the briefing. I am informed that that figure should be £3.167 billion, so I apologise for that and I am happy to take this opportunity to correct the record.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may have another bite of the cherry. My noble friend said that there was growth potential in Ajax, but is it not the case that Ajax was developed from the ASCOD programme, and the Ajax vehicle is far heavier than the ASCOD vehicle, which replaced a vehicle that weighed only 10 tonnes.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am slightly out of my depth in trying to talk about the relative size of the vehicles. I know that concern has been expressed that this is too large a vehicle for what we call a recce vehicle and how we expect to be stealthy in a vehicle of that size. Ajax offers a step change in reconnaissance capability. Its sensors allow the crew to see and hear from much greater distance. That is why it has an important and significant role to play.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of any further questions, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 9.19 pm.
Environment Bill
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carrington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the proposals for increased powers to vary or revoke abstraction rights without offering compensation to licence holders.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register, and that water abstraction is used on my land to grow crops such as potatoes. I am also a member of the National Farmers’ Union, which has supported me in the tabling of my amendments. While moving Amendment 64, I shall speak also to Amendments 65 to 69 in my name, and to Clause 84 regarding the revocation of water abstraction rights without the payment of compensation, and the need to raise and clarify the evidential bar before revocation or variation. I shall then speak on Amendments 70 to 74, on the refinement of circumstances in which excess headroom can be removed.
By way of background, I think it important to focus your Lordships’ attention on the use and users of water abstraction licences, and to emphasise that farmers are not advocating the over-abstraction of water; they thoroughly understand that this damages the environment and are happy to work with the Environment Agency to ensure that this does not happen. Water abstraction is used by farmers to grow food crops; it is not something done for fun. The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, said in Committee that farmers hold more abstraction licences than any other sector, so a higher number of farmers are affected than other sectors. However, this is because of the number of individual licence holders; it has nothing to do with the volume of water abstracted. In fact, farmers account for just 2% of all water abstracted.
We should remember again that this is used for the production of our food, not for a car wash or a water slide. On the whole, water abstraction is used to produce high-value crops such as potatoes and vegetables, as well as fruit and certain horticultural products, on some of our most productive land. It involves very expensive investment in irrigation equipment, specialist storage and processing equipment. Investment decisions are carefully made on the basis of long-term planning, which includes availability of water and other inputs, together with market demand. Investment decisions of this sort are not taken lightly, as in most cases there is need for recourse to bank or other finance, requiring repayment at points in the future.
I do not wish to repeat what I said in Committee but would like to answer and clarify certain statements that were made. One noble Lord opposed the amendment on the basis that water is a resource that we must all share and that farmers’ historic water abstraction rights are historic happenstance and can be inequitable in their impact on the environment and other water users. This may well be historic, but so is the production of the food to which they relate, and I hope we are not talking about the revoking of food production.
Let us be clear: farmers are not advocating over-abstraction, only that those licences should not be revoked or varied as a result of arbitrary and undefined definition of damage by the Environment Agency. We do not oppose changes to licences, but we do oppose the ability to remove a licence without compensation. Payment of compensation is a hugely important point, and not just a legal one. It represents not only a long-standing property right but is a valuable business asset. It provides a degree of certainty for food production and manufacturing, together with the confidence to make important investment decisions. The overriding purpose of compensation is to enable farmers to make the necessary adjustment to their business if that licence is varied or revoked. In Committee, noble Lords encouraged the greater use of reservoirs. Surely this measure, together with any move to precision irrigation systems, is the perfect reason why compensation is necessary to enable farmers to reorder their business.
The Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield —informed us that only 10% of permanent extraction licence holders would be affected. But those holders were given legal rights when their applications were considered, determined and approved by the regulatory authorities. The goalposts have moved through no fault of the farmer. Surely all farmers deserve a clear definition of what the damage that has caused the revocation or variation is, in order to ensure that provisions are transparent and applied consistently going forward. Such information would also allow them to plan better for the future if a breach was likely. This is the purpose of Amendment 67, which tightens the ground for the revocation of licences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, also told us that the Government wanted
“the Environment Agency to continue to work closely with abstractors to explore all voluntary solutions to unsustainable”
water abstraction. She said:
“I do not agree that this is a blunt regulatory process; rather, it is the last resort in a collaborative process.”—[Official Report, 7/7/21; col. 1324.]
This is excellent news. In a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and me, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith—wrote that the Government would set out in guidance that they would expect the Environment Agency to seek collaborative non-licence change, such as habitat restoration and mutually agreeable voluntary solutions where possible. He continued:
“Responsibility for demonstrating that a licence is damaging or risks damaging the environment will lie with”
the Environment Agency. The Minister wrote that guidance to the Environment Agency would be issued and helpfully set out the expectations of the agency, which cover many of the farmers’ concerns, including, I hope, how long farmers will have between being notified that their licence is under threat and enforcement.
I thank most warmly the Minister for his further letter to the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and me, which we received this morning. His letter confirms a lot of what has already been said, in particular, the expectation of a collaborative process with the Environment Agency and that new powers should be used as a last resort. He also promised discussions with all stakeholders before the publication of the guidance. The confirmation of this today by the Minister would be much appreciated, together with an idea as to the timing of the publication.
The purpose of Amendments 70 to 74 is to make the removal of excess headroom from abstraction licences without compensation more appropriate to the real world of farming and consequences of the British weather. It is a question of maths—I am sorry, it is quite late for maths. But if you can grow potatoes on the same field only every seventh year, yet you lose headroom if you fail to use it in a 12-year cycle, it only needs a very wet year when you are growing those potatoes and therefore do not need to abstract for you to lose that right. Therefore, you have no ability to abstract when you next grow spuds. This makes business planning and investment in this crop a major gamble that farmers are unlikely to accept.
Turning back to the importance of compensation, I have referred to compensation being a source of funding to alter the business model to, say, replace river extraction with building and using a reservoir or more precision irrigation equipment and other mitigation measures. However, we also need to acknowledge that revocation could lead to a loss of profit and loss of land value and other asset value, such as equipment loss. For most farming businesses these are no small matters and could result in significant loss and danger to the farm’s viability.
Although the building of reservoirs is an obvious solution for some, it is not as easy as it sounds. Some can be built under permitted development rights, but they are not cheap or easy to build. The planning process is often lengthy and costly, so a proper transition period from river abstraction is required. The lovely idea of a shared reservoir presents even more challenges, with the need for complicated legal agreements governing not only whose land the reservoir is on but what rights need to be granted to allow access on land not owned, how much can be abstracted, remedies for breaches, responsibility and cost of maintenance.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for the introduction to his various amendments. As he said, Clause 84 removes the need, from 2028, to pay compensation to the holders of environmentally damaging abstraction licences when those damaging licences are amended or revoked. Although we have listened carefully to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, we believe that we should put the needs of the environment first.
The requirement to pay compensation has been a barrier to action to protect waterways, including vulnerable chalk streams, which we considered earlier today and which in some cases have dried up completely, from the impacts of unsustainable abstraction. Over the years, a number of schemes have been introduced to identify and amend the most damaging and unsustainable licences, but the need to pay compensation to licence holders when those damaging licences are amended or revoked has been a significant barrier to progress.
The Water Act 2003 removed the requirement to pay compensation to the holders of licences causing “serious damage”, but this is an extremely high bar and is therefore rarely invoked, so in practice has provided little protection to our vulnerable waterways. The Water Act 2014 recognised this and removed the requirement to pay compensation for water company licence changes altogether. This has set a clear precedent for the removal of damaging licences without compensation. It is also important to recognise that 5% of surface water bodies and 15% of groundwater bodies are at future risk, where existing licence holders not currently using their licences in full could legitimately increase abstraction, thereby causing further damage to the environment.
The timescales proposed by the Government for this change provide ample time for catchment solutions to be identified and implemented wherever possible, with licence changes considered as a last resort. We must not curtail the ability of the Environment Agency to take action to protect and improve our rivers and wetlands, but instead should increase its ability to do so effectively.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, hit the nail on the head when he said,
“the days when you can be compensated for not causing environmental degradation have, in my view, long since gone”.—[Official Report, 7/7/21; col. 1313.]
We on these Benches could not agree more; we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendments, but instead believe that the Government have got it right in Clause 84.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am grateful for both contributions and for the support of the noble Baroness opposite. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendments, and for not only meeting with my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and officials over the summer to discuss his concerns but for this constructive engagement.
The measures which we are introducing in Clause 84 are absolutely necessary to protect the environment from further damage and from over-abstraction. Members of this House have spoken of the necessity of protecting our water environment, including the fish and invertebrates which live within it, as well as of the need to protect our internationally important chalk streams, on which we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and others. Ending unsustainable abstraction is essential if we are to achieve this. But as I said in Committee, we also know that abstraction is vital for food production.
The Government recognise the impacts that these changes will have on permanent abstraction licence holders and are taking all steps possible to implement the changes fairly. The changes will not take effect until 1 January 2028. This will allow time for the full implementation of our 2017 water abstraction plan and for the Environment Agency’s catchment-based approach to become embedded, working with stakeholders, including permanent licence-holders potentially affected by these new powers, to voluntarily solve issues of access to water and unsustainable abstraction.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that, by contrast, water companies can already have their extraction licences varied or revoked without the payment of compensation. I hope I can also reassure him when I say that this is not, as he termed it, an arbitrary or undefined process. Excess headroom will be assessed over each year of a 12-year period, to allow for weather variations and crop rotations, and to align with the abstraction licensing strategy timeframe. The Environment Agency will assess licences within scope on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors including business needs and existing and future water resource needs, as the noble Lord mentions in his Amendment 73, before deciding what action is proportionate, as the noble Lord raises in Amendment 65.
We expect the Environment Agency to use this power as a last resort, once all other options have been exhausted. But if those options have been exhausted, it is simply not right that unsustainable abstraction and environmental damage should be allowed to continue. That is why this power is necessary. Should that decision be taken, the licence holder will have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, as is currently the case. They can put forward expert evidence should they wish to do so, which was also a concern raised in Amendment 64.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked about timing. We are working with partners, including the National Farmers’ Union, on the guidance and will publish this guidance as soon as possible. The Government have worked, and will continue to work, extremely hard to ensure that these new powers are reasonable, proportionate and just. We will continue to work closely with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their implementation is a smooth and fair process.
I hope that the noble Lord recognises that the Government have endeavoured to put in place necessary safeguards. We can go no further without undermining the very purpose of this clause, which is to protect the environment. I acknowledge his comments about the long-term planning for the necessity of new reservoirs. I am afraid that I have no further details and can only acknowledge that this is a long-term solution. I hope that he agrees with the necessity of that purpose and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for the very considered response. Although I do not totally agree on the compensation issue—but I was never going to—I accept all the assurances and the work that has been done by Defra to help ease our concerns. I have no hesitation in withdrawing my amendment, although I will continue on the compensation issue in future discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Isles of Scilly: disapplication of water quality legislation
(1) Article 3 of the Isles of Scilly (Application of Water Legislation) Order 2020 (S.I. 2020/214) has effect as if—(a) at the end of paragraph (1) there were inserted “and to paragraph (3)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) there were inserted—“(3) Part 3 of the Water Resources Act 1991 does not apply to the following islands—(a) Bryher;(b) St Martins;(c) St Agnes.”(2) Accordingly, no charges may be levied under the Environment Agency (Environmental Permitting) (England) Charging Scheme in relation to the application of the Order on those islands.(3) Subsections (1) and (2) are repealed if a nominated water or sewerage undertaker has demonstrated to the Water Services Regulation Authority and the Environment Agency that it has invested in infrastructure so as to comply with the requirements of the Order.”Member’s explanatory statement
The water and sewerage regulations came into force on the Isles of Scilly in March 2020 but, on some islands, there is a statutory undertaker appointed for water supply but none for sewerage and no ability to comply with the sewerage regulations. This amendment would disapply the related Environment Agency charges until the necessary infrastructure is built and a statutory undertaker appointed.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 75 is part of the relevant activities in this section but it is very specific to the Isles of Scilly, which, as the Minister will know, is where I live. In fact I was late this morning because the transport there did not work, but there we are.
The amendment relates to the drainage and water supply of the island. As noble Lords will know, there is one big island, St Mary’s, and four inhabited islands. A couple of years ago, after the Isles of Scilly (Application of Water Legislation) Order came into force, the water supply was taken over by South West Water as the nominated undertaker, and that has all been working fine. The sewage on most of Saint Mary’s and Tresco has also been taken over by South West Water, but on the other three islands it has not.
I am raising this issue today because this is very opportune. I heard about this only a couple of weeks ago, when the farmer next door to where I live, in Bryher, who in his spare time empties septic tanks and soakaways if they overflow, received a letter from the Environment Agency saying that, from 1 October, some very high charges would be imposed, plus fines, if he did not comply with the Water Resources Act 1991 as it is now applied to Scilly. That came into effect about 18 months ago, but, frankly, no one seems to have done much about it. Worse still, what do you do about it? You cannot suddenly put in a main drainage system or deal with septic tanks just like that, as we all know. At present, the system seems to work all right in the off-islands; if your tank needs emptying, the farmer empties it and deals with it in a reasonably environmentally friendly way. It does not get into the water supply or the sea, but it gets dumped somewhere nobody knows. But of course this is not what the Water Resources Act wants and, reasonably, needs.
The real problem is that the Environment Agency says that everything should be screened, and anything caught in the screen should then get incinerated. That is fine, but the first job is to build an incinerator. On a small island, that is not particularly easy, even if you have the money—and I do not yet know where the money is going to come from. St. Mary’s is going to have one, and maybe that will mean transporting 10 tonnes of solids every week on the inter-island ferry —in watertight containers, presumably—to be incinerated there. Again, that is a perfectly good solution, except they have not started building an incinerator yet, so they cannot do that anyway.
With the amendment, I have tried to produce a way to persuade the Minister that these charges and potential fines should not be applied to those who are not connected to a statutory undertaker for sewage until or unless something is built that enables their sewage to be treated in a proper way. Whether much happened between March 2020 and recently, I do not know, but I have talked to the Environment Agency locally, and I am also grateful for the help that officials at Defra gave me last week when we had some very useful conversations. What I think will come out of this, if the Minister is prepared to give me some assurances, is that these new charges and/or fines will not come into effect until it is possible and, shall we say, cost-effective to implement and operate them. I hope the Minister can give me assurances such as that tonight.
In the last two or three weeks, there have been several meetings between the Duchy, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the Environment Agency and South West Water, and I hope that that indicates some progress. I think we all want progress, including the Ministers and the Environment Agency, and it occurs to me that it might help that progress if it were possible for a Minister to go there and, shall we say, encourage the working group to get on and do it. First of all, you have to design a sewage system, but some islands are solid granite and, fairly obviously, it is not that easy to build septic tanks in granite. There are an awful lot of things going on and it would be easy for this issue to fall to the bottom of the list.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has brought this amendment forward. I had the privilege of representing the Isles of Scilly in the European Parliament many years ago. They are often forgotten in legislation, as well as in terms of policy implementation and how that happens. The most obvious example was in 1651 when we declared war on the Netherlands—absolutely justifiably —and, in the peace treaty that followed, forgot to include the Isles of Scilly. This was discovered, and only in 1986 was peace agreed between the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Isles of Scilly. Never mind President Biden, that equals the longest war in history: some 355 years. I am pleased to say that it was a bloodless war that has now been resolved.
On a serious note, this is real, and what I like about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is that it does not say that these islands should be exempted for ever—not at all—but that we have to fix this problem and then make the regulations apply equally there as in the rest of the nation. Also, having spoken to the Isles of Scilly authorities over the past week, I know that there have been serious discussions about this with senior officials in Defra and the Environment Agency. I very much hope that the Minister can give the assurances asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, because this is something that we do not want to last for 355 years; we would like it to be solved a lot more quickly than that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Well—follow that. I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for moving this amendment. He has identified a situation that clearly needs rectifying. We should thank him for drawing the Government’s attention to this. I hope that the Minister has understood the concerns raised and the potential way forward outlined so clearly by my noble friend today.
It was interesting to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I have learned an awful lot about the Isles of Scilly that I never expected to today. Clearly, as someone who has never been there, I need to arrange to go as soon as possible and enjoy the islands’ pleasures.
I am sure that the residents of the Isles of Scilly will be very pleased to get this properly sorted out. So, as I said, I am grateful to my noble friend for his work on this, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I too thank noble Lords for this debate on Amendment 75 from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I was going to start with some background, but the noble Lord provided the background very well. I admit that, if this only arrived on his desk two weeks ago, it arrived on mine probably even more recently than that.
As he said, water, wastewater and corresponding environmental management legislation were applied to the Isles of Scilly for the first time in April 2020. This was the culmination of a project lasting more than 10 years. It addresses water-quality risks to public health, risks to the environment from over-abstraction of water resources, sewage treatment and resulting pollution on the Isles of Scilly. The Environment Agency is now working with the Council of the Isles of Scilly, the Duchy of Cornwall, Tresco Estates, residents, and other local partners to ensure that environmental legislation is complied with, and practices modernised over time. I urge all parties to continue their valuable work toward this endeavour.
I know that everyone involved shares the aim of helping isles such as Bryher to avoid long-term environmental damage and risk to human health. It is therefore crucial that the legislation that so many people worked so hard to apply to the Isles stays in effect. The Environment Agency recently consulted on a charges scheme regarding environmental permits to help support the work. Currently a risk-based transition plan for the management of septic tank waste and sludges on the Isles is being developed as a priority, ensuring that the fragile environment and groundwater resources are as well supported as possible into the future.
Very briefly, in response to comments from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, I can tell him that septic tank wastes are currently disposed of outside the above permits under other legislation, but we will need an evolution and transition to a better system, hopefully aligned with the development of water company assets in the future. Again, we are working very closely with partners on the Isles of Scilly to achieve that future.
The Government recognise that this will involve change for residents, and the Environment Agency is managing that change sensitively and through partnership. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for taking the time to discuss this issue with my officials and for bringing this to my attention, and I reassure him that we will continue to monitor progress on this issue. I will ensure that my colleague Rebecca Pow, in whose portfolio this sits, is kept fully abreast of the issues. I beg that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that response, to my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his intervention. Perhaps I might press the Minister just a little bit further and ask him to make it quite clear that this charge sheet that came in a couple of weeks ago, and will start to come into effect on 1 October, will not be applied until the relevant work has been done. My next door neighbour, if he does not like it, will feel threatened. There is a good solution: stop emptying septic tanks. That is not something that any of us want to see. So a little bit of comfort from the Minister on the charges would be very helpful, before I withdraw my amendment.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that I absolutely commit to continuing to work with the residents to implement the changes in as sensitive and sensible a way as possible, but I do not think I am able to commit to specifics or comment on specific cases at this time. I hope that is enough for the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Goldsmith’s other amendments to Clause 90, changes a consequential amendment power being inserted into the Land Drainage Act 1991 from a power to amend any Act, to a power to amend the Land Drainage Act 1991.
Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 90, page 90, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 90, page 90, line 17.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Goldsmith’s other amendments to Clause 92, changes a consequential amendment power being inserted into the Land Drainage Act 1991 from a power to amend any Act, to a power to amend the Land Drainage Act 1991.
Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 92, page 93, line 19.
Member’s explanatory statement
See Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Clause 92, page 93, line 19.
“(6) The Secretary of State must lay the biodiversity metric, and any revised biodiversity metric, before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay the biodiversity metric and any revised biodiversity metric before Parliament.
Lord Krebs
“(6) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must produce or revise the biodiversity metric, having particular regard to the ecological importance of—(a) diversity of habitat types and management approaches, including open mosaic habitat, scrubland, and habitats that mature slowly, (b) the potential of individual sites to support rare, endangered and vulnerable species, and(c) habitat connectivity across a landscape.(7) The Secretary of State must review the biodiversity metric at least annually and revise it to take into account—(a) any significant developments in scientific evidence, and(b) any assessment of progress toward meeting targets set under Part 1 of the Environment Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the Biodiversity Metric includes the ecological requirements of rare and endangered species, that it recognises the importance of habitat heterogeneity and connectedness, and that it is updated regularly in light of scientific evidence.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, in moving my Amendment 84A, I will also speak to support Amendments 85 and 87 in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I thank the Minister for his time in discussion with me, and officials at Defra and Natural England for going into considerable detail in subsequent meetings.
I will be very brief, in view of the late hour. To cut to the quick, the biodiversity metric, which is what this amendment is about, is the measure by which developers and planning authorities calculate whether biodiversity off-setting produces a net-positive outcome for nature. Of course, if we think back to Clause 3, which we debated last week, this net gain concept will be crucial if the Government are to succeed in delivering their target of halting species decline by 2030.
However, as I said briefly in Committee, the metric as currently proposed by Natural England and Defra is, in the view of at least some leading academic experts, practitioners and end-users, deeply flawed for the following reasons. First, it does not adequately consider the requirements of key species. Secondly, it uses an oversimplified classification of habitat type and quality as a surrogate for species abundance. Thirdly, it does not adequately incorporate the so-called Lawton principles of bigger, better, more connected habitat, which are the accepted gold standard for protecting biodiversity.
I will illustrate these flaws with an example. A few hundred metres from my home in Oxford, there is a city council nature reserve called Burgess Field, known locally for its rich biodiversity. Many species of birds, butterflies and other insects, as well as wildflowers, thrive there. Yet, as my colleague Professor Katherine Willis of Oxford University points out, this nature reserve would count as “poor” habitat if it were assessed by the metric. This simply cannot be right.
Defra officials and Natural England acknowledge that the metric is a work in progress, but they argue that a great deal of work has gone into its development —of course, the fact that a great deal of work has gone in in the past does not mean to say that more work cannot easily be done in the future—and that it has to be kept simple to make life easier for developers. I think it should be made more difficult and life made easier for nature. My amendment simply asks the Government to reconsider the metric and to revise it yet again. My ask is a modest one—to review the deficiencies and continue to improve the metric. I very much hope that the Minister will confirm his commitment to doing this.
I will leave it to others to speak in more detail to Amendments 85 and 87, which ask the Government to extend the lifespan of net gain from 30 to 125 years, but I will make two very brief points. Having spoken to Defra officials, as I understand it—I hope I am wrong and that the Minister will correct me—there are two lines of argument for defending the 30-year, rather than a 125-year, limit. First, if the requirement for the duration of net gain were too onerous it would be an obstacle to development because no one would want to commit their land for a long time for preserving biodiversity. It is said that the experience from other countries demonstrates this, although I have not been able to find the evidence. The second argument is that if at the end of 30 years valuable habitat has been created, that habitat will be protected by other regulations, such as a designation as an SSSI. These two arguments seem self-contradictory. On the one hand it is important to tell developers that they can have their land back after 30 years, but on the other if they do a good job of creating new habitat for net gain they cannot have it back. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, bearing in mind the hour, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 85 and 87. It is a pity that it is late, because these are terribly important amendments. I have been sitting and thinking: how long does it take to create a habitat? The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said that at the end of 30 years we may have rip-roaring habitat, but the likelihood is that we will not have rip-roaring habitat for many habitat types.
There are some instant habitats: wetlands, for example—just add water and you get birds. It is instant habitat creation. There are some middling habitats, such as meadows, where you can grow grass and wildflowers, but it will not be a complex meadow ecosystem, certainly not SSSI quality, by 30 years’ time. As for woods, a wood will not really get into its stride in 30 years. You will have canopy formation by then, but it will be a fairly limited wood. Of course, many habitats are very long-term: ancient woodlands take 400 years. Long-standing woods, which the Government have said they are now interested in protecting, are complex assemblages of habitat and we do not yet know how long standing “long standing” will be, but it is certainly more than 30 years. Peatlands take 1,000 years, so 30 years for newly created habitats for biodiversity gain, planning gain or conservation covenants is a bit pathetic; in fact, it is pretty useless. Destruction of these biodiversity gains and climate change carbon sequestration at 30 years will be unacceptable to the public and it makes no sense to create and then destroy.
Longer periods do not discourage landowners and farmers. I draw attention to my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust. We regularly deal with farmers on woodland creation schemes. What farmers and landowners want is clarity for the future, so that they can make decisions. The current woodland carbon code requires woodland sites for carbon storage to be in place for at least 100 years and we have no shortage of people banging on our doors wanting to create at least 100 year-old woods, so I ask the Minister to accept this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest as a Church Commissioner, as set out in the register, and I wish to support what the noble Baroness just said: 30 years is rather a short period of time. I am grateful for the way the Minister, in proposing Amendments 86 and 88, is showing us the possibility of some flexibility in the future, but may I just tempt him a little further? What he is proposing would allow a future Government, by regulation, to change that period of 30 years—one would hope that it might go up to 50, 60 or perhaps even 125—but if they did, there would be nothing to prevent a subsequent Government reducing it back to 30 again. If we are to have a direction of travel in how long a site needs to be protected for, it should be one-way, without the possibility of going back down again. That could create a sort of planning blight, whereby somebody, particularly towards the end of a government cycle, might feel that, rather than making some land available for development, they can wait and hope that the period will be knocked back down to 30 years by the incoming Administration. Would the Minister be willing to think again so that, whatever period we set, any future changes would have to increase it rather than potentially allowing it to decrease?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak in favour of all the amendments in this group—even, in a very soft way, the government amendments. They address issues that I spoke on at considerable length in Committee, so I will, given the hour, be brief. It is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and all the speakers on this group. I think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, really hit the nail on the head. If 30 years is all we can tie things up for, if it works, you are tying it up, one would assume, indefinitely, which 125 years serves as a figure for.
In Committee, I talked about 30 years being a blink of an eye in nature, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, set out a very nice template for us thinking about different kinds of habitats and ecosystems. I will add to this my—perhaps now inevitable—point about soil, which is about the biodiversity of the soil and producing what you might describe as a mature soil, whether it is under any of those habitats. A meadow might look quite nice on the top, but the soil is not going to be anything like a long-term developed meadow for many years. These are ecosystems that take a long time to develop to get the real richness you would need for a proper, healthy soil.
I will just note that we are strongly behind Amendments 85 and 87, which my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb signed, but I would also particularly compliment the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on Amendment 84A. I would have signed it had I actually spotted it, but I am afraid I missed it. There has been much discussion in the media, in the public and in the environmental community about the utter inadequacy of the biodiversity metric. In this amendment, the noble Lord is going some way to finding a way forward to fix that, and I really do hope the Minister will take it on board.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. I want to comment briefly on two amendments. First, I welcome my noble friend’s Amendment 89; it is important to keep under review the amount of land available for the net gain register.
Secondly, I want to comment on Amendment 84A from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I say this to him: I do not think it is necessary. As he said, this is evolving. The metric as published by Natural England is not set in stone. It will be an evolving measure, and as further and better particulars come along, it will be changed and amended. An annual review by the Government is not needed for that to happen.
The other point I want to make is this: yes, of course, the metric could be made more complicated. Some on the Climate Change Committee condemn it, because it is just a biodiversity net gain metric. They want an environmental net gain metric, which would be an all-singing, all-dancing super one, but incredibly complicated to produce. No one is capable of doing it properly at the moment.
If we bring in lots of other factors, which would no doubt make this much better in biodiversity terms, we would be faced with an industry and builders that have not a clue how it would work. Net gain is terribly, terribly important. It will be one of the greatest improvements to planning and the environment we have ever seen in this country. But it is a completely new concept; it is innovative. For it to happen, we have to get developers on side, working with it. At the moment, they have not a clue how it works. They have a couple of years, I think, to get that right.
I am concerned that we keep this initially simple. The current metric, which is still doing a good job and can evolve and can change, will not be detrimental to biodiversity; it will be a big improvement to biodiversity. But I am certain that in a couple of years’ time or a year’s time, it may be tweaked again to improve it. As developers and Government and Natural England bed this down, I am certain it will become more sophisticated and more perfect from a purist environmental point of view.
So I say to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is incredibly able and thoroughly knowledgeable in this matter—he is 10 times more knowledgeable than I am, though I am practical—that we have to start somewhere. There used to be an army acronym KISS: “Keep it simple, stupid.” We have to keep it simple to begin with, and we can make it a lot more complicated as we get used to it.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, says, but I still think the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised some real concerns that this House deserves answers to, and I hope the Minister, in his summing up, can give the reassurances the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has asked for. I wanted to briefly add my voice to the others in support of Amendment 87, which deals with the issue of perpetuity versus the 30 years for the biodiversity net gain.
I will not add to the other arguments people have made, but I just wanted to remind noble Lords that in Committee, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister said that the Government wish to introduce biodiversity net gain
“in a way that requires developers … to bear as little cost as possible.”—[Official Report, 7/7/21; col. 1377.]
It seems to me that overriding constraint is as much relevant in terms of this debate, because this is not about worrying that there will not be enough landowners coming forward to provide the amount of nature conservation that we need. It is really about limiting the liability of developers. That is at the heart of this, and that is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking in support of Amendment 84A of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I will then speak to my Amendments 85 and 87. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for adding their names to my amendments.
First, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has raised important points about the quality of the metric currently being developed to implement biodiversity net gain. Over the summer he was kind enough to share the paper to which he referred by his colleague Professor Katherine Willis. I have to say that it shocked me, as it shows that we are in danger of drifting into a new system which, far from being a positive asset, could be highly detrimental to the environment. This is why I am not reassured by the use of words such as “progressing”, “virtuous” and “improving” by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. We could be going backwards if we do not get this right.
We therefore support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that would set up a process of review of the metrics within six months, taking into account the broad range of factors that determine the ecological importance of sites. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has been in dialogue with the Minister about these concerns, and I hope that, in his response, the Minister will provide sufficient reassurance that this matter is being addressed.
My Amendments 85 and 87 address the length of time that any habitat enhancement agreed through the planning process should be protected. As it stands, Schedule 14 to the Bill defines this period as 30 years. After that, the habitats could be destroyed, losing any ecological gains or carbon storage benefits. This goes against the grain of ecological best practice, which emphasises the need to let nature recover for the long term.
In recent advice, Natural England has said:
“Mitigation measures will need to be secured for the duration over which the development is causing the effects—generally 80-125 years.”
The building developments on the land where the displacement takes place will clearly be expected to last more than 30 years. For example, MHCLG has issued advice on property that makes it clear that a long lease is usually 125 years. So it is right that the creation of any new habitat, in compensation, should also last a lifetime. Our view was echoed in the recent Environmental Audit Committee report, Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?, which stated:
“Nature recovery does not happen overnight and must be maintained and built upon for generations. The proposed 30 year minimum to maintain biodiversity net gains will achieve little in terms of delivering long-lasting nature recovery.”
In Committee, we tabled an amendment that would have protected habitats in perpetuity. There was considerable support for our position, but there were also questions about how perpetuity could be measured. So in our new amendment, we have now defined this period as 125 years, which was the only legal definition of the concept, as set out in the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009. We believe that this is the right length of time to create and maintain long-term species-rich habitats to compensate for the destruction of existing established habitats elsewhere.
In Committee, the Minister made it clear that the provision of 30 years was a minimum requirement. He has now tabled further amendments in this group that would give the Secretary of State a power to increase the 30-year period and keep that duration under review. However, we do not believe that this gives the guarantees of long-term habitat protection that we need. There is no indication in the Government’s amendment of the criteria that would be used to vary the duration. I am also grateful to the Bill team for their recent advice that this variation, if introduced, would apply at a policy-wide level and not on an individual project basis. However I do not see where in the Bill this would be assured, since the Government’s amendment just gives a general power to vary the time period and could therefore, in my reading, apply to particular building developments.
The Minister has also raised concerns about whether sufficient landowners would make their land available for a longer term period, but surely landowners who contract to create these new habitats would have to be there for the longer term, otherwise our very fear that the habitat would be destroyed after 30 years becomes a reality. We believe that the long-term timescale of 125 years, as set out in Amendment 85, gives landowners certainty and would ensure that habitats which are destroyed could be recreated for the long term on a like-for-like basis.
This is an important principle which is necessary to legitimise the process of biodiversity net gain. Otherwise, the truth is that it would just be delayed damage. On that basis, I hope the Minister is able to give further reassurances, and I look forward to his response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for their detailed conversations on this over the summer.
I am pleased to confirm that the Government have brought forward Amendments 86, 88 and 89 on the long-term prospects of biodiversity gains. The Bill currently introduces a 30-year minimum period for biodiversity net gain agreements, and these new government amendments will place a duty on the Secretary of State to review the duration for biodiversity net gain agreements and provide legal powers to increase the duration—that could be up to 125 years, for example, or it could be less. This process will be informed by the biodiversity net gain monitoring and evaluation programme, and will apply at a policy-wide level. These amendments will ensure that an extension of the duration is actively considered in future, supporting the long-term protection of our habitats.
Amendments 85 and 87, proposed by the noble Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, while welcome in intention, would, we believe, deter landowners in key areas from offering land for conservation. Based on the engagement, consultation and evidence-gathering that we have undertaken, setting a requirement for biodiversity enhancements to be secured for 125 years now means that we are less likely to see land offered for enhancement in the right places at the start of biodiversity net gain roll-out. That would mean that we were less able to create the coherent ecological networks that we need and may end up with money for net gain sitting unspent.
If restrictions placed on biodiversity net gain funds are too stringent from the start, landowners are unlikely to commit to the agreements we require. There is strong evidence from international practice that this might lead to the Government being unable to invest biodiversity gain funds and achieve the benefits we want from the policy. For example, in the environmental offsets framework for Queensland, Australia, a shortage of appropriate projects has meant that the state Government have been unable to spend much of the money collected for habitat enhancement. In addition, Ermgassen et al published a paper in Conservation Letters in June this year which sets out an academic assessment of the ecological outcomes of mandating biodiversity net gain that very much supports our position.
The amendments that the Government have introduced strike a fine balance between robustness and managing these risks of land supply. Clearly, I, my colleagues in Defra and everyone involved in the Bill want the habitats created and enhanced through net gain to thrive forever. That is where we all start, but it would be a mistake to let our desire for perfection in future undermine our first and more important steps on this policy. We need to get going.
I have almost been deterred from raising this argument by the introductory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, but it is fair to say that after 30 years of improvement, a new habitat would benefit from a whole range of protections that already exist in legislation. If those protections have not continuously improved and evolved over the next 30 years and, in 2050, we find that new, beautiful habitats paid for through this scheme can be easily grubbed out in the way that has been predicted or feared by a number of Peers speaking today, frankly, we are in a whole heap of trouble. The world will be a very different place in 2050, and today it is waking up to the urgency. If we have not properly woken up by 2050, this discussion is nothing more than an exercise in academia.
In summary, we need a supply of land in the right places to see biodiversity gains delivered. Setting a perpetual, or 125-year, minimum agreement duration from the start in a newly created policy context creates a serious risk of deterring landowners from offering their land for net gain. That would be a terrible outcome for nature and for society, so we have been careful to design biodiversity net gain in a way that mitigates this risk and maximises the chance of success.
On Amendment 84A, from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we will publish the biodiversity metric for mandatory biodiversity net gain soon. The Bill’s provisions rightly require proper consultation on the final biodiversity metric before it is published for mandatory application. I can assure the noble Lord that the quality, diversity and function of habitats is already the focus of Natural England’s work on the metric and, as he knows well, our understanding of biodiversity is constantly evolving and improving. I can confirm to him that the metric will be regularly reviewed to take account of the latest scientific evidence and user experience. We will consult on a timeline and metric next year; after that, we expect to suggest a review every three to five years.
I also highlight that we are already on our third iteration of the metric and will consult next year on the version to be formally published for mandatory net gain and on the timeline for subsequent updates. The Government absolutely recognise the importance of species, as well as microhabitats, and the need for connectivity across our landscapes. The biodiversity metric’s habitat scoring is fundamentally linked to the value of habitats to priority species. The net gain regime will work alongside our existing regulatory framework for protected and rare species. This is already embedded within planning policy and practice, and will act in addition to biodiversity net gain.
I would also like to address the way in which the Lawton principles of “bigger, better, more connected” underpin the entire design of net gain, not just the metric. Net gain aims to improve the size and quality of habitats delivered through development; that is the whole point of the policy. The net gain percentage increase of 10% underpins that principle. Natural England’s latest update of the biodiversity metric also includes a strategic significance multiplier, which places a higher value on biodiversity enhancements supported by local nature recovery strategies, providing a wider strategic blueprint for nature investment. We will, of course, consider the Lawton principles when updating the metric and wider policy in future. They are inseparable from the key goals of this policy.
Finally, I highlight to the House that the Government have listened to the points raised by noble Lords about biodiversity net gain and brought forward government amendments on multiple occasions in response. We have extended the biodiversity net gain regime to cover nationally significant infrastructure projects, from major roads to new railways. We have provided for the option to bring marine development in scope of biodiversity net gain in the future, and today I am moving government amendments to ensure our biodiversity net gain policy is protecting our habitats for as long as possible. I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords and ask them not to press their amendments.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I also thank the Minister for his response. With regard to Amendment 84A, in brief, I accept the reassurance that he gave in his reply. The metric will be regularly reviewed in light of scientific evidence. The Government recognise the importance of species and microhabitats, and the need for connectivity across landscapes. Rare and protected species will be safeguarded by regulations that will work alongside net gain, and the Lawton principles will underpin net gain and be considered when updating the metric.
I still think that, given the concerns expressed by many stakeholders on the current version of the metric, there should be an urgent consideration before it is finally put into practice, so that we can get it as good as it can be. I also accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made: that this is an ongoing work in progress and will be continually improved.
With regard to Amendments 85 and 87, I am disappointed that the Government are not prepared to go further. However, I accept the reassurances of the Minister on Amendment 84A and beg leave to withdraw it.
“(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend sub-paragraph (3) so as to substitute for the period for the time being specified there a different period of at least 30 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to vary the period for which onsite habitat enhancement must be maintained, subject to a minimum of 30 years.
“(6A) Regulations under this section may amend subsection (2)(b) so as to substitute for the period for the time being specified there a different period of at least 30 years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows the Secretary of State to vary the period for which habitat enhancement of biodiversity gain sites must be maintained, subject to a minimum of 30 years.
“(8A) The Secretary of State must keep under review—(a) the supply of land for registration in the biodiversity gain site register;(b) whether the period specified in subsection (2)(b) or in paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 can be increased under subsection (6A) or paragraph 9(4) of that Schedule without adversely affecting that supply.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to keep under review the supply of land for registration in the biodiversity gain site register and whether the period for which habitat enhancement must be maintained could be increased (see Lord Goldsmith’s amendment to Schedule 14).
Lord Oates
Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of the amendment would be that credits would be retained by local authorities for local use in promoting biodiversity rather than retained by central government.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, regrets that he cannot be in the Chamber at the moment, so I am moving Amendment 90 with his permission.
The Bill seeks to introduce measures whereby a credit system will allow the sale of proposed statutory biodiversity units when improvements on site are not possible. It currently does not require that biodiversity credits raised from developments be retained locally. The amendment that I am moving is simple. It does not seek to change the proposed approach to biodiversity credits but to ensure that the income from such credits is retained locally. Improving biodiversity and protecting nature is self-evidently something that happens in places. Central government sets the legislative and regulatory framework, but it is how local actors, and particularly local government, play their leadership roles that will ultimately determine success.
I turn now to my Amendment 94. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for their support. If we are to rescue nature and biodiversity from the perilous situation that we have allowed it to get into, the local nature recovery strategy set out in the Bill will be critical. It is equally critical, however, that strategies do not become just more paper gathering dust, and that the powers provided to enforce them are not just vested in a remote Secretary of State issuing regulations from Whitehall but in local authorities, which are on the front line of the battle to save nature.
This Bill is not at all shy about imposing new duties on local authorities or in granting the Secretary of State a whole range of powers to make regulations, but it is painfully, timidly, and indeed speechlessly shy about giving local authorities any of the powers that they need to discharge those duties. Part 6 of the Bill is no exception. Clause 102(3), which governs the content of local nature recovery strategies, allows local authorities to designate areas that
“are, or could become, of particular importance for biodiversity, or … where the recovery or enhancement of biodiversity could make a particular contribution”.
Nowhere, however, is there any power for a local authority to stop a landowner from destroying biodiversity on such designated sites.
My amendment would correct this. It would allow a local authority to issue a biodiversity contravention notice to the owner or occupier of any land designated under Clause 102(3) as a site of importance for biodiversity, where it appeared to the local authority that there was a serious risk of biodiversity destruction or where such destruction had already taken place. The notice could require the landowner to provide information about their operations on the site, to allow access to the site and to comply with obligations to preserve biodiversity as specified in the notice.”
In Committee, I used the example of the Seething Wells filter bed site by the Thames, in my hometown of Surbiton, to illustrate the problem that my amendment would tackle. The land has been disused since it was decommissioned in 1992 by Thames Water and subsequently developed into a haven for plant and animal life, including birds, bats and grass snakes. It has become an important site for diversity in our borough, yet when the new owners started on a programme of wholesale destruction of nature on the site, there was nothing the council could do to stop them, despite it being a site of interest for nature conservation. The council did not even have the power to demand information about what the owners were doing on the site, let alone the power to stop the destruction. Here I pay tribute to the Seething Wells Action Group, which has done so much in our local community to raise the profile of this issue, and I know that many of its members have recently been in touch with the Minister.
Responding to my amendment in Committee, the Minister argued that local authorities either already had the necessary powers to tackle such issues or would gain them in the Bill. But when the Minister and his officials were kind enough to meet me over the summer, they conceded that the council had no powers to act in this case because the site was not the subject of any planning application and so planning powers did not apply. The Minister undertook to look into how this gap in powers might be addressed, although he questioned whether the problem was widespread and what motivation site owners would have for such destruction. Regrettably, since that positive meeting, I have heard no more from the Minister or his officials.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group. They have a common theme because they are based on the fact that, very sadly, a lot of the good intentions of this Bill are going to fail. Although I support the Bill and support the drift of where we are going, they are going to fail because they are based on, and are building on, the existing system that is already a failure.
Let me give some examples. Since 2000, Defra has spent £10.3 billion or thereabouts on biodiversity. Agri-environment schemes have cost us £8.5 billion in the last 25 years. Roughly 28% of our land is designated for nature and biodiversity, and yet we have an appalling and increasingly bad record. Why? Because the current system is failing. Let me give just a couple of examples. Because of climate change we have gone for bioenergy and we have planted more maize. That has caused huge environmental problems and been very damaging for biodiversity. We are encouraging people to plant trees on what they call unproductive farmland, but that unproductive farmland is the haven for many of the red-list species, and we are damaging those. This Bill is going to build on those failures, and I believe we need to change tack. I know my noble friend will not accept that that is the right way to go but, nevertheless, I believe it is worth putting on the record that it is the right way to go.
We have to accept that there is more to improving biodiversity than just habitats. In the last amendment, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith said that habitats were very important and that we had to improve them. Yes, habitats are important, but they are not the only thing that is important. Equally important, as I have said many times, is winter feed, early spring feed and farming practices and management, in particular predator control. I give the example of the Allerton Project, which is entirely devoted to improving biodiversity and has hugely increased songbird numbers, but it cannot get waders and curlews back because of the lack of predatory control. We need to alter our stance on that.
I have three amendments: Amendment 92A refers to “nature-friendly farming”. These are the people who are managing the land. The noble Lord, Lord Oates, is right that the local authorities have a role, but the bulk of the land is in the hands of the farmers and we need the farmers on side. We need to encourage those that are nature-friendly-oriented. Farming and nature cannot be divided or separated; they have been separated for too long and here is a good chance in the Bill to put the farmers in the position they ought to be in.
Amendment 98 relates to wildlife conservation licences. I tweak the Bill in this respect, in that I propose the use of the word “status” instead of “survival”, as effectively a single individual of a species could be considered to be survival. Population can mean anything from an individual site colony to the total number of that species in the UK. Therefore, scale comes into any definition of detrimental to survival, as reducing the population at the local level may not actually have a bearing on the overall population due, for example, to infill from the current year’s young of the species.
My third amendment is Amendment 105. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke on the last amendment in support of what I have said. She feared we would be going backwards if we do not get this right. The purpose of Amendment 105, which is a sunset clause, is to allow us to take a deep breath and stop us going backward if we are. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith said on the last amendment that there would be serious trouble if habitats in 2050 are not in the state we want them to be in. The purpose of this clause is to allow the Secretary of State to stand back, take a look and say “We were well intentioned, but we got it wrong. We need to change and go in a slightly different direction for the sake of biodiversity and the environment.”
We now have binding targets in the Bill but, as my noble friend Lord Benyon, who was in his place a moment ago, said on 25 May in this House:
“We are always wary of targets”.—[Official Report, 25/5/2021; col. 890.]
I am extremely wary of targets when it comes to biodiversity, because every target we have aimed at in the last 25 years has been missed. The purpose of Amendment 105 is therefore to give the Minister a chance to stand back, have a rational look and, if necessary, take a different direction.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, whose passion for improving the Bill from the government Back Benches is evident even at this hour. I commend him for that. I declare my role as a vice-president of the LGA and the NALC.
I shall deal with Amendments 90, 91 and 94 together. Amendment 90 appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, while Amendment 94 is also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They all deal with the fact that the people who know best about a local natural environment are local people. We confront again, as we do in so many different areas, the fact that the UK—and England in particular—is one of the most centralised polities on this planet. That has many negative effects for people, but it also has negative effects for nature.
On Amendment 90, as the noble Lord, Lord Oates, said, we keep giving local government responsibilities but, through a decade of austerity we have seen fewer resources in local communitiesw available to deal with those responsibilities. We have gone through a cycle where local authorities barely have enough funds to meet their statutory responsibilities—those dictated from here in Westminster. They do not really have enough funds for that, let alone to reflect local priorities and desire for action.
The amendment signed by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb is particularly telling. We can think of so many case studies; the noble Lord, Lord Oates, gave one. I was also struck thinking about the case of the River Lugg in Herefordshire last year, where we saw trees felled, the river bridged and a reprofiling of the riverbanks along a 1.5 kilometre stretch, to the shock and horror of local people. Investigations are still ongoing, so I will not go too far into this, but the country was alerted to this through local people using social media and through the local media outlets picking up this story. Of course, it was at local level that the knowledge arose, and perhaps at local level some action could have saved some biodiversity or nature there.
I was up in Kendal a few years ago in a village that was struck by flooding, and the vehicles driving along a particular road were pushing flood water into people’s homes. The local people were shaking with anger and frustration; if they had been allowed to close that road, they could have stopped those homes being flooded, but they were told they would face police action if they did so. That is the kind of emergency situation where we need to ensure that local people are able to act, whether it is a biodiversity emergency or a flooding emergency affecting people’s homes.
I really hope that we might see some progress on Amendments 90, 91 and 94. I also want to mention Amendment 92A, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. The Nature Friendly Farming Network represents a really activist group of farmers; I have met quite a number of them. They are doing some very strong things at that nexus between acknowledging the need to produce food and looking out for nature. Here we have a very modest addition to the Bill that would acknowledge and put on the statute book recognition of, and support for, the important work of nature-friendly farming. I hope that we will hear from the Minister about that amendment.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 91 in this group seeks to give some bite to the nature recovery strategies, which are a very welcome addition into this Bill by this Government. As they stand, however, local authorities will be producing them but they will be almost irrelevant in terms of the planning process, because they would not be a material consideration. My amendment therefore seeks to ensure that local authorities have to act in accordance with them rather than just take account of them.
I am grateful for the support for the amendment from Members from all Benches, and to the Minister and his team for discussing the matter with me. I am also grateful for government Amendment 93 that has been produced as a concession, but saddened that it is still just guidance. I suppose that I should not have really expected the Government to compel local authorities to do anything. It is also a necessary step, given that the pilots for the nature recovery strategies showed that local authorities said: “These won’t work unless we get more guidance,” so the Government had to do something. However, it is a step in the right direction, and it will help local authorities to ensure that nature recovery strategies are used properly in the planning system.
I am particularly grateful for the letter that the Minister sent to Peers, which said specifically just how important nature recovery strategies would be within the planning system as a tool for protecting the environment. That is an important statement, and I am grateful for it. Clearly, we have expectations for a planning Bill some way down the road; we are not sure quite how much of it will survive, if we are to believe the newspapers over the weekend. However, there will be a planning Bill, so without prejudicing what might come in future, I accept gratefully the concession that the Government have offered. We might have to return to this issue when we see what those planning changes are, at which point, we will be happy, I am sure, to take up the cudgels again.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to a number of amendments which have been debated at this late hour in your Lordships’ House. I will make my comments brief.
I turn first to Amendment 90 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, on supporting local authorities to be able to keep funds as they are better placed to promote biodiversity than people sitting in Whitehall. My noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch mentioned the Environmental Audit Committee’s recent inquiry, Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust?, earlier this evening. This report highlighted that funding shortfalls and a lack of in-house ecologists in local authorities means that they may not have the capacity to deliver some of their statutory duties under the Bill, specifically biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery strategies. Local authorities are essential to the successful implementation of many of the Bill’s provisions. However, their effectiveness relies on the resources and expertise they have available to deploy these crucial tools.
Moving to Amendment 91 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I absolutely agree that local councils need to be empowered. I look forward to hearing the response from the Minister to see how he will reassure the noble Baroness, who made some pertinent points in this area.
I also agree with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, in Amendment 94. It is important that strategies do not become just more paper gathering dust and that the powers provided to enforce them are not controlled from Westminster but in local authorities, which are on the front line and know better how to save nature in their localities.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for raising a number of important points, and I appreciate his efforts and sincerity in wanting to improve this landmark Bill.
Finally, the Minister will be glad to know that we are happy with government Amendment 93. It is good to see that the Government have listened to the concerns across your Lordships’ House and accept that local authorities require more support and information concerning the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.
In the same spirit in which the Minister has presented Amendment 93 to address cross-party concerns expressed in Committee about empowering local authorities, I hope he can address the concerns of noble Lords who have spoken on the various amendments in this group. I look forward to his response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Government have listened carefully to the valuable debate both here and in the other place, and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for their drive in this area in particular.
We share the desire to make sure that local nature recovery strategies are actively used and delivered, and we entirely agree that the planning system is a key mechanism for achieving this. That is why we have tabled government Amendment 93 to make it a legal requirement for the Government to produce guidance on how local planning authorities should “have regard” to local nature recovery strategies. Local planning authorities, as part of the planning system, will have to “have regard” to relevant local nature recovery strategies, as will all public bodies. Defra is supporting MHCLG in developing proposals for planning reform ahead of the introduction of the planning Bill, including creating a clear role for local nature recovery strategies.
Turning briefly to Amendment 91, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I appreciate that she is also seeking to ensure that local nature recovery strategies are actively used, and I know she tabled this amendment before the government amendment in my name was tabled. I thank her very much for her thoughtful response and her—was it support?—gentle support for our amendment. The local nature recovery strategies will be developed collaboratively to identify where changing the way land is managed will give greatest benefit for nature and the environment, which will also reflect local priorities. The shared vision will then guide the delivery of biodiversity net gain, environmental land management schemes, planning, use of nature-based solutions and many other current and proposed actions for nature’s recovery across the public, private and voluntary sectors. To do this, each strategy must capture potential actions relevant for all these purposes, brought together to create a coherent overall approach. The duty on public authorities to “have regard” to the strategies will require them to consider which of these proposed changes they can realistically make and then take that action. The amendment the Government have tabled will strengthen the integration of the strategies into the planning system in particular.
Turning to Amendment 90 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, local authorities will be able to fund habitat creation or enhancement on their own land by selling biodiversity units to developers, on exactly the same basis as other suppliers on the market. Local authorities may also choose to work with other local landowners to bring additional habitat creation or enhancement opportunities to the market. Statutory credits are separate from market biodiversity units. They are intended to be sold by government as a last resort, when developers are unable to achieve net gain on site or off site, either on their own land or by purchasing biodiversity units on the market. It is therefore necessary for central government to sell credits as a last resort and use the revenue to invest in new habitat creation and enhancement.
We do not, however, want lots of money to come through the route of government-supplied credits. We want the market to provide locally led solutions, in which local authorities will of course play a key part. We intend to set the cost of government credits in a way that does not undercut the biodiversity unit market.
Turning to Amendment 94, I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, regarding the degradation of important sites for nature. I thank him for our discussion over the summer. As he said, I recently received a great deal of correspondence from concerned residents in Kingston regarding the Seething Wells filter beds site; I have read it with interest and will respond over the coming days. However, for this debate, I must address the implications of this amendment for local authorities and the protection for biodiversity more widely.
I am afraid that I do not agree that giving local authorities such sweeping powers is the best way to address the issue. It would amount to de facto protection of the entire country, which, although on the one level it would be fantastic, could have a wide-reaching effect on land use nationwide, creating confusion over whether an area is protected. We have a system of protections for our best sites for nature and our most important landscapes. Wildlife, including all nesting birds and other rare and declining species, is protected across the country. The forthcoming Green Paper will explore specifically how these protections can be strengthened and improved.
Turning to Amendment 98, tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness, Natural England’s assessment of licence applications will be evidence-led and based on robust science, taking into consideration the likely impact on the relevant population and biodiversity. The Government remain fully committed to our international obligations on biodiversity. The wording used for these proposed tests within a reformed Wildlife and Countryside Act is in alignment with Article 9 of the Bern convention on the conservation of fauna and flora. I agree with my noble friend that any assessment of impact should be at the scale of the population concerned. The clause in this Bill intends to do that by referring to any population of the protected species concerned, be that at local, regional or national levels.
Amendment 105 was also tabled by my noble friend Lord Caithness. As I said, the Bill introduces a comprehensive statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting. Our proposed objectives for domestic biodiversity targets reflect current draft international targets being developed under the CBD. The Government are already developing an evaluation and monitoring programme for biodiversity net gain and have commissioned the first stages of delivering this. The relevant public authorities will report every five years on their actions to comply with the biodiversity duty, including contributions to net gain and local nature recovery strategies; those strategies will themselves be regularly reviewed and updated. These processes go beyond merely reviewing regulations and will ensure that the Government’s actions are both adaptive and effective.
Finally, turning to Amendment 92A, I fully agree that future farming practices should support nature recovery. We are strengthening the existing duty by requiring authorities to “have regard” to clear strategies that will include specific actions. However, having regard to a broad concept such as “nature-friendly farming” would not make the overall duty any clearer or more meaningful. Also, to reiterate the point I made in Committee, where an authority has influence over farming or has farms on its land, it already needs to consider what it can do to ensure that biodiversity is supported. The Government have already committed to aligning environmental land management farming schemes for rewarding environmental benefits with local nature recovery strategies; this should be revolutionary for our countryside and biodiversity. With the environmental land management schemes contributing to biodiversity enhancement through the provisions of the Agriculture Act and targets set in the Environment Bill, we believe that an amendment such as this is not necessary.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords. I beg them to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He will not be hugely surprised to know that he has not reassured me, particularly in regard to Amendment 90 and my Amendment 94. He is wrong to state that my amendment would mean that the country was de facto covered—that is, that these local authority powers would de facto cover the whole country—as they would apply only to sites designated under Clause 102(3).
However, overall, I regret that the Government have arranged business so that a meaningful vote is not possible on my amendment tonight, and also that a number of noble Lords who would have liked to take part in this important debate were not able to. It is critical that local authorities are given not just duties but also powers to implement them. The Minister can be assured of our determination to ensure that local authorities are given these powers, which they need to protect biodiversity in their local areas, and we will seek the next possible legislative opportunity to do so. In the meantime, with great regret, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Teverson
“(c) agroforestry.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment enables agroforestry to be seen as a direct mechanism for public authorities to meet their biodiversity targets.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Following the Sunday Telegraph article yesterday, I should declare my “not-at-all” interest in and non-membership of climate—forgive me—
Lord Teverson (LD)
Yes, Extinction Rebellion. That was not where the emergency amendment that we debated last week came from. I will speak to Amendments 92 and 102, and I thank very much the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support.
As the amendments specify, their purpose is to strongly raise the profile of agroecology, which is very important for the way agriculture moves into the future. It is very striking that when we think about trees in a rural context, we think of forests and also farmland that on the whole does not have trees or may have trees around the boundary, young trees as part of hedgerows, or maybe the odd copse in the middle, at the sides or in the corner of a field. But that need not be how we practise our tree planting and growing and our harvesting of the products that come from trees.
At the moment we have that divide, but agroforestry is very much a combination of those types of agriculture; it is farming with trees, not farming and forestry. There are great benefits to this. Clearly, it is not right for the whole of the British countryside—I would not argue that at all—but some strong benefits come from it. Those are that we can plant more trees, and more diverse types of trees, and they are not necessarily trees just planted within meadows or pastural land; they can be, for instance, a grove of hazel trees within an arable field too. There are a number benefits from this, in terms of climate change, sequestration, water management, soil health, animal welfare, shade and retention of water. Clearly, there is also the extra income to farming from what those trees can produce, such as fruit, nuts or timber, from the types of wood that can be used for timber, then replanted and replenished. There is a wide range of benefits to using agroforestry and bringing it much more predominantly into farming systems in this country.
In 2016, a survey showed that, in Europe generally, agroforestry accounted for some 9% of land use, whereas within the United Kingdom that was down to 3%. So the purpose of these amendments is to raise the profile of that form of agriculture in England by way of the Environment Bill, but also to have the benefits that flow from it.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for moving the amendment so ably. Its consensual premise is that agroforestry development usefully contributes towards afforestation targets. Although most of the target of 30 million trees that the Government have committed to plant will apply to upland areas, through agroforestry an increasing proportion could be planted on lower ground, which is otherwise, nevertheless and for good reason, often the sole preserve of agricultural production.
Yet, conversely, agroforestry itself, where deployed on lower ground, can much assist afforestation targets as a result of designing fields of agricultural crops with trees planted at certain wide intervals between them. Through agroforestry, as carried out on United Kingdom farmland, it is estimated that 920 million trees could be planted in fields and, in so being, would cause our agricultural output to reduce by only 7%.
The practice brings huge benefits for biodiversity, climate and nature, as well as financial advantages for farmers. Thus, not least, it is strongly backed by informed land bodies including the Woodland Trust, the Soil Association, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, Sustain, the Landworkers’ Alliance and the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission.
My noble friend Lord Caithness has just correctly lamented how many projected targets of all kinds we fail to attain. However, in this case, in seeking to plant enough trees, we are all the more likely to achieve our aims by encouraging agroforestry. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will therefore agree that, as the amendment urges, agroforestry should now be part of legislation as a very welcome and balanced mechanism for public authorities to meet their biodiversity objectives.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 104 in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, who, alas, cannot be with us at this late hour. With his permission, I shall lay out his amendment, which would reduce the importation of tree disease by ensuring that all trees planted by or for the Government would adhere to a biosecurity standard.
Over the last 30 years we have imported more and more plants and trees, and plant diseases have gone up correspondingly. We have at least 27 new pests and diseases recorded with impacts on native plant and tree species. Wales alone is set to lose more than 6.7 million larch trees because of the spread of phytophthora ramorum—one should not have to say that at this time of night. Sweet chestnut blight is spreading like wildfire. Ash dieback is well recorded, and its impact will see something like 90% of our native ash trees going and a cost to the economy of £15 billion by 2050.
On the continent, xylella fastidiosa is rampaging through the lands and is as near as the Netherlands and Denmark. It eats everything, basically—over 500 species of tree and plant so far. If it arrives in the UK, the effects on our native species could be devastating, so this is a really important issue. However, we do not need to do what we currently are doing, which is to import a very large proportion of our tree and plant supplies. We could be growing these trees in particular here in this country. The Government are one of the biggest purchasers in the market for trees so, if we are to change the way in which trees are sourced and minimise the risk, it is only right that the Government take the first step. The new biosecurity standard that the amendment calls for would set a new standard in sourcing of trees by government agencies and third parties from UK growers, thereby curtailing the risk of importing diseases on tree stock and at the same time delivering investment that would see hundreds if not thousands of new jobs created. I hope that the Minister can consider this amendment.
I support Amendment 92 on agroforestry, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and declare my interest as chair of the Woodland Trust. To give one example, we did a very interesting experiment in Wales with electronic sheep. It is true to say that shelter belts protected the electronic sheep. Now that we are doing it with proper sheep, those protected by tree shelter belts produce bigger lambs with less lamb and ewe mortality. Therefore, there are all sorts of benefits for animal welfare and biodiversity, and I am sure that the Minister is clear about their benefits of hedgerows and very short trees. Farming needs agroforestry, but nowhere is it enshrined in statue as the desirable way forward, and this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, would do just that.
Amendment 103 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, whom I have just usurped from introducing his own amendment before I speak to it, is a great amendment. The noble Earl has been doing wonderful work on the UK Squirrel Accord. We really must take effective action on animal damage if we are to see a big increase in protection of ancient woodlands and the increased creation of woodlands that climate change requires. Deer management, for example, is failing in many parts of the UK because of a lack of the co-ordinated action by all landowners in an area that must happen if proper control is to take place. Amendment 103 would ensure that all public authorities play their role and encourage other private landowners to do so in that co-ordinated, area-based way which is essential.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, a note to self is to employ the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as my speechwriter.
I shall speak to Amendment 103. Before I make my few remarks, I thank the Minister and his Bill team, who met me. We had a productive exchange of views. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, who have supported this amendment, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I declare my farming interests, but also particularly my interest as a trustee of the Blair Charitable Trust, which not only has substantial landholdings in the north of Perthshire but runs land on behalf of a number of other substantial landholders, and therefore is one of the largest forestry concerns in Scotland. There are no grey squirrels in north Perthshire but my gosh there are a lot of deer, so I do know about that.
I also chair the Squirrel Accord, which is the coming together of 40 organisations across the whole of the United Kingdom to try to deal with the grey squirrel problem: its killing of broadleaf trees in Britain, preventing fresh broadleaf plantations in, for the example, the south of England being made today simply because the trees will be destroyed before they reached maturity. The Squirrel Accord includes all four Governments of our country and their nature agencies, the major voluntary bodies and the major private sector bodies. No one who has ever been asked to be a part of the accord has said no, and we are a number of years old.
As I said, the accord deals with the grey squirrel problem. Therefore, I am pretty familiar with that. The problem is simply that these animals will destroy the trees before they reach maturity. Therefore, all the planting that we need to do, for admirable climate change purposes, will simply not succeed if we do not put in place a good management system so that the trees can see themselves through to adulthood. As I mentioned in Committee, the Royal Forestry Society surveyed its membership and got 777 responses this year. The grey squirrel was noted as the number one threat to the planting of trees. I meet the Deer Initiative every now and then. It is similarly trying to promote a UK-wide way of handling this.
The Squirrel Accord has a good plan for how to manage everything. It is a plan that involves plenty of science, and the major science for fertility control, which is just one element of it, is being done at Defra’s own laboratories. It is now three years into a five-year project and going well. We have good science and good connections to deliver the product of that science in various ways into the countryside of Britain to deal with the problem. However, if there are refuges then we will get nowhere, because the responsible landowners and land managers will do everything and those who are not interested will do nothing. The purpose of the amendment is to try to cater for that and to make sure that the Government not only have the powers to handle it but will exercise those powers.
At this late hour I will not make many more points, but in the meeting I had with the Minister and his Bill team there was mention that the Government felt that they may have the powers. I, with my rather elderly wig on, felt that those powers probably needed to be newly minted, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister whether he believes that he really does have those powers, and to hear comfort that those powers will be exercised so that there can be no giant refuges and so that all the work of the Squirrel Accord and the Deer Initiative, which I hope will be reinvigorated, and the work of those up and down the land who are trying to promote the ability to plant trees, particularly our native trees again, will not go to waste.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and indeed all the speakers in this group. On Amendment 103, I have to draw to noble Lords’ attention a study published about three weeks ago by the Woodland Trust and the National Trust of a trial that found that there are practical alternatives to plastic tree guards. I note that the Woodland Trust is planning to stop using plastic tree guards by the end of this year. Given how much we have debated plastics in other parts of the Bill and much discussion of the problem of microplastics, that is very much to be appreciated, while also offering support for the need to make sure we protect young trees.
I will also briefly comment on Amendment 104, so very ably and expansively introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I fear electronic sheep may be wandering through my dreams.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill. I know that convention says that one should not speak on Report if one has not been involved in the previous stages of a Bill, but there are mitigating circumstances. I have such appalling broadband strength in Norfolk that though I can send and receive emails, due to the lack of broadband, invariably they are not received on the day they are sent, so Zooming is out of the question. I came down during Committee to speak to a number of amendments, only to be told that I could not speak, as I should have put my name down 48 hours beforehand.
Before I start, I declare my interest in woodland and my farming interest in Norfolk. I support Amendment 103, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I fully concur with what was said in Committee about the awful damage that deer and, in particular, squirrels do to young plantations. My noble friend Lord Lucas said in Committee that he had a cumulative tree loss of about 60% due to squirrels. With this in mind, is it any wonder that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said this in Committee?
“In my part of the Chilterns, a large forestry management business is refusing grow beech again until the grey squirrel is controlled.”—[Official Report, 12/7/21; col. 1652.]
If nothing is done, future trees planted using government grant funding will be destroyed by grey squirrels at a wasteful cost to the taxpayer. But squirrels do not just damage woodland. An overpopulation of squirrels will not only bark strip young trees but steal the eggs and fledglings of our songbirds. We are told that broad-leafed woodland can have up to 18 squirrels per hectare if nothing is done. Where they get that figure, I do not know. I have a wood on the edge of my farm in Norfolk of about 1 hectare. Last year, we dealt with about 25 squirrels in that wood, and this year we have so far accounted for over 40 in that same wood. One must wonder what all these squirrels are going to eat, and where they have all come from. As far as their eating is concerned, they are not only going to bark strip young trees, but they will also steal songbird eggs and fledglings, which are easy pickings. They have been known to eat adult songbirds if they can catch them.
We are constantly told that certain species of songbirds are in decline, and the blame is being put squarely at the door of modern farming practices. I would argue that squirrels also have a detrimental effect on songbird populations, and if we want to have a healthy songbird population, we must control the squirrels. In answer to my second question of where these new 40 squirrels have come from, I would argue that after catching 25 in the first year, we have created a vacuum, and it takes only a few weeks for that vacuum to be filled from neighbours who have no squirrel control programmes. They are also prolific breeders.
It would be helpful if the Government, even if they cannot accept this amendment, took steps to ensure that all landowners, and especially government and public body landowners, control their squirrel numbers. I argue that the damage to squirrels is twofold: by bark stripping our trees, and decimating our songbird population. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, and hope the Government does too. By accepting this amendment, they would be killing two birds with one stone.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had some excellent contributions this evening, and I am sure that because of the lateness of the hour, your Lordships do not need to hear my views on this. The Minister will be much more enlightening in his response to the debate.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I offer many thanks to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Protecting trees and woodlands is a priority of the Government, and I hope my response will reassure your Lordships on this.
I start with Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. There are numerous ways for public authorities to fulfil the biodiversity duty, such as creating habitats for pollinators or other threatened or declining species. However, it would not be appropriate to prescribe each one on the face of the Bill. We want authorities to identify where there are opportunities to make a change, but we do not want to force public authorities to have regard to a particular form of land use that in many cases will not be relevant to their functions. We will provide detailed guidance to support public authorities with both what they should do to comply with the biodiversity duty and what they should report on.
Our environmental land management schemes are about giving farmers and land managers an income for the environmental public goods they provide. We are considering how more environmentally sustainable farming approaches, including agro-ecological approaches such as agroforestry, should fit within environmental land management. Turning to the noble Lord’s Amendment 102, I share his enthusiasm for agroforestry systems, which will undoubtedly play an important role in delivering more trees into our farmed landscape, improving climate resilience, and encouraging more wildlife and biodiversity in our farming systems.
We have outlined support for agroforestry within the England Trees Action Plan, which sets out our aims for expansion, investment and research in agroforestry systems. That includes commitments to support agroforestry across the sustainable farming incentive, local nature recovery and landscape recovery schemes. The England Trees Action Plan also laid out the intention to develop the evidence base for agroforestry, further aiding responsible authorities to invest in agroforestry systems.
Agroforestry systems compatible with basic payment scheme support have been defined in the publicly available Rural Payments Agency guidance document Agroforestry and the Basic Payment Scheme. As the commitment to support agroforestry and definitions of it have already been published, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, feels reassured and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 103 from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who I thank for meeting me over the summer. As I mentioned when debating the amendment in Committee, woodlands created using public funding must conform to the UK forestry standard for woodland creation management plans. Such plans include steps to reduce grazing from browsing mammals, including through active management, barrier protection, and the development and monitoring of deer management plans.
In the England trees plan that I mentioned earlier, we announced a number of commitments to go even further to protect our woodlands from browsing animals such as deer and grey squirrels. They include updating the grey squirrel action plan, which we will publish next year. We will be consulting with the signatories of the UK Squirrel Accord as part of that update process. We are also working with the UK Squirrel Accord to support the ongoing research into grey squirrel management.
Very briefly, I say to both the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Cathcart that the Forestry Act provides a legislative basis for the management of pests affecting woodlands, which is a core part of management for anyone who receives public money. Given the ongoing work and progress in this area, I do not believe that we require new legislation to ensure that newly planted trees are protected from browsing animals.
Turing to Amendment 104, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for presenting it. The Government are committed to increasing biosecurity, and we support the plant health management standard and certification scheme—an independent, industry-backed biosecurity standard available to the market and international supply chains.
Our existing biosecurity legal framework already implements a comprehensive range of measures to address and minimise biosecurity risks. Recognition of the importance of domestic production to meeting our planting commitments is clearly a very big part of that. We engaged with the nursery sector to inform our England Trees Action Plan and we have provided support for the nursery sector. In the plan, we committed to fund nurseries and seed suppliers to enhance the quantity, quality, diversity and biosecurity of domestic production. We will help the sector to better plan for sapling supply and demand, ensuring that suppliers can produce the right stock at the right time, with all the economic benefits that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned. A further published strategy is not necessary to ensure that this is delivered.
I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions at this very late hour, and ask that they not press their amendments.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I apologise to Extinction Rebellion for having completely forgotten its name. No doubt there will be a picket line outside my farm gate when I return to Cornwall later this week.
I thank every noble Lord for their contributions—particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her examples and the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I look forward to her amendment on a tree strategy when we meet again, which I think we still have to do. And I thank the three noble Earls for their contributions.
I am not going to prolong this evening. I thank the Minister for his enthusiasm for agroforestry and his recognition that this is an important part of the jigsaw for the future. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2B) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities as to how they are to comply with their duty under subsection (2A)(a) when complying with subsections (1) and (1A) in their capacity as such authorities.(2C) Guidance under subsection (2B) must be—(a) published by the Secretary of State in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit,(b) kept under review, and(c) revised where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate.(2D) The first guidance under subsection (2B) must be published by the Secretary of State within the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 98 of the Environment Act 2021 comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to give guidance to local planning authorities as to how they are to take a local nature recovery strategy into account when discharging their duties under new section 40(1) and (1A) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 concerning the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity.
“(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under Clause 102 of the Bill concerning the content of local nature recovery strategies to be laid before Parliament and published.
“(7A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under Clause 105 of the Bill concerning species conservation strategies to be laid before Parliament and published.
“(8A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, and publish, the guidance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires guidance under Clause 106 of the Bill concerning protected site strategies to be laid before Parliament and published.