Traffic-related Air Pollution

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I do not have a figure with which to answer my noble friend, but she is absolutely right to point out the value of trees. We have stretching targets for new woodland planting, which not only will help to reverse the declines in biodiversity and to lock up more carbon but will improve people’s health through both the air they breathe and the quality of their lives. We want to ensure that this is understood, not just by land managers but by local authorities and government departments which own a large amount of land. We want to ensure that everybody is part of the great national effort to improve our biodiversity and quality of life.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, in June the National Audit Office released a report on tackling local breaches of air quality. One of its conclusions was that the Government publish a lot of air quality data, but not in a way that gives the public accessible information about air quality problems and action in their area. It said:

“There has been little public engagement … and … a lack of transparency”.


What progress have the Government made to address those issues?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are driving down emissions across all sectors in the economy, including through the nitrogen dioxide plan, which has seen emissions from road transport decrease over 52% in the last decade, and the environmental permitting of agriculture and industry, which has seen sulphur dioxide emissions from energy production decrease 87% over the last decade, and by regulating the most harmful fuels in domestic burning to reduce emissions by 2030. That is what we are achieving. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we need to help people to make decisions about their lives, so part of our support for local authorities is to help the whole health disparity problem by making sure that people have more information about how they can minimise the impact of poor air quality in their lives. Some people cannot do that—for example, you cannot expect people to move away from traffic hotspots—so the driver is to try to reduce poor air quality and to improve the lives of those people. Trying to ensure that we are limiting those issues is an absolutely core part of the national policy.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

We know that in the Bill and during the debates—

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I want to make the point that when we talk about “free of risk”, we have to get things in perspective. In so-called conventional breeding, the parent seeds or germline are often irradiated to create a large number of random mutations and then a new cross-bred strain is produced. That often involves shuffling maybe 20% or 30% of the genome and is not regulated at all. When we say “risk free”, we know that conventional breeding is not risk free. The Braeburn apple was introduced 30 or 40 years ago as a new variety—a hybrid of two earlier varieties—without any testing, and that could have had detrimental consequences for human health or the environment. Nothing is risk free, so let us get risk in proportion.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his very important point. We need to think about where we want to go with this and how we want those regulations to come in as we go through the Bill. I am sure that we will be having some very interesting debates on that as we move forward. Clearly, the whole purpose of the Bill is about deregulating the law on gene editing so that we can actually move forward beyond the traditional breeding processes.

The purpose of this group is to look at the definitions as to how we move forward; what we mean by that; and whether the Bill has the right definitions in it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talked about unintended outcomes, for example. The interesting thing for me is whether “precision breeding” is the right terminology. Why have the Government picked that terminology? That is something that a lot of noble Lords raised on Second Reading, and again now.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also talked about the EU. One of the things that I have noted is that the EU has quite a different term. I am not aware that the European Union is using the term “precision breeding”, but it is looking at “new genetic techniques”. How does what we are doing in this regulation fit in with what the European Union is doing? We will be talking about trade later on but, clearly, it is going to be very important that it all fits together and works together in the long term. It is going to be very interesting to look at how we develop as we go on.

A lot of the definitions are quite vague as well. It would be helpful if the Minister could, perhaps, explain some of the definitions in Clause 1. For example, in Clause 1(1), the actual definition of “precision bred organism” is very, very broad. Is it deliberately broad? Is it trying to capture something in particular? My noble friend Lord Winston talked about traditional processes and natural transformation, as well as referring to “stable”. Understanding what these actually mean and their implications for the Bill going forward are important.

Amendment 86, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, again refers to the title, coming back to what we have just been talking about. She also has Amendment 11 on exogenous genetic materials. There has been some work done by Defra to shed some light on this. The consultation, for example, that was carried out last year, states that

“this proposal does not apply to organisms which introduce genetic material from other species.”

However, that distinction, as we have heard, is not in the Bill. Does it need to be in the Bill?

It is not stated anywhere that precision breeding technologies are technologies that edit a single organism. I refer to Clause 1(7), which refers to

“somatic hybridisation or cell fusion of plant cells of organisms which are capable of exchanging genetic material”.

What does that mean? Does that open the door to transgenic exchange, for example? Some of it is quite weak on definitions, and some of the definitions could be stretched to include pretty much anything—so I do think that some kind of clarification would be very helpful.

The chief scientific adviser to Defra, Professor Henderson, giving evidence to the Commons Select Committee, said that the Bill was designed not to allow exogenous material. He also said, however, that this was something of a grey area. Particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—and he has a far greater understanding of this than I do—it is very important to get clarification on this area before we move further on into the detail of the debate.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful for this interesting debate on this first section. I will start with, I hope, a note of humility: I understand that I am in the presence of people who have proved, in the introductions by the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Krebs, and others, that I sit at the foothills of knowledge compared with them. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quoted Descartes—I think he said, “All I know is that I know nothing”. I hope I know a bit more than that, although my learning curve has been very steep. I am grateful to officials at Defra and others who have helped me through this process.

I am aware that the term “precision breeding” has been controversial in some quarters, although well received in others. I thank noble Lords for this opportunity to explain why we have adopted it. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested “directed bred” as an alternative term to “precision bred”, whereas, on this point, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, suggested “genome editing” to replace “precision breeding”. Concerns have been raised about using the term “precision bred” to describe these organisms, because they can result in off-target changes to the organism’s DNA. Although off-target changes can occur using precision breeding technologies, the advice we have received from our Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—ACRE—in relation to precision-bred plants is that off-target changes are significantly rarer than those produced during the course of conventional methods of plant breeding. This is also the view of the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission.

On animals, ACRE concluded in its advice published in September last year that there is good evidence to suggest that the use of techniques such as CRISPR-Cas9 in animals does not result in a greater number of off-target changes than the background rate for natural mutations—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this. Indeed, many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of off-target changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. Therefore, although off-target changes may occur using these technologies, the scientific advice is that they are more precise than traditional breeding, both in terms of making targeted changes to the DNA of a plant or animal and in terms of the number of off-target changes they cause.

In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used the term “genome editing” instead of “precision breeding”. The class of plants and animals we intend the term to cover will include some gene-edited organisms. However, it will not cover all gene-edited organisms; it will not include plants and animals that contain genetic features produced by modern biotechnology that could not have occurred naturally or by traditional processes. For example, plants or animals developed using gene-editing techniques to contain engineered gene drives would not be included in this new class of organism; they will still be regulated as GMOs. In addition, there are techniques of modern biotechnology other than gene editing that could produce plants and animals in this new class—for example, cisgenesis. It is important to note that the EU is also considering cisgenic, as well as gene-edited, plants in its plans for regulatory reform.

We considered using the term “gene edited” in the Bill but, for the reasons I have explained, we concluded that this would be more misleading and confusing. The purpose of the Bill is to more closely align the regulation of this class of animals and plants with those produced by traditional breeding, recognising that the genetic changes they contain will have arisen in a more targeted and precise manner.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, makes a very good point about the very important need to engage the public more on this case. The Government have tried very hard to do this, and the Food Standards Agency and wider organisations are doing some very good work. There is a big social science job to do to get the message out about what we are talking about—and, perhaps as importantly, what we are not—and the wider benefits, which we will come to in this and other clauses, about how we can improve the life of us here on this planet, protect animal health and make us more resistant to such factors as climate change. These are factors that we need to hold in our minds as we rightly debate this important Bill, line by line.

Amendment 10 would, in effect, remove the requirement that every feature of an organism’s genome must have been capable of resulting from traditional processes or natural transformation in order for the organism to qualify as precision bred. I understand that the noble Lord’s intention in tabling this amendment was to explore the meanings of the concepts of “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” that are used in this Bill. I hope to address his concerns around the terminology that we have used in this Bill and why it is appropriate. I will begin by defining what we mean by “traditional processes” and “natural transformation”.

For the purposes of this Bill, traditional processes refer to a number of methods listed in Clause 1(7). The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also referred to these. They are well known conventional breeding methods, some of which have been utilised for over 10,000 years, and therefore have a long history of safe use. The methods outlined in Clause 1(7) were not chosen to represent an exhaustive list of traditional breeding processes. Instead, they were chosen because they represent the full range of genetic changes known to occur naturally between sexually compatible plants and animals.

Scientific advice is that genetic changes that could have been achieved through traditional processes, as outlined, do not pose a greater risk as a result of being introduced by modern biotechnology. This is why we have included

“could have resulted from traditional processes”

as a criterion for obtaining “precision bred” status.

“Natural transformation” refers to the process by which DNA from a sexually incompatible organism may be inserted into an organism. In plants and animals, this is almost always the result of infection with a bacterium or virus. Often, the fragments of genetic material left behind after infection no longer serve a purpose or function. The material is non-functional and does not affect the physical characteristics, also referred to as the phenotype, of the plant or animal.

The effect of Clause 1(2)(c)(ii) and Clause 1(6) taken together is to ensure that, for the purposes of this Bill, DNA from a sexually incompatible species which is similar to that which occurs through natural transformation is allowed in a precision-bred organism. This is so long as it does not affect the physical characteristics of the precision-bred organism. This is supported by scientific advice that genetic features produced through modern biotechnology but which could have arisen in nature do not pose a risk as a result of the method of production.

DNA from a sexually incompatible species is critical in the intermediate stages of development of many precision-bred plants and animals. They enable the subsequent precise genetic changes to be made to these organisms. For example, CRISPR-Cas9 often involves insertion of the Cas9 editing machinery to enable the intended precise genetic edits. The Cas9 gene would need to be removed for the resulting plant or animal to be classed as precision bred. Clause 1(6) comes into play where, in some cases, small non-functional fragments of DNA from the Cas9 gene may be left behind. This would be allowed, provided the genetic changes created could have been introduced through natural transformation.

Taken together, the terms “traditional processes” and “natural transformation” ensure that precision-bred organisms are able to contain, in principle, changes that could develop in nature. It is this characteristic that makes precision-bred organisms and GMOs fundamentally different, and we believe that regulating them as such is a proportionate response to the growing body of scientific evidence supporting the safe use of precision-bred organisms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we have heard the arguments made by those who argue for the exclusion of all animals with great sympathy. We think that both noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made good points. Their arguments around the concerns that the public have are extremely well made. I merely add one other reason why their case is strong, which has not been referred to, which is the evidence that was produced from ACRE, which the Minister referred to. What he did not make clear in his remarks was that ACRE said that in terms of unintended consequences, and DNA being retained in organisms used through this process, the likelihood of that happening is far higher with animals than it is with plants. That is another strong argument for a slower approach to proceeding with gene editing. I do not think anybody is saying that gene editing does not have any benefits, but we should be taking that slower approach, both because of how the public have shown their concern over animals and because of the advice from ACRE that that argument has merit.

I understand where the Government are coming from and therefore I have proposed four amendments in this group that would limit gene editing to just farmed animals. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, may have concerns over the wording I chose. My wording was chosen merely because that was the defined use in a previous piece of legislation, so we would not have to argue about what the term meant. I think it is useful in Committee to be probing the Government on excluding farmed animals for a number of reasons. First, as a number of colleagues have said, when we look at other particular areas, such as companion animals, it is not just the welfare treatment of companion animals, it is the actual characteristics that are being bred. Let us think about cropped ears or short muzzles for dogs. Those are not the sorts of things the public would like to see this legislation being used to introduce.

Equally, in the area that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, there is the potential for an enormous number of unintended consequences if this technique is used for wild animals, not only for the animals themselves but for the biodiversity and ecosystems around them. There is a real worry at this stage, which causes me to feel that, if animals are to be included, it would be sensible to restrict editing to farmed animals. There are two other reasons why I think it is important. The first is that it is all the public have been asked about. The Minister talked about how the FSA and the department have been consulting the public; they have consulted with the public only on farm animals, not on the use of animals more broadly. The public have had no say in that at all, so I do not think it is right or proper that we should proceed with a piece of legislation with such huge implications for animals, given public concern that could threaten the capacity of this technology, which does have benefits, to be accepted by the public. They have had no say on companion animals or wild animals. Yes, they have had some say on farmed animals, but not more broadly. That is one concern I have.

My second concern is one that I raised at Second Reading, when I asked the Minister who else in the industry, in the scientific community, in the academic community and in the veterinary community had asked for anything other than farmed animals. The response was, no one. This is about the Government, in their terms, future proofing the legislation, but I do not believe it is appropriate to go beyond what people have been asked about, be it the public, the academics, the veterinarians, the scientists, business organisations, Rothamsted or anyone. No one has been making a case for anything beyond farmed animals, so I ask the Minister to address that in his summing up. On these Benches, we would prefer animals to be excluded in their entirety and to proceed more slowly. But, if that is not the case, we think there is an extremely strong case at the moment to limit it to farm animals. We are looking for a rather better response from the Minister than he gave at Second Reading as to why he thinks it is appropriate that anything beyond farmed animals should be included in this legislation.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, but many of them are consequential, so I will not go through them one by one. I have also added my name to Amendment 3, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have supported other amendments in this group, such as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. The reason for this is that, whether we agree that animals should be included or not, there is a wider debate as to when they should be included, how quickly they should be included, and whether all animals should be included or just some. That is why I put down a lot of amendments in this group. It is an area on which we really need to have proper debate and consideration, because it fundamentally changes much of what the Bill is trying to achieve if you have not just animals but all animals within the Bill, and without any timescales as to when these are going to be included.

I draw noble Lords’ attention to the amendment from my noble friend Lord Winston, because this is slightly different from any other discussion that we have had. It states that the legislation should not apply to equines or rhesus monkeys, for example. He also stressed that he was very cautious about including animals right at the start of the Bill. We will be very interested in the Minister’s response to my noble friend, because it is a different area that he has raised.

I mentioned at Second Reading that I was concerned about the introduction of animals and how they have been included in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised an important point as to what was discussed with the public in the earlier stages that led up to the legislation in front of us. All the secondary legislation that preceded the Bill was really about plants, not animals; likewise, much of the Government’s language and discussion focused on plants, not animals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, the consultation that was held by Defra referenced animals, but they did not seem to be the main focus of attention. Moreover, references to animals focused completely on farm animals. Many stakeholder groups were not expecting the Government to include animals in the Bill, which is partly why many are quite taken aback and have raised concerns.

If you look at the Bill, you will also see evidence of the lack of concrete provisions around timeframes: many of them are vague and noncommittal. Much of the preparation that we believe is necessary for a regulatory framework for animals has not yet been properly carried out. In many aspects, the Bill is a framework Bill, with little detail on actual intentions or provisions on its face. It also delegates a broad set of sweeping powers to Ministers, not only to bring in an awful lot of secondary legislation but to amend primary legislation with a Henry VIII clause, which I am sure that, at some point, we will get on to debate.

No one disputes that it would be a wonderful thing to be able to tackle avian flu or PRRS. Of course, if we can find a solution to these kinds of diseases, it would be hugely beneficial—not just in a financial sense, with much of the Bill focused on marketing, but also in terms of welfare.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about the fact that he strongly supports animals in the Bill. I believe that that is because he is looking at the welfare aspects of this. However, I am concerned that he may be a little gung-ho about how quickly we need to move forward on this. I agree with him that we need to strengthen animal welfare laws. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, talked about the importance of breeding to remove disease and produce resistance to disease. I completely understand those arguments, but I am concerned that we may be moving too quickly without the regulatory framework that needs to be in place and without the considerations that we need to have around the inclusion of animals.

The other thing I want to draw the Committee’s attention to is the fact that the European Union timetable also indicates plants, not animals. Have the Government considered the implications of the EU moving ahead just with plants at this stage if we have animals as well? A large number of animal welfare organisations have expressed concerns; I ought to declare my interest as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust, which is one of the groups that has said it is concerned about this Bill.

The RSPCA, which has already been mentioned, produced a particularly good briefing as to what these concerns are. Its thoughts are that, ideally, the Bill should not cover any animals but, if it does, it should be limited to farm animals only. We have heard a lot of arguments today as to why that should be. It also mentions, as one would expect the RSPCA to do, the impact of conventional breeding, particularly on dogs; a number of noble Lords have talked about that. It also says that gene editing in wild animals is done with the express purpose of altering ecosystems, with potentially unpredictable impacts, and that this should always be controlled by the GMO regulations; I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that particular comment by the RSPCA. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also expressed concerns about wild animals.

As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, the other issue is that we need to take the public with us. If we are not careful about how we legislate around the animal aspect, we will lose them. It is terribly important that we are very careful about how we bring in and implement any animal aspects of this Bill, if at all. The Nuffield Council also raised concerns about bringing animal welfare in, stating:

“The welfare of animals is not a characteristic, like growth rate or milk yield, but a consequence of the interaction of biological and environmental factors.”


That is a really important thing to take home with us as we look at how we can move the Bill forward. It also said:

“There is a risk that the focus placed on individual traits in the Bill could distract from this broader consideration of welfare.”


It is terribly important that that concern is built into the Bill.

In our debate on a later group, we will debate the welfare advisory body in the Bill; now is not the time to do so but the question of whether that group is adequate will be a really important part of the Bill, particularly in terms of whether we should amend it to support that concern. Compassion in World Farming also raised concerns about this issue; I will not go into the detail as we discussed this at Second Reading.

I am slightly concerned that it has been suggested that ethical concerns should not be part of the broader debate. I would say that, where animal welfare is concerned, they should be. We must not forget those ethical concerns either.

I mentioned Professor Henderson, the chief scientific adviser at Defra, earlier. I am going to mention him again, because I thought his evidence was particularly interesting in the Commons Committee debate. He said:

“The passage of this Bill has pointed to those problems in animal welfare and made them clearer, and made it necessary to deal with them quite explicitly before we can enact legislation about precision breeding for animals.”


He also said that the process of considering the evidence on animal welfare

“will have to take place before secondary legislation can be enacted. The process for that is laid out in the Bill, and the timescale will be”—

as referenced by my noble friend Lady Jones—

“something like two to three years where scientific input will feed in.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 28/6/22; col. 18.]

Where in the Bill is that set out, so that we have that guarantee of two to three years? Neither the process nor the timescales are laid out in the Bill. If we need more time to get the provisions right, why are we not focusing on doing that rather than asking noble Lords, essentially, to allow them to pass and then ask all these questions and put in this detail afterwards? That, to me, is not good legislation. These are big decisions we are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister. He has talked about a step-by-step approach a few times. Why can that not be put in the Bill, so that we are secure that things will not be able to happen until we are ready for them?

--- Later in debate ---

I support Amendment 89 in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayman. It echoes some of the arguments that I supported in the previous debate, and postpones the implementation of the animal clauses until a full set of proposals with proper scrutiny can take place. I hope that the Minister can respond positively.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for introducing her Amendment 16. As we have heard, there are a few amendments in this group around trade, particularly in relation to the EU and individual member states. Amendment 16 specifically refers to this. It is an important consideration for the Bill and its implications

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has tabled a number of amendments in this group. I also thank her for her introduction. I have added my name to her Amendments 75 and 78. As Amendment 75 says, it is really important to review the effectiveness and implementation of the Act once it is passed. The Minister has talked about a step-by-step process. I shall come to that as well in my amendment. As I mentioned on the previous group, there are still a lot of unknowns and a lot of SIs to come into play before we know exactly what the legislation will look like. A commitment to a review is pretty important to make sure that everything is happening as the Government intend and to see whether anything needs to be picked up that is perhaps not moving as they would wish. My noble friend Lord Winston made the important point that we need more data on animals. A review would help to look at where we were.

Amendment 78, to which I have also added my name, requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the impact on SMEs, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned the importance of supporting small businesses. From reading the Committee evidence in the Commons, I recall that there was quite a lot of debate around the importance of small businesses also being able to benefit from this legislation and not being pushed out by the larger companies. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to ensure that small businesses are allowed to play a full part in any legislation that comes from the Bill when it is enacted.

On a different topic, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch probed concerning Section 41 in the Environmental Protection Act. Again, this is a really important point. There are different pieces of legislation covering very similar areas. How do they interact? She asked an important question about when the review on wider GMO rules would take place. Once this review has reported, how will the outcomes be managed in relation to the new legislation that is coming forward? Not all legislation sits in its own little place. Lots of legislation interacts, at the Minister well knows. It would be good to know that the Government are looking at this, thinking about it and to know when they were likely to do a review.

I will come on to my Amendment 89 in a minute, as it is a little different. But briefly, on the trade implications which we touched on previously, the Food and Drink Federation has said, for example, that there could be barriers to exporting English farmed food from gene-edited crops. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this. We also talked earlier about what the impact of a difference in definition would be, and that comes into play here as well. At the end of the day, any commercial cultivation of plants or food products that are derived from gene-edited crops will still fall within existing rules. We know that the EU is reviewing where it is, but it is important that we do not end up with negative impacts on our farmers and exporters in food products because we have not thought this through properly.

Perhaps the Government could reassure us that that they are looking at the trade implications and whether they are considering any mitigating factors to ensure that there are no problems. The impact assessment says that it could

“have a relatively significant impact on UK producers”

if there are problems with exporting to the EU, because

“UK crop-related food exporters are heavily dependent on EU consumers’ demand”.

Again, it is important that we have those assurances. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is concerned about the word “risk”, but there are risks to exports which the Government need to recognise.

In looking at whether products are going to be accepted, I want to ask about Scotland. I am concerned that the Minister in Scotland said that they would not have any food products forced on them because of easing regulations around gene editing. That concerns me because, if we are not careful, we will have a constitutional flashpoint. Our single market rules say that any produce approved in England is automatically then allowed into Scotland, so what ongoing discussions are the Government having with Scotland on this and what mitigating circumstances can be brought in? That is a worry.

Finally, my Amendment 89, which I have left to the end because it is different from the others, brings me back to where I was on the step-by-step approach. I asked the Minister whether he would consider that; I know he has reassured us, over and again, that precision-breeding technologies will be used first in relation to plants, followed by animals later. But not to put too fine a point on it, we have only his word for that—and while I trust his word, we do not know who the future Ministers or Secretaries of State will be. My amendment makes a suggestion that he could pick up, so that we genuinely would have a step-by-step approach in the Bill. It would be plants first, then farm animals, and then other animals could be looked at. Again, I am only trying to be helpful to the Minister in supporting his step-by-step approach.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I appreciate that, as keen as I am to get this right and get something sensible on the statute book. I have a throwaway line before I get into the meat of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about this being controversial legislation. Actually, in some of the surveys I have seen, a very small number of people are either very opposed or very in favour, and a large number do not know what this is all about. They want to know more, and we have to tell them more. We have to explain it in an unbiased, unpolitical, factual way, and that is what we are seeking to do. In the other place, the Bill passed by a majority way in excess of the Government’s majority, and I want to reassure many noble Lords here, so that we can pass it with equal fervour.

Smarting from the earlier comment from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock]

19: Clause 3, page 3, line 35, at end insert—
“(c) the organism has been developed for or in connection with one or more of the following purposes—(i) producing food in a way that protects or enhances a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment;(ii) growing and managing plants or animals in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;(iii) producing food in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;(iv) protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals;(v) conserving native animals or genetic resources relating to any such animal;(vi) protecting or improving the health of plants;(vii) reducing the use of pesticides and artificial fertiliser;(viii) conserving plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives, or genetic resources relating to any such plant;(ix) protecting or improving the quality of soil;(x) supporting or improving human health and well-being;(xi) supporting or improving the sustainable use of resources.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require that a precision bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit, if it is to be released into the environment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 19 would require that a precision-bred organism has been developed to provide a public benefit if it is to be released into the environment. The benefits that are listed in my amendment include, but are not limited to, producing food in a way that protects the natural environment and managing crops or livestock in a manner that mitigates or adapts to climate change. Amendment 21 in this group prevents the release of a precision-bred organism unless its genome has been sequenced and the features that have resulted from the use of modern biotechnology have been recorded. I am looking forward to hearing more about that as well.

Earlier, we talked briefly about climate change and how plants in particular can be adapted to support the future needs that we will have in producing sufficient food. It is important that we find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while we are developing new legislation and that at the same time we address the environmental and health damage that our modern food system has sometimes created. This Bill gives us an opportunity to look at that and see what we can do to improve those areas alongside the other benefits that people have talked about and to mitigate any adverse impacts that could counteract that.

This Bill presents us the opportunity to create a world-leading regulatory framework that other countries could follow as they develop these kinds of technologies that would provide a clear public good. We recognise that our laws need to be updated to match current scientific understanding. We talked about that earlier in the debate. We want our scientists to succeed, but we also want them to use their skills for good here in the UK. I know that is broad terminology, but I hope noble Lords understand what I mean by this.

To get the legislation right, the Government have to balance certain risks and benefits. We need to have consumer confidence and business confidence; otherwise, all the benefits that could come from the Bill may not happen in the way that we would like. It could mean that we get improvements to environmental sustainability and better food security. A lot of this Bill is obviously around food, but how does it fit in with the much bigger picture that the Government have debated alongside the food strategy, which we all saw—was it last year? I am trying to remember how long ago it was. We talked earlier about different legislations interacting. How will this Bill work with the food strategy? Many of the recommendations were about how our modern food system could be improved and what public benefit could come from the way we farm in future.

The Nuffield Council has made recommendations in its document. One part of that is around aspirations for the UK’s future food system—something that is in the minds of a lot of people who have real influence over the way this technology could be looked at and developed in the future. I was also particularly struck by the evidence given to the Commons Public Bill Committee by Bill Angus, who is a wheat consultant. He noted that the motivations behind the work that he does as a wheat breeder and as vice-chair of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico can be quite different; there are strong passions that drive both ways of working.

We also know that the Crop Science Centre in Cambridge has done interesting work focused on improving the sustainability of our farming systems—in particular, removing the need for inorganic fertilisers. To me, these are the kinds of areas where gene editing could bring significant benefits for the environment, the sustainability of our food systems, and reducing food insecurity across the world. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned these issues in his earlier speech.

It is important that we look at how gene editing could be used for good, because we also know that it can be used for ends that, to many of us, would not be so desirable. Evidence from Compassion in World Farming was very interesting in this area. It talked about some of the harms that traditional breeding has caused—I will not go into detail, as we have heard about that today and at Second Reading. It is important that we work for the public benefit and that the Bill is not used to breed animals in a way that would mean they suffer more or be made to tolerate harsher conditions; the Minister mentioned this earlier. It is important that those questions posed in my amendments are taken account of. How can we ensure that the technology is used for good here in the UK?

There is also the question: who decides what that good might be? We will come on to debate that more to some extent in group 8, where we look at the animal welfare tests, for example. There are also questions around the development of herbicide-resistant crops. Do they allow more herbicide to be used? Is that a good thing? There need perhaps to be more tests in the Bill to make sure that some of the roads that we do not want to go down are not roads that we can go down.

My amendment would create a public benefit test before precision-bred organisms could be authorised and released. It is important that the governance is correct to manage that. Professor Sarah Hartley of the University of Exeter said in evidence:

“The Bill enables science to develop in this area, but it does not enable us to direct the science and technology towards doing any good.”—[Official Report, Commons, Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill Committee, 30/6/22; col. 123.]


That is the area that I am trying to look at and ask noble Lords to consider. How would we achieve that? At the moment, it is driven too much by market forces. In making legislation, we have to ensure that we guard against those who are, perhaps, not so interested in the good—the public benefit—that can come out of it but looking just at the market forces. We believe that the Bill could be strengthened through this amendment, and the Government’s stated aims, which the Minister has said he wants to achieve, could be encoded within the legislation itself. I beg to move.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for introducing this amendment so eloquently. I have added my name to it. In fact, I felt that the amendment was almost unnecessary because, earlier this evening, the Minister referred to precision breeding as being used to create public good—I think I am right in saying that. The amendment tries to flesh that out and ask what is meant by “public good”.

It goes without saying that one objective of farming is to produce food or other farm products. Precision breeding will be used to increase the efficiency, and maybe the productivity, of farming in this country. My noble friend Lord Curry of Kirkharle, who is not in his place, made a useful comment earlier about what is meant by productivity in farming.

It goes without saying that one objective is to increase efficiency and productivity: that is the “more” bit of “more with less”. Equally important, and what the amendment is about, is enshrining the “less”: less harm to the environment and to people. We have been through many times the kind of harms to the environment that intensive agriculture has delivered, and we hope that precision breeding will be used to reverse those harms rather than augment them.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also raised the important point of how bits of the jigsaw fit together. She referred to Henry Dimbleby’s national food strategy. I would be interested in knowing from the Minister whether some of the recommendations that Henry Dimbleby made will be implementable or, indeed, supported by the Bill if it goes through—as I hope it will, possibly with some modifications.

In a way, this is almost uncontroversial. We all accept that there have to be public goods that are supported by precision breeding; that has to be balanced with increasing productivity and efficiency of agriculture; and what we are trying to do here is spell out what those public goods are and should look like. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

That is absolutely right. I would just say to the noble Lord that ACRE assessed the evidence put to it by the scientific community. I repeat what I said. Many recent gene-editing studies on animals have reported no incidences of unintended genomic changes when using CRISPR-Cas9. If the noble Lord has information that ACRE should be considering in relation to this, I would be very happy to connect him with ACRE. But that is also the same scientific opinion that was reached by the European Food Safety Authority, which advises the EU Commission. But the noble Lord is absolutely right that the science on this is moving. There are advances being made, not just here but internationally as well, and we must have the best possible advice to allow Ministers to take the best possible decisions.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Winston for his amendment and for the discussion, but I do not feel qualified to comment on it any further than that. We are having an important debate in these areas, and his knowledge is really helpful and useful as we continue to debate the Bill.

On my Amendment 19, I thank all noble Lords for their support, particularly my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for adding their names to it and supporting me strongly on this—I appreciate it. I am sure that noble Lords and the Minister will not be surprised that I am extremely disappointed in his response. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Jones said, the amendment fits so well with the Agriculture Act and, as the Minister himself said, with what the Government are trying to achieve through the food strategy. I genuinely do not understand why it cannot be part of the Bill. The Minister said that the amendment was too restrictive, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised a question about this and asked for an example, which I am not sure we got. I ask the Minister again: how is it too restrictive?

I am not sure whether all noble Lords have seen the amendment, but it lists 11 different purposes—I tried to keep it broad. One of the 11 is

“protecting or improving the health of plants”,

and another is

“protecting or improving the health or welfare of animals”.

My amendment says that it has to be only “in connection with one” of the 11. In discussing the animal part of the Bill, everyone said the reason for having it is to improve health and welfare; I do not see how the amendment would not fit in with this. The same is true of some of the other areas around plants. I genuinely do not understand why it is too restrictive, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could perhaps think about that before Report, because we will come back to this.

Earlier, I said that, when making legislation, we have to ensure that, as well as welcoming those who are undoubtedly trying to do good, we must guard against those who are not. I think the Minister is looking through rather rose-tinted spectacles. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19 withdrawn.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

Lastly, I note that, although the fee will be applied now, the guidance is not ready; it is being developed to be in place by April 2023—it is promised to be ready at the same time the fee is implemented. Can the Minister say how the preparation of this guidance is progressing and whether it will be ready to be published early in the new year so that those affected can familiarise themselves with it? It is concerning that 53 of the 54 businesses involved were opposed to the change in regulations. I understand the need to recover the cost of issuing exemptions but I find the consultant’s fee for assessing applications, at £36,625, very high—as are Defra’s admin costs of more than £3,000. This is an extremely retrograde step as a result of Brexit and one that could have been avoided.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to this statutory instrument. We have heard that previously, when we were part of the EU, applications around hazardous substances were dealt with in Brussels so did not attract an application fee, which is why this measure will be very new for businesses to deal with.

Much of what I want to say has been covered by other speakers but there are a few things to look at. First, there is the application fee of £39,721. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report commented that it is a “surprisingly precise” figure. Can the Minister give some information on where this surprisingly precise figure came from? That would be helpful. He stressed that it has been calculated on a cost-recovery basis, with applications made between Brexit and now being covered by the taxpayer. It was good to have that clarification.

The Minister also said that the cost per business is high because of the low number of applications likely in the coming years. I understand that the information given to the JCSI said that only one application for a new exemption has been submitted since Brexit and that there are only 23 live exemptions, which may be renewed in future. The SLSC’s report states:

“Defra expects that most applications in GB will be made by international trade associations and industry organisations on behalf of a specific industry, rather than by individual businesses.”


It would be helpful if the Minister could explain where that expectation has come from and how that structure is likely to work in order to give individual businesses some kind of reassurance as to what the expectation on them is likely to be. We know that businesses have been facing supply chain issues and increased costs, so it would be extremely helpful to understand that.

On the refund of fees under Regulation 5, there is mention of partial refunds in the SI and the SLSC’s report. Again, it would be useful to understand how that works and what “reasonable costs” means in this instrument. What are considered to be reasonable costs that the Secretary of State could take into account?

The noble Baronesses both mentioned the shortness of the consultation at six weeks; that would be useful to understand. I am sure the Minister knows that I am quite interested in consultation. Best practice is 12 weeks, so I wonder why it was concertinaed to just the six weeks. The noble Baronesses talked about other areas around the consultation so I will not go into those details.

On the exemptions, it would be useful to have an example of what an exemption is and whether it is possible for a business to move away from the use of hazardous materials. Is that something that certain businesses could do? If that is the case, is Defra able to support or give advice to businesses that want to do that? I think that would be quite helpful.

Finally, on Northern Ireland, I completely agree with the points made about the potential loophole. I ask for reassurance on exactly how that will work with Northern Ireland. It is a bit concerning if that does not work as smoothly as expected.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to what is, on the face of it, a fairly non-contentious amendment to the fees paid for the appointment of an arbitrator to resolve disputes or make certain records about agricultural tenancies under the Act that we have referred to. Other noble Baronesses have talked about the increase in the fees and whether it is still appropriate considering when it was set, so I will not go into detail about that.

I want to focus on the concerns raised by the Tenant Farmers Association about the increased costs that are in this SI, and about tenancy arrangements more generally. The TFA has said it is worried there has been a lack of contact between it and Defra, and the Secretary of State, around the report on the Rock review. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has referred to this. She asked a question yesterday in the Chamber and the Minister basically gave the same response as he has today, which is that the Rock report is very interesting, the Government are benefiting from it, it is being reviewed and had lots of recommendations, and that they will report in due course. I think what we would all like to see is a little more information about what that looks like going forward. Clearly, it is a very important report.

I am sure the Minister will know George Dunn from the Tenant Farmers Association. He has raised some real concerns. If the Minister will bear with me, I would like to go through them because his response to these concerns is important. George Dunn says the TFA is objecting to these proposals, and he cites the recommendations of the Rock review, which expresses concern about the way in which agents operate in general and how arbitration is in need of oversight and reform. The report also highlights the need for a commissioner or ombudsman to oversee the operation of arbitration and the Tenant Farmers Association’s view is that this needs to be implemented, preferably before or alongside any decision to increase the appointment fee. I would be interested in the Minister’s response and comments on that proposal.

George Dunn also says that the increase in the fee would land much better with his members if they had some sort of indication or assurance that Defra would be taking seriously the recommendations set out in the Rock review about the appointment of a commissioner or ombudsman with a role to look at the operation of arbitration. In addition, he comments that most of the costs associated with the accreditation, assessment, training and continuing professional development of arbitrators fall to the arbitrators themselves. He believes that the cost of using arbitrators already reflects increasing costs, as the arbitrators pass on those costs to the parties involved in the process. I hope that is clear. What is unclear is what costs RICS and others incur in the appointment process, because none of that is on the record.

It would be very helpful, ahead of any formal response to the Rock report, to know that Defra and the Minister were listening carefully to the concerns being expressed by the Tenant Farmers Association, so that we can work with it going forward to ensure this process works as it should and is effective. At the end of the day, that is what we want it to be.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful for the noble Baronesses’ views on this instrument. I believe we all recognise the importance of the tenant farming sector and the need for tenants and landlords to have access to independent arbitrators to resolve any disputes when they arise. I also believe that it is right for the professional authorities delivering arbitration appointments to be able to recover their costs through an appropriate statutory fee. The improvements this Government have made, including widening the choice of professional authorities that tenants and landlords can go to and the introduction of a regular review clause, will drive continuous improvement in delivery of the service going forward.

I am actually someone who has attended one of these tribunals. I was a trainee at the time. It was in Wales. I remember being struck by one thing: the complete breakdown of the relationship between the landlord and the tenant. That is very rare. Mostly, there is a good working relationship. Where disputes occur—even the best relationships can be tested at times of rent reviews and suchlike—there needs to be a mechanism in place for this.

The only issue on which I differ from my noble friend Lady McIntosh is her feeling that we should have somehow given our response to the Rock review by now. That review has taken many months and was published just over a month ago. The Farming Minister, Mark Spencer, and I have spent many hours going through its nearly 80 recommendations. We also have officials working through them. I do not want to prejudge, but noble Lords will be pleased to know that many of them have “agreed” next to them, while there are also some where we need to do some more work. But with all that is going on—and to do my noble friend Lady Rock and her review panel justice—it is not possible just to publish a response that does not respect the work that has gone into the review and thoroughly respond to the important points it makes.

To answer my noble friend’s other point, this instrument relates principally to the Agricultural Holdings Act, which is a succession tenancy law. There are of course many other types of tenure that can be the subject of disputes, such as farm business tenancies. My noble friend is entirely right that the best type of tenure is a long-term tenancy where there is a commitment to invest and improve. In extreme cases, some short-term tenancies have the effect of little or no investment and a lot of extractive activities, so the natural environment and natural capital involved in the farm are depleted. In most cases, longer-term tenancies are better, but we want to create flexibility for certain circumstances where, for whatever reason, for the landlord or the tenant’s advantage, there is the possibility of short-term arrangements.

Of course, there are many other types of tenancy; my noble friend referred to her family but it could be a grazing tenancy or many others. On our uplands we see how farmers work together with commoners’ rights, which also need to be respected. My noble friend is absolutely right that small farmers need to be supported. I believe passionately in that; I want to see coming through our transition in agriculture a real attempt to understand that small can be beautiful. Small farmers can adapt in a way that some bigger farmers cannot. Some of them will be able to access government support when they were not able to do so before. People who were not able to use the basic payment scheme will be able to access our environmental land management schemes.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the cases that could be taken to such an arbitration. I remember from my chartered surveyor training something called the “seven deadly sins”. One of them was the failure to pay rent. Another was poor husbandry, which is incredibly difficult to prove. There are a number of other issues that could go to arbitration. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors reports that it receives an average of 195 requests for the appointment of an arbitrator each year. When you think how many thousands of tenants and farmers there are in this country, that is a very small percentage, but it is vital that they have access to a good arbitrator. About 25% of those requests come from tenants, and about 75% from landlords.

The Government recognise that farming is often a long-term business. We are interested in exploring ways of encouraging more landlords and tenants to consider longer-term tenancy agreements. I applaud organisations such as the Duchy of Cornwall, which, by and large, gives 20-year farm business tenancies; that kind of commitment is very valuable. As we transition to new farming systems, there will be more certainty and encouragement for landlords and tenants to enter into a longer term agreement.

There is also a role for industry leadership and best practice guidance in setting out the options and benefits for tenants and landlords of longer term arrangements. A tenant of a small family farm can request the appointment of an arbitrator for all circumstances, such as notice to quit on land resumption, where they have a case to dispute that, as well as for other matters such as tenancy compensation, maintenance and rent reviews. The thorny issue of tenant rights when a tenant vacates land is also sometimes the subject of dispute.

I think 70% over nearly 30 years is probably affordable. We will review it every five years, and I hope it will be considered on a cost basis. We came to the figure working with the CAAV, RICS and the Agricultural Law Association; we did not pluck it out of thin air. It is important that we keep this as a cost-recovery activity for the small number that use it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, made the point that it is three years out of date. After nearly 30 years, I do not think it is an unreasonable figure; in five years’ time, we shall see what it is like and how this is working.

I turn to the points very properly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. First, on lack of contact with the Tenant Farmers Association, nobody has more respect for George Dunn than me. The Tenant Farmers Association operates out of a village next door to where I live. He is somebody with whom I have had the pleasure of working. His contribution to the Rock report and to the welfare—mental, financial and in business terms—of tenants over many years is exemplary. It was a great pleasure to go to an event at the Farmers Club to celebrate a milestone in his commitment to the Tenant Farmers Association.

When we respond, soon, to the Rock review, I hope that he will feel that we have considered the points that he makes. I will not pre-empt that response by saying where we are on issues such as a commissioner. We will not agree on everything, but I state absolutely that it is the Government’s intention—the intention of my colleague Mark Spencer, the Secretary of State and me—that we see a vibrant tenanted farmers’ sector. As I said in the House yesterday, without it, the only way that people can get into farming is by buying land or inheriting it. We think it is vital that we see new entrants being able to get access to farming businesses. We have developed our exit scheme for those who want to exit the farming industry with dignity, and we are also working on a new entrants scheme, which will encourage skills, support and the availability of land for new entrants.

We hope to create more mobility within the sector; we can do that only if we have the right systems in place, the right tenure and, as and when issues result in dispute, a proper mechanism for their resolution. We think that that lies within this SI; it is a small part of it. We will be working with noble Lords as we develop the thinking in the Rock report and other measures in environmental land management to make sure that we are supporting farmers—owner-occupiers, tenants and the large number who are both. We have to recognise that they all have a place in our farming system. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Sustainable Farming Incentive Grants

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

First, what we are trying to do is bad news for land agents, because we have created a system that is simple; it takes somewhere between 20 and 40 minutes to enter the schemes currently in the process. We are turning those around within two weeks, in some cases, and within two months at most. I give credit to what the RPA has done in trying to get this right.

The noble Lord is absolutely right that there are conditions. This is public money. However, every farmer I know is doing soil tests and working with agronomists. The idea is that the cross-compliance and rules that govern this system should be straightforward and should not be a huge amount more work than farmers would be doing anyway—and in return, they will get public money.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, many farmers are reporting that the sustainable farming initiative payments fail to cover the costs of the actions that the scheme requires farmers to take. Does the Minister recognise this assessment? Does he agree that this is one reason why uptake has been so poor?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

This year we have rolled out our arable and horticultural soil standard, our improved grassland and moorland standards and the annual health and welfare review for animals. Next year we will roll out nutrient management, integrated pest management, hedgerows and advanced levels for the two soils standards, so farmers will start to see what they are doing. They will also receive £265 to cover the cost of the time it takes to fill in the forms. We want to make sure this is as easy as possible. As farmers see the benefits that will accrue to their businesses from the standards that will be applied, I think they will readily accept that this bedrock scheme is of great interest.

I should add that 36,000 farmers—nearly half the farmers in England—are already in agri-environment in the Countryside Stewardship scheme, which will morph into our mid-tier system, which is local nature recovery. So I hope that over the next few months noble Lords will see a really thoughtful, environmentally based system that is attractive to farmers and shows them they can get an income in return for good environmental actions that will support their businesses and give them a future in this business.

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

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally, the last sentence of paragraph 7.5 states:

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


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

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

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their interest in these instruments and their contributions. As ever, I will try to respond to all the points raised.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised some important points. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill is part of the Government’s commitment to taking the necessary steps to put the UK statute book on a sustainable footing, following the exit from the EU. While the department assesses its retained EU law and plans for the REUL Bill accordingly, these statutory instruments ensure that the current legislation is operable. This is the last opportunity to make these technical fixes before the powers from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act to make these modifications expire at the end of this year.

My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised important points about designated competent authorities. The official controls regulation provides that the competent authority will be the appropriate authority—the relevant Minister in Great Britain—or any other authority to which such functions are conferred. The designations of competent authorities are set out across various pieces of secondary legislation or dealt with administratively, and vary across the different areas within the official controls regime. Amendments to Articles 3 and 4 of the official controls regulation do not alter any existing designations, but make the process for designating a competent authority clearer and ensure that the appropriate Ministers do not need to designate themselves as competent authorities.

My noble friend raised some very important points about live trade, which I will come to. The Food Standards Agency is an increasingly important body since we left the EU. She is right that it is now directly responsible for food safety and for working with local authorities to make sure that they have the necessary skills, understand the changing legal environment and are able to carry out their functions effectively to keep us all safe.

My noble friend is right to talk about meat imports. We have recently changed the rules to allow a much smaller amount of permissible material to be moved in an attempt to tackle the threat of African swine fever—a serious risk rampaging across Europe, which we are working really hard to prevent ever coming to these shores. We have exercised thoroughly with Defra and its agencies to work out how we would deal with an outbreak, but it is one we want to prevent happening in the first place.

Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Friday 2nd December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness and all those who have campaigned to achieve this. My own city of Sheffield was the first to take up the 1956 Act. I hope we can make real progress once again on this critical issue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing the Bill forward and on her tenacity in keeping going with it and tabling some helpful amendments.

I welcome Rosamund once again. It is good to see her, and this should be progress in her name as well as her daughter’s.

I say to the Minister that I was pleased to hear, in our discussion of statutory instruments the other day, that the targets for air quality and air pollution will be seen at some point in the near future. I look forward to seeing them. I hope they will be ambitious because, as the noble Baroness said, the Conservative Party has brought in air-quality legislation before so it should not be coy about supporting this and doing everything it can to improve the pollution problems.

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

My Lords, I express my thanks to all those who have contributed to the passage of the Bill, both today and since First Reading in the House back in May. I must express my gratitude in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who has been so dedicated in raising awareness of this vital issue and driving her Bill forward.

I know that noble Lords across the House understand that action on air pollution is an absolute necessity to ensure the health of our people and our environment. Nothing has made that clearer than the tragic death of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, and I pay tribute again to her mother, Rosamund, and her family and friends, who have campaigned so tirelessly in support of improving the air that we all breathe.

I know that noble Lords have also been horrified by the death of Awwab Ishak, caused by prolonged exposure to mould. My deepest sympathies, and I am sure the sympathies of the whole House, go to his family and friends. This reminds us of the importance of safeguarding indoor air quality in our homes. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Michael Gove, has taken immediate action on the quality of social housing.

I will not repeat the detailed arguments made at Second Reading or by my noble friend Lord Harlech in Committee. The Government absolutely recognise the need for action on air quality, and we are able to take that action, supported by our robust and comprehensive existing legal framework, now improved by the Environment Act 2021. That is why we have reservations with regard to how the noble Baroness’s Bill would be delivered.

In protecting people from the effects of harmful pollutants, we must take action not only to drive down emissions but to drive up public awareness. The noble Baroness’s Bill and her hard work in campaigning in support of it have undoubtedly furthered that aim. I thank her again because, as we meet the challenges of improving air quality across all sectors of the economy, we need to bring society with us. We must give people, particularly the most vulnerable, the information that they need to reduce the impact of air pollutants on their health.

To respond to the point rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when I say to her that those targets will be published soon, I understand that it is one of the frustrations in this House when a Minister cannot be specific, but it will very soon. I hope that when they are published, the whole House will understand how serious the Government are about improving the quality of the air we all breathe, inside and outside the home. Let me close by reassuring the House that protecting people and our environment from the effects of air pollution is an absolute priority for this Government.

Water Framework Directive

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Well, I live to make sure that the noble Baroness is not angry and is reassured that this Government are absolutely determined to have the highest science-based evidence to support the targets that we will impose on ourselves and future Governments in this area. The Environment Act really is a very powerful piece of legislation and the structures it has created will do precisely that. Good environmental status has not been achieved in any country in Europe. We, along with other countries in Europe, are failing to meet the demands of the water framework directive. We are now able to produce standards bespoke to the United Kingdom that will be scientifically based and will be able to be scrutinised by your Lordships, by people in the other place, by civil society and by individuals, and implemented, if Governments fail, through the Office for Environmental Protection.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers have discussions—as the Minister has told us—with the Environment Agency and with Ofwat, company executives, farmers, and community representatives, but these happen at different frequencies and the various players do not necessarily all talk to each other. The Minister may not be able to solve the problems relating to water quality single-handedly. Does he recognise the power that he and departmental colleagues have to bring people together on this? Is he doing that, and is he formulating a comprehensive national plan that will command broad support?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Within the constraints of the fact that this is a devolved issue, we are certainly doing that in England. I hope that I have got across to noble Lords, in responses on 7 September, 25 October, 31 October, 2 November and 14 November, my and my department’s determination and commitment to make this work. We are precisely bringing these different organisations together. Interestingly, the reason why rivers fail is, first, because of physical modification—water is impounded, there may be weirs that have to be taken away—secondly, because of pollution from agricultural and rural land, and, thirdly, because of pollution from wastewater. There are also many other reasons. We have to work across society to make sure that this is co-ordinated, that the targets we will announce in January will be effective and that the Government can be held to account on them.

Air Quality (Designation of Relevant Public Authorities) (England) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. The quality of the air we breathe is essential for the population to remain healthy and fit. We have seen in press reports the effects that poor air quality can have on individuals, from minor ailments to life-threatening conditions, especially for young children.

Part IV of the Environment Act 1995 established the local air quality management framework. This requires local authorities to set an air quality management area whereby they assess air quality in their area and act if pollution levels reach a dangerous level. This is easier said than done. Local authorities find it difficult to achieve air quality management plans as there is often a lack of co-operation on the part of the polluter. This may be a road haulage business or a busy NHS hospital.

This instrument should ensure that National Highways plays a full part in implementing and supporting air quality management plans. The consultation that Defra conducted was extensive and well publicised. Not surprisingly, there was strong support for National Highways becoming the designated body to assist with improving air quality. It does, after all, construct the main highways running through or close to our communities.

Given local authority responsibility and National Highways involvement, one would imagine that close proximity to main road thoroughfares and highways would play an important part in the planning decisions for schools, nurseries and housing designated for young families. However, I fear that this is not always the case.

Although I accept that this instrument does not cover London, which comes under the remit of the Mayor of London, I was nevertheless horrified when the secondary school in London that I walk past on my way to the Tube station was remodelled, allowing it to take in a large number of extra pupils. No thought appeared to be given to the fact that the main entrance was yards away from a busy junction with traffic lights, with the exact time when the children were attending in the morning coinciding with the main commuter rush hour. The quality of the air these children were breathing must have been very poor. It was at least five years before the entrance for pupils was moved away from the main road to a subsidiary entrance round the corner and away from traffic, at the back of the school playground.

There will be many other such examples up and down the country where children and young people are exposed to unacceptable air pollution, which damages their health. Local authorities and National Highways both have a role to play here. Can the Minister give reassurances that this statutory instrument will improve outcomes for those currently breathing poor-quality air? Given that co-operation is defined as being “appropriate”, can he also say what happens when the co-operation is not appropriate? Apart from those two questions, we support this SI.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, we support it. She explained why there are so many concerns about air quality standards right across the country and went into the details of some of the challenges that have been facing local authorities around how to tackle this in their area.

We know that air pollution is still a huge problem and a great worry to many people. As the Minister will recall, we recently debated the clean air Bill; that debate demonstrated the huge amount of support for the Government to get on and tackle this seriously.

We very much welcome the designation of National Highways following the Government’s consultation. The Minister mentioned further designations. When are we likely to see any further designations? What will the process and timescale of that be? What came out in the consultation around potential further designations? How will this work with the development of local plans with local government around clean air strategies? In particular, what are the duties going to be to tackle health inequalities?

Finally, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask whether there is any update on when we are likely to see the air quality targets, whether they will all be laid together or whether some will be laid first. Will there be prioritisation? What are the targets likely to be? With that, we support the regulations. It is a very important decision to bring National Highways into this.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for your support for this measure, which is fairly limited in its extent but can have an important effect. As noble Lords will know, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, there are trunk roads under the responsibility of National Highways that go through some very urban areas and have a massive impact on the people living there. I used to represent the town of Newbury. Many Members will remember the issue of the Newbury bypass. Cross-party support in and around the town at the time was predicated on the basis that children were growing up, attending school and living close to areas with extremely high levels of pollution.

That is an example in my head that shows that these regulations are perhaps overdue. In most cases, it is not a problem because National Highways is working with local authorities on their plans, but the regulations place a duty on it that could resolve an issue where there was a lack of support for those local plans.

I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that this is a key part of our policy in moving towards a healthier environment. We will see how it works. To answer her points in a bit more detail, once designated as a relevant public authority, air quality partners, including National Highways, have a clear duty under the Environment Act to provide a local authority with such assistance in relation to carrying out air quality functions as it reasonably requests. That is important to answer her question about appropriate requests for co-operation. As public bodies, air quality partners can be expected to comply with their legal duties.

National Highways will also be required to commit to taking action to reduce pollution in the context of local air quality action plans where pollution from vehicles using the strategic road network contribute to exceeding an air quality objective. If proposed actions are not sufficient, there is a last resort power of ministerial direction, which can be used to direct National Highways to make further proposals. I hope that gives some reassurance.

A majority of the existing exceedances of air quality objectives—I think 501 out of 532 in England, excluding London—are for roadside emissions of nitrogen dioxide. We have therefore prioritised ensuring that all authorities with a role governing management of the highways, including upper-tier authorities and two-tier authorities, are brought into the statutory local air quality management framework. A call for evidence held in 2021 established that designation of National Highways was advocated by a clear majority of those responding. This reinforced a clear message we had heard from engagement with local authorities as well. Consideration of future designation of public authorities whose relevance may be more locally specific will follow an evidence-based approach and be subject to public consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is absolutely right: air quality remains a serious problem. These issues were aired in the debate on Friday when my noble friend Lord Harlech responded on behalf of the Government.

There is the possibility of further designations as they come forward and the Government remain committed to setting ambitious targets under the Environment Act. We are currently finalising the Government’s response to the consultation and will continue to work at pace to lay draft statutory instruments as soon as practicable. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will have heard me talk earlier, in response to a Question in the House, about our requirement under the Act to publish our environmental improvement plan in January. That is a target we intend to hit and I am sure she will keep my feet to the fire if there is any slippage on that.

The 2017 NO₂ plan was clear that charging for entry into a clean air zone would not be suitable for all locations, particularly those that largely take traffic through rather than into areas. The strategic road network provides main routes for interurban traffic and takes high volumes away from towns and city centres. Charging on key routes could be an alternative and a means by which local authorities, working with National Highways, could implement a meaningful plan. But encouraging drivers to reroute into potentially less suitable local roads could create or worsen air quality issues on them and/or lead to increased carbon and road use issues, so it is really important that these authorities work together and look at it holistically, not just creating displacement of a problem but solving it. National Highways is working with those local authorities which have or are developing plans for clean air zones as part of their NO₂ air quality plans.

I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for their contributions. National Highways already works alongside local authorities and has had to consider actions to improve air quality to address exceedances of NO₂ national statutory concentration limits on the strategic road network. This instrument clarifies its role in working with local authorities where there are exceedances of air quality objectives locally, which will create a more consistent framework across local authorities. This instrument will make a difference to how local authorities can contribute to improving local air quality in their areas and I commend it to the Committee.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Baroness Hayman of Ullock Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has clearly set out why we are debating this statutory instrument. In 2020, under the auspices of Defra, a very large number of SIs were brought forward and debated—mostly in Grand Committee. Since then, many of them have been amended, mostly for very minor errors. Given the number of SIs, it is not surprising that errors occurred. However, those relating to persistent organic pollutants, or POPs as they are referred to, are more serious, as they could have meant that the UK was not compliant with the Stockholm convention, which aims to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs.

The original SI was repealed, and Regulation (EU) 2019/1021 replaced it on 15 July 2019. This SI contained errors. We are at the end of 2022 and are only now correcting these errors, mainly due to the current powers expiring at the end of this month. So it is very much the 11th hour, if not quite the 59th minute.

This is about not policy change but ensuring that current policy legally complies with existing regulations. Given the toxic nature of some POPs, it is surprising that these errors were not picked up earlier. I am content that this SI should pass but I have a general question for the Minister.

In the run-up to Brexit and immediately after, there were a large number of Defra-based SIs, as I referred to earlier. The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill has begun its passage in the other place and has been red-rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee. I will not comment on that here but there are rumours that, when passed, this revocation and reform Bill will begin the process for implementing some 2,400 statutory instruments. My heart sank when I heard that as a large number of those SIs are likely to fall within the remit of Defra. My question to the Minister, therefore, is this: is he confident that there will be sufficient staff in Defra to deal with the mountain of SIs coming their way, and that sufficient detail will be covered to ensure that there are no future errors in vital statutory instruments?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we do not have any problem with this statutory instrument as it stands, but our concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell.

First, I congratulate the Minister on his introduction. He did say that these are necessary technical amendments; some of them sounded extremely technical so I congratulate him on introducing those technical aspects to us today.

Our big concern is exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said: there were many, many SIs during the Brexit process and we repeatedly raised issues around drafting accuracy. As the Minister knows, a number of those instruments had to come back to us. So it is concerning that, some time on from the first time around, we now have this issue. This was not picked up quickly. Can the Minister explain why it has taken so long to bring it to light? What has happened to draw it to the department’s attention? Was there an audit? Was there a practical issue that shed light on it? As the noble Baroness asked, how do we ensure that this does not happen again in future, because we know that we will be seeing a lot more SIs again? That is our biggest concern: not what is in the SI itself but the process and what has been happening.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. The regulations we have debated here today make no change to our existing policy to tackle the restriction and management of POPs. This instrument will ensure that we have the operable regulations we need to continue to protect the current and future health of the population, wildlife and environment of both the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. I absolutely concede the point that this SI has been brought to the Committee because of an error. A Government who do not make mistakes is a Government who do nothing; we are not perfect but we try to be. Did I get that right? Yes, I think I did.

I am very grateful to providence that I was not in the House at the time of that tsunami of statutory instruments. I can see that the scars still linger on the backs of some noble Lords who had to go through that relentless process. We remain committed to all the effects of Brexit, in getting the right regulations on to the statute book in a fit and proper state, and we will endeavour not to have to use noble Lords’ time in correcting them in future.

The unintentional omission of several exemptions for decaBDE did not come to light until June 2021. The process of taking an SI through from inception to coming into force is long and detailed, with many required steps and layers of scrutiny, even when making only minor corrective points with zero changes to policy. This instrument has been progressed as swiftly as possible, while ensuring that the necessary steps are taken, so that it comes into force before the required powers expire on 31 December this year.

Defra has conducted a detailed scoping exercise to identify REUL, retained EU laws, in its policy areas. Defra is in the process of analysing its REUL stock and determining what should be preserved as part of domestic law, as well as REUL that should be repealed or amended. There will be a department-wide programme to co-ordinate this analysis. We are working through how best to involve different stakeholders in this process and I absolutely pledge to keep the House informed throughout it.

I give an assurance that we will make sure we protect the environment in everything we do. In trying to create regulations and laws that are bespoke for these islands, we are not going to weaken them. We will make sure they are better, both from the perspective of people trying to do things and for those who are trying to protect the environment.

I think I have covered most of the points made. As I outlined, all the changes introduced by this instrument are technical operability amendments that are required to ensure that the UK can continue to implement the Stockholm convention to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.