Biocidal Products: Hand and Body Washes

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness obviously has given us very good advice on this issue. There is no need for many of these products to be on the market. There is a challenge that they are increasingly on the market, particularly after Covid. The Government are continuing to keep the new products under review and the opinions of the scientific advisory group on chemical safety will continue to drive our view—but the noble Baroness has given very good advice about soap and water.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are bombarded with television adverts for products to ensure that our homes smell floral and that every germ is wiped from kitchen surfaces, including the trays of babies’ high chairs. While it is important that bacteria and viruses are kept at bay, a little dirt is often a good thing. Little is known of the effects of antimicrobial products in toxic biocidal products. In October 2022, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee warned of the danger of these substances. Will the Government support the PMB on this subject when it comes forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the marketing of some of these products. There are requirements, under the cosmetic regulation requirements, to make sure that such products are advertised appropriately, and there is enforcement by local trading standards offices to make sure that that is the case. We are looking at the Private Member’s Bill in detail and will come to a view on it in due course.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

3rd reading
Thursday 21st September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I remind noble Lords of my interest in the South Downs National Park. I add my welcome to that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, for government Amendment 9, which fulfils the commitment that was made on Report to take the rather weak phraseology of public bodies “having regard to”, which we knew in practice was not working, to a much stronger phraseology —that public bodies should “further the interests and statutory purposes” of national parks. It sounds technical, but it makes a big difference in practice. The fact that that is linked to management plans and the targets and so on really helps make sure that those processes will work in tandem and will be in force.

Of course, the new government amendment changes the wording that we had in our amendment on Report, which said that the Secretary of State “must” make regulations—and now we have the normal government fall-back phrase of “may” make regulations. I take it in good heart from the Minister that the government intent is here, and we do not need to worry too much about “must” being replaced by “may”. I hope that the Government’s intent is properly made in good faith.

The Minister talked about the timing of the regulations and doing this in a timely manner—and that could hide a thousand sins. So I shall not be the first person to push him a little bit and say, “What is this timely manner? Can we expect something this side of Christmas, or will it drift on beyond that?” Any further light he could shed on that would be much appreciated.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, made reference to the Glover review. There are other issues that are outstanding from that review. I hope that the Minister can give some commitment to continuing to look again at those recommendations and find ways in which to roll out those recommendations so that we have a complete picture and substance from Glover, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, was widely praised across all parties.

There continues to be a weakness in legislation relating to national parks, in terms of their power of competence, which prevents national parks operating outside their borders. This matters, because national parks increasingly operate in partnerships across wider landscapes than their own borders. The current legislation prevents many of the opportunities that they would have to work in broader partnerships and to take up opportunities.

To take one example of that, in the South Downs we are leading on the development of the green finance initiative, but the legal limits on our scope and powers prevent us providing green finance support to our neighbouring areas of outstanding natural beauty. There is a problem with the terminology and phraseology of the current legislation. I do not suppose that the Minister will feel able to give any commitments on this now, but I hope that he will continue the dialogue to look at ways to address this. Everybody would accept that more—and broader—partnerships, particularly in terms of the local landscape review, would be really effective.

In the meantime, I very much welcome Amendment 9 and I am pleased to support it.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his introductory comments. Amendments 1 and 2 on chalk streams are to be welcomed and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for his work on this and for pursuing it to make absolutely certain that the Government saw its importance. I am sure that if my late noble friend Lord Chidgey were here, he would also welcome this, as he was a great champion of chalk streams.

The amendments on national parks give security to protected landscapes and assist those who run them in ensuring that they are preserved for generations to enjoy. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on national parks not being able to work outside their boundaries. I hope that the Government will look at this and perhaps reconsider.

Amendments 3, 10, 11 and 16 to 24 on the nutrients issue are all consequential tidying-up amendments, but they are to be welcomed. I thank the Minister and the Government for their work on this and for what seems a sensible way forward.

Environmental Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

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.

Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time—and that of his officials—in providing a briefing for this afternoon’s statutory instruments. It is important that those engaged in both the horticulture and potato industries know when the levy that they pay is to be removed, in order that they can plan. I assume that the consultation carried out has provided some indication of timetables.

The levy was first implemented in 2008 under powers in the NERC Act. In January and February, the potato growers triggered a call for a ballot. Only 5% of the membership is required to call a ballot, which seems a very low threshold. In the horticultural sector, there was a 69% turnout and, as the Minister has said, of those who voted, 61% voted to abandon the levy. In the potato sector, there was a 64% turnout, with 66% voting no to continuing with the levy—overwhelming figures. As a result, the Government have abandoned the levy for future years.

However, there is still the issue of how the money accumulated in the past and in future will be spent. A five-yearly vote on how the money is spent seems a long gap between decisions on spending priorities. Are the results of the vote on spending plans monitored against sector planned priorities? Paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that levy payers have a say in how the levy is spent. Can the Minister say whether this happens in practice?

With the abolition of the levy, there is a fear that the research and development work of the AHDB will be restricted. However, as the Minister has said, there is an opportunity for the AHDB to charge for services provided. I could not find any reference in the EM or in the statutory instrument itself to the scale of the charges. Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on the public sector is the loss of levy funding for AHDB horticulture and potato services.”


Does this mean that the AHDB will be financially unviable for these sectors, or will the charges they can impose cover the loss of the levy?

There are 10 other sectors covered by this SI within the overarching definition of the horticulture industry—from protected vegetables grown in glasshouses and indoors to trees and saplings in tree and forest nurseries. It is important that research and development continue to provide protection for all categories, especially as many diseases are airborne and difficult to control.

The current levy produces an income of £5.6 million from the potato industry and £5.7 million from horticulture. This is a large sum to be replaced by charges, which appear to be ad hoc but I hope have some rational basis. All other sectors, including pork, beef, dairy and sheep, produce an income of £70 million. At this time of uncertainty in both the EU and other trading markets, it is vital that R&D capacity is not weakened across any sector. There is ongoing consultation with sheep producers on the levy. I look forward to the results of this consultation.

I am encouraged that the Government are listening to industry growers in abolishing the levy for potatoes and horticulture, but I am concerned about the effect on R&D. I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance but generally welcome this SI as a step forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I should declare an interest through my involvement at the Rothamsted agricultural institute. The Minister will be pleased to hear that we will not oppose this SI. The issue seems to be straightforward, particularly given the democratic ballots that have taken place in the horticulture and potato sectors. However, the fact that these changes have been felt to be necessary raises some wider questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to address.

First, can the Minister explain when Defra and the AHDB became aware that there was such disillusionment among those sectors under the previous levy regime, and why was no action taken to change the levy system at that time? It seems rather extreme, if I may say so, that the two sectors had to organise themselves to demand a ballot when, had there been ongoing consultations, there might have been a bit more sensitivity to their disillusionment. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about what happened in the run-up to the two groups organising a ballot.

Can the Minister also say something more about the underlying concerns that the sectors had about the levy? Was it just about the cost, or did they feel that they were not getting value for money in a broader sense from the payments that were being made? For example, was there a problem with the quality of the research and advice that they were getting for their money? If so, are we confident that that is now being addressed? And, if that is the case, why were those concerns not addressed at the time that we first became aware of them?

Secondly, as the Minister has explained, arrangements are now being made for the other sectors covered by the levy to have regular ballots, which is to be welcomed. Is he confident that those new consultations will prevent the other sectors from triggering unilateral ballots, now that they have seen the success of the potato and horticultural action? Is he confident that those arrangements are now settled and that people are now happy with the new proposals?

In addition, the Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the devolved nations also considered a

“proposal to extend the scope of the Order to other agricultural industries on a UK-wide basis”.

Can the Minister explain what is happening with the devolved nations? Are they all doing the same thing at the same time now—in other words, will the AHDB equivalents in the devolved nations all have these regular ballots? Is that what the proposal is? And how does that fit with the proposals before us today?

Thirdly, and most importantly—this echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell—what will be the impact of the loss of the levy on the work of the AHDB? Is there a danger that vital research capacity will be lost, which might have a wider impact on future disease control and climate mitigation techniques, for example, as well as investment in better techniques for cultivation in the future? Are there wider implications that the Government should have a concern about rather than just greater productivity? Are we sure that that ongoing research will still be addressed when the levy is no longer here?

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum also makes mention of delivering

“legacy research and plant protection services”

on a transitional basis. That is great, but what will happen when that research comes to an end? Presumably, it was felt to be necessary in the past, so what will be the future of that research and plant protection services? Are we confident that it will still be covered? Otherwise, given the UK’s ambitions for the agriculture sector, we might find that we are losing out if we do not have the research base in the future.

Fourthly and lastly, the EM makes it clear that, as the Minister said, sectors can continue to work with the AHDB on a voluntary or a commercial basis if they wish to. Can the Minister say something more about how that cost basis will be different to the old levy structure? Is there a danger that only the larger producers will pay the levy in the future? In other words, are we in danger of having a two-tier system where the big producers have the money to invest with the AHDB but the smaller producers do not and therefore fall further behind, when we would want to make sure that smaller producers have the research capacity as well? I am just a bit worried about how that cost basis will work.

Flood Reinsurance (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Thursday 10th March 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument, which seems fairly straightforward. However, I have a number of questions to ask him, if he is able to answer.

The Flood Re scheme was set up as part of the Water Bill in 2014 after the horrific flooding we witnessed during that winter. It was to ensure that, for those properties whose owners would find it almost impossible to gain flood insurance cover on the open market, the owners would not be left with no redress. The fund was to be paid for by a levy on all insurance companies, so spreading the load. The figure at that time was £180 million, as the Minister said; as a result of this statutory instrument, the figure is being reduced to £135 million.

The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, anticipates that flooding is likely to increase rather than decrease. In that case, how can the Government be sure that reducing the Flood Re fund by £45 million will not have a negative impact on those who cannot get insurance on the open market? Surely the fund should be monitored at the very least, or increase in anticipation of future demands on it.

The Explanatory Memorandum is clear that these regulations designate a new FR scheme. Given that the existing flood reinsurance scheme is working well, why is it necessary to have a new one? Apart from the difference in the sum involved, in what way will the new scheme be different from the existing FR scheme?

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that the liability limit will be reviewed

“every three years instead of every five.”

That is fine. The liability limit was £2.1 billion in 2016, with increases in line with the consumer prices index. Can the Minister say what the liability limit is currently, in 2022? It is important to review the limit but it has to be done in conjunction with the risk profile, as identified by climate change professionals, not just what Defra officials think might happen.

Paragraph 7.5 of the EM states that the surplus funds on the wind-up of the existing scheme will return to the Government. Can the Minister say why this surplus is not being transferred into the new scheme? This seems to me to be a mistake. If the insurance companies are paying a levy towards Flood Re, surely they should be the ones to reap the benefit of any surplus in the existing fund. Paragraph 12.3 refers to the lack of an impact assessment, as there is a negligible impact on businesses. If the surplus in the existing fund were transferred back to the insurers, it would have no impact at all on business. The Government are attempting to have their cake and eat it.

The new scheme will allow insurers on a voluntary basis to make payments of up to £10,000 for resilience repair—build back better—over and above the cost of like-for-like reinstatement of actual flood damage. My recollection is that this resilience repair element was part of the original commitment of Flood Re. Can the Minister say whether this was ever implemented from the start? If not, why not? Resilience is a vital element of this scheme.

I cannot see any reason why a new fund has to be set up if the existing one is operating well and has surplus funds in it. I am sorry to say that I feel something of a sleight of hand is going on here; at best, there is a distinct lack of transparency. Given the view of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Climate Change Committee that the incidence of flooding is likely to increase in future, I feel the reduction in the levy pot by £45 million is premature. Can the Minister reassure us that, for those who have access to the Flood Re fund, it will be there when they need it?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful introduction to this SI and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing it to our attention. I had a strong sense of déjà vu when reading it, as I was present when the first SI was debated back in 2015, which clearly illustrates that I have been in the job too long. I remember our original debates and will come back to some of the issues raised then.

Since then, the UK has suffered more regular and devastating extreme weather events, as the noble Baroness has said, with the result that thousands of properties are being flooded, many on a repeat basis. This has underlined the need for more robust and accessible home insurance. It is good to hear that Flood Re has been judged a success and that it has helped thousands of homeowners in flood risk areas who would otherwise have struggled to insure their homes, as the Minister was saying. It was also reassuring to hear that the scheme has met its initial liquidity and capital requirements and has a high solvency ratio, making it financially secure. On this basis, we accept that it makes sense to reduce the levy on insurance companies from £180 million to £135 million a year.

However, a number of questions arise from the proposals, which I would be grateful if the Minister could address. First, the Explanatory Memorandum referred to the statutory quinquennial review of the FR scheme and the recommendations that arose from it. Have all the recommendations of that review been agreed by government and put forward in this amended proposal today, or are there other recommendations still out there or under consideration or which have been rejected by the Government?

Secondly, as we have heard, one of the recommendations before us today is the build back better proposal to allow claims up to the value of £10,000 to enable homeowners to fund flood-resilient improvements over and above any like-for-like repairs. This is a welcome initiative, but paragraph 12.3 makes it clear that the participation of insurers in the build back better supplement will be voluntary. Why was it not made compulsory for all insurers to offer this payment, given the urgent need to make our properties more resilient to flood risk in future? Do we have any information about the appetite of insurers to pay this extra supplement? The Minister quoted some statistics, but I would be grateful if he could confirm what proportion of insurers are providing the build back better facility.

Thirdly, I return to some of the concerns raised when the original scheme was introduced which still seem relevant today. Are the poorest and most vulnerable—those in tenanted and rented properties—still excluded from the scheme? It really does not seem right that people living in the same or adjoining properties could have access to different standards of flood insurance purely on the basis of the status of those living in the property. Do you still have to be the homeowner to qualify? Since the scheme now appears to be financially secure, what consideration was given to extending access to it to wider categories of claimants, such as tenants?

Can the Minister clarify the current status of farmhouses? I know that this has been a concern for the farming community. Most people would say that they are primarily residential properties, even if they also act as a business address. Can farmhouses join the Flood Re scheme?

Finally, could the Minister clarify whether we are still focusing on properties deemed in high-risk flood areas? Given the recognised threat of extreme weather events arising from climate change—the noble Baroness talked about the issues raised by the Adaptation Sub-Committee on this—how can we be sure that the right areas are now being designated as high-risk flood areas? Has not our experience of flood risk in recent years been that it is increasingly hard to define? Does the Environment Agency have the resources to reassess and redesignate flood risk areas from low to high risk with sufficient speed to ensure that insurers can respond accordingly? What further powers are the Government proposing to give to the Environment Agency to ensure that no further properties are built in high-risk flood areas against its advice, as can happen at the moment?

These are all issues that need to be addressed if Flood Re is to achieve its true potential. I hope the Minister can address them. I look forward to his response.

Waste and Agriculture (Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his full introduction to this relatively straightforward instrument dealing mainly with waste. The Explanatory Memorandum claims that without this SI it would be “cumbersome” and difficult to make any necessary changes to take account of new methods of sampling and waste treatment in future.

Paragraph 7.2 of the EM sets out the functions already in place and working well but does not mention those that are perhaps not working well. Is the Minister able to say whether any of the functions under the EU directives concerning waste that have transferred are not working as expected?

I am afraid I have some somewhat detailed questions. The various categories of waste covered by this SI are wide. In Chapter 5, Regulations 12 and 13 deal with the retention of functions from the batteries directive. This includes powers to specify criteria relating to the export of waste batteries. Regulation 12(1) states that an

“appropriate authority may, by regulations, make provision specifying criteria for the assessment of equivalent conditions where treatment and recycling of waste batteries takes place outside the United Kingdom.”

The Minister will know that all households are now aware that they cannot just throw their expired batteries into the waste bin but have to dispose of them safely. Having disposed of my batteries in the relevant safe way, I am sure I am not alone in not expecting them to be exported for their final resting place. Can the Minister say just what percentage of the

“batteries, accumulators and battery packs”

referred to in Regulation 13 is disposed of within the United Kingdom and what percentage is exported for disposal, and which countries take our batteries for disposal?

While I have not read all the directives covered by this SI, I have done some investigation on the mining waste directive, 2006/21/EC. This covers extractive waste from land-based extractive industries and the relevant regulatory procedures required for England and Wales under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. This relates to unpolluted soil, non-hazardous waste from prospecting of mineral resources, except oil and evaporates, and waste from peat extraction. The definition of extractive waste is unpolluted soil and waste arising from prospecting for mineral resources and from peat workings. I am sure the Minister can see which way I am going.

Article 3(15) further states that for a site to be considered as a mining waste facility, the extractive waste would have to be kept in it for differing periods of time depending on the category of waste. For

“unpolluted soil, non-hazardous prospecting waste, waste resulting from the extraction, treatment and storage of peat and inert waste”,

this is specified as

“a period of more than three years”.

Can the Minister say what the average time period of storage is for extractive peat waste and what the quantities are currently likely to be?

The section in the instrument relating to agriculture is at the end under Part 4 and relates solely to the financing, management and monitoring of the common agriculture policy, in so far as it relates to CMO markets and rural development measures, and corrects errors in previous SIs on the subject. Given the number of SIs in the past on this subject, although they were before the Minister was in post, can he give reassurances that this SI is a catch-all and corrects all previous errors, or are there likely to be more? As I said, this is something of a tidying-up SI, and I am happy to support it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing this SI to our attention. As the Minister said, the SI proposes to transfer several technical powers relating to waste from the European Commission to the Secretary of State, as well as correcting an error. In this regard, I have a number of questions.

First, can the Minister say when the error was first identified and why it has taken so long to bring the correction before us? This partly echoes the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that a lot of water has gone under the bridge since the SI was first drafted. We have dealt with a number of corrections over the years, so why has this one taken so long? Perhaps he could address that point.

Could the Minister also say whether there have been any adverse consequences resulting from this drafting error? If there was no definition of the appropriate authority, I would have thought it undermined the whole legislation and that the legislation had no standing if it did not say who had the authority to carry it out. I would like to have a better understanding of what has been happening in the intervening period since the original wording was agreed by us. Perhaps he could also explain how that error came to light and why that took so long.

Secondly, referring to the various waste management standards, which the Minister said are all currently operational, can I double check whether all those standards were approved by Parliament in the first place? In other words, have they been signed off in the normal way?

Thirdly, paragraph 6.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that

“if this SI were to fail and the powers were not transferred to the Secretary of State”,

it would not be possible to make regulations to take account of improved scientific techniques in the future. In other words, this is the only way to do that. I take slight issue with that, because surely there remains the option of bringing forward new regulations to take account of improved scientific knowledge, an option that would exist at any time, without necessarily giving all those powers to the Secretary of State. We are being asked to give up our involvement in those decisions. That matters because, as we all know, having debated so many SIs in the past, the definition of improved scientific knowledge is a bit of a movable feast, and we might have a different view in Parliament from the Secretary of State.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that this is to allow more flexibility for the Secretary of State in responding

“to scientific and technical changes”.

But given the Government’s current excitement about the forthcoming Brexit freedoms Bill, how can we be sure that the freedoms for the Secretary of State set out in this SI will not be used to reduce standards in the name of technical advance? For example, there are several references in the SI to the Secretary of State being able to exercise this power only if it is considered

“appropriate to do so as a result of scientific and technical progress”.

This phrase is used in Schedule 6(3) relating to end-of-life vehicles, in Schedule 11(2)(a) relating to mining waste, and in Schedule 20(2) relating to the WEEE directive.

Microchipping of Dogs (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing a briefing for this statutory instrument. The microchipping of dogs, which was introduced in 2015, has made a tremendous difference to the owners of the dogs and to the dogs themselves. The safety and traceability of dogs are made easier by this process. Dogs are often lost or stolen but are reunited with their owners through the information stored on the microchip, and reducing the number of stray dogs is to be welcomed.

The sunset clause on this regulation terminates on 24 February this year. I note that the Government conducted a consultation on extending this clause, the results of which were due to be published in December 2021. Presumably this has happened. Given the instrument expires in February, the consultation was somewhat late taking place.

A second targeted consultation, to 36 stakeholders, took place in November 2021. Just over half responded. Given the level of support from those responding, I am surprised that the Government have not removed the sunset clause altogether, instead of extending it by two years. However, I understand the need to take this opportunity to rectify the anomalies in data collection and to include the compulsory microchipping of cats in future microchipping legislation. Can the Minister say what the database issues are and whether they will all be addressed in the new regulations?

Nottingham University undertook a lengthy report on the post-implementation review of the 2015 legislation, but unfortunately, probably due to my own incompetence, I could find no reference to this when I searched on the internet. Can the Minister say whether this report has been published and, if not, whether it is likely to be? Is this likely to be before the next consultation, which, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, is likely to cover areas for improvement in the existing regulations?

Currently, when you take your dog along to the vet for their routine health check or vaccinations, your vet will routinely scan the dog for their microchip. However, there is no enforced regulation on veterinary staff to report to the authorities dogs that have not been microchipped. Is this one of the anomalies which the revised legislation will include in future?

There was no updated impact assessment in the EM for this SI. As the 2015 impact assessment was still extant, can the Minister confirm that, when this new regulation has been updated to include the compulsory microchipping of cats and provisions on other database issues, an updated impact assessment will be issued to cover all aspects of the new regulations? Can he confirm that there will also be no sunset clause?

My husband and I took on a rescue dog in the spring of last year. The dog had not been maltreated, but its owner was suffering from dementia and could no longer look after it. Through the microchip, we were able to estimate roughly how old the dog was and to see that it had been vaccinated and well cared for previously. I am sure that many others who have done the same are grateful for the information provided on the microchip, but it is important that there is adequate enforcement.

Pet theft is an invidious crime and extremely upsetting to families with children and the elderly, whose only companion may be a dog or a cat. Therefore, it is important that microchipping of dogs should continue without interruption, and I would like the Minister’s reassurance that the new regulation will be laid well before the nine-year sunset clause runs out in 2024.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing he organised. On the face of it, this seems a straightforward proposal, and we certainly do not want to see the sunset clause come into force on 24 February as a result of our inaction, so we clearly support this regulation.

The question arises as to why a sunset clause was added in the first place. I have been covering this department for so long that I probably contributed to the original decision back in 2015, although I do not remember the arguments put forward at that time. But we are where we are. Of course, as the Minister said, the first report on the implementation of microchipping was due to be held within five years. I appreciate his recognition that there has been a delay, which has caused this SI to be necessary, and his apology.

I am grateful to the departmental official Craig Lee for sending me a copy of the review into the legislation. I got round to requesting it slightly before the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, had a chance to do so. It was very interesting reading, as was the report from Nottingham University that underpinned it. I was pleased to see that microchipping had achieved the desired outcomes of improving animal welfare through the increased traceability of owners and reducing the number of stray dogs.

However, the review also identifies some challenging issues, which have been echoed by noble Lords today. There is, for example—I do not know whether anybody would have foreseen this—the new plethora of microchip database companies that have sprung up. As we have heard, this has made ownership tracing more complex. Like other noble Lords, I think it would be helpful if the Minister could shed a little light on how the Government intend to deal with this. By any stretch of the imagination, having 17 databases seems impractical when trying to monitor and keep up with the ownership of individual animals.

Did we anticipate that this would happen, and is the Minister satisfied that we have the right standards for these databases and are scrutinising them before they are set up, or will that come from any new regulations? Are there any constraints on how much somebody can charge for using a database? Is that why we suddenly have so many—because they are easy money, if I can put it that way, without having to do a great deal? Noble Lords have made a case today that on the face of it seems quite sensible: that we should have a single portal of access, or indeed one database, which could be agreed through some sort of nomination process. It would certainly make people’s lives easier when trying to trace the owners of dogs, or to check the dogs’ history.

Organics (Equivalence and Control Bodies Listing) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I thank him and his officials for the useful briefing that they took the time to provide to me and to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. As has been said, the SI allows third countries equivalence on organic produce without the need for the time-consuming process of passing secondary legislation on each occasion. The power now rests with the Secretary of State to decide.

Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that changes to the lists of countries and produce

“will be communicated to relevant stakeholders in a timely manner”.

Can the Minister say exactly what “a timely manner” is? Will the list always be updated immediately after equivalence is granted, or will there be occasions when this may take longer?

I note that no impact assessment was prepared for this SI, as the changes are said to be merely administrative. I am sympathetic towards streamlining procedures relating to legislation but do not believe that Parliament should be bypassed in all cases, especially when trade agreements are being considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already raised my next point. The chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am also a member, wrote to Minister Prentis challenging the assumption that the new administration process was merely technical and would have low impact. The committee took the view that making an equivalence decision on a third country would almost certainly be more important than suggested and felt that removing the oversight of Parliament by switching from a legislative to a purely administrative process was a concern. In her response, Minister Prentis indicated that

“when a third country applies for equivalence recognition for the purpose of organics trade, it must provide all necessary information, including details of its control system and production standards, on the basis of which a decision can be made … recognition is limited to … three years. The Secretary of State may recognise a third country as having equivalent organic standards only once they are satisfied that these criteria for recognition have been met … Additionally, a third country recognition is generally part of a wider trade agreement, which would require Parliamentary ratification”.

If Parliament is to be involved in a trade agreement with a third country, why cannot it be involved in that country being added to the list for organic equivalence, especially if that is going to be part of its trade agreement? Can the Minister indicate how many countries are likely to apply for organic equivalence which are not in negotiation for a wider trade agreement? This might help us to see just what the scale of the workload would be if each was to go through the statutory instrument process instead of the informal administrative process proposed today.

As the Minister said, there is a cut-off date for reassessment of 23 December 2023. What will happen after that date? Will this be a cliff edge, or will there be renegotiations prior to that date?

A number of countries are in negotiations for trade agreements with the UK. How can the public be assured that the very high standards that they currently enjoy on organics will not be lowered during negotiations? I remain concerned that this speeding up of the administrative process has no legislative grounding and look forward to the Minister’s response and possible reassurance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this SI and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand. On the face of it, this seems to be an innocuous change, but, like other noble Lords, I do not feel that it is quite as straightforward as it first appears. I therefore have a number of questions that I want to raise.

First, we have a strong and blossoming organic sector in the UK and it is important that we protect the very high standards that consumers expect of organic products. In particular, it is vital that the UK organics market cannot be undercut by inferior products from third countries claiming to be of the same organic standards. When this was debated in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, made it clear that organic trade between the UK and any third country in the future will be the subject of the provision of free trade agreements or treaties.

This immediately rang alarm bells because, as we have seen with other trade deals, most notably the one with Australia, the Government have been prepared to sell out our high food standards when it suits them to have a wider trade deal. Can the Minister clarify the status of our current organic standards? If, as he says, they are set out in retained EU legislation, could they be disregarded in a future trade deal?

Victoria Prentis also said that Parliament would have oversight of those trade deals that might impact organics. Can the Minister clarify whether this is the same oversight that exists for all other trade deals, on which Parliament has in truth had no real say and, as we all know, the views of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was set up to act as a mediator, if you like, are widely disregarded? Would organics be caught up in that same process?

Secondly, one of the main arguments put forward in the Explanatory Memorandum for the change is that ports, local authorities and businesses will be able to find an up-to-date list of the organic products that can be imported, as they will be listed on the government website rather than in legislation. I do not find this a compelling argument. I do not really see why this cannot be done in parallel with the original scrutiny process of making changes via SIs. For example, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, said that there were 13 countries, plus the EU, and about 55 control bodies currently listed. Despite what the EM says, I cannot imagine that there will be a swamp of new applications which will become unmanageable. If the concern is that those organisations change their addresses frequently, surely the solution would be to deal with this aspect of approval administratively rather than through the whole recognition of a new country or control body. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why it is not possible to have those two systems working in parallel with the original parliamentary scrutiny that we have previously enjoyed.

Thirdly, as noble Lords have said, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn these regulations to the special attention of the House on the grounds that they are politically or legally important. We agree with its analysis

“that secondary legislation is indeed an appropriate vehicle for the type of changes that are the subject of this instrument, and that the Secretary of State’s general accountability to Parliament is not a suitable replacement for parliamentary oversight of individual decisions in this area.”

As my colleague Daniel Zeichner said in the Commons in agreeing with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee,

“We have all heard that argument and we know how well that works in practice. Frankly, we need something better than that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 21/9/21; col. 5.]


To press the Minister on this, if the SI goes through, how would we in practice hold the Secretary of State to account for listing an organic producer that we thought was in danger of undercutting our current organic standards? If a trade deal were signed that opened up the market for a third country for organics with lower standards, which of the many Secretaries of State would we be trying to hold to account anyway? Would it be the Secretary of State from Defra or from the Department for International Trade? Whom will we chase on these issues if such an event occurs?

Finally, I ask the Minister about the devolution implications of this SI. In an exchange in the Commons with David Doogan of the SNP, the Minister revealed that there is a long-standing disagreement about whether this issue is a devolved matter. Rather than getting legislative approval from the devolved Governments, as would be the normal process, the Government on this occasion sought the approval of the organics four nations working group. Does the Minister feel that this is a satisfactory way to proceed? What is being done to get the devolution disagreements back on track so that we can have the proper process of agreement in place?

While I am on that, there is some question over whether the UK organic certifiers have agreed to the proposals, as suggested in the Explanatory Memorandum. As my colleague Daniel Zeichner reported, they reported to him that their preferred form of scrutiny of future applications is an independent expert group, rather than their having to rely purely on the Secretary of State to make those decisions.

We feel that this SI is unsatisfactory in a number of regards and hope that the Minister will be prepared to reflect further, not only on our concerns but on those of the SLSC, which we feel were well made. I look forward to his response.

Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and for his comments. On the face of it, it seems like a straightforward change in the legislation to bring the retail sector into line with domestic housing arrangements following the changes made in the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. I note that this instrument relates only to England, but the extent of it is England and Wales where there are cross-border issues.

The water and sewerage industries were privatised in England and Wales in 1989. In 2014, reform of the Water Act enabled competition in the market. In 2016, the transfer of non-household retail business prevented the provision of retail service to new non-household customers that arose in its area. Given what we now know about the effects of supply and demand on water and sewerage systems, this would seem a sensible step.

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum enables

“developers to make new connection requests to their retailer.”

There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum, nor in the instrument itself, of whether there would be capacity for new development to be safely connected under the automatic right to connect, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already mentioned.

The Minister will know that during the passage of the Environment Bill there were many debates about the effect of effluent being discharged into rivers, lakes and other watercourses and the extremely detrimental effect this has on both water quality and the wildlife that previously inhabited those areas. I ask the Minister whether the local relevant sewerage and water capacity will be part of the consideration when developers apply for connection for retail. The automatic right of developers to connect for housing developments has caused considerable problems, not only in effluent discharge, but has contributed to localised flooding during prolonged periods of rainfall.

This is a minimal change to the legislation, but the legislation relating to domestic properties is far from perfect. Once the drainage and sewerage management plans are in place, that should ensure better collaboration between developers and those dealing with the supply of water and disposal of sewage. But these are not yet in place. Duties in Section 41 and 45 no longer apply to premises in a retail exit area. To indicate that new households under construction are not classified as household premises until people move in is somewhat late in the day to deal with capacity issues and whether sewerage systems are able to cope with the additional demand.

A Section 98 duty to comply with sewer requisition is the duty to provide a public sewer or a lateral drain. This appears not to apply in relation to premises in the retail exit area that were not household premises. Just what is the legal obligation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system for new connections from retailers? This might be a small retail outlet, or it might be retail premises relating to an already overlarge housing development, which would be a much larger connection.

I am sure the Minister can understand my concerns and I would be grateful for his reassurance that capacity will form part of the connection requirements. I note that a consultation period took place between 29 April and 25 May 2021. This period included a bank holiday. Seventeen responses were received but the EM does not say whether Water UK or the Consumer Council for Water were among those. However, I understand from officials that, since there were responses from some water providers if not from Water UK itself, there seems to have been a general positive agreement in the industry in response to this SI.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the consultation exercise. I understand why Defra has introduced this new measure but remain extremely concerned about the effect on flooding of connecting retailers to the sewerage system without first checking that the system has the necessary capacity.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I am sure he will be relieved to hear that we accept that it is broadly technical in nature and, as such, will not be opposing it. It deals with relatively small consequences of the reform of the water industry and the right of water companies to exit the non-household retail market in their sector. As the Minister has said, several unintended consequences have arisen from the new provisions and this SI deals with one such anomaly relating to new housing developments.

I have to say I was amused to read the Commons Minister Rebecca Pow stating when introducing this measure that it was underpinned by the Government’s commitment to

“strong, independent regulation that protects customers and the environment”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 22/9/21; col. 4.]

because, arguably, that is exactly what we do not have. This is why water companies such as Southern Water get away with regularly pouring sewage into our rivers and sea with no comeback from their customers or for their customers. But I accept that that is a slightly wider issue than the SI before us today.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 53 in my name and shall speak to Amendments 52 and 123. All the amendments deal with different poisons that should be banned, or at least controlled. I thank the Bill team for its time and useful briefing on Friday. We have debated at length the impact of pesticides on both the population and pollinating insects during the Agriculture Bill and in Committee on this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, spoke passionately, as always—as did others—about the impact of pesticides on humans unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity of spraying. That is a serious matter, and I hope that the Minister will have concessions to offer the noble Lord and other signatories to that amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, gave the excellent example of the promotion of DDT. There should not be another example similar to that witnessed with the use of organophosphate sheep dips, when it took a huge campaign on the part of those affected before the substance was banned. Pesticides have detrimental effects on humans, and the Government should acknowledge that.

I now turn to Amendment 53, relating to the effect of pesticide use on pollinators, particularly bees. I am grateful to Buglife for its briefings. I am sure the Minister will refer the House to the integrated pest management strategy, which covers some of the ground. However, this does not provide the safeguards needed. The widespread use of neonicotinoid pesticides resulted in a reduction in the overwintering success of honey bee hives, significant declines of 40% in wild bee species studied and was implicated in butterfly population decline. This resulted in reduced pollination services and crop yields. However, despite the acknowledgement by the then Minister in 2010 that the pre-approval tests for pesticides were inadequate to protect pollinators, and the production in 2013 of a testing guide document by the European Food Safety Authority, the UK has yet to introduce any new tests to help ensure that future pesticides are pollinator-safe. In order to comply, an independent, competent authority is needed, as detailed in proposed new subsections (1) to (4) of Amendment 53.

I acknowledge the national action plan on pesticides and its aim to reduce the need for chemical pesticides, but it does not mean that they will be phased out. The Future Farming scheme will help with transition to a non-pesticide control, but this is yet to have effect.

The public are passionate about bees. One needs only to see the many products on sale with the symbol of bees and their honeycombs to acknowledge just how popular they are. Those can range from miracle face creams through to cushions and scarves, from socks through to high-fashion items, kitchen utensils and even furniture. There is also the huge popularity of honey—a truly natural product. The bee is popular, and the public wish it to be protected and wish to be consulted on anything which might have an impact on pollinators. This amendment ensures that that could happen.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has referred to a 30% to 40% reduction in crop yield if PPPs are not used, but if crops are not pollinated because of the decline in pollinators, there is likely to be a similar loss in yield.

With reference to proposed new subsection (9), the devolved Administrations have a significant role here, and the Minister should consult them. Authorisation of use includes derogation. As a nation, we must strive to avoid a similar circumstance to where a Minister, overriding the advice of his officials, authorises the use of glyphosate-based herbicides, which can cause high levels of mortality in bumblebees. This came to public attention only due to an FoI. The public need to have confidence that the Government will do the right thing.

Different groups of pollinators are affected by pesticides in different ways, so it is important that a range of pollinators is included in the pre-approval testing process. This amendment would ensure that tests are undertaken on acute and chronic effects on honey bees, bumblebees, solitary bees, butterflies and hover-flies, but also that independent science relevant to any pollinator is considered.

I regret to say that, despite the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that everything is tested, on Friday, officials said that it was impossible to test everything. The various mixtures of chemicals—the so-called cocktails—are unlikely all to be tested. There may be a shift to less toxic mixtures, but insufficient research on their effect has so far been done, and it is important to protect honey bees and wild pollinators.

Turning briefly to Amendment 123, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, who spoke passionately about it, phasing out the use of lead ammunition has been slow. In Committee, we heard powerful evidence of the effect of lead poisoning on the health of both children and adults. No matter how careful you are in the preparation of game for the table, lead shot often escapes notice and is unwittingly eaten. I was very interested in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, of lead shot in millet. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, spoke from vast experience of shooting. Alternatives to lead shot are available. I fully support the transition away from lead to safer alternatives. This amendment, if added to the Bill, would ensure that that would happen sooner rather than later. I look forward to the Minister’s response to those three very important amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement at Rothamsted Research. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in a clearly very important debate. Amendments 52 and 53 tackle the pernicious effects that pesticides are having on our environment and on human and insect health. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty once again raises the important human health implications of spraying noxious chemicals in fields next to residential and workplace areas. He asks that regulations should set out minimum distances from homes, schools and public places. We do not think this is an unreasonable request. As he said, at least farm workers have protective clothing and some sort of choice about their work environment, whereas local people have no choice and no information about what is being sprayed on particular days. As we have discovered in the past, the health implications of exposure to such chemicals can sometimes take years to be revealed, as the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, of DDT, clearly demonstrated.

Of course we welcome the Government’s overarching commitment to reducing pesticide use. We see that there are considerable advantages to precision applications and integrated pest management for the future, but the very fact that the Government are taking those steps is an acknowledgement of the dangers of widespread pesticide use. In the meantime, until those techniques become commonplace, we should at least be taking steps to protect public health, and my noble friend’s amendment is one step towards doing this.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this varied group had attracted some 25 speakers, but some have withdrawn due to the timing. The main debate has been about trees, not some of the other amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, set out extremely well the reasons for Amendments 257E and 257F and the dramatic effect that the guidance that the Secretary of State provides could have on the local authorities. It is therefore not only advisable but imperative that local authorities are consulted on the likely impact on their activities and service delivery. We have all heard of the outrage in Sheffield over the felling of trees without consultation. Local authorities need the power to act to prevent the spread of disease in trees, but local people should be consulted and understand the reasons for local authority actions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, introduced Amendment 258 on the protection of ancient woodland, Amendment 259 on introducing biodiversity standards when planting trees, and Amendment 260 on the duty to prepare a tree strategy for England. She is extremely knowledgeable on the subject of woodlands and trees, and we support her amendments. Other Peers also spoke in favour of these three amendments to protect and expand the planting of trees. We support placing ancient woodland on the same basis as SSSIs, but on an individual basis. Some 1,200 ancient woodlands are on the at-risk register and in need of protection, so something has to be done.

Importing trees runs the risk of introducing pests and diseases into our already depleted woodlands. Growing our own trees has been discussed previously during the round of statutory instruments introduced to assist our passage from the EU. Growing our own is one way to limit the damage from pests. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has supported this.

The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, introduced Amendment 260A on the risks that deer and grey squirrels present to newly planted and already established trees. The majority of speakers supported the amendment. Grey squirrels in particular are typical of a non-native invasive species that has been imported from abroad, and they have decimated our own red squirrel population almost to the point of extinction. Red squirrels are beginning to make a comeback in selected protected environments—the Isle of Wight and Brownsea Island are two such—but there is a long way to go for them to reach the numbers seen in previous decades.

Deforestation has decreased overall tree cover over the decades to an appallingly low level of 13%. The damage caused by grey squirrels is enormous. The UK Squirrel Accord is working to tackle the problem, but the motorway and railway agencies are not complying. Could the Minister encourage them to comply? Unless a robust standard is set for the protection of newly planted trees from animal damage, I fear the Government are not likely to see many of the trees they plants reach maturity.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has lost 60% of his replanted ancient woodland to grey squirrel damage, and my noble friend Lord Teverson has championed biodiversity, the protection of trees and increased planting. Only 7% of our landscape is covered with trees, and only 2% is ancient woodland. A tree strategy and action plan to protect and invest in trees, based on science, is essential.

Amendment 283, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Teverson would ban the rotational burning of vegetation on upland peat moors. I have listened to the arguments that this will protect the peat, but I am not convinced. In March, we debated the effect of wildfires on peat moors, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, reminded us. There are frequent wildfires on Bodmin, Dartmoor and Exmoor peat moors. Some are accidental; some are set deliberately. Wildfires are not confined to the West Country; the upland moors also suffer from them.

The managed burning of a heather moor is carried out under controlled conditions and by a patch at a time. It is a cool burn, and the underlying peat does not ignite. This is not the case with wildfires, which can rage out of control for days, with the underlying peat catching fire and spreading underground over significant distances, causing considerable damage.

Managed burning is better than out-of-control wildfires—a view supported by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The Government have trailed their peat strategy, which is due to be published this year. However, it is a long time coming. I would rather see amendments to the way we produce and use our peat, both commercially and on uplands, dealt with under this strategy and not piecemeal, as with this amendment.

Peat takes hundreds of years to form but can be depleted very quickly. My husband recently went to the local garden centre to buy compost. He asked the owner which were the peat-free bags—there was only one variety. He stood next to a woman who was instructing her husband to buy several bags of compost with the words, “Make sure it has a very high peat content”.

The message about the finite quantity of peat is not getting through. Can the Minister say when the peat strategy for the country will be published? It will affect not only the upland peat bogs but the lowland peat moors, which are currently being exploited under licence for the benefit of the English country garden. I urge the Minister to consider Amendment 283, along with the peat strategy, when that eventually appears.

Peatland restoration is taking place in a variety of types of peatland. Restoration on the levels referred to by my noble friend Lord Teverson is very impressive: it has created new habitats and restored the water levels. On the next moor, however, peat is still being extracted. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the many and varied arguments put forward in this very long debate.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, for moving his amendments, which now seems quite a long time ago. But I am sure he has listened with interest to the rest of the debate.

I am speaking in support of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone, to which I have added my name, and to my Amendment 283 on the prohibition on burning peat. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for adding their names.

My noble friend Lady Young has made an excellent case for the need for a tree strategy to be included in the Bill. It is interesting that the only mention of trees in the Bill is about felling rather than planting trees. Obviously, the Government’s announcement of the England tree action plan is welcome, as is the commitment to treble woodland creation rates to meet a target of planting 30,000 hectares per year by the end of this Parliament. But I echo my noble friend’s concern that the plan lacks the clarity and targets needed to ensure an effective implementation. As noble Lords will be all too aware, government targets for tree planting have come and gone before and, at last count, we were still way behind the Government’s earlier target to plant 11 million trees.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am not sure I can follow that.

I believe the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has laid out the case extremely well for all three of his amendments in this small group. Amendment 205A would give power to relevant civil society organisations attempting to regenerate populations of extinct insects and other animals, especially those that may have had a regional presence. This is a very worthy aim and one that I support. However, I urge caution over the reintroduction of some insects that, when they were alive, had an adverse impact on the countryside, wildlife or humans. I am sure the noble Lord does not wish to reintroduce an insect that was a persistent pest and had no useful purpose.

Amendment 253 relates to allowing fallen stock to remain on land for the consumption of flesh-eating birds and insects—noble Lords will note that I have gone for the easy pronunciation here. I support this with the proviso that the fallen stock has not died from a disease that might spread to other stock or to humans; we need to be careful about that. To ensure the survival of many insects and birds, it is really important that they have something to feed on. Fallen stock and, indeed, fallen trees should be left not only to feed birds and insects but to provide essential nutrients to the soil. I have read Isabella Tree’s book on rewilding and she makes a very powerful case for letting things be. In the past, if an oak tree was in danger of falling or was rotten at its core, the answer was to fell it and take away the remains. It is now recognised as far better for it and for other dead trees to be left for beetles, insects and fungi to feed on. That increases our much-depleted biodiversity.

Amendment 257D relates to the captive breeding of wild animals and their subsequent release back into their natural environment. We have seen beavers returned to the wild in Cornwall and Devon and Scottish wildcats bred in captivity now living in a safe reserve in the Highlands. I support these programmes but accept that they are not always universally welcomed. There has been discussion and nervousness about the possible release of wolves into Scotland. I accept that care will need to be taken over just what is released and where, but captive breeding programmes have helped many animals and birds. Ospreys and sea eagles—magnificent birds—are making a significant return, the latter right across the country from Scotland down to the Isle of Wight. If you are lucky enough to see one soaring overhead or diving down to catch prey out of the water, it is a sight that you will never forget.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has spoken about conserving pine martens, red squirrels and butterflies, and reminded us that our biodiversity is in a very poor state—one of the worst in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has spoken about donkey cemeteries and the time when kites scavenged on the streets of London, and reminded us of the role of vultures. I think it was the bird sort that she was referring to.

This is a niche group of amendments but one that deserves to be taken seriously. I hope the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for enabling us to have this interesting debate. He is rightly challenging us to think through what steps are necessary in practical terms to reverse the declining biodiversity, to which we all aspire. One way would be to let nature take its course, with all the stops and starts that would entail. Another way is to give nature a bit of a helping hand, which is really what he is proposing. He is rightly challenging us to be more ambitious about this, so I am interested in his suggestion about accelerated breeding programmes.

Of course, this is already happening in a controlled way in some circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned in the previous debate. We all welcome the programmes of beavers being released into the wild, which brings with it the added benefit that they are happily engaged in building dams, which slow the river flows. She has again mentioned a number of precious species today, including red squirrels and pine martens, with actions being taken to reintroduce them, all of which is very welcome.

Some other animals might not be so welcome, particularly to adjoining farming communities where livestock might be at risk, so I caution that this needs to be done with care and expertise. Rewilding takes time, otherwise there is a danger that introducing one new species could have an adverse effect on other species that are already established.

Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raises a very interesting point about animal carcasses in rewilding projects being allowed to remain on the land—again, effectively letting nature take its course. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out in an earlier debate, vultures have played an important role in clearing carcasses in parts of Africa and Asia. We have also heard again today from my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about mule pits in Spain and indeed the kites scavenging in old London. It is a very vivid image.

Of course, death is not pretty and this would not be, but we would only be applying the same principles that already occur for smaller mammals. Dying animals may well prefer to be left with their herd to die, rather than being culled or taken elsewhere to die or indeed to be slaughtered. On the other hand, this would need to be managed carefully. It cannot be a substitute for taking care of the stock, and we certainly would not want it to be used as a money-saving exercise. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord points out, this is what a true rewilding exercise would really entail. I therefore welcome his contribution and look forward to the Minister’s take on the issues raised.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is an important group of amendments about targets. Without ambitious targets being set in the Environment Bill, the Government will not achieve their goal of increasing biodiversity, tackling pollution and climate change, and moving the country forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is right to want to ensure that we fully understand and evidence the reasons why we are taking targets and why they are not being met, so that remedial action can be taken. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others have supported this. However, unless targets are set and strategies set to reach them, we will not move forward in the way the Minister hopes for from this Bill, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will be missed.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave us an excellent example of conservation success based on scientific evidence. My noble friend Lord Addington is right that the health of the population, taking exercise and the state of the environment are inextricably linked. Improving the environment improves the sense of well-being of each of us, and therefore improves our health, both mental and physical.

My noble friends Lady Parminter and Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, supported by other Lords, made a very strong case for the Secretary of State to obtain the advice of the OEP about consultation on the regulations in Clause 1—although my noble friend Lord Teverson would prefer that the advice come from the Climate Change Committee. The OEP is a vital body that will need considerable strengthening to be effective and deliver. It has expertise provided by the excellent chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, and her newly appointed non-executive members, but it needs legal independence and authority to operative effectively.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, quite rightly reminds the Minister that the Government should not make decisions that are applicable in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland without the consent of the devolved Administrations. This is particularly important when it comes to water.

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pressed for the inclusion of the maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment in the targets. Again, this is vital if we are to return to our biodiversity of former years. Some areas are in very good condition, but many others are not.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, made a powerful argument, especially around trade-offs, but I regret that I remain to be convinced. Setting ambitious targets and having realistic strategies to meet them is what the Environment Bill is all about. While the cost of meeting targets may appear high, in some cases the economic cost to the planet of not meeting our biodiversity and environmental protection targets is incalculable. The diversity of species in plant, animal and insect life has for too long been a question of cost. The cost of the loss of that diversity has now reached epic proportions and must be halted and reversed, otherwise the cost to humanity as a whole, as David Attenborough has reminded us, will be utterly devastating. To my mind, the case for a cost-benefit analysis has been made but, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, demonstrated, there is no indication of how the measures in the Bill will be funded. I look forward to the Minister’s response to these comments and the questions posed.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendment 34, to which I have added my name, and all the other amendments that were so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained, Amendment 34 addresses the specific question of where the Secretary of State will get his advice from before setting any environmental targets. As the wording stands, it is for the Secretary of State to determine who is independent and who has relevant expertise. As we have already begun to identify, this concentrates considerable power in the hands of the Secretary of State, who will, under this wording, effectively determine not only what targets are set but who will advise him on what targets are appropriate. Our amendment would make the simple but important change to require the Secretary of State to seek advice from the OEP on who these experts might be. It seeks to add an extra layer of independence into the target-framing process.

It is also worth noting that there is no requirement in the Bill, at the moment, to seek any independent advice on the setting of interim targets. Compare this with the requirements for the Climate Change Committee; it sets the targets and it decides which independent experts to draw upon. It is a much more robust and independent process, which is why there is considerable confidence and respect for its final recommendations.

I turn to the other amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, makes a good point about the evidence and research and the fact that, if targets are not being met, we need to be sensitive about the remedies that can be introduced. I welcome that approach, but I was concerned to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that UKRI does not even have any details of funding for biodiversity activities on its website, which again raises the rather urgent question of where that research is going to come from. We agree that the target-setting and evaluation process should have enough flexibility over the course of the term to be adapted and amended if the details of the research change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, through this group of amendments my noble friend Lord Redesdale has set out the case for heritage assets to be included in the definition of the natural environment. Heritage assets are often the natural home of many varied animal, insect and bird species. My noble friend has been eloquently supported by the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Blencathra.

Given the hour, I will be brief. Others have made the case extremely well and I fully support their comments. We debated on Monday the enjoyment that the public get from the natural environment, whether that be by walking in the fells, swimming in rivers or picnicking on grassy open spaces. The benefits to their physical and mental health are well documented. This group of amendments seeks to extend the same benefits to archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historic interests. Families’ and people’s enjoyment of all these is important, and in many cases it is the paying visitors who keep these iconic attractions economically viable.

The amendments wish to ensure that the EIPs include natural and built heritage in all its forms, thus preserving them for the future. Many of these iconic structures are well-known to all of us, from Badbury Rings and the Minack Theatre in Cornwall to the Ness of Brodgar in Orkney and perhaps Powderham Castle. Some are inaccessible to those families who are on low incomes but, whatever form they take, they have a fascination and a spellbinding quality that hold us all enthralled at the skill of the men and women who constructed them. Visiting them is definitely life-enhancing and enriching.

Some will have been part of the City of Culture’s categories around the country. It is many years since I last went to Coventry, but I look forward to returning to see how it is faring now that it is the City of Culture. I remember going to Glasgow when it was the European City of Culture. I was amazed as it was very different from my expectations—stunning and beautiful.

I am sure the Minister will agree that many of the examples given during the debate fall into the category of the natural environment, and I look forward to hearing how he sees the EIPs covering them.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority. Given the lateness of the hour, I intend to speak briefly.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate for their generous and vivid descriptions of the art and beauty of the place that they hold dear. Each noble Lord, in their own different way, has had a story to tell. In combination, they have made a persuasive point that heritage and historic buildings are a fundamental part of our natural environment.

As the National Trust made clear in its briefing, and as noble Lords have beautifully illustrated this evening, none of our landscapes is completely natural. They are all the consequence of human interaction with the landscape during thousands of years. The variety of ways in which the land has been farmed and grazed, together with the pockets of communities around it—each very different—are a precious part of our English heritage. Everything from dry stone walls and stone circles, to farm buildings and historic churches, tells a story about our history.

The South Downs has had its own settlements for more than 6,000 years. You can still see the remains of the Iron Age fort at Cissbury Ring or admire the mosaics in Bignor Roman Villa. The great estates of places such as Firle, Glynde and Petworth House still enhance our landscape today. We need to value them for their intrinsic contribution to the living landscape and recognise their attraction to visitors, providing welcome jobs in the heart of the countryside. They clearly have a role to play in enhancing public enjoyment of the countryside.

As a number of noble Lords have said, this is already goal 6 of the 25-year environment plan which talks about enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery, while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage. This was echoed by the Minister in his response to the Second Reading debate:

“The 25-year plan explicitly recognises the link between the natural environment and heritage.”—[Official Report, 7/6/21; col. 1307.]


However, as noble Lords have said, these aims are not reflected in the Bill as it stands. As we move to future iterations of the targets and environmental improvement plans, it is important that these elements are not forgotten.

The importance of heritage was rightly included in the Agriculture Act as a public good that can receive financial support. It is important that the Government act consistently and cross-reference that into this Bill as well. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can provide some reassurance that this omission will be addressed in some way—perhaps by meeting noble Lords, as has been suggested.

I was sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was unable to speak to Amendments 290 and 291, addressing the economic role of the national parks. The parks have a central role to play in delivering the objectives of the Environment Bill. I hope to return to this issue later in the passage of the Bill.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage
Monday 21st June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 10, to which I have added my name, and I support other amendments in this group. I declare my interest, as others have done, as a member of the APPG for Dark Skies. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has made the case for his amendment very eloquently, as has the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach.

When I was a child—this was a while ago—I was brought up in Bristol. Like all children, I was fascinated by the moon, which shone in the sky. Man had not yet ventured to the moon, which I felt was a distant, magical planet. Although we lived in a city, it was possible to see the night sky. Streetlights were switched off before midnight, probably at about 11 pm. There was much less human activity at night in those days. I was therefore able to concoct wonderful stories in my imagination about the man in the moon and the shadows on the moon’s surface.

Roll forward to today, and the map of the country often shown on news bulletins is of a land illuminated by streetlights that are not turned off. The areas where darkness prevails are few and far between. It is impossible for a child living in an urban area to investigate the sky and see the stars twinkling in the light reflected from the moon.

To move from the emotional view of light pollution to the detail of it, it is impacting our species and ecosystems, and increased artificial light at night is directly linked to negative impacts on energy consumption, human health and wildlife such as bats, insects and plants, as others have referred to. Ten years ago I could walk down the lane at 10 pm and bats would be swooping around overhead, consuming gnats and other flying insects. Today it is very rare to see any bats overhead at night. There is a wealth of information about the effect on birds and insects of artificial light, and others have made powerful speeches about the impact of light pollution on night pollinators and on feeding cycles.

My neighbour has a telescope in their upstairs window to see the stars. How very lucky we are to live in a dark area—the only light pollution that we suffer is from Advent to Epiphany, when the church is illuminated by floodlights—but over 90% of the UK population are estimated to be unable to see the Milky Way from where they live. To my mind, that is a severe limit on their ability to observe and wonder at the world that we live in, as well as having a devastating effect on the ecosystems and biodiversity of the nocturnal environment. The night-time economy is often referred to as a good thing. It is time that the animal, insect and plant nocturnal economy was given protection to ensure its survival. I fully support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall.

My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke eloquently about the long-term biodiversity target, both onshore and offshore. I share his comments and his concerns about our territorial seas, the marine ecosystems and seagrass.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, urged us to reduce consumption of resources rather than improve efficiency. To make a difference, both will need to be high on the Minister’s agenda.

Tree planting, which we have debated many times, is essential to carbon sequestration, habitat protection and improving flood alleviation. Protecting our native trees from diseases imported from other countries and those carried on the wind is essential to maintain a steady increase in the number of trees. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harris of Pentregarth, raised tree planting.

The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on soil quality is really important; the subject was raised on Second Reading. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has also supported this. If we do not get the soil quality right, we will not move forward.

We are all aware of the contribution that cattle make to agricultural emissions—currently accounting for 60%. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that the Government implement a 20% reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy; most speakers referred to that. Can the Minister say whether the Government are preparing a strategy to ensure that this 20% reduction is implemented? Perhaps this will be through raising awareness with the public of the effect on the environment of meat and dairy consumption.

This has been an important and fascinating group of amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for introducing this important debate and all noble Lords who have contributed to the hugely important spectrum of issues raised this evening.

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made a significant point that repairing our marine biodiversity is as important as rebuilding our land-based biodiversity. But it is true that, as it stands, the Bill ignores the marine environment completely. I agree that that needs to be addressed.

Sadly, our seas and oceans are increasingly polluted. Plastics and microplastics, chemical fertiliser, run-offs from agriculture and, as we debated earlier, sewage discharges, are all damaging the quality of our seas. We are killing off our coral, creating ocean dead zones, and allowing excess algae blooms to suck the oxygen out of our water. The effects of this are damaging to both marine and human life, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, argued, if we act now, reverse those trends and encourage new growths of seaweeds and seagrasses, the oceans could be harnessed as a positive source of carbon sequestration in our climate change strategy. There is everything to fight for.

In his Second Reading response, the Minister mentioned the blue belt around our overseas territories. Of course this is welcome, as is the growth of marine protected areas around the UK coastline, but there is so much more we should be doing. The current marine protected areas still allow damaging seabed extraction and fishing. I hope the Minister can confirm that the recommendation of his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, that there should be a string of highly protected marine areas will be implemented in full.

Sadly, so far, the Government have seemed reluctant to legislate to ensure that any future marine protections are legally enforceable. That is why we would welcome the inclusion of robust marine biodiversity targets in the Bill. Our experience with the Fisheries Bill last year was that the Government were not prepared to put sustainable fishing at the heart of the Bill. As a result, the charity Oceana has reported that, post Brexit, only one-third of the UK’s key fish populations is in a healthy state, with bottom trawlers and supertrawlers causing particularly damaging effects on the marine environment. So, if not now, when will we see action on these issues?

Agricultural Transition Plan

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring two interests—at Rothamsted agricultural research institute and as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is involved in several of the tests and trials.

To those of us who sat through the many hours of debate on the Agriculture Bill, the premise of this Statement is very familiar. As we have said many times, the shift from payments made on the basis of land ownership or tenure to payments for improved environmental performance and other social benefits is very welcome. I am sure that the new levels of detail contained in the transition plan are appreciated by those directly affected. Given that we voted to leave the EU in 2016, I am inclined to say, “What took you so long?”.

The Minister will be all too aware of the criticisms from the farming community that these details have been published only three weeks before they are due to take effect. Although the Minister talks about a seven-year transition, the confirmation of an immediate cut in basic farm payments from 1 January 2021 is a bitter pill to swallow, so I would like to probe this decision in more detail.

The transition paper spells out a minimum cut of 5% in subsidies next year, but the opportunity to reclaim these payments does not kick in until 2022. The Statement talks about wanting farmers to come with us on a journey, but this seems the wrong way to go about building their good will towards the huge upheaval necessary to deliver the transformation. Why do the Government feel that this payment gap is necessary? Have they done a risk assessment on the number of farmers who will be unable to operate with this reduced income? Will there be any financial compensation as part of the resilience package for those whose livelihoods are threatened? How will the £170 million saved by this cut in the first year be reallocated? What proportion will be available in 2022 for individual farmers to claim through the sustainable farming incentive?

Between 2021 and 2024, a total cut of 50% in basic farm payments is proposed. The NFU projects that livestock farmers will have lost between 60% and 80% of their income as a result of these reductions. Can the Minister assure us that, during this period, equivalent payments will be accessible to those who are willing to embrace the philosophy of the new schemes? When we will see the details of these schemes, so that farmers can be reassured that it can work for them on their farms? Is it intended for there to be a variety of projects of different lengths and complexities, so that all landowners and tenants will have the opportunity to make the positive difference to which we all aspire? Can the Minister assure us that any money that is not spent in year one, before the schemes are fully implemented, will be rolled over for payments the following year and will not go back to the Treasury?

I also want to ask about the impact of devolution on these measures. This is an England-only proposal, as agriculture is a devolved matter. As we know, the devolved nations are drawing up their own proposals to maintain more financial support for their farming communities. This could have a detrimental effect on the price of English livestock and arable produce compared with their Welsh and Scottish counterparts.

In his response in the Commons, George Eustice said:

“We will set up a joint group across the UK to do market surveillance, to ensure that there is not disturbance to the internal market and to share ideas on what works.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/11/20; col. 42.]


Does the Minister agree that this sounds far too complacent for an issue that many people fear is an immediate and escalating danger to market access and price stability for English-grown food?

Finally, I want to ask about the ultimate goal of this transition. The Government’s press release states:

“These changes will be designed to ensure that by 2028, farmers in England can sustainably produce healthy food profitably without subsidy”.


Will this mark the end of subsidies for English farming? Is this the future of farming, predicated on a free market principle that you can compete in the market on price or you will not survive? What will this mean for UK farmers competing in a global market where the majority of their competitors, including obviously the EU, continue to receive farm subsidies? Also, what is the strategy for upland farmers, who will struggle ever to make a profit but who represent an iconic part of rural life? What are the implications for our food policy if the race to the bottom on costs becomes the driving principle?

I fear that the consequences of these proposals will be the end of small family farms and the rise of big corporations farming on a grand scale. They may indeed deliver some environmental benefits, but they also risk changing the nature of farming and the rural community for good in ways that I do not think we envisaged when we were debating the Agriculture Bill not so long ago. I hope that the Minister can persuade us that there is a plan for long-term financial support for those delivering environmental outcomes way beyond 2027 and that profit in the long term will not be the only measure of success. I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement on the agriculture transition plan. There is much to be commended in the document, which sets out some of the detail that was absent from the Agriculture Bill. However, it is clear that many aspects of the plan are still in a state of flux and are being worked out as the implementation begins.

The document covers the period of 2021 to 2024, although the changeover from direct payments is scheduled to run for seven years. Farmers have been heavily dependent on area-based subsidies and it is welcome that these will reduce on a gradual basis. Next year, the reduction in basic payments of £30,000 will be 5%, followed by a further 15% reduction in 2022 and 2023, and 50% by 2024. For those with payments of over £150,000, the reduction will be 70% by 2024. This is a significant reduction and it is unclear whether it will be replaced by the three components of the Environmental Land Management scheme, especially since the landscape recovery component will not commence until 2024.

Can the Minister reassure us that farming incomes, which will become increasingly dependent on environmental measures, will be capable of sustaining both farmers and their families? I welcome the fact that all farmers will be eligible to apply for the first component of the sustainable farming incentive scheme. This is a step in the right direction in order to gradually introduce some farmers to the Government’s environmental agenda. However, there is no detail of how this will reward family farmers financially. The move by the Government to make all farms financially viable by the end of the transition period will need to be monitored very carefully, as some will see it as a leap of faith in the dark.

There is considerable mention of the environmental measures for which the Government will provide payments, including establishing animal health and welfare pathways. However, there is very little in the document that relates to food. Moving farmers from their previous way of working to a new environmental basis will be successful only if they are also able to produce food, whether in the form of animals or horticulture. Does the Minister agree that food production needs to be at the forefront of the reason for agriculture?

I welcome the scheme to help farmers who wish to exit from agriculture. Can the Minister give details of what the payments will be for this section of the scheme? Will it be funded from the £1.8 billion earmarked for agriculture over the next three years? Can he give reassurances that the land and farms thus released will be reserved for new entrants into farming? If the Government’s aim to transform our agriculture is to be realised, it will be vital that new entrants are given first preference for the farms of those who are exiting the sector.

The Government are clearly still at the development stage of their thinking on environmental land management reforms, and they promise to adapt the components as they go along. If some do not work, they will be altered and amended to improve them. This is to be welcomed but it does not provide certainty for farmers. Farming is not a short-term activity; it takes planning ahead and capital investment. The Government are looking to the private sector to help to finance some of their components, but the private sector is unlikely to come forward if it feels that the Government may be likely to move the goal- posts half way through the scheme. Can the Minister give reassurance that the three components of the Government’s agriculture policy will be fully tested before farmers are asked to commit their livelihoods to them?

The Government expect the environmental land management scheme to deliver the benefits of England’s peat strategy by paying for sustainable peatland management and restoration. Can the Minister provide the House with some more detail on exactly how and when that will be achieved?

I turn to the tree health pilot. It is vital that we protect our iconic trees from pests and diseases, which have decimated our hedgerows and forests in the past. There is evidence that huge numbers of saplings have been planted without any real sense of how they will be cared for and nurtured into adult trees. Can the Minister give reassurance that the thousands of trees that the Government quite rightly want to see planted will be the correct indigenous species to the area in which they are planted? As many as possible must survive to become the forests that the country will need to reach its zero-carbon targets.

I welcome this transition plan and look forward to more detail of the schemes to come, and to the Minister’s response.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords & Ping Pong (Minutes of Proceedings): House of Lords
Thursday 12th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction to this group of amendments, and for his time and that of the Secretary of State and his officials in providing a briefing. He has given reasons for why amendments in this group cannot be accepted. However, I regret that I find it difficult to accept the Government’s arguments.

We spent many hours and days debating the Bill, with contributions from all sides in an effort to improve it, preserve our fishing stocks, protect the economy of our coastal communities and give our fishermen an income which will sustain them into the future. That is not an easy task but, at the end of the day, if we do not protect our fish stocks, we will have received no economic or social benefits for either the communities or the fishermen.

Fishing must be conducted in a sustainable way and the environment must be protected. We are all aware of the severe challenges faced by our coastal towns and villages during the six months from October to March each year, when the tourists and second homeowners visit less frequently, and in some areas not at all. Coastal communities that attract thousands of visitors during the spring and summer months know that it is often the sight of the fishing boats in the harbour which are the draw.

However, unless fish stocks are preserved and sustained into the future, there is a very real threat to the prosperity of these communities. A smash-and-grab approach, whereby fish are taken over and above the maximum sustainable yield for short-term economic gain, will not produce the results needed. Transparency, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, is absolutely key.

Motion 1A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is simple: sustainability is a must for ever. Is “the long term”, in the view of the Government, three years? Is it 10 years? It must be stretching into the future. Just what does “long term” mean? It is not acceptable in 20 years’ time for our grandchildren to say, “What is cod? What does it look like? What does it taste like?” I choose this species as it is the most widely available on fish counters today and in fish and chip shops, but it could be any species—skate, hake or haddock. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, makes very pertinent points about the invisibility of fish. Despite international commitments to end overfishing by 2020, only 58% to 68% of UK fish stocks for which data is available are currently fished at sustainable levels. This means that between 32% and 42% are overfished and not sustainable.

Motion 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, similarly presses the need for environmental sustainability. We know from previous discussions that the Government believe that sustainability is only a third of the basis for their fishing policies, with economic and social factors being on a par—a three-legged stool. This is a false premise on which to go forward; it will not protect fish stocks. Once fish stocks have depleted there will be no economic or social benefits. Sustainability must be the overarching consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spoken knowledgeably about the allocation of quota, and the bun-fight when it is distributed.

It is regrettable that the Commons has not sought to include and support Clause 18 for a national landing requirement. Similarly, it had rejected Clause 27, which would have ensured fishing opportunities for new entrants and boats under 10 metres. There is, therefore, little hope for those young men and women living in coastal communities who wish to make fishing their way of life. There is now no mechanism for them to plan for such a future; this is extremely short-sighted. As more mature fishermen retire, it will be essential to encourage younger people into the industry. Can the Minister say what measures the Government intend to put in place to encourage new entrants into the fishing industry?

Amendment 14B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, seeks to install remote electronic monitoring systems and cameras on all over-10-metre fishing vessels, including those fishing outside the UK EEZ. This would be phased in within the next five years after passing the Bill. His timetable is not unreasonable: he asks not for this to happen next year but for a phased implementation. The government consultation on the implementation of REM is to be welcomed. It is essential that robust and verifiable data is needed to support well-managed, accountable and sustainable fisheries. Trials of REM on UK vessels have already illustrated the benefits of this technology as a valuable monitoring tool.

So why is it so important to have this on the face of the Bill and not wait for the results of the government consultation? The NFFO policy statement is that Brexit provides an opportunity to take back control of UK fishing: control access to UK waters and ensure that UK fishermen get a fair deal on quotas; revive coastal communities, bringing immediate and long-term opportunities; and grow the UK’s industry as a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. It is not wrong—this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. However, it is the methods that it wishes to follow to achieve this which are flawed. On the subject of MSY, it believes that:

“Setting quotas in mixed fisheries for sustainable fisheries management … will not be helped if there is a legal requirement that elevates MSY above all other factors and an immoveable rigidity is introduced into fisheries management.”


MSY is key to sustainability of our fish stocks.

The NFFO is similarly

“against the blanket introduction of REM as this would raise a range of ethical, legal and practical questions that so far remain unaddressed”.

I am at a loss to understand what the ethical questions might be. One thing is very clear: introducing REM will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what has been caught, where and what, if anything, has been thrown back, and where the catch is landed.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has supported my noble friend Lord Teverson in this eloquent amendment, as have other Peers. We wait to see what the result of the REM consultation will produce but, as my noble friend said, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I deeply regret that we have not grasped it with both hands. Yes, there would have been difficult decisions, but now is the time to make them, not put them off for another day. I support all three amendments, which are absolutely vital for the future of our fishing industry and fish stocks over the next 30 years.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter setting out the Government’s reasons on these amendments, and also for the very helpful meeting with the Secretary of State and advisers earlier this week. However, we remain disappointed with the Government’s response. We believe that the substance of our original amendments was sound and a constructive improvement to the Bill. Having read Hansard for the Commons considerations of our amendments, I would say that we won the arguments even if we did not win the votes.

Of course, there is a particular irony in that, from the outset, we were told that we could not amend this Bill as it was a done deal with the devolved nations that could not be unpicked, yet here we are considering 101 government amendments that have been tabled since our amendments were opposed for that very reason. We will consider the merits or otherwise of the government amendments in other groups, but I want to say something more about our amendments at this stage.

First, on sustainability, I do not think that we will ever agree on the need for environmental sustainability to be paramount. The Minister knows the strength of feeling in the House on this issue. It was not helped by the argument he originally put forward that we should welcome the arrangements because they merely replicated those in the common fisheries policy, which, as noble Lords will know, has led to depleted stocks, whereby just over half of UK fishing stocks are fished at sustainable levels. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, leaving the EU was the one opportunity to make a dynamic difference to the sustainability of our fish stocks, and it feels like the Government have failed to grasp that vision and make it a reality.

Nevertheless, I welcome the commitments in the Minister’s letter to build sustainability into the pilot schemes for the fisheries management plans and to increase protections for the marine protected areas. However, there is clearly a great deal more to be done to demonstrate environmental sustainability in action and to persuade us that there has been a break with the discredited practices of the past. This is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on how the economic, social and environmental objectives are being balanced by the fisheries policy authorities. We would then be in a better position to judge the Government’s real determination to deliver change on this issue and there would be the transparency that we all seek. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has been tenacious in pursuing this issue, so I am pleased that the Minister was able to provide more detail in his opening comments on how the fisheries management plans will work and how the three-legged stool will be balanced so that we can hold local fishing communities to account for achieving all aspects of sustainability.

I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. He is quite right to point out that environmental sustainability should be not just a long-term objective—or, as he put it, “jam tomorrow”; it should be for the here and now, in response to the immediate crisis, rather than a distant and worthy goal. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Hanworth echoed. It seems like a simple but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the concerns raised today on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was not sure about the argument that coastal development might impact on short-term sustainability. I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to take this simple amendment on board, but I hope that the Minister was able, in his comments, to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it will, in practice, be both a short- and long-term objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this hefty group of amendments. These amendments deal with requests from the devolved Administrations, as she said. Most are consequential on four main amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I am interested in the way the devolved Administrations have amended the Bill, when during our debates in Committee and on Report we were told that there could be no amendments that might affect the devolved Administrations.

The main amendments are Amendments 10, 12, 39 and 85, alongside a raft of minor drafting amendments. Amendment 10 and the amendments consequential on it—Amendments 15 and 16, 18 to 20, 23, 40 and 41, 69, 71 and 75—provide arrangements for a sea fish licensing authority, which is the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the Northern Ireland department and the MMO. We support these. Amendments 12 and 24 are consequential on Clause 43 and relate to the interpretation of the Welsh legislation, in both English and Welsh, and to the offshore zone, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval.

Amendment 39, which is extremely important, inserts legislation relating to several regulations affecting shellfish, scallops, sharks, skates and rays, razor clams, et cetera, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments 29 to 38 are consequential on Amendment 39. The fish and shellfish in the list in this amendment are nearly all endangered in one way or another, and it is important that there is transparency over their protection and that they are not overfished or taken undersized, as the Minister said. The list is extensive; as it is at the request of the devolved Administrations, we are happy to support these amendments, but we make the point that these fish and shellfish need to be sustainable and their stocks carefully monitored.

Amendment 85 and consequential amendments insert new powers into the Schedule for the Northern Ireland department relating to exploitation of sea fishery resources in its offshore region. This also includes consultation with the Secretary of State, the MMO, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Consultation has risen rapidly up the fishing agenda on a range of matters, and consultation with the devolved Administrations is essential. The sheer number of amendments we are debating today indicates that some of this can be very last minute—that is a bit of a danger. However, there are legitimate reasons for these amendments and for them being so late, so we support them, albeit at a somewhat late stage of the process.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I intend to speak quite briefly, but first, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of these changes. Having looked at the small, technical amendments in this group, I do not have a problem with them, but I return to the issue of devolution in the broadest sense. I raised earlier the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised: because it has now been raised several times, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain why we were told that the Bill was a done deal with the devolved nations and could not be amended, when it seems, quite understandably, that negotiations have been ongoing, as evidenced obviously by the amendments before us today. It leaves a slightly sour taste because it feels as if we were slightly misled about the process that was taking place. Can she clarify that for us?

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)[V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. A national food strategy is not something that it might be nice to have; it is essential.

Like others, I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and support for a food strategy. As we enter the inevitable second wave of Covid-19 infections and a possible second lockdown, food security is at the top of everyone’s thoughts. Children affected by lockdown are struggling. Ensuring that they have enough to eat has become a national cause. The Welsh Government have announced that free school meal provision will be extended through every school holiday until Easter 2021. The vouchers provided to be exchanged for a meal must be for healthy food. The other nations in the UK should now follow the Welsh example. I can think of nothing worse than a child in the UK—one of the richest countries in the world—being hungry while others are overeating with the resultant health problems. During the national regimes of the 1940s and early 1950s, obesity and diabetes were hardly heard of. I am not suggesting that we return to those strictures.

I recently listened to an interview with a Durham University student who was in a unit with five other students. They had all paid for catered meals. Due to lockdown, they were virtually imprisoned in their accommodation, with a kettle and a toaster. They were provided with food boxes that contained “junk food”—the student’s words, not mine—of Pot Noodles, crisps, snack bars and three apples, the only healthy food. The next box, supposed to last for 11 days, contained no fruit at all but the same selection of junk food. Never was it more obvious that a proper food strategy was essential in order to protect these students.

The other place has indicated that it wishes to wait for the final report from Henry Dimbleby and that the Lords amendment is unnecessary. I hope that our prodding will ensure that something is done, and done quickly, once that report is published. The grass appears to grow faster than we would like, and 18 months is far too long, as other Peers have said.

I fully support all the comments previously made on a national food strategy and am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for their expertise and perseverance in this important matter. I look forward to the Government’s consultation once Henry Dimbleby’s work has been completed. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that monitoring the outcome will be essential.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for pursuing this issue, which had considerable cross-party support when it was debated here on Report. Sadly, the Commons did not give it the prominence and attention it deserved last week. MPs obviously had other concerns and were focusing on the international issues around a food strategy, which we will consider later. Nevertheless, this remains an important issue for the health of our nation and needs to be integrated with the policies for growing food that are more clearly set out in this Bill.

Our concern all along has been that the work carried out in the Dimbleby review should be anchored and regulated by this legislation in order that it does not become just another worthy report. That is not to prejudge the outcome of the review but to ensure that a food strategy built around the considerable piece of work that Mr. Dimbleby is doing will result in guaranteed action. It has never been more important that we deliver healthy, sustainable food for all; the health challenges were well explored in our earlier debate, and I will not repeat them here. I am therefore pleased that the Minister had a constructive meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.

I agree that 18 months is too long and the Government’s commitment to a White Paper within six months of the final Dimbleby report is welcome. Of course, that will still need to be followed through into legislation, but it gives us a strong platform on which to argue for the necessary changes.

It is also helpful to have clarification about the scale and depth of the three-yearly food security reports, which again will provide ammunition for the action that is necessary on food poverty and food insecurity. I welcome the challenges that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised with the Minister this afternoon and look forward to his response on those issues. In time, I hope that this work could provide the foundation for a national food Bill to improve the health of the next generation. In the meantime, I welcome the assurances made and am pleased that the Minister repeated them for the record today. I therefore support the amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his kind comments. By any measure, consideration of the Bill has been a mammoth task. In many ways, this is not surprising: this Bill is the first major piece of farming legislation for about 40 years, so there was a lot to discuss. We certainly had a lot of discussion.

I feel I know so much more about the personal lives of so many Peers—their favourite butterflies, their favourite trees, their best-loved walks and landscapes, and even sometimes their special hobbies. Their determination to keep talking past my bedtime has been impressive. I have also been genuinely impressed by their commitment to the environment, and indeed to a policy based on nature-friendly farming for the future. Throughout it all, the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, have been the personification of patience and courtesy, and I pay tribute to them both for their professionalism and for initiating the many briefings and discussions which took place around the Bill in an attempt to reach understanding and consensus.

At the end of the day, we have sent only six amendments back to the Commons, and those represent some of the biggest issues where we were unable to reach a consensus. I hope the Commons will understand the strength of feeling from around the Chamber on our concerns, and indeed feel able to reflect on and reconsider its position on those issues. I really hope that it is able to do that, but I suspect that this is not quite the end of the road for the Bill and that it will be back with us again all too soon.

In the meantime, I formally thank both the Minister and the Bill team for getting us to this point. I also thank Daniel Stevens, our legislative officer, for his excellent advice and drafting skills. Finally, I thank my noble friends Lord Grantchester and Lady Wilcox for contributing their expertise with such style and for being such great partners in our team.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time, patience and wisdom in helping us through the passage of the Bill. We have had a great many amendments to deal with, many speakers and some very late nights. Throughout, the Minister has been thorough in his responses and polite; I am sure, had I been in his place, I would not have remained so placid. I am very grateful to him for his diligence and support.

Like others, I have learned a great deal more about agriculture and the land through the passage of the Bill. I also place on record my thanks to the officials for the numerous briefings we have received over the months since Easter. In some cases, there were over 15 officials on the Zoom calls, helping us to get to grips with the Bill and the many clauses we were attempting to amend.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their support throughout this process, and those on the Cross Benches who have worked with us to ensure that the issues the public were so concerned about got a proper airing. I agree with her that it will be interesting to see what the Commons sends back to us.

Lastly, but by no means least, I thank the Liberal Democrat whips’ office, without which I would have been floundering with the processes involved in getting to this stage today. This has been a long haul, but we have got there. I again thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist, for their guidance on the Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of government amendments, which has been brought forward at the request of the devolved Administrations to give them the powers they each require, given their separate needs. I thank both Ministers for their patience and forbearance during this long process.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for that helpful clarification, and thank him very much for listening in Committee, when devolved issues were given a thorough airing. We certainly were made very much more aware of some of the issues and challenges that we will face on agriculture going forward, in trying to reach agreement between the devolved Administrations.

It was helpful that he clarified those famous words, “appropriate authority”, which seem to be peppered throughout all our legislation and which always leave us with the question of what the appropriate authority is, but he has very helpfully clarified that now. It was also helpful that he clarified that this was a recent request, which explains why this has come back at a fairly late stage.

I thank the Minister; he will be pleased to know I do not have any questions. Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as this is the end of Report stage, I would just like to thank both Ministers for their enormous patience and courteousness throughout the whole process. Although we did not always agree, I thought we disagreed with particular aplomb and understanding, so I thank them very much. I know that we will have the opportunity to make more formal thanks at a later stage. It has been a long process, and I think it is time to wrap up at this point.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 17th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment. I suspect that other Peers did not realise that this amendment had been re-tabled, hence the short speakers’ list.

During the Covid-19 lockdown it became painfully apparent how inadequate the broadband system is, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said. It is vital that all areas of the country have good, fast and resilient broadband, especially those in our agricultural sector. Many Peers attempting to take part in virtual proceedings have struggled with connections suddenly dropping off or being unable to log on in the first place. In 2018, the average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that of major conurbations. Can the Minister say whether this has improved in the intervening two years?

In the aftermath of the Huawei fiasco, the Secretary of State was clear on the consequences of the Government’s decision to pull out. Operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out, at the same time bearing the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Can the Minister say whether, in the intervening months since this decision was made, the Government have now reconsidered providing compensation to providers and consumers? The change in provider will delay the rollout of 5G by two to three years. Rural communities are already extremely disadvantaged in their connectivity. Many rural businesses have had to relocate to more urban areas to continue operating. Those in the farming community, like others, must fill in all their forms online. This now appears to be the Government’s only way of communicating with those residents to whom they attempt to provide services.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, during the lockdown children were dependent on Zoom connectivity to take part in sessions with their teachers. Although this meant that they received some tuition, for many the connection was so poor that it was hopeless. If the Government are true to their word in wanting to support rural communities, it is vital that broadband connectivity and digital literacy are taken seriously. This is not a “nice to have” for the agricultural industry, but an “absolute must”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for once again raising this important issue. He is right to draw attention to the alarming lack of progress in rolling out broadband to rural areas. This is hindering the ability of British farmers to do their job, and it will become even more of a crisis when new farming techniques requiring regular digital applications become mainstream.

The latest Ofcom report identifies 677,000 homes and offices without decent broadband, but the vast majority—496,000—are in rural areas. Ofcom also reports that many rural areas are left with patchy and unreliable mobile reception, with less than half having 4G coverage. Sadly, it is all too common to hear stories of farmers driving around the countryside to try to get a signal to carry out even the basic business connections that they need for their work.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been another lengthy debate on how the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State is to be properly assessed, including transparency of information to ensure that the public good principles of financial assistance are fulfilled, and on bringing the multiannual financial plan for consideration in Parliament before being brought into effect—quite a simple statement that has a wealth of detail behind it. The financial assistance scheme will have an impact on the farming community. It is, therefore, imperative that this impact should be assessed and that the outcomes and public responses are considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, said. It is important that there is transparency around payments for public good.

At first, I was not in favour of Amendment 28, as I am anxious that farmers are not subsumed in collecting information and data. However, I understand from my noble friend Lord Allan of Hallam that the majority of this data is already collected by farmers, as he indicated this evening. It is therefore important that this information should be readily available and transparent, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans pressed for.

Again, transparency is at the root of amendments around the multiannual financial plans. Setting expectations around financial assistance is key. The farming community, like every other industry and household, needs to know what it can expect and plan accordingly. Will the Minister indicate how such strategic priorities will be funded if a budget for this annual expenditure is not set?

My noble friend Lord Teverson again returned to his wish to see the plan period brought forward from seven to five years. His amendment found little support in Committee, but I fully support him in his very powerful arguments. The Agriculture Bill is heralded as a new dawn for farming and land management, but it would seem that the Government are taking a very softly-softly approach. In many ways, this is to be welcomed, but it is not good for the environment, which is suffering now. We might previously have said that the environment was suffering badly; now, we say that it is suffering catastrophically. The environment can longer afford for us to take a softly-softly approach. We must act now and move the transition forward from seven to five years: that is part of the process of acting now. As my noble friend Lord Teverson so eloquently and passionately said, we have to do something now. Will the Minister indicate why he believes it is better to take a softly-softly approach and watch the environment deteriorate around us? I do not believe that this was pledged in the Conservative Party manifesto.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has amendments on the timings of the multiannual assistance plans, as has the Minister. I am encouraged that the Government have tabled Amendment 35, which says

“in the case of the first plan, as soon as practicable before the beginning of the plan period for the plan.”

Can the Minister say just how soon he imagines “as soon as practicable” might be? If he can give reassurances on this, I think the House would be satisfied.

The level playing fields sought in the two amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, are essential so that farmers who are currently living close to the edge of financial viability can be reassured that financial assistance will be provided. This is a very important group of amendments and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and all noble Lords who have raised important issues about the application and accountability of multiannual assistance plans. All noble Lords, quite rightly, are seeking to provide some rigour in the allocation of £3 billion a year or more which is being set aside by the Government to fund the farming sector for the future. We all have an interest in ensuring that the money is allocated fairly, in line with the strategic priorities, and is seen to be producing value for money.

At the moment, Clause 4 is remarkably light on detail as to how this will be achieved, so I agree with the noble Baroness that an impact assessment is very important and should be standard practice for a government project of this scale. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the public have the right to see how and where this money is being spent. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raises an important point, which I very much agree with, about the allocation of moneys to each of the strategic priorities. Underlying all of these contributions is a desire to ensure not only that the money is spent wisely but also that it is all spent, so that we are not left gifting unused moneys which could have been put to good use back to the Treasury.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, have raised issues about the timing of the plans and the need to ensure parliamentary oversight. In this regard, the Minister’s Amendment 35 is helpful as far as it goes, and the 12-month advance notice for future plans is welcome, but he will know that the proposal to lay the first plan before Parliament “as soon as practicable” before the start date is not going to reassure many in the sector whose livelihoods depend on the funding. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that it would be useful to have some clarity from the Minister as to what that phrase means. I would have thought that the proposal from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, of a two-month deadline, was eminently sensible; I hope the Minister addresses it in his response.

I also commend to noble Lords our Amendment 41, which is coming up in a later group and which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament about the progress of the tests and trials before the transition can begin, therefore allowing some parliamentary scrutiny of that process.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raises an important point about the internal market within the UK and the dire consequences for all of us if we do not get the balance right and create a level playing field. This is a huge challenge which is not going to be resolved in this Bill, but he is right to raise the consequences for the farming sector and to urge all parts of the UK to work together on this matter.

I said at the outset that there is a compelling case for more detail on how the multiannual financial assistance plans will work. I am very much hoping that the Minister will provide the reassurance we are all seeking that this work is in hand and that we will see more details in due course, and certainly well before the schemes are launched. I look forward to his response.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, the red meat levy has been debated earlier in our deliberations on this Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, wishes to rename the red meat levy “the animal slaughter levy”. Essentially, the rest of Clause 33(1) remains the same, with the levy going to help farmers move from livestock to plant-based food production. This amendment is not trying to introduce something by subterfuge, since here we are debating it on television. There is no compulsion here.

The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Wigley, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, have spoken in favour of the repatriation of the red meat levy to the country of origin. Livestock often travels across the border from the farm where it was raised to the slaughterhouse, and we have previously debated the long journeys that some animals have to make. The levy is currently collected at the point of slaughter, and this may not be the country of origin. I support the repatriation of this levy to the relevant devolved Administration where the livestock was reared. This is where the majority of the cost of rearing occurred, so the levy should be used in that area. That is the most sensible and equitable way of dealing with this levy, and I hope the Minister will agree.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Hain for raising these issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has made an interesting point about extending the levy, but I would like far more detail about the economic and perhaps unforeseen animal welfare consequences of broadening the levy via some kind of impact assessment. I would also like to see the proposal underscored by a commitment to consult on the proposals in advance.

We have touched on the benefits of diets based more on plants and less on meat on several occasions. I believe that measures like this should be introduced as part of a wider national food strategy, rather than in isolation. To the noble Viscount, Lord, Trenchard, I say that there are plenty of sources of vegetable protein; we do not have to rely on eating meat.

My noble friend Lord Hain is right to raise the issue of the repatriation of levies raised to the point of slaughter, rather than where the animals were raised. This is particularly concerning in the case of Welsh lamb, as he very eloquently pointed out, and it will become more of an issue as smaller slaughterhouses close down and animals are forced to travel greater distances for slaughter. This point was made well by my noble friend Lord Blunkett.

It has been good to have this short debate. A number of useful issues were raised, but if we are serious about it, a great deal more work would need to be done. In the meantime, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 220 relates to animals being exported from the UK for the purposes of slaughter or fattening prior to slaughter. The sanctions imposed on those found guilty are severe and will, I hope, act as sufficient deterrent to prevent it happening.

Moving animals long distances causes extreme distress and is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, spoke passionately against the export of live animals for fattening, especially young animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, and the noble Lords, Lord Randall of Uxbridge and Lord Trees, made compelling arguments against exporting live animals, which I fully support. Does the Minister agree that the export of animals should be stopped? I know that he is passionate about animal welfare and I look forward to his support.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, spoke to Amendment 277—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, will shortly—on banning the import of foie gras from 31 December 2021. This is plenty of time for regulations to be put in place for producers of foie gras to adjust and find other markets. I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, intends the ban to extend to individual tourists returning from a holiday in a country where it is possible to buy foie gras. I support the whole impact of the foie gras ban but not penalising individual tourists.

The vast majority of the experienced and knowledgeable noble Lords who spoke on this amendment support it, except the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach. While the loading and unloading of trucks may have improved in some cases, the length and nature of the transportation in many cases has not. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, drew attention to that and confirmed that this is the case. I ask the Minister to support this amendment and look forward to his comments on the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 277 but also in support of Amendment 220, which would ban the export of farmed animals for slaughter or fattening. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and many other noble Lords set out the case for this extremely well.

My amendment has a very specific intent: to ban the import of foie gras into the UK and to introduce fines for those found guilty of the offence after 31 December 2021. This is an issue of blatant animal cruelty, which has been widely recognised. Foie gras is created by force-feeding ducks and geese massive amounts of food to make their livers swell to 10 times their natural size. It causes enormous suffering. The birds are kept in tiny cages with wire mesh floors and no bedding or rest area. The process of jamming food down their throats several times a day causes disease and inflammation of the oesophagus. There is no higher-welfare alternative for making foie gras. It is intrinsically cruel.

The production of foie gras on UK soil has rightly been banned since 2000. However, imports have sadly not been banned, with the result that the UK continues to import around 200 tonnes of foie gras each year, mostly from mainland Europe. It is time to put a stop to this. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it is not about the odd tin of foie gras in someone’s luggage; it is about commercial profit from animal suffering.

When a similar amendment was considered in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that it raised serious welfare issues but that we should consider the matter after the transition from the EU. However, noble Lords will have spotted that the implementation date in my amendment is a year after we have left the EU, so there is plenty of time to bring this law into effect. Noble Lords might also like to know that force- feeding animals is already prohibited in a number of other European countries, including Germany, Italy and Poland.

We need to join the international movement against this cruel activity and implement a ban on imports of foie gras here as soon as we can. Let us hope that if enough countries take a stand on this, it will make foie gras production uneconomical and end this cruel practice for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this should have been the last group of amendments debated on Tuesday evening, dealing with pesticides, which we had previously debated. This debate has roused passions on both sides of the argument. Whichever side you come from, we all seem to agree that being sprayed with chemicals is unacceptable. I fully support Amendment 221 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who has also added his name to Amendment 226 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, as has my noble friend Lord Greaves.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, talked of the protection of wildlife biodiversity. Terrible damage can be done to humans by ingesting chemicals which can cause health problems and deformities. The noble Lord gave a graphic example of the sprayer of pesticides who was wearing full protective clothing but taking no care to ensure that those nearby, not protected by clothing, were not covered by the spray. This is not right. Rural residents deserve to be protected, as was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, reminded us of the previous contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Will we remove toxic chemicals from our environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said? There is a cumulative effect on humans, as well as the decimation of the insect population.

I regret that I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Not all of us who have gardens spray our plants, fruit and vegetables with noxious chemicals to prevent pests. There are other means of discouraging pests and blight which do not contain poisons or spray up on our produce.

Over the years we have seen the devastating effects on humans of the use of pesticides and insecticides. Some noble Lords mentioned Roundup. I have experience of the effect of sheep dip. My noble friend Lord Addington mentioned DDT and organophosphates. We take an unconscionable time to act when presented with evidence of harm. It is, therefore, much better to ban toxic sprays and move to more environmentally friendly means of pest control, such as nematode worms to control slugs, instead of slug pellets, which kill birds that eat the slugs that have eaten the pellets, and eat the pellets themselves. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for his valuable contribution to this debate. These amendments are linked; both monitor the use of pesticides and alternatives. We cannot monitor the use of pesticides if we do not collect data on their use, as my noble friend Lady Northover indicated. I am grateful for her contribution and her attention to the UK’s history in preventing the banning of neonicotinoids and the transport of live animals—we should be ashamed of our part in that.

Noble Lords taking part in this debate have made important points. In earlier debates, the noble Baroness the Minister gave reassurances on the implementation of alternative pesticide use. It is important that the public are protected from possible pesticide spraying. The IPM should be implemented as soon as possible. When will it be consulted on and then implemented? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 226 in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Greaves. I also support Amendment 221, which was expertly introduced by my noble friend Lord Whitty. I remind noble Lords of my Rothamsted connections in the register.

Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to monitor the effects of pesticides on livestock and the land, conduct research into alternative methods of pest control and consult on a target to reduce their use. It complements the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty, which focuses more on the impact of pesticides on human health, which is, rightly, also a great cause for concern. As I mentioned in an earlier debate on the agricultural workforce, there are nearly half a million people working on the land who have immediate and worrying exposure to pesticides and herbicides on a daily basis. It is right that that should be properly regulated.

My noble friend Lord Whitty also raised the concerns of those living in rural areas adjoining fields where crops are being sprayed, sometimes indiscriminately. They come with health warnings that are rarely shared with the local population. Clearly these practices can cause substantial pollution, not only to the individuals concerned but to the air quality in nearby areas. It was notable that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, rightly pointed out the irony that water courses seem to be better protected than human beings. As my noble friend Lady Henig said, it is a sad fact that the health impacts of these chemicals often become clear all too late in the day. This is certainly the case with glyphosate, a widely used agricultural and domestic weedkiller.

This is why we argued emphatically that we should retain the precautionary principle when we transpose EU law into UK law. In response to noble Lords who have been critical of these amendments, my noble friend’s amendment calls not for a ban but for a minimum distance between spraying and homes and schools. That is a reasonable prospect, on any measure. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, not everybody operates to the high standards to which he referred and aspires. We cannot just assume that human nature will operate to the best and highest standards.

The amendment in my name concentrates more on the effects of pesticides on the land and its biodiversity. The objectives in Clause 1 place a welcome emphasis on managing land to improve the environment, to protect it from environmental hazards and to embrace agroecology. If we are serious about land management schemes that deliver for the environment, we have to be serious about a review of our pesticide use. As we have debated before, this needs to be based on an integrated pest-management principle which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, understands the interrelationship between insects and the need to keep their presence in balance, rather than wiping them out indiscriminately with pesticides. A few months ago, I talked to a farmer who described the success of the beetle banks that had been laid in rows between his crops. The beetles come out in the daytime; they roam around the field eating aphids; and then they return to the bank at dusk, and everyone is happy. These are surely the kinds of innovations that we should be supporting, along with precision application where pesticides are absolutely necessary.

We also need to be aware of the threat from imported foods with lower restrictions on the use of pesticides which might flood our market post Brexit. We need specific measures to ensure that UK farmers cannot be undercut by cheap food from non-EU countries with less strict controls, which might be contaminated by pesticide residues. Will maintaining pesticide standards and the precautionary principle apply to all imported food post Brexit?

When a similar amendment was put forward by my Labour colleagues in the Commons, the Minister, Victoria Prentis, agreed that the use of pesticides should be minimised and their usage and effect carefully monitored. She argued that further details would be included in the 25-year environment plan. But I see no reason why this issue cannot be progressed as part of this Bill. All we are asking for is up-to-date research on the impact of pesticides and alternative methods of pest control. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley; it is happening at Rothamsted and a number of other research institutes. But we need to pull that evidence together in one place, so that we have a strategy for alternative and better use. This is necessary if we are to have the good practice that the environment land management in the Bill desires. If we are serious about this, the future is about alternatives to pesticide use. All we are asking is that we capture that and put it in the Bill in a constructive way.

I urge noble Lords to look closely at the wording of my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment and mine. They are both very modest in their aspiration and scope. They do not ask for a great deal, but they do ask for practical solutions for the way forward. I hope that noble Lords will support both amendments.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this large group of amendments—and, indeed, large group of speakers—concentrates on new entrants into farming. I have added my name to Amendments 237 and 245. My noble friend Lady Northover has added her name to Amendments 241 and 244 but, due to unforeseen circumstances, is not able to be present this evening.

At Second Reading, many of your Lordships spoke in favour of ensuring that the passage of new entrants is facilitated. The move from direct payments under the CAP to ELMS is likely to see some of our more seasoned farmers deciding to leave the land to retire or to move on to other, less strenuous occupations. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, and others have spoken against the community infrastructure levy being applied to new farm buildings, and I support her amendment.

It will be vital to encourage younger, more energetic men and women to enter the profession. Some will be the sons and daughters of existing farmers and able to take on the family farms. Others will be graduates from agricultural colleges who have always had an interest in the land and farming. All will need help, support and encouragement. The supply of those not inheriting farms will be an essential element of success. Without land, you cannot farm.

Given the very short timeframes of the average farm tenancy, as relayed to us by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, do the Government see larger landowners making some of their land available for new entrants?

Many county councils have been forced to sell some of their farms to raise money for other capital projects, and local authority funding is, as ever, problematic. I know from my own county experience that these farms come in a variety of sizes, from very small starter farms to large move-on holdings, but they are rarely very large holdings. For some, the starter units give a flavour of what is involved, but they are not always large enough for them to make a living. The role of the county farm estate is to give a helping hand to those starting out. Some tenants will stay until they need to retire; others will wish to move on to larger farms in other areas. Whatever their wish, the Bill needs to facilitate this.

On Thursday, we heard of the valuable contribution that prosperous landowners with huge holdings are making to the debates in this House. However, I believe that it is the smaller farmers—especially those on the edge, such as hill farmers and those on less productive soil—who need our special consideration. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that a three-year tenancy is completely inadequate. Farming is a long-term business, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, made a powerful case for tenancies to be set at 10 years to allow a continuity of supply of starter farms.

Tenant farmers are potentially at the mercy of landlords. It is therefore important for them to be able to access funds and not to be dependent on what the landlord says. For example, there are cases where a landlord hopes to get planning permission and does not want the commitment of a grant attached to the land, especially if it lasts for a particular length of time. Sadly, on some occasions, although not all, they would rather their tenant went under than have a constraint preventing them obtaining planning permission. I support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, on this amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, believes that the conversion of redundant farm buildings to homes is good, but we must be sure that the buildings are indeed redundant and that the farmer is not looking to make more money by converting them into dwellings.

It is important that tenants are protected from a landlord’s refusal to consent to enter into financial assistance schemes. It is for the tenant farmer to decide what he or she wishes for their farm. Can the Minister confirm that landlords will be prevented from blocking their tenants’ aspirations? The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, gave an example of the farming ladder. The ELM schemes need to work. Cropping licences are an important part of the local economy. This is a short-term licence, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

The terms of inheriting farms are very different from those of other enterprises. Children grow up on farms and it is in their blood. They have developed skills throughout the years. They might not be the sons or daughters of the farmer; they might be the nephews, nieces or grandchildren. Should the farmer die suddenly, as has been the case with three of the farms in the village where I live, members will want to take over the farmer’s tenancy. I note the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to this amendment. Often landlords will be keen for this to happen, with continuity being provided. Immediate family might not be in a position to take on the tenancy, and nor might they wish to do so, but other family members of tenant farmers might absolutely want to carry on the farming tradition, having already invested a large part of their lives in the tenant farm. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke of the selling off of hill farms to those living away from the land, with it not being farmed in the way intended but often being used as pony paddocks.

As has been said, the average age of a farmer is now over 60, and this is very concerning. We have to make sure that young farmers are able to get started. Given that it is almost impossible for someone without independent means to buy land or to borrow enough from a bank, as predicted profits are so limited, unpredictable and long-term, a tenancy is the only way to provide for young farmers. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, gave a very powerful example of how elderly farmers are trapped on county farms that are no longer capable of providing a living. Diversification and new ideas are important so that these farms can be taken forward. Therefore, the amendment on widening the inheritance of tenancies seems very important. Can the Minister give an assurance that members of a farmer’s extended family will be able to inherit the farm? This is an important aspect of the Bill and I look forward to the Minister’s reassurance on these issues.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 158 and am very pleased to support it. My noble friend Lord Whitty and others have made an important case for restricting the disposal of county farms and, instead, for making good use of the smallholdings to bring new entrants into the sector, using the assets as exemplars of good environmental practice and providing greater public access. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, that this is not about preserving the status quo; it is about providing a renaissance for the sector and the land that it covers. We would like to see these smaller farms have a direct link with their local communities, providing local fresh fruit and vegetables, as well as meat and dairy produce. This should be what “public money for public goods” is all about.

In the past, smaller farms of less than five hectares have been excluded from receiving direct payments, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that these thresholds will now be scrapped and that what will matter is what the farmer does with the land, rather than the size of it. We also hope that local authorities will be persuaded, through the process of a review, to see the potential of their county farms in the longer term and the potential that they can bring to their communities, rather than being a source of short-term cash on disposal.

I also have a great deal of sympathy with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone about the applications of the community infrastructure levy. I agree that it is in danger of inhibiting innovation and the encouragement of a range of activities in the sector.

I listened to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, talk about creating smallholdings and work spaces. I agree with a number of noble Lords who have been excited about that prospect. I can see the potential, but I also think that it would depend very much on where the land and activities were sited. I have a feeling that the noble Earl mentioned that it might happen on the green belt, and I would certainly have concerns if he did say that. However, with good planning and good organisation, I can see that that could be a real asset among the range of options in the farming community.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has a series of amendments about tenancy reform. We agree that such reform is long overdue. A number of noble Lords have, rightly, made the point that short-term tenancies inhibit long-term investment in farm quality and development, and this is one of the many reforms that needs to be addressed.

We welcome the first steps made in Schedule 3, but clearly they do not go far enough. Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, it may well be that the scale of the reform that is needed is not well served by being set out in a schedule to the Bill. This is a matter to which we need to pay full attention. For example, we believe that there needs to be a greater rebalancing of the power between the landlord and the tenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke to his amendment on providing support for common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. During the 20 years when I was a county councillor, two of the parishes in my ward had common land. It was jealously guarded and protected from incursions of all forms. Sheep were often grazed on the common, but fencing to ensure that the sheep did not wander was frowned on by some villagers. As for parking on the common, this was a very serious misdemeanour. Some people have an idyllic picture of what common land looks like. In my experience, it is not a flat area around the local duck pond, with weeping willows dipping their branches in the water. As my noble friend said, it is often on sloping and unpromising land. Nevertheless, it is an important element of rural life in parts of England. It is important that it is preserved. I look forward to the Minister’s response on just how he sees it fitting into the Bill and whether it will qualify for financial assistance under the ELM scheme.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for raising this issue. I had not considered it before so I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to it. I agree that we need provisions in force in the special circumstances of the use of common land; he made a very good case for the need for a multilateral approach to it. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this suite of amendment deals with the critical issue of climate change. Agriculture has an important part to play in helping the UK meet its emissions targets. I have spoken previously in support of the introduction of an interim emissions target for 2030; 2050 is a long way off and I certainly will not be here to see that day, but with luck I just might be here in 2030. I would like to think that I could contribute in some small way to reducing the emissions the country produces. Having an interim target at 2030 gives a much more realistic goal for everyone to aim for. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, it provides backbone.

Industry, agriculture, local authorities and individual households all have their part to play. For all these sectors, 2050 is just a date in the future and means little, but 2030 would be a much more meaningful goal—especially if agriculture has its own carbon target. Children born this year will be 10. Those now aged five will be 15 and very definitely waking up to the type of world they inhabit. We have a duty and responsibility to ensure that we have made strides towards reducing emissions and tackling climate change. I can hear their voices now, shouting as only enraged teenagers can, “What did you do about it, when you knew the disastrous impact of not tackling climate change?”. I wonder whether they will care about the Paris Agreement.

Zero carbon is really important and flying abroad for our holidays—as some of us may be considering at the moment—will not help achieve this. The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, spoke knowledgably about realigning agriculture to reduce the impact on emissions and climate change. The system is already there to make payments for public goods, store carbon and reduce emissions.

My noble friend Lord Tyler raised the Met Office report on the impact of our activities on the Arctic, which is really shocking. This is not something to be left to some other piece of legislation. He also raised the inextricable links with the Environment Bill. It is not acceptable to leave this issue solely to the Environment Bill; there must be synergies between these two Bills. Beginning with a substantial commitment in the Agriculture Bill will be the start that everyone is looking for. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, tells us that 75% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture, and the NFU offers encouragement to farmers to reduce their emissions.

It is a pity that I am speaking before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, so have not heard her arguments in favour of her Amendment 272. Having heard her speak on this subject before, I have no hesitation in supporting what she will say, especially on consulting and working with the devolved Administrations.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asks for clarification on policy as this is a framework Bill and gives no information. I agree with him completely that this is what has produced all these probing amendments. I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, the noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Caithness, and my noble friend Lord Tyler, who spoke about the effect of draining peat bogs and cutting down trees. I look forward to the Minister telling us when a future farming strategy will be produced, as promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I hope I will be able to agree with the Minister’s response when she makes it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have commented, we have Amendment 272 in this group. It sets out a requirement to publish within 12 months a strategy setting out how agriculture and land use will play their part in delivering our 2050 net-zero obligations under the Climate Change Act, with regulations to set an interim emissions target by 2030. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I hope to be around for at least that date, if not longer. Several noble Lords have welcomed that it also requires consultation with the devolved nations and other interested groups on how we will deliver those targets.

I believe that our amendment and Amendment 274 aim to do the same thing. I thank all noble Lords who have supported those amendments and Amendment 73. Forgive me if I do not name-check everybody who has spoken, but I think we have more or less reached a common cause.

We obviously welcome the reference in Clause 1(1)(d) that funding will be available to manage

“land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change”,

but here the details end. We believe that confronting the threat of climate change should be at the heart of the Bill. This is why we have tabled a new clause to help deliver a strategy for agriculture that would set us on our way to meet those targets.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that the Government are already a signatory to the Paris treaty. Indeed, the recent Heathrow judgment shows that they already have a legal obligation to have regard to that treaty, so we need a plan to deliver what is effectively a legal obligation, declaratory or not. That is why our Amendment 272 specifically links back around to the Paris treaty and our obligations under it.

Meanwhile, the Committee on Climate Change’s latest report, published last month, shows once again that we are nowhere near being on target to meet the Government’s net-zero target of 2050, and agriculture has a long way to go to deliver its share of the greenhouse gas reductions. Its report says that

“the current voluntary approach has failed to cut agricultural emissions, there has been no coherent policy to improve the resilience of the agriculture sector, and tree planting … has failed outside of Scotland … Progress remains significantly off track in adaptation to build climate resilience.”

In a separate letter from the committee to the Minister, Victoria Prentis, on the potential of the environmental land management schemes, it also raises a critical issue that has been a running theme in our recent debates: the lack of a joined-up government approach within Defra to the climate change crisis. Its letter says:

“Defra has yet to set out how ELM, the Environment Bill, the 25 Year Environment Plan and various policies … for trees, peatlands and nature will fit together. In turn it is unclear how the different strategies together will support the Government’s climate change mitigation and adaptation goals.”

This is extremely well said, and this has been our experience whenever climate change targets are raised. We are always told that this work is happening in another department or another policy brief within the department, but it is clearly not happening with any serious impact. As the recent Natural Capital Committee report commented, the 25-year environment plan, which should be monitoring progress, remains a long list of ambitions with “little evidence of improvements”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 87. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, have made a compelling case for financial assistance for the slaughtering of animals closer to the farm, which also reduces food miles. On many occasions I have heard the Minister say that animal welfare is extremely important. Over the years, we have seen the closure of many small local and rural abattoirs, which has led to larger abattoirs further away from where stock is reared, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said.

The regulations on abattoirs are stricter than they used to be. The installation of CCTV ensures that animals are not distressed at the point of slaughter, vets are present, and paperwork is kept for future inspection. However, this does not assist with the passage of the animal from the farm to the abattoir. The shorter and less stressful this journey, the better for the animal—and for the quality of the meat, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, pointed out. I do not subscribe to the view that this does not matter as the animal is about to die, so why worry about its journey to the end? Animals deserve to be treated with compassion at all times. A network of smaller abattoirs serving local communities is essential for the farming community, especially small farming families. It will help them to process their animals on to the food industry or, in some cases, back to the farm for sale in the farm shop, thereby supporting the local economy.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made a powerful case for abattoirs on both the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles. There will be a cost involved in increasing the number of abattoirs, but they are essential to preventing distressing long journeys for animals. Consumers are keen to support locally grown and fed produce, and wish to buy the meat from a reputable source where they know the animals have been well cared for and fed. Slaughtering has to be included in the list for financial assistance. Concentrating all slaughter in larger, remote venues is not a satisfactory answer to the issues of animal welfare and convenience for the local farmer, whose time is limited. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the arguments raised in this debate.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I will speak briefly in support of it.

Many local farmers have trusted and long-standing relationships with their local abattoir, and it is therefore very distressing when they have to close. As we have heard, it means longer and more stressful journeys for the animals concerned and clearly has a negative impact on their welfare. It also means that the Government are failing in their stated objective to reduce travel times for slaughter.

For farmers wanting to sell their meat as a specified farm product, through so-called private kill arrangements, it also means a more complicated process for retrieving the carcass and ensuring that it is properly labelled. Yet we are all in favour of local food production with specified provenance, which is really appreciated by consumers and can help to add value and boost the rural economy.

Of course, it is important that local abattoirs meet our high slaughterhouse standards and are properly supervised and certified, and this amendment would do nothing to undermine that important principle. I therefore hope that the Minister will feel able to support this small but significant amendment. It is not the total answer to the fate of our small abattoirs, but it would represent a small step forward.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Committee is resuming last Thursday’s debate after a lapse of four days, so it is difficult to remember exactly what noble Lords said without referring to Hansard. We are still on Clause 1 of the Bill, but are debating the main and important theme of environmental sustainability. If we do not get this right, the country will be paying the price, in a variety of ways, for decades to come. There are amendments about agroecology, agroforestry systems, organic and ecologically sustainable systems, pesticides, fertilisers and nature-friendly farming. This is a wide range of topics, but they are ones which Peers in this virtual and physical Chamber quite rightly feel strongly about.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their names to my Amendments 38 and 120. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have also put down amendments about pest control. The new approach of public money for public goods is a huge opportunity to support farmers who adopt and maintain non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. It is crucial that this approach is not undermined by a catch-all clause providing payments for productivity. Defra’s Secretary of State believes that the development and uptake of integrated pest management—IPM—is a crucial mechanism for ensuring that the objectives outlined in the Agriculture Bill and the 25-year environment plan are delivered.

Amendments 38, 120 and 259 ensure that farmers are rewarded for adopting proper IPM techniques, based on the agroecology approach to farming, coupled with a review of the national food strategy.

At Second Reading, I referred to the importance of properly regulated pesticides. Over the years, we have seen the removal from the market of various herbicides and pesticides because of their side-effects on humans. However, it often takes a very long campaign before action is taken. The banning of organophosphate sheep dips springs to mind. Many years ago, a colleague said to me that we should pay more attention to the effects of pesticides on humans than herbicides, as human physiology is much closer to that of insects than of plants. My noble friend Lord Burnett has spoken of the dangers of pesticides, and of using common rules and standards. Agroecology must be the standard. He also warned about the import from America of foods sprayed with pesticides.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, listed an enormous number of side-effects that exposure to pesticides can cause. It is safer for all if we approach pesticides with caution, rather than rushing headlong into their use in order to increase the productivity of a crop. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I support the precautionary principle and acknowledge the impact of pesticides on disabilities.

Productivity is, of course, important. Farmers need to make a decent living from the land, but not at the expense of those who suffer health problems as a result of pesticide spraying. However, the might of the chemical producers often overrides the concerns of the ordinary man and woman displaying health problems. When will the Government produce a target for the uptake of the IPM, which is supported by the Secretary of State?

I fully support all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, have stressed the importance of agroecology. So often, the way the land is farmed leads to degeneration of the quality of the soil, and thus the quality of the crops grown. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke knowledgeably of the importance of the upkeep of grassland and the species that inhabit it, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also supported agroecology and running with nature’s grain. The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have pressed the case for the inclusion of afforestation and organic farming. The noble Duke gave stark statistics on how far behind the UK is lagging on its organic farming programme. I know the Minister, as a farmer, has a close interest in these matters and I look forward to hearing a positive response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted agricultural research institute. We have covered a wide range of issues in this group and I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate last week and again today. The amendments explore in more detail what we will need to deliver environmentally sustainable agriculture. We have had reference to nature-friendly farming, to agroecological systems, to agroforestry, to organically and ecologically sustainable systems, to the improved nutrient content of crops, to integrated pest management and to the importance of soil health. I agree with all those concepts, but also with my noble friend Lady Quin that we need to be clear about the definitions of these phrases when we use them.

All these systems have detailed research behind them, which reinforces the evidence that harnessing nature can improve farm outcomes, as well as enhancing the environment. Many noble Lords will have seen at first hand the positive impact on farmland productivity that can occur when these techniques are embraced. At the same time, we know that nature-based measures to reduce emissions can make a substantial contribution to tackling climate change while preserving or restoring habitats. We agree that natural ecological processes and agroforestry techniques should lie at the heart of the Bill. When adopted on a whole-farm approach, they will reduce the use of agrochemicals, encourage biodiversity, improve soil health, recycle nutrients, energy and waste and generally create more diverse, resilient and productive agroecosystems.

Last year, the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission report set out the case for bringing agroecology systems out of the shadows and into the mainstream of farming practice. It argued that farmers need to be helped to make that transition and recommended a 10-year programme to provide more research, training and capital grants to make this a reality. This would be an excellent use of the financial assistance in the Bill.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who talked about the need for a long-term programme of soil monitoring. We face a fundamental eradication of soil fertility that will be difficult to reverse. Our APPG on science in agriculture had an excellent evidence session last year on the numerous research projects taking place on this issue, but what we really need is to bring the evidence together in one place. While I am on the subject, will the Minister update us on the work of the Sustainable Soils Alliance, launched by Michael Gove, that was meant to do just that?

The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, specifically mentioned the transition to organic farming. I agree that this also has an important role to play. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife than conventionally farmed land and healthier soils, with a 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. Clearly, if the soil is more fertile, it increases productivity, so organic farming can make a real difference to biodiversity while sustaining food production.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others talked about agroforestry. We agree that this system of planting has huge benefits over traditional forestry techniques. We know that the pressure is on to plant more trees. The Committee on Climate Change has set a target of between 30,000 and 50,000 hectares of new planting a year, but so far the Government have fallen well short of that target. It is important that trees are planted in a way that is sympathetic to the countryside and to the environment, rather than the monoculture plantations we have seen in the past. Agroforestry supplies the answer to this. Mixed plantings of trees and shrubs grown around crops can reduce erosion, increase biodiversity and create complex habitats, so we very much hope that financial assistance will be available to help farmers to create this mixed planting economy.

Finally, the amendments in the name of noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Finlay, highlight the need to reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, highlighted the potentially damaging impacts of pesticides on health, and recommended looking at the evidence and producing an annual report. These views were echoed powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the very moving examples he gave. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also rightly raised the need to avoid contaminated products being imported into this country. We agree with these objectives and have our own amendments, Amendment 226 on pesticides and Amendment 173 calling for a national food plan that addresses the problem of pesticide residues. I hope that the debates on these amendments will enable us to set out our position in more detail.

This has been a good discussion and I hope the Minister has heard the collective call for a funding priority for nature-based ecological farming. I am sure we will start to narrow down our priorities in this regard as we continue to consider the Bill, but in the meantime I look forward to her response.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, the first of these amendments is Amendment 26, to which the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, have spoken. They have put their names forward and spoken very eloquently. It seems to me that protecting or improving the health and welfare of livestock should not be an optional extra; we should be protecting and improving both health and welfare. I hope I am not jumping the gun when I say that I expect the Minister to say that there are occasions when it is not possible to do both. I fear I will need an extremely good example to be persuaded. It seems nonsense that the two should not go hand in glove together; one surely cannot be mutually exclusive of the other. I have listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but I remain unconvinced—though I am not an expert.

I fully endorse the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in his Amendment 44 and his wish to encourage livestock to be reared out of doors; it is undoubtedly more healthy. However, the weather in England can be very inclement in the winter, and I would not wish to see cattle standing knee-deep in liquid mud in a field which in summer months would be lush, green grass. I think there is a balance to be struck to accommodate winter storms. While I support this amendment, I wonder if there is an element of what we, as a population, would like to see. It is very pleasing and restful on the eye to see animals grazing in the open fields and not being reared in large barns. We need to be sure that this is truly about animal welfare and not just aesthetics.

Animal welfare has to be improved and the practices listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, are not necessary and should be stopped. Like her, I believe that the way in which we rear and treat animals shows what kind of a nation we are. I support the list of restrictions under Amendments 68 and Amendments125 and 225.

While the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was interesting, it could fall into the category of too much information.

Lastly, I turn to Amendment 77, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and Lady Boycott; I support this amendment. There has been much written and said about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions by cattle, and the country’s reliance on beef as part of its staple diet. There is no doubt that if we all ate less meat and more fruit and vegetables, we would be healthier. It is not that eating red meat is unhealthy; it is more about the quantities we eat.

I support financial assistance being given to farmers who are attempting to transition from livestock to plant-based production, as there is obviously a rise in the number of people turning to vegetarianism or veganism. However, it would be extremely dishonest of me to say that I would follow this route. Like others, I try to follow a balanced diet and eat different proteins each day of the week, but I readily admit that, for me, there is nothing quite like the taste of a roast joint or grilled chops, and I am a great fan of shepherd’s pie. Though I do have a vegan cookbook, it seems to me that an awful lot of vegan ingredients are needed in order to replicate the taste of meat and cheese. I have the greatest respect for the work done by the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Bennett, both in and outside the House, and I wish them success with their amendment. But I fear that they will think I have let the side down by being a true supporter of British farm-reared meat.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this group, who have all in their different ways raised important questions about how we can enhance animal welfare standards in the UK. The UK has a good record of animal welfare policies, but there is always more that we can do to improve the policies still further. It is equally important that, when we leave the EU, our existing protections are not undermined or traded away.

It is vital that we do not allow our high standards to be undermined by the imports of products with lower environmental and animal welfare standards. This is an issue that I know a great many noble Lords care deeply about, and it is also a concern shared by the British public. This of course is why the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment not to compromise these standards, and why we have tabled Amendment 271, which would enshrine our high standards in law. I hope that when we reach that debate, at a later stage, noble Lords will support our position.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansarad): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we have engaged in a long and wide-ranging debate on part of the first clause of this Bill, as tends to be your Lordships’ practice in Committee. The first clause of any Bill sets the tone for the rest of the Bill, and in this case, since agriculture is moving from direct payments under the EU CAP and into UK law, it is quite right that the powers surrounding financial assistance should be at the front of the Bill.

As we have seen from the debate on this group of 36 amendments, there are a range of views about what measures should or should not be included in the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State can give financial assistance. Some 40 Peers have spoken this afternoon, only 20 fewer than took part at Second Reading. The way that Second Reading was organised shut out a list of important Peers from contributing to this debate, and that could have been avoided by spreading the debate over two days. Like other Peers, I believe that the Government have a lot of lessons to learn from that.

The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, feel that the Secretary of State “must” give assistance to all items in the list, and that this should not be left to his or her discretion but enshrined in the Bill. I support that view but there is a question mark over the number of additions that would be made to the list. There is huge uncertainty in the farming community about what is going to happen and how those who manage the land, grow crops, tend animals and produce food are going to make a living. The Bill presents an opportunity to move forward and away from what many saw as the straitjacket of the CAP funding, but this needs to be done in a way that will provide reassurance for all concerned, especially farmers. While I would normally support flexibility as likely to provide the best solution, in this case I feel that “must” is the only way to produce that reassurance.

My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke about the need for the nature recovery strategies to work together with ELMS. I support this view but note the objection to it from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.

Water management is key to land management. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, would like water removed from the list in Clause 1(1) while the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would like to know how flood mitigation will be provided for, how new reservoirs will be funded and whether that will be under the Reservoirs Act 1975. How we make provision for the management of our water resources is key to the success of land management and food production. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made links with the Environment Bill and I support that view; it is key that the two Bills are worked together.

Opposition to Amendment 27, which would take out “native”, has come from several noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I support them in opposing the amendment; I think it unwise to broaden the clause.

I was interested in Amendment 7 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, regarding growing crops for bioenergy, and others have supported it. However, we should tread carefully here. The spectre of growing bioethanol crops in South America to power domestic vehicles in the West led to the start of the destruction of the rainforest in a gallop to plant palms to provide oil for this purpose. We have all seen the disastrous results of that and the massive loss of habitat of some of the world’s most iconic species. Great care is needed.

Many noble Lords have referred to the very wide range of the Bill, expressing concern that the agricultural budget will be spread too thinly. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s response on that.

The reduction of air pollution is important and needs to be a thread that runs through the various clauses of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.

Several noble Lords also spoke about how co-operation between the devolved Administrations will take place. These include the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Thomas of Gresford, Lord Foulkes and Lord Empey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bryan of Partick and Lady Finlay. It is really important that the devolved Administrations are fully involved in what is going on.

Many noble Lords are attempting to widen the scope of Clause 1 to be in effect a catch-all. Hill farming, as described by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, has been the subject of many debates in this Chamber. Despite warm words from the Government, we have still not received a firm commitment that hill farmers will receive support—that is, unless the contribution from Defra to suggest grazing bison on the uplands is serious. That would appear to be in direct conflict with one of the main aims of the Bill, improving accessibility to the countryside. There is a world of difference between walking along an open footpath through a hillside of sheep and attempting to do that through a herd of bison. These areas are heavily dependent on subsidies but are part of the public good and deserve support in future, despite being classified as less favoured areas.

Given that the Bill is only a framework, it was inevitable that increasing its scope would be a prime objective for all taking part in this opening debate. Many of the amendments are vital to the success of a proper agricultural policy in England. Many deserve to be covered in other Bills, some in the upcoming Environment Bill. We have a long sitting in front of us and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on their amendments today. We have indeed had a very wide-ranging debate, and many of those amendments have set the scene for more detailed discussions that we will have elsewhere in the Bill as we journey through it. However, we do not get the opportunity to reshape the future of agriculture in the UK very often, so it is right that we debate and test the boundaries of what is possible within the constraints of a public subsidy as far as it can go. The fact that so many amendments have been tabled is a measure of a real enthusiasm among noble Lords to shape the legislation for the next generation into something that we can be proud of, but also something with which we can learn the lessons of the past.

As many noble Lords have said, their amendments are probing amendments, which do just that. As such, we welcome many of the intentions behind those amendments. I will come back to some of the specifics shortly, but I will make a couple of general points first.

First, we believe that the Bill is broadly on the right track and we welcome the improvements that have already been made since it was introduced. The underlying principle of public money for public goods is important and it is right that we should incentivise those who work on our land to restore and improve the natural environment.

Secondly, however we look at it, we are dealing with a limited pot of money. It would be a brave person who thought that we would get more than the £3 billion a year which the Government have already promise and— who knows—the economic crisis might even put that promise on the line. We will deal with the detail of how that money is to be divided up and allocated when we discuss amendments to later clauses, but we need to be wary of spreading too widely the purposes for which that money can be allocated. This point was well made by a number of noble Lords, and I liked my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone’s analogy of a Christmas tree, with its baubles crashing down, overweighed with good intentions.

What we do not want is for existing active farmers, with the good will and enthusiasm to embrace good environmental practices, to find that they cannot access sufficient financial assistance to make their farm pay. I agree with my noble friend Lord Whitty that there is a danger of creating a very complex system of payments and tiers of regulations which is no better than the system that we had in the past. We do not want farmers to find that that very bureaucracy prevents them accessing the money to which they are entitled. We cannot make light of this, because the impact of the Covid pandemic has illustrated all too starkly that many farm incomes are indeed in a perilous position. We cannot replace one bureaucracy with another, and we need to make sure that the income of our farming communities, when they agree with the new ambitions that we have, is secure. As I have said before, this is a delicate balance between the environment and agriculture, and it is our responsibility to make sure that we get that balance right as we work our way through the Bill.

Thirdly, the one fundamental area in the Bill where I do not think the Government have got it right is food policy—the importance of farmers producing healthy food and contributing to greater UK food stability. We will return to this in later groups, but it is flagged up in this group in Amendment 234 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which talks about better advice for farmers in order to deliver improved food security and nutrition. I agree with all of that, but the advice should be expert advice. We have some later amendments about the need to put some limits on the number of advisers and consultants who will try to move into this space, when really what we need is for the money to go to its core purpose.

I turn to some of the amendments. The noble Earls, Lord Devon and Lord Dundee, and other noble Lords referred to the need for farming to play its part in mitigating climate change. We agree, and that the management and protection of soils and peatlands can play a huge role in good agricultural practice, as well as mitigating climate change. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, raised the important issue of the impact of agriculture on air pollution. We agree with those points. Our Amendment 272, which we will deal with separately, sets out in more detail what we believe to be the Government’s responsibilities to ensure that agriculture meets all the Paris Agreement targets on climate change.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and other noble Lords sought to spell out in more detail what good environmental policy should look like. They referenced pasture-fed livestock, the protection of soil and the link with natural recovery strategies. They rightly raised the need for those policies to have a synergy across other Bills, such as the Environment Bill, and environment policies. We agree with these points and feel that there ought to be a way of embedding those principles in the Bill but also making sure that we have a common approach on these issues. We also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the many other noble Lords who have spoken on this issue that hill farmers and upland farmers have a particular need and desire for reassurance about and support for their future. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some of that reassurance in his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this group of amendments is primarily about financial assistance being provided for public access to the countryside and waterways. My noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves have given extremely good reasons why public access is a public good. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, supports improving current footpaths rather than creating new ones, and I share that view.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger, has defined public access to include horse-riding. Certainly, horse-riding is a very popular pastime, and it is extremely healthy. The enjoyment of the countryside, whether walking, riding or canoeing, should be encouraged wherever possible. However, I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that there must be a balance. Not all who use rights of way respect them in the way they should.

There is nothing better than going for an energetic walk along a right of way and ending up at a pub for lunch. However, I stress to all that it is important that the countryside alongside the footpaths, bridleways, watercourses and RUPPs should be respected by those who use them.

There are a number of rights of way across the country open to the disabled and mothers with pushchairs. The Tissington trail in the Peak District and the Tarka trail in Devon are two such. I would like the Government to encourage more landowners and farmers to create more level access for people with disabilities and small children, as set out by my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson.

I have little sympathy for enthusiasts who insist on applying for footpaths through domestic homes and gardens just to prove that there once was a right of way along a route years ago. In these cases, there are often perfectly adequate footpaths on a nearby route that provide an alternative. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, that the Ramblers do themselves no good at all with their intransigent attitude. That said, it will be incumbent on landowners and farmers who have rights of way running across their grounds to keep them clear and safe for the enjoyment of all who wish to use them. Bridleways should be kept clear, especially of overhanging branches and brambles, as should watercourses which canoeists will be using.

Access to the countryside is extremely important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the many other noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. It seems that I spoke too soon when I said in the debate on the first group that a level of consensus seemed to be developing. The more we get into the details, the more divides begin to appear. Indeed, I started off with some certainty and now I have more questions than answers. I hope that, as we go through the Bill, some of my questions will be answered or dispelled. It is important that we get these issues out on the table, and some of those difficult issues to do with rights and responsibilities need to be addressed. Obviously, Committee is the right place to do that.

As president of the Friends of the South Downs and a former long-standing member of the Ramblers, I very much support greater public access to the countryside. For example, I am proud of Labour’s record on delivering the right to roam and our network of long-distance footpaths. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who rightly raised disability access, that clearly a great deal more needs to be done to improve access to our countryside. As the president of the South Downs society, I have to say that many of the issues we have are about elderly people walking the paths who cannot climb the stiles or find it difficult to access some of the more difficult terrains and so on, which could easily be adjusted. It is not just about people with disabilities but about making sure there is public access for all.

We know the public can gain huge benefits from being in the open air and walking in the countryside. As many noble Lords have said, we have learned that very acutely during the recent Covid crisis, when people have been denied that access. The point made on the previous group by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, is important: fundamentally, this is about health and well-being, and we need to bear that in mind.

It is also important that public understanding of farming and nature is enhanced. I have seen some fantastic examples of school visits to farms that have really enthused young people for the first time about the importance of the countryside. We need to encourage those sorts of visits. That will clearly have the effect of persuading young people to respect the countryside more and will go some way to addressing some of the concerns that a number of noble Lords have raised—the noble Earl, Lord Devon, did so rather vividly—about some of the problems when young people do not respect the countryside: littering, fires, vandalism, fly-tipping and so on. At the same time as creating access, we need to create respect.

Supporting public access to the countryside and providing a better understanding of the environment are already in the financial assistance set out in Clause 1, so the issue we have here is what further wording we need in amendments, beyond those rights already spelt out and the existing legal minimum. That is the challenge for us today: to make sure that if we make adjustments and additions, we get them in balance.

My noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere made an important point about access to forests. Until he explained it, I had not quite understood what some of those issues were, but it is important, particularly as we look to extend the planting of trees. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that question and explain the Government’s plans for giving us greater public access to forest areas.

The amendments we have been looking at also specify access to waterways. The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about those issues and the importance, for example, of canoeing and wild swimming. I do not doubt that all those activities should be encouraged, but I have a genuine question as to whether this falls within the original intention of the Bill, which was to support agriculture, food production and the environment. This might be something the Minister can shed some light on in his response.

On the other groups, we talked about the Bill’s connection with water, and I am still struggling to understand quite where the boundaries of that lie. For example, I had assumed that the references to “managing land or water” in Clause 1 were meant to address the impact of farming activities on the quality of adjoining water rather than encouraging a wider responsibility for recreation to take place on local rivers. That is an issue that a number of noble Lords raised, so we need to understand the interconnection between what is essential, what is voluntary and what are the real advantages to us of access to that water. That is a genuine question and I do not know the answer to it.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out this extensive list of government amendments. Fifteen relate to the change of name from the “National Assembly of Wales” to “Senedd Cymru”. These amendments do not affect the implementation of the Bill, but they recognise the Assembly’s renaming of both itself and its iconic building.

Six amendments, beginning with Amendment 24, allow the Secretary of State to change the period for fishing opportunities from a calendar year to an indefinite period. A further four amendments cover the same topic, but two of them refer to the English quota for a calendar year and two to the Welsh quota per calendar year. I have listened to the Minister’s reasons for this, but I am still not clear whether this will be a good thing. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has asked, can he confirm that scientific information will be used in the determination for changing the period?

Amendment 27 refers to British fishing boats and quotas. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, because I am afraid that the amendment is somewhat opaque. However, I note that Clause 23(10) refers to the provisions in subsection (8) being subject to a negative resolution. Will Amendment 27 be subject to a negative or an affirmative resolution?

Amendment 33 refers to catch quotas and attempts to ensure that they will not be exceeded, but it does nothing for the bycatch, which presumably will be landed and dealt with through other processes. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, put it so eloquently, there is a real issue with overfishing.

Amendments 50 and 55 deal with the replacement of Schedule 10. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, this is an extensive amendment and I regret that this matter was not brought forward in Committee so that we could have had a reasonable debate on the issues covered here. However, we have more amendments before us, so at this point I will not bore your Lordships by dissecting this new schedule. We will have to trust that the Government, in moving the EU retained legislation into UK law, will ensure that that does not result in the production of myriad statutory instruments in the near future.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the explanation for this raft of amendments. I should say at the outset that, as a proud Welsh girl, I am strongly support the change of name by the Welsh Government to Senedd Cymru and I am very pleased to see that reflected in this legislation.

I turn now to new Schedule 10. I am grateful to the Minister for writing to us in advance to explain why this new schedule was felt to be necessary, and he has again explained a little about that today. As he said, it was originally intended to be a separate SI. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I am slightly concerned that we will not really be able to give it the scrutiny that we would have applied had it come to us separately. As ever, the danger is in the detail, as we have discovered in our previous scrutiny of SIs.

While we cannot go into the detail of the schedule today, I have some general questions. First, paragraph 6(3) amends Article 3 of the North Sea multiannual plan by taking out the reference to MSY in the objectives, while paragraph 6(4) changes the basis on which the data for informing MSY should be calculated. Instead of the established route of basing the data on ICES advice, the Government have introduced the option of using another independent organisation. We have previously debated the merits and, indeed, the calculations of MSY and we will return to this issue later when we debate the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I do not want to rehearse that debate now, but there has to be a concern about the watering down of the MSY objective and the deviation from ICES advice, which is the respected international scientific adviser on fisheries. Can the Minister explain why this wording is being changed?

Secondly, I want to ask about the change to paragraph 6(7) which amends Article 7 of the plan. Why have the Government taken out the word “or” from the previous obligation to take all appropriate conservation measures if stocks fall below sustainable levels? This is a small but significant change in the context of the Bill and it could have a big impact. Moreover, once again it raises our concern that the Government are not serious about delivering environmental sustainability. Why has this deletion been felt to be necessary?

Thirdly, I echo my noble friend Lady Young in asking about the consequence of our sustainability amendment. What are the consequences as a result of this new schedule? If the amendment survives, as I hope it will, would that mean that this schedule has to be changed again?

Finally, I should like to ask the Minister whether these modifications come under the delegated powers in the Bill. Given that we have not had much time to scrutinise them and that we know from our consideration of previous EU exit SIs that mistakes are often made which need to be corrected, how can the Government amend or add to them in the future now that they form part of this primary legislation? I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, we had an extensive debate in Committee on the use of remote electronic monitoring of all fishing vessels. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed concern at the state of fish stocks and the amount of bycatch and discards. It is not that we do not trust our fishing industry to stick to the quota and species rules; it is more that a degree of realism is needed when dealing with this issue. The discard ban is not being observed, and not just in the UK. Full compliance, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, is essential. In the past, fish stocks have been decimated, cod in particular, which has led to a switch to other species. Due to stringent measures, including REM, cod stocks are beginning to recover. The only fail-safe way of protecting fish stocks is to have fish monitored at the point of catching, and REM is the most effective way of doing this.

Marine conservation has to be led by scientific data. My noble friend Lord Teverson has explained the purpose of REM as an enforcement tool. Where this is currently used, it is effective. I regret that I am unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that now is not the time to make REM mandatory. Now it is precisely the time. If we leave this to the discretion of fishermen, fish stocks data will be insufficient.

This amendment has cross-party support; it covers the current UK over-10-metre fishing fleet fishing within the UK exclusive economic zone; it covers the UK fishing fleet outside the UK EEZ; and it covers all motorised vessels fishing in the UK EEZ, whatever their nationality. In the vernacular, what’s not to like? As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, supermarkets do not wish to sell and the public do not want to buy illegally caught fish. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, called this amendment the most important change we can make to the Bill.

Many noble Lords have mentioned data collection. It is essential that we know where fish are moving as result of changing sea temperatures and flows. How can we do this if data is not collected? REM would allow data to come back regularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, told us. This is not new technology; it is tried and tested.

The conditions in the amendment are stringent, but they need to be to protect our fish stocks. Without protecting our fish stocks, future fisheries will find fish stocks depleted and that there is nothing for them to catch. The arguments have been made and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I fear I will probably be voting virtually.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am pleased to have added my name to this amendment, so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. In the interests of time, I shall make just a few quick points about the wider advantages, beyond the obvious ones, of access to real-time scientific data. First, REM will enable us to be more responsive to the movement of different fish stocks around our warming waters. That could also provide new economic opportunities, where fishing opportunities are more aligned with the real-time scientific data and therefore enable more fishing to take place. That evidence would potentially also allow more species to achieve Marine Stewardship Council sustainability certification, which would boost sales in the retail sector, a point ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Secondly, we do not accept the point made previously by the Minister that this policy would be a distraction from vessel monitoring systems and aerial surveillance. These have their place but do not provide the detail that cameras on board the vessels would, particularly of the species being caught.

Thirdly, on fairness, many boats are already using REM voluntarily, so all we are trying to do is to raise the standard to that of the best and create a level playing field. Fourthly, we also believe that it would be an added safety feature on boats and would provide security for the crew should any danger arise. As other noble Lords have said, I get the impression that Ministers are currently thinking about introducing compulsory REM. A number of Ministers have made positive comments about it in the past, so the Government just need to bite the bullet and push on with the policy, and the Bill is the right place to do it. I therefore hope all noble Lords will support this amendment.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 22nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Teverson has set out the reasons for this amendment, which we debated in Committee. Fish are a resource that is not owned by any one region, corporate body or individual. Unlike farm animals, which can be corralled and shepherded into barns, pens or open fields, fish are free-swimming. The oceans and shores around the UK have no physical barriers. It therefore follows that fish in our waters are a UK-wide resource.

The noble Lord, Lord Hain, said that 1% of the UK economy is dependent on fishing. But the UK is totally encircled by the seas, so fishing is extremely important. I agree that the Brexit deal is vital to how we move forward. The Fisheries Bill is a golden opportunity to set exacting principles on just how the fishing rights around our shores are managed to best maintain, and at the same time increase, fish stocks, with sustainability at the heart of the Bill.

The UK exclusive economic zone is a resource owned by the UK on behalf of its citizens, and must be preserved as such, whether they are in the devolved Administrations or not. No one should be allowed to claim that fishing rights in any particular area belong just to them. This is a national resource, and it must remain so. It is vital that fish stocks are protected and increased. This can happen only if the fish are not seen to be the property of any one individual private organisation or corporate body.

I note the comments of noble Lords about what they see as the complication of the issues in this amendment, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say. But this is an extremely important principle, which we feel should be included in the Bill.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for raising this issue again, following our debate in Committee. It is a fundamental issue, which deserves more attention. Who owns the resources in our coastal waters? How can it be that, once a quota of fish is issued, it seems to be owned indefinitely by mainly foreign vessels?

As the noble Lord said, there is a strong argument that, when we become an independent coastal state, the ownership of those resources, including the fish, should be returned to the nation. What we do with them then should be the subject of a new consensus, with new timescales and obligations, and with the ultimate right of the UK to take back control of those resources. This would obviously be subject to a new devolved settlement, so that the rights to the resources were properly shared. Some noble Lords seem to feel that that is quite a complicated argument, but, personally, I think that it is fairly straightforward.

As the noble Lord is right to say, we should be more ambitious about the opportunities that could flow from our independence. If we were writing a new plan for UK fishing, we certainly would not start from here, with all that existing baggage.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain that a no-deal Brexit would of course be disastrous, not only for the fishing sector but for all other trade sectors in the UK.

We will explore in other amendments what we need to do to revitalise the UK fishing sector. In the meantime, it is useful to put on record our belief that fish stocks are a public asset and should be owned by the nation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 30th October 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, here is yet another SI to tidy up things for Northern Ireland. Most of the items covered have previously been debated at length, some only last week. As the Minister just said, the SI appears to be a sweep-up of things overlooked or already in need of amendment. I have little to add to previous debates.

I understand that, in terms of eggs and chicks, the instrument changes the law from EU standards to Northern Ireland standards and will help to prevent the spread of Salmonella. A limit of nine laying hens per square metre is included in the SI.

It is reassuring that a licence is required before animal pathogens are imported, with exceptions for veterinary and human medicines. I am reassured that these exceptions will continue post Brexit to ensure both animals and humans will have access to the medicines they need; that will be important.

We have had a great many debates about invasive alien species, which are numerous. Lists of the species are held in the EU and will transfer from EU to UK law, including Northern Ireland law, on Brexit. Although this is important, we all know that it is tremendously difficult to limit invasive species, which, as their name suggests, are hardy and difficult to eradicate.

Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will not go through the whole list of subjects covered by the SI. Despite the many items it covers, I am at something of a loss to understand why this SI in particular should be subject to the urgent “made affirmative” procedure. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the SI and for the helpful briefing that she organised beforehand.

This is one of a number of recent Defra SIs laid using the “made affirmative” procedure, with the justification that changes to the statute book must be implemented by the EU exit date of 31 October. It is now 30 October and it is clear to everyone concerned that we will not leave on 31 October. Nevertheless, we seem still to be correcting errors, some of which might be said to be quite serious. For example, Regulation 4 corrects an error made in a previous Defra SI and was identified in the 69th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as sufficiently important not to,

“be suitable for correction by correction slip”.

Regulation 8 amends the Marketing of Seeds and Plant Propagating Material (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations to correct a reference to the European Union that was missed in the original instrument.

A number of these amendments change longer standing, devolved Northern Ireland legislation, which one would hope had been cross-checked and updated well before now. If the Minister accepts that we will not leave tomorrow, as is clear, where does this leave the “made affirmative” provisions, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, were only ever intended for use as an emergency measure? I query whether the Government are now broadening them out to deal with all the corrections and updates that really should have been made some time ago. I find this process unsatisfactory. I hope that the Minister can comment on that.

Can she clarify what additional steps have been taken to ensure that these new instruments, and the ones we have been dealing with during the past year, are 100% correct? We seem to be uncovering new mistakes every week. Will the Government use this delay to the exit to hold a thorough review of the state of Defra EU exit legislation so that we are not left making endless corrections? They could cause considerable confusion to businesses and farmers who will be doing their best to abide by our laws in the coming period.

On a separate matter, what organisations in Northern Ireland have been consulted on these proposals? Are they content with them as they stand, even though it appears that we may well be revisiting them in the context of the re-establishment of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of a variation of the withdrawal Bill when we come back after the election? A comment on the stakeholders who have been consulted and their views on this would be helpful. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for so clearly setting out the issues in these five statutory instruments, which make minor adjustments and corrections to previous SIs that we debated earlier in the year, as most noble Lords have said. I am delighted that we are debating all five together and not separately. I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing for these SIs.

All the SIs cover small details and technical amendments, but they are quite complicated. The reserved matter in the first SI covers areas concerning trade import of hops and agricultural processed products, and a minor amendment on the import of eggs and the whole list that the Minister gave us. The SI covers anti-competitive practices and helps to protect sugar beet growers, and milk and milk products. Although there are no policy changes and it will remove redundant legislation post Brexit, it is important to get these matters right so that we are not debating the same things fairly regularly.

I was intrigued by the subject of the import of rice. I understand that the issue is how much rice might be contained in a processed product, such a tin of rice pudding or baby food. Nutritional content on these products is extremely important, especially if they are to be consumed by children.

The second SI concerns CMO operability amendments and, as has been said, transfers functions from the EU to the devolved Administrations. The majority of issues have been carried over from March. The SI again includes eggs, but also poultry meat. Given this, can the Minister can say where poultry breeders fit specifically in the list of six consulted stakeholders that the noble Lord, Lord Jones, listed for us, since it is not immediately apparent from the list?

It is interesting that not all matters in the SI apply to Wales, which is doing its own thing, yet marketing standards are the same across all the devolved Administrations. Are the regulations being applied in Wales better than those that will pertain in the rest of the UK, or worse?

The third SI is about import and export licences and is a reserved matter. I note that changes are very minor to ensure operability after EU exit, including changes from the euro to the pound, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and are being set and calculated on 2018 conversion rates. Will this have a negative effect should the exchange rate alter dramatically? The Rural Payments Agency will manage the process, which remains the same. Export repayments will be made only in circumstances of crisis. Can the Minister indicate examples of crisis that might qualify for payment?

The fourth and fifth SIs are similar, except that the first is reserved and the second devolved. They are all about transitional arrangements. Again, they amend existing EU SIs made in March this year but which, since we failed to leave, have to be amended because the transition dates were for a fixed two-year period relating to March. It is a very sensible alteration to move the date to relate to when an actual deal finally transpires, should one ever be negotiated. Hence the words concerning coming into force two years from Brexit date are an excellent catch-all solution.

In the fourth SI there are technical changes on products not produced here—at the moment, that is: olives, olive oil, tobacco and rice. In the last SI there are some alterations related to labelling, which I believe is for 21 months, but the import-export licences are for two years. Again, all this was debated last March and is being amended and tidied up today.

I have no substantive comments to make on any of these SIs, which I support, and I am sure there will be others shortly.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these SIs and for the helpful briefing he organised for us beforehand. As he says, they are largely technical amendments necessary to enable retained EU law relating to the CMO, the CAP and rural affairs to operate effectively after exit day. I agree with the noble Lords who said that the wording of these five SIs is particularly complex, and we were grateful to have a prior opportunity to work through some of those complexities before debating them. Having said that, we do not find them particularly controversial, but I have a few general questions about the approach taken here, on themes that run through these five SIs but also some of those we will debate in the coming weeks.

First, a number of SIs in this group amend existing EU exit SIs that we have previously debated and approved. This includes amendments to transition periods, which are required because the original SIs set out specific dates when arrangements would cease, based on an assumption that we would leave on 29 March 2019, which, as the Minister said, clearly did not happen. These amendments update a series of those transitional arrangements so that they will commence on “exit day”, whenever that might be, and cease after a given period of time. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that this makes very good sense.

In the absence of an acceptable deal, and on the basis on the Benn Act, I am of course grateful for this change in approach so that we will not have to repeat this exercise when Article 50 is inevitably extended once more. But can the Minister explain why the original SIs, which contained specific dates when the transitional arrangements would end, spelled out that they were based on the UK leaving the EU on 29 March? Why did we not foresee that this might be a problem? Why has there not been consistency on this matter? Other EU exit SIs set out the length of the period that would commence on exit day. It is such a common-sense way to approach this that I am curious as to why we have been inconsistent in our approach.

Secondly, as the Minister described, these SIs provide for transitional arrangements to give businesses time to adjust before they must adapt to the new regulations and requirements stemming from Brexit. As he said, this includes a 21-month transition period for forms and certificates the UK will accept from third countries attesting that a fruit or vegetable product meets marketing standards requirements, during which both the new UK forms and certificates and their equivalent EU versions would be accepted. It also includes a three-month transition period for veal imports, which would have allowed the EU time to gather and submit the required notification information to the UK. That is all very well, and I understand that we have now changed those transitional arrangements, but can the Minister advise whether these new transitional arrangements have been reciprocated by the EU? If not, can he advise the Committee what impact this will have on UK businesses and how these changes have been communicated to those affected? If a mutual transition period is not agreed, what action is Defra taking to encourage a pragmatic approach to enforcement within the UK?

Thirdly, the SIs in this group amend retained EU law and domestic legislation relating to the CAP and CMO to ensure continuity and facilitate a smooth transition to a domestic regime. As we know, the powers to change and diverge from these retained measures will be set out in the agriculture Bill. The farming sector expressed frustration at the delay to the previous Bill’s progress earlier in 2019. The National Farmers’ Union said in response to the 2017-19 Agriculture Bill failing that the timetable for changing farm payments should be delayed by at least a year, to start from 2022.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time and that of his officials in providing a briefing on this important statutory instrument. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

When we last debated puppy farming and the important measures and safeguards put in place, we raised the issue of regulating the import of puppies. The Government have now conducted their consultation and brought forward this SI to close the circle to help protect puppies and kittens. Although this is not a catch-all, and it is unlikely that any legislation will stop illegal practices, it goes a long way towards protecting young vulnerable animals against third-party sales.

Following the previous SI in October 2018, as the Minister has said, no puppy under eight weeks of age can be sold and it has to be shown with its mother by a licensed breeder when potential buyers come to view. This SI prevents non-licensed breeders selling puppies and kittens before they are six months old. This restriction covers pet shops and commercial dealers that are licensed dealers but not licensed breeders. This provides significant safeguards for the welfare of puppies and kittens.

Enforcement is to be carried out by local authorities who, as the Minister has stated, have powers to charge fees to cover their costs. This is extremely important as local authorities have been cash-strapped for a number of years. I am pleased that he was able to reassure us that local authorities will carry out training and recruitment of the necessary inspectors prior to the enforcement date of April 2020—although I am alarmed by what the noble Countess, Lady Mar, told us. It is also reassuring to know that better breeders can apply for a three-year licence and so avoid yearly costs.

As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, indicated, animal smuggling is a lucrative business, and the inspectors will need to be aware of what to look for when they visit premises where small animals are on sale to the public. My colleague and noble friend Lady Parminter, who is unfortunately unable to be with us this afternoon, asked the Minister in 2017 to make a commitment to increase the sanctions for animal cruelty; this has been referred to already. Can the Minister say why the Government have not responded? It is important that sanctions are sufficient to act as a realistic deterrent to those who mistreat animals and cause unnecessary suffering.

I am concerned that this legislation will not come into force until 2020. I hear what the Minister has said about that but I would like to press him on why this cannot be done sooner. Christmas comes between now and April 2020, and many families may succumb to the pressure to provide a kitten or puppy as a gift. It would be much better if pet shops were not able to display kittens or puppies in the run-up to Christmas, thus avoiding unnecessary misery and suffering. A new pet for Christmas is often followed by abandonment in January.

Can the Minister provide reassurance—the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, hinted at this—that a family discovering that its pet dog is expecting an unplanned litter of puppies will not find itself outside the law if it subsequently advertises its puppies for sale in a local post office, shop or newspaper? It would be somewhat perverse if this resulted in a prosecution; I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on such a scenario.

Currently, Battersea takes in animals, rehomes them and charges a fee for rehoming, which helps to cover their costs. But there are others operating outside the law which set up unscrupulous charities, offering puppies to be rehomed and charging fees way above those charged by legitimate charities. These fraudulent charities bring in animals from abroad—including possibly Romania—for free. They are then able to charge as much as £200 for the so-called rehoming of the pet. For the SI to be effective, it is essential that this practice is stamped out.

I support this SI, which should help to safeguard the welfare of both kittens and puppies and ensure they have a better start in life but, like others, I am concerned about the prevention of online sales and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations today. As he explained, they form a continuum with the more comprehensive Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, which we debated and agreed last year.

At the time, we made the case for including the ban on the third-party sale of puppies and kittens in those regulations; it was never clear to us why the Government found it necessary to postpone that decision. Like many other pieces of animal welfare legislation, promised but not yet delivered, the Government seem determined to proceed at a snail’s pace despite the obvious cross-party support for many of these provisions. The Minister well knows our views on this; I am sure he will be pleased to hear that I shall not labour the point again today.

Nevertheless, we welcome these belated, catch-up regulations, which put one further nail in the coffin of exploitative and often illegal puppy farmers and unscrupulous third-party traders, who show no compassion or concern for the puppies they are marketing. That has resulted in puppies being taken from their mothers before they are weaned, not learning proper socialising skills and suffering a wide range of health and disease-related issues that can blight their health and limit their well-being.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

3rd reading: House of Lords
Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo the Minister’s thanks. I personally thank him for his extreme courtesy and resilience in the face of the bombardment that we gave him over what seemed like a very simple Bill. He took the concerns of Members in all parts of the House extremely seriously, and we are all very grateful for the diligence he showed in carrying out those duties. I would also like to thank the civil servants and the representatives of the board of Kew, who played their part in making sure that we were fully briefed for the discussions we needed to have.

I know it was a very simple Bill, but we amended it, and I thought this was your Lordships’ House at its best. We had a very serious and well-constructed debate and reached a consensus, which is what we always aim to do when we can. I thank the Minister again; it would not have happened without his leadership.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time and patience in providing the very useful briefings. These were very welcome and greatly assisted the process of understanding what the Bill was about for those of us not steeped in the history of Kew. Many of your Lordships are, and it was a great comfort to know that so many Kew experts were taking part in the debate, thus ensuring that this short Bill was improved and provided the necessary requirements.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that it is important to have safeguards, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, scientific research is one of the six major functions at Kew. However, it needs funding, and this amendment is unnecessarily restrictive. The trustees’ implementation of the MoU, when implementing the leases, must ensure that the ethos of the trust and that of the Charity Commission is adhered to, and there needs to be trust that they can do that. If an asset needs significant investment on a 31-year lease, which these seven houses probably do, it is not an asset but a liability, because there is no long-term plan for the asset. A longer lease of no more than 150 years will allow the leasee to invest in the property and allow for proper management of that asset.

I will listen to the Minister’s response with interest, but at this moment I do not feel obliged to support the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have considerable sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. We have also tabled amendments which are another way of trying to address the same issue. Our concern is that this short Bill puts too much individual power into the Secretary of State’s hands, and we need to make sure that the right checks and balances are in place so that that power is used wisely. We seek to have an external body, such as UNESCO, to oversee the powers being allocated, with the Secretary of State unable to influence what UNESCO is doing. However, I appreciate that the noble Lords are coming at this from a different direction.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was well made: it is not about now but about the future, about other times and places when other players will be in post, and we need to make sure that they exercise their responsibility wisely. Whatever statements were made about the current Secretary of State, this is about future Secretaries of State and indeed future members of the board, and the need to make sure that they have the correct relationship.

This is also about different circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said that people juggle with choices, and that is absolutely right. They will always be under pressure and there will always be a shortage of money, so we need to make sure that the financial demands on the shoulders of the individuals concerned do not lead them to make short-term choices which would damage Kew in any way. I therefore have considerable sympathy with the amendment; I am interested to know how the Minister will respond to this and thank the noble Lord for raising this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendment 3 addresses the future Defra grant to Kew. It follows on from the very useful debate on this issue at Second Reading, which I thought reflected a great deal of consensus around the Chamber. We all recognised the importance of the vital research and educational work carried out at Kew, and were united in wanting to consolidate its world heritage site status. We also recognised that the additional money which might be generated by longer leases, initially estimated to be in the region of £15 million, could provide valuable additional investment in its infrastructure, scientific endeavour and visitor experience.

But there was also in that debate a common concern about substitution—the possibility that any additional funds could simply be used by government to cut the Defra grant further, leaving Kew in a no-win position and no better off. We have tabled this amendment to try to address these concerns.

Of course, there was only so much that the Minister could say to reassure us on this point at Second Reading. As he himself admitted when asked about future cuts,

“at times of national difficulty, all institutions and departments must play their part”.—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1168.]

As we know, different Governments over many years have taken different views on how much should be spent from the public purse and on when to put the squeeze on expenditure through a policy of enforced austerity and cuts. So there is no guarantee that the Defra grant, which has been falling steadily over the years—from 90% in 1983 to 37% in 2018—will not fall further. As we heard in that debate, this has been the subject of real parliamentary concern, with a House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee report warning in 2015 that cuts in government funding were placing Kew’s world-class scientific status at risk.

Our amendment is a simple one which seeks to ensure that the additional income which Kew generates from the careful management of the extended leases should go direct to the trustees for future investment on the site. At this stage this is a probing amendment, and, again, I do not claim to have worded it perfectly, but I suspect that all noble Lords share the sense of its intent. I look forward to hearing a positive response from the Minister and beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, transparency is really important, but I am concerned that a set of accounts should be produced just for the income from the leases on seven properties. That seems quite bureaucratic to me. I accept that the noble Baroness said that this was a probing amendment, so I will be interested in what the Minister has to say. I would have thought that these accounts could have been incorporated into the consolidated Kew accounts, rather than being a separate set. That would be a better way of doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 in this group are in my name. All of them are probing amendments, and and we already began to address some of the issues in the other debate, so I will try to amend my notes as we go along. They all address the need for more information to be provided about the financial impact of the Bill and the management of the longer leases.

Amendment 5 addresses the fact that the Bill does not include an impact assessment, and the background details of the financial consequences of implementing the Bill are indeed rather sparse. For example, as we know, the original estimates for additional receipts from the extended leases was quoted as £40 million, and this figure has now been scaled down to £15 million. However, we have not really had an explanation for the disparity between these two figures, or indeed an explanation of the basis on which that new figure of £15 million has been calculated.

The statement on the financial implications of the Bill in the Explanatory Memorandum is equally vague:

“Incomes from the change will depend on further development of Kew’s Estates Strategy and third party partnerships”.


However, in his response to me at Second Reading, the Minister reported that:

“The estate strategy is not in the public domain”,—[Official Report, 7/5/19; col. 1171.]


and is therefore not available to us, although he said that he would be happy to talk to me about it.

At Second Reading and earlier in this debate, a number of noble Lords asked for further details of the property portfolio at Kew so that we could assess fully the potential for future lease extensions beyond the seven residential properties initially identified, but they have not been forthcoming so far. In addition, the Minister referred several times to the difference between the core and non-core estate, which I know he is beginning to regret. At some point, we need to flesh out both that difference and how much of the non-core estate could be affected in future. There is a black hole where that information needs to be. I hope that he will come forward with further details on that at some point.

I moved the amendment not to be unhelpful but to understand the potential for future income generation—not just for those seven properties but for what could be in the pipeline beyond that. We would all benefit from knowing that. At the moment, it feels as though we are being asked to sign up to an open commitment with little in the way of financial guarantees to underpin it. We felt that the mechanism of an impact assessment would be a helpful way of getting that information.

Amendment 6 would require the lessee to gain permission from the Kew trustees before undertaking any refurbishments. The Minister addressed that issue in his earlier answers. Obviously, one advantage of bestowing longer leases on properties is that it gives the lessee more freedom of opportunity to improve the property they lease. It is important that we tie down the approval process for those refurbishment plans to ensure that they will all receive prior approval.

Amendment 7 would require the criteria for the grounds on which longer leases would be granted to be published. Again, we touched on this at Second Reading; there was a concern that, although proposals from the holders of very long leases may seem reasonable at the time, the holder of that lease—for 150 years, say—could, over time, deviate from the core values underpinning Kew’s activities. As I said, that is particularly true of commercial leases rather than residential ones. It is obvious to say so but 150 years is a very long time to share a world heritage site with a commercial leaseholder. There is concern that their activities could become more at variance in the longer term. Again, we touched on this issue in earlier debates. We need to be clear about the criteria for extending longer leases and to be assured that there will be more sensitivity here than for a standard lease in terms of the leaseholder’s expectations in respecting the property and the activities they carry out there.

Finally, on Amendment 8, we asked the Secretary of State to publish the criteria under which Kew could end a lease prematurely. That follows on from previous amendments, which address the need to be able to terminate a lease prematurely if the activities of a leaseholder, particularly one holding a long lease, are no longer acceptable to the trustees at Kew. Again, this may concern activities beyond those traditionally imposed on leaseholders but which could nevertheless damage the intrinsic values and behaviours expected of those using the Kew estate. Indeed, it could require automatic break clauses.

I am trying to tease out the basis of the argument. We all feel that this is not a question of having a standard lease as you would for a standard residential property. We may expect other expectations to be built into the lease, with special requirements to honour Kew’s mission. I am interested to know whether the Minister envisages having special leases of that kind. I look forward to his response on these issues. I beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am broadly supportive of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, except that the time limit is a bit short. It is not like me to give the Government a lot of time to do something, but the period of one month set out in Amendments 5, 7 and 8 is not realistic; it should probably be closer to three months.

Amendment 6 is unnecessary because six of the properties are listed and all of them are in a conservation area. Richmond council, which was referred to earlier, will have to give permission for any refurbishments because the buildings are listed and certainly, during my time dealing with these things, I know that you have to consult with the people who are affected by the works. I would therefore expect the trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew to be an official consultee anyway, so the amendment, as I say, is unnecessary.

As regards Amendment 7, the reasons were clearly set out at Second Reading why Kew Gardens wants to lease these properties for longer. Obviously it is to increase the income and to remove the maintenance costs, thus reducing its liabilities so that it can concentrate on its core values, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Again, the period specified in Amendment 8 is too short and three months might be better than one month.

Animal Health, Plant Health, Seeds and Seed Potatoes (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full introduction to these minor amendments and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has pointed out, corrections. We previously debated these statutory instruments on 20 February and 3 April. I do not want to bore the House by running through the comments that I made then or rehashing the debate that we had. The EU requirements on 9 April for changes in order to accommodate the UK’s third-country status ensure our biosecurity and that of the producers, and that is the right step forward. I agree with virtually all the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben.

I want to refer to African swine fever, which is a really major concern for national pig breeders. There are areas of the land with huge populations of feral pigs, and the disease is a threat to pig farmers as there is little monitoring of the health of the feral pigs. It is important that we protect legitimate pig breeders from African swine flu. There does not seem to be any way to monitor how the feral pig population is doing and whether or not the pigs are carrying African swine fever.

That apart, I think it is a pity that we are having to make minor corrections to important pieces of legislation. However, I am quite content for it to be dealt with under the emergency procedures, and I support the amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out why the SIs that we are debating today have been subject to the affirmative procedure under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. Like other noble Lords, while we accept that this is necessary, we share the frustration that we could be doing something much more constructive in taking these issues forward rather than revisiting the past. This feels like a bit of a futile exercise; nevertheless, we understand that the Minister has to do what he has to do.

I am grateful for the helpful briefing with the Minister’s civil servants prior to this debate. I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted institute, which carries out scientific research into the areas that we are debating today.

I have a couple of general points about the process being used. In his letter of 4 April, the Minister explained that the procedure was being used because the EU had asked for a specific reassurance that these measures were in place to support the UK Government’s application for third-country status, and he has repeated a similar explanation today. Of course we understand why that third-country status was necessary, but when we met the Minister I asked whether the EU had been consulted over the wording of the SI prior to the deadline for it to consider that third-country status. I was told that that was not the case and it had not been consulted in advance. I find that a bit odd; I would have thought that, in the spirit of co-operation and particularly because we wanted its goodwill over our application, it would have been beneficial to keep the EU in the loop on what we were proposing, including the proposed wording for this SI before the decision was made.

I suppose that that raises another question: if the EU does not see the SIs in advance, does it simply take the Government’s word on trust that this legislation is in place? If that is the case, some of the corrections to errors that we have been considering may not even be necessary because we can just promise that the legislation is in place and not actually have to justify it.

The Minister apologised and I think we all understand that this is not his fault, but we are concerned about the number of errors that are coming to light after the SIs have been considered and agreed. As he said, this is the case here. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I wonder how these errors came to light. Were the SIs being double-checked specifically in preparation for our EU third country application? In other words, did someone go back through them before we reassured the EU that they were all in place? Does that mean that many of the other SIs which we have already agreed and signed off may also contain errors which have yet to come to light? Is there another batch of error-ridden SIs which will be brought before us and updated in due course when someone goes back and double-checks them?

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his introduction and for the time of his officials in the briefing. This SI was originally scheduled to be a negative instrument, but was upgraded to an affirmative instrument after Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Sub-Committee B had completed its sifting process. This was a wise decision, as some significant changes are covered in this SI—not least on natural mineral waters, but also on geographical indications and GMOs. It is all about environmental protection, food and intellectual property. The last, in particular, will have significant impacts in some areas of the UK.

As the Minister said, this is a transfer of functions and there will be mutual recognition between the UK and the EU from day one. However, unless I have misunderstood it, there will be a six-month transition period during which imported EU mineral waters will not be able to be labelled “mineral water” and recognised for sale in the UK. As the Minister said, these EU mineral waters represent approximately 30% of UK market sales. There will therefore be a gap in the market, which it is unlikely our own UK mineral water bottlers will be able to fill. Our own mineral waters are very specific to geographic areas—Highland Spring, Buxton and Glastonbury Chalice Well being three. My husband comes from Derbyshire, so my preference is for Buxton when I can get it. If the EU’s Volvic, Evian and Pellegrino mineral waters are not available, the UK consumer may find they are unable to buy an alternative as demand will outstrip the supply of our production.

At the end of the six-month transition period, an EU-based mineral water company can reapply for permission to import into the UK. It will be up to the Secretary of State to either withdraw or grant such permission. If I have understood it correctly, if any EU state recognises our UK mineral water, the Secretary of State cannot withdraw an EU water company’s permission. It will be up to his or her discretion. Is it likely that many EU mineral water companies may not bother to reapply? On the upside, if one of the EU countries recognises a UK-based mineral water, all 27 will have to do the same—so markets will be opened up. Likewise, if one of the devolved Administrations permits an EU mineral water company to import its products, the other three will also permit it to be imported.

I turn now to the question of geographical indication, or GIs, about which we have had some discussion. This is a wide classification including Scotch whisky, Irish whiskey, Cornish pasties, Wensleydale cheese and Camel Valley wines. These are extremely important to the economy of the areas that produce this fine food and drink. Paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that there will be no change to description and labelling. I look to the Minister to give reassurance that the status of iconic GIs will not be diminished but protected after we have left the EU.

The labelling of local produce is extremely important, especially to the farming community, where lamb and beef in particular command a high price if they come from certain breeds and areas of the country, such as salt-marsh Welsh lamb.

Food labelling is of particular interest to me as someone who reads all the labels of foods that contain more than one product. As a lifelong coeliac, I look out for wheat-based and gluten-containing products in everything. The current labelling system, whereby allergens are highlighted in bold, is extremely useful, as the allergens leap out at you and you do not have to read all the ingredients in depth. Often, there is a gluten-free, crossed-grain symbol on the front of the product; thus I can safely buy sausages from two well-known food retailers without having to refer to the small print on the back.

I am not alone in meticulously reading ingredient labels. I therefore ask the Minister to give his reassurance that there will be no watering down of the regulations once exit day has passed. As we all know, poor labelling has become a matter of life or death for some. A review of labelling will need to ensure more stringent regulations, not a watering down of existing ones.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction this afternoon and for the courtesy of meeting us beforehand. This SI covers a wide range of issues and has all the hallmarks of a hurried amalgamation of outstanding issues which have to be cleared before Brexit day. I hope that stakeholders and businesses with an interest in the content can find the relevant changes buried away in this SI, with its rather unenlightening title concerning intellectual property, which seems to cover a lot of sins that are not immediately obvious.

I also make the point that the amendments to Commission decision 2009/821/EC concerning border inspection posts, and those referring to health certificates, should have been dealt with as part of the earlier SI on the import and trade in animals and animal products. I am not sure why they have been tagged on here in this way.

Incidentally, on this subject, I am grateful to the Minister for writing a follow-up letter on the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Knight and others when we dealt with that more substantial SI a couple of weeks ago. I am aware the Government have today published technical information on imports between Northern Ireland and the Republic. However, in the case of animals crossing the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic—in other words, those being exported—the letter confirmed a rather alarming fact. Without a deal, all animals seeking to enter the EU—the Republic of Ireland—would have to do so via an EU border inspection post, with locations that are yet to be decided.

The Minister’s letter also confirmed that, while the Government continue to engage constructively with Ireland—as has been a common theme in debates on other SIs—there are in fact restrictions on the UK having bilateral discussions with EU member states. There is therefore only a limited amount of progress that can be made between the UK and the Republic of Ireland at this point. I do not want to dwell too much on this today as it is not the main subject of the SI, but it must be extremely unsatisfactory for farmers in Northern Ireland, who will face extreme restrictions on exporting to the south. I hope the Minister can provide reassurance to those farmers that urgent steps are being taken to make sure that the border inspection posts and all other means to ease exporting are put in place as soon as possible.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, the SI before us was drawn to the special attention of the House by scrutiny Sub-Committee B. I agree with her: this raises important issues of public policy, particularly as it affects consumers’ rights and choice. I had not picked up the issue of chocolate but, now she has raised it, I too would like to know whether the price and availability of cocoa and chocolate will be affected—I certainly have great interest in the Minister’s answer.

As has been said, the SI sets out new regulations for accrediting natural mineral water. As the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, the amendments will maintain the existing recognition of mineral waters from the EU, Iceland and Norway, which would ensure market stability, continued trade and consumer choice. Given that we export and import mineral water to and from the EU, this is obviously a sensible provision, but the SI also seems to contain an open threat which I have not seen before in SIs dealing with traded goods. It says that if the Secretary of State finds that there is at least one UK mineral water that is not being recognised in any member state in the EU, then all accreditation for all EU mineral waters in the UK will cease, effectively forthwith. The effect of this would be that all EU mineral waters, including some very big brands that have been referred to, would not be able to be sold in the UK as natural mineral water. Is this negotiating tactic being adopted more widely? Is this the way we are going to do our future trade talks with the EU? Have the consequences been considered and discussed with UK mineral water exporters? I understand that they do not export as much as we import, but they would no doubt find that all their export opportunities to the EU would be cut off if we were to operate such a tit-for-tat approach. Is this a tactic with which they agree?

Has any consideration been given to the impact that this would have on consumer choice? We might all say that we should not import water, particularly not in plastic bottles, from the EU or anywhere else—the Minister has said before that London tap is a very fine brand and we should all drink that—but there is an issue about consumer choice. When we ask consumers, they all have their very strong preferences and preferred brands and it is important that we are clear about the consequences. Also, he said that this is a devolved issue. In fact, this provision is an England-only provision, so could we find that, for example, Evian water was available in Scotland and Wales but not in England? I think that he probably has an answer, but it is important that that is recorded so that we are clear on the legal position.

I turn to the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks. The regulations transfer authority for registering geographical indication from the EU to the Secretary of State, as the Minister said. I think I am right in saying that there has been some sensitivity around these designations in the EU in the past. Certainly, the EU has been seen to be operating the rules in quite a stringent way, so it is not easy to get a geographical indication. That may be a good thing, but what type of objections to GI status would we be considering under the new regime? Will they be similarly stringent, in the way that the EU currently operates, or do we envisage relaxing the rules in some way? If we had different rules in the UK from those that would continue to be operated in the EU, could it have an effect on the export market of our drinks producers? If we were more relaxed about it and yet wanted to export Scotch whisky, could the EU say that, because we have not abided by the EU standards of GIs, we could no longer export to the EU?

There are obvious advantages to expanding our GIs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said—to celebrate regional and local provenance—and we all understand how advantageous that would be in many ways. What we do not want to do is to cut off our nose to spite our face and find that our exports are damaged in some way.

Waste (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, first, I declare my interests as a member of a local authority and a vice-president of the LGA. I thank the Minister for his comprehensive opening remarks and for his time and that of the Defra officials in the very useful briefing sessions held ahead of these SIs being debated. This SI, as indicated by its title, is something of a catch-all on the waste front, covering a number of waste issues from scrap metal to hazardous waste, batteries and accumulators, glass cullet, as well as landfill. I have a number of minor points to raise.

In paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum there is reference to the criteria for determining when certain of the materials that I have just mentioned would cease to be waste and to calculations of the efficiency of recycling processes. I would be grateful if the Minister could say what is meant by the,

“efficiency of the recycling processes”.

A number of EU Commission decisions on waste are revoked, and the Minister has just broadly referred to that. They include Decision 76/431/EEC, which concerns the setting up of a committee on waste management. This is referred to on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum and in the main SI on page 62. Can the Minister explain why there is no mention of a replacement committee on waste management? Is there no longer any need for this committee?

The Minister referred to Decision 2003/138/EC establishing component and material coding standards for vehicles, which is being revoked along with Decision 2005/293/EC on the reuse/recovery and reuse/recycling targets on end-of-life vehicles on the basis that they are already enshrined in UK law. I just wonder why they need to be mentioned if they are already enshrined in UK law.

The powers under directive 2008/98/EC, which were in place before exit day, will transfer after exit day to,

“the appropriate authority, appropriate agency or local authority”.

After exit day, the European Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, EMAS, will no longer have status and registrations will become invalid, although those wishing to can register under EMAS Global. The Government are proposing to make alternative provision for references to the certification of environment management standards by retaining a reference to a conformity assessment body. Transitional provisions will ensure that certifications granted to quality management systems will continue to be recognised as valid. Can the Minister say what these transitional provisions will be and when they will come into operation?

I am concerned about the mechanism for publishing and monitoring targets on waste. The Secretary of State is required to produce a progress report on the UK’s target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. However, this does not have to be published until 1 January 2020 and is not a requirement for the devolved Administrations, which the Minister has already referred to. Given the public’s concern about the level of waste, especially plastic waste, would it be better to bring this date forward so that action can be taken to ensure that the targets are met and adhered to?

This SI empowers the Environment Agency and equivalent bodies in other areas, including local authorities, to deal with decisions relating to landfilling of waste and waste from extractive industries, as well as waste criteria for metals, glass and so on. There is, however, no mention of additional resources being allocated to allow these agencies and bodies to take on these powers. Could the Minister say whether there are any plans to provide sufficient resources for this work to be carried out effectively and efficiently?

Finally, reference is made to the reclassification of some hazardous waste products in 1357/2014. The list in Annex III—I am very grateful to officials for providing this—which is referred to in the SI, contains some extremely toxic materials, including explosives, flammable liquids, irritants and carcinogenic materials. This is potentially extremely concerning and could have implications for public safety. Could the Minister give a little more detail on how this might be implemented?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and his helpful prior briefing; I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her contribution.

As the Minister described, this SI contains a series of amendments to different aspects of the waste management system required to be in place by exit day. In the main, we are content with the proposals, which appear to replicate closely the current arrangements with the EU. These are regulations from which the UK has benefitted in the past and it is important that these standards are upheld.

However, I want to make a couple of points about the drafting, then I have some questions. On the drafting of the SI, although this is a very lengthy document, I found both the SI and the Explanatory Memorandum very clear and I commend those that drafted them. In particular, I welcome the inclusion in the SI of a very clear definition of who is the appropriate authority and appropriate agency in each case. The Minister will know that we have raised this issue time and again, but in this document, it is spelled out; indeed, the document goes further. Where there is a more generic reference, it is qualified by the phrase,

“the appropriate authority, appropriate agency or local authority which, immediately before exit day, was responsible for the United Kingdom’s compliance with that obligation”.

I commend that wording and I believe that this phrase could be used more widely in other SIs to avoid ambiguity. There is learning for us all in that.

I now have a few questions. Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the arrangements for external verification, reference to which is made several times in the document. For example, on page 22, the amendment to Article 5(7) uses an EU regulation to define a “conformity assessment body”. Do the Government intend to retain that EU definition and accreditation in the longer term? Is that how we will operate—namely, that we will not have our own UK definition and we will stick with the EU definition?

Paragraph 7(c) adds that other accreditation can be solved through the EMAS scheme, which has been referred to. However, this seems to be slightly at odds with the wording on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that references to EMAS “will be omitted” and that any registration would have to be through EMAS Global. Can the Minister clarify that wording? What is the difference between EMAS and EMAS Global? Does EMAS Global have the same authority and impact as EMAS and are the same resources available to provide the required verification?

I refer now to the reporting on the UK target to recycle 50% of household waste by 2020. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, this is an issue of great public interest, particularly as we seem to be heading towards missing that very important target. This was a requirement to report to the EU, which has been replaced by one called the “progress report” to be published,

“in a manner that the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,

before 2022. I am grateful to Richard Gregson, the Defra lawyer, for sending me the existing wording to compare with the new wording. The original wording refers to an “implementation report” that should demonstrate compliance with the targets to the Commission. This is to be replaced by a progress report, which it appears the Secretary of State will publish to himself with no penalty for inaction.

Let us compare this to what would happen if we remained in the EU. I am advised that if a member state is found guilty of failing to meet targets in a directive, an EU penalty formula would be applied—in this case, a maximum fine of around €700,000 each day if we do not meet the target in 2020 and continue not to meet it for a significant period. It does not need too much imagination to see how that threat would concentrate the minds of those responsible for the targets in Defra. Moreover, it once again puts into stark relief the need for an independent watchdog that can hold the Government to account and issue fines that will deliver real compliance with these important environmental objectives.

I am very unhappy with the wording of this SI as it stands. It seems to represent a considerable watering down of the current provision and I would contend that it goes further and represents a policy change as the 50% target now becomes advisory rather than compulsory. This is of course compounded by the fact, as we have heard, that the targets will apply to England only with no obligation on the devolved nations to report. I ask the Minister to look at this wording again to bring it more in line with the expectation of implementation as set out in the original wording and to put on record that the interim watchdog, the details of which we still await although the clock is ticking, will have equivalent powers to issue fines similar to those currently in operation in the EU.

Finally, on a small point of detail, there is a provision on extractive mining which covers the definition and the dangers therein. However, paragraph 5(c) of new Article 2B on page 16 of the SI includes a reference to,

“Article 2 of Council Directive 2009/158/EC on animal health conditions”,

relating to trade with the EU and third countries in “poultry and hatching eggs”. I struggle to see the connection between poultry and hatching eggs and extractive mining. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain that connection and why this provision appears not only in the paragraph that I have referred to but in several others. I am curious to hear the answer to that, but I look forward more seriously to his substantive response on the issue of waste targets.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hague, for so eloquently setting out the case. The removal of “outstandingly” or “outstandingly high” would substantially increase the number and types of items that qualify for exemption. The purpose of the outstanding artistic value exemption is to allow the older items of exceptional artistic value to be traded.

The exemption before us would undermine that purpose and risk weakening the Bill by enabling trade in many pre-1947 worked items. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, to replace “important” with “significant” will similarly severely weaken the exemption criteria. It will already be possible for Art Deco items to be purchased by museums from private owners under Clause 9, which intentionally does not specify the age of ivory artefacts that can be acquired by museums. It is unwise and unnecessary to widen the exemption further.

As I said, those who support extending the exemptions do not see that this increase in items containing ivory will impact on the elephant population. Unfortunately, they are not correct. It is also wrong to assume that anything that is not exempt, or does not get a certificate, will be destined for the rubbish dump. Families will keep their personal artefacts and furniture containing ivory and pass them on to their children or grandchildren. Unfortunately, a lot of hysteria is being generated.

The monitoring of the elephant population, particularly in Africa, is much more sophisticated nowadays—due to the use of drones—than previously. The sad truth is that the population is down to 400,000. For the first time since records were kept, the number killed each year is higher than the number of live calves born. It is time to make a stand, and it is obvious that this House—across the political divide—supports the Bill. While the Ivory Bill is not perfect, it is a significant step forward in protecting the elephant. We must show the world that we are serious, in the hope that others will follow suit. We cannot support this group of amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I shall respond to these amendments, which would move the applicable date for exemptions from pre-1918 to pre-1947 and would lower the threshold for exemptions, allowing larger numbers of items containing ivory to be bought and sold.

As has been said, these amendments will considerably weaken the impact of the Bill. As the Minister explained in Committee, 1918 was chosen because it defines items which are 100 years old and therefore classified as antiques. A move to include more recent items for exemptions, as suggested in Amendment 3, would inevitably increase the number of items containing ivory in circulation. It would include a much wider group of objects than the Art Deco items which the noble Lord seeks to protect. In any prohibitive Bill of this kind, it is impossible to find a perfect date from which to apply the constraints. As we have mentioned several times, we would have preferred a complete ban on ivory sales but, if there has to be a cut-off date for exemptions, we agree that 1918 has the best logic. Of course, as has been said, that would not affect the ownership or gifting of items, nor the continuing trade in Art Deco items which do not contain ivory.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, this is very brief probing amendment. It concerns the discrepancy between the maximum term of imprisonment for breaching the prohibition in Northern Ireland compared to England, Wales and Scotland.

The Bill states that the criminal sanction for breaching the legislation in Scotland, England and Wales is 12 months’ imprisonment, whereas it is just six months in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister confirm that this discrepancy reflects the fact that the United Kingdom does not have a single legal system? Is the law somehow different in Northern Ireland or is this simply a drafting error? On the face of it, the current wording does not seem fair or logical. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on this probing amendment. Although I accept and respect that it is for the devolved Administrations to set their own penalties, we must keep in mind the difficulties that this will cause. As we all know, the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland have broken down and there appears to be little prospect of them resuming in the near future. This would leave a situation where the penalties in one part of the UK were lighter than in the rest.

Those seeking to circumnavigate the law and benefit from the proceeds of trading ivory might be prepared to risk a six-month imprisonment term instead of 12 months. These are, after all, hardened criminals. It would be extremely unfortunate if the trafficking in illegal ivory and ivory products were shifted to Northern Ireland because the penalties there were more lenient. I respect completely what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, and I am sure that the Minister will give clarification—but I wonder whether the Government and the Secretary of State might consider having uniformity of sentencing across the UK.

Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement today. Of course, the White Paper is a long way from the Secretary of State’s promise to the fishing communities that we will gain control of our waters on day one of Brexit. Instead, we have to face the reality that the UK will remain part of the common fisheries policy, but without a direct say in its rules, until the end of 2020. Indeed, the Secretary of State himself had to admit that this represents “a sub-optimal outcome” for the fishing industry.

This White Paper represents one more step in letting the sector down gradually because, despite all the talk of a brighter future beckoning, the future of the UK fishing industry will remain embroiled in complex EU and international negotiations for years to come. It is simply not possible to operate on a unilateral basis as an independent fishing state; everything has to be agreed with our neighbours and with our future markets, unless we are prepared to risk conflict and uncertainties on our marine borders.

The future of the customs arrangements will be key to this and we have to await the details of how the Government’s proposal to the UK will be specified and applied in the future. This matters because 70% of what we catch we export, and 80% of the fish we eat we import. We export nearly 350,000 tonnes of fish to the EU alone so, despite the Secretary of State’s theatrical ripping-up of the Prime Minister’s proposals, somewhere along the line there has to be agreement on a future trade relationship with the EU. It is vital that we preserve the UK’s access to low-tariff exports and imports of fish, so we await with interest the signs of white smoke from Chequers this weekend because the long-term future of our fish markets relies upon this.

The White Paper seems to fudge this issue by claiming:

“Fisheries will be a separate strand of our future relationship with the EU”.


Can the Minister confirm whether our exports of fish will be subject to the same customs rules as all other food products negotiated as part of the EU package? Does he accept that access to our fishing rights could be exchanged as part of a bigger bilateral or multilateral trade deal, which could make a mockery of our bid to take back control of our own waters? Can he clarify the future status of foreign fleets which purchased the fishing rights originally allocated to UK fishers? Can he also confirm that the fisheries Bill will cover the full range of outputs from the industry, including fish farming and fish processing?

We welcome the emphasis in the White Paper on sustainable fishing and the need to learn from the latest scientific evidence. We will need to continue to share research evidence with other EU fishing nations and beyond. It does not make sense to create a separate research capacity when so much more can be achieved by working collaboratively. So can the Minister say what steps are being taken to safeguard our access to EU institutions that provide expert advice on the maximum sustainable yield and total allowable catch data, so that we can fish sustainably in the future in the knowledge that we are relying on the best scientific advice? Can he also say what further steps the Government intend to take to safeguard habitats and species in the “blue belts” of the seas and oceans surrounding our island? Does he agree that we should be even more ambitious about protecting our seas by creating national maritime parks?

The Minister will also know that the devolved nations, particularly the Scottish fishers, are keen to have greater control over the local coastal waters. Can he confirm that the new UK framework for fisheries is making good progress? Can he also confirm that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have had an input into the White Paper?

Finally, the White Paper recognises the wider implications of any new deal on fishing to coastal communities. These represent some of our poorest communities, with high unemployment and low wages. Jobs in the fishing sector are in decline and the workforce is ageing. It is important that they have a genuine input into the White Paper to ensure that future government priorities will genuinely help to nurture and revitalise their lives and their communities. It is also important that the EU workers who work in the fishing sector will have their interests protected. Can the Minister explain how the debate around the White Paper will reach out to these communities, to ensure that their concerns are genuinely taken into account? How will the Government measure success in revitalising these communities that are desperate for further resource and investment? I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and welcome the publication of this important White Paper. The shores of our islands have some of the most prolific fishing waters in the world and it is vital that not only are fish stocks protected but that the numerous industries and businesses that rely on a constant supply of fish are supported and protected. This includes not only large fishing fleets but smaller, family-owned vessels, not only the small, iconic smokeries but also the larger processing plants. It is our duty to provide a mixed economy around our coastlines that depend on a healthy marine environment, free from unnecessary bureaucracy and free from plastics.

I note the Secretary of State’s commitment to end the dominance of foreign vessels in our waters and to support our own fishing communities across the country; I welcome that statement. I have only two questions: what discussions have so far taken place with the devolved Administrations about sustainable goals to be shared across the UK? Secondly, is the Minister able to ensure ongoing access to the EU labour force that supports the sustainability of the vital seafood processing sector? I am encouraged by the general thrust of the White Paper and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Water Supply Disruption

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and I pay tribute to the emergency services, who once again made us proud of their dedication and humanity when struggling in the worst of weather to provide healthcare and reach out to people cut off by the snow. I also thank many of the staff in the utilities—the engineers and the linesmen who worked in atrocious conditions to try to repair services, so that supplies of heating and water were retained. But the individual commitment of the staff cannot disguise the huge failings in the response of the water companies themselves in the recent bad weather.

I appreciate the update that the Minister has given today but as of yesterday, 5,000 homes were still without water in Kent and thousands of properties across Wales, parts of the Midlands and Scotland were waiting to have their supplies reconnected. In London, 12,000 households were still without water last night and relying on bottled water, but even supplies of bottled water were running out at some of the distribution points. This really is a very poor response. It is not as if the bad weather was a freak occurrence. The Met Office was warning of the predicted freeze weeks in advance. Yes, of course pipes are liable to freeze when the temperature drops but, equally, we should measure water companies’ success by the speed of their response and the interim help and support they provide to their customers.

I absolutely agree with Rachel Fletcher, Ofwat’s chief executive, who is quoted in the Financial Times today as saying:

“While the recent severe weather conditions have undoubtedly had an impact on pipes and infrastructure, water companies have been warned time and again that they need to be better at planning ahead to deal with these sorts of situations, including proactively communicating with customers when they anticipate issues”.


I really struggle to understand why the water companies are so poor at this. Anyone with any business involvement knows that risk assessments and the mitigating actions that follow are fundamental to the planning process, as is having in place a proper disaster recovery system. This should be ingrained in the systems of utilities because, for example, water companies are inevitably at risk of extremes of weather, whether flood, drought or snow. I hope when the Minister met Ofwat and Water UK today they were able to reassure her that supplies will have been reconnected to all affected homes by the end of the day and that, despite the review the Minister referred to, compensation will be provided to individuals and businesses affected by the loss of supply on this occasion.

There is a wider challenge here. It is not just about the aftermath of one week of bad weather. The performance of the water companies has been under criticism for some time. Six companies missed their leakage targets for 2016-17, with Thames Water’s performance data showing that 670 million litres are being lost to leakages every single day. This total works out at an average of 180 litres per day being lost for each property the company supplies. Despite these failings on leakages, water bills have increased by more than 40% since privatisation, with many consumers set to have another rise in a few weeks’ time. Meanwhile, rather than fix the problems the private water companies are paying out huge dividends to investors. For example, the owners of the top nine water companies paid out more than £18 billion in dividends in the 10 years to 2016, and their CEOs are being paid huge salaries and bonuses. Clearly, these companies have got their priorities wrong.

I therefore have to say that the Secretary of State was quite right to criticise the water companies in his speech last week, including their tendency to avoid paying tax and to hide their earnings offshore, but like many of his speeches it lacked a follow-up action plan. These problems have been known about for some time. I hope the Minister can also confirm that as part of the review, Ofwat will be given new powers to tackle excessive pay in this sector and to require a greater proportion of profits to be reinvested in service delivery and resilience. I hope he can also confirm that Ofwat will be instructed to use its existing powers more actively to ensure that water companies plan effectively for adverse weather events in future, as we all expect of them. Finally, can the Minister confirm that Ofwat will take a more active role in overseeing companies’ delivery of leakage repairs, intervening where necessary and increasing fines for missed deadlines so that real incentives are put in place to deliver the change that we should all expect? I look forward to his response.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her comments. I agree with everything she said. The freezing weather at the end of last week was not a surprise—it had been well trailed and advertised for some time. It is therefore extremely disappointing that some water companies did not appear to respond quickly to the demand on their services by identifying and correcting burst pipes and leaks. This has caused great distress and inconvenience to thousands of households. It is unacceptable that water bill payers have been left without running water while schools and businesses across the UK are being forced to close because of water shortages. While this is a period of extreme short-term pressure, the vast amount of water that leaks from companies’ pipes every day has not decreased for the past four years. Data from the water industry regulator Ofwat shows that more than 3 billion litres leaks every day. What are the Government going to do to ensure this problem is addressed in the long term?

While expressing disappointment at the response of the water companies, I pay tribute and express the thanks of these Benches to the engineers who have worked long hours, often through the night, to reconnect households to their water supplies and to mend burst pipes and leaks. Their efforts should be recognised.

There is a real gap in the market when it comes to providing capital for critical infrastructure. A housing investment bank is needed to provide long-term capital for major new developments, to guarantee proper infrastructure and services. Locally led housing delivery must be integrated into infrastructure delivery to ensure vital utilities such as water are available at all times.

A public awareness campaign is needed to help residents insulate pipes to prevent bursting in extreme weather conditions. Can the Minister give a commitment that such a campaign will receive priority before we suffer another freezing spell from Siberia?

Waste Enforcement (England and Wales) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed introduction of this waste enforcement SI. There are many SIs coming down the track and a great deal of detailed and complex information for your Lordships to get their heads around. It is estimated that there are currently around 600 illegal sites operating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Environment Agency already has the power to shut down illegal waste sites due to the damage they cause to their surroundings.

In 2016, the Environment Agency prosecuted 110 businesses and individuals for offences related to illegal waste sites. In some cases, landowners caught by this illegal activity were unaware of it taking place. Illegal waste sites are a blight on communities and undermine legitimate landfill operators. It is to be welcomed that the Government have listened to concerns raised by businesses and local communities and are taking action to tackle this crime—a crime which not everyone in society will recognise, but doubtless it goes towards the ever-increasing crime figures, which are regularly published.

In 2015, waste crime cost the English economy more than £600 million. This included lost landfill tax revenues and clean-up costs. It creates severe problems for people who live or work nearby, with odour, dust, litter, vermin, fly infestations, pollution and fires blighting lives. These criminals undercut genuine businesses that dispose of waste responsibly. The new powers introduced for the Environment Agency to lock the gates or block access to problem waste sites to prevent thousands of tonnes of waste illegally building up are very welcome. The powers will also enable the Environment Agency to force operators to clear all the waste at a problem site, not just the illegal waste, as the Minister has just said.

I have consulted with my local waste authorities and they report that there is little or no problem in Somerset with either waste sites operating without a licence or in breach of their licence. That is good news, but it would appear that the north of England and London are the worst-hit areas. During 2016-17, more than 850 new illegal waste sites were discovered by the Environment Agency. While an average of two illegal waste sites are shut down every day, they continue to create problems for local communities and businesses, as well as posing a risk to key national infrastructure. In 2013 a fire at a waste site in Stockport resulted in the closure of the M60 and three weeks of disruption to traffic, residents and businesses.

I am grateful to the Minister for sending me the sentencing guidelines for the offences committed by these environmental criminals. I found them most interesting. The range of classifications gives due consideration to whether the offence was deliberate, reckless, negligent or of no culpability; in other words, those who deliberately and knowingly flout the law and cause the most harm to the environment can expect the penalty to be severe, whereas those who find they are the subject of a breach of the law through no fault of their own, and little harm ensues, will be penalised at a much lower level. The range of fines, from £100 to £3 million, gives plenty of scope to the Environment Agency to ensure that culprits, both unwitting and serial offenders, realise that they cannot continue to flout the law and pollute the countryside.

However, I am concerned that the extra £30 million over four years that is to be made available to the Environment Agency to tackle waste crime, in the form of illegal sites and misclassification of waste, may not be enough. That sum sounds a lot but equates to only £7.5 million a year. Given the scale of the problem in recent years, I am not convinced that this sum will be adequate. I seek assurance from the Minister that sufficient resources will be made available to the Environment Agency to enable it to carry out its new legal duties to the degree that we all wish to see. That apart, I am happy to support this very important statutory instrument.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations and for our earlier meeting to talk through the proposals, which I found very useful. We support these new powers: obviously, they will help tackle illegal activity at waste sites and will be an important additional tool for waste regulation and collection authorities in tackling the growing menace of waste crime. As we know, this takes many forms, from fly-tipping by builders and illegal dumping on farmland to large-scale criminal activity involving illegal sites and operators misclassifying waste to evade millions of pounds of tax, and so on. It is definitely time to take action.

Diverting waste from landfill, and increasing our capacity to store, sort and treat it for recycling and recovery, has to be an essential element of a future circular economy based on the waste hierarchy. If it is done well, it will bring economic and environmental benefits. In that context, the majority of waste sites play within the rules and understand their responsibilities. Unfortunately, there appears to be a sizeable minority of sites which seem to take pleasure in stretching the rules or operating completely outside the legislation. Not only is this illegal but it creates an unfair advantage over the more responsible operators. As the Explanatory Notes make clear, illegal waste sites can cause pollution to the environment as well as endanger public health. They pose a risk of fire, water pollution and other irritants such as odour, litter and fly infestations, which can cause misery for nearby communities. All too often, it is left to public bodies and owners of land to clear up the mess.

The recent Environmental Services Association Education Trust report, Waste Crime: Tackling Britain’s Dirty Secret, estimates that waste crime costs the UK £560 million a year. The Chief Fire Officers Association estimates that the cost of dealing with fires at waste sites across the UK is around £16 million a year. By any measure of cost-benefit analysis, it makes sense to crack down on the gangsters who are creating the problems in the first place, rather than leaving it to the public purse to clear up the mess. So these measures to restrict access to sites and to enforce clean-ups, as well as to fine and in more serious cases to jail those involved, have to be welcomed.

Water Abstraction Regulations

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I pursue this Motion to Regret the four water abstraction regulations that have been tabled for three main reasons: first, the policy implications contained therein; secondly, the pattern of delays in Defra dealing with regulations; and, thirdly, the wider capacity issues within the department to deal with future legislation.

The background to the Motion is the excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which was published on 16 November 2017. As ever, the committee has carried out its responsibility with scrupulous attention to detail and to the public policy implications of the regulations. The report describes how the four sets of regulations have the combined effect of ending exemptions from the requirement to obtain a licence to abstract water. This has significant environmental implications as, in the past, unfettered water abstraction—for example, in the use of irrigation—has impacted on the flow of water available for other users further downstream. As the Defra Explanatory Memorandum makes clear, currently 5,000 significant water abstractions are exempt from licensing, compared to 20,000 that do have to have a licence. This creates an unfair playing field and allows unlicensed abstractors to put pressure on the environment and other water users.

Given the environmental importance of this issue and our understanding of the need for careful management of water catchment areas, particularly in the light of recent flooding crises, I would have thought that the Government would have been keen to act. Sadly, the opposite has been the case. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted, these regulations have been tabled 14 years after the requirement to do so in the Water Act 2003, and five years after a deadline set by the EU water framework directive. Not only is this negligent but it put us at odds with our EU obligations, which could have led to the Commission bringing formal proceeding against us, which, in turn, could have led to taxpayers funding the Government’s defence. I have to ask: why did it take so long to act on this issue?

Over this period, the Government carried out two consultations on proposals to remove the licensing exemptions. The first was instigated in 2009, resulting from the Labour Government’s decision to consult on the need to comply with the EU directive. Not surprisingly, those who already had licences and those concerned with the environment supported the regulations, and, again not surprisingly, those who did not have licences were resistant to the proposals. When the new Government came in in 2010, they failed to implement the changes required as they decided that the business concerns were more important than the environmental concerns. It then took another six years for the Government to decide that a new consultation was necessary. As the SLSC report makes clear, this proposed a,

“light-touch, risk based approach to licensing … which is now being taken forward”.

Indeed, the impact assessment concentrates its concerns on the cost to business of making these changes. As the SLSC report concludes:

“It is clear that Defra’s concern to mitigate the impacts on business has been an important cause of the protracted timescale for removing these licensing exemptions”.


My first reason for pursuing this Motion to Regret is to highlight our concerns that business interests are being put before environmental interests and before the need for fair play between those who are already in compliance and those who seem to want to continue to act outside the system. Is this the way that the Government are going to go forward? If it is, it rather contradicts everything that the Secretary of State has said about putting the environment first, and the rather lofty ambitions of the 25-year environment plan, which will require some hard choices, considerable behaviour change and potential costs on the part of business. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government’s policy in the most recent consultation, based on prioritising business needs over environmental objectives, remains the same.

Secondly, I would like to raise the inconceivable delay in bringing forward these regulations. We are now 12 years past the Water Act 2003 and five years past the deadline for compliance with the EU directive. How can the Minister justify this delay? I raise this with particular concern, because it is not a one-off event. This is not the first time that the SLSC has criticised Defra’s treatment of secondary legislation. In July, the SLSC noted that the Marketing of Fruit Plant and Propagating Material (England) Regulations 2017, which transposed three EU directives, missed the transposition deadline of 1 January 2017. The Commission issued a formal notice to the UK in late January and, in response, the department set a revised transposition deadline of June. In the same week, the committee also noted that the Single Common Market Organisation (Emergency Aid) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017 were based on a short, two-week consultation in September and October 2016. That was done for good reason, but the committee questioned why, given the early October consultation deadline, it then took six months for the regulations to be laid.

In March, the committee noted that Defra’s answers to its questions on the Commons (Registration of Town or Village Greens) and Dedicated Highways (Landowner Statements and Declarations) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 had misrepresented the position of user groups. The committee wrote to the Minister to bring the case to his attention. In his response, he acknowledged that the department may have given the committee the wrong impression. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why these delays and mistakes are taking place and what is being done to address these failures. The prompt and accurate processing of secondary legislation is an essential part of legislative scrutiny and I hope he can confirm that it will be taken more seriously in the future.

Finally, I want to raise the wider issue of the department’s capacity to handle forthcoming legislation. We already know that 80% of legislation affecting Defra is derived from the EU level. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will give ongoing legal effect to the directly applicable legislation, which the UK will of course take on board. At the same time, the technical details, in the form of statutory instruments, will need to be crafted accurately and in a timely manner.

The noble Lord will know that the January 2017 House of Commons Library briefing found there are 922 regulations relating to agriculture, 1,122 to fisheries and 527 in the field of environment, consumer and health protection. While not all of these will be relevant to the UK, it is clear that Defra will have a significant amount of extra work to carry out between now and March 2019. At the same time, we already have promises for an animal sentience Bill, a fisheries Bill and an agriculture Bill—all of which are expected this year.

In November 2015, RSPB and Wildlife Trusts economists said that cuts to Defra’s budget would be equivalent to 57% in real terms over the course of two Parliaments. I accept that this has been partially mitigated as, in October, the Government confirmed extra funding for Defra in order to prepare for Brexit. At the time, the department said that it expected to hire an additional 1,200 civil servants to cope with its extra workload. However, a National Audit Office report published this month suggests that only half this number of posts had been filled as at November, and of course these posts are only intended to cover the work of Brexit, not the wider day-to-day running of the department. Is the Minister satisfied that Defra now has the resources necessary, at the right level of knowledge and training, to process the huge workload linked to Brexit, as well as the day-to-day work such as preparing primary and secondary legislation and rolling out the 25-year environment plan?

I look forward to the Minister’s response on these three challenges—the Government’s approach to regulating business in the context of environmental priorities, the need to address the delays and errors in the processing of secondary legislation, and the overall capacity of the department to deal with the upcoming workload.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for putting down this Motion to Regret. I am able to support all of her arguments in this vital matter. The use and retention of water is key to the way in which the country is able to function, both in terms of domestic properties, farming and business.

As the noble Baroness said, the 10th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee back in November made it very clear that the Government have taken an exceedingly long time to reach the point where they feel they can move forward with secondary legislation—some 14 years after the parent Act. Currently around 5,000 significant water abstractions are exempt from licensing, while some 20,000 abstractions have licences. There does not appear to be any substantial reason why licences should not apply to all abstractors. This is clearly inequitable.

Keeping our rivers flowing must be a priority as overabstraction is damaging diverse wildlife populations. It would seem, from the Prime Minister’s speech last Thursday, that the Government have now woken up to this fact. Analysis shows that the economic and social costs of drought far exceed the costs of addressing the problem and that the rate of return on investment of improving river health is high.

Nearly a quarter of rivers in England are at risk from unsustainable water abstraction, with 14% classified as overabstracted, meaning that water removal is causing rivers to drop below levels required to sustain wildlife. Some 9% are overlicensed, meaning that the river would be overabstracted if licence-holders took all the water they were entitled to. This situation is critical and should not have had to wait 14 years to be addressed.

As we heard, the Government conducted a consultation in 2009 and then again in 2016. I wonder if having consulted in 2009, the incoming Government did not like the responses and shelved the document. I have looked at the responses to the 2016 consultation. Farmers and the mining and quarrying industries were the highest responders, but some responders did not reply to all questions, as they did not all apply to them. Somerset has farming, mining and quarrying industries that are highly dependent on water abstraction. I found the responses of the water level management contributors most interesting, as I live close to the Somerset Levels. The internal drainage boards are only a small section of responders, but they are extremely important.

I was also interested in the response to Question 3 on excluding compensation provisions for future abstractors, with all six environmental groups agreeing with the proposal and all seven in the quarrying and mining sector disagreeing. I understand the Government’s dilemma in trying to please everyone. But water, as we know, needs to be both harvested and protected for the environment. The Government must transpose the water framework directive in full, establishing mechanisms and sanctions to enforce its implementation, even if we leave the EU. The 2027 deadline to increase the proportion of water bodies in good ecological status should be upheld.

The Government’s Brexit White Paper guaranteed that this important piece of legislation and its 2027 deadline would be transposed into UK law. Will the Minister now confirm that this will happen? In its Water for Life White Paper, Defra set out its intention to reform the abstraction regime to ensure sufficient water for wildlife and economic growth. The resulting legislation to make this a reality was due this spring. But in April 2017, the Minister confirmed that new legislation was on hold due to insufficient parliamentary time to take it forward.

In 2016-2017, Britain experienced the driest winter and early spring for more than 20 years according to the Met Office. But Parliament appears not to have been able to allow time for the Government to implement the vital legislation covered in the Water for Life White Paper.

As well as wildlife and biodiversity, water abstraction featured in last week’s 25-year environment plan. The Government aim to amend licences in cases of unsustainable abstraction; encourage water trading and storage; introduce more low-flow controls to protect the environment; and replace seasonal constraints to allow extra abstraction at high flows. They will be extremely busy and it will be good if all that comes to pass.

In many parts of the country, severe drought is a real issue, but in others, the problem is flooding. Managing water flow, storage and movement is key to all those areas affected. Not taking action on the directive for 14 years seems to these Benches to be dilatory in the extreme. I look forward to the Minister’s response on this important matter.

Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to welcome these regulations to ban the production of microbeads in water-soluble cosmetics. I agree with absolutely everything that the Minister said. I declare an interest as a district councillor; it will become clear why later on.

As the Minister said, there are other suitable non-plastic alternatives available to the cosmetics industry. Around 72% of manufacturers have already switched from plastic microbeads to other, more sustainable alternatives, but this leaves 28% of UK cosmetics manufacturers to fall into line. At the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017 there was an extensive public consultation, which supported the ban on microbeads. As the Minister said, currently that applies only in England but it is expected to be extended to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in July next year. The cost of the ban is approximately £500,000. This is clearly a manageable sum for the largest cosmetics manufacturers. Smaller, local manufacturers do not use microbeads and so are unaffected by this legislation.

As the Minister said, these microbeads are small plastic particles which move through the sewage system and out into the sea, where they are consumed by marine life, sometimes adversely affecting digestive systems. The impact assessment states:

“There is little evidence of the impact to human health”,


although the Department of Health is conducting a review. Fish digestive systems, where microplastics are likely to get caught, are usually removed when preparing fish for human consumption. This is a personal warning to me as I am a great fan of sprats, which I eat whole. Perhaps I will have to change my eating habits.

That apart, my only real concern relates to the enforcement of the regulations surrounding the ban. This is to be allocated to local authorities. As most noble Lords are aware, local authorities have had their budgets cut drastically and are finding it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make their income stretch over the services they deliver. To add another burden to them could mean that the regulations are not properly enforced—not because local authorities would not wish to do it but because they simply may not have the money to carry out the function effectively. I flag this up to the Minister and seek reassurance.

Regulation 2 relates to who will be enforcing the regulations. Sub-paragraph (d) states that this will be,

“in relation to an area in the rest of England, the county council for that area or, where there is no county council for that area, the district council for that area”.

So is it only county and district councils which will be carrying out the enforcement in most of England? In sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) there is no mention of metropolitan areas apart from London or of unitary authorities. Is this an unfortunate omission? Are these areas excluded? Have I missed something? I would be grateful to the Minister for some clarification.

That apart, I am absolutely delighted to support these regulations, and thank the Minister for his very helpful briefing. I very much look forward to further bans on the unnecessary use of plastics, which the Secretary of State announced this morning.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his clarity in introducing this secondary legislation, and for discussing some of the issues arising from it in advance of today’s consideration. If I could take a small amount of credit for the fact that this SI is before us today, I think I was the first person to raise the issue of microbeads in your Lordships’ House several years ago. I can still remember the look of growing dismay on the faces of noble Lords in the Chamber, who realised for the first time that this plastic was not just an environmental issue, it was actually getting into the food chain and potentially contaminating their fish supper.

Since then, awareness of the dangers of microbeads has risen significantly and the more the public have become aware of them, the stronger the call for microbeads to be banned. The latest polling shows that some 85% of people want action to stop plastics polluting the oceans. As well as concerns being raised on a cross-party basis, both here and in the Commons, there have been some very effective campaigns by Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society and other NGOs. As has been said, the wonderful work of David Attenborough and the “Blue Planet” series has also helped to harden attitudes against the wider contamination of the sea by plastics.

Bus Services Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, this amendment builds on the concept of a community asset, as identified in the Localism Act 2011. Some bus routes, particularly in isolated rural areas, are simply a lifeline for the local community. At the moment these communities feel impotent to defend or potentially take over these routes, particularly where they are provided by a private operator whose only concern is the route’s profitability.

At the moment, other community provisions such as pubs and shops can be designated an asset of community value. Indeed, in some areas bus stops have been similarly designated. Our amendment takes that concept one step further, building on the process set out in the Localism Act. It would allow for a community grouping to apply to the traffic commissioner stating why a bus route should be listed as having specific community value. They would have to make the case for how it furthered the social well-being or social interests of the local community and, if successful, this would give the community some protection from the service being cut or closed without notice.

At a minimum, this would give the community six months’ notice of closure. More importantly, it would allow space for alternative owners or providers to emerge. That could include a community-run provision or not-for-profit partnership. It would also provide space for additional funding to be sought from government or elsewhere, and might encourage some imaginative thinking about the kind of service that would really be valued by the community in future.

We believe that a new right for communities based on this principle would build on the essence of the Localism Act. It is a natural extension of that policy and would provide considerable reassurance to our most isolated rural communities. I hope noble Lords and the Minister see the sense in what we are proposing, and I look forward to support for this amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 121 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to which I have added my name. I must apologise for not being able to take part in previous Committee days on this important Bill; the scheduling of children and social work in Grand Committee at the same time as the buses Bill was in Committee in the main Chamber meant that I was unable to be in two places at the same time. I also declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA and a councillor on South Somerset District Council.

I am concerned, as are other Members of the House, about the declining bus service in rural areas and market towns. When I was a young mother I caught the bus on a Friday from the bottom of the road and went into town with my toddler and pushchair to do my shopping, run some errands and come back again. A Friday suited me, but I could have done that journey four times in the morning and three times in the afternoon, on every day of the week, including Saturdays, and at limited times on Sundays. Now that service is vastly reduced to twice every weekday, once on Saturday and nothing at all on Sunday. The service also ran once each way in the evening so that young people could get to youth activities or go to the cinema.

I will briefly comment on the plight of many young people in rural Britain. Young people should be able to access training, go to FE colleges and engage in apprenticeships. They should be able to socialise, as it is part of their development to hang out with their friends. As they move from the security of the home to taking more and more decisions for themselves, the ability to have free movement within their communities is vital to their gaining independence. They are mostly fit and can walk, but will their parents or guardians be happy for them to hike miles each way in the winter in order to go to the cinema? No buses run after 6 pm, after all.

Currently in Devon, the county council is forcing young people to prove that they need help with transport. This means that young people will be penalised, and it is mainly rural families who will be hit by this new policy. The Government require young people to stay in education or training until they are 18 but will not give any more money towards transport costs. While colleges have an allocation to help with education costs for poorer families, FE colleges are worried that the demand will be greater than the funds available and a whole new set of red tape will be needed for young people who need help getting to college.

The village I lived in was typical of hundreds of villages around the country. The GP surgery is in the next village, but will the bus times fit with the timings of appointments or will people who are already feeling unwell have to hang around waiting as the bus comes only once a day—or, worse, simply be unable to get there at all when there is an appointment?

The view of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on County Matters is:

“Buses are a lifeline to rural communities—efficient public transport is of particular importance in county areas where large, sparse and rural geographies mean that there is an increased risk of isolation. Local bus services are a lifeline for many residents and we must ensure we find ways of making services sustainable for the future. A well designed system can support health and social care—keeping people connected to their communities and providing consistent access to public services can reduce the human and monetary costs of escalating need. This is particularly important in counties which represent the largest older populations, and face particular pressures in health and care services. The bus system is crucial to county economies—half of all commutes outside of London are by bus, and businesses say that well designed services in rural areas are crucial to supporting local economies. This is of particular importance given the substantial number of small businesses in counties”.

I fully support the amendment. In my area I have supported the community right to bid, which has safeguarded many assets that the community holds dear: the local pub, village shops and post offices, and many other facilities. Local communities are capable of innovative and far-reaching plans for their assets, which will now provide facilities that have gradually been eroded over time. Everyone valued them but felt powerless to prevent their demise. Communities run community libraries in pubs, plus shops, cafes and drop-in centres, as well as serving beer. They run lunch clubs for the elderly and isolated, and there is often quite a queue forming in order to ensure that they get a seat next to their friends so they can chat happily while enjoying a cooked meal.

Bus services are also part of community assets. Those in a hurry often bemoan the fact that some rural services meander around villages, picking up people on the way. However, this “meandering around” is vital to ensuring that those on low incomes, those who are frail and can no longer walk long or even short distances, and those who have given up driving their cars, are not left lonely and isolated—prisoners in their own homes. Often those on the bus will notice that a resident who usually joins them is not there. They raise their concern and alert neighbours to this fact, ensuring that a visit is made and their welfare taken care of.

Amendment 121 is clear and speaks for itself; the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, eloquently laid out the case for it. As a country we have come to believe that profit is a good thing and must come before all other considerations. But profit must not be allowed to thwart community enterprise. Communities deserve better and all possible efforts must be made to ensure that operators are found to run bus services that do not run at a tremendous profit or are in danger of being axed. If this cannot be done, communities should be given the opportunity to see if they can find a solution. Nine times out of 10 they will manage it. We are a very innovative nation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.