Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has, as always, introduced this SI with clarity. This SI relates to extended producer responsibility for packaging, whereby the producer pays a levy or tax for the waste that it produces, which is then collected by the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has in the past accused me of being “nerdy” over certain issues. I fear that waste is one of those issues.

The public consultation took place on this scheme from March to June 2021. As a result of the responses to the consultation, Defra has made changes to the scheme and the implementation date has been extended to 2024. The postponement of the implementation date, along with the possibility of changes to the scheme itself, has caused concern in the plastics and glass industries. On Monday evening, I attended a dinner hosted by the Industry and Parliamentary Trust entitled “Unpacking Waste Regulation: Extended Producer Responsibility”. The discussion around the table was fascinating with many raising concerns about the lack of clear and transparent goals.

I am also perturbed about the scope of the material facilities, referred to in the EM as “MFs”. There is nothing giving further information on what form these material facilities will take. Can the Minister give information on the distinct types of material facilities? Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that waste will arrive at the MFs unsorted. However, in many areas of the country, consumers are already separating their waste into glass, paper, card, plastic bottles, aluminium, steel et cetera. Consumers are up for helping with the problem of waste and separating it out themselves and should be encouraged to do so. What is needed is consistent kerbside recycling collections. What are the plans for this? There needs to be a complete plan for a circular waste economy. Can the Minister please give a timetable for the introduction of this?

Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a list of the responses to the consultation on the part of the Government. There is clarity over the collection of data on weighing and measuring the waste received and the collection of data will give a reasonably accurate picture of what is being produced, but what then happens to the waste? This is equally important. What it does not tell us is what happens to the waste. Does it go to incineration or chemical recycling or is it shipped offshore to be dealt with by other countries, such as Turkey? Currently, 60% of our waste is sent to Turkey. Can the Minister say what will happen with glass?

Paragraph 11 indicates that guidance will be issued for materials facilities in advance of October 2024 when the regulation comes into force. I am not sure whether the Minister said that that guidance had been issued. If not, he will understand that businesses need a long time to adapt to new regulations, in some cases as long as 18 months. However, it is already too late for that deadline to be met. Has the guidance been produced? If not, when is it likely to be produced?

The original proposals were for 60 kilograms of every 125 tonnes of mixed waste from each supplier to be tested. This has now been increased to 60 kilograms for every 75 tonnes of waste. Are suppliers likely to have mixed waste? Will it not already be separated? Some MFs deal with single waste streams or already separated waste while others do not. Can the Minister say what percentage of MFs receive separated waste and what percentage receive mixed waste?

Although this SI is an excellent step forward, there has been a lot of delay and uncertainty. Are the Government confident that the infrastructure is there to deal with the implementation?

I turn to the impacts set out in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid it is simply not true that there is

“no significant impact on business”,

as stated in paragraph 12.1. The DRS itself is likely to add 10p per bottle, which is unlikely to be absorbed by businesses. In paragraph 12.4, the number of MFs in scope is reduced from 739 to 159. This is a dramatic reduction; can the Minister please explain it?

Paragraph 12.6 refers to

“a larger proportion of privately operated facilities”,

thus reducing the cost to local authorities. However, some local authorities may not have their own facilities. How many local authorities use privately run facilities? There will undoubtedly be additional costs to local authorities, despite the offset to be received from the EPR levy.

Who, or which organisation, will the EPR scheme administrator be, and when is the appointment likely to be? It will be important for local authorities and businesses to know this in sufficient time before the implementation.

I apologise for the number of questions, but I am keenly interested in this subject and ensuring that the scheme operates effectively. I support the SI but am concerned that its implementation should operate efficiently and effectively.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?

A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?

Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must

“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.

Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?

During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved. In doing so, I hope that it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2023.

The purpose of the instruments before the Committee is to strengthen environmental civil sanctions and provide environmental regulators with the tools that they need to hold operators to account. The instruments have been grouped as they form a package of amendments to the civil sanctions available to Natural England and the Environment Agency.

A public consultation on these proposed changes was held earlier this year, first trailed in the plan for water, and received majority support from the public and a range of operators under the legislation in question. Strengthening regulations that hold polluters to account, from water companies to waste operators, is part of the Government’s wider plan to reduce pollution and protect the biodiversity and ecology of our natural environment. Earlier this year, we published our environmental improvement plan. It provides an ambitious five-year road map for a cleaner, greener country, with a delivery plan for restoring nature and improving environmental quality across the board. We have since gone further with our comprehensive integrated plan for water, which will deliver clean and plentiful water.

To deliver on our ambitions, we must ensure that regulators have all the tools they need to take action on unacceptable breaches of environmental regulations. The current provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 is capped at £250,000. This means that some operators may think that they can price in the penalty rather than follow the law. Therefore, current penalties do not act as a strong deterrent, particularly for large operators with significant turnover.

The limitation can be resolved by the amendments before the Committee today, which will entirely remove the cap. This will future-proof penalties to ensure that Natural England and the Environment Agency can determine the amount of the penalty in line with their enforcement policy. Penalties will be based on the degree of environmental harm and culpability as well as the size of the operator, ensuring that penalties are calibrated to act as a proportionate deterrent and punishment.

Currently, there is no provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The majority of Environmental Agency investigations are conducted under the environmental permitting regulations but the agency is limited in its enforcement options to warnings, advice, guidance or criminal prosecutions. A “justice gap” exists for moderate to severe offences. This limitation can be resolved by the instruments, which will introduce variable monetary penalties to the environmental permitting regulations.

Strong safeguards for determining the penalty, including a requirement on the Environment Agency to take into account an operator’s ability to pay, remain in place. The Environment Agency will also continue to use the guidelines for environmental offences published by the independent Sentencing Council as the basis to determine the amounts of all variable monetary penalties. The guidelines include a number of safeguards to ensure that penalties are proportionate and take into account the size of an operator, its ability to pay, its degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the incident. The instruments require the environmental regulators to update and publish guidance that sets out their methodology for determining the amounts of these penalties. A consultation on updating the guidance has been launched and will ensure a fair, proportionate and consistent approach.

The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area. The Government’s environmental improvement plan and integrated plan for water make our commitment to protect the environment clear. These instruments will ensure that the regulators are able to act swiftly against those who would threaten to harm it. They build on announcements earlier this year, with the proceeds of fines going into water improvement schemes through a new water restoration fund, and on water company dividends being linked to environmental performance. Together, this is a strong package designed to target those companies most egregiously harming our environment.

I commend this draft instrument to the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on these two statutory instruments. It is regrettable but not entirely surprising that businesses find it cheaper to pay the current fine of up to £250,000 than to fix the problem causing the breach of environmental law. There have been numerous debates in the House on storm overflows and the resultant sewage spills into waterways. It is time that this was resolved in a way that effectively deters the polluters from their anti-social activities. I fully support the removal of the cap of £250,000 for a larger fine and hope that the threat of a more substantial fine will be a sufficient deterrent.

I have looked at the consultation questions and responses on changing the cap. There was enormous support, with 88% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals to change the cap. I smiled to myself when I saw that the lowest support for this change came from the waste and resource management and energy sectors. Some 27 organisations ranging across a wide variety of interests are listed as having taken part in the consultation, from the Clean Rivers Trust and the River Otter Fisheries Association to Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water. There was a good cross-section of responses.

I noted that there was some concern that removing the cap might result in disproportionately high penalties. This would obviously depend on how someone had been affected by the breach of legal protection; the Minister set out the process for assessing fines. A minor breach is unlikely to receive a high penalty whereas a major incident that results in contamination over a large area and on a scale that takes huge resources to clean up should, quite rightly, deserve a substantial penalty.

Only by implementing the “polluter pays” principle in full will our environment eventually be cleared up. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also supports closing the gaps in the enforcement regime. I fully support this SI.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we have been debating this amendment for some considerable time. There is a concern that we will not be able to get to the amendment with the real meat in it, so I will do my bit now.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her stamina and determination to do everything she can to protect animals from cruelty, harm and death no matter where they live. She has a reputation for being a doughty campaigner and is to be congratulated on agreeing to sponsor this Bill through the Lords. I have no interests to declare. I am not an animal expert but I have read the briefings.

This is a Bill that has government support. Originally, the measures would have been in the kept animals Bill, which was abandoned in favour of introducing various measures through Private Members’ Bills. This should have shortened the time taken to get measures on to the statute book. The glue traps Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was one such Bill; the Sharks Fin Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was another.

I apologise for not being present at Second Reading due to other commitments, but my noble friend Lord Rennard covered the ground very thoroughly at the time. Although not perfect, this Bill is short and to the point and bans the import into Great Britain of a trophy from an endangered animal that has been hunted. This trophy can be any part or derivative of an endangered animal that has been obtained by hunting.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully support the aims and objectives of this Bill, as I believe do the Labour Benches. However, from the number of amendments that have been tabled, it is obvious that this Bill does not have unanimous support on the Government Benches. But it does have overall support across the whole House, as the hunting of wild game animals, while a sport that attracts those with unlimited resources to spend on their pursuits, is abhorrent to the vast majority of the Chamber and the general public.

Turning to Amendment 1, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave—at length and very knowledgeably—the rationale for his amendment, which would in effect ensure that the Bill is not able to progress. The effect of this amendment is, first, to grant the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies that is beyond the scope of the proposed prohibition, which is intended to be a blanket ban. Secondly, the proposal is not a standard clause retained in conservation or animal welfare legislation. On that basis, we do not support this amendment.

I regret and apologise for the fact that I am not able to stay until the end of this evening’s business, which I suspect will be long-winded and repetitious. What we have before us this evening is a Minister of great integrity, knowledge and compassion alongside four female Members of the House from different political parties all attempting, on behalf of their parties, to enable the aims and objectives of this Bill to move towards ending animal trophy hunting by preventing the importation of those trophies into Great Britain.

I regret to say that, ranged on the other side, we have some of the landed gentry of the country—mostly hereditary Peers—doing their utmost to filibuster and talk the Bill out. They are entitled to express their views, of course. I generally have great regard for the contribution made to the work of this Chamber by the hereditary Peers, but I fear that, this evening, they will not do their reputation among their colleagues or the public at large any favours at all. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the opposers of this Bill will take the opportunity this evening to attempt to kill it off by filibustering to ensure that there is no Report stage due to a shortage of time. They do this because they know that if the Bill got to Report, none of their amendments would be passed and they would be roundly defeated.

This tactic was used to talk out the hereditary peers by-elections Bill, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and came mostly from a section of the Conservative Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would have us believe that trophy hunting is of great benefit to all, including the animals. I take completely the point about conservation and economics but the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the trophies themselves do not matter at all is breathtaking.

The hunting trophies Bill was in the Conservative 2019 manifesto. Although supporting the Conservative manifesto is not my main aim in life, I and my colleagues do support this Private Member’s Bill and are passionate about protecting endangered wild animals from the revolting practice of being killed for their body parts. In whatever way those opposing this Bill may argue their case, they are unlikely to get support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, after that speech, I should begin by declaring a few non-interests. I am not a hereditary Peer. I am not a landowner unless you count a small garden about half the size of this Chamber on the Hampshire/Berkshire border. I am not a trophy hunter, nor do I oppose the import of all trophies.

However, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment. I go back to where he started, namely with the markhor—that is, Capra falconeri, the screw-horned goat that is the national animal of Pakistan. Last year, I was lucky enough to see the extraordinary landscapes where these animals live in Baltistan, Chitral and Hunza; there are also isolated pockets of them in Afghanistan and India. In fact, they were thought to be extinct in India as recently as the 1990s and were in the most extreme category of UN extinction watch as recently as the end of the last century—that is, until their numbers were revived through the carefully targeted sale of a very small number of hunting licences, the revenue from which is reserved to local communities. Those communities then have every incentive to preserve habitats and are in effect turned into so many gamekeepers that they ensure that no animals except the elderly, post-reproductive males marked for culling are in danger. The result of that change is that the markhor has rebounded immensely.

It is not the case that trophy hunting is always a tool of conservation. That is why I say that I am not against the whole concept, but I want to speak in favour of the distinction that this amendment makes. Let me give an obvious example from the other side. There is no evidence that the ban on whale hunting has had a detrimental effect. On the contrary, the recovery of whale numbers has been one of the unremarked miracles of the past couple of decades. We have seen an amazing bounce-back in the number of humpbacks and bowheads although, sadly, we have not yet seen the same for blue or gray whales.

Even there, there is a habitat aspect to things. A lot of whales are killed because they swallow fishing gear that has been discarded or get in clashes with vessels. However, I am not going to argue—I do not think that anyone else will—that a hunting ban there is ineffective or that a trophy ban would make a difference but, where we are talking about habitats, it is vital to give local people an incentive to conserve that habitat. I cannot put it better than my noble friend Lord Lucas just did: it is easy for us to be sentimental at a distance about lions, tigers, elephants and so on because we do not have to live next to them. Without any incentive to preserve their numbers, local people will naturally see them as, at the very least, competitors for resources but also as a danger. Without the right incentives, they will have every reason to hunt them to extinction, as I am afraid human populations have done to large mammals on every continent going back to our hunter/gatherer days.

This amendment draws a distinction, giving the Secretary of State a last-ditch power to decide where there would be an unintended consequence for conservation. By the way, I would love to have a general power to stop unintended consequences of legislation. Almost always you get the most unintended consequences from Bills that have been passed in response to some public campaign. People have not thought through all the implications and we hear exactly the arguments that we are hearing tonight, that the public demand this law. If you are presented with, as a general proposition, the idea that we should not kill magnificent animals, then of course, everyone will agree with that—I would, and I hope that everyone would. However, we are looking at ways in which to modify this legislation so as not to have a detrimental effect on conservation.

I do not want to be accused of filibustering, so I will keep this very brief and close by saying that, as I understand it, that is precisely the reason why we exist here as a second Chamber. What function do we have if not to act as a break on the necessary radicalism of the popularly elected House? Being here, we have the privilege to look beyond the headlines and to consider in full the implications and the potential unintended consequences of laws that have been drafted in a knee-jerk way. This legislation is precisely an example of such lawmaking. Therefore, it seems to me the proper role of this Chamber to approve it and to take out the parts of it that would have the most harmful impacts.

Clothing Sales: Sustainability

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is a living example that buying from thrift shops is what we should all be doing. This month in particular, we should be encouraging people to do that. Slow fashion is the way forward. We need to continue to make sure that we are requiring manufacturers and retailers to make and sell goods that last longer, are properly supplied and do not go landfill when they come to the end of their natural life. Recycling is an emerging technology, but the most important thing is that we all stop buying so many new things.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste are created annually by the fashion industry. This is set to increase by 2030. Thinking of Marrakesh as an example, would the Minister agree that it would be better for this redundant clothing to go to parts of the world where people have lost their homes and possessions, instead of to landfill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Like everyone in this House, I pay huge tribute to those charities and organisations that do precisely that. It is absolutely vital that support is given to people in vulnerable circumstances who have lost everything so that they can clothe themselves and their families. It also shows us the importance in our lives of trying to develop policies, both as a Government and societally, so that we use less, consume less and, where we can, support those in need.

Orphan Sites: Hazardous Waste

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I once asked the then president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England what he thought the Government should do about fly- tipping and littering, and he said a shoot-to-kill policy. I think he was joking, but at times, I am sort of with him in spirit. The Government have provided more funds, increased the fines for fly-tipping and increased the ability of local authorities and the police to, for example, fine people for littering from a vehicle and to accept dashcam evidence. We are serious about trying to prevent this scourge. There is an organisation which now brings different groups of people together to assist landowners, who bear the brunt of fly-tipping, to minimise the chances of fly-tipping taking place in hotspots, but also provides them, through the local authority, with funding that will catch the criminals and take them to justice.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites can be enormous—as in the case of the sheepskin factory in Glastonbury bought by the previous RDA, where sections of land had to be abandoned. Given the extreme shortage of housing, does the Minister agree that it would be more cost-efficient to clean up orphan hazardous waste sites for new homes rather than paying to clear up newly and deliberately nutrient-polluted waterways? Given his comments on water pollution in the past, can he please explain the volte-face on this issue?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness is conflating two very different issues. What we are talking about here is orphan waste sites where the owner has in most cases gone out of business and nobody, in effect, owns them. We need a mechanism whereby an owner is found and the contaminated waste is cleared. What she is referring to is a system that has failed to unlock much-needed new housing and which has been grossly misrepresented with respect to its impact on our waterways. I would be very happy to have a longer debate with the noble Baroness on that matter.

Land Use in England Committee Report

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register as a vice-president of the LGA. I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle on his valedictory speech. His contribution will be sorely missed in the House after he has left us.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on his introduction to this debate and on his excellent chairmanship of the Land Use in England Committee, of which I was a member. The noble Lord is enthusiastic about the rural countryside, the environmental and economic well-being of the countryside and how it fits into and contributes to the prosperity of the whole of England.

The committee spent many hours listening to evidence from experts and those heavily involved in land use of one sort or another and reading the many and varied submissions we received. Had it not been for the tabling of this debate on the last day before the Recess, I am sure that more of our number would have taken part in the debate. The report of the committee was extensive and contained 41 recommendations. It was clear from the outset that our recommendations would not be confined to the work of Defra alone.

Our major recommendation was for the setting up of an independent land use commission which would cover five departments: DLUHC, representing housing, local government and planning; BEIS, representing the need for increased self-sufficiency in renewable energy, a vital growth area; DCMS, representing the need for access to nature and tourism, including rights of way, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser; the Department for Transport, representing the need for transport infrastructure; and of course Defra, representing the interests of food, biodiversity and forestry.

The government response to the report is to bring forward a land use framework, which will be the purview of Defra alone. Can the Minister say when this is going to be brought forward? How wide-ranging will it be? Is it going to cover agricultural land alone?

The inference is that experts will devise the framework. Experts tend to have their own agendas; we need those with a wider field of vision to bring to the issue of land use, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred to.

The land use committee heard evidence from a wide range of sources. One emerging theme was the uncertainty felt by the farming community about the implementation of ELMS, which was heralded as a saviour of the landscape during the Brexit negotiations. The three strands—the sustainable farming incentive, local nature recovery and landscape recovery—are all important, but there is such uncertainty in the NFU farming community that take-up has been slow. The last, landscape recovery, has yet to announce its first round of applications, which should happen “shortly”. Can the Minister say whether this will be before we return in September, before the King’s Speech or perhaps before Christmas?

Local nature recovery strategies are an essential element of land use and for recovery. The noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, made an excellent case for LNRS during her recent regret Motion but, however excellent local nature recovery strategies are, they will fail if more emphasis is not placed on their importance and if they are not properly resourced, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. The current language around local authorities’ powers and duties under the Environment Act—“having due regard” to ensure LNRS are successful—is weak and ineffective. This is a missed opportunity to give some real backbone to, and ensure proper resourcing of, this vital strand of biodiversity recovery.

Another flag in the committee’s report was biodiversity net gain—what developers can contribute at the same time as they appear to destroy. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, referred to this. Biodiversity net gain off site is not acceptable and gives no real ownership to developers of the impact of their actions. BNG must be on site and considered at the initial planning stage. Loss of habitat equates very quickly to loss of species; the only way to prevent this is to take it into account at the start of the development process.

Land use change is an inevitable consequence of climate change mitigation and adaptation. The NFU believes that we need a multifunctional land use strategy that manages the risk of significant competition between land use categories. Local authorities are the planning authorities and are governed by national planning policies. They need to facilitate agricultural modernisation and productivity growth at the same time as meeting biodiversity, public amenity and landscape culture. This must be done by working on environmental market principles while recognising and ensuring the involvement of tenant farmers, who should be able to benefit from the services from the land—after all, they farm 64% of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Rock, referred to this.

While there have been a handful of questions in the Chamber on biodiversity, there have been plenty on water quality and availability. Reducing the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment pollution from agriculture in our waterways is vital. However, can the Minister say why agriculture is expected to carry the whole weight of reducing this, while water companies are asked to do nothing, despite contributing between one-quarter and one-third of all nitrogen pollution?

It is a great pity that the date of this debate has meant that the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, cannot be present to press the case for tree planting and woodland preservation. Defra is keen to increase woodland cover from 14.5% to 17.5% of the total land area in England, with 11 million trees. While it is important that more trees are planted, it must be the right trees in the right places. Farmers and land managers are willing to take part in this role of meeting environmental change to our countryside, but this must be alongside providing food for the nation.

While the public, if asked, are behind the Government’s plans to stop the decline in biodiversity, increase woodland cover and re-establish species recovery, they are also enthusiastic about producing our own food, and want to support British farmers and producers whenever they can. This is a balancing act, but one which the farming community is ready to engage with. They do need clarity, as farming is not a short-term activity but one which needs careful planning and preparation, especially for the tenant farmers. Clarity around the ELMS programme is still a drawback for many farmers, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has referred to this. The land they either rent or own has a role to play in a land use strategy. The Government cannot ignore the role of these farmers when they produce a land use framework.

The Government’s response to the committee’s report was underwhelming and is a missed opportunity to do something really effective. I wonder whether the Government really understand the impact they could have if they got it right. Given the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I am somewhat timid in making my next point, but I am going to do it anyway. The Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, that housing development would be exclusively in cities and large towns, has sounded the death knell for our rural communities. This demonstrates how vitally a multinational, multicultural strategy is needed.

There will now be no low-cost housing for young people, young couples or young families in rural areas. This will result in social engineering on a grand scale. Who will provide the children for our rural schools? Where will the teachers, the voluntary firefighters, the police officers, the hairdressers, the nurses and the farm workers live? All of these are essential occupations in rural hamlets and villages. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle referred to the need for sustainable housing. Having no new homes means fewer residents, which means fewer bus services. Young people will be unable to mix in the evenings, and young people do need each other. They are noisy and they like loud music, but they are full of life and need stimulation and something to do. They will be pushed out of the countryside.

This announcement may well deliver the number of homes the Government have promised, but it is very short-sighted. I am not surprised; the lack of a proper rural strategy is about to come home to roost. Rural areas are not just about agriculture and farming. There is a real need for a vision for land use that covers departments other than Defra, and many others have referred to this. The Government’s response is, sadly, a missed opportunity to make a real difference, and I remain deeply disappointed.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, a notable champion of animal welfare, has laid out with clarity the measures in the Bill and the penalties attached for non-compliance. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, another champion of animal welfare.

I fully support the aims of the Bill, which was trailed in the Government’s Our Action Plan for Animal Welfare, published in 2021 by the then Secretary of State George Eustice. I have received briefings giving details of the harm and suffering caused to animals forced to perform acts that are unnatural to them in order to please tourists.

In the past, it has sometimes been the case that a family with a terminally ill child would take that child abroad to swim with a dolphin. It is a natural reaction of a loving parent to give their child a unique opportunity in the last months of their life, but the other side of this type of tourism also has to be considered. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, listed the appalling treatment meted out to some of these animals.

The Government are obviously supporting this Private Member’s Bill, but to protect animals abroad from unnecessary cruelty it should be borne in mind that curtailing the freedom of choice for the tourist is necessary. It is not ethical to keep wild animals in restricted captivity that does not allow them freedom to roam. Such restriction may cause them to behave in an uncertain fashion. The interaction of humans with wild animals is fraught with danger. Encounters could encourage the transmission of zoonotic diseases. There could be incidents where a visiting tourist may be injured or even killed—the noble Lord, Lord Black, referred to 700 tourists being killed. Banning the promotion of tourist activities abroad involving interaction with wild animals that would not be permitted under our domestic law is the right way forward. In 2022, Savanta conducted an online survey in 15 countries, including the UK, commissioned by World Animal Protection; 81% of UK responders agreed that countries should stop the commercial exploitation of wild animals.

I fully support the ethos and aims of the Bill but, as I am sure the Minister expects, I have some questions. I have read the Hansard transcripts of Second and Third Readings in the other place and I am fully conversant with the types of appalling activities that the Bill is attempting to prevent. Discouraging direct tourism from engaging with wild animals is clearly essential.

The Bill makes it clear that the measures apply only to England and Northern Ireland. It also gives immunity to anyone advertising these activities by means of electronic transmission. This means that if, for instance, I go online and search, “riding with elephants in Thailand”, I will get an almost immediate response and a choice of providers with which I can book. At some point, I assume, I will have to put in my address and, if the address is in England or Northern Ireland, the advertiser will then say, “I’m sorry, but we can’t help you; we operate out of England and Northern Ireland”, or whichever it may be. However, if the advertiser is operating out of Wales and Scotland, I assume that I can then book what could be the trip of a lifetime. This seems like a massive loophole.

Another loophole concerns the use of the phrase “principal market” in Clause 2(5)(b) for anyone printing anything outside the UK, and whose principal market is not the UK. It will be difficult for an enforcement agency to determine what constitutes a principal market and subsequently demonstrate that the company has passed a threshold for a principal market. Furthermore, it will be difficult to prove that a principal market is within the UK and so an offence has been committed. Removing the word “principal” from Clause 2(5)(b) would mean that the legislation would cover any advertisement intended for England or Northern Ireland and would remove confusion. I realise that amending the Bill will cause it to be delayed or, worse, lost. Can the Minister indicate how we can strengthen the Bill without this happening?

There are 11 occasions in this short Bill when the phrase

“in a relevant part of the United Kingdom”

is used. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that this means England and Northern Ireland. So if I am not IT-literate or I prefer the personal touch, and I go to a travel agent and attempt to book such an experience, in England and Northern Ireland it will not be possible. However, if I live close to the borders of Wales or Scotland, I can nip across and make my booking there. Can the Minister reassure me that this will not happen? The Bill does not indicate that Wales and Scotland already have such a ban in place, and the noble Lord, Lord Black, has indicated that they do not. Are the Government consulting with the devolved Administrations to ensure that a ban is brought forward without delay? There is no mention in Hansard transcripts from the other place that this has been a consideration. Clause 2(6)(b) limits the scope of the legislation to persons carrying on a business

“in a relevant part of the United Kingdom at the time of the distribution”.

Would omitting the word “relevant” close this potential loophole? Can the Minister clarify how this loophole can be addressed?

I turn my attention to the issue of enforcement, and refer to my entry in the register as a vice-president of the LGA. The police are not involved in the enforcement breaches of this legislation. This is to be done by trading standards officers under the auspices of local authority weights and measures metrology departments. We have had debates previously about the shortage of professionally trained trading standards officers. Are the Government confident that there will be sufficient officers available to take on this additional work? The public are very keen that this Bill should work.

In short, we have a Bill that should work but which penalises only those who print and publish written literature, presumably in the form of flyers and posters, and not those who publish the same material online; plus the Bill’s powers extend to England and Northern Ireland but not to Wales and Scotland, where we have no physical borders. I am keen that this Bill should get on to the statute and that it should work, but currently I am unclear that it will achieve its objective. I am looking to the Minister for reassurance.

Domestic Animals: Welfare

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The dog charities are doing wonderful work on this. I particularly praise the Dogs Trust, having recently visited one of its rehoming units. There is a serious issue around people being encouraged to spend enormous amounts of money to import pets from countries such as Romania, with a heart-rending story involving the welfare of a dog from there. But we have a large number of dogs that need to be rehomed here, through a process that is properly managed by really good charities, such as the Dogs Trust. I urge people to take that path, rather than spending hundreds of pounds on what is becoming an industry. While some people are doing it well, some are not. I encourage people to go through a registered charity and home UK stray dogs that need rehoming as a priority.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we have debated a number of statutory instruments that aim to improve the health and well-being of animals, including those on the prevention of puppy and kitten smuggling, and on the latest ban of electric dog collars. In the past, commercial kennels have been regulated, including their size, weatherproofing and bedding, and the separation of dogs from different owners was introduced. Can the Minister say whether these measures have been successful? How often are commercial kennels inspected?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We work with local authorities to make sure that that is happening. There is a standard required and I am pleased that it has been brought in. I am open to any suggestions of where there has been a failure in regulation, inspection or the physical circumstances of a dog. It is important that this standard is universally applied.

Live Animals: Export Ban

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are in negotiations with the French authorities, and we want to make sure that there is a good border control post at Coquelles. That will assist us as well with the illegal import of products of animal origin, which are causing us great concern for biosecurity. I cannot give her an exact date, but I feel sure that a post will be created, and that will regularise the trade in both directions.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, on 3 December 2020, the Government published a consultation on the banning of the live export of animals for slaughter and fattening, and this closed in February 2021. This measure was included in the kept animals Bill that went through the Commons and was killed off in May. Are the Government now relying on a Private Member’s Bill to bring this measure forward?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

No, I am hoping that it will be a government Bill.

Water Industry: Financial Resilience

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. First, this will not impact on customers. Their bills are regulated by agreement with the regulator, Ofwat, and we do not expect any reduction in service—that is also strictly monitored. We think that investment by water companies into our water sector infrastructure is important, which is why we have agreed that there will be the largest-ever investment—£56 billion—to see our infrastructure further improve.

Since privatisation, £190 billion of capital investment has been made. In real terms, that is twice what was happening at the same rate prior to privatisation. We have also seen improvements in the provision of water for customers, and we want to see that continue. We look very carefully at, and work with, Ofwat and the water sector on concerns about leverage—I share the noble Baroness’s concern about some of the companies’ degree of leverage. It is interesting that the level dropped last year from 72%, where it was in 2021, to 68%, which was roughly the same as it was in 2005, having risen from 37% when the previous Government were in position. However, Thames Water in particular has a much higher leverage rate, which has rightly caused concern for the Government and the regulator. That is why we are working with it to make sure that it is viable. We believe that with £4.4 billion of liquidity in its business, it can trade through this.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Thames Water is not the only company causing concern: Southern Water, Yorkshire Water and South West Water were mentioned in the other place. Last year, £1.4 billion was paid out in dividends. Meanwhile, sewage poured into waterways, flooding affected many areas, and others had their water delivered in bottles. Ofwat cannot solve these problems. Surely it is time for the Government to take back control and sort out this essential service.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We think that the model that operates at the moment is the right one. We have seen more investment, but if the Government took back control, that would, in effect, put the onus back on the taxpayer. That would mean that I or the Secretary of State would have to get in the queue behind the health service, pensions, and all other areas of government spending to get the right levels of capital investment we need in the water industry.

We think that the £56 billion can be afforded at a relatively modest increase of around £12 per household. For roughly £1.20 a day, households receive the water they need and sewage and dirty water are removed from their homes, and there has been a massive increase in spending on the infrastructure we need, some of which is still in need of changes. Through this model, we have delivered a better outcome for the consumer and for the taxpayer. We have concerns, and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, certainly about the issues relating to Thames Water and one or two other companies. Ofwat has been proactive in trying to resolve the concerns with those companies, and we are watching the situation very closely.