Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on and thank her for bringing forward these regulations, which I wholeheartedly support; I also thank her for her clear exposition of what they contain. I have a couple of questions.

The Minister set out the responsibilities, particularly around informing households of what they are required to do. I understand that a lot of the waste that is contaminated cannot be effectively disposed of and recycled. Does the Minister know what percentage of household waste that constitutes, including whether it has gone up or down in, say, the last five or 10 years?

I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Green Alliance for the joint briefing that they have produced for our use. I am also grateful to the Minister for drawing attention to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which gave a very helpful background.

My understanding is that the regulations relate only to recycling. I wonder why the department has focused on recycling and not reuse. I have asked on a number of occasions both the Minister and her noble friend the Minister for Energy, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what the Government’s policy on energy from waste is. It is a good way of using household waste that has been contaminated and cannot be reused. It also prevents it going to landfill, which I understand is where most of the waste that is not recycled will go. So it not only reduces household waste and disposes of it in an energy-efficient way; it also provides an energy stream that other countries in Europe use to great effect. My late aunt and uncle in Denmark had their household heating provided by energy from waste at a reduced rate, so there was a community interest in taking it up. I have not heard anything from the Government—either this department or the department for energy—as to their views on energy from waste.

The Minister referred to kerbside collections, the cost of which is obviously quite high. I have now lost the page but one of the figures relates to the substantial cost of kerbside collections. Is it the idea that household collections will be performed by local councils, which will be reimbursed under the regulations by the funds raised? I think that the Minister alluded to this; that would seem very sensible indeed.

With those few remarks and questions, I commend the regulations, but I am interested to know how much will go to landfill; why the Government have not looked at reuse; what the percentages are for contaminated materials that cannot be recycled; and what the Government’s views are on any residual household waste going to energy from waste plants.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her extensive introduction to this long-awaited SI. This is a complex issue; it has taken Defra and the Government since 2019 to bring it to this stage. I congratulate both of them on managing to get the devolved Administrations to sign up to more or less the same scheme, which should make things easier. I have received briefings from various producers and had face-to-face meetings for several years, and I was beginning to think that we would never get here. I am grateful to those who provided me this week with briefing material, as well as to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its report.

The opening section of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to implementing the “polluter pays” principle. That is to be welcomed. This is an opportunity to use the extensive powers in the Environment Act 2021 in order to implement the best environmental outcomes and to support the efficacy of reuseable packaging systems.

This SI obliges producers to provide evidence of the type of their recycling to the regulator. However, there is no information on how this is to happen, except that those manufacturers with a turnover of more than £2 million and which produce more than 50 tonnes of packaging will do this once a year. These producers will pay the fees to local authorities. Those with a smaller turnover of more than £1 million will have to report their recycling type but will not have to pay fees. There is nothing about how the information is to be collected by the manufacturer and what the format is for it to be reported.

I regret to say that this is something of a “get out of jail free” card. Defra and the Government are placing a great deal of trust in those who will pay the fee to provide the evidence of their recycling. The regulations include the principle, at Regulation 62(2)(b), that producers can offset fees for packaging that they market, as well as where they collect and recycle that packaging through self-funded initiatives.

There is a risk that producers could claim they have collected and recycled packaging when this is not the case. Research shows that 70% of soft plastic packaging waste collected by supermarkets for recycling was, in fact, incinerated. Can the Minister say why is there no standardisation of how evidence of recycling is to be provided?

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

3rd reading
Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his engagement during the passage of the Bill and for the letter he sent me, which I read this afternoon. I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness opposite, because I raised the concerns expressed by the NFU and others that there is still a potential loophole that my noble friend and his department might like to address.

I press my noble friend on reaching a phytosanitary agreement with the EU, the absence of which has meant that poultry producers have lost £85 million in chicken exports to the EU. Poultry exports decreased in value by 69% in the first quarter of 2021. The additional costs and burdens that they had to meet amounted to £60 million in 2021 alone. Those costs are not met by the EU producers, as there are no border controls.

I applaud my noble friend for taking up the issue of labelling, which we discussed on Report. I urge him to ensure that, at the very least, consumers will be made aware that the food they might be about to purchase has been produced in an EU country or a third country and does not meet the standards imposed on our home producers.

Finally, I ask him to use his good offices to ensure that the potential of a first border control post on the EU continental mainland will be achieved at Hook of Holland, using and converting the equine facilities there. Can he use his good offices to ensure that the port of Harwich can be identified as a reciprocal port, to make sure that we have the possibility of a border post and that our food exports reach the EU in a timely and affordable manner? Can he also ensure that we have an SPS agreement with the EU at the earliest possible opportunity?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we are at Third Reading; I will be brief and will not ask questions. I thank the Minister for his good humour and patience during the passage of this vital Bill, which had total cross-party support from the most ardent animal rights supporters in the Chamber. Although some of us might have preferred amendments, it was essential that the Bill pass without delay, and I congratulate the Minister on achieving its speedy passage.

Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Report stage
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, following the debate in Committee and the Minister’s comments, I have retabled my amendment. The NFU, which represents the farming community, is concerned that the import of both live animals and carcasses of animals that have not been raised to the same welfare standards as pertained in the UK will undercut our own industrious farmers.

The issue of cheaper imports of live animals and carcasses for the food industry has been of constant concern to British farmers since the country voted to leave the EU. The benefit from the relaxation of rules and regulations promised as a result of Brexit has failed to materialise, and farmers are leaving their profession at an alarming rate. The quest for cheaper food at any cost is not a mantra that we should be signing up to as a country. Farming is not a job where you clock on at 8.30 am and clock off at 5.30 pm; it is a way of life, a vocation that involves a love of the land and growing crops and vegetables, and rearing quality livestock to high welfare standards to produce meat that consumers want to buy. The British public want to support our farmers. They do not want to see them undercut, disadvantaged and forced out of business by substandard imports.

The border control regime introduced recently is having an adverse effect on the food and farming communities. In my amendment, I ask that, six months after the Bill’s implementation, a review is undertaken to assess the effect of the measures in the Bill on our farming community. Coupled with the changes made with the rolling out of ELMS and the appalling weather we have suffered, there has been a detrimental impact on farmers. The Bill, which is so important for animal welfare and our country’s reputation for high standards for animal welfare, could be the last straw for many farmers. I urge the Government to agree to this amendment so that a review of the real state of the farming community can be carried out and action taken, if needed, to help support this vital element of our economy and landscape. I beg to move.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on bringing forward this amendment. While I will not support it at a vote, for reasons that were rehearsed in the previous debate, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look carefully at having a review of the impact on farming, for a number of reasons.

First, the noble Baroness referred to the importance of farming to rural areas and indeed the country as a whole. According to the figures prepared by the NFU for Second Reading, the United Kingdom is one of the largest livestock producers in Europe, with an industry that is worth £14.7 billion to the economy each year. Compared to the export of fresh and frozen meat, live export from GB is a small, but important, component of the sector. In 2020, the UK exported a total of 751 million live animals. As we know, now that there are effectively no border control posts in the EU, that trade is effectively not happening anymore.

In the letter that my noble friend very kindly sent to us following Second Reading, he states:

“The final destination for the vast majority of livestock exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland is the Republic of Ireland with around 1,800 cattle, 13,200 pigs and 352,000 sheep moved directly to slaughter in 2023”.


He went on:

“By comparison, only 11,000 sheep were exported for slaughter from Northern Ireland to continental Europe”.


He then states:

“There were no movements of livestock from Northern Ireland for slaughter or fattening to destinations beyond other parts of the UK and Europe”.


I take this opportunity to press my noble friend for any reassurance he can give the House that this is indeed the case. We debated this in Committee, and it was also debated in the other place. I am not convinced that the loophole does not remain. There is a possibility for even longer journeys than those that went through the channel ports, and that the category of animal covered by the Bill may be exported from the Republic of Ireland to the rest of the European Union.

My noble friend has always replied to questions from me and others about the reasons why there are no border control posts on continental Europe at this time. He quite rightly states that it is a matter of commercial interest for those ports. Surely my noble friend will agree that it is a matter of great commercial interest for those livestock producers who have spent generations investing heavily in the genetics of the breeding stock of the United Kingdom that, at this point, there is no possibility of exporting breeding stock for breeding purposes. I would like an assurance from my noble friend that this will resume at the earliest possible opportunity.

I would like to update the House on a briefing I have had from the NFU in this regard. This was at an earlier stage; there may have been further developments since then. The NFU states that there is a genuine will to establish a reciprocal route between Harwich and Hook of Holland. The Dutch port authorities, the NVWA, Stena Line and a commercial operator all want to press ahead. The NFU had heard that there was going to be a change in EU regulation that would allow an existing equine facility to be licensed and approved for ungulates, subject to the appropriate scheduling and protocols: full licensing and disinfection of the facility. I looked this up, and ungulates are mammals on the hoof, with which many noble Lords will be familiar.

The existing equine border control post in Hook of Holland has five stables and could accommodate consignments of about 10 cattle, 25 sheep or 25 pigs. If dual use is not possible, there is an unused area adjacent to the office area of the border control post that could be retrofitted with penning and a small handling system. If this was allowed to proceed, it would carry more weight to a modest border control post development at Harwich. I declare my interest in that I was the MEP for Harwich for 10 years, and I maintain an interest in the development of the port on a purely personal basis.

If that is the case, will my noble friend the Minister concede that it is now a matter of urgency to proceed with the creation of a border control post at Hook of Holland, where equine facilities could be converted in very short order? Will he use his and Defra’s good offices and lend their weight to such a proposal? I personally believe that it is unacceptable that this trade is not going on at the moment. It is clearly not a Brexit dividend and is really harming livestock production in this country. At Second Reading, the National Sheep Association informed us that, because of the lack of a border control post in the EU, most of the trade has simply not happened since we left the European Union. Therefore, the Bill is not necessary because it is not happening and it will not happen any time soon.

I conclude by pressing my noble friend on the figures and saying why I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, is right to press for this amendment. The figures for food and live animals are simply not clear. On a cursory glance of the UK trade figures from the Office for National Statistics, we are told that currently EU imports to the UK are £3.2 billion—which means the EU remains the largest exporter to the UK —and imports from non-EU countries are £1.3 billion. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is not clear in the figures what are live imports and exports, and what are clean or dressed pig carcasses or other imports. Those figures could be more greatly clarified than is currently the case. It would be very helpful if my noble friend was able to share that information today. If not, it would be enormously interesting if he could write to us.

Finally, it is a note of enormous regret that, while we have banned—for very good reasons—battery cage egg and poultry production in this country, we are now harming our own producers by importing eggs and poultry from third countries to the tune of billions. That is a complete own goal, and I hope that the Government will address it at the earliest opportunity.

Waste Enforcement (Fixed Penalty Receipts) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward these regulations and, in particular, on ring-fencing the money raised through the fixed-penalty receipts. I will raise one issue with him. If I have understood it correctly, this still applies only to public land. If so, this is a missed opportunity. In incidents of fly-tipping on private land, as I am sure my noble friend may be all too aware from his home estate, we are increasingly seeing an element of criminality, with people taking construction waste and literally dumping it on private land.

I worked with the Environment Agency when I was an MP and a shadow Minister in the other place. It has a very good mechanism of cameras in strategic places—I know it does not always want it publicised—which can catch the perpetrators of this crime to very good effect. That makes it much easier for it to bring them to book. My concern is that there was a very powerful response from the NFU, among others, and I am sure that the CLA and the TFA would have responded in the same vein. In its response to the original consultation, which is the basis of these regulations, the NFU asked for

“greater consistency across how local authorities, the Environment Agency and the police engage with private land managers who are victims of fly-tipping. We believe it should not be the sole responsibility of the land managers to deal with this crime, when it is a community-wide issue”.

I would like to understand why, if that was in the consultation, the department chose not to apply the regulations or ASBOs to private land and what the basis was for that. The NFU concluded that

“it is imperative that these proposals are not limited to fly-tipping and littering incidents solely on public land”.

I am sure that my noble friend and others in the Committee will have seen the graphic images on television of people now taking matters into their own hands because the Environment Agency and the police do not always turn up. There was a very good example of how these criminals can be apprehended—although there are dangers attached to this—when four vehicles hemmed in one van that was dumping on to private land all the materials to which I have referred.

I accept that there is an inevitable cost to local authorities and the Environment Agency in finding the perpetrators and, for public land, removing this material, but we are missing the fact that most fly-tipping is increasingly on private land. I would like to understand why it was excluded from this. If we are to go down the path of people individually trying to apprehend perpetrators on private land when they are in the middle of a crime, that will bring inherent dangers and I am sure the Government do not wish to encourage it. In the instance to which I referred—I cannot remember which part of the country it was—they apprehended the perpetrator and he was brought to book. The police attended and criminal charges followed.

I applaud everything that the Government are doing to make these regulations, firm up government policy and make sure that the receipts are ring-fenced, but the weakness is that most fly-tipping is on private land and we seem to have left that out.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the details of this SI on the fees received from fixed-penalty receipts for fly-tipping. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.

Fly-tipping is a scourge on our environment. During the passage of the Agriculture Bill there were several debates on the effect of fly-tipping on the farming community. Fly-tippers find it particularly easy to dump their spoils on droves, bridleways and open countryside, leaving the farmer to clean up the mess, often at considerable expense. The law is of no particular help to them. Local authorities issue fixed-penalty notices for littering and fly-tipping where they know who the culprit is, but this is often very difficult to ascertain. They are also able to issue notices for breaching the household waste duty of care. In this case it should be slightly easier to discover who the culprit is, but I wonder how often this power is used. Can the Minister say how many fixed-penalty notices were issued last year for breaching the household waste duty of care?

This SI is yet another example of central government adding to the burdens of local government. Subsection (5) of new Section 73ZA inserted by Regulation 2 of the SI is a good example of this:

“A waste collection authority must supply the Secretary of State with such information relating to its use of its fixed penalty receipts as the Secretary of State may require”.


Subsection (6) adds:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what a waste collection authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (2) or (3)”.


Subsection (7) of new Section 95A inserted by Regulation 3 inserts:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision … about what an authority must do with its fixed penalty receipts pending the use of those receipts for the purposes referred to in subsection (3) or (4)”


Subsection (8) states:

“The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(c) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the Secretary of State) other than the authority”.


It is clear that central government does not trust local government to conduct its waste-collection functions effectively or to have the best interests of its communities at heart. As we have local elections coming up in part of the country in May, I wonder how many political leaflets will say, “If you vote in this election don’t be surprised if we are unable to carry out any of the usual services you expect of local councillors, as central government is continually putting extra duties and restrictions on the way we can operate”. This is nothing more than a tax to be collected by local authorities and paid to central government.

The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that the SI will

“add a new list of qualifying functions for local authorities in England”.

This should, allegedly, mean that more enforcement will take place, resulting in more fixed-penalty receipts, which would reduce incidents of fly-tipping and function as a deterrent. The logic appears fine, but it takes no account of “first find your fly-tipper”. I will share with the Committee an example of the way in which illegal fly-tippers operate, although I am sure everyone is aware of this. Last autumn, as I went to the GP surgery for my Covid booster, I had to negotiate a huge pile of what looked like cedar tree prunings in the middle of a junction in the road. This was at 9 am in the morning. By the time I came back 40 minutes later, council employees were there with a truck clearing the mess away, and I stopped to speak to them. They confirmed it was likely to be fly-tipping by an operator who had persuaded a householder that they were a legitimate contractor who could do some work for them but who was, in fact, an operator without a licence. There was, of course, nothing on the pile of tree branches to indicate who the culprit was.

I am afraid that restricting what local authorities can spend their fixed-penalty revenue on is not going to prevent fly-tipping. A wholesale campaign to alert the public to the fact that everyone who removes waste from a property or business must have a licence to do so, and that they should ask to see it before parting with money, is really the only way to reduce fly-tipping.

Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 5th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these regulations. I have two quick questions.

First, throughout the Explanatory Memorandum, a key theme is the link between the regulations before us and the extended producer responsibility regulations. When might we expect to see them? The two fit quite closely together. I do not know whether my noble friend can give us a date, but I understand that those regulations will contain guidance relating to the ones before us.

Secondly, I looked up the cost-benefit analysis and if I understand it correctly, the costs are about £1,200 million per year, presumably to producers of the packaging —I do not know whether that includes local authorities—and the benefits are zero. If so, is that beneficial going forward, on the basis of that cost-benefit impact assessment?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informative introduction to this long-awaited and much-heralded SI. He will be relieved to know that, unlike the previous SI, I am not outraged by this one.

These regulations come into effect on 1 April 2024. Large producers must collect the data from 1 January to 30 June this year but may not have to report it. However, all must collect and report the data from the commencement date of 1 April to 30 June, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. It is not clear what the large producers are expected to do. Can the Minister provide some clarification?

The Environment Agency will provide the necessary guidance for this SI. Why is it necessary for the EA to do so? Why is Defra not doing it? The EA is already under-resourced and under pressure, with a wealth of other duties. Surely Defra, which has increased its staff considerably in recent years, could have produced this guidance for what is, after all, a government policy objective.

These regulations relate to the extended producer responsibility scheme, as the Minister said, whereby producers will pay a tax for the amount of packaging they release on to the market. However, information about the cost will not be available until the producer responsibility, packaging and packaging waste regulations are produced. Smaller producers are particularly affected by not knowing the likely level of fees, and cash flow is a vital element of their businesses. I am sure the Minister is ready for the next question and will have a substantive answer. Exactly when will these regulations be published? Without them, the exercise we are going through today is somewhat meaningless.

I fully support these regulations, which should help considerably to eliminate plastic and other non-compostable waste from our environment. I have been contacted, as I am sure have others, by the Federation of Wholesale Distributors. It too is wholly supportive of the regulations but has a couple of reservations. usbIt feels that it is essential that the Government and the Environment Agency work with the sector on the types of products that will be classified as household waste. Can the Minister give a reassurance on this issue? The FWD is also keen to see continued collaboration between the Government and the wholesale sector to ensure that EPR remains a pragmatic and inclusive policy. I fully support the FWD in its aims and objectives. It is only by working together that a solution which suits all will be found and, therefore, be successful.

Agriculture (Delinked Payments and Consequential Provisions) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Wednesday 13th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing these regulations before us this afternoon in what has been a particularly busy week for him at COP 28. Most of the concerns that I was going to raise regarding the potential for regulatory gaps have been covered at some length; I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for that. I am delighted to follow the noble Earl, who also resides in North Yorkshire.

I am a frequent visitor to the mart at Thirsk. I have a small number of shares in it; no one else was going to buy them so I thought that they must be good value and that I should buy them. I suppose that I must declare an interest: I have one lot—not a lot but one lot—of shares in Thirsk mart, of which I am immensely proud. North Yorkshire has one of the two largest fat-stock marts in the whole of England and plays a pivotal role in livestock production, not just in the north of England but in Scotland and other parts of the UK. The message that I get from farmers when I visit the mart and other parts of North Yorkshire is that they are deeply concerned about one aspect of the changes being made. In preparing for this SI, I consulted the Tenant Farmers Association in particular, which believes that the Government have carried out what they committed to do in implementing the regulations in a way that protects the value of payments to tenant farmers. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that that is one of my main concerns.

Increasingly, however, whether they are landowners, tenant farmers or farmers on small family farms, farmers need certainty and clarity—this is the point that I think my noble friend the Minister must tell us—about when we are going to have more detail on the sustainable farming initiative. That is what is holding back a lot of investment that might otherwise be made. In his introductory remarks, my noble friend clearly stated that the delinking and the new payments that he is bringing forward through these regulations, which are welcome for the most part, mean that farmers face a situation where direct payments will be phased out before they know the real content of the SFI and all the other payments. I leave my noble friend with a thought—indeed, a plea. Can we have this information and the details at the earliest possible stage, either in another SI or just in some document that he can release to all the farmers affected?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, set out her arguments extremely well and I agree with the comments she has made. While the Government gave sufficient notice of their intention to delink payments from the BPS, there are some issues which need probing. Having said that, I support this SI. I am grateful to the Wildlife and Countryside Link, ClientEarth and the NFU for their briefings. I have also read the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s third report, which covers this issue.

The whole thrust of the Government’s funding for agriculture has been to move away from BPS and on to ELMS. I welcome this, as a system which rewards farmers simply for the amount of land they manage does little to encourage innovation and environmental schemes. However, I was slightly concerned to find in the Explanatory Memorandum that delinking payments from ownership of land could, in Defra’s words, mean that:

“There will be no requirement for the recipient to continue to have land”.


I understand that the delinked payment relates to activity that has been conducted in previous years, but if the farmer does not have or rent any land, how is he or she contributing to agriculture and thus entitled to a payment into the future? The SLSC asked Defra the rationale for delinking financial assistance from ownership or use of land. Defra’s answer covered phasing out the BPS and referred to the consultation conducted in 2018. However, I am afraid I did not feel that the question asked by the SLSC had really been answered.

The Rural Payments Agency is calculating the delinked payments, as it has all the information to hand on what farmers have been paid during the relevant years. I was somewhat dismayed to see that, should a mistake in calculating the delinked payments be made, Defra would recover any overpayments with interest. It is not so long ago that farmers were really struggling to make ends meet, due to the RPA being extremely tardy in making payments to farmers, sometimes with extremely lengthy delays. I do not remember that farmers received any interest on their income which was delayed by the RPA, despite it causing severe hardship in many cases. While it is important to taxpayers for overpayments to be recovered, the mistakes are likely to occur with the RPA calculating the payments, not with the farmers. A level playing field is needed for this new system to operate fairly.

I turn to the removal of cross-compliance, which has been covered very adequately by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. This had been clearly trailed in the agricultural transition plan. However, there are concerns that there could be regulatory gaps in this cross-compliance, including soil, water, air and landscapes with hedgerows and stone banks. All these are key elements of the rural environment and farmland. I am sure the Minister will tell the House that the majority of rules under cross-compliance are already in place in UK law. However, to quote the Wildlife and Countryside Link:

“‘Majority’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this explanation”.


Defra believes that the code of practice for plant protection and the sustainable farming incentive are sufficient to protect cross-compliance, but many of these do not apply to all farmers. While many farmers will wish to comply voluntarily with the code of practice, there will be others for whom their economic situation may mean they choose to ignore compliance. As Defra was not able to produce a full transition plan on farm regulation on upholding regulatory protections, can the Minister please tell the House just how environmental protections will be secured, especially when hedgerows and stone banks are key habitats for those species of mammals, reptiles and birds that are at risk and on the list of possible biodiversity loss?

Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[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—

Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Monday 5th June 2023 Grand Committee

[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.

Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Monday 5th June 2023 Grand Committee

[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.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Monday 22nd May 2023 Grand Committee

[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.

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

3rd reading
Monday 20th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Purvis, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here this afternoon. We thank the Minister for his comments, as well as his patience and expertise during the passage of this Bill. We thank the Bill team for their help and support, as well as the Labour Front Benches and Cross Benches. We also thank Elizabeth Plummer in the Liberal Democrat Whips’ Office, without whose help I do not think that my noble friend Lord Purvis and I would have been where we are today. We support the passage of the Bill and thank the Minister for his help.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on steering his first Bill successfully through the House—my congratulations go too to the whole Bill team. I am grateful to him for the time he took at every stage to talk me through. He knows of my disappointment that the Scottish Government have withheld their consent, and that this is not the deal that the British farmers would have hoped for; but we live to fight another day and I look forward to future trade Bills coming through.

Plant Health and Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for introducing these regulations, which I broadly support. I have just a couple of points of interest.

I know my noble friend has visited—sometime last year, I think—Fera, based at Sand Hutton near York, which used to be in my constituency. I take this opportunity to praise it for the work it does. Presumably it will have a role to play in identifying any pest and the danger it might hold.

I would like to focus on the position of the Lebanese potatoes to which my noble friend referred. I think the regulations call for demarcation and for controls to be taken at the point of entry. On paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum, I sympathise with the department for the errors it has made and welcome this opportunity to correct them. It begs the question: if we are transposing these regulations into UK law, will they be subject to the retained EU law Bill? Will we ask Defra to lift them? I would be interested to know why we are being asked to look at them this afternoon if they are to be reversed later this year.

I know that it is a slightly separate issue, but it is very difficult to follow the retained EU legislation from looking at the dashboard. Defra does not appear in alphabetical order but has just shy of 1,800 regulations. I know that we in both Houses were involved in transposing these regulations into UK law, but Defra bore the brunt of the 2,700 or 4,000 regulations. I thank the officials for the work they did over a very intensive programme.

Paragraph 7.9 refers to ensuring

“that potatoes from certain regions of Lebanon meet stringent entry requirements.”

Did the checks take place at the port of entry? What is the normal entry route for these Lebanese potatoes? Do they come directly from Lebanon or through the EU? That is my first point of information. If they come through the EU, which is a strong possibility, I draw attention to the concern that the Food Standards Agency raised in its most recent annual report, Our Food 2021: An Annual Review of Food Standards Across the UK, which states at paragraph 8 on page 13:

“The UK Government recently announced that full import controls for goods coming from the EU to Great Britain would be further delayed and replaced by a modernised approach to border controls by the end of 2023.”


I am trying to understand whether that really is the case. If it is, it will put a huge onus of responsibility on local authorities. For information, I would like to know where the entry and route into this country is.

I also raise a question my right honourable friend Kit Malthouse asked in the other place. Ash dieback has taken hold of the country. I think my noble friend will confirm that we have ended the practice of exporting ash seeds and reimporting young saplings into this country from regions such as Denmark and Poland, in which ash dieback is rife. Kit Malthouse asked about ash dieback on Wednesday 25 January when this instrument was debated in the other place. It again begs the question: where are ash trees, whether saplings of bigger trees, being imported to? Where do the checks take place? That is crucial to ensuring that any diseased trees among these imports are taken at a very early stage.

I commend these regulations because there is an animal or plant scare or scandal roughly every 10 years. I think of BSE, foot and mouth, horsegate and, this year and last year, avian flu. The regulations provide the department with the tools it needs, but I have raised concerns that I hope my noble friend will address.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for setting out the rationale for this statutory instrument so clearly. It apparently addresses failures of retained EU law to operate effectively following Brexit. It also corrects some errors in previous SIs, including ensuring that potatoes from Lebanon meet stringent entry conditions. Perhaps the Minister can say whether potatoes from Lebanon were entering the country without being properly monitored before this SI was laid.

Corrections are also needed to the Trade in Animals and Related Products (Amendment and Legislative Functions) Regulations 2022, or the TARP (ALF) as they are called. These ensure the transfer of functions from the EU to appropriate GB authorities, with a change to establish specific rules on imports of equine animals from third countries. Corrections in Regulation 7 in part 2 of the instrument before us deal with the import of potatoes, while Regulation 8 in part 3 deals with the errors in TARP (ALF).

Trade (Australia and New Zealand) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage
Monday 23rd January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, who moved so eloquently his amendment. I lend my strong support to his Amendment 3, which encapsulates a discussion that was held at Second Reading by a number of noble Lords around the Chamber and previous legislation that we debated a year or two ago. I warmly welcome my noble friend the Minister to his place and am glad he has the opportunity to present this Bill in Committee.

It was very clear that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should have a role, and that the timing and sequence of that role in relation to trade agreements, or in this case procurement agreements, is absolutely vital. I look forward to my noble friend’s response to Amendment 3 and the other amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lennie. I particularly associate myself with Amendment 3.

Amendment 7 in my name is a probing amendment. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Department for International Trade’s impact assessment for this free trade agreement, particularly page 32, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, also referred. Having been in touch with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, I accept that it will be a beneficiary of this agreement going forward, provided that a chapter is included after the association agreement. It harks back to when we joined the European Economic Community in 1973 and were told that we would get cheap booze. Here we go again; it seems to be a relic of that time.

What is stark about table 3 on page 32 is the figures on food. Agriculture, forestry and fishing will take a change of minus 0.35%, a tumble of £48 million over 2019 figures; and, furthermore, semi-processed foods will take a tumble of 1.16%, which is a £97 million fall in equivalent growth value added. What is the issue that this Government have with farmers’ role in producing food, particularly in increasing the level of self-sufficiency? We are hovering around the 60% mark. Given the fact that we have a war on our borders, it is absolutely vital that we look to improve our food self-sufficiency. This has been recognised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, who remarked at the time of the leadership contest hustings last summer, which seems an awfully long time ago:

“We know that farmers are concerned by some of the trade deals we have struck, including with Australia. A Rishi Sunak-led Government will make farmers a priority in all future trade deals … We will maintain the highest standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and food safety.”


The problem that I have with the procurement aspect of the Bill—and with the Procurement Bill itself and the trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand—is that it is completely asymmetrical on farming, forestry, agriculture and processed foods. As the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, suggested, this goes to the safeguards. Normally, we have infinite safeguards: they are not time-barred. The noble Lord referred to these being between 11 and 15 years in length. For what reason are these safeguards time-barred? This breaks with tradition in other trade agreements, procurement agreements, or whatever the Minister wants to call it. It has been incredibly difficult to table amendments, so I really feel quite pleased that I have an amendment that passed go on this.

The reason that I referred particularly to lamb and beef in proposed new subsection (1) in Amendment 7 is that they are the two sectors where our farmers stand to lose out. Also, for 18 years I represented an area next door to where these are the prime products, and I grew up in the even more upland area of Teesdale. I am concerned about these two products in particular, as well as the other £48 million that we are going to lose in this sector.

We were told at the time of the general election that our food standards in this country would be respected, and not lowered for imported food. For what reason are we seeking to reverse that commitment given in 2019? In the next group of amendments, we will talk about the concerns of the Food Standards Agency, which were flagged up in its annual report for 2021—but why should we accept products, particularly lamb and beef, that do not meet the production and food safety standards in this country, and why are we not having permanent safeguards instead of those that are time-barred? I have a further question before I get too carried away: why are the tariffs harmful to British farmers and favouring New Zealand and Australian farmers?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not being present during Second Reading. At that time, I was suffering from Covid and was confined to my home. Noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am now recovered and testing negative.

Amendments 7, 9, 15 and 17 in this group deal with the impact on British farmers and the environment. I will speak to Amendments 15 and 17 in the name of my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, to which I have added my name and which relate to the chapters on farming and the environment.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage
Monday 12th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I rise more to inquire than to support particular amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for tabling his amendments. I imagine that they are probing amendments, and that is the spirit in which I wish to address them. I declare that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association, and I am grateful to it for the briefing that it has given today.

The first question I put to the Minister for my better understanding is what the difference is between cloning an animal and gene-editing an animal or animal product. I did not follow it that closely, but I was very proud that my alma mater, Edinburgh University, was the first university in the world, I understand, to clone an animal—Dolly the sheep. However, it was not entirely successful as I understand she had a very short life. Obviously, one has to ask whether the reason for her curtailed life was that she had been cloned and not produced in a normal way.

The BVA brief that I have received today states:

“Prioritisation of animal health and welfare is essential, as is the use of adequate product labelling to enable transparency and consumer choice”—


I know we will come to those amendments in a different group. In particular, the BVA states, and I support this:

“Breeding and genetic modification must be used in an ethically responsible way to improve animal health and welfare, increase efficiency, and support sustainable agriculture.”


It goes on:

“The Bill is misleading and proposing deregulation based on the incorrect premise that ‘traditional breeding’ results in characteristics which can be assumed ‘safe’, and therefore gene-edited organisms which produce the same outcome are also ‘safe’. This ignores the potential for mutations.”


The Bill has “precision breeding” in its title, but this group of amendments goes to the fact that it can never be precise, because we can never be sure of the consequences, so perhaps it should be called the “imprecise breeding” Bill.

The reason that I am tempted to support a number of amendments in this group, particularly Amendment, 1 is the very fact that it states that,

“‘directed bred organism’” means a directed bred plant or a directed bred animal.”

It is important to understand in what way that plant or animal has been directed and that there is scope for an imprecise outcome, an unexpected outcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I am full of awe and praise, with his widespread knowledge and, even more, his experience, said, we could be creating something of which we cannot control the outcome. I am not saying that I stand in the way of that, but I would like better to understand what it is.

There was a news story last night about a little girl whose cancer had not been cured until they came up with a gene-editing formula. They edited genes and implanted them in her, and it looks as though she may now have a cure. However, we are at the very early stage of these procedures, as I understand it, and I believe that there is some sympathy still for the view that the European Union took, which is widely criticised in this House and the other place. Probably the reason that the European Union and its institutions overreacted was the widespread fear among consumers. I think that fear is still there. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has tabled a number of amendments which we will deal with in another group and with which I have a degree of sympathy. As I said at Second Reading, if this procedure, this form of breeding is so good, why can we not be told about it on labelling? Why should consumers have the barrier of having to go to a register? With those few remarks, I support the thinking behind some of the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present at Second Reading. I had a hospital appointment and, having waited some time for it, did not want to postpone it for what could have been another three months. I did, however, watch the debate on Parliament TV and will make a short contribution.

The noble Lord, Lord Winston, made a very valuable and knowledgeable contribution in seeking clarification on the definitions within the Bill. It is important that we all understand completely what the Government mean by the various terms and what the outcomes will be, especially if there are likely to be unintended consequences. It is the role of this Chamber to ensure that there are no unintended consequences or mutations in the future, and that the quality of life for any animal so produced needs to be good. That was not the case with Dolly the sheep. It is important that the phrases used in the Bill are easily understood by those who will affected by its implementation. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, the results of previous debates on GMOs received a bad press, which did the science no favours at all.

In Amendment 86, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also seeks clarification. She wishes the Title of the Bill to be changed so that the somewhat anodyne phrase “Precision Breeding” would be replaced by “Genome Editing”. I have sympathy with this proposed alteration, as I believe that phrase is more accurate and more likely to be easily understood by the public than “Precision Breeding”. The Bill is, after all, intended to modify and edit the genome of plants in a shorter timeframe than would normally happen. Being married to an aeronautical engineer, for me, and possibly others, a phrase such as “precision engineering” conjures up an entirely different picture than the thrust and purpose that the Bill has. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this short group of amendments, which sets the tone for the rest of our debate today.

Restriction of Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (Exemptions) (Fees) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for presenting this statutory instrument. I read very carefully the conclusions of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and will go through some of the issues with this Committee this afternoon.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out very clearly at paragraph 10.1 that a six-week public consultation was conducted which closed on 26 August. That is normally considered a holiday period. Certainly it is when I have always taken my holidays, as I tend to go to northern Europe and that is probably the last bit of good weather and bright sunshine that we might expect. It was a short six-week consultation; I think they normally last 12 weeks. Was there any reason why the consultation was shorter and not carried through to September, which would have given people more chance to respond?

Fifty-three of the 54 respondents objected to the line that the Government took. I will not read it out because it is there and everyone will probably say the same thing this afternoon, but I wonder why the Government overruled those who bothered to reply.

My noble friend said of paragraph 16 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s response that this is not a potential loophole. I would like to understand why he and the department think that. If Northern Ireland, which is still part of the single market, can export these products to the rest of Great Britain, which is not, and those in Great Britain have to pay the fee, that gives those operators in Northern Ireland a commercial advantage, if I understand this correctly. I would like to understand the background to why my noble friend thinks it is not a loophole or a commercial advantage to the Northern Irish.

Previously, in its conclusions, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee confirmed that there is no payment for Northern Ireland operators and that 53 of the 54 responses were negative towards the Government’s position. I underline the uncertainty in paragraph 14 of that scrutiny committee report, which says that the view the department has put forward

“creates uncertainty and may be inconsistent with the Department’s declared intention to have a GB-specific, cost-recovery based system for exemptions.”

I take this opportunity to press my noble friend on that.

I have one last question. What will the position of this statutory instrument be under the retained EU legislation Bill? Are we coming back to revisit this, or is this the last time we will look at this statutory instrument?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on this statutory instrument.

Previously, applying for an exemption for the use of certain hazardous substances was handled and organised, and the cost was picked up, by the EU. After Brexit, the cost was picked up by the UK taxpayer. The Government are now moving the cost from the taxpayer to the businesses which are required to apply for exemptions. Not surprisingly, those businesses are balking at this additional cost where previously there was none for the same service.

As the Minister said, the fee that Defra is implementing to be payable is £39,721. At the same time, the Secretary of State will publish a charging scheme of fees and how they will be reached. The fee set out in the instrument will operate from April 2023, when the new scheme of charges will also become operable. There is no indication at this time whether those charges will be higher or lower, only that they will be on a full cost-recovery basis.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, Defra held a six-week consultation on the fee being introduced in this SI, which ended on 26 August. Of the 54 responses received, 53 disagreed with the consultation proposals. This is the first time that the businesses concerned have been expected to pay for exemptions.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, asked a number of questions of Defra on the SI. The exemptions cover such items as the use of lead in portable emergency defibrillators and the use of mercury in intravascular ultrasound imaging systems. This is vital to the health service and a number of us at all levels, because of the effects on the health service, on which we are completely reliant.

The fee is to cover the cost of a consultant’s fee in assessing the application and whether the product is safe and fit for use. Regardless of whether the application is a renewal or a new exemption, the fee to be applied is the same. There are 23 existing exemptions that would require an application fee to be paid when they are next renewed.

Four businesses consulted were concerned that specialised items provided in low volumes but subject to the application of a fee might not continue to be supplied in GB due to the cost. This would have a significant impact on some medical technologies. Given that some of those businesses supplying this equipment and needing an exemption certificate are small and medium-sized businesses, the cost is likely to have a negative effect. Can the Minister comment on this?

The Northern Ireland market, as both speakers have said, is not subject to these regulations as it still operates under EU rules. No fee is therefore charged there. This SI applies to England, Scotland and Wales only. Can the Minister say whether it is likely that some devices might appear illegally on the Northern Ireland market, not subject to a fee, and then be sold on to England, Scotland or Wales? I understand the Minister says that this is not likely, but this is a loophole in the system whereby no fee would have to be paid for a separate GB exemption; the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also referred to this. Would it not be better if the same system applied to the whole of Great Britain, including Northern Ireland? Would the Minister care to comment on that?

Agricultural Holdings (Fee) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the content of these regulations and thank my noble friend for presenting them. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Rock and all those who contributed to the review that she conducted.

It is a little disappointing that my noble friend says that we will have a response only “in due course”. We owe it to the tenanted sector to have a response in real time and a date when that might be due. I regret that I cannot remember whether it is Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancies that are for one year only or more, but I know that the Tenant Farmers Association has expressed concern that where a tenancy agreement is for only three or five years, it is simply not long enough for tenant farmers to make the required investment.

This is an issue very close to my heart. I grew up in an tenanted area in the Pennines where there are smallholdings—mixed farms with not a great deal of land. At one stage my brother and I farmed two fields, but I could not stand the excitement so he now farms them in his own right. My late father is no longer there to look after all the admin for us, so my brother is in sole charge as the owner of those two fields. These smallholdings are very dependent on spring lamb and stall cattle, that is bringing young beef on and fattening them up. Marts such as at Middleton-in-Teesdale, Kirkby Stephen, Thirsk and Skipton are very dependent on this.

I argue that, if anything, there will be more call on these advisers. I accept that there has not been a review for five years. It could be argued that the fee is almost double, but I think it is a reasonable level. No one has corresponded with me to say that they will not be able to pay this.

I understand that 60% of all land in England is farmed by tenant farmers. Certainly in North Yorkshire, where I was an MP for 18 years, 48% of the farms are tenanted. This is a very big sector, so I would like to press my noble friend by asking whether the fees will cover all eventual disputes in this area. For example, will they cover potential eviction from the tenanted farm if the fee could be used to be represented in an arbitration procedure?

Similarly, the landowner may seek to take back the farmland if they wish to plant trees, for example. I know that my noble friend and the department are very keen on that but, from what we have seen in Cumbria and Wales, it is not always ideal to be taking land that has been actively farmed—particularly when our food supply chains are under pressure of being in an emergency situation, as we hear this morning, with the NFU calling on the Government to take urgent action in that regard.

My heart goes out to tenant farmers at this time. The fees proposed in this statutory instrument are affordable given the increase that the Government are seeking. I welcome the fact that there could be a five- yearly review; I think I saw that in paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum. Can my noble friend say in precisely which circumstances the fee would be applied and assure us that the tenants will have recourse to a professional authority in the circumstances that I outlined?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on this statutory instrument. The essence of the instrument is to increase the fee charged when a dispute arises around a tenancy agreement between a landlord and an agricultural tenant. This is then referred to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 for arbitration where the fee is charged.

I note that the requisite fee has not been increased since 1996 and agree that it is necessary to set it at a realistic level. I also agree with the regulations and, I assume, the fee being on a cost-recovery basis, to be reviewed every five years. This seems sensible. The previous fee was £115; however, the proposed fee of £195 seems to have been set in 2019 by Defra. If that fee is intended to be on a cost-recovery basis, it is already three years out of date and inflation has not stood still in the intervening years.

The consultation undertaken by Defra received a favourable response, with 73% of respondents agreeing to the update and the proposed fee. The Explanatory Memorandum refers in paragraph 12 to the impact as “a relatively small increase”. This is somewhat true in that £195 is not a huge sum but it is, nevertheless, a 70% increase on the fee previously paid. If the fee were to go up by 70% every five years and be linked on a cost-recovery basis, those involved might not be quite so keen to agree to it.

Given that some holdings will have cross-border implications, can the Minister say whether the devolved Administrations are likely to be charging the same level of fee for arbitration as England? I was not entirely sure from his remarks whether that was the case. If not, and there is a difference in fees, that would cause some problems.

Lastly, like the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I refer to the Rock review on farm tenancy. There is evidence that in some cases the slow rollout of the sustainable farming incentive grants has led to tenants being refused permission by their landlords to apply for this scheme. This may cause an increase in the numbers coming forward for arbitration. Can the Minister tell the Committee how many cases of arbitration there were last year and how many there have been this year? Are there sufficient staff in the arbitration service to deal with increased demand, if that should prove to happen?

I believe that this is the right way forward and I support this SI.

Food and Feed (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward the statutory instrument this afternoon. While I am, overall, in support of the regulations contained in the instrument, I have two brief questions.

The Government seem to have a certain resistance to the labelling of food—whether it contains GMO, gene- edited or other ingredients. I note with some interest that the Explanatory Memorandum at paragraph 7.6 says that, until we adopt the regulations before us this afternoon, there has been a requirement to use a “Do not eat” pictograph on the products referred to in that paragraph. I would be interested to know the differences between a pictograph and a label. As we move towards adopting our own regulations—as I understand is the Government’s intention going forward—will the Government look favourably on clearly labelling food- stuffs of interest to the consumer where they contain ingredients made from GMO, gene-editing or any similar method, such as in novel foods, which are also referred to here?

It would be interesting know what purposes are intended for the edible insects—they sound most appetising, or perhaps not—which are referred to throughout the regulations. Are they for human, animal or pet consumption? For what purposes are they used?

My last question is: which authorities will implement the regulations before us this afternoon? Will it be the environmental health officers of local authorities? Does my noble friend share my concern that the way that such regulations are being implemented across England, in particular, is patchy owing to the fact that budgets are, obviously, under extreme pressure at the moment? I would be interested to know which will be the implementing authority.

I said that was the final question; I lied. I would like to ask one more question if I may. What will happen to this regulation—and, presumably, one to come for Northern Ireland should this one not apply to Northern Ireland—under the provisions of the retained EU law Bill?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this very interesting statutory instrument, which does, as its title indicates, cover a real bag of miscellaneous items.

The SI provides for the first time for edible insects specific to Great Britain to remain on the market until December 2023. I could not think of an insect specific to Great Britain that I would wish to eat. Having searched the internet, I found that I could buy crunchy crickets and other delicacies, but these did not appear to be indigenous to Great Britain. Can the Minister tell the House to which edible insects this regulation actually relates?

Further on in the Explanatory Memorandum, there is reference to

“regenerated cellulose film intended to come into contact with foodstuffs”.

Having had discussions in the past with the then Minister for Defra, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about the possibility of recycling this film, I was interested to see it popping up here with conditions for how it was to be used but, sadly, no mention of how it might be recycled.

In Part 3 of the regulations, Regulation 8 covers the use of

“additives for use in animal nutrition”,

which should be fairly straightforward, one would think. A definition of “veterinary medicinal product” used in this context covers

“any substance … having properties for treating or preventing disease in animals”.

However, the definition of “substance” is:

“any matter, irrespective of origin, which may be … human, including human blood and human blood products”,

or “

“animal, including micro-organisms, whole animals, parts of organs, animal secretions, toxins, extracts and blood products”.

Are these really to be used to treat animals that are sick?

Schedule 3 to the regulations lists feed materials that may be included for animals. These include:

“All the fleshy parts of slaughtered warm-blooded land animals … and … all products and derivatives of the processing of the carcase or parts of the carcase of warm-blooded land animals”.


I can see the benefit of this for a safari park or a zoo but, perhaps, not so for farm animals or companion animals. Is the Minister satisfied with the rigorous testing of these products and that no further incident such as occurred with the outbreak of BSE, when sheep brains were fed to cattle, could occur in the future?

New paragraph 1A(i) in Regulation 9 refers to the health hazard of parasites in fishing grounds but makes no mention of whether the discharge of sewage into fishing grounds could be a hazard. I will not ask the Minister to comment on that.

Lastly, Regulation 19 deals with the authorisation of genetically modified materials and appears to extend that to 30 December 2025. Why could that extension not have been included in the precision engineering Bill, which is currently making its passage through the Lords? Are such products to be labelled as genetically modified? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already referred to labelling.

As I have said, this SI covers a large number of issues, too numerous to mention today, and contains some corrections of previous errors. While I find some of the SI extraordinary, I do not oppose its passage.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part two
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Robathan on stepping into the breach at such short notice and so eloquently moving Amendment 3. I will speak to Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10 in my name, and I associate myself with earlier comments on the general thrust of this Bill put by the noble Lord, Lord Marland, in moving his Amendment 2 in the earlier group.

I share the general concern of those who are sceptical about the need for this Bill. I see it as a further onslaught on farming and livestock producers, particularly those in the uplands. I yield to no one in my praise and admiration for the way they go out in all weathers to produce lambs and suckler cattle at this time of year and, especially, in the spring. We are conscious of the fact that, in the north-east of England, there are some 12,000 people without electricity; presumably, the farmers are having to milk the cows by hand, which, of course, takes a lot longer than would normally be the case by other means.

As I mentioned earlier, I would prefer that we keep to the basics of the manifesto. I have now had a chance to reacquaint myself with Article 13, which states:

“In formulating and implementing the Union’s agriculture, fisheries, transport, internal market, research and technological development and space policies, the Union and the Member States shall, since animals are sentient beings, pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals.”


This neatly makes the case for the main thrust of my argument—the reason why Clause 1 is not required is that it is adequately covered by Article 13. I look forward to hearing a strong argument and reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to why that should not be the case.

I echo the remarks of my noble friend Lord Marland; it would seem that the Government are drifting away from supporting farming, maintaining self-sufficiency in our food production and our high standards of food production. However, through this Bill, the subsequent regulations and, no doubt, the advice of the committee being set up by Clause 1, we are actually making life much more difficult, in particular for livestock producers. I put on record my regret for that, particularly with respect to tenant farmers—and 48% of farmers in north Yorkshire fall into that category.

In speaking specifically to my Amendments 4, 6, 8 and 10, I refer to the earlier arguments put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and pay tribute to the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, in private practice on what constitutes “an act” for the purpose of judicial review. I humbly submit to my noble friend the Minister that the animal sentience committee’s terms of reference—a final draft of which was sent to us on 17 November 2021—will indeed constitute an act that would be justiciable as regards a judicial review. Is there a strong reason why that would not be the case?

In Committee, when I moved similar amendments, I did not obtain the reassurances from the Minister that I sought at that stage. He argued that he did not want to put on the face of the Bill the length of time for an appointment. I argue in my Amendment 4 that appointments under Clause 1 should be

“for a period of three years”.

I argue in Amendment 6:

“The membership of the Committee is to include, amongst others … a veterinary surgeon; … an active farmer or person with knowledge of livestock production or land management; and … a person with knowledge of slaughterhouses”.


Abattoirs are, if you like, the final nail in the coffin for the animal, which is sent on its way. That is my plea for more detail in the Bill.

Equally, I have set out perhaps greater detail in Amendment 8. I lifted this text from an earlier Bill—it might have been the Trade Bill, now the Trade Act, with respect to the Trade Remedies Authority. I forget which Bill it was, but I am grateful for the help that I received from the Public Bill Office in drafting the amendment. In desperation, I have also retabled Amendment 10 to leave out Clause 1 in case I do not get satisfaction and reassurance from the Minister this evening.

The Minister’s argument is flawed. If he does not wish the detail to be on the face of the Bill since this would constitute an act that is justiciable in terms of a judicial review, I argue that it was equally inappropriate to put in his letter to us of 17 November, as well as in a separate printout of the terms of reference, what the remit and constitution of the committee would be. Even though it is a separate document, that is as justiciable as it would be if it were on the face of the Bill.

I am extremely proud to have been a student of constitutional law at Edinburgh University under the excellent tutelage of Professor JDB Mitchell, who was at the time a leading expert in administrative law. I keep his book in the kitchen. My husband sometimes thinks that I am confusing administrative law theory with my recipes, which is why I often leave the cooking to him. A more up-to-date authority that I turn to is the Public Law Project, which sets out, for example, what can be challenged. It says:

“Decisions, acts, and failures to act by public bodies exercising their public functions are all potentially challengeable by judicial review.”


I must be simple in not being able to follow my noble friend’s argument but, to be absolutely clear, why is it not acceptable to put in the Bill the level of detail that I am seeking, but acceptable to put it in the supplementary documents? These are easier to amend but, in my view, because they constitute an administrative act, they will be equally justiciable.

I end with a last request to understand why, when just about every other Bill introduced by the Government since 2017 has waxed lyrical as to the composition and remit of the committee it set up, that is deemed not to be subject to judicial review, yet this is subject to judicial review. With those few remarks, I look forward very much to receiving reassurances from my noble friend the Minister.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments seeking to specify the membership of the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have set out the rationale for their amendments and there are some contradictions. Amendments 3 and 5 would remove the Secretary of State from the process altogether, whereas Amendment 8 would leave the power to appoint with the Secretary of State. Amendment 6 would ensure that certain levels of expertise were included in the committee’s membership.

I agree that certain skills and level of expertise are important, and can see immediately from the list that a single person can have more than one skill level and fulfil more than one function. For instance, the law currently requires that a veterinary surgeon must be present in a slaughterhouse. Therefore, he or she will have knowledge of the way a slaughterhouse operates.

However, whether such people will have time to sit on the animal sentience committee remains to be seen. A veterinary surgeon who no longer works in a slaughterhouse might do, depending on their current workload, but setting the membership in legislation could be something of a millstone around the neck of the chair or the Secretary of State, whoever is recruiting the membership.

The list of what the animal sentience committee can and cannot do under the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is extensive and somewhat cumbersome. I believe it could be streamlined. I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these issues.

Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Tuesday 19th October 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for talking us through the regulations today. I remember that, when the original legislation went through—rather than the regulations themselves—concern was expressed about what would happen if a retail company were to fail. I do not know whether that has been resolved in the existing regulations; as my noble friend has explained, it seems that these regulations apply to that very narrow area of a retailer providing services to housebuilders.

I want to take this opportunity to ask a question in that regard. My noble friend is aware of my passion for SUDS—sustainable drains. Where housing developers build major new developments, is it envisaged within the original regulations that SUDS could be applied as a condition of planning permission for the work being agreed?

The Explanatory Memorandum says that the instrument—I believe it is the second regulation—will

“reinstate the … duty on undertakers to provide connection services, on request, in retail exit areas”.

Is that deemed to be an automatic right to connect? Is there any leeway to ensure that we can actually insert a condition that SUDS must at that stage be envisaged? That could save any contribution to flooding down the line.

The Explanatory Memorandum says at paragraph 7.3:

“The main retail services provided to non-household customers through the retail market”,


as my noble friend said,

“are billing and administration services. However, with the opening of the market, it was designed so that retailers could also provide new water and sewerage connections services to business customers.”

My noble friend said that this was limited. Has it been so limited as to have never actually happened, or has it happened in literally only one or two cases? Paragraph 7.3 goes on to say:

“These services primarily concern connections to water and sewerage services for new developments, involving predominantly housing developers.”


My noble friend is aware of my interest. I latched on to something he said during the passage of the Environment Bill before it went to the other place: the automatic right to connect no longer being automatic. Will that apply in these as well as other cases?

Paragraph 7.6 goes on to say: “We”—and I presume the “we” is the Government—

“consider that ‘non-household premises’ includes new housing developments which are under construction before anyone is using the premises as their home.”

Does that mean that existing housing developments do not fall into this category? Is there any chance that the regulations before us this afternoon will apply to those existing housing developments? It goes on to say that

“Until people move in, we consider that a development does not fit that definition”,


as given in that paragraph. On what basis has the department reached that conclusion? What background brought it to that position?

Paragraph 7.7 says that

“There are several unintended consequences”,


as my noble friend set out,

“of the 2016 Regulations’ amendments. These concern new connection services, the laying, inspecting, maintaining, adjusting, repairing”.

I still maintain, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, that, when making these new automatic connections automatic, we are dealing with Victorian, antiquated piping. Whether it is the retailer or the water company providing these services, the pipes are deemed to have to connect. At the moment, the water company is not a statutory consultee, whereas the Environment Agency, for example, is; I do not believe that the advice the water company is giving planning authorities has the same legal force as that from the Environment Agency.

I ask my noble friend whether the problems with the regulations set out in Paragraph 7.7 could be avoided by ending the automatic right to connect. It is unacceptable; we have an opportunity, at this stage in the regulations, for the water company or retailer to say that they cannot make physical connections when housing developments are being made and that there will be overflow into the storm drains and the possibility that sewage will come back into either the new developments or, worse, existing developments that have not been affected in the past.

I welcome this opportunity to ask questions on those points, with a special emphasis on whether sustainable drains can be part and parcel of this, and that the water company or retailer should say whether the existing infrastructure simply cannot take the amount of wastewater envisaged to come out of any new houses.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and for his comments. On the face of it, it seems like a straightforward change in the legislation to bring the retail sector into line with domestic housing arrangements following the changes made in the Water and Sewerage Undertakers (Exit from Non-household Retail Market) Regulations 2016. I note that this instrument relates only to England, but the extent of it is England and Wales where there are cross-border issues.

The water and sewerage industries were privatised in England and Wales in 1989. In 2014, reform of the Water Act enabled competition in the market. In 2016, the transfer of non-household retail business prevented the provision of retail service to new non-household customers that arose in its area. Given what we now know about the effects of supply and demand on water and sewerage systems, this would seem a sensible step.

Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum enables

“developers to make new connection requests to their retailer.”

There is no mention in the Explanatory Memorandum, nor in the instrument itself, of whether there would be capacity for new development to be safely connected under the automatic right to connect, which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already mentioned.

The Minister will know that during the passage of the Environment Bill there were many debates about the effect of effluent being discharged into rivers, lakes and other watercourses and the extremely detrimental effect this has on both water quality and the wildlife that previously inhabited those areas. I ask the Minister whether the local relevant sewerage and water capacity will be part of the consideration when developers apply for connection for retail. The automatic right of developers to connect for housing developments has caused considerable problems, not only in effluent discharge, but has contributed to localised flooding during prolonged periods of rainfall.

This is a minimal change to the legislation, but the legislation relating to domestic properties is far from perfect. Once the drainage and sewerage management plans are in place, that should ensure better collaboration between developers and those dealing with the supply of water and disposal of sewage. But these are not yet in place. Duties in Section 41 and 45 no longer apply to premises in a retail exit area. To indicate that new households under construction are not classified as household premises until people move in is somewhat late in the day to deal with capacity issues and whether sewerage systems are able to cope with the additional demand.

A Section 98 duty to comply with sewer requisition is the duty to provide a public sewer or a lateral drain. This appears not to apply in relation to premises in the retail exit area that were not household premises. Just what is the legal obligation to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the sewerage system for new connections from retailers? This might be a small retail outlet, or it might be retail premises relating to an already overlarge housing development, which would be a much larger connection.

I am sure the Minister can understand my concerns and I would be grateful for his reassurance that capacity will form part of the connection requirements. I note that a consultation period took place between 29 April and 25 May 2021. This period included a bank holiday. Seventeen responses were received but the EM does not say whether Water UK or the Consumer Council for Water were among those. However, I understand from officials that, since there were responses from some water providers if not from Water UK itself, there seems to have been a general positive agreement in the industry in response to this SI.

I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification on the consultation exercise. I understand why Defra has introduced this new measure but remain extremely concerned about the effect on flooding of connecting retailers to the sewerage system without first checking that the system has the necessary capacity.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, and I support my noble friend Lord Forsyth in his desire to understand the relationship between this committee and the Animal Welfare Committee. I raised that both at Second Reading and in connection with the first group of amendments, so I hope that, now the formal Amendment 2 is on the table, my noble friend will respond vigorously to our need for more information on that.

The Minister said very clearly that there are only two responsibilities on the Government in relation to this committee. The first is to give written responses to the animal sentience committee reports and the second is to appoint and maintain the committee, yet the Bill, as currently drafted, is woefully thin on detail. The details on this are missing.

I am delighted to come forward with Amendment 13, which is a standard text for a number of bodies set up by the Government in earlier legislation. It replicates a similar text that set up the Trade Remedies Authority in the context of the Trade Act, and is intended to be entirely helpful. Bear in mind that the Government are asking this committee to have a cross-cutting role, yet the department itself is meant to have a cross-cutting role in rural proofing all policies across all departments. Take, for example, the importance and impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, in particular on the National Health Service, local hospitals and the Department of Health and Social Care, and the importance of rural policy in the general work of all local authorities, and in relation to transport and housing policy; I am not entirely convinced that we have seen the rural-proofing I would hope for from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

My question to my noble friend is: why has this policy of animal welfare sentience been taken a step further, to be preferred over the role the department has on rural-proofing? Why is it farming it out to a separate committee on animal sentience? It would be helpful to see why that is.

As my noble friend Lord Hamilton said in summing up the previous group of amendments, it would be extremely helpful to see what funding will be allocated to this committee. In particular, when are we going to learn what resources the committee will have? How many staff will it have and how will they be appointed? Will it be for the chair of the committee to appoint all the staff or will that be delegated to a chief executive? In particular, in proposed new subsection (17) in Amendment 13, I have said:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations make other provision about the Animal Sentience Committee including provision about … staffing … remuneration of members and staff … delegation of functions … funding … accounts and reporting.”


My understanding is that the autumn spending review —which I think will take place this year—is going to be extremely strict and will look at all departments, controlling and curbing their current expenditure. What reassurance can my noble friend give us today that, in seeking to set up a new body in the form before us this afternoon, it will actually have the resources that, in his view, it will need to do that work?

I am slightly disappointed—in fact, more than slightly disappointed; hugely disappointed—that my noble friend has simply stated that an estimate will be provided to us at an appropriate juncture. I would argue to my noble friend that that appropriate juncture is now. We are being asked to approve in Clause 1—which we shall come on to consider separately—that it will have the appropriate resources and the appropriate staff and will be able to carry out all the work appropriate to its function. I regret to say that I remain to be convinced but I hope that I will be proved wrong in the summing up that my noble friend will give on this group of amendments.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments, which seeks in some cases to dictate which organisations and people should be on the animal sentience committee and for how long they should serve. I have added my name to Amendments 5 and 14, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.

Amendment 5 seeks to benefit from a diversity of expertise on the ASC, including veterinary science, agricultural science and ethical review and provides more flexibility to the Secretary of State. It is likely that some members of the committee will have more than one area of expertise and a membership of between eight and 11 is not unwieldy. It is important that the committee is not bogged down with too many members. The more members there are, the longer the meetings are likely to last and the less likely it is to reach a satisfactory conclusion in a reasonable timeframe. The amendment also ensures the appointment of a chair for the ASC by the Secretary of State. This dedicated chair role will allow the committee to speak with an established and independent voice, boosting its effectiveness.

I am not totally convinced that limiting the length of service of members to just one term of three years is satisfactory as this would lead to a loss of expertise. The members are likely to need a short time to acclimatise themselves to the working of the committee, and then to have to stand down at the end of three years and not be reappointed is, I believe, unwise. Some members may wish to leave at the end of three years; others will feel that they still have something to offer to the committee and want to do a second term. That should be an option for the Secretary of State. The Bill should not seek to fetter his discretion in the reappointment of the membership of the ASC.

Consultation on the appointment of the chair will be key to maintaining the confidence of organisations involved in animal welfare, especially if they are not likely to be members of the committee. The Wildlife and Countryside Link has a membership of some 51 organisations and NGOs. All will have a view on the membership of the ASC. Consultation with them and other interested parties will be key to the success of the animal sentience committee.

I will comment briefly on one other amendment in this group. I am afraid that I do not agree with noble Lords who wish the animal sentience committee to be subsumed into the Animal Welfare Committee. The public must have confidence in the work of the ASC. It is therefore essential for it to be a stand-alone committee with its own reporting regime and not merely a sub-committee of the Animal Welfare Committee, which already has a fine reputation and a heavy workload. A degree of separation is needed, and the Bill provides that.

I turn to Amendment 14 in this group. In order for the ASC to be successful, it will need an adequately funded secretariat and budget. This should be sufficient for it to carry out its work and to be able to call witnesses, should it feel that is desirable. I am sure the Government intend to provide funding for the running of this committee but, as others have said, there is nothing in the Bill that gives an indication that this is the case. I think I heard the Minister say, in his answer to the previous group of amendments, that there would be funding for a secretariat. I look forward to that assurance and to the Minister accepting this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 1st October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I thank my noble friend for bringing forward this small group of amendments and will speak in particular to Amendments 1 and 4.

My concerns echo those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. This is a recurrent theme expressed by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies which we hear of in the EU Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the privilege to sit. In thanking my noble friend for listening to their concerns and bringing these amendments forward, I note that consent was given by the Scottish Parliament only yesterday, which seems quite late. Would my noble friend use his good offices to keep Parliament informed and update us on continued progress and on how this will impact negotiations and, afterwards, the implementation of the new policy? It is very important that the national Parliament at Westminster should be kept informed on the impact on the devolved Assemblies.

I take this opportunity, as I will not participate on the last stage, to thank my noble friend for his boundless patience, courtesy and tolerance during the many hours of debate. Through him, I thank the Bill team for the outstanding service they have performed to the House. I also thank the Public Bill Office and all who have been involved, including my noble friend’s able assistant, my noble friend Lady Bloomfield, who has been utterly charming and patient throughout this process.

As my noble friend Lord Gardiner is aware, I hoped he would have brought forward a government amendment on another issue. The House has spoken; it voted overwhelmingly, by I think a majority of 100, to take forward an amendment to the House of Commons on protecting our standards and ensuring that imported food products continue to meet these standards. I also look forward to my noble friend and his department’s response to the Dimbleby report, which would have been very helpful to have.

We are on a voyage of discovery, as there is very little detail about either the interim SFI or the ELMS proceedings—the sustainable farming initiative and the new environmental land management schemes. But we are at this stage, and I congratulate my noble friend on all the hard work from him and his department to get us here.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the rationale behind these somewhat late amendments. Over the last 18 months, there have been several occasions on which we have debated legislation under the Defra banner which has been amended for a variety of reasons—with the sheer weight of legislation in Bills and statutory instruments, the degree of detail needed and the very short timeframes have meant that unforced errors have occurred. The main thing is that, in this case, the Government have been able to act so that omissions were rectified.

The first amendment, as the Minister indicated, is at the request of the Scottish devolved Administration to ensure that their agriculture Bill could provide the continuing financial assistance that will be needed and give Scotland the same powers as Wales, England and Northern Ireland. The third amendment is consequential on the first. It would have been helpful if the Scottish Administration realised this omission earlier, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

The second amendment, to Clause 18, relates to retained EU law for promotion schemes for agri-foods not to be used in England, Scotland or Wales. Northern Ireland wanted to keep its options open, so we have this amendment.

These are very technical issues, but it is often those that trip us all up. This is, as has been indicated, all very last minute. I understand that this could not be covered later by secondary legislation but would have needed primary legislation to comply with the multiannual financial arrangements.

The last two amendments relate to powers enabling the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly to enact legislation for bees to be included in the Bill. We have debated on many occasions the crucial role that bees and other pollinators play in ensuring that our crops, flowers and trees flourish and survive. I find it extraordinary that such a vital section of the Bill, on apiculture, should have been left without any means of legally ensuring its continuity. However, the error was discovered in the nick of time. I support this group of amendments.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 44A and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for tabling it. I pay tribute to his expertise, knowledge and sheer perseverance in this area. It gives me the opportunity to draw further attention to how woeful broadband and wi-fi connections are in many parts of rural England because places are simply too far—more than a mile—from the local box.

Also, many will not appreciate the issue with the mobile phone signal. I look directly at the Woolsack; I am sure this problem is not unfamiliar in Scotland. In the summer in parts of North Yorkshire where the red phone boxes have been removed it is inherently dangerous if you do not have access to a landline. It is incredibly important that we should have a good mobile phone service. I had hoped we would be able to piggyback on the police service, but apparently we are not able to do that for security reasons. North Yorkshire Police made a massive investment to make sure they could apprehend criminals by getting reinforcements where that was the case.

I take this opportunity to bring to my noble friend the Minister’s attention how in many areas of the dales and the moorlands of the north of England there is both poor mobile phone conductivity and woeful broadband—it is persistently bad. I welcome the amendment and the extra spending the Government have announced to be spent in areas such as North Yorkshire, recognising that this is the case.

We went into the last election and the previous one with a commitment to a universal service of “x megabytes by x date”. That date keeps moving. Can I press my noble friend on what date we will have universal service and on whether the additional funds that the Government can find can be spent on the 3% of the population who are hardest to reach? It grieves me greatly to be told that 97% of the population will have universal access to broadband but not the 3% of us who happen to live in rural areas. I want to ensure that we can reverse the priorities and spend the additional money, and any other money that is available, in these hardest-to-reach areas.

As my noble friend Lord Holmes set out, it is an unacceptable situation that, in the 21st century, children who are sent home from school because one of their class has Covid-19, and who are diligently trying to do their work at home, prevent farmers going online to fill in forms. I hope that the Minister uses her good offices to correct that situation.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for bringing forward this amendment. I suspect that other Peers did not realise that this amendment had been re-tabled, hence the short speakers’ list.

During the Covid-19 lockdown it became painfully apparent how inadequate the broadband system is, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has said. It is vital that all areas of the country have good, fast and resilient broadband, especially those in our agricultural sector. Many Peers attempting to take part in virtual proceedings have struggled with connections suddenly dropping off or being unable to log on in the first place. In 2018, the average broadband speed in rural hamlets and isolated dwellings in a sparse setting was half that of major conurbations. Can the Minister say whether this has improved in the intervening two years?

In the aftermath of the Huawei fiasco, the Secretary of State was clear on the consequences of the Government’s decision to pull out. Operators charged with delivering 5G will now, without compensation, have £2 billion less to spend on rolling it out, at the same time bearing the cost of ripping out high-risk vendor 5G equipment by 2027. This is a huge proportion of the investment which was to be committed by the operators towards 5G rollout. Can the Minister say whether, in the intervening months since this decision was made, the Government have now reconsidered providing compensation to providers and consumers? The change in provider will delay the rollout of 5G by two to three years. Rural communities are already extremely disadvantaged in their connectivity. Many rural businesses have had to relocate to more urban areas to continue operating. Those in the farming community, like others, must fill in all their forms online. This now appears to be the Government’s only way of communicating with those residents to whom they attempt to provide services.

As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, during the lockdown children were dependent on Zoom connectivity to take part in sessions with their teachers. Although this meant that they received some tuition, for many the connection was so poor that it was hopeless. If the Government are true to their word in wanting to support rural communities, it is vital that broadband connectivity and digital literacy are taken seriously. This is not a “nice to have” for the agricultural industry, but an “absolute must”. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

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

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend because I was also hoping to ask for confirmation that hedgerows will be covered within ELMS and that famers will have to meet the cross-compliance requirements. From memory, when we had the debate on Clause 1 and the many amendments that were tabled at that time, it was my understanding that that would be the case. I know that my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge has taken great interest and is very expert in this area. I also am concerned about water quality and our requirements under the water framework directive; I am interested to know if we will keep up with the requirements of the successor water framework directives to come.

My main point is that I find Amendment 229 from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, very interesting, but I would be rather aghast to think that we were going to have a new environmental regulatory regime. I take this opportunity, if I may, to say to my noble friend the Minister that there is great uncertainty at the moment as to what the regulatory regime will be, as we have not yet had sight of the Environment Bill. Perhaps I am being slow here, but I do not see what the relationship will be between the office for environmental protection and the Environment Agency, Natural England, Rural Payments Agency and the host of other bodies. Who will be the policeman in all this and who will be giving the friendly advice to farmers in this regard?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, the case for environmental and agricultural regulation has been set out very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. It is important that there is an updated regulatory framework. The Agriculture Bill makes radical changes to the way that funding is allocated. The ELMS are very different from direct payments, and it is therefore essential that the framework reflects the thrust of the Government’s intentions. A farm inspection only once every 200 years is pathetic, and indeed dangerous. Bringing the framework in line with the environmental standards that will pertain once the Bill has passed is essential. We cannot have two separate standards, otherwise there will be wholesale confusion. Effective compliance cannot be implemented without an updated regulatory framework; without this, it appears like putting the cart before the horse.

Amendment 230 proposes a new clause to protect hedgerows and gives detail on how this should be designed and implemented. I fully support this amendment, as other noble Lords have. Over the years, since I was a child, I have seen hedgerows ripped out to allow farmers to plough larger tracts of land. This has meant that the feeding and breeding grounds of small birds and insects have disappeared, leading to the disappearance of some iconic species, such as the bullfinch. This amendment seeks to protect the margins at the edges of fields and to reinstate hedgerows. It is important to reconnect with the wildlife that previously lived in our hedgerows and field margins. I believe this is a move in the right direction, and support the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.

Amendment 231, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, seeks to protect water, wells, springs and bore-holes from pollution. The area where I live is covered with natural springs, some of which provide domestic water supplies; preventing the pollution of this water is therefore extremely important. Farmers should do everything possible to prevent poisonous chemicals from entering the watercourses, and this should include pesticides and herbicides. Water is an important, life-saving ingredient in agriculture, and it provides biodiversity. I welcome this amendment and look forward to the Minister agreeing to this.

Amendments 296 and 297 propose a new schedule, which would introduce animal welfare standards for pigs, cows and cattle, give minimum standards of space and give protection to water and soil quality. Intensive farming and livestock management has a downside on both animal welfare and soil quality. I support this amendment and look forward to hearing positive comments from the Minister. I feel a bit sad that I am getting quite excited at the prospect of actually reaching—[Inaudible.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on moving this amendment. The Red Tractor has much to commend it; I expressed one or two reservations about it but I fully endorse the call for a consultation on the regulations. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look favourably on the amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, I spoke too soon about the fact that we may reach our target tonight, but we are nearly there. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, explained her reason for tabling her amendment, which is about assured schemes. They are extremely important in improving food standards but, as she said, this measure could make or break some small food companies.

I have looked at the amendment and where it comes in the Bill, and I find it unnecessarily restrictive. It is important that the Secretary of State should consult those likely to be affected by the regulations in Part 5 on marketing standards, organic products and carcass classifications, but there is a limit. In previous debates, we heard that the UK lags far behind other European Union states in the incidence of organic farming. Most supermarkets have sections where organic produce is properly labelled and displayed, enabling shoppers to make an informed choice. It is important that we promote organic food.

In her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, wants the Secretary of State to

“consult anyone reasonably likely to be affected by the regulations”.

I find “anyone reasonably likely to be affected” difficult. “Anyone” seems unreasonable. It is a catch-all that I am not sure can be delivered. I remember a case when a child regularly complained to a crisp manufacturer that he was not completely satisfied with the packet of crisps he had purchased. The packet stated that anyone “not completely satisfied” could have a replacement. The dialogue between this enterprising child and the manufacturer went on for some time until the manufacturer realised that it was dealing with a child and called a halt to it. I give this as an example of why we should be very careful about exactly what wording we have in Bill. The Secretary of State should consult but the question of with whom needs to be more tightly worded, otherwise he or she could consult the whole population.

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

I will let you off, then. What is interesting about our debate so far is how little understanding there is of what constitutes common land and what activities are undertaken on it. My experience of the different activities undertaken on common land in North Yorkshire was not an entirely happy one. My noble friend Lord Inglewood absolutely hit the nail on the head in his advice to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the approach to it should be multilateral, not bilateral.

I support Amendment 159A and thank the noble Lord for moving it—with the support of my noble friend Lord Inglewood and the noble Lord, Lord Addington—because I am particularly concerned about how the new schemes under ELM will take place where there is a dispute, which there inevitably will be. In summing up, can the Minister say what the dispute resolution mechanism will be? Is it not better to have a blanket one that covers all common land rather than leaving it to the parties of each individual agreement to agree it?

I grew up near to the most successful grouse shooting moors in England, on the upper parts of Teesdale. Grouse shooting was a small activity and did not create a lot of income; now, it has almost overtaken the income from the land. There is great concern that shooting and this obsession with tick control for sheep, as I discovered with one particular agreement, will negate many of the schemes that we hope will benefit under the ELM.

With those two questions, I hope that we will hear some encouraging words from the Minister on the use of common land and ELMS.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves spoke to his amendment on providing support for common land, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. During the 20 years when I was a county councillor, two of the parishes in my ward had common land. It was jealously guarded and protected from incursions of all forms. Sheep were often grazed on the common, but fencing to ensure that the sheep did not wander was frowned on by some villagers. As for parking on the common, this was a very serious misdemeanour. Some people have an idyllic picture of what common land looks like. In my experience, it is not a flat area around the local duck pond, with weeping willows dipping their branches in the water. As my noble friend said, it is often on sloping and unpromising land. Nevertheless, it is an important element of rural life in parts of England. It is important that it is preserved. I look forward to the Minister’s response on just how he sees it fitting into the Bill and whether it will qualify for financial assistance under the ELM scheme.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 24th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

My Lords, I am minded to support this amendment, as it addresses an issue I have raised ever since we had the informal briefing with the then Minister for Fisheries, now Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am slightly concerned because, in spite of what we hear about various schemes for new entrants, I have not identified a great rush for new entrants over and above what the current provisions allow. I raised this at the informal briefing and was given an assurance on it; currently the under-10 fishermen—I had the privilege of working with them most recently in Filey, but also in other parts of the country—rely very heavily on shellfish, but, as was said previously, are given scraps of other whitefish under the table through the very complicated system of top-slicing discards which are then gathered into a pool from which the under-10s can benefit.

We were led to believe in the informal briefing that an official mechanism would be put in place to ensure a stricter, clearer, more transparent situation in which the under-10s would benefit from any remaining quota on an annual basis. My noble friend the Minister may well be able to put my mind at rest here, that that provision is somewhere and I am not immediately seeing it, but that promise was made and I invoke it here: that under the provisions of this Bill, under-10s will benefit from a higher and more regular quota going forward.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, like all industries, a vibrant fishing industry relies on a rotating workforce. Many families around our coastlines have been engaged in fishing for generations. Sons and occasionally daughters learn from their fathers and become part of the team. However, as we have heard, it is becoming increasingly difficult for new entrants and the under-10s to get a toehold in the industry and an allocation of quota to get started. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, also pressed the case for fresh young blood in the fishing industry. The examples of Denmark and the Shetland Islands prove that it is possible to encourage new entrants.

For new entrants to feel confident that they can make a living out of fishing and for the under-10s to be able to put a roof over their heads in the much sought-after properties around fishing ports, quota will need to be reserved and increased to be allocated to this vital sector. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, asked whether the Government are happy for the profits of fishing to go to pension funds and shareholders or whether they want to support our coastal communities and young people waiting to move into fishing.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said in his introduction that this is a minor amendment for England only. When making amendments, the Secretary of State would consider the previous three years’ quota; it would provide a degree of certainty to new entrants and the under-10s. Fisheries plans should consider historic catch. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave a graphic description of how the monthly quota system disadvantages the under-10 fleet. It is time for a change.

My noble friend Lord Teverson spoke about protecting our coastal communities. This amendment allows that to happen. Putting all our eggs—or fish—into the one basket of larger fishing vessels does nothing for our coastal communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, has drawn attention to the shellfish fisheries around our shores. These are largely small vessels, and most of their catch is sold to EU countries. He gave an excellent synopsis of how the Bill is likely to play out if no deal is agreed on Brexit.

If the fishing industry is to survive, it must be vibrant and have new entrants. The under-10 fleet must be a consideration in quota distribution and not be fobbed off with the scraps left by the deep-sea fishing fleet. I could not follow the logic of the arguments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; there will be no rush of new entrants unless they can be assured of receiving a quota to live on. I look forward to the Minister’s response, but if it is not sufficient, I will join others in the virtual Lobby.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]]

I am most grateful. I seemed to have fallen off the speakers’ list so I thank the House for reinstating me.

I have a quick question for the Minister. Given the time, I do not want to rehearse things that I agree or disagree with. I am sure that the Minister stated at Second Reading, or in the informal briefing prior to Second Reading, that the Government are minded to introduce remote electronic monitoring. At what stage of preparation is the Government’s introduction of REM? Do the Government have a point of principle against introducing REM at this stage or is it simply a matter of timing and preparation, as other speakers have alluded to?

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, we had an extensive debate in Committee on the use of remote electronic monitoring of all fishing vessels. Noble Lords on all sides of the House have expressed concern at the state of fish stocks and the amount of bycatch and discards. It is not that we do not trust our fishing industry to stick to the quota and species rules; it is more that a degree of realism is needed when dealing with this issue. The discard ban is not being observed, and not just in the UK. Full compliance, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, is essential. In the past, fish stocks have been decimated, cod in particular, which has led to a switch to other species. Due to stringent measures, including REM, cod stocks are beginning to recover. The only fail-safe way of protecting fish stocks is to have fish monitored at the point of catching, and REM is the most effective way of doing this.

Marine conservation has to be led by scientific data. My noble friend Lord Teverson has explained the purpose of REM as an enforcement tool. Where this is currently used, it is effective. I regret that I am unable to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that now is not the time to make REM mandatory. Now it is precisely the time. If we leave this to the discretion of fishermen, fish stocks data will be insufficient.

This amendment has cross-party support; it covers the current UK over-10-metre fishing fleet fishing within the UK exclusive economic zone; it covers the UK fishing fleet outside the UK EEZ; and it covers all motorised vessels fishing in the UK EEZ, whatever their nationality. In the vernacular, what’s not to like? As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, supermarkets do not wish to sell and the public do not want to buy illegally caught fish. The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, called this amendment the most important change we can make to the Bill.

Many noble Lords have mentioned data collection. It is essential that we know where fish are moving as result of changing sea temperatures and flows. How can we do this if data is not collected? REM would allow data to come back regularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, told us. This is not new technology; it is tried and tested.

The conditions in the amendment are stringent, but they need to be to protect our fish stocks. Without protecting our fish stocks, future fisheries will find fish stocks depleted and that there is nothing for them to catch. The arguments have been made and I look forward to the Minister’s response, but I fear I will probably be voting virtually.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on tabling these amendments, and I have a very short query.

It was, I think, when we took evidence on the financing of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the data that would be gathered—I look to the chairman of the Select Committee for confirmation—that the Secretary of State responded by saying that the Government were committing to the long-term future of our involvement with ICES, but that he could not tell us at that point from which budget that would come. I am very keen on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea; I have twice visited it, and it has a fantastic website which is hugely interesting for anybody interested in sustainability. Can the Minister tell us today whether this was resolved in the Budget and the Finance Bill, or whether this will be sent out and covered in the comprehensive spending review? I would like to know that we are going to cover precisely the same percentage, which is some 11% to 13% of the total ICES budget contribution; we take a similar amount of research from it. I entirely endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said: we cannot really proceed as an independent coastal state if we do not know what the data is.

There is one other area that vexes me, and I do not think that anybody is doing research into it at the moment because no one is fishing in the area. We know that the seas currently jointly fished by UK and EU fleets have warmed. Does the Minister have any idea who might do the research in areas where species such as cod and other fish from our waters have moved to? That might explain why sustainability appears to have fallen in those species.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group which deal with the financial assistance covered by Clause 33.

On the first day in Committee, we debated at length the incompatibility of the sustainability objective and the socioeconomic objective in Clause 1. The Fisheries Bill has been heralded as taking back control of UK fishing rights and waters and is eagerly awaited around our coastlines. Many voters supported Brexit on the basis of having control over our fishing rights and waters. However, what they did not do was vote for our fish stocks to become exhausted by the rush for profit. The dichotomy of sustainability over socioeconomics is an issue which we must tackle before the Bill becomes law. To be successful, we must ensure that those fishermen who find that they are catching less as the sustainability of their usual catch reaches a critical point, and are facing financial implications, are not disadvantaged. It is unwise in the extreme to jeopardise the sustainability of our fish stocks by allowing continued fishing when the scientific evidence demonstrates that the stocks are depleted.

The Government could do much to assist in preserving fish stocks by using financial assistance to recompense vessel owners and crews for reduced or exhausted fishing opportunities. Unless such assistance is forthcoming, there will be no incentive for the fishing of depleted stocks to cease. This will result in the socioeconomic objective becoming the overriding objective and swamping the sustainability objective. Why would fishers willingly lose money by staying in port? The scientific evidence will need to be overwhelming.

To be able correctly to monitor fish stocks and prevent bycatch and overfishing, it is essential that the Government invest in new technologies to be used across the fishing fleet, with both large vessels and those under-10 metres. The passage of the Fisheries Bill provides the Secretary of State with a golden opportunity to establish a research and implementation fund. This could promote new and improved methods of selectivity and encourage and assist vessel owners to replace old nets and other technologies with those capable of more refined selectivity, to avoid choke species.

The gathering of scientific data to inform the management of fish stocks, alongside technologies to improve fishing techniques, are some of the tools available to the fishing industry. They will ensure that we do not reach the stage at which the children of future generations are left wondering what cod and haddock taste like. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said at Second Reading, it could be fish fingers for everybody if we do not get this Bill right. However, if we do not take action to ensure fish stocks are preserved, I can envisage a situation in which there will be no fish fingers for anyone.

I hope the Minister is aware of the strength of feeling in the Committee on these issues and is ready to give assurances that these amendments will indeed appear on the face of the Bill. If he is unable to do that, I hope he will think about bringing forward similar amendments on Report.

Fisheries Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness McIntosh of Pickering and Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville

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

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas. I too was going to speak to Amendments 40 and 47 on behalf of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose—the Law Society of Scotland had sent me a very extensive briefing—but the noble Lord has made all the points that I would have made.

On issue of the 28 days, we have Amendment 69, which mirrors Amendment 67. The Bill currently requires each of the fisheries policy authorities to specify a period for scrutiny of the consultation draft of the joint fisheries statement, but no definition is set out in paragraphs (3) and (4) of Schedule 1. There is no timescale attached to the definition, and it is important that we have one.

The Bill provides that each fisheries policy authority must specify a period for scrutiny of the consultation draft by the appropriate legislature. To rectify this, we propose a minimum period of 28 days if scrutiny must be undertaken. That is important, so I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and have added my name to it. I know that my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is not needed, but I would argue that it is. If there were no changes to the joint fisheries statement, we should be able to understand why that was the case and why everyone had agreed. It would be helpful to have more openness and transparency in that regard.