European Union: Trade Barriers
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I hate to disagree with the noble Lord but the total value of imports of food, feed and drink from the EU in the three months to April 2023 was £10.6 billion, 11% higher than the three months to April 2022 and 34% higher than the three months to April 2018. Over that period, exports increased from £3.5 billion and were 4% higher than last year and 6% higher than the year before that. We are trying to introduce a system that is fair to importers and exporters and that protects our very important biosecurity.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend update the House on progress towards a sound and sustainable SPS system?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are making great progress. I can assure my noble friend that we are on the point of publishing more details on a system being brought in from October this year whereby products of animal origin will require an export health certificate. From January, they will be checked at border control points we have constructed. We are minimising the burden on business through risk categorisation, a trusted trader system and simplifying and digitising our network.
Water Industry: Financial Resilience
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
We think that the model that operates at the moment is the right one. We have seen more investment, but if the Government took back control, that would, in effect, put the onus back on the taxpayer. That would mean that I or the Secretary of State would have to get in the queue behind the health service, pensions, and all other areas of government spending to get the right levels of capital investment we need in the water industry.
We think that the £56 billion can be afforded at a relatively modest increase of around £12 per household. For roughly £1.20 a day, households receive the water they need and sewage and dirty water are removed from their homes, and there has been a massive increase in spending on the infrastructure we need, some of which is still in need of changes. Through this model, we have delivered a better outcome for the consumer and for the taxpayer. We have concerns, and I share the noble Baroness’s concerns, certainly about the issues relating to Thames Water and one or two other companies. Ofwat has been proactive in trying to resolve the concerns with those companies, and we are watching the situation very closely.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Water. My noble friend will recall that alarm bells rang some years ago when a number of water companies were based offshore in places such as the Cayman Islands, which seems singularly inappropriate. I congratulate my noble friend on putting in the statutory and legal effect that dividends and bonuses must now be linked to environmental performance. Does he imagine that that will have an immediate effect or will it take some weeks and years before it comes into force?
Farm Animal Welfare
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that the power to improve animal welfare lies in large measure with the consumer, and keeping the consumer informed is a key part of this. Therefore, in answer to her question, we received over 1,600 responses to the consultation, a summary of which is available on GOV.UK. Based on the evidence provided, the Government are continuing to explore options for improving and expanding mandatory animal welfare labelling, covering both domestic and imported products, and we will keep the House informed of our progress.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, while I applaud the high standards that farming communities and the Government have achieved on farmed animals in this country, does my noble friend regret the fact that we have not extended the same high standards to imports, particularly those from Australia and New Zealand through the free trade agreements? Will he give the House a commitment today that future trade agreements will insist on the same animal welfare and environmental standards for imports as are applied in this country?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Imports into the UK must comply with our existing import requirements. Products produced to different environmental and animal welfare standards can be placed on the UK market if they comply with these requirements. We are taking a tailored approach in each of our new free trade agreements. For example, pork, poultry and eggs were excluded from our agreement with Australia, and in our agreements with Australia and New Zealand, we secured non-regression and non-derogation clauses on animal welfare. This will be a feature of future agreements.
Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I support the remarks of my noble friends who spoke about the use of collars in livestock, but I will ask my noble friend the Minister a brief question. Why has the department provided an exemption for the use of e-collars by the Armed Forces? What was the basis for that? It would be helpful and interesting to have sight of the internal animal welfare standards and permissions of the Armed Forces if they are available.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the SI. He will be pleased to know that I am happy with it and have only a couple of points to make.
In contrast to the previous SI, this one seeks to protect animals from harm and amends the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Once implemented, it will ban the use of handheld devices and prohibit the use of electric shock collars. Anyone found guilty of using a handheld device will be subject to unlimited fines. This is quite clearly a good thing.
Defra conducted a public consultation in 2018. Most respondents supported a ban on all types of electronic training collar but some were in favour of retaining the ability to use them provided they did not deliver an electric shock. Animals quickly learn from these devices and they are useful in keeping animals safe near busy roads by keeping them contained in a restricted area. There is also an opportunity for their use in preventing dogs escaping and chasing livestock, as we have heard. Sheep worrying is a very serious matter—
REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument was laid before this House on 20 April 2023 and makes technical amendments to UK REACH. UK REACH is the retained version of EU REACH and is one of the key pieces of legislation that regulates the use of chemicals in Great Britain. This instrument is being made pursuant to powers in the Environment Act 2021. In accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, UK REACH maintains the core approach and key principles of the EU REACH regulation. Its primary objectives remain focused on safeguarding a high level of protection of human health and the environment.
This SI introduces two changes. I should make it clear from the outset that the changes do not affect the key principles of UK REACH. The first change this SI introduces is that it amends Article 127P(4B) of UK REACH. This provides an additional three years for businesses to submit technical information on the hazards and risks of their substances to the Health and Safety Executive. This extension applies to all grandfathered registrations and chemicals being imported from the EU under the transitional arrangements. Industry will now be required to submit technical information on the hazards and risks of substances that it manufactures or imports by 27 October 2026, 27 October 2028 and 27 October 2030, depending on the tonnage and toxicity. These dates are changes from 27 October 2023, 27 October 2025 and 27 October 2027 respectively.
This SI supports the work that we announced in December to explore an alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH in order to address the significant potential cost, estimated at between £1.3 billion and £3.5 billion, of obtaining or accessing the full hazard information required to meet UK REACH registration requirements. Work on the alternative transitional registration model is ongoing. In response to concerns about the potential costs, we are currently engaging with stakeholders, including NGOs, to develop an alternative transitional registration model for UK REACH that will help reduce the costs associated with obtaining hazard information, including from expensive EU REACH data packages, while still ensuring that industry remains responsible for the safe use of chemicals throughout the supply chain.
The model also aims to place more emphasis on improving our understanding of the uses and exposures of chemicals in the GB context, which will enable better targeting of regulatory actions. Extending the deadlines will provide certainty to industry so that it can avoid making unnecessary investments towards obtaining information for the existing registration model when that information may no longer be necessary under an alternative model.
I now turn to the second change that this SI introduces. It moves the timelines for HSE to complete its compliance checks to ensure that the information submitted by industry is of sufficient quality. These timelines have been moved in order to align them with the extended submission deadlines. We need to move the dates for these regulatory checks because the current deadlines for compliance checking, as set down in Article 41(5) of UK REACH, would otherwise fall before the amended dates for submitting the relevant information. HSE will now have to complete its compliance checks by 27 October 2027, 27 October 2030 and 27 October 2035, corresponding to the three extended submission deadlines.
This is the first time we have prepared an SI using the powers to amend REACH set out in Schedule 21 to the Environment Act 2021. We have followed all the safeguards we attached to those powers: we received consent from the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland; we consulted widely with our stakeholders on our plans to extend the submission deadlines; and we published a consistency statement alongside the consultation, as required by the 2021 Act. This provides the Committee with the necessary assurance that extending the submission deadlines is consistent with Article 1 of UK REACH.
Our assessment, as outlined in the consistency statement, demonstrates that the UK REACH regime will still be able to ensure a high level of protection for human health and the environment for three main reasons. The first is the information and knowledge on chemicals registered under EU REACH available to both the Health and Safety Executive and Great Britain registrants. Secondly, importers from the EU will continue to receive EU REACH-compliant safety data sheets from their EU suppliers, which will enable them to identify and apply appropriate risk management measures. Thirdly, the Health and Safety Executive has the ability to seek risk management data from other sources, if necessary, as it did when acting as a competent authority under EU REACH. This could include calls for evidence or using data from EU REACH and other relevant sources that can provide Great Britain-specific hazard and exposure information.
Alongside the public consultation, we also published a full impact assessment on extending the deadlines. The impact assessment was awarded a green “fit for purpose” rating by the Regulatory Policy Committee. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. The devolved Administrations were engaged in the development of this instrument and are content. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments did not report any concerns with this statutory instrument.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised four main concerns in relation to this SI and the ATR more generally, including whether the implementation deadline of 2024 is achievable; concern from stakeholders about weakening protections for human health and the environment; and concerns about the HSE’s regulatory function and the impact of the REUL Bill. As I have already commented, we are confident that UK REACH will still be able to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment. I will take the other concerns in turn.
In relation to the timeline for delivery of the ATR, this is a complex project. It is right that we take the appropriate time to develop the policy and test it with stakeholders. We are extending the transitional registration deadlines to ensure that we have a reasonable amount of time to do that. The earliest we can formally consult is the end of 2023, introducing legislation in 2024, and this remains our aim. The timetable is driven by both the technical and the sequential nature of the work. We are just coming to the end of an evidence-gathering project, including detailed interviews with companies including SMEs. Together with the new deadlines, this draft SI will give industry the time it needs to adapt to the new arrangements.
In relation to the HSE’s regulatory capacity, I am pleased to say that it continues to increase its capacity to take on new regulatory obligations. The HSE’s Chemicals Regulation Division increased by 46% between September 2020 and March 2022, and it has continued to build capacity over the last year. By 2025 the number of HSE staff working on UK REACH delivery is expected to grow to at least 50.
Finally, regarding the committee’s concerns about the impact of sunset provisions in the REUL Bill on this SI, I confirm that REACH was not on Defra’s list of retained EU law that it intends to remove from the statute book from 31 December 2023 following the retained EU law Bill becoming law.
I am confident that the provisions in these regulations mean that we will continue to ensure the highest levels of protection for human health and the environment, based on robust evidence and strong scientific analysis. At the same time, we are taking the necessary steps to provide industry with the legal certainty it needs to operate and to preserve the supply chains for the chemicals we depend on. For these reasons, I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity to debate the regulations, which I broadly support, and to share with him some concerns that have been raised—in particular, by industry.
I start with the last bit of what my noble friend said about the REUL Bill: that this is not currently on the Defra list of retained EU law that might be changed. Can he give us, and therefore industry, an absolute commitment that in the next two to three years there will be no attempt by Defra to amend or revoke this? When the REUL Bill, which is now in the other place, went through its initial stages, we learned that Defra has absolute power to review, amend and revoke any piece of primary or secondary legislation—I forget all the nomenclatures—on the statute book. We as a Committee, a Parliament and a House do not have the right to review that, so it would be fair to business to know that it is not within the sight, mind or intention of the department to amend or revoke within the next two to three years.
On 24 May my noble friend was kind enough to reply to a Question I tabled on REACH and maintaining compliance with the EU REACH programme. He repeated today that, as we speak, we do not know what the total cost of the statutory instruments and the measures therein will be. In his Answer my noble friend said that it will be £2 billion over six years, but he and the Committee will understand that it is not very helpful to those preparing—the NGOs and particularly the chemical firms involved—that the Government do not have an idea. He concludes by saying:
“Although values of chemical exports are increasing, this is not generally reflected in volume, suggesting that inflationary pressures are contributing to the figures”.
I do not expect my noble friend to be able to reply this afternoon, but I understand that the cost of paint went up hugely after the UK left the European Union and I wonder whether that is partly because of the instrument before us this afternoon and the fact that those who wish to export still comply with EU REACH and are now having to comply with UK REACH, albeit with the slight delay.
The UK chemical sector, represented by the Chemical Industries Association, was kind enough to brief me for this afternoon, and I will share with my noble friend and the Committee its concerns. It
“would like to stress the importance of urgently providing legal certainty to businesses. The current level of uncertainty around future registration requirements, expected timelines and related costs is currently not encouraging new market opportunities. While the proposal to extend the deadlines is much welcomed by industry, clarity on the viability of the future registration model will also be needed very shortly to allow sufficient time for appropriate legislation to be developed and for authorities and industry to implement it”.
When will the future registration model be available?
As regards the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I share its concern that the potential date of late 2024 is not achievable, because my understanding is that the Government are looking at a completely new design for UK REACH, including all the things that businesses are expected to do. Again, I ask my noble friend to put our minds at rest. If it is a whole new design, how, hand on heart, can he explain that the department will be in a position to complete it?
The CIA is also concerned that:
“In considering a different approach to registration, it will be essential to avoid a situation where compliance costs are simply shifted rather than reduced, for example from buying access to data under the current system to new administrative costs due to the work needed to generate a dossier under the new model”.
Therefore, I am sure my noble friend would accept that there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the registration costs can be minimised and that the industry needs to know a workable alternative registration model. The CIA is
“of the view that an effective UK REACH regime could be achieved even without requiring a full resubmission of dossiers for all substances already registered under EU REACH”.
I could go on—my noble friend the Minister is aware that I have tracked this issue for some considerable time—but I share the ongoing concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I thank it for providing its report in time for us to consider it this afternoon. My main concerns are that 2024 is not achievable and that the REUL Bill gives my noble friend and his department complete power in this field to revoke or amend this without any consultation of businesses or real scrutiny in this place.
With those few remarks, I look forward to hearing my noble friend the Minister’s response.
Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate these regulations. I generally support them, but I have a couple of queries. One relates to the 38th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which refers to a submission from Green Alliance that questions how the offsetting set out in the regulations will work and how Defra will ensure that
“the ability to offset obligations will not create incentives for producers to recycle potentially reusable packaging before it reaches the end of its useful life, to avoid paying producer fees”.
It is important to point out that this is a very complex area of policy that the Government are trying to roll out.
I received a briefing from the Food and Drink Federation earlier this year on its concerns about extended producer responsibility, which forms the crux of these regulations and is explained in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. The problem we face—as my noble friend is extremely well aware, having served, as I have, as an MP in the other place—is that every single local authority seems to have a different rule relating to how waste packaging is to be disposed of. There is then the problem of potential contamination, particularly if foodstuffs form part of the waste disposed of.
From the consumer point of view, it is a bit depressing to learn that, although hundreds of local councils collect household waste, each has different rules as to how it can be recycled, which bin to put it in and what consumers should do with their waste. Then they find that much of it is not recycled at all; it is incinerated. Years ago, when my noble friend and I served as shadow Ministers in the other place, I went on a visit to SELCHP—South East London Combined Heat and Power—which now is combined heat and power but at the time was not. It burned everything, but it did not do anything with the energy it could have recovered from the process. It was interesting to see that all the waste from Westminster at that time was not recycled; it was just burned.
The Food and Drink Federation has raised some very real questions, which I ask my noble friend to comment on in the context of extended producer responsibility. First, should we not have basic principles agreed at the outset by all concerned? That would include the producers of the packaging, the manufacturers of a product, the Government and the local authorities which are looking to recycle. Secondly, it asks: how should an extended producer responsibility be framed as it relates to local government, including the financing
“of potential stranded assets and management of existing local government contracts”?
How could those be managed as part of an agreed transition without hampering the development of what everyone wants to see: a long-term, world-class solution to enable the UK to reduce the cost and disruption of packaging?
Thirdly, the federation calls for “Partnership with industry” to bring about a producer-led extended producer responsibility that harnesses the considerable expertise arising from setting up these schemes all over the world. This would
“drive innovation and business growth while constraining costs”
that would otherwise
“lead to higher consumer prices”.
The example it gives is that of a biscuit wrapper, in which the flexible plastic used
“is specially designed to guarantee the freshness and quality of the biscuits in it. The companies that use this type of valuable, flexible plastic for biscuits and other food types need it back. But flexible plastics are neither collected nor recycled in the kerbside system today”.
Does my noble friend not agree that in a good end-to-end extended producer responsibility system,
“each biscuit wrapper thrown away should be collected and given a second life as part of a circular system, creating jobs and driving green growth along the way”?
That is my main concern, but the other concern the Food and Drink Federation has raised is the way in which the Government have created their producer-led scheme administrator. It seems to be different in this country from other models that have been used elsewhere. Why have the Government chosen the model that we have for extended producer responsibility?
While I support the regulations before us, there are obviously practical problems with the way they have been drafted. I think my noble friend said that these are amendments to previous regulations, which presumably came before the House as well. I realise that this is a complex area but it would be better, in one sense, to slow the process down and have regulations which are fit for purpose: for the consumer, so we know what we are doing when we dispose of the packaging; for the producer, so they know what they are doing when they create the packaging in the first place, and are held responsible for that packaging; and for the local authorities which collect and dispose of this packaging. I support the amendments but I would welcome my noble friend’s comments in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and welcome this SI, which is intended to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in circulation. This is long overdue and I look forward to seeing a lot less packaging from McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other fast-food outlets littering our town centres and rural countryside.
The SI makes provision for the collection of data about plastic packaging ahead of the full implementation of the regulations in 2024. I will read out in full Paragraph 7.1 of the EM, because I will be referring to it later:
“Extended Producer Responsibility … for packaging will require producers to take responsibility for the environmental impact of the packaging they supply by obligating them to pay for the collection and disposal costs of this packaging when it becomes waste. This will provide a financial incentive for producers to reduce the amount of packaging they supply and to improve the recyclability of their packaging”.
Hooray—and not before time.
The regulations, and the need to collect and report the data on the plastic packaging used, apply to those businesses with an annual turnover of £2 million and above. But the de minimis threshold turnover is £1 million, at which level the data has to be collected but not reported. Can the Minister say why this is? What is the purpose of collecting the data if it does not have to be reported?
Defra conducted a consultation with industry on the implementation of these regulations twice: first, from February to May 2019, when there were 679 responses; and secondly, from March to June 2021, when there were 1,241 responses—nearly double that of the earlier consultation. The first consultation was a general one while the second was more detailed and outlined the proposals to require producers to report twice yearly in April and October, covering a six-month period; it could be that that detail is what generated the greater level of response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, may I just follow up? I am trying to understand what he said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. If it is a closed-loop system and the waste is not entering the general household collection system, surely, producers should be exempt and be allowed to have their own system. My noble friend seemed to answer the question by saying that if it is general household waste collection, they could not save more than 75%, but, if this is a closed-loop system, should they not be exempt?
My noble friend referred to the EPR regulations which will come into force later this year. Will we be given a similar chance to discuss them, in a similar forum?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the latter point, I can certainly assure my noble friend that there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss them.
Producers will not be permitted to off-set their fees where the packaging in question is collected for recycling by more than 75% of local authorities. That assesses the type of packaging we are talking about and how it impacts local authorities. Where there is a closed-loop system, we think that is the right measure to take. The key reason for this is that we do not want to incentivise producers to start collecting their own household packaging for recycling where that packaging is largely collected by local authorities. We want significantly to increase the amount of consistent kerbside collections we are conducting and thereby create economies for these products where possible. It is really important that the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, be brought to the attention of my ministerial colleague and officials so that we can talk through its impacts.
Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 18 April. This instrument seeks to make amendments to the Animal Health (Miscellaneous Fees) (England) Regulations 2018 and the Animal By-Products and Pet Passport Fees (England) Regulations 2018 to ensure that there is no under-recovery or over-recovery of costs. These amendments do not contain any changes to policy or processes, only to the fees that the Animal and Plant Health Agency can collect on behalf of the Secretary of State in relation to statutory animal health services carried out by the agency.
The fees are designed to fund APHA’s front-line statutory animal health services for safeguarding animal health and supporting our domestic and international trade. These are: inspection of consignments and licensing of facilities involved in the trade of livestock semen, eggs and embryos; inspection and licensing of facilities involved in the handling, storage or incineration of animal by-products not destined for human consumption; inspection of live animals arriving from third countries at our border control posts; surveillance of commercial poultry flocks for salmonella; licensing and proficiency testing of private laboratories carrying out salmonella tests under our national salmonella control programme; and registration and approval of premises intending to export breeding poultry, day-old chicks and hatching eggs from Great Britain.
The proposed amendments also include the removal of the fees regime for pet passports, as APHA is no longer involved in the issuance of passports for the movement of pets to and from the UK and other countries. Following public consultation, new fees for these services were last introduced in 2018, with a commitment to businesses that fees would be reviewed biennially to ensure the charges and exemptions were appropriate.
Due to the agency’s focus of effort and resources on EU exit work, Covid and avian influenza, these reviews were put on hold and the fees for these schemes have consequently not been refreshed. As a result, businesses are being charged in a way which does not reflect full cost recovery for APHA. The schemes are failing to achieve recovery of their full costs, with a deficit of between £0.4 million and £0.5 million per year. This shortfall is currently being funded by the public purse.
Following the cost recovery principles of the Managing Public Money guidelines, APHA and Defra finance teams have developed a new fee schedule to deliver full cost recovery. No additional margins or profits have been included, and my counterparts in His Majesty’s Treasury have approved the approach taken.
The average increase to overall scheme fee income to achieve full cost recovery would be 51%. Given the substantive cost increases for some elements within the fee schedules, in designing this instrument we have balanced a proportional approach for businesses with the need to cover costs. We are proposing to follow the approach agreed in the 2018 consultation and apply a phased increase in fees over two years, with 50% of the fee uplift delivered in July 2023 and full cost recovery for the services delivered from July 2024. Border control post services are the exception to this phasing option. Here, we are proposing to increase fees and achieve full cost recovery from July this year. This will help us avoid any operational conflicts with changes that may follow the review of the new borders and boundaries fees process.
Delaying this uplift further would only increase the gulf between cost and recovery, and the impact of the changes would be even greater because of the impact of compounding factors such as inflation. APHA has continued to engage with business users and business associations on service performance and service fee schedules following the 2018 consultation, and these businesses are aware of the proposed new fee schedules and have engaged solely on service performance, rather than the fee increases themselves.
This statutory instrument applies to England only. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following a similar approach, as APHA provides the same services to both Administrations. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have laid their own corresponding legislation. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us. First, can he explain when the last consultation was? He said that there had been a consultation in 2018. Paragraph 10.1 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a consultation but seems to indicate that the last one was held in 2018, which is five years ago.
Secondly, these are huge increases. They are not 5% or 10%; we are looking at a 41% increase for the cost of animal by-products regulations, a 53% increase in the current fees of the animal health regulations, 65% for the animal health regulations relating to artificial breeding controls, and a more modest 21% increase for animal health regulations relating to the poultry health scheme. In the context of the general situation and the increases we have seen in public sector salaries, everyone balked at a 14% increase and 5% or 10% increases. I quite accept that, as my noble friend said, there has not been an increase since 2018, but these are huge increases. Can he put my mind at rest and say that there has been a more recent consultation with the industry, which is feeling fairly beleaguered?
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, referred to the cost of living crisis. What is becoming clear is that, while supermarket prices are going up, those increased costs are not being passed on to, for example, producers of meat and poultry. I am concerned. I realise that they are spread over two years but these are really big increases. If there has been a more recent consultation, I would be interested to know what the feedback from the industry has been in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important SI, which wraps two previous SIs up into one and deals mostly with the levying of fees.
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the fees will use the actual
“cost to the agency and are not uplifted using inflationary rates”,
and that “no profit element” is involved. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already said very eloquently what a large increase there has been in these fees. The fees also cover seven different service areas provided by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA, which is an executive agency of Defra. The fees have not been updated for some time, as the Minister said, with Brexit and Covid somewhat dominating the agenda.
Paragraph 7.3 of the EM gives details of how the costs will be calculated and the fees collected by APHA, stressing again that inflation will not be considered. I wonder whether this is wise. If there is no allowance for inflation, how will the true costs be calculated and passed on to those involved? An annual review—if not uplift—in fees is generally accepted in all other areas of life, so why not here? The Treasury requires, quite reasonably, that true costs be recovered. If there is no annual review of these fees and inflation is not to be considered, it is not going to be very long before a full-scale review is needed again. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Paragraph 7.9 of the EM, relating to border control posts, indicates that documentary and identification checks will be conducted by authorised vets
“to prevent the introduction of diseases harmful to animal and public health”.
This is especially important. However, we have had debates over the years, especially since the advent of Brexit, about the availability of adequately qualified vets to conduct this inspection work. This type of work is not high on British vets’ “must do” lists. It is nevertheless extremely important that these border checks be conducted and carried out thoroughly. Is the Minister confident that sufficient trained vets are available to implement the necessary checks?
I note that, in the instrument itself, there is a category on page 7 headed “Animals not covered by any other category”. Can the Minister say whether this includes Camelids—that is, llamas and alpacas? If not, where are they covered in the instrument?
Lastly, the uplift in fees will be implemented over a two-year period, as the Minister said, with some this year and the rest in 2024. The cost will fall on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies that have not had an uplift since 2019. It is to be hoped that they will be expecting this uplift. Whether they have looked at the fees listed in the APHA section of the Government’s website is another matter; I did not find my search of that website a terribly rewarding exercise. None the less, I am happy to support this SI.
Land Use Commission
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
My concern about a commission is that it would probably have to be a creature of statute. That would take time. We would have to have consultations and pass legislation, and another factor is the cost, which the report said should be similar to that of the Scottish Land Commission, at £1.5 million, and the Climate Change Committee, which is about £4.5 million. The most important thing is that Ministers want to drive and be held to account in both Houses on this very important piece of work. We are yet to be convinced about parking it with a commission, but I am happy to have further conversations with Members of this House to get to the bottom of that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned tenant farmers and graziers. When will the extent to which they will benefit from ELMS become clearer?
Lord Benyon (Con)
They are already benefiting from ELMS. We are working hard to ensure that they can benefit from not just the sustainable farming incentive but all the other parts of the schemes that we are bringing forward. Areas of countryside stewardship have always been a problem with landlord and tenant. We are trying to iron those things out and ensure that we are providing a future of support for all parts of the farming sector.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon and the opportunity to put one or two questions. He will recall the history of the attempt to frack—the use of hydraulic fracturing—in North Yorkshire, and that the one reason it was not allowed to happen was because no permit was given for the water supply and the reuse of water.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 36th Report, which says that Defra has no intention of revisiting that issue. Can I press my noble friend the Minister to ensure that there will be no end to the current moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in any part of England, to the extent that it might fall within the regulations before us this afternoon? If there was to be an end to the moratorium, can he give us an undertaking that the Government—whichever department it happened to be, as departments come and go—would actually come before both Houses with revised permitting, with regard to fracking?
I now turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, starting with paragraph 7.16 onwards, relating to groundwater activities and the use of geothermal and other green technologies. Could my noble friend explain whether, if there is a significant risk of introducing microbial pollution, no permit would actually be issued in that regard, whether it is close to a sensitive habitat or not? That is just to understand what the purposes of the permitting are. I understand, in the second paragraph of 7.18, that it does look as though this is going to become a regulated activity, so I would just like to understand entirely what the remit of the department in relation to the regulations would be.
On paragraph 7.22, and an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge into a sewer network, could my noble friend highlight specifically what activity is in play there? Obviously, there is a situation where there is a heavy rainfall and sewage can flow on to a highway and then into someone’s house. I understand that highways authorities currently have no responsibility for any sewage overflow, or do not contribute in any way to reducing flood risk in this regard. Is that a loophole, if you like, that the Government would like to close? Obviously, it is unfortunate at the moment that there are not sufficient sustainable drains in place and that there is no end to the automatic right to connect, which may mean that sewage flowing as wastewater from a four- or five-bedroomed house which has been given planning permission can come into a combined sewer and unfortunately spill into houses, either directly into an existing development, or off a highway. So there does seem to be this loophole that highways authorities are not covered. Is that what my noble friend means by an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge? I am just trying to understand what paragraph 7.22 of the Explanatory Memorandum would cover.
With those few remarks, I otherwise welcome the regulations before us this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks to this SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this instrument in April and raised concerns about groundwater quality and sub-surface energy proposals. As a result, Defra revised the Explanatory Memorandum. Those amendments helped to clarify the instrument, but I have some comments and questions.
As the EM states, groundwater “plays a vital role” for food manufacturing, brewing, wetland ecosystems and the agriculture industry, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. The quality and purity of this water is vital to many of these, especially chalk streams, the protection of which was debated last week during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This instrument indicates that it will update and clarify the existing control measures within the EPR for protecting groundwater from site-based activities. Will this include the discharge of chicken slurry into the River Wye, for instance, or is this classified as not groundwater but surface water? Perhaps those are the same.
Air Quality Strategy Consultation
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness knows how I hate to see her disgruntled, so I will see whether I can make her gruntled. The consultation was open for 10 days, the department received 434 responses in total and 97 local authorities responded—but that was not the totality of it. We have engaged with stakeholders, including local government, since December 2021; we have run a series of nine workshops to gain views and input from a range of stakeholders; and more than 30 meetings were held with internal and external stakeholders, as well as over 200 stakeholders from community groups, NGOs, academia and local authorities. This Government consult like no Government have before; sometimes, I wonder whether we consult too much, but in this case I think we have got this absolutely right and created a strategy that reflects what people want.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in relation to consultation and the London mayor, does my noble friend agree that the main cause of increased traffic congestion and the knock-on effect on air quality is the lack of synchronisation of traffic lights, which is driving not just London cab drivers but all London motorists to distraction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a point that cab drivers raise with me frequently. It is a serious point. As she knows, air quality is devolved to the mayor, who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of his policies. Undoubtedly, with ULEZ and other policies, this is causing tensions, but it is for him to answer. Our point is to help local government in all its forms to deliver. We are putting in money to assist local authorities in tackling air quality right across the country. London is the biggest challenge. That is why we work with the mayor when we can to make sure that we are achieving that in the capital.