Clean Water Bill: Chalk Streams
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is a long-term problem that has been going on for many years. Unfortunately, the water industry has simply not been held to account in the way that it should have been, and that is why we are bringing in the clean water Bill and changing the regulator.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Can the Government give us their estimate of the cost and the timetable for putting in the extra pipes and processing capacity so that we can clean up our rivers?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is probably a cost for the water companies to assess.
Farming Road Map and Profitability Review
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes some good points. I am more than happy to discuss these issues in the department and with the Farming Minister. Looking at our response to the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, on tenancy, because she particularly mentioned this, we recognise the benefits of longer agricultural leases and the importance of security of tenure for tenant farmers. New industry-led guidance was published in March of this year, which hopefully will help more landlords and tenants look at how long-term agreements are of benefit to both landlord and tenant. Also, we know that the Law Commission is looking to review agricultural tenancies within its 14th programme, and we welcome that, because we genuinely believe that longer-term tenancies are better for the sector.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Is this not a policy to make us more dependent on imported dairy and meat from the EU, because these policies will find that the carbon targets, the grazing policy and the wilding policy will mean far fewer farm animals in our country?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I disagree with that. In fact, I think the opposite. When we have met industry sectors, whether pigs, cattle or whatever—particularly in Northern Ireland, interestingly enough—we have found that they really see the benefit in the opening up of markets by us working closer with the EU. A lot of the trade restrictions, the paperwork and the bureaucracy will go. We lost, I think, 40% of our trading opportunities with Brexit, but this is an opportunity to have more trade and support for our farming industries.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. The word “agroecology” may be used only three times, but sustainability—improving water, air and soil quality—runs all the way through the document. Just because it does not say the word, that does not mean this is not a key part of what the document intends to deliver. As I said earlier, environmental degradation leads to poor farm profitability: the Batters review was about farming profitability. That is also what the farming road map is designed to improve, because we need to improve our farming profitability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Why are the Government asking for carve-outs from bad EU laws when, as a sovereign country, we should just say that we do not accept bad laws?
Thames Water
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My understanding is that that is not the assessment by Ofwat at the current time. However, the noble Lord makes some good points. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for Water meet regularly with Ofwat. We are watching very closely for when or if there is a considered view that it has tipped into that space.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, do the Government agree that Thames Water needs to put in a lot of new, larger waste pipes and an extra reservoir to cater for the extra population that we have experienced in the area? What is the Minister’s rough estimate of how much capital this new investment will take?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
On the basis that I do not know how many pipes, what size reservoir and where it would be, it is difficult to assess a capital investment. The Government have a reservoir policy. We have committed to building new reservoirs. No Government have done that for many years now, which is partly why we have issues with supporting housing development and important infrastructure development in the south-east. We are working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government because we must get this right to ensure that our economy is fit for the future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from. The difficulty is that if a company continues to pollute regularly and other water companies are being fined, where is the fairness and logic in letting one company off the hook because it has got itself into a worse mess? These are difficult, complex areas to get right. It is very much Ofwat’s decision, and I am sure the Government will continue to discuss such matters with it.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Pursuant to the Minister’s kind reply to me, I welcome the Government’s wish to have more reservoirs. She might like to ask about the Abingdon reservoir plan for the Thames area, which has long been around. It was much needed when I was MP for my local area and is even more so now.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I know the Abingdon area applications very well. In a previous life I worked in communications on major infrastructure, and I remember it crossing my path probably 20 years ago now.
Water Companies
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As the noble Baroness knows, Defra is very keen to be able to implement SUDS. We know that it makes a huge difference. We know that we need to use sustainable drainage to tackle flooding, particularly given the size of the building programme and the Government’s ambitions in housing, for example. I can only assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to press the department on this.
Lord Redwood (Con)
We do need more capacity for reservoirs and water storage. Where have the Government and the regulator got to in granting the permits so that work can get under way to make that much-needed provision?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Government are very keen to press forward with new reservoirs. It is unfortunate that no new reservoirs have been built in almost 40 years. There are a number of reasons for that, and it is one of the reasons why we brought in the Planning and Infrastructure Act: to allow major projects—nationally significant infrastructure projects—to be able to move forward more quickly. We are currently working through that process.
EU-UK SPS Agreement: Food-related Standards
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, we are discussing this area with the EU. One of the approaches that we have around the new technologies, whether you are talking about gene editing or novel foods, is that it is important that we are able to strengthen the UK’s credibility as an innovative regulator, bringing in these new technologies. We are very proud of our scientific community and of the work being done in these areas, and we will continue to support them to the best of our ability.
Lord Redwood (Con)
Under dynamic alignment, will we be able to block a measure which we think is anti-innovation but which the EU asserts is not?
Exiting the European Union (Consumer Protection)
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Labour believes that this statutory instrument needs urgent modification to avoid disruption to UK businesses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It shows insufficient understanding of how chemicals are actually managed in complex supply chains, and is therefore unworkable and will unnecessarily create supply disruption issues for UK businesses. Labour believes that continued participation in REACH is the surest way to avoid extra costs and burdens for business, to save jobs and to protect animal welfare, health and safety, and the environment.
The value of the UK chemicals industry cannot be overstated. The sector directly employs 88,000 people, and the industry is worth £6.4 billion to the UK economy every year. It is vital in the supply chain to many other sectors including automotives, pharmaceuticals and aerospace, as well as the production of everyday items such as cleaning products, clothes, and electronics. It is therefore extremely disappointing that we have only been given half a sitting day’s notice of this SI. It represents the second iteration that the Government have published, yet it does little to address the concerns with the first version. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said of this re-laid SI that it remains
“concerned that the Department has provided insufficient information on the possible impact of the proposed changes”.
Given the concerns expressed by the Committee, industry, environmental and animal welfare groups and the Opposition, does the Minister agree that the prudent thing would be to take this SI back to the drawing board?
I am particularly worried because I am told that the Health and Safety Executive lacks the capacity, resource, experience and expertise in such a complex field to carry out the functions that the Government propose to transfer from the European Chemicals Agency. As with so many public sector organisations, the HSE has suffered brutal cutbacks. Between 2010 and 2017, its budget was cut by 40%, so why does the SI contain confirmation of its funding? Will the Minister confirm today that funding and resources will be available to the HSE and the Environment Agency for them to perform the proposed duties outlined?
The SI also removes layers of supporting committees at EU level that help to ensure that decisions are based on the best scientific advice and that there is proper scrutiny and oversight. Those committees allow stakeholders from industry, non-governmental organisations and trade unions to collaborate in informing decisions and to ensure balance. In the SI, that is replaced with a duty for the HSE to seek external advice, but no formal committees of experts and stakeholders are being proposed to review and scrutinise the scientific knowledge relating to chemicals.
Furthermore, the SI establishes that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make final decisions relating to the status of particular chemicals, whereas the European Commission makes them at EU level. Although we hope it is unlikely that a Secretary of State will diverge from HSE recommendations, they are not explicitly prevented from so doing. We know that the current Secretary of State is notoriously no fan of experts, but he may have gone too far in asking us to grant him powers to override recommendations from the HSE.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) said, the Government initially said that they could cut and paste data from the REACH database. However, there seems to have been a significant rowing back from that, with current guidance indicating that companies will provide all the data. As the Minister will no doubt be aware, in order to have copied data from the REACH database, the UK would have needed a licence from the European Chemicals Agency. Will the Minister confirm what progress she and Government colleagues have made in acquiring permission to access the REACH database after 29 March?
Many UK-based companies do not own or have sufficient rights to use the data needed for registration, for a variety of complex reasons, including the fact that many REACH registration dossiers have been developed and submitted by consortia of companies under a joint submission agreement with specific and restricted access rights. A survey of 38 companies by the Chemical Industries Association found that 75% of them do not own the data that would be required for them to register chemicals under UK REACH. Does the Minister recognise that meeting the two-year registration deadline is an almost impossible and extremely costly task for many companies? The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) asked about the current status of the IT provisions, and I was unconvinced by the Minister’s response that they will be ready and fit for purpose on exit day.
After Brexit, companies registered with REACH will no longer be able to sell into the EEA market without transferring their registrations to an EEA-based organisation. How many companies have taken such action to date, and what support has the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs provided to them? Given the likelihood that companies will have to duplicate tests already conducted if the Secretary of State cannot agree access to information in the REACH database, there is a real risk that animal tests would have to be reconducted. In evidence to the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, the Minister refused to rule out the idea that a UK REACH system would not lead to more animal testing.
John Redwood
Surely global companies are used to selling into a variety of jurisdictions with different regulatory requirements, and each company has a body of intellectual property that it owns and sends to the appropriate regulator. I do not see any need to duplicate the work if that is already there. If a company wants to sell into the UK, it will share that with the UK authority.
Sue Hayman
I am afraid that that is not the information I have been given. As I said, the Minister did not rule that out to the Lords Committee, and when I went to Brussels to visit the REACH team, they confirmed that they believed this would be the case. Will the Minister categorically confirm whether these proposals have the potential to lead to further animal testing?
Agriculture Bill
Debate between Baroness Hayman of Ullock and Lord Redwood(7 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sue Hayman
I do not believe that I made that commitment, so it is not something on which I have done calculations at this time.
Continuing to deplete soils, lose pollinators and pollute waters does nothing for farm productivity; that is why we need a Bill that delivers food security as well as environmental outcomes. It is self-defeating and academic to separate those objectives, as the Secretary of State is attempting to do. This is the first time in more than 40 years that a Secretary of State has been directly responsible for the nation’s food security, yet food security has drifted off the Government’s agenda, and they are not offering any clear vision for the future of our nation’s food supply. The Bill is worryingly silent when it comes to food poverty. It says nothing about the balance between the production of healthy and sustainable British food and reliance on imports, the jobs and health and safety of agricultural workers, and preventing trade deals involving lower standards, undercutting British producers.
It is 71 years since the Agriculture Act 1947 was passed by the great post-war Attlee Government. Attlee judged that its author Tom Williams
“effected nothing less than a revolution in British agriculture”
and that
“his place in history is assured as the greatest British Minister of Agriculture of all time”.
I remind the House that the purpose of the Act was
“promoting and maintaining...a stable and efficient agricultural industry capable of producing such part of the nation’s food and other agricultural produce as in the national interest it is desirable to produce in the United Kingdom, and of producing it at minimum prices consistently with proper remuneration and living conditions for farmers and workers in agriculture and an adequate return on capital invested in the industry.”
Article 39 of the treaty of Rome set out the aims of the common agricultural policy, including ensuring
“a fair standard of living for the agricultural community…the availability of supplies”,
and that
“supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.”
It is a matter of strategic national interest and social justice that we should ensure that our country is better able to feed itself with healthy, nutritional food while protecting itself against volatility. That is why it is important for sustainable food production to be a central part of the Bill.
John Redwood
Why did we lose so much market share and end up importing so much food under the CAP?
Sue Hayman
That is a good question, but one to which I do not have a detailed answer—I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for that. It is a really important point: we were increasing production, but then it began to drop. It is an issue that we need to address. If there is a dramatic reduction in UK food production, greater reliance on imports would result in a lack of control over production, animal welfare, and environmental and working standards.