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.