Sea Fisheries (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Douglas-Miller) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 12 December 2023.
The purpose of this instrument is to make provision to ensure that the United Kingdom, as a member of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, henceforth referred to as ICCAT, can continue to meet the full range of its international obligations in relation to the convention which governs ICCAT. The UK has an obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to co-operate on the management of shared fish stocks, including through appropriate regional or sub-regional organisations. ICCAT is one such example. It is responsible for ensuring that fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species, such as swordfish, in the Atlantic Ocean are managed sustainably. The UK became an independent contracting party to the convention—in other words, a member of ICCAT—on 1 January 2021, after depositing an instrument of accession following EU exit.
As a member of ICCAT, the UK must ensure that we are able to implement and enforce binding measures, known as recommendations, which are agreed by contracting parties under the convention. The UK must ensure that our domestic laws fulfil these international obligations. This instrument updates and amends various regulations of retained EU law to implement recommendations adopted by the commission immediately prior to and since the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. Where appropriate, this instrument also makes amendments to reflect the UK’s status as an independent coastal state.
I will now go through each element of the regulation in turn to briefly explain the amendments being made to retained EU law. Regulation 2 of the instrument removes provisions from Council Regulation 1936/2001, which laid down control measures applicable to fishing for certain stocks of highly migratory fish. It also included provisions that regulated the farming of bluefin tuna. The UK, however, does not farm bluefin tuna. These provisions have therefore been removed as they are not relevant to the UK.
Regulation 3 amends Council Regulation 1984/2003. It now correctly reflects the convention’s requirement for a statistical document to accompany imports of swordfish and bigeye tuna into the UK. Other amendments are made for clarity and to ensure that the amended provisions are enforceable. For example, amendments to the description of fish captured no longer reference the 1984 version of the EU’s combined nomenclature. They are instead replaced with references to the UK commodity codes used in the UK’s customs tariff.
Regulation 4 of this instrument updates Regulation EU 640/2010 to mandate the use of an electronic catch documentation system for bluefin tuna, replacing the use of clerical documents. Further amendments are made to ensure that the new requirements are clear and enforceable, as well as outlining the limited circumstances in which a paper catch document may be used instead of the electronic system.
Regulation 4 also amends the descriptions of fish captured within Regulation EU 640/2010. These descriptions have been updated with references to the commodity codes found in the UK’s customs tariff. This amendment makes the description of fish clear and ensures that the regulation is enforceable.
Regulation 5 removes provisions in Commission Delegated Regulation EU 2015/98, which established derogations from landing obligations in order to fulfil ICCAT requirements. Instead, these provisions are covered in Regulation EU 2016/162. Removing these provisions from Commission Delegated Regulation EU 2015/98 avoids duplication and provides clarity.
Regulation 6 of this instrument amends Regulation EU 2016/1627, which implemented ICCAT’s multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Since the recovery plan was introduced, I am pleased to say that stocks of bluefin tuna have improved significantly. The recovery plan has now been replaced with a multiannual management plan. Regulation 6 therefore comprehensively amends Regulation EU 2016/1627 to ensure that it correctly reflects the UK’s obligations under ICCAT in relation to the management plan and the UK’s catch quota.
A multiannual recovery plan was also developed for the management of swordfish in the Mediterranean. The EU gave effect to the recovery plan under Regulation EU 2019/1154, which was retained in our domestic legislation at the point of EU exit. However, as these provisions relate to swordfish in the Mediterranean, Regulation 7 of this instrument revokes the substantive provisions of Regulation EU 2019/1154 as they are not relevant to the UK.
Regulation EU 2019/1241 sets technical measures for the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems. Regulation 8 of this instrument amends Regulation EU 2019/1241 to insert minimum conservation reference sizes for bluefin tuna specified under the convention. By making this amendment, all minimum conservation reference sizes will be specified within one regulation rather than contained in different pieces of retained EU law, ensuring clarity within our domestic legislation.
In addition to amending retained EU law, Regulation 9 of this instrument amends the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture Regulations 2019 to remove references to obsolete legislation. Specifically, amendments have been made to remove provisions relating to retained EU law; they have been removed and replaced with Regulation EU 2017/2107, which lays down management conservation and control measures within the conservation area of ICCAT.
The devolved Administrations are supportive of the amendments made in this instrument, ensuring that the UK can continue to meet in full its obligations as an independent contracting party to the ICCAT convention. If this instrument is not passed, the UK will not only fail to meet its international obligations under the convention; by not implementing enforceable management and traceability systems, we risk undermining efforts made over the past 17 years to ensure the sustainable management of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks.
I hope that I have reassured all noble Lords on the purposes and aims of this statutory instrument, ensuring the continued sustainable management of this important fishery. For the reasons I have set out, I commend the regulations to the Committee. I thank noble Lords for their attention and remain at their disposal for any questions or discussion on this matter.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument, which covers the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, known as the convention.
While a member of the EU, the UK had no quota for tuna and tuna-like species. However, following Brexit, we are entitled to a quota as tuna stocks have apparently improved. The SI makes changes to retained EU law in eight previous sets of regulations, including the Common Fisheries Policy and Aquaculture (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. That is quite a lot of change and I am grateful to the Minister for going through each of the eight sets of regulations.
Paragraph 7.2 of this instrument’s Explanatory Memorandum explains how the UK has acquired a quota for bluefin tuna
“as an independent contracting party … in line with the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement”.
From hereon in I shall refer to “BFT” because, as noble Lords can hear, I am getting tongue-tied in saying “bluefin tuna”. Despite not stating what the quota is, the EM indicates how the requirements will apply to UK fishing vessels catching BFT in the convention area; this includes the
“offence, penalty, and enforcement provisions”,
which
“have been added directly to relevant retained EU law to avoid … ambiguity as to whether existing enforcement provisions would apply to the newly amended provisions”.
A read through the government website’s guidance gives information about the size and length of the vessels, as well as the bait, to be used for catching BFT. It also gives detailed information about how such catch can and cannot be landed, including returning undersized live tuna to the sea, recording all catch and keeping on board dead catch for which there is no authorisation for landing.
However, it is not exactly crystal-clear. According to the government website, but not the EM, the BFT quota allocated in 2023 was 65 tonnes—an increase on the quotas for 2021 and 2022. The UK is to use 39 tonnes of that quota to trial a new, small-scale commercial fishery to see whether it will benefit UK fishers. Assuming that the 2024 quota remains the same as the 2023 one—65 tonnes—this leaves 26 tonnes of BFT to be distributed between a possible 10 available licensed authorisations. I am neither a commercial fisher nor a recreational one, but it seems to me that potentially receiving only just over 2 tonnes of the BFT quota will not be sufficient for many, especially in the commercial sector. I note that the regulations prohibit farming and the use of traps in UK waters or by UK vessels in the convention area for BFT. This is a good thing if enforced.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comprehensive and detailed introduction. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, went into some detail about what is in the SI, so I do not need to go over it all again.
As the noble Lord mentioned, it is important that tuna catches are managed sustainably—so it is important that we have this SI—and that must be done while we fulfil our international obligations. We have heard that bluefin tuna stocks in our seas have increased recently. That is incredibly important, but it is also important, as the noble Baroness said, that that recovery is properly protected. It is good that we are debating those aspects.
I will raise two brief points. The noble Baroness talked about quotas. Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the tuna catch quota. As she said, we did not previously have a separate quota because we came under EU rules. It would be good to understand what our quota is now and how it is operating now we have left the EU, because it is not clear what kind of catches will be allowed. If we are to manage the increase in stocks, it is important that this is clear to everybody.
Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the targeted consultation. I thank the noble Baroness for going into such detail about this, because when I clicked on the website link it would not work.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
It did not work for me the first time either.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord can take that away and make sure the link works properly in the future. It was a bit frustrating that I could not get any detail on it. Having said that, we completely support this legislation and we need to move on with it.
Sustainable Farming Incentive: Species Management and ELMS
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, on securing this important debate and on his excellent introduction to the subject, and welcome the Minister to his first debate in the Chamber. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Sewell of Sanderstead, who is a pleasure to follow, that there is a lot of innovation in science and technology going on in the agriculture industry already.
Every day of every year, the country and its residents ask farmers to perform a miracle. Without this miracle, we simply could not survive as a human population. We ask them to produce the healthy, nutritious and affordable food that sustains us all as a human population. At the same time, we ask them to deliver positive outcomes for the environment, our landscapes and our biodiversity. I have met countless farmers who have decided to ignore the binary choice of producing food or improving the environment. They already embrace a farming approach that seeks to deliver the production of food alongside, and in harmony with, environmental enhancement and biodiversity gain.
There is a great deal of consensus, both within this Chamber and across our rural communities, that this approach is the only way to succeed in future. We cannot deal with the nation’s vital food security without our hard-working farmers. At the same time, it is impossible to rectify the environmental damage that has occurred in recent decades without the help, support and local knowledge that exists within our farming communities.
When first introduced, ELMS had three strands—sustainable farming initiative, local nature recovery and landscape recovery. SFI was a universal scheme available to all farmers and those with land-managing responsibilities. But there have been changes along the way. In January 2023 came the announcement that ELMS would no longer introduce a new local nature recovery scheme. This would instead evolve into the existing Countryside Stewardship scheme. The Government’s rollout of ELMS has been criticised for creating complexity and uncertainty among farmers and other land managers, as was excellently demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan.
If the recent changes to SFI announced by the Secretary of State do not underpin this crucially important balance, it will fail. Unfortunately, recent experience with the SFI does not bode well. Since the original launch of the SFI, we have seen flip-flopping after flip-flopping of the measures being incentivised. The constant altering of payment rates and a horrendous underspend have seen farmers’ funding cut by circa 50%, while at the same time their prospects of receiving new funding have become more and more challenging. While there are substantial increases to a few payment options in the January announcement, many are unchanged. There is less than hoped for to attract upland and hill farmers to change their farming practices to deliver more for nature, given that much land is tenanted or common land.
Establishing a single application process to enable farmers to apply for the SFI and the mid-tier Country Stewardship scheme at the same time is welcome. However, the Government have said that this new scheme will be available from summer 2024. The Country Land and Business Association has criticised the Government for not opening the applications for the updated scheme until summer 2024, arguing that farm businesses urgently need more financial support.
It takes six to 18 months to negotiate a Commons agreement, so if the detail is not available until summer 2024, new agreements will not start until late 2025. This is all taking too long. While there are some generous supplements proposed for rewetting and natural flood management, these require farmers and commoners to be able to undertake capital works. But the requirement to defray those substantial costs in advance before being reimbursed remains a major block to moorland restoration. Overall, for the uplands it is too little, too slow and too vague. Historically, this Government wanted to achieve 70% of farmers entering 70% of their land into the SFI. Today, less than 10% of farmers have applied to SFI.
In turn, an annual underspend of over £100 million in such an important policy area is bad enough, but when, in the last few years, over £100 million a year has been taken from the funding that was already going to the very community we are seeking to support, it is almost unforgivable.
The underspending on the farming budget is justly criticised. As part of the rollout, the Government said that they would maintain the annual farming budget for England at £2.4 billion, as has already been referred to. However, as has already been said, the Guardian reported that the figures from Defra indicated that there was an underspend in the Government’s environment farming schemes of £110 million in 2021-22 and £117 million in 2022-23.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for raising the issue of the land use framework. Can the Minister perhaps say when, if ever, it will be published?
I concede that the announcements made by the Secretary of State earlier this month have seen some improvements. For example, increased payment rates for species-rich grassland are welcome and long overdue, but let us be clear: this covers only around 0.1% of farmland in this country. There is precious little in these changes to support biodiversity improvement in the remaining grasslands, which can, if properly managed, become a thriving habitat for many iconic species in this country. I am sure that this House does not need to be reminded that we have lost over 90% of our hay meadows since the 1930s.
This is not about creating a chocolate box vision of a bygone era. Diversity of species benefits so much more than the simple flora and fauna of a field. We are now recognising the importance of multispecies pastures as reservoirs of beneficial predators. The technical term biological pest control, which is standard practice today in more than half of our horticulture production, is, at its heart, little more than the eradication of pest, disease or weed populations by a natural predator, whose population can be encouraged by a richer tapestry of habitats for food production and environment. I am afraid that I see little in the Secretary of State’s announcements in this area.
The NFU has always supported sustainable food production alongside environmental work, provided that domestic food production levels are at least maintained, but the impact of this updated SFI is not clear. For arable farmers, some of the best-paying options are where they take land out of production—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich referred to this.
On species management, the Government have said that the ELM scheme will support species recovery and management action by farmers, landowners and other managers. The Forestry Commission argues that, although wild deer contribute to the UK’s biodiversity, they can have a negative impact, because they browse on the seedlings and regrowth of certain trees and plant species. Deer populations are currently unsustainable and culling is now necessary. The same applies to the grey squirrel population. The Government have to provide realistic future certainty on a clear and stable ELM scheme, rather than this intensely frustrating drip feed of SFI options.
With 10 Secretaries of State in 13 years, it is perhaps not surprising that the Conservatives have failed to grasp the biggest opportunity in 70 years to recover nature. During the last seven-year period of mismanagement, the Conservatives have, unbelievably, increased core Defra staff almost fourfold, from 1,800 in 2016 to nearly 7,000 in 2023. Investing in nature is good value, and the Liberal Democrats will increase the agricultural budget by an additional £1 billion to ensure that farmers get the fair deal they deserve.
I strongly support using ELMS to support biodiversity, as I have highlighted, including specific management to support populations of endangered species in all habitats across the UK landscape. However, we will not achieve that with the current set of announcements, or without taking farmers with us on a journey where they can be properly rewarded for the vital role they play in addressing the declines we have seen in too many species across the UK. If the current Government continue as they are, with uncertainty and incompetence, before long it may well be the British farmer who becomes the endangered species.
Water Pollution
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her kind words, which are greatly appreciated. We will be implementing Schedule 3 to the water management Act, as previously announced. I hope that that addresses my noble friend’s question.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his first outing at the Dispatch Box. It is clear from whistleblower evidence in the recent BBC “Panorama” investigation into water pollution that water companies can and do cheat the operator self-monitoring test by manipulating flows at failing sewage works. This ensures that there is no flow to sample when the official tester arrives. Will the Government concede that trusting companies that are financially motivated to cover up failing works to avoid penalties from Ofwat to carry out their own testing is not an effective regulatory system? Will they commit to putting robust independent regulation in place to ensure sewage works’ compliance?
Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)
Water companies, including United Utilities, have always been required to report pollution incidents and breaches of their permits to the Environment Agency. The agency also monitors and inspects water company sites independently. It has significantly driven up monitoring and transparency from water companies in recent years. Any reports of misreporting are a concern and, if there is evidence, the Environment Agency will always take action, including pursuing and prosecuting companies that are deliberately obstructive.
Storm Babet: Flooding
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, first, as the Statement does, I offer our thoughts and deepest sympathies to all those affected by the devastating floods, with hundreds of people left homeless and, tragically, some losing their lives. I also thank our emergency services, local councils and the Environment Agency for their efforts to keep people safe.
Unfortunately, events such as Storm Babet that bring terrible floods are not just unexpected any more but are increasing in frequency and severity as we see the effects of climate change. Yet, although extreme rainfall and flooding is becoming more common, climate scientists have warned that the UK is unprepared to deal with this type of weather. One example is Dr Jess Neumann, a flooding expert at the University of Reading, who has said that the UK should not be thinking about events such as Storm Babet as “a one-off freak event”, saying:
“Flooding is the greatest natural hazard that faces the UK.”
Dr Neumann also stated that we are still building too many homes on flood plains and that the Government must support people to make their homes more prepared for flooding.
The Committee on Climate Change has estimated that 1.8 million people are living in areas of the UK that are at significant risk of flooding. This figure is projected to increase to 2.6 million by the 2050s if global temperatures rise by 2 degrees, which is, worryingly, very possible. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to take our climate change goals more seriously so that our country is better prepared for such events in future?
When this Statement was debated in the other place, concerns were raised that the National Infrastructure Commission had stated that
“there is no measurable long term national target to reduce flood risk … and the current target does not factor in risk increasing due to climate change”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/10/23; col. 617.]
I ask the Minister to explain why this is the case, and whether the Government are going to review this clearly deeply unsatisfactory situation?
We have just finished the levelling-up Bill and during the debates concerns were raised about the number of properties in the UK that are in danger of flooding, and that this is not sufficiently taken account of when it comes to planning and development. In fact, your Lordships’ House felt strongly enough on this issue to send an amendment to the Commons, which the Government chose to reject. According to the Environment Agency, more than half of local planning authorities rarely surveyed or never inspected new developments to check that flood-risk planning conditions had been carried out. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, discussed this during the debates and mentioned research that demonstrated that almost one-third of homes built in the five most flood-prone areas were approved without a flood assessment. So I ask the Minister to explain why this is happening and what can be done to improve mapping of flood-prone areas to better understand the challenges and the areas that are most at risk? We need to end the practice of just reacting to a disaster as it is happening.
The Statement refers to the emergency response centre that was set up to manage the flood risk this time around. Does the Minister not agree that there is an urgent need to plan for the long term? A Labour Government would establish a COBRA-style flood-preparedness task force every winter, to protect communities from the dangers of flooding ahead of serious events. This would co-ordinate central government, local authorities and emergency services each winter, to minimise the risk ahead of time.
Unfortunately, it is extremely likely that we are going to see more violent storms and increased flooding over the coming years. The Government have to get a grip on this issue and do all they can to support communities and put in long-term plans to decrease and manage the risk. We need government to take responsibility for managing the increasing impacts of climate change and flooding. Unfortunately, it seems that the Government have been rolling back from their climate-change pledges. So I ask the Minister whether he supports this direction of travel because, unless the Government change their approach, the devastating impact of storms is only set to get worse?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, first, I send my condolences to the families who suffered bereavement as a result of the storm. I also commiserate with those who were flooded, losing possessions and experiencing considerable heart-breaking inconvenience. I thank all the services who went more than the extra mile to help those affected by the rising flood waters: the Environment Agency, local authorities, the fire service, the police and ambulance services, the RNLI and the coastguard services. All were involved to some extent in rescuing people and ensuring they were safe and that flood waters were dealt with quickly and efficiently.
We cannot control directly the level of rainfall, but we can be prepared for when it is likely to occur. Our advance-weather warning systems are extremely sophisticated and of tremendous benefit in helping to prepare for the worst. Can the Minister reassure the House that the early-warning systems are working and efficient, and that those properties at risk of flooding get the necessary advance warning needed for them to prepare for the approaching storms and rising river levels?
Farmers are severely disadvantaged by storms and flooding, but at least with advance warning they are able to gather in their stock and keep it safe. We no longer see low-lying fields littered with the carcasses of drowned sheep when the waters recede, which has happened in the past. However, arable farmers are not able to save their crops, and those operating on the levels and other flood plains have their livelihoods devastated by rising flood waters and are powerless to do anything about it. They deserve all the help they can get. I ask the Minister, who I know will have these farmers in his thoughts, whether the Government are able to offer them any form of compensation for their loss of vital crops?
Since 2015-16, considerable sums of money have been spent on specific hotspots of flooding. However, some of these flood defences were overrun. Some 300 flood warnings were issued by the Environment Agency and 1,258 properties were flooded. There have been reports that some flood defences were poorly maintained, causing them to be overrun. Can the Minister say how many of the flooded properties were in areas where flood defences have been strengthened since 2015-16?
The Statement tells us that in the period 2015 to 2021, £2.6 billion was spent on flood defences, securing 314,000 homes across England. This is an average of £8,250 per property protected. This is less than the cost of clearing up a property after a flood. In Derbyshire, £74 million of flood defence schemes were constructed, protecting 3,900 properties. These defences were strong and properties were protected. The Minister for Flooding indicated that the Government had increased the flooding budget for 2021 to 2027 to £5.2 billion. I assume that this is an extra £2.6 billion on top of the previous figure and not an extra £5.2 billion, which would make £7.9 billion. Can the Minister please confirm this?
I welcome that natural flood management is to receive some of this money. Natural flood management schemes of retention ponds, monitoring watercourse flows and trapping and capturing water, alongside grey water harvesting, are extremely effective and cheaper than hard defences and should be promoted and encouraged wherever possible. Preventing storm waters from reaching our towns, villages and cities is an essential part of assisting residents to help themselves to prepare for these once-in-100-year occurrences that seem to happen with increasing regularity.
I turn now to coastal erosion, which is a problem in certain areas of the country. In the West Country, it is an irregular occurrence for the sandstone cliffs to collapse on to the beach below and then into the sea. Mostly, this happens safely, but very occasionally there are casualties. I welcome the £200 million announced for flood and coastal resilience. Can the Minister say whether this is part of the £5.2 billion or in addition to it?
We have in the past debated the role of Flood Re in assisting those who live on flood plains and cannot get insurance cover. This scheme was started to assist domestic homes only. Over the years there have been calls for it to be expanded to cover businesses operating in areas of flood risk. Can the Minister give an update on the Government’s thinking on whether businesses are likely to be covered by Flood Re in the future? I am aware of the Government’s scheme Build Back Better to provide an extra £10,000 for householders flooded to improve their flood resilience. This is to be welcomed. Is the Minister able to say how successful this scheme has been and how many householders have been assisted under the scheme?
Local authorities are key to both flood prevention and resilience schemes and to assessing flood risk in the first place. Their planning departments collaborate with developers to attempt to ensure that flood resilience planning conditions are adhered to, but a lack of financial resources often means that they are stretched to monitor all such developments. Where flood risk is high, it is important for the Government and local authorities to encourage residents to join flood forums and work together to find solutions to mitigate the problems before they occur.
Lastly, I want to mention those agencies working around our coastlines to rescue people under appalling conditions. The RNLI goes out in all weathers to rescue those who are in difficulties at sea, and the havoc caused by Storm Babet was no exception. There will be many who owe their lives to the RNLI, which is a charity that receives no government funding.
I am aware that the Shetland coastguard helicopter airlifted 45 workers from the Stena Spey offshore drilling rig during the storms, and that the Department for Transport is proposing to alter the coastguard helicopter’s response time from 15 minutes to 60 minutes. This seems neither sensible nor safe. An hour is a long time in battling ferocious seas and weather. Would the Minister be prepared to ask his colleagues in DfT to reconsider this response time before lives are put at unnecessary risk?
We can help with flooding problems by addressing climate change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, laid out clearly. This aspect should not be ignored; it should be moved up the agenda.
Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before this House on 4 September 2023. Fluorinated greenhouse gases, also known as F-gases, are powerful greenhouse gases used mainly in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment, as well as for other uses such as medical inhalers. The most commonly used F-gases are known as hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
The purpose of this instrument is to correct a technical error in Regulation 517 of 2014, on fluorinated greenhouse gases, known as the F-gas regulation, which is retained EU law. The correction will ensure that annual quotas, which limit the quantity of HFCs that can be placed on the market in Great Britain each year, are calculated as intended. Pursuant to the Windsor Framework, separate EU F-gas legislation and systems apply in Northern Ireland.
For Great Britain, the F-gas regulation has provisions to phase down the amount of HFCs placed on the market for the first time. This is implemented using a quota system. Importers and producers may place on the market only up to the amount of the quota they hold. The regulation sets out a phase-down schedule, with the starting point being 2015. Every three years, the amount of quota issued to businesses is reduced, thereby driving a move to lower carbon options, while giving industry time and flexibility to choose how to transition to them.
The F-gas regulation provides for a 79% reduction of HFCs placed on the market by 2030. We have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015 through quota limits. Annual quota amounts allocated to businesses are calculated based on reference values. Article 16(3) provides for recalculation of the reference values by the appropriate regulator, based on the annual average of HFCs placed on the market by a business from a specified start date.
This statutory instrument corrects a technical error made in previous amending legislation relating to that start date. The start date should have been January 2015 but was erroneously changed to January 2021. If the error is not corrected, it will result in too little quota being issued to businesses. This was not the intended outcome when the F-gas regulation was retained and amended as part of the UK’s exit from the European Union. The intention was to retain the substance of the regulation, including the calculation of reference values and pace of phase-down of HFCs. Issuing too little quota to businesses would cause significant problems for HFC supply into Great Britain, disrupting sectors across the economy and business confidence.
The territorial application of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. The Environment Agency performs the functions set out in Article 16 of the F-gas regulation as the appropriate regulator for England and, under directions from Scottish and Welsh Governments, for Scotland and Wales. A GB-wide F-gas regime currently operates under the regulation. There is an F-gas common framework in place through which the UK, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations collaborate, including on the application of the GB-wide F-gas regime. Using the common framework working arrangements, devolved Administrations were engaged throughout the development of this instrument, and agreement between officials on its provisions was reached. I am pleased to say that ministerial consent has been provided by the Welsh and Scottish Governments. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered this instrument and cleared it without reporting it to the House at its meeting on 12 September.
In conclusion, making this correction is essential to ensure that our ambitious and world-leading phase-down is not undermined. We have already reduced HFC levels by 55% since 2015, through the F-gas regulation. To meet our international obligations, we also remain committed to reducing HFC consumption by 85% by 2036. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. At first glance, this seems like a very minor matter, a mistake having been made in the date of implementation of the regulations, 2021 having been substituted for 2015. That technical error does not appear to have been picked up quickly, despite annual quotas for HFCs being set and their importance to a range of essential products, including refrigeration, air conditioning, medical inhalers and fire extinguishers.
HFCs are regulated by quota, which, had the original date of 2021 been adhered to, would have resulted in businesses receiving too little quota. However, levels of HFCs have been reducing since 2015 by 55%, as the Minister has said, so progress is being made towards the 79% reduction required by 2030. I assume that the error was picked up only when the phase-down and three-year recalculation took place. The next recalculation is due in January 2024, and the deadline for its submission is 31 October, so it is a very tight timeline to correct the calculation error.
Although the recalculation does not affect technical operability, not having a consultation is interesting. The businesses that would have been adversely affected had this error not been identified and corrected would, presumably, have suffered at least a disadvantage to their operation, and I would have expected them to have a view on this and to have been consulted. There is also no impact assessment; it has been deemed unnecessary as the instrument corrects a technical error, but that error relates directly to the level of HFCs that can be used in the various products dependent on them.
Should the other place and this Committee refuse to endorse these regulations, there would be an impact on a number of particularly important businesses. However, I understand completely that, at the time of Brexit, the sheer number of SIs passing through Defra was enormous and some errors were unfortunately made. My only surprise was that this one took a while to surface. Nevertheless, I accept the importance of this SI and am content to support it as it stands.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the regulations before us. As has been stated, this is an unusually straightforward statutory instrument as it seeks solely to correct a date error in a piece of retained EU law relating to fluorinated greenhouse gases. Therefore, I plan to keep my contribution short.
However, to reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it is clear that the technical error, as outlined in Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which changed the baseline date for the annual quota system from 2015 to 2021, would have a detrimental impact on the businesses affected and make compliance challenging. It is also contrary to the policy intent. However, it is concerning that the SI is before us only today, when the deadline for recalculating the underlying reference values is 31 October. In other words, the dataset needs to be calculated next week, yet His Majesty’s Government have put this before us only seven days before the deadline. When was the error identified? Could the department have brought forward the instrument earlier to give assurance and clarity to business? Can the Minister also confirm that this is the last example of this error, and that we should not expect to see any more SIs of a similar nature in the coming weeks?
While I have the Minister’s attention, Paragraph 14.1 of the EM notes that a wider review of the F-gas regulation is under way. Can he update your Lordships’ House on the timelines for the review? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Water and Sewage Regulation (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his excellent introduction to this brilliant report. All contributors to the debate have raised the worrying operational methods of the water companies. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, raised the absence of water testing.
Water is a resource we have taken for granted for far too long. We assume there will always be a sufficient supply for our needs: we turn on our taps and are able to drink clean water, we can shower whenever we wish, and we assume that when we flush our toilets, the system will deal with it and all will be well. Sadly, those days are gone, and everyone has a part to play in ensuring that our water supply is plentiful and fit for purpose and that our streams, waterways and coastlines are not stinking and polluted.
Primarily, it is the role of the water authorities to ensure that water supply and sewage disposal are fit for purpose. However, there has been little infrastructure investment over a long period. No new reservoirs have been built since 1991 and are not likely to be before 2029. The population of this country, however, has increased dramatically over this period. Water authorities appear not to have taken any of this into account in their business plans or strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this absence.
There have been failures on all sides: Governments have not provided sufficient funding for enforcement or set a central direction, and Ofwat has not required water companies to provide sufficient investment in infrastructure but has encouraged keeping consumers’ bills low. The Minister has, in the past, raised the difficulty of increasing water bills. During a cost of living crisis, care is needed to protect the vulnerable to ensure that water supplies are not cut off due to inability to pay water and sewage charges—the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, referred to unaffordable bills.
It will be a challenge but there must be more investment in solutions. There do not need to be costly concrete constructions, which Defra seems to prefer; the lower-cost, nature-based solutions are much preferable. NBS help with restoring habitats, storing water, creating new woodlands and rewetting bogs. However, when such solutions are put before government, they are rejected in favour of costly concrete solutions, with technical specifications cited as a reason. In a time when water is seen as a finite resource, it is not reasonable to apply the same technical specification to nature-based solutions as apply to concrete ones. A quite different approach is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave an excellent example. Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra need to encourage nature-based solutions and, together, provide new guidance to make this happen. Reaching net zero is vital and if it is possible to assist in this process, then this should be a priority.
Nutrients are polluting our waterways due to runoff from both farming and housing developments. Developers have been dragging their feet on this issue. Due to the right to connect, they have failed to separate surface water runoff from foul water discharge. This has, in part, led to the current scandal of increased sewage overflows, especially when there has been no rain. Instead, developers should be encouraged to ensure that all new buildings have rainwater harvesting capabilities. It is time the right to connect was repealed.
I was dismayed to find that despite the vote in the Chamber banning nutrient discharge from housing developments, the Government are delaying the implementation of this measure, which would assist in improving countryside and wildlife habitats. Biodiversity net gain would have been mandatory in planning from November—that is, next month—but the Government have told developers that this will now not be implemented until sometime next year. Can the Minister say when exactly this law will be implemented and what the Government are doing to ensure that developers take rainwater harvesting seriously?
In April this year, the Government produced a plan for water: their integrated plan for developing clean and plentiful water. This was a step in the right direction but does not go far enough. An effective national water strategy is needed. Recently, the Secretary of State for Environment wrote to water companies via the Environment Agency, suggesting investment plans should be slowed down in order to keep water bills at a low level. This is a false economy. We need a water and sewerage infrastructure that is fit for purpose and can meet its current demands, not one that is antiquated, creaking at the knees and crumbling.
The Environment Agency has seen its budget cut drastically, from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20. Some increases have been made to its budget since then, but nothing takes it back to its original level and it does not account for intervening inflation. Underfunding has led a to lack of enforcement action, which is no longer a deterrent. The polluter pays principle is not taken seriously. Fines have been derisory compared to the profits which water companies have made.
Privatisation has led some water companies to put share dividends and directors’ bonuses before infrastructure investment. I noted in the report that it was suggested that no reward payments should be made when a water company did not meet its water quality targets. I fully support this view. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken eloquently on this.
In 2021, storm overflows, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, were used 325,533 times for 2.6 million hours. Given that polluted water is a human health risk, I support the view that individual CEOs and directors should be held personally accountable for failures, with the penalties increased dramatically for them. I fully support paragraphs 252 to 256 of the report. It is time the softly, softly approach was abandoned altogether. The mechanism is there in the Environment Act for this to happen. The Office for Environmental Protection has a critical role to play and has already demonstrated that it is up for the challenge.
As I said at the beginning, this is a problem where we all have to play a part. I turn to wet wipes. The vast majority of packaged wet wipes indicate that they are not flushable, but this is in ridiculously small print. It is time the consumer realised that by flushing wet wipes and other plastic items down the toilet, they are responsible for helping to create fatbergs which are clogging up our sewerage system. It is time to ban plastic in wet wipes, but do we really need consultation, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, indicated? Manufacturers should move away from plastics. The information on flushability must be on the front of the package and in a minimum of 10-point characters, so that a magnifying glass is not needed to read it. Consumer awareness should be raised via advertising.
My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted raised the issue of water usage by householders, including watering their gardens and washing their cars—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, indicated, should be minimised. Use by farmers, horticulturists and manufacturing industry must be minimised where possible. This must be coupled with a programme of reservoir provision, both small local and larger regional provision. Not to do so is to adopt the attitude of the ostrich. The water and sewerage system must meet the demands of the current population, which is not predicted to decrease: quite the opposite. I know the Minister is aware of the difficulties surrounding the water industry and I look forward to his response to the many justified questions raised in this debate, especially those from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
Farming: Net Zero
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord has great experience in this field. He is right that there are a great many tools available for use by farmers and their advisers to support on-farm calculations and audits. The Government and I share his concern because a number of those tools differ widely in their complexity and underlying methodology. We are therefore working at pace to find the most credible and consistent on-farm tools to assist farmers to understand their baselines and thereby to prove additionality, so that they can actively seek carbon credits and biodiversity credits, which will help them to hit net zero and their income accounts.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, everyone, including farmers, has to be committed and involved in attempting to achieve net zero. This year the Government turned away farmers from their higher-tier countryside stewardship and landscape recovery schemes. Those farmers were ambitious to cut greenhouse gas emissions and restore nature to the land. In future, is Defra likely to encourage farmers, rather than discouraging them from playing their part in cutting GHG?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not know where these stats come from. We have doubled the number of farmers in countryside stewardship. When we increased the rates two years ago, the number of farmers entering countryside stewardship doubled. I do not know where the noble Baroness is getting these figures.
Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, the regulations in front of us today deal with one specific aspect—a major aspect—of the Windsor Framework but, in another way, they are symptomatic of the wider problems in terms of the Government’s presentation of the Windsor Framework and the substance of the framework.
Turning first to the Government’s presentation, we have had a plethora of spin since the signing of the Windsor Framework. Indeed, when the England one-day international squad was announced the other day, I was surprised that, given the amount of spin, no government Minister had made it into the final 15. We saw at the time of the Windsor Framework the presentation of a veritable utopia for Northern Ireland. We were very much getting the best of both worlds. Some of that has been echoed by some of the phrases that have been mentioned today. There was no direct reference to unfettered access but we were told that this would create smooth access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was reiterated that it would remove the Irish Sea border—that was quoted by my noble friend Lord Dodds and I think I am accurately quoting what was said by the Minister today—and that we would have a situation in which there was a common approach to trade across the whole of the United Kingdom. All those things are a level of spin.
The best that can be said in relation to some of the proposals is that, in certain aspects, they may not be quite as bad as the protocol. However, let me draw on an analogy from my own life. About two years ago, roughly speaking, I underwent surgery. There was a certain level of uncertainty going into that surgery and I ended up with a toe being amputated. When I came round, I was ultimately glad that it was not two toes or a foot that had been amputated—what actually happened was clearly preferable to that situation. Was it analogous to the position that I had been in prior to that, with 10 toes? No, it was not. It certainly was not the best of both worlds, seen as some great leap forward. So it is with the regulations in front of us today.
We are told that this measure creates smooth access, and on other occasions unfettered access, with the rest of the United Kingdom—that is, it removes the Irish Sea border. However, as my colleagues have indicated, at best it can be said that it creates an alternative form of border in the Irish Sea. On the reality, let us again take one of the things said by the Minister: that it was a common approach across the United Kingdom. The analogy that was drawn in the Government’s Command Paper at the time of the Windsor Framework was that this would be the same type of paperwork as if you were transporting something from Southampton to the Isle of Wight.
However, anybody who takes a look at the regulations in detail will see, as has been indicated, that there will be SPS forms and an export number will be given. There will be border control posts and there will be a requirement that anybody who is looking to transport goods through this provision will have to be part of a trusted trader scheme. Indeed, if they fall foul of that, they could be excluded from that trusted trader scheme. I ask this genuinely: is this supposed to create a similar position and a common approach across the United Kingdom? Is that the case if we are transporting goods from Glasgow to Carlisle or from Southampton to the Isle of Wight? It is patently not the case. If the Government were to show at least a little bit of honesty and were to say that this is not the same level of burden as would be there under the original protocol, they could make that argument—but that is not what they have been saying and what they are saying is not the reality of the situation.
Similarly, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Dodds, what we have here—we should remember this specific aspect—is not about goods that are moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, to the European Union and to the single market. It is not even about goods that are deemed as being at risk of going into the European Union; then, at least, we could see some reasons for the levels of checks. This is specifically about goods of which it has to be proved that their end destination is within the United Kingdom, yet we have all these new burdens that have been put in place. There is a situation, as was indicated and outlined by my noble friend Lord Morrow, where this is in effect permitted to happen only at the grace and favour of the European Union. What if something that is entirely internal to the United Kingdom should be felt by the European Union not to be working or is in some way not acceptable to it? It could be withdrawn at a later stage on that basis.
Similarly, in terms of the practical realities, it is understandable that my colleagues and I will be deeply exercised about some of the wider constitutional implications of this. However, as has been highlighted by a number of colleagues, this also has deeply practical implications for trade. Mention has been made of the Tesco situation—I suspect that that will not be a unique situation—where the additional burdens that have been put in place by these regulations will lead to a direct divergence of trade. This is not some sort of ghost in the machine or empty threat; it is beginning to happen in reality, as we have seen. It is beginning to happen in reality with regard to haulage firms, where there is that divergence of trade. The reality is that, if you have a large company such as Tesco and if the supply chain is coming from the Republic of Ireland and other parts of the EU, it is a much better way of bringing goods into Northern Ireland. How much more difficult will it be for small and medium-sized firms, which are faced with the same level of bureaucracy but are not generating the same volume of trade? It is actually a much easier route.
That has implications for Northern Ireland, but it also—and this has been somewhat overlooked—has major implications for Great Britain too. If it is felt that accessing goods from the Republic of Ireland is an awful lot easier than accessing them from Great Britain, that will mean that British firms within mainland Great Britain will miss out on trade to Northern Ireland. It will have an economic impact for them as well.
Finally, on the concerns over these regulations, it has been highlighted by the committee that deep concerns have been raised in relation to process in terms of the way that this legislation has been brought forward. Mention has been made of the fact it was laid in the summer at a time when Parliament was not sitting, so there are issues around timing. There are issues around consultation, which does not seem particularly transparent at the very least. If we are most generous and say that there has been some level of consultation, none of us are particularly aware of what consultation has taken place. We are told that at some point in the future there may well be an impact assessment, but it has not been brought forward.
If it was one of those three things, that could perhaps be overlooked, but the combination of all three leads to only one of two conclusions or indeed to a combination of both. Either the Government in their approach to these regulations have been utterly disrespectful to Parliament in disregarding proper parliamentary process, or alternatively, by avoiding an impact assessment and minimising consultation by putting it out at a time when there is not the level of scrutiny, the Government seem to be sending out a signal that they are not particularly comfortable with close examination and scrutiny of these regulations because it would be seen that what is being put forward does not match up to what is there on the tin and what was said in the first few days of the Windsor Framework.
In terms of a positive way forward, it must surely be that the Government need to continue discussions to produce solutions which deliver what they said they were putting forward a number of months ago. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request from politicians in Northern Ireland—the effective removal of the Irish sea border. Similarly, the Government need to find political solutions which both communities can buy into because it is abundantly clear that what is there through these regulations and the wider political context is not bought into by the Unionist community within Northern Ireland.
By contrast, that is the positive way forward and the route which I urge the Government to take. This is why it is concerning—and we know that a lot of games will be played around this—that there is talk of the Government simply jumping in and imposing solutions which simply disregard where Unionist opinion, and indeed wider opinion within Northern Ireland, lies. That is a route of madness, and we need, as we have seen throughout decades in Northern Ireland and perhaps learned to our cost, to get solutions to which there is buy-in by both communities.
The Government are in danger of repeating the phrase that was used about the Bourbons: that ultimately they forgot nothing, and they learned nothing. Let us not see the Government go down that route. Even at this eleventh hour, they should start taking actions which respect all opinion within Northern Ireland and the integrity of trade within the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has set out the rationale for this SI. Others have contributed to the debate and given a less enthusiastic reception, to say the least. I regret that my knowledge of the history and the subject matter is far less than that of those sitting opposite me. It would be churlish to suggest that if we had not left the EU, we would not be debating this SI this afternoon. However, this SI will be an improvement for Northern Ireland on the bureaucratic regulations it is currently operating under, although I accept that others will not agree with this.
The Windsor Framework will create the new Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which will enable consignments to move around on the basis of a single certificate, without routine physical checks and on the basis of GB public health, marketing and organics standards. This will apply to agri-foods, wholesalers, caterers, et cetera, including those supplying food to public institutions, such as hospitals and schools. All this seems good to me.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: New Breeds
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I know that the Act is sometimes held up as a poster boy for the malign effect of knee-jerk legislative reaction to a terrible incident. However, as I said, the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro—the four species banned under the Act—are not breeds that have been involved in these awful attacks. One could therefore argue that there may have been more attacks if they had not been banned, but we are looking to make this effective and we want urgent action.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the phrase that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, is patchy as breeds vary considerably. Spaniels are excellent at identifying victims in earthquakes; border collies are excellent at working with sheep. Labradors are brilliant assistance dogs; Alsatians and Rottweilers are brilliant guard dogs. For all, it is part of their inherent nature. The DDA should be reviewed bearing this in mind. Will the Minister give assurances that, if such a review takes place, it takes account of more evidence than just a single video clip?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I absolutely can give that assurance. We in government are lay people in this. There are real experts who understand animal behaviour and lawyers who can advise us on what will stand up in court. If we are to review this Act, we must make sure that we do not lose any benefits we have had from it and that we keep this House informed of every stage of the process.
Combined Sewer Overflows
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I suggest I have a different understanding of how an OEP investigation works. Let me be absolutely clear about this: the OEP has not satisfied itself, on the balance of probabilities, that Defra has failed to comply with environmental law; rather, the OEP believes it has reasonable grounds for suspecting the Defra has failed to comply with environmental law and has asked us for more information to help it make its decision, and of course we are complying with this process. Her allegation is that this is a done deal; the OEP’s concerns that the Government have somehow broken the law is under discussion. We now have two months to reply, and the OEP then has two months to adjudicate.
The aims of the OEP investigation are to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the public authorities—Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency—and to determine whether they have failed to comply with their respective duties. The OEP will consider the responses from all three public authorities in detail before deciding next steps. We should not prejudge its conclusions. The OEP’s press release clearly states that:
“If the response changes the OEP’s view on whether there has been a failure to comply with the law, or sets out steps the public authority intends to take to rectify the failure, then the OEP may decide not to take any further action in relation to the alleged failure(s).”
My answer to her final question is: yes, of course we will comply. We have created the OEP to try to find the best possible way to hold government to account on environmental policy following our leaving the European Union, where we were subject to infraction fines if we had broken the law. Through the Environment Act, we wanted to create something that held government departments to account. We believe in the OEP and what it does, and we will certainly comply with its findings.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, in its statement on Tuesday, the OEP identified serious breaches of environmental law. Despite what appears to be heavy investment to combat combined sewer overflows, Defra is accused of breaking Sections 18 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and other water regulations in deliberately allowing sewage overflows to continue when there has been no rain. Given yesterday’s debate on nutrients, are the Government really serious about protecting the environment as set out in the Environment Act, or are they only paying lip service?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I know the noble Baroness well enough to know that she does not really believe that. We sat through hours and hours of debate on the Environment Act, the Agriculture Act and the Fisheries Act. She knows that this Government have done more to protect the environment and deal with the unacceptable problem, which has existed for centuries, of sewage going into our rivers. She knows that we are investing in monitoring. The previous Government did not have a clue: they knew of 7% of sewage outflows. I started that change in 2012, and we now know of 91%; by the end of this year, we will know of 100%. That light of transparency is helping resolve this problem.
We have a record investment programme of £56 billion to deal with the problem. We have tougher regulation: there was a debate on nutrients yesterday and a debate in the Grand Committee on increasing penalties for breaches of rules from £250,000, where they are capped, to unlimited amounts. That is an example of tougher regulation that we are bringing in. At the moment, we have the largest ever criminal investigation by the Environment Agency into this matter, and we have a very serious civil investigation by the regulator Ofwat. We are absolutely committed to dealing with this, and we are doing more than any other Government have done previously.