Water Companies: Licences

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Monday 24th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords—

Plant Health etc. (Miscellaneous Fees) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations before us. I broadly welcome them, but I have a number of questions.

Paragraph 12.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The impact on business … is that these changes are estimated to save businesses c. £1.2m per annum due to lower levels of checks and subsequent impact on fees.”


Obviously, a lower level of fees will be pleasing for the industry, but I had not grasped that we are introducing a lower level of checks through this instrument.

One of the difficulties of this instrument, which my noble friend just introduced, was also set out in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s fifth report. As my noble friend stated at the outset, there will be a second statutory instrument at the end of June that will set out the regime. Why has the way in which the fees have been structured been separated from the regime? Why have we not had an opportunity to consider them both together? I would have thought that the regime was probably of most interest. When might we expect to see that statutory instrument, as today is already 28 June?

Am I right to assume that paragraph 28 talks about the inspection fees being corrected, as they are being reinstated, when samples of imported consignments are taken for lab testing to confirm the presence of certain plant pests? Can my noble friend elaborate on whether that is done on an ad hoc basis or responding to intelligence? Does it include such laboratories as FERA, which I had the honour to represent in North Yorkshire for the last five years I was in the other place?

Also, is this one of the instruments that appears on the famous dashboard that we heard about last week? Is it one of the 570 statutory instruments that is retained EU law or is it a stand-alone instrument? Will we come back to look at this in a different context? I welcome the opportunity to debate and approve the regulations this afternoon.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful briefing that he organised beforehand.

The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the purpose of the regulations is to help reduce biosecurity risk and to protect the environment from the spread of harmful pests and diseases. Obviously, these are objectives that we can all aspire to, but I would like to explore in more detail whether the proposed changes will achieve that result.

The new fees structure set out in this SI is based on a new risk-targeted inspections scheme which is set out in a separate SI, the Official Controls (Plant Health) (Frequency of Checks) Regulations, which this SI says will apply from July 2022, and to which the Minister referred as well. However, that SI has not been published yet. When I queried this with the department, I was told that it would be published on 30 June, which happens to be a couple of days after this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised this point. Where is the parliamentary scrutiny in this process? We are being asked to agree the fees without seeing the risk-based scheme in the first place.

The basis of the proposed changes was set out in a government consultation. In the Government’s response to the consultation, dated 31 March 2022, they concluded that imposing full checks on all categories of plants needed to be balanced with the impact on regulators and trade. In effect, it appears that this is a watering down of our biosecurity risk regime at a time when the threat of importing new plants and diseases with new and emerging pathogens is increasing.

I think it is fair to say that this is not a very reassuring SI in terms of the impact on biosecurity, and that the proposed changes were not greeted with unanimous support during the consultation. For example, the Government’s response to the consultation flags up that concerns were raised about the ability of the plant health risk group to respond quickly to new outbreaks. Obviously, there are different sorts of outbreak; some can be predictable, as can some disease threats, but some occur unusually and out of the blue. Is the plant health risk group really in a position to be able to judge and assess that risk, and to measure the right plants that are coming across our borders? There was a feeling that the inspection methods and technology applications were out of date and that we needed to modernise them. Concerns were also raised about the need for more transparency on the interception of pests and diseases and that, if a new pest or disease had been identified on UK shores, it needed to be shared more immediately.

These are all real challenges that Parliament has not yet had the chance to discuss, so I hope that the Minister can clarify why we have had such limited opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny on a very important issue that we have debated on a number of occasions in the past. Quite rightly, everyone has said that there is an acute need to take biosecurity more seriously.

Returning to this SI, first, it acknowledges that some commodities will be subject to reduced levels of physical and identity checks, leading to a lower fee being applied. However, nowhere does it really say that those at higher risk levels will have to pay a higher fee. I am interested to know how that will work in terms of our biosecurity protection.

Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly enjoyed my noble friend’s presentation of the instrument before us. I think that paragraphs 7.7 and 7.8 set out exactly what my noble friend said. I would just like to ask for a point of clarification. We were informed last week about this dashboard. I have had great amusement trying to find the dashboard and identify the 570—I am told—Defra regulations, of which I assume this is one.

Is my noble friend of the view that this instrument will come back before us within the next year? That would greatly help me. A close reading of today’s House of Lords Business will show that I have tabled a Question to help me to understand. If 570 Defra items are listed on the retained EU law dashboard, published on 22 June, which relate to phytosanitary, plant or animal health, welfare and hygiene measures? Presumably we will have the opportunity to consider each in turn when they come before us, but as a general rule many of them will fall because, like this one, they fall within a transitional period. As the CAP comes to a close and Brexit kicks in to a greater extent there will presumably be retained EU legislation such as this that will fall. Will we come back to this particular instrument in the next year or two for those purposes?

There must be other pieces of retained EU legislation that we spent hours going through in this very Room or remotely to see how they would apply, many of which I imagine we would wish to retain. Do we have to wait for the Brexit freedoms Bill—I am not quite sure what it is called—to come before us, or will we approach this on an ad hoc basis? It would certainly help me to understand, since I committed so many hours to my greater knowledge and understanding of what the EU retained legislation was at the time, what the situation will be with this and other instruments.

It strikes me that it will take up an inordinate amount of Defra officials’ time to go through this exercise. If such instruments will fall anyway, will we have to meet physically to confirm that they are redundant and that they have fallen out of use or will that happen naturally? Will we be required to go through every single regulation that we adopted as part of our retained EU law that we wish to keep on the statute book?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI and for the helpful briefing beforehand. I accept that the majority of these changes are technical in nature.

First, although it is not ideal, I understand why the changes to EU regulation 2020/2220 could not be made at this time, given that it was passed so close to the end of the transition period. It therefore makes sense to take this opportunity to remove the provisions to minimise ambiguity and potential confusion. I also accept that it is helpful to remove redundant references to the EU and member states where they no longer apply in UK law.

Secondly, with regard to the changes to cross-compliance regulations, I can see why it might be necessary to widen the scope of the existing cross-compliance exemptions as set out in Schedule 3. However, I have some specific questions about this. These new exemptions to the schedule are very specific and refer only to the specific changes we made to Section 98 of the Environment Act 1995 and Section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020. Can we be sure that these two provisions are the only two occasions where exemptions to the cross-compliance rules should be necessary?

I am struggling with some of the detail here, but I do not think many farmers will be operating exclusively under those agreements. That raises the question of what happens if, for example, their environmental work is, say, 20% but also has a direct impact on other activities, such as food production, at 80%. Would they be penalised, or is there an element of discretion? If so, what would that look like? In other words, what is the interface between the old cross-compliance and the new arrangements? How much discretion is there in all that or is it absolutely fixed in stone?

I still do not feel, having read the SI several times, that the application of the cross-compliance rules is clear, notwithstanding double negatives and so on. I would not relish being a farmer and having to try to understand and apply them. To be absolutely clear about this, are they to be applied only to claims under the old basic payment scheme? Therefore, will the cross- compliance rules be phased out as any claims under the old CAP scheme are phased out?

Given that there is wide acknowledgement that the CAP was too rigid and the financial penalties for non-compliances were too onerous, why are the Government not taking this opportunity to introduce the lighter-touch regime we were promised when we debated the then Agriculture Bill? Can we be assured that the roll-out of ELMS and any future UK agricultural and rural payment schemes will be assessed without cross-compliance penalties? How is that all going to work in future?

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I also look forward to the Minister’s response to the very interesting questions from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which I would like to know the answers to as well.

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am moving Amendment 40 in my name and that of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. This amendment broadens out the powers in Schedule 9, which currently allow charges to be levied against sellers of single-use plastic items. Our amendment would make it clear that a new charging regime should be for all single-use materials, not just plastic. It would ensure that single-use plastics are not simply replaced with other single-use materials that also cause environmental damage.

This is a simple but important amendment. It goes to the heart of the throwaway culture. There is a real concern that an inability to charge for single-use alternatives to single-use plastic might see the market switch to those alternatives rather than driving down consumption. We have seen evidence that the switch from plastic to single-use alternatives made from wood, paper or compostable materials is already happening, even when reusable options are already available. Far from helping to save the planet, these materials risk adding to our carbon emissions and depleting precious materials and forests elsewhere. For example, the Green Alliance has already calculated that switching consumption of plastic packaging to other materials used for packaging could triple carbon emissions.

These concerns were echoed by the businesses involved in the Aldersgate Group, which have written to noble Lords to say that the risk of plastic substitution in the Bill, as written, could undermine the drive towards a more circular economy and ending the throwaway society. The Commons EFRA report of 2019 concluded that

“reduction is the most important way to reduce waste, and … A fundamental shift away from all single use food and drink packaging, plastic or otherwise, is vital”.

We believe that the current wording in Schedule 9 is flawed and will encourage behaviours which the Government have not intended. If the Government are serious about resource efficiency and the circular economy, they must address this anomaly.

In response to a debate in Committee, the Minister stressed that plastic was a particularly pernicious material which persists for hundreds of years, and that this is why particular measures were necessary to address its unnecessary use. Of course we recognise that, but these provisions, as they stand, address only one element of the problem and do not address the inevitable move towards substitution which is bound to occur when charges for single-use plastics are introduced.

The Minister has also said that the Government already have wider powers to tackle alternatives to plastic through other measures, such as the extended producer responsibility scheme. But as we debated in Committee, the introduction of the extended producer responsibility scheme is already delayed, with the first such scheme on packaging already two years behind. Would it not be easier and more straightforward to introduce this simple amendment, which is properly scoped and provides for a precise power?

It is also worth noting that the delegated powers memorandum says of Clause 54:

“While these powers would be new, the provisions are modelled on existing powers to make regulations about carrier bag charges”.


Nevertheless, it stresses that these are new powers. Our amendment would simply extend these powers to all single-use materials.

In a previous debate we highlighted the need for a holistic approach to tackling the throwaway society and encouraging reuse of materials. This is exactly what is needed here, and it is what our amendment would achieve. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect seriously on our amendment and commit to bringing back a government amendment along these lines at Third Reading. But if he is not prepared to make a concession along these lines, I give notice that I am minded to press for a vote on Amendment 40.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on bringing forward the amendment, and also my noble friend the Minister for the work that the Government have done in this regard. May I take this opportunity to press my noble friend on one issue? The Government have been quite clear on single-use plastics and a potential returnable bottle scheme, as well as cotton buds. I am not clear what the position is on wet wipes, which I know cause huge problems for water companies and can block cisterns quite badly. Another growing problem, which may not be addressed by this amendment but appears elsewhere in the Bill, is fat balls from cooking that uses large amounts of fat. Where are we are on those issues?

Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for having moved it so eloquently. I endorse everything he said. I have visited ICES in Copenhagen a couple of times and have been hugely impressed. It has had a lot of footfall over the years from visitors such as the Scottish fishermen, and I think its research is first class. I am delighted that, having left the European Union, we continue to rely on ICES for the excellent research it produces.

I would like to ask my noble friend one question for when he comes to sum up the debate. I know that in the fullness of time, if maybe not in the context of this Bill, remote electronic monitoring will be used on all vessels in British waters. Can he confirm that it will be an essential criterion for the issuing of licences to fish in British waters that the vessel will be fitted with remote electronic monitoring equipment?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome Amendment 262A, which was so ably introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. They were both still going strong when we finally halted the debate on Monday, just before midnight. As noble Lords have made clear, this is an issue left over from consideration of the Fisheries Bill, which we thought was being resolved. However, as with other amendments dealing with the marine environment, the consequences are ongoing and equally valid for this Bill.

Without REM, we will not have the full and verifiable real-time documentation of catch on which all other calculations are based. This solid evidence should form the backdrop to a truly sustainable fisheries management plan. It will enable us to be more responsive to the movement of different fish stocks around our warming waters. It could also provide new economic opportunities where fishing opportunities are aligned with the real-time scientific evidence. For example, the evidence could potentially allow more species to achieve Marine Stewardship Council sustainability certification, which would boost sales in the retail sector.

In the past, the Government argued that this policy would be a distraction from vessel monitoring systems and aerial surveillance. These have their place but do not provide the detail that cameras on board the vessels would, particularly on the types of species caught and to ensure that discarding is not taking place. We argue that we need to embrace all the opportunities of improving data that new technology can bring, and that REM is one of these. It is also the case that many boats already use REM on a voluntary basis, so all this amendment would do is to raise the standard to the best and create a level playing field based on a true system of sustainable fishing.

During consideration of the Fisheries Bill, we were told that Ministers were thinking about introducing compulsory REM. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, quoted a helpful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, which talked of consulting on the use of REM in the first half of 2021 with implementation following thereafter. Can the Minister say what the result of these consultations was?

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State told us in a separate meeting around that time that he was also sympathetic to the proposal but needed time to consult others, including the devolved nations, to ensure there was common consent about implementation. A year has gone by since the Secretary of State said that, so perhaps the Minister can update us on the status of the consultations and those negotiations. We believe the case for the introduction of REM is compelling, so I hope we can be assured that is imminent. In the meantime, we support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 9th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendments 92 and 97 are in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and Amendment 96 is in my name.

Amendment 92 raises an important question about the role of the Secretary of State in overseeing the total stocks that can be fished by UK fishing boats in a calendar year. It addresses what happens if the combined policies of the joint fisheries authorities and the fisheries management plans add up to a greater allowable catch than science tells us is sustainable for UK waters. Somebody needs to keep an overview of the overarching picture and, in the absence of another competent authority, we argue that this role should fall to the Secretary of State. Hence our amendment requires that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, determine annually the maximum quantity of fish to be caught and the maximum number of days at sea. This determination should lie at the heart of our commitment to deliver the objectives set out in Clause 1.

We also have some sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which explores why the determination is limited to our international obligations, rather than applying to all UK fishing agreements. It would also be helpful to have some clarity on the existing wording. For example, do our international obligations cover the general sustainability commitments in UNCLOS? What happens if we fail to reach an agreement with the EU? Would that mean that there would be no obligation to make an annual determination? I hope the Minister is able to shed some light on these issues.

Amendment 96 requires the devolved Administrations to be consulted on this determination. It is a probing amendment to check whether the consultation provisions in Clause 24 apply also to this clause. I assume that this is the case, but it would be good to have this on the record. The amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, go further and extend the categories of those who would be consulted to a wider group of interested parties, and I think these proposals also have merit. However, it is vital that any determination made under this clause is subject to the best scientific evidence, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, makes this absolutely clear. This is a matter we have spoken about before and we reinforce our support for it again.

Finally, our amendment builds in a process for proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s determination by insisting that it should be subject to affirmative approval. A number of noble Lords are on the same page here. We want to ensure that UK fishing does not exceed the best scientific evidence but that the Secretary of State plays a role in overseeing this responsibility, and we want all appropriate stakeholders, including Parliament, to be consulted. I hope noble Lords will see the sense of this and will support these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I associate myself with the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I shall speak to my Amendment 92A. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Lansley, who is travelling from an engagement and has not yet arrived, I shall speak also to his Amendment 100, and to Amendments 101 and 102 in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose, to which I have appended my name.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was kind enough to lend her support to Amendment 92A, which just seeks clarification as to what my noble friend the Minister means. I thought the easiest way of extracting that information was to suggest that we delete Clause 23(2) because on the present reading of that—and looking at Clause 36, which in some respects is clearer—it looks as though the Government are looking either to have quotas only in connection with international agreements, as the noble Baroness said, or are moving away from quotas completely. If it is the Government’s intention to move away from quotas, particularly as regards other than the international fisheries agreements that the UK has subscribed to, it begs the question of what the means of dividing up the allocation of fisheries schemes will be if not quotas. There seems to be a degree of confusion among the experts between Clause 23(1) and (2). It begs the question of whether it applies to all fisheries agreements or only international obligations, and whether the Government are moving away from quotas. I do not think the Government have said anywhere that they are planning to move away from quotas, so I hope that the Minister will put my mind at rest.

Amendment 100, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, is designed to set out the need to consult not only fishing policy authorities—as at present—but representatives of British fishing boats. I see my noble friend has appeared; apparently I am on the right track. I hope the Minister will look favourably on my noble friend’s amendment. I am delighted to see him in his place, and I am sure that he would have spoken to it much more eloquently. I would certainly like to lend my support to this; it is extremely important. The Minister has said on other occasions that he is indeed looking to consult as widely as possible, so I am sure that it will be amenable to him, and I hope that he will support Amendment 100.

I have appended my name to Amendments 101 and 102, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. Amendment 101 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to consult relevant stakeholders who are making or withdrawing a determination under Clause 23, and would fit neatly in Clause 24. The reason for this is that the consultation provides for scrutiny by—I would say—all interested parties. A requirement on the Secretary of State to consult, as set out in this amendment, would help ensure openness and transparency over the Secretary of State’s actions. Indeed, similar requirements are found in Clauses 27 and 34, in connection with consultation. This is not anathema to the Government in any shape or form.

Similarly, Amendment 102 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to include, within a notice of reasons for making or withdrawing a determination under Clause 23, a requirement to publish such reasons for making or withdrawing a determination in connection with fishing opportunities, providing for additional scrutiny of the Secretary of State’s actions by stakeholders.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have spoken to those amendments.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness McIntosh of Pickering

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate some issues that have not yet been covered in the debate on Clause 1. In particular, I refer to the political declaration, which says that

“Parties should cooperate on the development of measures for the conservation, rational management and regulation of fisheries, in a non-discriminatory manner.”


I am particularly taken by Clause 1(2) and the reference to contributing to the “availability of food supplies”. I recognise that the fishing fleet plays a significant role in bringing food to the table. We have just had a debate on how dangerous those activities can be, but it is important to recognise the substantial contribution it makes to the food supply in this country. Clause 1(8) states:

“The ‘national benefit objective’ is that fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”


I make a brief plea to my noble friend. In recognising that economic link, will the Government consider the fact that active fishermen should benefit from this and that as far as possible it should not be non-fisheries activity that do? I am mindful of the fact that some of the quota is owned by non-fisheries entities—indeed, by football clubs and others. Will my noble friend and the Government take this opportunity to make sure that active fishermen will continue to benefit from the national benefit objective and from the foreseen economic benefits for the United Kingdom?

My remaining remarks relate to the precautionary principle in Clause 1(10)(b). Can my noble friend explain how the landing of fish will be recorded in every circumstance? I know that later parts of the Bill look at bycatch and discards, but how will the precautionary principle be applied and what will be the relationship between the principle and the maximum sustainable yield? Will it be enough to look at the usual understanding, which is that that will keep sufficient stock within safe biological limits? I ask this because we have been told that the Government’s stated objective is to replace the equivalent objectives in Article 2 of the basic regulations of the common fisheries policy but, while some of the wording relies on Article 2, it does not entirely replicate it. For example, the precautionary objective in Clause 1 admits the requirement in the EU regulation to achieve the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate by 2020 at the latest for all stocks. Are the Government still adhering to that objective?

There are other requirements relating to maximum sustainable yield elsewhere, particularly in Clause 6, which I shall want to debate further. Also, the ecosystem objective set out in the EU regulation requires fisheries to be managed so as to ensure that the negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised. The ecosystem objective in Clause 1 goes further, setting an objection to ensure that negative impacts are minimised and, where possible, reversed. Will my noble friend take the opportunity to explain why that is? I know that he has said on many occasions that we will go further than the EU, but why have we taken the opportunity to do that here?

My noble friend will understand that I do not wish to remove Clause 1, but I want to understand it better. It is important that we revert to the precautionary approach to fisheries management wherever possible, but my underlying concern is to ensure that active fishermen will be the principal definition.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I do not have a great deal to add to the words of the noble Baroness, who has obviously used this debate to ask for clarification from the Minister on a number of questions. I do not disagree with that, but I do not necessarily support the aim of questioning that Clause 1 should stand part, so I shall leave it to the Minister to answer his noble friend’s questions.