Pollution: Rivers and Beaches

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have announced our targets in the provisions of the Environment Act—some of those are for 2035, and some are for 2038—and we will review them in 2027 to see how they are going. There are others that are more long term. There was an unfortunate mistake in a regret amendment last week, in which it was claimed, somehow, that we are pushing this out to 2063. What is absolutely true is that we are sticking to the requirements of the water framework directive, as we did when we were in the EU. We are emboldening that with other provisions, such as the ones in the amendments to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. So, there is a degree of urgency because we want these matters to be dealt with as quickly as possible. I urge the noble Lord not to listen to what was claimed in the regret amendment last week.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, Southern Water is a persistent offender and has been fined in the past for discharging sewage into coastal seas and waterways. Despite this, there has been no change in its working practices. People are suffering stomach upsets and ear infections—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, has referred to this. As heavy fines appear to make no difference, ahead of summer, does the Minister believe that the measures he has mentioned today will make a real difference to the quality of water around our coasts and keep our children and swimmers safe?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The measures we are bringing in can lead to fines of up to 10% of water companies’ turnover, and the inflicting of fines of over £100 million on a single water company. This will see a real drive towards raising standards across the piece, and not just in the area of enforcement. We have more enforcement officers in the Environment Agency to take up any complaints people have about water quality, but we are also making sure that we tie this in holistically. For example, our requirement that water companies get to net zero means no longer allowing sludge to be improperly applied to the land, and looking at such areas as a resource, rather than something that, ultimately, can pollute. We are working holistically across the water sector to improve the situation.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

I love the idea of the noble Lord’s field of wheat waving gently in the breeze and the sunlight, but does he not agree that certain genes in those wheat seeds are rather well conserved and, in fact, do not change? Indeed, certain genes are protected from mutation. Therefore, there is nothing to prevent us looking at analysis to see the frequency of certain mutations within the genome; perhaps we need to be doing that. The data there could be very useful in all sorts of ways.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with technical scientific issues and moving whole or parts of clauses from the negative procedure to the affirmative. Your Lordships will know that I am not a scientist so I shall, I hope, avoid digging a hole for myself or getting caught in the crossfire.

Amendment 12, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would require the details of genome sequencing to be recorded in a publicly available register. If the processes outlined in this Bill are to be carried forward successfully, it will be necessary for farmers, producers and the public especially to have confidence in the process. Ensuring that there is transparency and visibility through a publicly available register can only help this process. The DPRRC was strongly in favour of such a register in its report of 2 December.

Amendment 13, also from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to make the whole regulation in Clause 3 affirmative. Currently, the Bill is silent on whether Clause 3 is affirmative or negative. I suspect that, as it currently stands, Clause 4(6) applies to the whole of the section headed “Release”.

I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments in this group. At Second Reading and in Committee, concerns were raised at the number of negative procedures in the Bill. The Minister has tabled government Amendments 14 and 15 to Clause 4, which would qualify the section on marketing and keep subsection (1)(b) as negative while the rest of this clause will be moved to the affirmative procedure. This is welcome and gives the opportunity for debate on the notification requirements if necessary. Perhaps the Minister can clarify in his response whether Clauses 3 and 4 are covered by his Amendments 14 and 15. If not, can he say what process is applied for Clause 3? I am sorry; I may have misunderstood what this is all about.

Amendment 16, to Clause 6(4), moves regulations on the precision bred confirmation from negative to affirmative. We welcome the Minister’s movement on this point. This is a sensible way forward and, again, gives the opportunity for further debate.

Government Amendments 24 and 25 are somewhat confusing. Amendment 24 indicates that the regulations under Clause 18(1) are to be affirmative, and Amendment 25 deletes “this section” and inserts “subsection (6)”. I think this means that Clause 18(1) is affirmative while the rest of the clause is negative, as Clause 18(7) has not been amended. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification. It is important for when we come to debate these things later to know whether it is affirmative or negative. Although these are technical amendments, they are very important and provide transparency in the Bill, which is to be welcomed.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has tabled two amendments. Amendment 12 concerns the publicly available register. Clearly, transparency and information for the public will be important if we are to carry people with us, so we need to look at how we develop registers and information to reassure people and to give them the information that they need to have confidence in the legislation.

In Committee, my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, drew attention to the parallel piece of legislation, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, in which there is a requirement for the surrender of ongoing records containing the information about the impacts, both the positive and the adverse outcomes, on individuals used under the terms of that Act. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, read out an opinion which emphasised the importance of an audit trail, so there is a general feeling in this House that information and a public register are important.

Amendment 13 is also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its report on the Bill, which was very helpful. I reassure the Minister, who knows that we support the Bill, that what concerns us is that so much is left to an unknown number of SIs over an unspecified timescale. If the regulations in Clause 3 are under the affirmative procedure, Parliament will rightly have a formal role in improving the finer details of the release and marketing notices, crucially ensuring that we have proper political consensus on this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the Government have moved a number of clauses from the negative to the affirmative procedure. I will not go into all the detail, as she covered everything that I was going to ask about on this, since some of it is not crystal clear. We know that the Government can see that there is merit in moving from the negative to affirmative. Can the Minister clarify why not this clause as well if that is not the case, as this is important?

--- Later in debate ---

We believe these additional protections will have broad public support, as well as being in the interests of the animals involved. We welcome the fact that the Minister has set up this external body to give further advice. That does not go against the amendments that we have tabled. It may be that there are further regulations that need to come after this Bill goes through. That is fine, but it does not militate against our amendments at this time. I therefore give notice that, depending on the Minister’s response, I may be minded to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for tabling Amendments 17, 18 and 26. The Government have responded well to the concerns expressed in Committee about the number of negative procedures on some critical issues. Amendments 17 and 18 relate to Clause 11, “Application for precision bred animal marketing authorisation”, which is a key element of the Bill. Regulations under subsection (5) are moved to affirmative, and only subsection (9), which deals with regulations for precision-bred animal marketing authorisations for a relevant animal, are negative and reserved to the Secretary of State. While it would have been preferable for all that clause to be affirmative, we are pleased with this movement, as the change allows more debate on these issues in future.

I turn now to Amendments 19 and 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to which I have added my name—she introduced them fully, as always. The Government have been trying for a long time to introduce gene editing of plants and animals. Changing the name of this process to “precision engineering” has somewhat helped their case. At the heart of previous and current objections which have been raised over time against precision engineering is animal welfare.

Whenever a man, woman or child is to undergo a surgical or medical procedure, numerous forms have to be completed, and a consent form signed; in the case of a child, a parent or guardian signs. Animals undergoing genetic change have no such individual guardian, and they certainly cannot speak for themselves. It is therefore necessary for those of us in this Chamber to ensure that safeguards and trust are in place which will be robust. This trust is placed in the welfare advisory body. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to ethics in his comments on the first group of amendments, and the issue runs all through the Bill. The process is that the notifier applies to the Secretary of State for an authorisation in relation to an animal, and the Secretary of State then refers the application to the welfare advisory body, which in turn provides a report for the Secretary of State. Amendment 19 requires the welfare advisory body to ensure that the notifier has a record which provides the necessary reassurance that animal welfare will not be compromised in any way. Precision engineering can take place, but not at the expense of the animal’s suffering. Amendment 20 is consequential on Amendment 19.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has also spoken to her Amendment 21, which proposes a new clause. This lists some additional factors which the welfare advisory body or the Secretary of State must consider before granting a marketing authorisation. The Minister has said that he does not feel that this is necessary, but such is the interest in the Bill and the consequences which flow from it that we believe a belt-and-braces approach is necessary.

We on these Benches do not wish to interrupt the passage of the Bill, but we support all efforts to ensure that animal safety and welfare are protected. This is not the stage of the Bill at which to relate cases of experimentation on animals which have gone horribly wrong and ended with considerable suffering to the animals concerned. Animal welfare is our prime concern, and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is not satisfied with it and decides to divide the House, we will support her.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, for the purposes of Report, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise growing crops and rearing livestock, I chair the board of the UK Centre of Ecology & Hydrology, and I am president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.

As the House knows, I am a very strong supporter of the Bill and everything it stands for. It is only to strengthen the Bill that I have added my name to Amendment 19 tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, because here again we touch on the same weakness in the Bill that I referred to at earlier stages—notably, the oversight of the ongoing welfare of animals and their ensuing progeny affected by these processes. As I said at Second Reading:

“To my mind, however, there is too much responsibility, certainly in the latter stages of the proposed development process, for the notifiers themselves to keep the welfare advisory body informed. It appears that the notifiers are in the driving seat.”—[Official Report, 21/11/22; col. 1218.]


These notifiers will be the ones who have probably invested millions of pounds, and almost certainly years of man-hours and academic endeavour in the process, and will therefore be very strongly motivated to ensure that the results give them some sort of positive return. I am not saying that they will necessarily falsify the evidence, although that may not be beyond the realm of possibility, but they will surely be sorely tempted to slant the results—if only for the sake of their commitment to what they see as the greater good. For instance, one person’s definition of bovine, ovine or avian distress might be another person’s idea of, say, satisfactory close family living. Therefore, it is essential that the welfare advisory body has the duty to audit and check up on these notifiers.

I know that the Government—any Government—have a priority to repel all boarders when it comes to amendments to their legislation, but I cannot see how or why they would want to tell the public that their new welfare advisory body would not have an obligation to check up on and satisfy itself that the notifier is conforming to the codes of practice set out in existing legislation. I am sure that the Government will tell us that this is not necessary—in fact, they have already done so—that there are other bodies involved, and that the notifiers already have an obligation. However, unless the welfare advisory body has a specific duty to check on and audit the notifier, it is quite possible that such persons or bodies could slip through the Met. Oh! That is not necessarily a Freudian slip—I mean “the net”, of course, but after last week’s revelations about rogue policemen I expect you can see how my mind is working. The welfare advisory body needs a specific duty spelled out in the legislation to ensure that there are no rogue notifiers.

I hope that the Government will see fit to accept this amendment, or undertake to discuss a positively worded government replacement amendment to be introduced at Third Reading, either for Amendment 19, to which I put my name, or Amendment 21, or indeed Amendment 22 in the next grouping. There has to be some give here on their part to persuade me, and I would like to think to persuade the House, that a vote on this matter of animal welfare is not necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, if Amendment 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 29 and 30 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has spoken at length on why she feels it is necessary to delay the implementation of the Bill. The Bill sets in train a considerable step towards precision engineering and a move away from traditional practices. Great care is needed to ensure that all unintended consequences are avoided. The extra protections that the noble Baroness proposes are therefore necessary and I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on this matter.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for her thorough introduction to her amendment. I completely understand why she is bringing it forward. There are areas of the Bill around implementation, oversight and the step-by-step process that we have discussed time and time again that people are still concerned about. The requirement of the amendment for a report to be published that identifies any gaps in scientific evidence is an interesting one. It will be good to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this.

Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, has given a very thorough introduction to this statutory instrument. I thank the Minister for his time in providing a briefing.

The environmental targets, which were delayed from 31 October and eventually published on 19 December, are now being somewhat hurriedly debated before the end of January. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee debated all the environmental target SIs on 17 January. The committee did not feel that the original Explanatory Memorandum explained the four water targets very well or how they will be assessed and reported. The Minister has laid out very passionately the rationale behind the water targets.

I have received a briefing from Wildlife and Countryside Link and Greener UK, for which I am grateful, which makes the very valid point that only 16% of water bodies are in a good ecological condition. Therefore, ambition is needed to move this forward. The targets for pollutants—nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment—represent a siloed approach, which I will comment on later. Overall, the lack of ambition is worrying. It is some time since the 25-year environment plan was launched. The subsequent Environment Act should have supported fully that plan, with the environmental targets playing a wholly supportive role.

I have looked at the summary of responses to the government consultation. There were over 56,132 answers to the questions on water posed by the Government, and the government response can loosely be described as “No change”. The date for achieving the targets, however, has changed from 2037 to 2038. The rationale for this is that it will allow targets to span a 15-year minimum timeframe, and this will then tie in with the five-year reporting cycle of the environment improvement plan. This is eminently sensible and straightforward, provided that the targets are ambitious.

The abandoned metal mines target for a 50% reduction by 2038 is, however, not ambitious enough. Some 91% of the responses on this target disagreed with it. As far as I was able to ascertain, there is no detail on how the pollution substances target will be monitored. The Government, in their response to the disagreeing 91%, said that tackling pollution by the largest substances will lead to these rivers achieving good status, since there are few reasons for failure. However, they do not say how they are going to achieve this.

Further down in the document—I fear I quote here—the Government say:

“This ambition will require at least a 10-fold increase in the number of projects operated by the current Water and Abandoned Metal Mines Programme. We considered calls to increase our target ambition, however we concluded this would not be feasible given significant additional funding required, supply chain constraints and long lead-in times to secure the additional capability and to plan schemes. Ultimately, the additional costs would reduce the cost to benefit ratio”.


I repeat: they say that the additional costs would reduce the cost-benefit ratio. We are talking about cadmium, lead, copper, zinc and arsenic. These poisons are leaching out of abandoned mines into our watercourses, in which children are playing and adults may be swimming—but they say that cleaning this up does not meet the cost-benefit ratio. It would seem that silo working can justify almost anything. Undoubtedly, the cost to the water industry will be reduced by this unambitious target. What about the cost to the NHS of dealing with the health issues of those poisoned by exposure to toxic chemicals—workers off sick, children off school? The health impacts are enormous.

I turn now to the target on agricultural nutrients. Some of the respondents wanted more pollutants included in the target scope. The Government reject this because nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment are, by a considerable margin, the agricultural pollutants causing the most harm. Regardless of just how many pollutants are covered or not, the target to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment from agriculture by 40% by 2038 is just not good enough. We have had many debates in this Chamber about the pollution of our major rivers, including the Wye polluted by chicken manure. It really is time for Defra to be taking this matter seriously and dealing with this toxic pollution on a permanent basis.

Much is made in the document of that fact that the majority of responses came from campaigns by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the RSPB and the Woodland Trust. However, each of the responders under these campaigns were individual members of the public who felt passionately about the issues.

The pollution from wastewater target is poor, allowing the water companies flexibility to deliver on it. The consultation response document states that 98% disagreed with the target on pollution from wastewater, preferring a more ambitious target. The document also stated that, of the non-campaign answers, 44% agreed with the outlined flexibility in the target. This means that 56% still disagreed with that target. However you attempt to translate the responses to the consultation questions, the overwhelming response all round is “Not ambitious enough”.

Lastly, the water demand target increases the target for leakage reduction in domestic supplies from 31.3% to an amazing 36.9%. This is on the basis that it will align with industry targets. This is also at a time when household bills are increasing. Surely to goodness the water companies can do better on their percentage of leakages than 36.9%. Who is paying for all this leaked water? The consumer, of course.

All round, I regret that I am disappointed in the water targets. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hayman for drawing these substandard water environment targets to the attention of the House. As has been said, they arise from the requirement of the Environment Act 2021 to publish these targets. As my noble friend has said, they are late and already put Defra in breach of its statutory obligation. But, more importantly, neither these water targets nor the remaining statutory targets which have been published are sufficient to address the persistent trends of environmental decline that we have been hearing about this evening.

The excellent progress report from the Office for Environmental Protection, which was published last week, illustrated well just how big the gap between ambition and delivery has become. As the OEP chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, said:

“Progress on delivery of the 25 Year Environment Plan has fallen far short of what is needed to meet Government’s ambition to leave the environment in a better state for future generations.”


The report went on to say that, of 23 environmental targets assessed, none was found where the Government’s progress was demonstrably on track. It does make you wonder what Defra has been doing for the last four years.

I am grateful to the Minister for reminding us of his previous stint as the Water Minister. I do not doubt what he said, which is that we have more information on water pollution now than we had in the past. But does that not just demonstrate the fact that the Government have been falling asleep on the job? They have known about this, they have been seeing the data coming through, and what exactly have they been doing over the last 13 years—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones? As that evidence came through, why was it not matched by action? Why are we still having to raise these issues now?

It is also hugely frustrating that all of us who were involved in the debates on the then Environment Bill heard the promises made at that time by the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about focused and ambitious targets that would be truly transformative, yet all that seems to have come to nothing. These water targets appear to focus on very partial elements of the overall water quality challenge. It is not clear to me why these particular targets have been selected. As the OEP identified in its report, there is already a proliferation of targets to which the Government need to bring some sort of order; again, noble Lords have made reference to those other targets. What we need now is an ambitious, long-term, overarching statutory target that provides a proper direction and pulls all the other targets together so that there are proper priorities for our environmental challenges. However, these water targets completely fail to do this.

I agree with many of the submissions to the consultation that what we need is an overall water quality target. That should be the focus of our statutory obligations. We know that not one English waterway, including rivers, lakes, estuaries and coastal waters, is in good ecological and chemical health at the moment. Tackling agricultural pollution is one part of the solution but so is tackling the ongoing crisis of sewage pollution from water treatment works, which we have heard about this evening. This is being exacerbated by the impact of climate change: a mixture of record-breaking temperatures and higher rainfall is leading to the increased use of storm overflows to release raw sewage into rivers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, storm overflows have become a constant flow rather than occurring as a result of any particular temperature or weather impact.

If the Minister’s response to all this is that there are other measures in place to tackle water pollution, can he please explain how they add up to a total water quality target? What is the overall target and how are we to measure progress on it? That is what is missing from the targets set out in this document. Based on the current trajectories, we are not going to see healthy rivers and lakes in our lifetime.

The Government also make the argument that they already have targets under the water framework directive but, of course, they are proposing scrapping all those European pieces of legislation under the REUL Bill. Can the Minster explain what the longer-term intention is for the water framework directive and, indeed, all the other water directives to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred? I would have thought that they are essential for us to protect and take forward our environmental ambitions for water in the longer term. Can the Minister clarify whether the Government intend to keep all that legislation?

As my noble friend Lady Hayman said, Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link made the point that the specific water demand target is relative and based on water abstracted, divided by population numbers. The Government have already admitted that it may measure and improve water efficiency levels, but this does not necessarily mean that there is any environmental improvement. Why was this target not linked to a parallel target focusing on controls on water abstraction, with an overarching outcome of improving water quality? That is what we are looking for: a “big picture”, overarching target.

The targets we are debating today are just one example of the inadequacy of the Government’s target-setting process. I hope the Minister and the Government will heed the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection and come back with more ambitious and coherent targets for the future, so that we can see real progress in reversing the environmental crisis we have heard about this evening. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Avian Influenza: Game Birds

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is right to raise this point. My department will make decisions on the basis of evidence. We will not be swayed by those who say we should allow activities like shooting regardless of the risks or by those who use this tragic outbreak as a hook on which to limit shooting or even ban it. We will make evidence-based decisions. However, we better make sure we are thinking of the counterfactuals as well, such as £2 billion of investment to some of the most remote parts of the country and 74,000 jobs. These are factors we also have to consider. If a shoot no longer exists, there will be no predation control, and cover crops being planted and other activities which are of massive benefit to wildlife in this country will no longer take place. That needs to be remembered.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, once game birds have been released, they are classed as wild birds for bird flu purposes. The person who releases the game birds is no longer their keeper. Currently, game birds may not be released into the wild if in a disease control zone or an avian influenza prevention zone with housing measures. Does the Minister think these provisions are sufficient?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We constantly monitor that, and we understand that people will want to make decisions about the release of game birds later in the summer. We want to ensure that we are providing them with information so that they know whether to invest or not. This is a very worrying time for the industry, and we want to try to support it. People in the industry will not be able to move birds from one area to another if one of those is a protection zone. That must be the case, because we cannot allow anything that would put at risk the spread of this disease. Our information about many of those activities is that the vast majority of outbreaks in wild birds, particularly shore birds, happened before the pheasant releases last summer—that needs to be considered as well.

Traffic-related Air Pollution

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are planning to publish a revised national air quality strategy early next year, the key focus of which will be identifying and addressing air pollution disparities, as I have just referred to. We could not do that without working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. Addressing air quality-related health disparities will be absolutely key for our levelling-up ambitions, so it is not just an issue for Defra and the department of health but a cross-government initiative.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the environment targets were published last Friday. The pollution target for PM2.5 of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040 is underwhelming. The World Health Organization guideline for PM2.5 is to reach that target by 2030. The CBI estimates that following the World Health Organization’s guidelines could deliver an annual economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum by reducing deaths and sickness absences caused by air pollution. Why are the Government dragging their feet on that matter?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are not dragging their feet; it is an absolute priority, as the noble Baroness will see when we publish our environmental improvement plan. On the point about World Health Organization guidelines, we have taken significant steps to improve air quality since it originally raised concerns. It said that our 2019 clean air strategy was an example for the rest of the world to follow, so we are heading in the right direction.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise more to inquire than to support particular amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for tabling his amendments. I imagine that they are probing amendments, and that is the spirit in which I wish to address them. I declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful to it for the briefing that it has given today.

The first question I put to the Minister for my better understanding is what the difference is between cloning an animal and gene-editing an animal or animal product. I did not follow it that closely, but I was very proud that my alma mater, Edinburgh University, was the first university in the world, I understand, to clone an animal—Dolly the sheep. However, it was not entirely successful as I understand she had a very short life. Obviously, one has to ask whether the reason for her curtailed life was that she had been cloned and not produced in a normal way.

The BVA brief that I have received today states:

“Prioritisation of animal health and welfare is essential, as is the use of adequate product labelling to enable transparency and consumer choice”—


I know we will come to those amendments in a different group. In particular, the BVA states, and I support this:

“Breeding and genetic modification must be used in an ethically responsible way to improve animal health and welfare, increase efficiency, and support sustainable agriculture.”


It goes on:

“The Bill is misleading and proposing deregulation based on the incorrect premise that ‘traditional breeding’ results in characteristics which can be assumed ‘safe’, and therefore gene-edited organisms which produce the same outcome are also ‘safe’. This ignores the potential for mutations.”


The Bill has “precision breeding” in its title, but this group of amendments goes to the fact that it can never be precise, because we can never be sure of the consequences, so perhaps it should be called the “imprecise breeding” Bill.

The reason that I am tempted to support a number of amendments in this group, particularly Amendment, 1 is the very fact that it states that,

“‘directed bred organism’” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.”

It is important to understand in what way that plant or animal has been directed and that there is scope for an imprecise outcome, an unexpected outcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I am full of awe and praise, with his widespread knowledge and, even more, his experience, said, we could be creating something of which we cannot control the outcome. I am not saying that I stand in the way of that, but I would like better to understand what it is.

There was a news story last night about a little girl whose cancer had not been cured until they came up with a gene-editing formula. They edited genes and implanted them in her, and it looks as though she may now have a cure. However, we are at the very early stage of these procedures, as I understand it, and I believe that there is some sympathy still for the view that the European Union took, which is widely criticised in this House and the other place. Probably the reason that the European Union and its institutions overreacted was the widespread fear among consumers. I think that fear is still there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has tabled a number of amendments which we will deal with in another group and with which I have a degree of sympathy. As I said at Second Reading, if this procedure, this form of breeding is so good, why can we not be told about it on labelling? Why should consumers have the barrier of having to go to a register? With those few remarks, I support the thinking behind some of the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I had a hospital appointment and, having waited some time for it, did not want to postpone it for what could have been another three months. I did, however, watch the debate on Parliament TV and will make a short contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a very valuable and knowledgeable contribution in seeking clarification on the definitions within the Bill. It is important that we all understand completely what the Government mean by the various terms and what the outcomes will be, especially if there are likely to be unintended consequences. It is the role of this Chamber to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or mutations in the future, and that the quality of life for any animal so produced needs to be good. That was not the case with Dolly the sheep. It is important that the phrases used in the Bill are easily understood by those who will affected by its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the results of previous debates on GMOs received a bad press, which did the science no favours at all.

In Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also seeks clarification. She wishes the Title of the Bill to be changed so that the somewhat anodyne phrase “Precision Breeding” would be replaced by “Genome Editing”. I have sympathy with this proposed alteration, as I believe that phrase is more accurate and more likely to be easily understood by the public than “Precision Breeding”. The Bill is, after all, intended to modify and edit the genome of plants in a shorter timeframe than would normally happen. Being married to an aeronautical engineer, for me, and possibly others, a phrase such as “precision engineering” conjures up an entirely different picture than the thrust and purpose that the Bill has. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short group of amendments, which sets the tone for the rest of our debate today.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for introducing these amendments. This group explores why “genome editing” has been changed to “Precision Breeding” in the Title of the Bill and throughout it, when, as my noble friend pointed out, it has no scientific meaning. As he said, there is no such thing as precision in biology. He clearly, and in some detail, expressed his concerns about the implications of the Bill. As he also said, as yet there has been no detailed debate during the Bill’s passage around the science. I am sure that we will have that debate in your Lordships’ House, as there are some very eminent people here who know far more about the science than I could ever hope to learn.

My noble friend’s amendments quite rightly probe the Government’s thinking around the terminology. Importantly, he raised the fact that what we need as an outcome of the Bill is the breeding of plants and animals that are free of risk. Again, he talked about the implications of hereditary traits and the fact that the Bill’s focus is on releasing organisms. We need to think much more about how that is happening, and what the implications are as we put the Bill through into becoming an Act.

We know that in the Bill and during the debates—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 31. First, for the purposes of this Committee, I declare my interests: I am still involved in a family farming enterprise, growing crops and rearing livestock; I chair the board of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology; and I am the president of the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers.

Amendment 31 is similar to the two amendments that I put down in a later group on animal welfare, stressing the importance of following new strains of wheat, grass and maize—in my case, cows, pigs, sheep and dogs—down through many generations on to the farm, even into the home. As has already been said, the point is that we need to watch for the good effects, hopefully, but we must also look out for the possible unintended consequences that might arise. To be honest, I would hope that this already happens because, obviously, unintended consequences were even more likely to happen in the past under the random mutations of traditional breeding; if not, such measures should certainly be introduced now. It would be good to be reassured of that by the Minister.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, gave a very good introduction to these two amendments. Several of the speakers at Second Reading referred to the benefits of gene editing to enable crops to be hardier with regard to resisting drought and flood and the ability to repel insects. It is obvious to all that climate change is having a dramatic effect on crops; in many cases, it is devastating. Unlike the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, my technical knowledge on gene editing is woefully inadequate. However, I will do my best.

Not only in England but in other countries as well, farmers are finding their crops destroyed by the forces of nature, which they are powerless to combat. In many cases, this has led to a shortage of crops to feed indigenous populations, resulting in food loss and, in some instances, the starvation of large numbers of populations. Attempting to ensure that crops are more resilient is important. However, at the same time, it is essential that the natural cycle of our wild plants is protected. Both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Act focused on the loss of biodiversity in our natural habitats in fields and hedgerows. The environmental land management schemes are intended to help biodiversity recover so that natural species of plants, birds and small animals recover to a sustainable level. However, if the gene editing of crops and plants affects ecosystems to such an extent that it alters their natural cycle, this will undoubtedly have an effect on wild flowers, which in turn will affect birds and small mammals.

This comes down to the precautionary principle and ensuring that action taken as a result of this Bill is closely monitored and does more good than harm. When moving forward with technology, which although tested is likely to move more quickly than traditional methods in the past, the prevention principle should also form a part of the equation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, spoke eloquently at Second Reading of the last time gene editing was debated and how the debate got bogged down to such an extent that it had to be abandoned. It is not our intention on these Benches to see this happen a second time. It is time to move on, but we are looking for safeguards for the future. Without the necessary safeguards, unintended consequences could be hard to reverse. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made very powerful points in their arguments, with which I agree. I hope the Minister will be able to give the reassurances which are sought around the workings of the advisory committee.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not speaking at the Second Reading of this Bill; I was not on the team at that point.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for tabling the two amendments in this group, which we understand to be probing amendments. As my noble friend said about Amendment 2, she is challenging how far technology is applied. Do we want to go beyond certain sectors? How far beyond agriculture do we want to go? Amendment 31 is about the wider environmental concerns and reporting on the potential disruption to the farming ecosystem, which could have adverse effects on other plants.

As several speakers noted at Second Reading, the use of gene-editing technologies in plants is far less contentious than in animals. There is not only a much larger body of evidence from research institutions, following years of trials, but that evidence points to the risks being substantially lower. However, even if the risks are lower and potentially easier to mitigate, we must remain mindful of them. Regardless of whether these technologies are used for plant or animal life, we are dealing with processes that accelerate natural events and which may have—we have already heard this phrase—unintended consequences. Indeed, I have heard that phrase in your Lordships’ House over and again during the process of many Bills this Session. It seems to point to an uneasiness with what is being proposed and a lack of thinking things through during the process of legislation.

One imagines that the bulk of releases and marketing authorisations under this legislation will relate to agricultural products. If we can produce certain crops in a more efficient manner, or make them less susceptible to increasingly frequent extreme weather events, that could be a good thing. But we must remember that agricultural crops live alongside wild plants—grasses, wildflowers, trees and hedgerows—all of which have their own important roles in the natural world and in the careful and precious ecosystem. These amendments allow us to consider how new gene-edited varieties of crops will live alongside and interact with other types of plant life

It may be that there is a place for these technologies beyond agriculture, such as making certain tree species less susceptible to disease. I remember well, as leader of Newport City Council, when we had to deal with the significant problem of ash dieback. Large areas of ash trees were felled, with a significant impact on local wooded areas. We had a policy of planting two trees for every tree cut down on land we were responsible for, so felled ash trees were replaced with other suitable trees. If technology could help prevent such drastic measures, that can only be a positive thing.

Regardless of the precise applications of the technologies, it is not clear that the Bill as drafted takes full account of the potential consequences of new plant varieties once they are released. The Government’s environmental land management schemes and other initiatives are trying to halt the steady decline in our biodiversity which has been caused in part by the loss of meadows and hedges and the habitats they sustain. These efforts are hugely important, and there is a role for gene-edited plant varieties as we seek to achieve that goal. However, concerns have been raised by experts in this Committee that seemingly minor changes to agricultural, forestry and other land management practices arising from the use of new plant varieties could inadvertently have significant impacts on soil quality and wildlife in the medium to long term. These amendments provide the Government with an opportunity to address these concerns and outline how they will ensure that this new regime fits into efforts to protect and enhance our natural environment. I urge the adoption of them by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 74 in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for crediting me with knowledge of international law on IP, but in fact I am not very well informed on that. I will raise some questions that were put to me by the Royal Society, which suggested an amendment of this nature. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Patel for putting their names to the amendment. My noble friend Lord Patel sends his apologies; he is stranded in Scotland, as are many other noble Lords, I suspect.

My amendment merely asks the Government to review and publish guidance on the implications of the Bill for the law of intellectual property. This is important because all those involved in the development and marketing of precision-bred organisms need to know where they stand. Are these organisms to be treated, from the point of view of IP, like transgenic organisms or like conventionally bred organisms? GMOs currently enjoy greater intellectual property protection than new plant and animal varieties produced using other breeding technologies, which is justified in part by the greater expense of securing regulatory approval for the cultivation of varieties carrying GM traits.

But intellectual property protections significantly reduce the accessibility of the benefits of genetic technologies, and they also contribute to public concerns about the commercial use of technologies. As we heard at Second Reading, the fact that Monsanto and other companies had patent rights for GMOs and had inserted terminator genes into the plants was a major objection to transgenic crops 20-odd years ago.

If genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, also made this point. Members of the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties.

Plant breeders may argue that they should benefit from patent protection in the same way as for GMOs in order to recover their costs, including the royalties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred on the CRISPR technology. However, I suggest that the public interest overrides this argument. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that, since precision-bred organisms are defined in the Bill as equivalent to organisms that could have been produced by conventional breeding, they will not enjoy greater IP protection than conventional varieties. Surely this is the logical conclusion.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, have spoken eloquently to this small group of amendments. The technical aspects of the Bill are complex and he has already mentioned the matter raised by the Royal Society. If a new seed variety is developed using GMOs, as he said, it has greater intellectual property rights than one that is developed using other breeding technologies. If some genome-edited products are not treated as GMOs, they should enjoy no greater intellectual property protection than the products of traditional breeding technologies, such as plant breeders’ rights.

The whole issue of novel foods is affected by the Bill and these amendments. The Royal Society believes that those in the plant breeding industry need to be able to breed from each other’s varieties, and it would not be in the public interest if the adoption of genome editing for crop improvement were to compromise the ability of plant breeders to make crosses with each other’s varieties. I am really sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is not here because I feel he would be interested in this section. The ownership of intellectual property needs to be addressed before the Bill moves forward to Report. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I look forward to the response of the Minister.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 12, and to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for tabling Amendment 74, which my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock was pleased to sign. Issues around intellectual property were not explored in any detail in another place; nor did the topic feature heavily in the Hansard report of Second Reading. Some may argue that such matters are pushing the scope of this legislation, but we believe it is vital that all interested parties understand the regimes that will apply once the Bill is passed and enacted.

For a product to make it to market, it will have been subject to research, testing, scaling up and the release and marketing processes laid out in the Bill. This will involve significant costs for those who develop the technologies and associated products. We understand that they will want to protect that work and the underlying financial investments to the best of their abilities. On the other hand, for this process to be successful, we need to see fair prices for the farmers who will utilise these technologies or the new plant and animal varieties that arise from them. At present, it is not clear what IP regimes will apply. We can make assumptions, but there is no certainty. As a result, we do not know how many players will bring these new products to market, nor how many farmers will be able to afford them. Amendment 74 offers a way forward, requiring the Secretary of State to publish guidance on these matters prior to bringing the bulk of the Bill’s provisions into force.

These matters are incredibly complex and perhaps not best dealt with through additions to the final version of the Bill. However, this is Committee, and we hope that the Minister will be able to provide an indication that this work is not only in progress, but that appropriate guidance will be in place at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I take the noble Lord’s points. We have to make it clear that we will not allow organisms to come on to the market that would somehow make it harder for us to adapt. There are so many benefits that we can introduce to tackle things such as drought and other issues that plague farmers. We have climate change affecting farmers here and now in this country. It is not something that is happening in Pacific countries alone; it is in our country, and we need to give farmers the tools to deal with it.

On the noble Lord’s other point, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said earlier, irradiation—if I have got the word right—is an established part of plant breeding today. He is right. I can see an overlap in this, but I will write to him and make sure that we give him the facts that he needs. With that, I hope that we can progress.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, although I thank the Minister for his response, I am obviously somewhat disappointed by it. I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to speed up the process, but I fail to understand how consulting with the EU would affect that. It certainly would delay it a little bit, but not by the years and years that the noble Lord indicated. I believe that a Bill introducing a process which alters the genome of crops and animals ought to have a review every five years. I accept that the Minister feels that there are sufficient reviews in place—I just do not necessarily agree with him.

The Minister spoke about a consultation that took place—he did not say exactly when it was, but I think it might have been last year—and said that 80% of those consulted said that the EU definition of precision engineering was not adequate, and that the end product, rather than the process, was more important. The Minister can write to me, given the hour, but I would like to know who was consulted—who were these 80% of people who said that the EU’s process was not fit for purpose? The Minister also said that the UK’s regulations mirrored the EU’s regulations and monitors; that conflicts with this figure of 80% saying that they were not fit for purpose. For me, it is smaller businesses that benefit most from trade with the EU rather than with Argentina, although I accept that some will trade with the latter.

Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the content of these regulations and thank my noble friend for presenting them. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Rock and all those who contributed to the review that she conducted.

It is a little disappointing that my noble friend says that we will have a response only “in due course”. We owe it to the tenanted sector to have a response in real time and a date when that might be due. I regret that I cannot remember whether it is Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies that are for one year only or more, but I know that the Tenant Farmers Association has expressed concern that where a tenancy agreement is for only three or five years, it is simply not long enough for tenant farmers to make the required investment.

This is an issue very close to my heart. I grew up in an tenanted area in the Pennines where there are smallholdings—mixed farms with not a great deal of land. At one stage my brother and I farmed two fields, but I could not stand the excitement so he now farms them in his own right. My late father is no longer there to look after all the admin for us, so my brother is in sole charge as the owner of those two fields. These smallholdings are very dependent on spring lamb and stall cattle, that is bringing young beef on and fattening them up. Marts such as at Middleton-in-Teesdale, Kirkby Stephen, Thirsk and Skipton are very dependent on this.

I argue that, if anything, there will be more call on these advisers. I accept that there has not been a review for five years. It could be argued that the fee is almost double, but I think it is a reasonable level. No one has corresponded with me to say that they will not be able to pay this.

I understand that 60% of all land in England is farmed by tenant farmers. Certainly in North Yorkshire, where I was an MP for 18 years, 48% of the farms are tenanted. This is a very big sector, so I would like to press my noble friend by asking whether the fees will cover all eventual disputes in this area. For example, will they cover potential eviction from the tenanted farm if the fee could be used to be represented in an arbitration procedure?

Similarly, the landowner may seek to take back the farmland if they wish to plant trees, for example. I know that my noble friend and the department are very keen on that but, from what we have seen in Cumbria and Wales, it is not always ideal to be taking land that has been actively farmed—particularly when our food supply chains are under pressure of being in an emergency situation, as we hear this morning, with the NFU calling on the Government to take urgent action in that regard.

My heart goes out to tenant farmers at this time. The fees proposed in this statutory instrument are affordable given the increase that the Government are seeking. I welcome the fact that there could be a five- yearly review; I think I saw that in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Can my noble friend say in precisely which circumstances the fee would be applied and assure us that the tenants will have recourse to a professional authority in the circumstances that I outlined?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on this statutory instrument. The essence of the instrument is to increase the fee charged when a dispute arises around a tenancy agreement between a landlord and an agricultural tenant. This is then referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for arbitration where the fee is charged.

I note that the requisite fee has not been increased since 1996 and agree that it is necessary to set it at a realistic level. I also agree with the regulations and, I assume, the fee being on a cost-recovery basis, to be reviewed every five years. This seems sensible. The previous fee was £115; however, the proposed fee of £195 seems to have been set in 2019 by Defra. If that fee is intended to be on a cost-recovery basis, it is already three years out of date and inflation has not stood still in the intervening years.

The consultation undertaken by Defra received a favourable response, with 73% of respondents agreeing to the update and the proposed fee. The Explanatory Memorandum refers in paragraph 12 to the impact as “a relatively small increase”. This is somewhat true in that £195 is not a huge sum but it is, nevertheless, a 70% increase on the fee previously paid. If the fee were to go up by 70% every five years and be linked on a cost-recovery basis, those involved might not be quite so keen to agree to it.

Given that some holdings will have cross-border implications, can the Minister say whether the devolved Administrations are likely to be charging the same level of fee for arbitration as England? I was not entirely sure from his remarks whether that was the case. If not, and there is a difference in fees, that would cause some problems.

Lastly, like the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I refer to the Rock review on farm tenancy. There is evidence that in some cases the slow rollout of the sustainable farming incentive grants has led to tenants being refused permission by their landlords to apply for this scheme. This may cause an increase in the numbers coming forward for arbitration. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many cases of arbitration there were last year and how many there have been this year? Are there sufficient staff in the arbitration service to deal with increased demand, if that should prove to happen?

I believe that this is the right way forward and I support this SI.

Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for presenting this statutory instrument. I read very carefully the conclusions of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and will go through some of the issues with this Committee this afternoon.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out very clearly at paragraph 10.1 that a six-week public consultation was conducted which closed on 26 August. That is normally considered a holiday period. Certainly it is when I have always taken my holidays, as I tend to go to northern Europe and that is probably the last bit of good weather and bright sunshine that we might expect. It was a short six-week consultation; I think they normally last 12 weeks. Was there any reason why the consultation was shorter and not carried through to September, which would have given people more chance to respond?

Fifty-three of the 54 respondents objected to the line that the Government took. I will not read it out because it is there and everyone will probably say the same thing this afternoon, but I wonder why the Government overruled those who bothered to reply.

My noble friend said of paragraph 16 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s response that this is not a potential loophole. I would like to understand why he and the department think that. If Northern Ireland, which is still part of the single market, can export these products to the rest of Great Britain, which is not, and those in Great Britain have to pay the fee, that gives those operators in Northern Ireland a commercial advantage, if I understand this correctly. I would like to understand the background to why my noble friend thinks it is not a loophole or a commercial advantage to the Northern Irish.

Previously, in its conclusions, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee confirmed that there is no payment for Northern Ireland operators and that 53 of the 54 responses were negative towards the Government’s position. I underline the uncertainty in paragraph 14 of that scrutiny committee report, which says that the view the department has put forward

“creates uncertainty and may be inconsistent with the Department’s declared intention to have a GB-specific, cost-recovery based system for exemptions.”

I take this opportunity to press my noble friend on that.

I have one last question. What will the position of this statutory instrument be under the retained EU legislation Bill? Are we coming back to revisit this, or is this the last time we will look at this statutory instrument?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on this statutory instrument.

Previously, applying for an exemption for the use of certain hazardous substances was handled and organised, and the cost was picked up, by the EU. After Brexit, the cost was picked up by the UK taxpayer. The Government are now moving the cost from the taxpayer to the businesses which are required to apply for exemptions. Not surprisingly, those businesses are balking at this additional cost where previously there was none for the same service.

As the Minister said, the fee that Defra is implementing to be payable is £39,721. At the same time, the Secretary of State will publish a charging scheme of fees and how they will be reached. The fee set out in the instrument will operate from April 2023, when the new scheme of charges will also become operable. There is no indication at this time whether those charges will be higher or lower, only that they will be on a full cost-recovery basis.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, Defra held a six-week consultation on the fee being introduced in this SI, which ended on 26 August. Of the 54 responses received, 53 disagreed with the consultation proposals. This is the first time that the businesses concerned have been expected to pay for exemptions.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, asked a number of questions of Defra on the SI. The exemptions cover such items as the use of lead in portable emergency defibrillators and the use of mercury in intravascular ultrasound imaging systems. This is vital to the health service and a number of us at all levels, because of the effects on the health service, on which we are completely reliant.

The fee is to cover the cost of a consultant’s fee in assessing the application and whether the product is safe and fit for use. Regardless of whether the application is a renewal or a new exemption, the fee to be applied is the same. There are 23 existing exemptions that would require an application fee to be paid when they are next renewed.

Four businesses consulted were concerned that specialised items provided in low volumes but subject to the application of a fee might not continue to be supplied in GB due to the cost. This would have a significant impact on some medical technologies. Given that some of those businesses supplying this equipment and needing an exemption certificate are small and medium-sized businesses, the cost is likely to have a negative effect. Can the Minister comment on this?

The Northern Ireland market, as both speakers have said, is not subject to these regulations as it still operates under EU rules. No fee is therefore charged there. This SI applies to England, Scotland and Wales only. Can the Minister say whether it is likely that some devices might appear illegally on the Northern Ireland market, not subject to a fee, and then be sold on to England, Scotland or Wales? I understand the Minister says that this is not likely, but this is a loophole in the system whereby no fee would have to be paid for a separate GB exemption; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also referred to this. Would it not be better if the same system applied to the whole of Great Britain, including Northern Ireland? Would the Minister care to comment on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. I will address the points that have been made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked why the fee is being introduced when so many respondents to the consultation did not support it—a point made by both other speakers as well. If I am in business and not facing a cost that is being picked up by somebody else, and I am asked whether I would like to pick it up, I am likely to say no. I am not surprised that they did not want to do this, but there are two reasons for doing it. One is to relieve the poor, overburdened taxpayer from picking up the cost of this. The second is to drive behaviour change and to drive companies to look at the alternatives where possible; I will come on to talk about that. I assure the noble Baroness that introducing the fee is entirely consistent with the Government’s Managing Public Money principles and is based strictly on a cost-recovery basis. It is also worth noting that charging is common practice in circumstances in which industry is required to apply for registrations, authorisations and licensing to comply with regulatory requirements.

Existing guidance on how to submit an application for an exemption is available on GOV.UK and will be updated to reflect the requirement to pay an application fee well in advance of the April 2023 date when the fee will be introduced. I assure the Committee that in granting exemption applications, the Government are not acting to constrain the development of alternative, less harmful substances. A fundamental requirement in considering an exemption is to do a detailed technical appraisal of substitute substances. In circumstances where an application is granted, it will be done for a time-limited period only.

I will address some of the other points. A short consultation was required to ensure that this statutory instrument could be laid using powers that expire at the end of this year, using the EU withdrawal Act. While it was short, key stakeholders were contacted and encouraged to respond. I suspect the noble Baroness and I were on the same side in the referendum, but I can assure her that this gives more accountability for the decisions that are taken. When I was last at Defra, this would just have been rubber-stamped. It would come have from the Commission and we would have had no say over it. At least we can now drive standards and do things in the right way. I hope that responds to the first and second points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh.

The points raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are important, but I reiterate that there is no loophole. Products placed on the Northern Ireland market must comply with the EU ROHS and EU exemptions. Unfettered access means that such products can then move freely into Great Britain. They are not required to submit a GB exemption application, so there can be no loophole in avoiding paying the necessary application fee. I hope that satisfies the Committee’s concerns.

Points were made about the REUL Bill. Ministerial colleagues and I are in the process of analysing Defra’s REUL stock and determining what should be preserved as part of domestic law, as well as REUL that should be repealed or amended. This work will determine how we use the powers in the Bill and, therefore, inform assessments of the Bill’s impact.

It is important that we consider whether recognition of exemptions in other jurisdictions with similar ROHS regulations to ours could work. There is no guarantee that we will proceed even after that assessment, but any proposal to proceed will be subject to consultation. It is therefore sensible to proceed now on the basis that no alternative to the current arrangements will be in place.

A number of people asked questions about the fees. The fee will be £39,721, as I said. This is made up of the technical consultant’s fee of £36,625 plus £3,096, which covers the cost of other administrative tasks such as publishing the consultation. The fee will be payable from April 2023. Exemptions last up to five years, or seven years for medical devices such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness. Exemptions are granted to products rather than to the applicant. This reduces the impact on business because, very often, the applications are made by trade bodies and huge multinational companies for which this figure is loose change down the back of the sofa. For an SME it would be a substantial cost, but that cost is very likely to be picked up by a whole range of different SMEs operating together through a trade body.

Since January 2021 we have received two applications for exemptions for Great Britain.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Is he saying that if, for instance, an MRI scanner received an exemption certificate, it would not matter who manufactured it and it would have the same exemption certificate?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The exemption is on the product, not the applicant, so yes. Some of these would be multinational companies based overseas wanting to export their products here. They would have to get this to do so.

I think that addresses the main concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Trade bodies will be the vast majority of the applicants, not businesses. It is crucial that we drive behaviour change where it can be achieved. The application process requires the applicant to have looked at alternatives before securing an exemption.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked for examples of recent exemption decisions. Lead in solders in portable emergency defibrillators is one. Mercury in components of intravascular ultrasound imaging systems and lead in hexavalent chromium used for civil explosives in mining and quarrying are other examples of where this requirement will be used.

The Secretary of State could grant exemptions without the need for an application if the sale of essential equipment were jeopardised because of the non-payment of a fee. For example, if the supply of essential equipment was required for the health sector and was jeopardised because of the requirement to have an application, the Secretary of State could overrule it and give that exemption. I think that gives a lot of assurance to people who feel that, for example, our NHS could lose out on getting a vital piece of equipment.

The final question, quite rightly put, was whether this drives business away from the UK. It is normal for businesses to be charged fees for registrations and applications if necessary. As I say, it is important to note that the fees apply to the product, not to individual businesses. There is a track record of businesses working together to submit applications.

Animals and Animal Health, Feed and Food, Plants and Plant Health (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

This is potentially an extremely challenging area. It is just 10 years since we had the horsemeat scandal—or “horsegate”, as it became known. I accept that I could not tell the difference between a horse carcass and a cattle carcass, whether they had meat on them or not, but there should be someone out there looking at this and ensuring that horses imported into this country will not end up on our plate, passed off as beef. That case highlighted the importance of inspections, not just on an ad hoc basis but spot checks. It not only highlighted notifiable cases as they come into this country but, as the food penetrates through the food system, ensured that when we eat kebabs—I do not eat many of them—they are what they say on the product and not something else. With those remarks, I welcome these regulations.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks to these two statutory instruments. I fear that I may fail his questions on the geographical applications of the SI. As with many statutory instruments that we have debated recently, the first—on animals, animal health, feed and food, plants and plant health—corrects errors in previous SIs.

The Explanatory Memorandum says in paragraph 7.2 that SI 2016/2031 will be reintroduced. Having been removed, it was considered redundant, but the removal appears to have left no mechanism available to enforce the regulation. The SI refers to three months’ imprisonment in all three devolved Administrations for non-compliance with the regulation. If there is no enforcement mechanism, can the Minister say how the prison sentences are to be applied and carried out? No doubt I have misunderstood this section of the SI.

Paragraph 7.4, as regards the OCR, refers to a designated competent authority but also states

“where no competent authority has been designated, the appropriate authority will be assumed to be the competent authority.”

Can the Minister say what qualification is needed to be classed as a competent authority, what is needed to be an appropriate authority, and who or what this is likely to be?

Paragraph 7.8 of the EM refers to Article 139, non-compliance and penalties for non-compliance, but states

“there are no powers to create any penalties to fulfil this requirement.”

In that case, is there any relevance to this SI?

Paragraph 7.13 refers to transporters, organisers and keepers of animals keeping a journey log, as set out in “Annex II”. I could not find any such annexe either in this SI or the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister point me in the right direction for this?

I turn now to trade in animals and related products. This appears to be a much simpler SI. I note in paragraph 6.2 of the EM that the Welsh Government are producing an equivalent version. Can the Minister say whether this will be compatible with the one that we are debating this afternoon, or whether it will be radically different? Some difficulties could arise if it were different.

The instrument as a whole refers to animals and animal products. Might those products include ivory? What inspections and checks are taking place to ensure that ivory products do not slip through the net and enter the country illegally? Paragraph 7.2 covers the import of live animals and products of animal origin from the EU. Although this appears to relate only to imports, the wording allows the European Commission to make changes to legislation for intra-European movements of live animals. Is it possible that this could be used to export live animals to the EU? Could this also be used to circumnavigate the UK’s ban on the export of live animals? I should be grateful for the Minister’s comments.

Finally, the last sentence of paragraph 7.5 states:

“Movements from Northern Ireland or the Crown Dependencies are considered internal movements and are not affected by the modifications.”


Given the close proximity to the coast of France of the Crown dependencies of Jersey and Guernsey, is it possible for live animals to be exported via this route? I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on that point.

Despite my comments, I am content for these two SIs to pass and await the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we also support these SIs but, like other noble Lords, I have a few questions and points to make about them.

I am concerned by the number of SIs where we have seen errors—and I have raised this on a number of occasions—when bringing former European legislation into UK law. We know that five particular SIs are referenced in paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum for the Animals and Animal Health, Feed and Food, Plants and Plant Health (Amendment) Regulations, all originating from 2019 or 2020. It is concerning that we are still seeing this number of corrections happening. I have asked the Minister before to reassure us that it is not going to keep happening but, unfortunately, it seems to keep reappearing. We ask again for reassurance that this is being sorted out and we are not going to keep having statutory instruments to correct previous instruments that we have already passed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned the issues with paragraph 7.2, outlining the penalty regime. As she pointed out, the penalty regime was considered redundant in 2020, which now means that there is no mechanism fully to enforce the plant health regulation as the existing penalty regime cannot be amended or added to. Can the Minister let us know what the practical impact of this has been, and what is the current situation going forward?

We also know that other areas have been corrected, including the accidental deletion of a requirement on the Secretary of State to charge fees in connection with certain functions carried out under the official controls regulation. It worries me how much the Government are trying to achieve in such a short space of time, and this is one of the reasons we are seeing so many errors. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm to the Committee that he is keeping a very close eye on the department in these areas, so we have as few errors as possible. We completely support the fact that we need to avail ourselves of opportunities to regulate ourselves differently, now that we are out of the EU, but we worry about the lack of legal clarity in the short to medium term while these errors keep taking place.

More positively for this SI, we are pleased to see that paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the devolved Administrations were consulted on the changes and consented to them. We welcome that collaborative approach being taken to relations with the devolved Administrations.

Very briefly on the second SI, the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment and Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022, I reiterate what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, about the Welsh Government’s equivalent instrument. It would be helpful to have an update on what that says and how it works with what we are doing in Westminster.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported on Regulation 9(5) regarding defective drafting around the definition of “enactment”. The question was whether this regulation can be used to amend Acts of Parliament. Again, clarification is needed but, also, what is the purpose of this power? Could the Minister give an example of how this would be used in practice?

Finally, I draw attention to some other questions noble Lords asked, particularly on live animal exports, which both noble Baronesses mentioned. It is important that we have clarification on the implications for import/export with the EU, compared to our legislation on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, also asked an important question about whether this will be retained law as we bring forward other legislation. The questions on food inspections were also important.

This worries me particularly because of the number of errors. It is important, when we put through these SIs, that we have real clarification on some of these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Sustainable Farming Incentive Grants

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Countryside Stewardship is already an established agri-environmental scheme. Many farmers are used to it. Roughly half the farmers in England are in some type of scheme, either the high level or another tier. As those schemes come to an end, they will be able to transfer into the mid tier, local nature recovery or whatever it is called at that time—it is Countryside Stewardship-plus. What is really important is that there will be a seamless continuity. Within that scheme they will be able to do similar sorts of things to what they are already doing in Countryside Stewardship.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the rollout of the SFI is extremely slow and, according to the NFU, only 849 farmers have so far joined the scheme—a fraction of the 5,500 that Defra suggested could apply. At the same time, the basic farm payments are decreasing year on year, having no regard for the extremely slow rollout of the ELMS replacement. Can the Minister say how the Government plan to support farmers now—not in two years—at a time when feed and fertiliser prices are rocketing, coupled with increased energy costs?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are helping farmers with the latter point. First, the noble Baroness’s figure was not right; the number of farmers in the scheme is roughly double what she said. Secondly, we are helping farmers through bringing forward half their basic payment, which was an annual payment, to last July. We are doing a number of different things on energy. We are trying to support businesses, not just in farming but right across the board, with the spikes in energy costs. We are also rolling this out in a way that allows farmers to contribute to how the scheme is run. It is an iterative process. We have changed the schemes, working with people. There is a determination to see 70% of farmers operating within the sustainable farming incentive, the entry-level scheme, and many more in other tiers as time goes by. So I hope the noble Baroness will agree that this is the right way forward as we move away from the very unfair, anti-farmer, anti-small farmer basic payments scheme.