Air Quality (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Database) (England and Wales) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Thursday 11th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction and for organising a helpful briefing with officials before this debate. I declare an interest through my involvement with the charity ClientEarth. It is a breath of fresh air to be debating an SI that is not connected to Brexit. It is a joy on the last day of term. I hope that this is the first sign that normal service is beginning to be restored.

As the Minister said, the SI is, in itself, fairly straightforward, establishing as it does a central database for licensing authorities to record details of taxis and private hire vehicles to enable enforcement of local air quality measures. We have long supported the rollout of clean air zones to tackle air pollution and therefore will not object to this SI. However, sadly, the Government have been consistently slow in addressing the growing public health crisis, which has arisen from illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. This proposal once again seems to be a partial solution to a huge national problem. Time and again, ClientEarth has successfully won cases in the courts arising from the Government’s failure to tackle the air pollution crisis effectively. The jury is still out on whether their latest version of the clean air strategy is bold enough.

The central problem with the Government’s strategy, which we are dealing with and has been raised by a number of noble Lords in the debate, is that it places the onus on delivering clean air on cash-strapped local authorities and does not provide sufficient leadership and resources from the centre to make it happen. The result is that local authorities have been repeatedly missing deadlines for bringing air pollution into safe limits. The Government have known for some time that the quickest way to address the problem is to introduce clean air zones linked to charging for polluting vehicles, but they have been reluctant to require authorities to take these measures. As a result, some have and some have not. It is still unclear what will happen to the authorities that do not clean up their air quality in a timely manner.

Turning to our specific proposals, first, it would have been easier for the Government to establish a national database at the outset into which local authorities could feed data, rather than waiting for local databases to be set up and then trying to co-ordinate the different IT systems. Could the Minister clarify whether this was considered, and why this proposal is only now, belatedly, in this form before us? Also, the regulations designate only that the Secretary of State “may create a database” for the information received. Can the Minister explain why it does not require the Secretary of State to produce a database, given that this seems to be the whole purpose of this SI?

Secondly, as the Minister explained, the original SI was withdrawn and reissued. It was considered by our colleagues in the Commons on 26 February, and we are dealing with it here today, 11 April. The SI has an operative date of 1 May, so can the Minister assure us that this gives licensing authorities enough time to prepare for this new requirement? If, as I think it does, it covers London, which already has clean air zones, can the Minister assure us that arrangements with the Mayor of London to feed into that database will be in place by 1 May, and, if not, what provisions are being made for that?

Thirdly, I was interested in the debate on the SI in the Commons. The Minister there was asked how the databases would differentiate between a vehicle when it was being used for work and when it was being driven for personal use. She replied that this was an issue for local authorities to decide—in other words, she passed the buck back to the local authorities. I found that answer rather unsatisfactory. There is a real gap in the way that the system is being set up by devolving the responsibilities to local authorities. The least the Government could do to resolve this is to issue some sort of guidance at a national level, so that the matter is dealt with consistently across different local authorities and licensing authorities. Can the Minister explain how local and national databases will be able to differentiate between private and public use to enable proper charging to take place?

Finally, the SI creates another government database, with details of the approximately 300,000 taxi and private hire vehicles in England and Wales. This raises a question about the security of the data and the uses to which it might be put. Am I right that the data will not include details of the driver, but just the vehicle that has been licensed? Could the Minister provide reassurance that the data will not be used for other purposes, such as being cross-referenced with immigration or taxation databases? Could she envisage any other purposes for which this database might be used, even in extreme circumstances?

As I said at the outset, this SI provides only a partial solution to the challenge of cleaning up our air quality. It lacks the urgent national action that we feel is necessary to really make a difference. We need tighter, legally binding limits on pollution levels at a national level, with penalties for those who transgress. The forthcoming environment Bill provides an opportunity to make this a reality. Therefore, I hope the Minister can reassure us that the Government will use it to make the huge changes that will clean up our air for good. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I am very pleased that I had the Question on air pollution earlier this week. It was a bit of a heads-up as to what might be heading in my direction going beyond the remit of the SI today—as is always the case.

Taking the questions in order, I will go first to those from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. It is a pleasure to have him join an SI debate—and a non-Brexit one at that—and I welcome the important questions he has raised. “Regulatory triage assessment” is, yes, a very government type of term. It is similar to an impact assessment, but rather than looking at the impact outside government, it looks at the impact inside government, in this case on the licensing authorities, the amount of work they will have to do and the cost of it.

Plastic Pollution

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I can actually answer that question. The plastic packaging tax will provide a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled material in the production of packaging. Subject to consultation, any business that produces or imports plastic packaging that does not contain at least 30% recycled content will have to pay a tax from 2022. The UK Plastics Pact has pledged to meet the same target of 30% recycled plastics in its packaging by 2025. This is a voluntary arrangement, and of course the Government support it, but we want to ensure that all businesses achieve this ambitious target and that they do so as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness understand why we are so frustrated about this issue? We have debated it here time and again, yet we seem to be stuck in an endless cycle of consultations. There is broad cross-party support right across the country on this, and it would be very popular with the public, so why do the Government not just get on with, for example, introducing a bottle deposit scheme, which all the evidence shows would cut the number of plastic bottles littering our countryside and waterways? As I say, this would be extremely popular. Why the delay?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I agree that many of the things the Government are proposing are extremely popular—these things are popular, and the Government are doing them—but I have to be honest with the noble Baroness: this is a very complicated, complex area and we must not introduce one of these things on its own without looking at the whole environment for recycling plastic. That is why the resources and waste strategy sets out the three different areas—from production to consumption and end of life. We are consulting on the deposit return scheme; we have to make sure that the local authorities are on board and can do it too, and we need to understand exactly what sort of DRS we will have.

Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think my noble friend is slightly misconstruing my words: certainly, there are elements within the legislation that could not be brought over because of the withdrawal Act, because it would have made a change in policy or would have gone beyond the powers we have within the withdrawal Act. It was simply not possible to do so, so I am asking noble Lords to consider today that we are on a journey. We have already had a huge number of comments from Ministers in both Houses about where we feel our fisheries policy is going and where we would like it to go, but we would obviously like the support and input of noble Lords as we develop that policy. Even taken by themselves, we do not feel that there are significant omissions that cannot be explained by reasons other than that we are trying to put EU legislation into UK law and it has to work. It has to stand up for itself.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I am sorry to push the noble Baroness—she knows that I do not do this very often—but I have to concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I listened very carefully to what she said, but to go back to the example of maximum sustainable yield, Defra wrote to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee saying that the commitment was omitted because it was going to be dealt with in the Fisheries Bill. Maximum sustainable yield could have been put into this SI even though it was going to be corrected, updated, or however the noble Baroness wants to reword it, in a future fisheries Bill. I give that as just one example: we could say the same thing about the advisory councils. There could have been an interim arrangement for advisory councils in this SI, understanding that in the future we might want to restructure them. Those are just a couple of examples. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is very convincing on this. We all want to have a wider discussion on the Fisheries Bill, but that is not what these pieces of secondary legislation are about.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and will certainly consider them in more detail. If I can get any more information on this, I will send it to her. I repeat, however, that some of the articles were not amended because they are not operable; they are conditional upon mutual access to EU waters. We will be an independent coastal state when we leave, and that will be put in sharper relief if we leave the EU without a deal in days or weeks. We are facing this from the perspective that we will be an independent coastal state and therefore, where there are issues that rely on reciprocity and on the actions of others, we cannot put those, in all good faith, into UK law and expect them to be able to stand up.

I do not want to dwell too much on this because a number of noble Lords asked questions, but I will reflect on it and try to provide the noble Baroness with a bit more clarity. I shall get the legal team on to it to make sure that we cover it. I will say, because a number of noble Lords mentioned it, that sustainable fishing is at the heart of our 25-year environment plan. It underlined the fisheries White Paper and negotiations will be essential, whether that be with our nearest neighbours or countries further away.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised maximum sustainable yield. We have always been a strong advocate of maximum sustainable yield, both in international agreements and in negotiations over catch limits for shared stocks that we have an interest in, and this is not going to change. For example, Article 6 of the TAC and quota regulation is concerned with TACs to be determined by member states and has been omitted because the Secretary of State will be determining TACs under the power in the forthcoming Fisheries Bill and current common law powers, along with the criteria for setting the quota.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned quota management and how that might exist between the different countries of the United Kingdom. Of course, we will be reviewing quota management as we leave the European Union. We described in the fisheries White Paper how we will approach this, including the possibility of moving to a new basis for allocation of any additional quota we gain through negotiation. A number of noble Lords mentioned the very important issue of the landing obligation. Again, as we set out in the fisheries White Paper, the UK Government remain fully committed to ending this wasteful and atrocious discarding of fish and we continue to work with the industry. Once we have left the EU and the CFP we will have the flexibility to do this in a way that reflects the nature of UK waters and fisheries. While we can continue to use retained CFP measures, we will also have the opportunity to adopt new measures that will reduce discarding while also preventing choke. Some examples were set out in the fisheries White Paper.

There has been much discussion today about scientific evidence; I agree that it is critical. Perhaps for fisheries more than for some other sectors, a truly international perspective is hugely beneficial, and the UK has immense strength in this area. The Government are working with the devolved Administrations to develop a replacement fisheries advisory framework for the UK that is fit for purpose and can deliver world-class scientific advice to meet our commitments. We intend to continue to collect the marine and fisheries data, as is currently happening, to inform the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea of research and stock assessments. We are currently in the process of establishing an agreement with ICES for when we leave the EU. We will continue to use its research outputs and advice as well as our own, very well respected national labs—for example, Cefas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes. The cost of joining the IOTC is £150,000 to £200,000; for ICCAT it is £100,000 to £150,000; for the NAFO it is £45,000 to £80,000; and for the NEAFC it is £400,000 to £600,000. That is the cost of our participation when we sign up as a member in our own right.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also spoke about sustainable fisheries partnership agreements, which are agreements with nations that tend to be much further away. As an independent coastal state, the UK will set its own fishing opportunities in agreement with third countries, and we are considering whether and how we should replace existing agreements. The UK has not fished in Morocco since 2011 and it has not fished in Mauritania since 2012, so the only active fishing interest we currently have is an agreement with Greenland, with one vessel fishing there. That has been active in eight of the last 10 years. But certainly, we can go back and look at this in due course, once we have left the EU.

On the issue of quota and the figures, we have revoked provisions that relate to the setting of UK total allowable catch and quota for the UK. These provisions could not be made operable because it would be inappropriate for the EU to set the UK’s quota once it is no longer a member state. International quota swaps have already happened in 2019, so the fishing opportunities available to the UK as stated in the regulations are already out of date. The Secretary of State will therefore replace the current EU figures with the UK fishing opportunities, using common law or prerogative power. The 2019 figures will be published as an annexe to the UK quota management rules, which will be updated in time for exit day.

If the noble Lord will oblige me, I would like to come back to him on the legal side of the North Sea multiannual plan. I have a response here but I am not satisfied with it and I would rather write to him.

This SI brings across provisions that already exist for fees and charges. This does not in any way represent a change to the status quo, as the fisheries administrations already have this power.

Sharing of the MS data is of course a very important issue. A number of provisions in the CFP oblige member states to co-ordinate with or assist other member states, often in close co-operation. The UK absolutely intends to co-operate with the EU and our other neighbours, but of course is unable to legislate for co-operation with member states in the absence of international agreements, which I hope we will get in the future. Data for scientific purposes will continue to be collected and shared with international organisations such as ICES and the RFMOs. The data will also be published, as it currently is.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Perhaps I might press the Minister on that a little. It sounds like that is all a project for the future. However, it would have been nice to have been reassured that, notwithstanding that we will not be part of the current arrangements, discussions are already taking place with our European counterparts to make sure that a mechanism, however informal, for that continuity of data sharing will be in place from day one, rather than starting the discussions after we have left, when there is bound to be a gap in data sharing. Perhaps she could reassure us that this is already being actively discussed with the European Union.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I am not able to comment on the meetings that have happened to date on this issue, but I am very happy to find out for the noble Baroness and to write to her with that information.

Finally, I want to address the issue of amending the powers from “requires” to “allows”. I completely understand why this may have looked a little odd. However, powers of the European Commission are often drafted into EU law as obligations for the Commission to legislate. This is essentially an instruction—from the European Parliament, for example—for the Commission to legislate to fill in the technical gaps, which, obviously, the Commission goes off and does itself. But in the majority of cases the Commission will already have legislated in relation to these powers, and many of the Commission’s delegated and implementing Acts which resulted from the exercise of these powers are of course being rolled over into UK law. In these cases, there is therefore no longer a requirement for these powers to be drafted as obligations, as the obligation has already been discharged. However, the Secretary of State and/or the devolved Administrations might want to make those changes, as appropriate, in the future, and therefore “requires” becomes “allows”.

Detergents (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for arranging a very helpful briefing on this SI. We accept that these SIs are necessary to ensure the continued operability of the EU-related provisions post Brexit. However, we are keen to ensure that the transfer of powers to Ministers is not used as an excuse to weaken standards and processes. One way to ensure this is for the UK to keep pace with EU standards on this matter. These SIs also raise the recurring themes, which we have debated several times now, of the potential for significant environmental impacts and the need for effective environmental governance—I suspect that that will be a running theme today and on future SIs.

They also raise the recurring issues of resources: in this case for the HSE to carry out its new functions and for the scientific advice and guidance that will be necessary. Most importantly, we share the concern of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that without access to the EU’s information-sharing systems there will be greater health or environmental risks. With this in mind, I have a few specific questions. First, as a general point, the instruments state that these provisions ensure that a high degree of protection for the environment and human and animal health can be maintained after Brexit. What does this mean in practice? Can the Minister guarantee that there will be the same level of protection that is offered now, given that some of the EU protections that have been available to us in the past will no longer be there?

In the additional information that Defra provided to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it was stated that in the event of a no-deal Brexit the UK would lose access to the EU’s information-sharing systems, such as the rapid reporting and response systems. If that is the case, is there any mechanism for the UK to be notified about unsafe products from the EU market that are already being developed there or already mirroring products that have already entered the UK market? Is there any other system for that notification to take place, or are we simply relying on the rapid reporting and response system? A lot of these projects will be used globally; therefore, reporting on any problems that occur will take place globally.

On the other side of the coin, how will EU member states and the European Commission be notified about unsafe products from the UK market which are not UK-specific but which have already entered the EU market? How do we intend to do that, when we do not have the formalised systems in place? Does the Minister accept the point which echoed around the Committee this afternoon, that if we do not have access to the EU’s information-sharing system, there is cause for concern that UK citizens will be less safe and less protected? What guarantees can we give that this will not be the case?

In addition, the instruments state that,

“biodegradability requirements will be transferred to the Secretary of State as the UK’s competent authority for detergents, and these functions will then be exercised by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) after exit”.

I would like to probe biodegradability, because it is a matter that people value and hold dear. I want to be sure that, with the Minister having responsibility, biodegradability will not be downgraded as a consequence of other trade priorities and negotiations which are taking place. You might say it is the detergent version of chlorinated chicken. We want the trade deal, but if the price of the trade deal is that we lower our standards, can UK citizens be assured that our safety and protection level will not be downgraded?

The draft detergents amendment SI states that,

“there is an option for the HSE, acting as the competent authority for the Detergents Regulation under an Agency Agreement with the Secretary of State, to charge a fee for processing derogation applications for the use of industrial and institutional surfactants”.

What is the fee? How will the HSE enforce it? Will the fee be off-putting to businesses potentially wanting to trade in this country?

Several noble Lords referred to the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on resources, which said that:

“HSE’s responsibilities after EU exit will expand significantly as a result of these and other instruments; it will need to be resourced adequately to carry out its new functions”.


That is very different from the Minister saying this afternoon that the additional requirements were minimal. Therefore, we need to find some way of bottoming this out. Is she saying that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was wrong? It has obviously looked into this matter and says that it will need additional resources. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what the score is here. What additional funding has been provided to HSE to carry out these extra functions? How many extra staff does she envisage being hired to carry out these extra responsibilities?

The regulations also state that,

“the detergents Regulation cross-refers to a number of other pieces of EU legislation, including REACH Regulations”.

I know we are not going to debate this today but I want to put on record, in case there is any doubt, that we have serious concerns about the instrument relating to REACH regulations, and which we will deal with separately. Many of the concerns about REACH are also concerns that we have here about access to important information which the EU would normally have collated and shared with us, but which will no longer be available.

Paragraph 7.5 states that,

“the Secretary of State as the competent authority for detergents for the UK will exercise those powers, taking expert advice as appropriate”.

What does that mean about expert advice? Where will this advice come from? Is it just UK advice, or will the Secretary of State consult any other European agencies when formulating a policy on this? The issue of scientific and technical progress also comes up in relation to the technical annexes. Who will provide that scientific and technical progress when the update to the technical annexes takes place? How often is it envisaged that they will be updated? Who will be consulted about these updates before they are published?

I turn to the detergents safeguarding regulations. As has been said, the EM says:

“The safeguard clause may only be used on a case-by-case basis for a specific product, not for a class of product. The safeguard clause therefore cannot be used to introduce risk management measures of a general nature”.


Can the Minister confirm that that will indeed be done on a case-by-case basis and that there will not be any attempt to extend the use of this provision for a more general policy change? What safeguards do we have that it will be curtailed to a case-by-case basis?

Paragraph 2.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Member States intending to use the safeguard clause must immediately inform the Commission and the other Member States, documenting the reasons for this decision”.


In that situation, will a devolved Administration who intend to initiate the safeguard have the same obligations to inform immediately all the devolved Administrations, the Secretary of State and the HSE, in the same way as member states currently do? What information sharing will there be within the UK to make sure that we are all aware of any safeguarding issues?

Paragraph 7.2 says:

“The Secretary of State and devolved administrations will be able to take urgent, temporary restrictive action in relation to a product through a safeguard clause”.


How will this process take place? How will this decision be made? Will there be consultation between Administrations? Will the HSE consult devolved Administrations? If Scotland decides to take action, does that mean that the decision will apply throughout the UK? It would be helpful if the Minister could say more about how that devolved responsibility will operate.

Finally on safeguarding, if there is a concern about a specific detergent, how will businesses be notified that their product is in some way being queried? If the products are already in the market, is there an arrangement for them to be recalled? What are the practicalities of detergents being identified as a risk to the health of humans or animals, and how will that be dealt with with the businesses concerned?

I have one last question, on the safeguarding measures not being imposed for more than 90 days. Why 90 days? If that product still poses a risk, can the measure be extended or rolled over, or do we have to revisit it from the start? What are the limitations on that 90 days? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It has been a measured debate and—thankfully—fairly on topic, which is always a relief. A number of noble Lords have raised some good questions, and I hope to be able to answer them. To the extent that I am not, I will certainly write.

However, I will address one issue straight up, which is about environmental protections post exit. The Government are very clear that we will not weaken environmental protections when we leave the EU. We will instead maintain, and even enhance, our already high environmental standards. The detergents SI will ensure the continuation of standards and requirements in relation to the placing on the market of detergents, while maintaining a high degree of protection for the environment and human health. I hope that as I go through the answers to the questions today, the Committee will feel this is indeed the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

It is a very interesting question. They are subject to the REACH regulations, which were mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I note her concerns about those regulations. As I am sure she is aware, they will be debated in due course in your Lordships’ House and were already debated in the other place on 25 February. I have a little more information on that issue, but I want to put it into proper context so I will write to the noble Lord.

I return to biodegradability and whether it would be downgraded in future. Whether these detergents and surfactants hang around in the environment for a long time is a very important issue. It is clearly a bad thing because they play havoc with water tension and so on. The Government have set out a vision for a green Brexit, in which environmental standards will be not only maintained but enhanced. The biodegradability criteria in the detergents regulations are essential in avoiding these adverse impacts on the environment. We are obviously mindful that if these are not disposed of properly, they can cause foaming and degrade or assist the eutrophication of rivers, which I believe is not beneficial to organic life.

Trade agreements can cover a range of issues and although the UK will be able to negotiate its own trade deals in the event of no deal, focusing on growth areas for our economy, the UK Government continue to be committed to high environmental standards after EU exit and to maintaining a high degree of continuity with current climate goals, green policies and wider environmental targets. I reassure the noble Baroness that, as I mentioned earlier, any changes to the technical annexes will be done by statutory instrument, and will therefore come before your Lordships’ House. Those sorts of issues would be included within that.

A number of noble Lords touched on the resourcing of the HSE—I had fair wind that this might come up. This issue was noted by the SLSC, but I suspect that it probably got to the stage where it had seen the HSE a number of times and thought, “Hang on a minute, we probably want to do something”. For these instruments, the additional administrative requirement for the HSE is minimal. However, I will commit to trying to get an understanding across the piece about how many additional functions the HSE is being asked to take on, and confirm that it is satisfied with the resources it has. That is only fair, because this one is minimal. I completely understand that but the SLSC has made that point and it is worth following up on.

The issue of fees for the HSE is an interesting one. This is only for derogations, and there has been only one derogation across the EU. The fees for derogations are agreed; there was a consultation with the industry. I could go into great detail about these fees but they are designed to meet the costs of derogations; obviously, we do not expect those to happen very often. A derogation occurs where one is using a detergent for a specific purpose which does not fall within the regulations. It would be highly unlikely nowadays with the biodegradable detergents we have for them to be frequent at all.

I move on to the issue of experts. Noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is a world leader in the regulation of chemicals and will continue to be so following EU exit. It also has the necessary regulatory scientific and technical expertise in-house. However, The Government Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines on the Use of Scientific and Engineering Advice in Policy Making of 2010 state that,

“advice from external sources should be sought whenever necessary”,

and we would of course do so. Sources of research and advice may include: the departments’ own experts and analysts; research and funding councils; expert advisory systems such as the Science Advisory Council and the scientific advisory committees, and research and non-departmental sources. We have a great tradition of science and research in this country, and I remain convinced that we would find the right group of experts for the right problem. As noble Lords will be aware these experts will be used to update the annexes, which will go through the usual process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, touched on governance. We have been here a few times before—

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I was hoping the Minister would be able to update us.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I will not be able to accede to that wish today. I can go no further than we have been able to before with regard to the future of governance and the office for environmental protection, but I commit to the noble Baroness that we will update her as soon as we can.

Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for the courtesy of arranging a helpful meeting with officials beforehand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the live export of animals is a very sensitive subject about which there is considerable public concern; there have been some shameful public images of animals suffering or dying in transit that have highlighted the fact that in many cases the current rules are simply not being respected in practice. This is why I am pleased that my party is committed to banning most exports of live animals for slaughter or fattening, with exemptions for those crossing the Northern Ireland border.

At the current time, more than 50,000 cattle and some 500,000 sheep are exported live annually for further production or slaughter in other regions of the UK and to EU member states. I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the effect on sheep farmers of not having clarity over these rules at a very early stage. We must ensure that those markets are still open and available for business.

The 2017 Conservative manifesto stated that the UK could take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter once it left the EU. Since then, Defra has stated that a ban is one of the options being considered, and it launched a consultation in April 2018. Do the Government intend to introduce meat-carcass only export so that animals do not have to endure inhumane conditions to be slaughtered? Can the Minister confirm whether a ban on live animal exports would be compatible with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, often referred to as the World Trade Organization rules, which prohibit countries imposing quantitative bans or restrictions on imports or exports?

Livestock legislation has been the same for 12 years now, despite European scientists calling for improvements on conditions and a reduction in journey times. Meanwhile, paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“The controls on control posts in the UK will remain identical to those in the EU (at least initially) after EU Exit”.


Can the Minister confirm whether, following Brexit, the Government will introduce better animal welfare provision at control posts? Is that what the phrase “at least initially” is meant to capture?

There is also concern about the lengthy delays that are common at the border, and we can all agree that there is a risk that this can only be exacerbated during or post-Brexit. There is also concern that we will not have enough vets to check on animal welfare and approve export licences at the UK border. What steps are the Government taking to reduce delays and cut maximum journey times for live animal exports? What discussions have taken place with veterinary bodies to ensure sufficient staff are in place? Will the Government introduce a “fit for travel” provision to ensure that animals are of an appropriate age, not in certain stages of pregnancy and do not have pre-existing injuries?

According to the Sustainable Food Trust, one in three small abattoirs in the UK has closed in the past decade. There are now just 249 red-meat abattoirs in the UK, down from 320 in 2003. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers acknowledged that there are now black spots in the country where no abattoir provision exists. Is the Minister concerned about this? What action are the Government taking to reduce abattoir black spots and ensure that slaughter can take place close to areas where cattle, sheep and poultry are raised, and achieve the objective of travelling no longer than eight hours, as recommended by the BVA.

Turning to authorisation documents for the transport of animals, paragraph 2.15 of the EM states:

“The standard forms that are contained in the legislation will be removed and a power is given to each constituent nation of the UK to make their own versions of the authorisations and documents”.


Can the Minister advise whether the forms need to be changed in the event of a deal and/or no deal? If so, is the Minister confident that the required amendments to these forms will have been made in time for day one, if necessary, or can there be a period of grace while the old forms are still used? Will there be accompanying guidance ready in the event of no deal? Why was the EM worded in that way? What changes to the forms were envisaged? Will the detail required on the forms be on a par with the information currently required by the EU? Since it is proposed that the devolved Administrations will be responsible for amendments to those authorisations and documents, what impact will different versions have on businesses which export live animals through ports in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and across the borders between the devolved Administrations?

Currently, all drivers and attendants must hold certificates of competence evidencing their training in animal welfare during transport. This instrument amends the legislation to allow authorisation and certificates of competence issued by member states to those involved in transport to be recognised in the UK after EU exit. However, paragraph 2.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum advises that enforcement action,

“will not be possible after EU Exit”.

As that is now in the public domain, people may begin to realise that there will be no enforcement action. Does the Minister share my concern that without that enforcement mechanism, and with the knowledge that no action is going to be taken, unscrupulous traders may employ drivers and attendants who do not hold that certificate of competence in transporting animals and that that may lead to more breaches of animal welfare and worsening conditions for animals being transported?

What action are the Government taking to improve enforcement? Can the Minister assure the Committee that we have the appropriate resources and staff in place at border control posts to ensure that animal welfare standards are enforced? Can she confirm that the recognition of transporters’ certificates of competence is not reciprocal and that certificates issued in the UK will not be recognised by the EU 27 after the UK has left the EU? If that is the case, how many transporters will be affected and what costs will they incur if they are required to appoint a representative and seek authorisation in each EU country through which they will travel?

As the Minister said, the SI also sets out a change in policy on the certification of slaughterhouse staff. It removes the recognition of certificates of competence issued to slaughterers by other member states. Paragraph 2.18 of the EM states:

“Continued recognition of certificates issued in other Member States would open up potential enforcement issues as we would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate issued in another Member State in the event a slaughterer breached the requirements of the retained EU legislation or domestic legislation”.


As a result, a number of slaughterhouse employees who gained their qualification in an EU member state will need to apply for a certificate of competence in the UK to continue to work in the UK after exit.

As the Minister also said, Defra estimates that applying and being assessed for a certificate of competence in the UK will carry a cost of around £225 and will affect fewer than 200 individuals, which comes to around 3% of slaughterers. The EM suggests that £225 is not a large sum of money, but it could put some people off. Has there been any discussion with the industry about whether it could pay for that extra certification and whether that would be good practice, rather than individual staff members having to pay for it? What other discussions have taken place with the industry to ensure that those affected are aware of and understand the policy change and those new requirements which could come on stream very quickly?

When will affected slaughterers need to apply for a new certificate of competence? Will it be literally from exit day? How long will the process of getting the new certificate take? Will their applications be expedited, given that they hold existing EU qualifications? Given that the EU has already confirmed that it will not recognise UK certificates of competence, do we know how many UK-qualified staff will be affected by that decision if they try to work in the EU? I do not know whether that information is available.

Finally, this SI will permit meat produced in member states, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to be accepted in the UK without a third-country health certificate. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case in both a deal and no-deal situation? Is this a reciprocal arrangement? Do we have the same opportunities to trade with those additional countries that are not member states? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. This has been an interesting debate and we have covered all the key elements of what I hope is a fairly simple SI that largely leaves everything exactly as it was. I shall spend a few minutes answering questions raised by noble Lords. There has been a variety of them.

The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, brought up the issue of divergence with the devolved authorities. I reassure him that, as a department, we have been working closely with the devolved authorities on a wide range of areas and on this area in particular. We are working on developing common frameworks. One was agreed in October 2017 with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and further frameworks were agreed in April 2018 to deepen and broaden the relationship. We are very clear that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are committed to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks where it has been agreed that they are necessary and where discussions continue. We would expect, for example, the forms issue that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to be one of those issues; it makes no sense whatever to have different forms in different countries.

I turn to the issue of slaughterers. I completely understand that this issue has been highlighted because it is clear that fewer than 200 people will be affected by this issue; we expect it to be about 170. That is the number that we got when we asked the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland and DAERA to provide the information. The noble Lord was concerned about whether there would be a shortage. I feel that 170 people out of a total of 6,000 definitely do not make for a shortage, but they would be able to get retrained pretty much immediately. That is usually carried out in-house by slaughterhouse operators and there is certification by a private assessor provided by the UKAS-accredited body, which is FDQ.

Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, for their contributions. It was my pleasure to meet both of them beforehand so I had some sight of some of the questions that would arise, but not all of them. I can cover some of the issues now, but I know that I will have to write on at least one of them. I will probably write to both noble Baronesses but I am afraid that particularly the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, went over my head.

The species included in the standards are the ones most commonly trapped for their pelts. There are numerous regulations around trapping and snaring and so forth, but we are focused solely today on those species that are predominantly trapped for their pelts, which is why this agreement was reached in the first place. That is where the 19 species come from. Foxes are not included because they are not commonly trapped for their pelts. Foxes are usually controlled for other reasons, such as pest control. Only a small number of those 19 species exist in this country, which is why the regulations we are talking about today cover those species.

I was asked about the two different types of badger, which may have to go into my letter. Actually, I have a response. The European badger is the same as the UK badger. They are protected. It is very rare that a licence would be granted for those badgers.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, mentioned leghold traps. They are banned—they have been banned since 1950—so we will obviously make sure that we do not have those sorts of traps in this country.

The non-compliant element—Article 10 of the agreement—is an issue that both noble Baronesses raised and deserves more focus. In exceptional circumstances the use of non-AIHTS-compliant traps is possible. It permits derogations to be granted only on a case-by-case basis. We do not expect that to happen often, and only if they are not applied in a manner that would undermine the objectives of the agreement. Indeed, if we were to agree a derogation, we would have to notify the agreement’s joint management committee, so it is quite a serious issue. An example of where we might grant a derogation would be where no certified live-capture trap design was available and one needed to be tested, or someone wanted a trap design to be considered for certification for a particular species.

Related to that, the noble Baronesses mentioned home-made traps. Again, that is not something that we expect will be particularly common, but it might occur. However, those home-made traps will have to meet the same standards as other traps. They will need to be certified by the relevant competent authority.

I will partly take the point about timing on the chin. There has been a delay in implementing this. When these standards first came into play, it was not clear whether or not the EU would make legislation around this area. When we realised that the EU was not going to do that, a number of legislative options were available to us, and we considered them all. Then there were various breaks in Parliament, as noble Lords will know. Also, within that time there has been research into compliant stoat traps and an evaluation of how the stoat is finally dispatched. We certainly wanted to examine all the research and evidence. We needed to speak to the stakeholders, but it is not our intention to overregulate the countryside and to force people into changes that they simply cannot make because the traps are not available. Therefore, we felt that the year’s grace was appropriate.

The spring trap regulations come into force in January so obviously they will be available. We aim to get a list of the traps, which will be updated as new traps are certified, on to the GOV.UK website as soon as possible thereafter.

On the licensing authority, there are two types of licences for trapping. The general licence is for people involved in low-risk activities such as conservation and the welfare of protected species. Those people need nothing more than a general licence, but if they have that licence obviously they must meet the conditions and comply with the terms of the relevant licence and therefore the law. The class licence is for activities that require a specific skill or experience to avoid any risk to the environment or the welfare of the protected species. A number of concerns were raised today around that area.

Again, you do not have to apply for a class licence. However, to act under the authority of a class licence, you must first register with the licensing authority to show that you have the required skill. Of course, that can be enforced—people can check that you have the required skill to operate a class licence. In England, the licensing authority is Natural England; in Scotland, it is Scottish Natural Heritage; and in Wales, it is Natural Resources Wales. They already issue these licences in other regards and we do not expect there to be a significant increase when it comes to extending these to stoats.

Moving on to fur, this SI is not about all fur; it is about trapped fur. The regulations within the EU extend to all different types of imported fur. It is expected that importers comply with those regulations but that is beyond the regulations we are talking about today. The noble Baroness also mentioned fur farms, which we have banned in this country. Certainly, as we leave the EU, an opportunity will arise for us to consider any further action that we may wish to take. Obviously, I would not dream of making a commitment at the Dispatch Box today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I asked whether all the other countries in the EU have implemented this domestic legislation, as obviously that will affect whether we accept imports from them.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Yes, I believe they have, as have Canada, Russia and the US. I think we are slightly behind the curve on this one.

I would like to cover the issue raised by the noble Baroness about how stoats die. I knew that she was going to bring that up so I had a little look. These traps are more humane because the time to death is shorter and the force of the death action is stronger. These lethal traps most commonly use the power of a coiled spring, which asserts a striking force on the trapped animals, usually on their heads. It is usually administered by a strike bar that crushes the head. Prior to that, the animal has stepped on a plate in order for that action to happen. Some other modern traps use new technology, such as carbon dioxide or electricity, to dispatch the animal; furthermore, they might use captive bolts or impalers. I would like to get across to noble Lords today that modern lethal traps are effective within seconds. The animals will not be left languishing for many minutes while death occurs—that is one of the reasons why we feel that these regulations are so important. While stoats may not always be our friends, the traps dispatch them in a friendly fashion.

Finally, the noble Baroness discussed training. I do not want to overregulate the countryside on this one. The people who will be subject to these regulations are already gamekeepers and trappers—they know how traps work. All we are asking is that the manufacturers provide instructions that allow a gamekeeper to understand what the trap does and how it works. Many of the traps are species-specific and there will be different requirements for where you put the trap, such as in a tunnel, and all sorts of different things. In our view, it is sufficient for the manufacturers to provide instructions. They will be available at the time of purchase, as well as online. The instructions must be available for the life of the trap, and these traps last quite a long time. We have spoken to the manufacturers and the retailers and they are happy to provide this information. Of course, we will make sure that they do when we certify their traps for inclusion in the list.

I think that brings us to the end of this statutory instrument. It is an important one in terms of improving our animal welfare and I beg to move.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, Amendment 42, which deals with the defence of ignorance in Clause 12, would remove the provision in the Bill stipulating that an offence has been committed only if the person knew or ought to have known or suspected that an item contained ivory. Under our amendment, it would be a defence if a person proved that they did not know or suspect, or could not have known or suspected, that an item contained ivory. That might sound as though there is not much difference, but there is an important difference in the burden of proof, and that is something that we seek to strengthen.

We considered this issue in Committee but failed to have a meeting of minds on the wording of this clause. At the time, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, advised that the provision had been included to help tackle the issue of illegal ivory in items being deliberately mislabelled as another substance, and to protect those who fall victim to such ploys who genuinely did not know that an item they were dealing with contained ivory. Of course, we know that mislabelling is common. Numerous studies have found that new elephant ivory offered for sale is often mislabelled as ivory from other species or another material altogether, such as bovine bone. In some instances, this may well have been due to genuine unawareness, although deliberate mislabelling is a well-known tactic used in the illegal ivory trade to evade detection and facilitate illegal sales. In those circumstances, a seller might provide other information to indicate more discreetly to buyers that the item is indeed ivory, such as close-up photographs that depict cross-hatching, a tell-tale sign of ivory, or code words used in the trade to surreptitiously indicate that an item is made of or contains ivory.

We must have a form of wording that differentiates between those who are playing the system and know perfectly well what they are trading and others who have been genuinely duped. If we stick with the original wording, it would too easy to claim that you were unaware of what you were buying and would make enforcement a real challenge for the agencies, which would have to prove that you knew it was ivory.

Our amendment allows for a defence of ignorance but introduces a higher evidential threshold than in the clause as currently drafted. It also brings it in line with the provision in Clause 12(3), which allows for a defence if an individual can demonstrate that they took all reasonable precautions to comply with the law. I am therefore moving this amendment and I hope noble Lords will see the sense of our arguments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment to Clause 12(2). The purpose of the current subsection (2) is to outline the criteria required to demonstrate that an offence has been committed. Subsection (3) provides a person accused of an offence with the defence that they took reasonable steps to avoid the commission of that offence. The purpose of subsections (2) and (3) together is to provide a balanced and proportionate framework with regard to prosecutions under the Bill, and to tackle the problem of illegal ivory items being deliberately mislabelled, while also providing a defence that allows a person to prove that they took the reasonable steps needed to ensure that the item was not elephant ivory.

Amendment 42 is explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Member’s explanatory statement published alongside the amendment as permitting the “defence of ignorance”. As noble Lords will know, there is no defence of ignorance in UK law. It is not permissible for someone accused of a crime, be it large or small, simply to claim that they did not know that it was illegal to do something. If we were to accept the amendment, we would also be suggesting that an individual would be able to prove a negative—to prove that they did not know something. That would be extremely problematic.

Furthermore, the amendment as drafted does not in fact reflect a “defence of ignorance” as referred to in the Member’s explanatory statement to the amendment. To explain a little, the amendment would remove the criteria in Clause 12(2), which outlines the requirements that must be satisfied for an offence to occur. Subsection (2) provides legal certainty on what constitutes an offence. It states that an offence is committed in relation to an item only, first, if a person knows or suspects or, secondly, if the person should have known or suspected that the item involved in the commission of an offence is elephant ivory or has elephant ivory in it. Subsection (3) essentially achieves the desired effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment. It states:

“It is a defence for a person … to prove that the person took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence”.


In fact, subsection (3) goes further than the amendment, as it explicitly states what a person must prove to rely on that defence. Furthermore, in this case the individual will be seeking to prove a positive action. It is a far easier prospect to prove that due diligence has been undertaken than to prove a negative—that they simply did not know.

Let us have a quick look at how the Bill would operate if the noble Baroness’s amendment were accepted. Mrs Smith goes to a car-boot sale and sees a lovely box, which is very similar to her grandmother’s. She is not a very well-off lady, she owns absolutely no antiques and she pushes the boat out on that day and pays a tenner for this box as a treat. The box has a tiny, almost imperceptible, amount of ivory in it. Is Mrs Smith a criminal? It is not our intention that she should be. Removing subsection (2) makes the law far less clear because in that subsection is the outline of the requirements that must be met for an offence to occur. In the current draft of subsection (2), the elements of an offence are clear. To remove the subsection, as suggested in the amendment, would upset the firm legal foundation of the Bill. Removing the criteria for the offence in subsection (2) would cause significant uncertainty and risks overwhelming the enforcement system with Mrs Smiths, while the real criminals are left free to continue to break the law by dealing in ivory on much larger scale.

The Bill seeks to be balanced and proportionate. Removing subsection (2) would achieve neither aim. The police, enforcement bodies and the courts can use their professional discretion when considering the approach to use, based on a number of factors—for example, whether that person knew about ivory trading, whether it is a repeat offence or whether there is any evidence of deliberate mislabelling. Discretion is very welcome, but it must be based on a firm foundation of effective law. The amendment of the noble Baroness runs the risk of criminalising those who are not criminals at all.

Clause 12(2) and (3) are very carefully phrased. They protect individuals where there is absolutely no intent to breach the ban, and where the person could not be reasonably expected to know that the item was ivory or even contained ivory. It is not our intention to criminalise these people; that would be disproportionate and counterproductive. I have listened very carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is the Government’s intention in subsections (2) and (3) to be clear and proportionate, and I believe that is the case. Given this explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, on this probing amendment. Although I accept and respect that it is for the devolved Administrations to set their own penalties, we must keep in mind the difficulties that this will cause. As we all know, the devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland have broken down and there appears to be little prospect of them resuming in the near future. This would leave a situation where the penalties in one part of the UK were lighter than in the rest.

Those seeking to circumnavigate the law and benefit from the proceeds of trading ivory might be prepared to risk a six-month imprisonment term instead of 12 months. These are, after all, hardened criminals. It would be extremely unfortunate if the trafficking in illegal ivory and ivory products were shifted to Northern Ireland because the penalties there were more lenient. I respect completely what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, and I am sure that the Minister will give clarification—but I wonder whether the Government and the Secretary of State might consider having uniformity of sentencing across the UK.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to increase the maximum prison term for breaching the prohibition in Northern Ireland. As a result of the devolution settlement, Northern Ireland has the power to adopt practices concerning criminal justice that are different from those in England and Wales. The sentence that would apply in Northern Ireland is up to six months and is set out in the laws applying to that nation.

In England and Wales, Section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which would increase the maximum sentence available on summary conviction from six months to 12 months, has not been commenced. This means that currently the maximum sentence available in England and Wales on summary conviction is six months. Therefore, the two are in alignment and thus the penalties are the same across the UK. Should the relevant section be commenced for England and Wales, the maximum available prison sentence would increase to 12 months—the Bill provides for that—and the two would no longer be in alignment. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. We were just trying to establish the facts of the case, and she has clearly set them out. Obviously we will respect the devolution package and we certainly do not want to force something on Northern Ireland where it thinks it has some control of its own in these matters. I am grateful for that clarification and need not say anything more on it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I will make just a few brief comments in response to the noble Lord’s amendments, which seem in the main unnecessary. First, it is self-evident that the officers would take care to avoid damaging seized items. This would apply equally to the process of seizing other high-value goods including stolen artworks, with which they would be familiar. I am not convinced that the need for that level of care needs to spelled out in the Bill, given they have that specialist training.

Secondly, we have already addressed the concern about the role of accredited civilian officers, but it does not seem practical or sensible that the only person able to determine how a piece should be disposed of should be the Secretary of State. Thirdly, as we discussed earlier, we would expect a decision to dispose of an item to be taken with guidance from individuals with clear expertise in this area. Again, we are not convinced this needs to be in the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s undertaking on how these disposals will work in practice and hope that he will be able to reassure his noble friend that these amendments are not necessary.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the first amendment in this group would require police and customs officers to take account of an item’s physical nature and exercise reasonable care when searching premises under the powers in the Bill. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that officers must always have regard to their surroundings and the objects therein when conducting a search and should not wilfully damage anything. Police and customs officers have vast experience of conducting searches in many different types of premises and for a wide range of items—valuable, delicate, dangerous or otherwise. I therefore do not think it necessary to include wording to that effect in the Bill. Indeed, it may be counterproductive. For example, if it is omitted from other Bills in future involving similarly delicate items, will it be assumed that care is not needed in those cases?

The other amendments in this group remove the discretion from police and customs officers to dispose of seized or forfeited items and instead require the Secretary of State to consult an expert in ivory items before making decisions on the disposal of such items. Police forces have well-established processes for dealing with seized property of all types. In the first instance, owners have the opportunity to appeal against a seizure and therefore the item may be returned. But if the seized item cannot be returned to the original owner, there are well-established methods for its disposal.

There are many possible uses for seized items containing ivory that cannot be returned to the original owner. For example, they may be used for educational, training and research purposes, when it is in the public interest to do so. Ivory items seized by police and customs officers in recent years have been used for training officers in the identification of ivory products or donated to accredited museums or to conservation bodies for awareness raising. Zoos, for example, might display examples of illegal wildlife trade products made from endangered species.

I hope that this explanation will be sufficient to satisfy my noble friend and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on these two amendments. I think we all accept that the cost of registration should not be prohibitive. Equally, I have to say that I think a blanket fee of £5 is unrealistic. It should not, however, be used as a money-raising opportunity, as some government fee systems have been found to do. In his letter to us after Second Reading, the Minister made it clear that the fees would be based on a cost-recovery calculation. Fine, but he went on to say that the calculation would be based on the cost of building a new IT system. At that point, alarm bells started to ring. I am sure that the Government would accept that they have a rather shaky reputation for delivering IT systems on budget.

I therefore hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reassure us that the cost will not be prohibitive and that it will take into account the ability to pay of a wide range of potential traders who might want to use the system, taking on board the points that have been made that they will not always be the professionals and those who are able to pay large fees.

We have referred to the registration scheme several times and I know that the Minister says that we will have further details of it, but it would be helpful if he could clarify the timescale for it. Will we definitely have more details before Report?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, both amendments relate to the fees that can be set by the Secretary of State when registering an item containing ivory. When owners register their items under the exemptions for items of low ivory content, musical instruments, sales to museums and portrait miniatures, it is only right that they pay a fee for the service provided. This fee will contribute to the cost of building and administering the registration system.

On my noble friend Lord De Mauley’s amendment, we need to be careful about setting a fee on the face of the Bill—that is, in primary legislation—as, over time, circumstances which will need to be taken into account may change and mean that it is necessary to revise the fee—in either direction.

To reiterate, the Government intend that the fee will be small and proportionate, but I cannot agree with my noble friend that a fee of £5, set out in primary legislation, is appropriate. The fee will be dependent on the cost of the IT system and its administration and will be determined in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s guidelines with regard to cost recovery. I hope that alarm bells are not now ringing. We aim for the system to be as simple to use as possible.

On Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I recognise his interest in ensuring that fees are not set at a rate that would discourage registration and entirely share his view. The Government are finalising the specifications for the registration system. Further details will be available in due course, but I do not have a time for them as yet. If I get one, I will write to noble Lords and advise them. Work to date has included input from a range of stakeholders, including those most likely and most frequently to use the system; for example, representatives from the Association of Art & Antiques Dealers and the Music Industries Association. We want to ensure that we understand their needs. Our aim will be to develop a system that is simple to use and cost effective.

We recognise that many items registered under these exemptions are likely to be of a lower value than those that qualify as exempt under Clause 2, so I can assure noble Lords that the registration fee will reflect that. As I have said, the Government are taking into account a wide range of opinions. I reassure noble Lords that we recognise the intent behind the amendments and acknowledge that it is in no one’s interest to have fees that are unacceptably high. I hope that my noble friend will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw his amendment.

Ivory Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising this issue today. We touched upon it at Second Reading and noble Lords have referred to the letter from the Minister that we received in response to that. The noble Lord will know that we have considerable sympathy with the arguments that he has put forward this afternoon. The online sale of items containing ivory is undoubtedly the most difficult market to police. The Committee has already heard that the worst violations of existing restrictions take place online. It is a global trade, using global communications. As the noble Lord said, the poachers and middlemen have sophisticated communication networks, including codes and jargon to conceal the real nature of the goods being traded. This is happening globally, across borders. This is why, ultimately, we need a global response to close these markets down. It is an area for the UK Government alone to be effective in doing this.

We also know that, as the noble Lord said, we have limited resources to police these sales. This issue is covered in amendments to the Bill which we will come to later. I also like to think that the measures already in the Bill and the additional amendments we propose would at least bring the legitimate UK online trade under control. The requirement for exemption certificates; the need for registration and photographs; the oversight of professional institutions; the removal of the defence of ignorance for buyers and sellers and the tightening up of enforcement should help to deliver more watertight controls. I understand the argument about proportionality and we need to bear it in mind quite sensitively.

Although I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, I wonder if, at this time, we should let the current proposals run and then use the reviews we are proposing in later amendments to the Bill—for example, working with the National Wildlife Crime Unit and border police—to assess how effective the Bill has been. That would give us the opportunity to look at whether we still have an online problem. The onus is on the Minister to reassure the Committee that this is going to be effective in tackling online trade. Otherwise, the whole Bill will be effectively undermined if all the trade moves towards there.

I would like to think that the checks and balances are there. It may be that we have been proved wrong. I would like to hear more from the National Wildlife Crime Unit about whether it thinks it can manage within the existing constraints. If it feels it can do it, albeit it will probably need some extra resources—we are all well aware of that—then I am inclined to take it on trust at this moment. However, it is certainly an important issue to get right.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating this debate on whether to ban certain types of exempted, and therefore legally saleable, ivory items through online channels. The noble Lord has read out much of my answer already but it does bear repeating. From the very outset, the Bill was drafted with online and offline sales in mind. The Bill prohibits all commercial activities in ivory, regardless of where those activities take place, subject, of course, to the exemptions in the Bill.

Equally, anyone who breaches the ban, be it online or not, will be committing an offence and will face the same range of sanctions, including a criminal sanction of up to five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. There are a number of further provisions included in the Bill that will assist in tackling illegal online sales. It will be an offence to facilitate breaching the ban. Therefore, this would include, for example, a UK-based online sales forum which facilitates the sale by allowing sellers to advertise their item, make contact with buyers and accept payment.

In that example, those responsible for such online sales forums, which would include corporate bodies, would be found to be in breach of the ban if they could not show that they had taken reasonable steps to prevent an illegal sale taking place. These steps would include, for example, ensuring that the item for sale is exempt and had been registered or had an accompanying exemption certificate. We therefore expect such online forums to take all actions to ensure that they and their users act in compliance with the ban, in the same way that we expect offline channels to do the same. The Bill also prohibits the deliberate misrepresentation of ivory during a sale—for example, as bovine bone. This issue was raised by the noble Lord and it is very important. Both the seller and the buyer could be committing an offence if one or both of the parties knew or suspected that it is ivory.

Noble Lords will be aware that other items subject to restrictions, such as kitchen knives, are allowed to be traded online. Indeed, I am not aware of any item that is singled out for such a ban depending not on the legality of the sale but on the channel—that is, online or offline—through which the sale is transacted. We believe it would be disproportionate to completely ban the commercial dealing in exempt ivory items online and that it would shut off a relatively transparent means of monitoring the extent to which trading is happening online. As a noble Lord mentioned earlier, there are 2 million to 3 million items containing ivory and it would be utterly wrong to ban the sale or the legal trading of those items online. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord De Mauley pointed out, the auction houses use the online environment as a very valuable way of marketing the items they have for sale.

We agree that enforcement is extremely important. We cannot have online trading in ivory if we are unable to enforce properly. Online sales are a priority for the National Wildlife Crime Unit regarding the illegal wildlife trade. There will be much more on enforcement and funding in due course. However, this issue is so important that I will recommend that we write to noble Lords on enforcement, on what we can do in the online environment and on the resources we intend to put into that enforcement.

I turn briefly to the point raised by my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath about roulette balls. I understand that he has been in touch with officials about this and that they have written to him. These balls will be caught by the ban but, as was mentioned, there are alternatives. I hope with this explanation I have reassured the noble Lord that we have considered—and, indeed, are considering—the matter of online sales and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw the amendment.

Disposable Cups Ban

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Monday 21st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I think that we may need to look at our customs in the Chamber.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously we welcome the recent announcement that Parliament is going to ban single-use plastic cups, but has the department done any research into what proportion of the 2.5 billion disposable cups used each year are actually used in workplaces—that is, not on the go, when people take the drinks away, but by people who remain in one place all day? What is being done to roll out the example being developed in government so that all workplaces around the country are encouraged to use not disposable cups but the cups that we have known and loved for so many years prior to that?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

The noble Baroness is completely right that it is for businesses to join in the fight against the scourge of single-use disposable cups. However, an enormous amount of work is being done, with companies and retailers working together to reduce the number of cups used by deploying both the carrot and the stick approach, with either a charge or a discount. We welcome that. On the research mentioned by the noble Baroness, I do not know whether any has been done but I shall certainly write to her if any has.

Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the delay in introducing measures. If he had been present at other debates in which I have taken part, he would have seen that the progress Defra makes on legislation is a bit of a running theme and that we have had a bit of an issue with the department about it for some time. I will not dwell on that too much but I have some sympathy with his point.

I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining so clearly the intention behind these regulations. As she said, they form part of the Government’s littering strategy, which was published last year. Of course we welcome that strategy and share its objectives of cleaning up our urban and rural landscapes to make them better places to live and work—a theme that all noble Lords have echoed this afternoon. The strategy makes it clear that litter is not only an eyesore but hugely costly—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Street cleaning cost local government £778 million in 2015-16, and we can all think of better ways to spend that money. Clearly, dropping litter from vehicles adds to the overall litter challenge, so it is important—again, this is a point all noble Lords have made—that we create a culture where dropping litter is simply considered unacceptable and communities and individuals learn to value their local environment.

In principle we do not have a problem with extending to other councils across England the powers already granted to London councils to fine those who litter from vehicles. It is very clear from the consultation carried out by Defra that this extension has received broad support from the Local Government Association and organisations such as Keep Britain Tidy. However, I have a number of questions about the detail that I would like the Minister to address.

First, what lessons have been learned from the London experience? London has had these powers for five years but what discernible difference has it made? My noble friend Lord Bassam made a very good point in this regard. What are councils doing to take up these powers? Defra’s scoping study of November 2015 showed a marked reluctance from London boroughs to participate in a pilot study of the scheme’s effectiveness. As the scoping study identified:

“The London boroughs have been slow to enforce their ‘litter from vehicles powers’, but there is a lack of robust empirical evidence to help understand where the problems lie”.


At the time, a number of London boroughs basically said that they had other priorities and did not want to set up a new system for charging and recovering fines. In fact, it appeared that Wandsworth Council was the only one to actively pursue these new powers. So what is the position after five years? A recent study of appeals against vehicle-litter fines to London Tribunals found that Wandsworth was the only council that anyone appealed against. Of course, that might be because Wandsworth was particularly draconian, but perhaps it is more likely that many other London councils are simply not implementing the fines in the way intended. Therefore, can the Minister clarify how many London councils are using the powers and what lessons we are learning from those not currently doing so?

Secondly, in Defra’s Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies the regulations, it is recognised that the guidance on environmental fixed-penalty powers needs to be updated and clarified. The memorandum goes on to say that Defra intends to consult on the new guidance and have improved guidance in place before the powers in these regulations come into force in April 2018. It does not take a genius to say that that date is looming, so what progress is being made with this consultation? Will the deadline be met, and does the Minister think that this new guidance will go some way towards encouraging uptake of the new powers?

Thirdly, who will police these new regulations, and will it be acceptable for councils to outsource this responsibility? I ask that because the Minister may be aware of a “Panorama” programme aired last summer which showed that a private company, Kingdom Services, was employed as an environmental enforcement agency by around 28 councils around the country, dealing not with littering from cars but with littering in general. It paid its staff what it called a competency allowance, which amounted to a bonus for every littering incident at which they issued a fine. As a result, people were fined for ridiculous incidents—someone for pouring coffee down a drain, another for dropping and then picking up a piece of orange peel, and someone else for putting out their recycling on the wrong day. It was alleged that the company was working with the councils to fine as many people as possible and to profit from the income from the fines.

Does the Minister accept that the purpose of these new powers to fine those who litter from vehicles is not to add to the profits of councils but to change behaviours and keep the public on our side? That means rolling out the new powers intelligently and sympathetically. It also means that a high standard of reliable evidence has to be at the core of the scheme. Does she agree that for the new regulations to have public trust, the money from the fines should be used solely for further improvements to the environment and not for councils to make a profit?

Fourthly, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said, these provisions will allow for a fixed penalty to be issued with the lesser civil standard of proof. However, as I understand it, normal street-littering is dealt with under the criminal standard of proof—again, I may have got this wrong but I am sure that the Minister will clarify it—which includes the risk of criminal prosecution. Does the Minister think that having both a civil and criminal penalty for different sorts of littering in different circumstances can be justified?

Finally, my noble friend Lord Bassam mentioned the A27, which is an issue very close to my heart. I agree with him about what an eyesore it is. A number of noble Lords talked about littering in the countryside. How it is envisaged that the scheme will work in rural areas and on motorways? We all feel particularly affronted when we drive through the countryside and see litter left in the hedgerows and on the grass. Often, we know that it will be left there for a very long time. It seems unlikely that an enforcement agency would have the staff to police rural roads, but at the same time, the eyesore is even more powerful in areas of natural beauty. So do the Government have further plans to help clean up the countryside?

Also, am I right in saying that responsibility for litter on the side of motorways has transferred to Highways England? If so, will it have the same powers to catch and fine drivers throwing litter out of car windows, which again is a real blot on our landscape? Will the Minister clarify how that will work and what the Government’s target is, particularly for cleaning up the countryside?

I raise these issues not because I want to oppose the regulations—far from it—but because I want regulations that are effective and transformative. It is important that we learn the lessons from our experiences of tackling litter so far and that the new regulations really make a difference in the future. I hope the Minister will confirm that that will be the case. I look forward to her response.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what has turned out to be a fascinating debate, with some interesting points made. I will do my utmost to respond to all of them. However, as usual, if I do not I will write noble Lords a letter.

First, I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for his contribution today and his welcoming of these regulations. I agree with the noble Lord that this is a small step. There is no magic bullet when it comes to litter, but I hope that it is one step along the journey to making our country litter free. I also welcome the support that these regulations have received from my noble friend Lady Stowell, who made a very good contribution about it being everybody’s responsibility to stop littering.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about timing. I admit that these regulations are a little delayed. However, we have used the time since the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act achieved Royal Assent in March 2014 to carry out a scoping study into how the regulations were being used in London, and councils’ expectations or desires for a civil penalty system. We then developed and consulted on the draft regulations as part of preparing our new litter strategy for England. That is one reason for the delay. I hope that there will be no further delays when it comes to the department.

On the experience in London and the lessons learned, the slow take-up in London so far has been disappointing. I am surprised that London boroughs have not adopted these powers with more enthusiasm. I will certainly be on the case to my local councillor to ask exactly why this is the case. It is beholden on all of us as citizens to get in touch with our local councillors, because littering is a very important issue. Wandsworth is the only borough using the powers at the moment and we will take this opportunity to encourage other London boroughs to make use of the powers.

However, we are aware that there were some initial teething problems with these powers, which is why there may have been some delay. There was a problem with processing and enforcing payments. We have worked with the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and the MoJ to ensure that we have not replicated the problems initially experienced in London. We know that local London councils are using a mix of education and the threat of prosecution to change behaviour, and that is as important as fining people as they throw things out of their cars.

Fox Hunting

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Baroness Vere of Norbiton

Monday 17th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to legislate to lift the ban on fox hunting as set out in their 2017 manifesto.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, as my honourable friend Thérèse Coffey already said by way of a Written Answer on 3 July:

“The government’s manifesto includes a free vote on the Hunting Act 2004, but we are not planning to bring forward a free vote in this session”.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Reply. Obviously, the message is beginning to seep through that Theresa May’s support for hunting with hounds was massively unpopular on the doorstep in the election. The manifesto pledge to reopen the debate illustrated once again a party that is out of touch with the British people. The latest poll showed that an overwhelming 84% oppose fox hunting, which is widely regarded as cruel, inhumane and ineffective. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the ban on fox hunting is now here to stay for the long term and give a guarantee that any approach from the Council of Hunting Associations to reverse the legislation will indeed be rebuffed?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness for her continued probing, but I can say little more. Any decision or announcement on future legislative programmes will be made before the start of the second Session of Parliament in 2019. However, the Government acknowledge the high level of public interest in this debate and the strength of feeling on this matter on both sides of the debate.