Flooding

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister in the other place for this Oral Statement. I start by paying tribute to the emergency services, local authorities and the Environment Agency for their efforts over the Christmas and new year period supporting those who have been affected by extreme weather. Our services sacrifice so much to help communities and businesses in challenging weather, and we are all most grateful for their work and commitment.

The recent extreme weather has caused flooding, road closures, school closures and widespread transport disruption on our railways and at our airports. As a result of the extreme weather, Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service has declared a major incident across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I know that noble Lords from across the House will join me when I say that our thoughts are with all those whose homes and businesses have been damaged, and with all those who continue to be affected.

As I said when we discussed the Government’s response to Storm Bert last year, those affected by this extreme weather need support now, as well as reassurance that they will not be left to pick up the pieces alone, as they work to put right the damage caused by flooding. One of the key issues that people affected by flooding often face is the time taken for insurance claims to be processed. Can the Minister set out the engagement that the Government have had with the insurance sector to ensure that families affected by flooding can get on with rebuilding their lives as soon as possible?

In addition, the Minister in the other place said yesterday that the Government do not currently have plans to expand the scope of the flood reinsurance scheme that our previous Government introduced. We believe that this is something that the Government should look at, especially on the age of building eligibility and including businesses. Can the Minister say why the Government are not considering expanding the scope of the Flood Re scheme?

On school closures, the Government were asked yesterday in the other place about the steps they are taking to get schools open again. Can the Minister give us an update on the progress the Government are making on this to ensure that pupils do not suffer unnecessary disruptions to their studies?

As we have discussed in this House before, the previous Conservative Government established the farming recovery fund to support farmers recovering from uninsurable damage. Can the Minister give us an update on the progress that the Government are making to provide support to those farmers who have been affected by both the recent extreme weather and the storms we saw late last year? At a time when farmers feel that this Government are interested only in making farming more difficult, effective support for those farms that have been affected by flooding is the very least that the Government can do. I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests; in particular, as a dairy farmer in Devon—fortunately, not affected by this flooding.

We have discussed flood resilience at length in this House already in this Session, not least during the passage of the recent Water (Special Measures) Bill. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Environment Agency will allow the dredging of more clogged waterways to prevent future flooding?

Finally, the Secretary of State has set up the Floods Resilience Taskforce to improve flood preparedness. It has met only once. Can the Minister tell the House what work the task force did ahead of the latest bad weather? Does she feel that there is a case for it to meet more regularly?

I conclude, as I began, by thanking all those who have stepped up in the face of extreme weather, many of whom put themselves in danger to do so, and by wishing all those affected the very best as they put right the damage caused by this weather.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to fire and rescue workers for their invaluable help over these last few days. Their commitment and expertise have been exemplary. I add to that list the council workers and volunteers throughout the country who have helped in these emergencies, and in particular the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales for their invaluable expertise.

Yesterday morning, as a result of a rapid thaw of lying snow and extremely heavy rain overnight, the Environment Agency in England had 167 flood warnings in place, where flooding was expected, and 312 flood alerts, where flooding was possible. Trains were cancelled and roads closed. Behind these facts are stories of people: people struggling to protect their homes and defend their businesses—all in the knowledge that their lives would be affected, sometimes for years—and people struggling to get to work. My commiserations go to them too.

I come from a valley that has always flooded, and I well know the misery that such events bring. In 2009, my area was badly flooded and a flood alleviation scheme was put in place by the Welsh Assembly Government, as it was then. My town now has demountable defences, flood walls and lowered spillways on the riverbanks. It is a massive scheme and our town is protected, but sometimes the floodwaters now travel down the valley and other places are badly affected. On New Year’s Day, although my town was fine, the A470 north to Llandudno was closed because of floods. This area had never flooded before, so we know what people are going through.

However, I welcome the Statement and in particular the extra £60 million for farmers in recognition of the battle that they have with flooding on their land. I also welcome the extra funds for internal drainage boards and the opportunity to review how flood relief money is distributed.

Plenty of notice was given of severe weather so that people could be prepared but, of course, some people were not. One could argue that, where storm and flood defences were overrun, a lack of funding over the past few years for maintenance or new defences contributed to some of the problems. The Chancellor has committed to £2.4 billion of funding for flood defences over 2024-25 and 2025-26 in the Autumn Budget. This is also to be welcomed, but experience has taught us that curing one problem can create another downriver: it is a never-ending battle against flood water. What plans do the Government have to commit substantial funding for flood defences past 2025-26?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, in thanking all the people who responded and supported local communities during these floods. There have been many volunteers from the communities, such as farmers—in my community, it was a farmer who came and helped out—as well as the emergency services, the Environment Agency, Natural Resources Wales and so on. Without the extraordinary response that we always get from local communities and our emergency services, things would be so very much worse. Our thanks go out to them.

The Government recognise the terrible impact that flooding has on householders and businesses, and we absolutely sympathise with all those who have been affected over the last week or so. We know that flooding has a devastating effect, whether that is physical damage or disruptions to daily activities. There are also impacts on health, particularly mental health, for those who suffer from flooding.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about insurance. This is always a difficult issue once you have been flooded. It is really important that Flood Re exists in the first place. It has made a huge difference over the past few years for those who have struggled to get insurance. As the noble Lord said, we do not currently have any plans to extend its scope, but it will be part of our review of all policies, because there are clearly concerns about those who do not come under Flood Re, whether multiple occupancy homes, businesses or properties built after 2009. If colleagues have examples where properties, particularly those built after 2009, have suffered, I would be very happy to take examples so that, as we review, we have clear evidence in front of us.

We need to consider how we best support households. When Flood Re came in, its scope for eligibility and its duration were agreed alongside government and industry. It is really important that industry supports what government is doing in this space. Any changes to the scope of the scheme have to be consistent with the original agreement and premises that came through with industry—but, clearly, we will keep this under review.

The impact of flooding on farming was mentioned. I thank the noble Baroness for her support for the £60 million that we have distributed to 13,000 farm businesses through the farming recovery fund. In the floods investment programme, the amount of funding a project can attract will depend on the damages that it will avoid and the benefits that it will then deliver. The impact of the project on agricultural land is also included as part of any funding calculator.

We are also looking at reviewing the existing funding formula, which is really important because it has not worked for lots of different people and communities. We will review it to ensure that the challenges businesses and rural and coastal communities face are adequately taken into account. We are looking to open the consultation on that very soon; noble Lords may wish to input into it.

The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, asked about dredging. On average, the Environment Agency spends between £30 million and £45 million a year on river maintenance, which enables it to dredge approximately 60 kilometres to 200 kilometres of main river watercourses every year. Where watercourse maintenance is the responsibility of the Environment Agency, it focuses its efforts on those activities that will achieve the greatest benefit in protecting people and property from flooding, therefore delivering the best value for money—that includes dredging. The assessment is undertaken by the Environment Agency, working in close consultation with local communities. It is important to remember that dredging is unlikely to be effective in isolation and is usually part of a wider approach because the silt can easily build up again.

The Floods Resilience Taskforce was mentioned. It met for the first time in September and is due to meet this year. There are 27 attending organisations, so it is comprehensive in its approach. At the first meeting there was a shared understanding of the weather and flood risk of the current winter to ensure we can be as prepared as we possibly can. It is important that we have a better awareness of EA flood asset conditions across England. There was also an agreement to share lessons from flood response from all tiers of government and with flood responders. Clearly, what we have just been through will be an important part of the next meeting of the Floods Resilience Taskforce.

The task force provides Ministers from Defra, MHCLG and the Cabinet Office with a combined overview of flood resilience, along with flood risk organisations and charities—flood insurance, for example. Although it is devolved, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are standing members. The idea is that it will learn from this instance so that next time we continue to build on how we can best prepare for the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about flooding caused by displacement. That is a really difficult issue, which is why any response we provide is not just about building barriers but about looking at bigger, broader support mechanisms, whether that means bringing in balancing ponds, for example, or better surface water flooding assessments. We have to look at this in the round; building higher only pushes water out.

Storm Bert

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

On the noble and right reverend Lord’s first question, I know exactly the surface he is talking about. Interesting, different and innovative things are coming forward that can help alleviate the kinds of problems around surface water drainage we have been talking about. It is not just about putting it in, it is about replacing it. In certain areas, there has been a trend for concreting over drives to put your car on, where before you had surfaces that would drain. It is a really important area we need to look at, and local authorities clearly have an important role to play.

On the noble and right reverend Lord’s other question, we need to look at this completely in the round and consider all aspects of how we move forward. There are no simple solutions to this.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I begin by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of the missing dog walker whose body was found after floodwaters hit the Conwy Valley over the weekend. I also express my appreciation of the work of the emergency services and those from the local community in the village of Trefriw who helped and supported them. Those of us who live in the Conwy Valley well understand the impacts of flooding and sympathise with those in the valleys of south Wales who suffered devastating floods this weekend after 80% of a month’s rain fell in less than 48 hours in the area.

The abiding image in the minds of many will be that of residents desperately trying to clear blocked drains in attempts to release the floodwaters. Is the Minister convinced that all funds allocated by the former Government have been utilised by the spending of local government and Natural Resources Wales in this area? How much of the promised new funding will be allocated to Wales?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

In response to the noble Baroness’s first question, clearly, these are devolved issues, so how the allocation works is a matter for the Welsh Government, but, as I mentioned earlier, we are working very closely with the First Minister and the Welsh Government to offer any support we possibly can. I do not have the specific details of the formula, but we are working very closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that they get the support and focus that they need.

Waste: Incineration

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Obviously, the noble Lord knows that we have the new CCS—carbon capture and storage—facilities open. We see that as a critical funding decision that we need to be working on to move forward in this area. It is also important to think about how we regulate in this area going forward and how we recover the energy from this. It a very big picture that DESNZ is working on to ensure that we have sufficient energy capacity in the future, particularly around industry, and that that energy capacity is produced in a way that fits in with the circular economy and decarbonisation, so that we can meet our climate change targets.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, when Conwy County Borough Council in North Wales switched to four-weekly collections of residual waste, this led to an 11% spike in the tonnage of recyclables collected and a reduction of 12% of residual waste. The council’s cabinet member put this down to residents being incredibly motivated to recycle and understanding the local and global benefits of recycling. How are the Government working with local authorities to improve awareness of personal responsibility in this area?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

We are working very closely with local authorities but also with devolved Administrations. One thing we see as a high priority is building constructive working relationships with the devolved Administrations and different tiers of government. It is only by working together and sharing best practice that you achieve the kind of results that the noble Baroness is talking about.

Rural Communities

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for securing this debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, on an excellent maiden speech and welcome him to his place in this House.

I will deal with two issues—rural transport and farming—in brief. Like many who will speak in this debate, I live in a rural area. My hometown is a small market town in the Conwy Valley in north Wales. It is four miles north of the tourist honeypot village of Betws-y-Coed. Llanrwst is sometimes referred to as the capital of the valley and is an ancient market town that grew up alongside the wool trade. It has a proud history of independence, clockmakers, harp makers and Welsh poets. Today it is still the focal point for residents of villages and farms for a wide area, with people travelling in for work and shopping needs and the farmers’ livestock market but, as with many rural areas, the Conwy Valley has experienced a decline in bus services in our remote area. This has led to those without their own transport having difficulty accessing the services they need, and to feelings of isolation, especially among the elderly.

Transport for Wales, working in conjunction with Conwy County Borough Council, ensured that elderly residents of Conwy County were able to use their concessionary bus pass for journeys on the Conwy Valley rail line, which was really welcomed. In addition, in 2020, Transport for Wales and Conwy County Borough Council launched a fflecsi service: a demand-responsive service connecting Llanrwst and Betws-y-Coed with surrounding villages. Instead of picking up and dropping off passengers at a bus stop, fflecsi buses pick up and drop off within a service area. There is often no fixed timetable, pick-ups are at passenger request, and routes can be changed so that everyone can get where they want to go. Bookings can be made by phone or on a smartphone app. Over a 12-month period, 15,000 passengers used the service, with 95% giving it a five-star rating. The demand-responsive service was also extended to 11 different areas across Wales and has proved an excellent solution for those who live in remote and even isolated areas.

I am sure that similar systems exist in other parts of the UK, but what plans do the Government have to ensure that all areas of the UK are able to benefit from such schemes, to make sure that the elderly are not isolated in their homes?

Central to rural life are, of course, our farmers and our farming communities. For the Liberal Democrats, there are three main priorities which we want tackled in the next two years, in the form of a rescue plan for farmers—extra funding for the agricultural budget, the renegotiation of botched overseas trade deals, and addressing the worker shortages blighting the sector.

There should be an immediate injection of £l billion into agricultural and horticultural budgets to further support sustainable domestic food production. Our farmers already produce exceptional food, but funds are needed towards productivity improvements, training and technology to bring down prices for the long-term.

A priority should be the renegotiation of the Australian trade deal to ensure that British standards are not undercut. In just the first year of the implementation of this deal, Australian sheepmeat exports to the UK surged by 85%, reaching over 16,000 tonnes, with the potential, after 10 years, that the tariff-free quota will be eliminated completely. This could lead to our market being flooded with unrestricted Australian imports.

The Government should also introduce legislation to guarantee British standards on animal welfare. The current trade deal allows for imports from systems using practices banned in the UK. The practice, for example, of live lamb cutting remains widespread in Australia but was banned here in 2010. Those British standards should include environmental protection and the requirement to meet climate change conditions.

The new Government, if they want to make Brexit work, should consider letting farmers, fishers and the food-processing sector recruit the workers they need to boost our food supply by scrapping arbitrary visa salary thresholds. According to the NFU, a shortage of workers caused £60 million-worth of fruit and vegetables to go to waste in the first half of 2022. Farmers are the mainstay of our rural communities and particularly so in Wales. They are the guardians of our language and culture, but some are struggling and wondering how long their farms will survive. How does the Minister see the future of farming in the UK?

Horticultural Peat

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right, which is why we are bringing forward this mandatory ban. I am aware of the voluntary requirement from 2011 to find an alternative because I brought it in. We are now having to pass measures to see this happen. The Horticultural Trades Association and others are registering concerns about how they are going to get their members to use alternative means and maintain our food security. Environmentalists and those of us who want to see an early ban are very keen for that to happen as quickly as possible. The fact that both sides are unhappy means that we might be getting this just about right.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, while it is important to introduce a ban on peat as quickly as possible, with EU imports continuing but not to the same standards as those applied to UK growers, what are the Government doing to ensure a level playing field to enable the UK industry to remain competitive?

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 117 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Randerson. I apologise to noble Lords that I have not spoken on the Bill so far—it is not for want of interest but because of conflicting engagements. I tabled this amendment because, although common frameworks have already been debated in Committee, I and other members of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee remain concerned about the uncertainties attaching to them.

Our committee has been absolutely crucial to the progress of common frameworks, which might have somewhat run into the sand if we had not had such an active committee and energetic chair, making sure that the departments were following through. On many occasions, we pushed departments back more than once to get sufficient detail and to get them to engage in the process, in which they sometimes appeared to show a lack of interest.

I also have to say—this is a slightly more topical issue—that the process among the civil servants has been led, of course, by Sue Gray. With the departure of Sue Gray, it would be good to know who is going to take over that responsibility. I think the committee accepted that she was, in evidence that she has given to us, extremely vigorous in ensuring that at least the civil servants were engaging in it in a serious amount of detail. The commitment of Ministers has been, at best, somewhat variable.

The problem, too, is that different Administrations have had a different direction on common frameworks. In our engagement with Wales, you have an Administration who desperately want devolution to work, and to work effectively, and are frustrated that the UK Government do not appear to be quite as committed to that. In Scotland, of course, the Government do not want devolution to work, do not believe in devolution and try to pretend that Scotland is independent, claiming that any engagement from the UK Government is somehow an interference in Scotland’s sovereign right, which many of us feel fails to understand the common interest that Scotland has with the rest of the UK.

It is a fact that common frameworks have been designed to get all the relevant partners—and I know that my noble friend Lady Randerson is particularly concerned that that includes stakeholders—to be brought together to try to work out how devolution will work in a post-Brexit world, where previously the umbrella of the EU was the framework for operation. Apart from agreeing how the policies would be laid out and setting out in detail a framework, they all also had dispute resolution mechanisms: detailed and systematic mechanisms to ensure that disputes could be resolved and, wherever possible—and to date that has been the case—without even necessarily having the engagement of Ministers.

In many ways, we have been impressed by those processes, which could apply outside common frameworks much more widely. The remaining flaw in all that, of course, is that the ultimate final appeal rests with the UK Minister and, on occasion, it seems that UK Ministers, knowing that to be the fact, are less engaged with the concerns and anxieties of the devolved Administrations—and I would suggest that that really has to stop.

Before this Bill came along, we had the internal market Bill—now Act—which also cut across common frameworks. Fortunately, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, secured an amendment in this House to allow for divergence opt-outs to be agreed, albeit at the discretion of UK Ministers. That has been used in the case of single-use plastics, but I suggest that UK and Scottish Ministers have rather stumbled in relation to the deposit return scheme. The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that he was minded to reject the scheme, but did so before it was revealed that the responsible Minister in the Scottish Government, Lorna Slater, had not even asked for a departure. I suggest that the Secretary of State was overeager and that she was rather behind the curve—the net result being that we are still in some degree of confusion.

In the leadership contest that is going on north of the border, one candidate has implied that somehow UK Ministers are itching to overturn devolution decisions by Ministers at every twist and turn. I genuinely do not believe that to be the case, but it is genuinely important that the UK Government do not give the impression that that is the case and that they recognise that they have to tread with respect and carefully in trying to ensure agreed and respectful decisions sometimes to differ.

I come to my final point. Having had that Bill, we now have this Bill and a total lack of clarity—apart from the fact that the Bill is totally devoid of clarity in any case—as to how any decisions that Ministers might make could impact on these common frameworks, not all of which have been completed but which, thanks to the committee, have been worked through, painstakingly and in considerable detail, to make sure that devolution can proceed in a constructive, fair-minded way, with proper ways of resolving disputes and taking decisions beforehand.

The purpose of this amendment is to seek clear reassurance that the Government will not proceed with measures under this Bill that cut across common frameworks and, in particular, the dispute resolution mechanisms within those frameworks. It is a very simple proposition and one that I think the Minister ought to be able to accept. I beg to move.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 118 brings us, once again, to the issue of devolution, the powers of the devolved legislatures and the protection of those powers by legislative consent Motions.

I have spoken to a number of amendments in Committee and expressed my concerns about the way that confidence in the Sewel convention has been eroded over the last few years and how legislative consent Motions have been degraded and disregarded. At each stage, the Minister has sought to reassure me that my fears for the future of our devolved settlements are unfounded but, as I have said before, our experience often tells us a different story. I have therefore tabled Amendment 118 to Clause 15, seeking to ensure that a legislative consent Motion be passed by the relevant devolved legislature if a Minister of the Crown seeks to make regulations to revoke or replace secondary EU law where the provisions of those regulations fall within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature.

Three of your Lordships’ committees have published reports that have included criticism of Clause 15; the issues that they have highlighted are serious and deserve to be debated. The Delegated Powers Committee has recommended that Clause 15 be removed from the Bill because it

“contains an inappropriate delegation of legislative power”.

It says that Clause 15 is

“the most arresting clause in the Bill for its width, novelty and uncertainty.”

Why is this clause arresting? It gives Ministers extraordinarily wide discretion in relation to thousands of secondary EU laws; for example, one option under this clause allows Ministers, as the committee says,

“by regulations to … revoke any secondary REUL and make such alternative provision as Ministers consider appropriate, including with completely different objectives.”

This is, the report says,

“a power to do anything Ministers wish to do”

with retained EU law until 2026.

I appreciate that the Minister has spent time in Committee reassuring me and other noble Lords that the powers of the devolved legislatures are not under threat. I would like to believe that he believes what he says but can he explain, if this clause were to pass, how certain I could be that some other Minister would not use it to make regulations to revoke or replace any piece of secondary EU law where the provisions of those regulations fall within the legislative competence of a devolved legislature?

Ministers will have the power under this part of Clause 15 to do anything, so who or what will stop them acting in devolved areas if they so choose? We received a letter this morning from the noble Baroness the Minister, and I am sure that she or the noble Lord the Minister will summarise the points it contains in their response in relation to these powers.

Household Waste Recycling

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Humphreys]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the fall in household waste recycling rates in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

Me again, I am afraid. Through our resources and waste strategy and our landmark Environment Act, we will transform our waste system. We are introducing consistent recycling collections across England, creating a deposit return scheme for drinks containers, and introducing extended producer responsibility for packaging to ensure that packaging producers cover the costs of recycling and disposing of their packaging. Through these measures, our ambition is to reach a municipal waste recycling rate of 65% by 2035.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

Will the Minister join me in congratulating the officers, recycling operatives and residents of Conwy Council in north Wales, who in 2020-21 achieved a recycling rate of 70% and are set to repeat that figure this year despite the pandemic? Key to their success is getting the infrastructure right. Councils from across the UK, Lithuania and further afield have visited to learn from its example. Would the Minister accept an invitation to visit to Conwy County to judge its success?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There is nothing I like more than visiting beautiful parts of the world to see their waste management processes. On my way, I might look in at West Berkshire, where the local authority inherited a lamentable 19% recycling rate and has now got it to more than 50%; I cannot remember who it inherited it from. We want to see every council doing that. The measures we have in the Environment Act can provide a means for getting consistency over the country—consistency that has hitherto been absent.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

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

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 109, which is tabled in my name. A similar amendment was considered in Committee, but I wish to probe the Minister further on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, rightly mentioned the role of devolution and its importance among our devolved nations and regions.

For us in Northern Ireland, the Agriculture Bill mainly contains provisions setting out the future agricultural policy framework for England. However, a number of provisions apply across the UK and some apply specifically to Wales and Northern Ireland. The powers in Clause 45 and Schedule 6 have been included to provide a legal basis to continue existing farm support measures following exit from the EU. The schedule allows the Northern Ireland department to modify direct payment regulations to simplify and improve how they operate in Northern Ireland. The schedule was developed when the Northern Ireland Executive was not functioning, and as a result many of the powers are intended to provide flexibility to develop future agricultural policies to meet local circumstances. Thankfully, the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland and devolved arrangements were restored in January this year.

While the schedule provides much needed certainty in the short term, Northern Ireland is still left without a long-term vision of how agriculture and the environment will be supported in future, with no clarity around what outcomes a future policy framework should aim to deliver. This is despite widespread recognition from stakeholders that the current system is not fit for purpose.

Northern Ireland is facing considerable challenges. Northern Ireland’s economy is largely agricultural, so the challenges centre around species and habitat loss, agricultural and greenhouse gas emissions, poor water quality and market volatility, among others. The way in which we manage and use land will directly impact upon our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change, as well as to meet other environmental commitments. There is a need to reform how we farm and manage our land, and to move towards a resilient, profitable and environmentally sustainable farming sector. The need to outline the future direction of travel for Northern Ireland is of paramount importance.

There is a need for timebound provisions for Northern Ireland, which the Minister argued against in Committee. Currently, a risk exists that the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule could continue indefinitely. This would result in the long-term continuation of direct payments in their current form, which have been criticised by a range of stakeholders and do little to address the numerous crises facing farming and the environment. Although the Northern Ireland department has undertaken valuable work with a range of environmental and agricultural stakeholders on the development of a draft future agricultural policy framework, the direction of travel remains unclear. While the provisions within the Northern Ireland schedule are similar to those which apply to Wales, there is an important difference. The Welsh provisions will expire in 2024, but there is no sunset clause outlined in those relating to Northern Ireland, hence my amendment, which has been supported by other noble Lords.

This is largely because the Northern Ireland schedule was created in the absence of an operational Assembly. This is important, as the presence of a sunset clause relating to the Welsh schedule creates an onus on the Welsh Government to develop domestic legislation in a timebound manner. The absence of a sunset clause in the Northern Ireland schedule creates a risk that the development of a future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland will be further delayed. This sunset clause is supported by the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, which has already communicated that. We are of the firm belief that Northern Ireland needs a bespoke, sustainable land management policy, legislated for in the form of a Northern Ireland agricultural Act, which would obviously have to be brought forward by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly. As long as these provisions are contained in Schedule 6 and in this errant Bill—so to speak—that acts as a break upon the Northern Ireland department and prevents or dissuades it from bringing forward such a policy.

I urge the Minister to review the situation in relation to this and to talk to the Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. I would be extremely grateful if he could see what can be done. He might then consider tabling a government amendment to that effect at Third Reading, because the bottom line is that we need to set our own agriculture policy and frameworks now that we have a devolved settlement in Northern Ireland. We want to encourage and underpin that, and to ensure that an important sector of our economy is facilitated to do just that.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 60 and 92 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bruce, and have added my name to them. As he has already said, Clause 20 gives the Secretary of State the power to modify the retained direct EU legislation for England relating to public intervention and private storage aid, and, as the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee points out, this power is replicated for the Welsh Ministers.

I welcome these powers, of course, as it cannot be expected that legislation should remain relevant in perpetuity; as time passes and situations change, the requirement for legislation to be modified will become inevitable. But nowhere in this clause is there a recognition that, with all four countries in the UK having the power to modify and intervene, a mechanism will be required to ensure that a decision taken by one country does not have an adverse effect on the other three countries of the UK. Nowhere is there a recognition that a mechanism will probably be required to avoid or resolve disputes. My noble friend’s Amendment 60 highlights the issue and offers a solution.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Like her, I thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and the Bill team for their patience and productivity. We need to complete Committee today, so I will be brief and confine myself to expressing doubts about Amendment 270. I am looking forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister, but I think that this amendment and some of the others in this group would in practice lead to problems in trade negotiations in a way that would cause insurmountable problems of compliance with the World Trade Organization. I cannot see a way around this. Noble Lords do not pay enough attention to the importance of trade, wherever it takes place, at a time when we face recessionary shock. We must tread a careful path.

Since the Bill was first presented in the other place, the Government have gone a long way. They have established the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was launched publicly today, and as Red Tractor is involved in its work, I should again register my interest as its chair. It is a victory for the farming unions which fought for it. It is a well-judged move by the Secretary of State for Trade to get it off the ground quickly in time to provide a sounding board and have an impact on current trade negotiations. In these circumstances, I really cannot see the value in the proposal before us today.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, and it has been a pleasure to take part, albeit a very minor part, in these early stages of the Bill. I have been full of admiration for the passion and knowledge about agriculture shown by so many noble Lords. My family’s connection with farming ended when my great-great-grandfather’s farm in north Wales was taken over as a result of the rent increases imposed during the agrarian revolution of the late 1800s, which precipitated the social change his son described so graphically in his autobiography.

It seems to me that as we discuss the importance of agricultural and food standards in relation to Amendment 271, we could be standing at the cusp of another type of agrarian revolution, one which could again lead to changes in the viability of farms, not just in Wales, but in the whole of the UK. The threat of cheap, poor-quality imports leading to the lowering of domestic standards and a reduction in farm income is very real.

I was conscious, as I listened to some earlier debates, that most of the speakers spoke from experience of large farms in England, and it was a pleasure to hear the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain, speak earlier about small family farms, which are so prevalent in Wales. As a young female farmer, Beca Glyn, said in her blog, these farms make,

“valuable contributions … to animal welfare, landscape management and culture; especially the Welsh language”.

Wales is, of course, hilly and mountainous and our climate is mild and wet. This means that only a small proportion of our land is suitable for arable cropping, but grass for the grazing of livestock is in abundance. Our upland and hill farms therefore provide grazing for hardy breeds of cattle such as Welsh Blacks and for hardy Welsh Mountain sheep. Our farmers, who work hard in sometimes very difficult conditions, are proud of their produce and the standards they achieve in animal welfare, and none more so than farmers around the Conwy Valley, where I live. I cannot imagine that there has ever been a time when the quality of our farmers’ produce has been appreciated and valued by customers in the UK and in France as much as it has been in recent years. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, about future access to the French market for our sheep.

For our local butchers, mart operators and abattoirs, quality is key, a quality that comes from adhering to high standards. Search their websites and Facebook pages, and the words “pride”, “high standards”, “quality” and “traceability” appear in abundance, so it is hardly surprising that farmers and consumers across Wales have been justifiably appalled and angered by the refusal of the Government to agree to an amendment which would guarantee a commitment to equivalent standards on imported agricultural or food products in this Bill. For them, there is no logic that an Agriculture Bill says nothing about protecting the standards which they have strived for and to which they have adhered. They cannot understand why a Government who committed in their manifesto, just seven short months ago, not to compromise on British farming’s high standards, found it so difficult to accept the amendment introduced at Third Reading in the other place.

Sadly, even the commission announced by the Government today, with its temporary nature and inability to give binding advice, will be seen by farmers and consumers alike as an ineffective sop. Unfortunately, and I dislike having to say this, this has now become a matter of trust. Farmers and consumers alike question why the Government are so reluctant to enshrine their manifesto commitment in law. They ask: could it be that a manifesto commitment is easier to renege on? The Minister is held in the highest regard in your Lordships’ House. He is courteous at all times, even at midnight on Day 6 in Committee, and I know he is a man of his word, but Amendment 271 is on the Marshalled List because farmers’ leaders and consumers have asked for it to be there. They know that in reality we are not dealing with a Minister we know and trust but with a Government who increasingly talk in doublespeak and cannot always be guaranteed to stand by their word. That is why their word has to be on a statutory basis in the Bill.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. When she was describing the difficulties of farmers in the north of Wales she could have been describing my county of Cumbria. The similarities are uncanny, but we knew that, even down to the weather. This seven-day Committee stage has been one of the finest debates that I have been involved in in almost 50 years in the Houses of Parliament. I think a lot of it is due to the way in which we have been led by the two Ministers. I am speaking as a member of the Opposition and am proud to be a Labour Peer, but the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, has been an admirable Minister. He deals with us all, from whatever side, equally and in a tolerant way and tries to answer the questions, and he is ably assisted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, who shows the same tolerance. I thank them both very much.

My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, speaks with a great deal of sense and independence. He said that this was the most important agricultural Bill he had ever been involved in since he and I came into Parliament in 1970. He is absolutely right, but it is more challenging this time because, finally, we have realised that agriculture is not completely about farming. It is about forestry. It is about horticulture. It is about land use. It is about food standards and quality. It is about the environment. It is about what can be done through agriculture to cope with climate change. Today, this group of amendments brings home to us the result of Brexit and, accompanying that, trade deals.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Humphreys Excerpts

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

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]]

I welcome government Amendments 209 and 262, to Clauses 32 and 37, in particular. Agriculture is self-evidently one of the prime examples of where we must get right the legislation and other arrangements for the interrelationship of the powers of the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the powers of the Westminster Government, first, in respect of England and, secondly, in respect of the United Kingdom as a whole—I think we frequently fail to make that distinction of the two distinct hats that the Westminster Government wear and it is important to bear them in mind. As a firm supporter of the union, I consider it vital for the strengthening of the union and the removal of the risks to it that we consider these issues most carefully. In this Bill, as agriculture is plainly one of the areas where serious tensions can arise, whether it be in relation to food standards or the extent of subsidies, it is vital that we do so.

It is of course a great pity that we come to this so late in our planning for Brexit, as this has been an obvious area for debate and for reaching decisions long before now. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have already spoken powerfully on issues relating to the devolved Governments. The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have compellingly explained the need for long-term and fair financial arrangements.

I wish briefly to make three points. The first is the importance of respecting devolved competence in legislation. I welcome the amendments put forward by the Minister, who understands the importance and sensitivity of devolution. It is reassuring to hear him make it clear that the Government remain wholly committed to seeking legislative consent for all the provisions that engage the scope of the convention in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I just wanted to be sure of the correctness of my understanding of why the devolved Governments requested the amendments and the reasons why Her Majesty’s Government have brought them forward.

Am I correct in understanding that the Bill as introduced did not properly recognise the important principle that legislation by the UK Government to apply in the devolved nations but within the devolved competence should be made only with the consent of the devolved Governments or their legislatures? It is regrettable that, at the time of the decision made on the EU withdrawal agreement, legislative consent was not obtained. That is water under the bridge, but it was made clear then that that was a truly exceptional occasion. In view of the confirmation given by the Minister in introducing the government amendments, I hope that he can confirm the Government’s commitment that they will not in future present legislation to the House that does not respect the principle of requiring the consent of devolved institutions for any UK legislation that could be made by legislation within the devolved Parliaments. It is important to the way in which devolution is to operate and the strength of the union that there be such a commitment.

My second point—and I can be brief about this—is about moving forward on the frameworks. It is clearly highly desirable that there be agreement between the different Governments on matters on which there can be a common approach and an agreement of where there can be differences or divergence of the kind of which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke. As I understand it, that is the objective of these frameworks. I therefore welcome the statements made on a number of occasions by the Minister that good progress is being made. The matters to be covered will be extensive and it is important to bear in mind that this is not, as I understand it, a consultation exercise by the UK Government but an attempt to reach agreement. I therefore look forward to their publication and hope that the Minister can update us as to when this is to happen.

There is one other matter why publication is important and that is the dispute resolution mechanism that must be inserted into a framework agreement. It is inevitable that there will be disagreements—I hope that they will be small—but the difference between a framework and a consultation, ultimately, is that if there is a framework, there must be a means of resolving differences, whereas, in a consultation, the decision is ultimately made by the person who consults.

Thirdly and finally, there is the need for a coherent constitutional approach. I warmly support the principles behind Amendment 290, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Amendment 291, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Bruce of Bennachie and Lord Thomas of Gresford. An alternative is now being canvassed, which is the provisional views put forward in the paper on the internal market. It will obviously be necessary to turn back to this in the long period between September and Christmas. However, it is important now to point out that the imposition of a policy ultimately determined to be in the interests of by far the biggest and most powerful of the four nations is not the way to ensure the preservation of the union. This constitutional issue will have to be a matter for debate and it will have to be debated in the context of agriculture, as it is so important in that area. I therefore look forward to the development of proposals over the summer, because this urgent matter cannot wait longer. If the union is to be strengthened and preserved, positive steps on this are far more likely to achieve that preservation than other action being taken.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]]

My Lords. I will comment briefly on government Amendments 209, 261, 262 and 268, which I welcome. These amendments cover the areas of outstanding concern to the Welsh Government. They acknowledge their devolved competence and were included at their request.

Amendment 209 deals with an issue that I raised at Second Reading: how the new body created to oversee the identification and traceability of animals would operate in an area of devolved responsibility, particularly if that body was seen to be an English board. That the new body would need to seek the approval of Welsh and other devolved Ministers or institutions is now certainly welcomed.

Amendments 261 and 262 ensure that the consent of the Ministers of the devolved Administrations must be obtained before making cross-border regulations in relation to organic products. I am pleased that the responsibility of the devolved Administrations has again been recognised.

Amendment 268 covers an issue that, again, I raised at Second Reading. By the removal of the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations in the area of the WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture, this amendment ensures that the rights and responsibilities for implementing international agreements remain with the devolved Administrations.

I welcome all these amendments, as they conclude the process by which the Welsh Government have asserted their competence in these areas. However, I express some disappointment in the fact that there was a need for this process at all. Earlier in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, in her powerful and comprehensive speech on these amendments, described the Government as seeking, in effect,

“to strong-arm the devolved Governments into giving up elements of their executive competence”.—[Official Report, 21/7/20; cols. 2193-94.]

I agree with her sentiments and am pleased that that has been avoided by the Government tabling these amendments, and that the competence of the devolved Governments will now be reflected in the Bill.

[Lord Eames (CB) [V]]

My Lords, in this group of amendments I will speak to Amendment 209. I refer to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, during our debate on Tuesday.

In this debate so far, I have been impressed by the frequent references that the Minister has made to the need to view the Bill in relation to the devolved nations. On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke powerfully on the importance of that relationship from a Welsh point of view and this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, has reminded us of the connection with the problems in Northern Ireland.

So far as that relationship is concerned, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, reminded the House of the difficulties presented by the period during which the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive did not function. Amendment 209 is influenced by the problems of that period but now, thankfully, the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive are operating fully. However, the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture cannot be overemphasised in this debate. This amendment is an attempt to build on that sensitivity so far as one devolved nation is concerned, but it has implications for the others so far as the whole Bill is concerned and cannot be isolated to one devolved nation alone.

As the United Kingdom prepares to leave the EU, none of us can have a complete picture of the problems which will emerge for the farming community throughout the UK. Amendment 209 recognises this reality. For Northern Ireland farmers, the uncertainties of their geographical situation are well documented, with a land border about to become the border between the United Kingdom and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, reminded the House, this is vital to farming communities in Northern Ireland. In addition, there continues to be confusion around the issue of what is normally referred to as a border in the Irish Sea. The implications of that confusion for transporting agricultural produce within the United Kingdom cannot be overstated for Northern Ireland farmers—hence their concerns about the future.

I support Amendment 209, for I am well aware of the importance to the Northern Ireland economy of our farming community, but I am equally aware of the contribution of the devolved settlement to the strength of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is why I welcome the Minister’s references to the importance of the relationship between central government and the devolved Administrations, so far as agriculture is concerned. It is surely essential that these reflections are clearly stated in the Bill.