British Agriculture

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, reminded me that we have often debated these issues in this House, even in the 16 years I have been here. We always seem to come to the same conclusions. I respectfully suggest to him that the reason for that is nothing to do with Europe. It is more to do with the fact that our food system has been so broken over those years. I shall lay out a few reasons for that before turning to the question of the EU.

The food system in the UK is not working for farmers or consumers. We produce some world-famous items, such as beef, lamb, potatoes and apples, and some others that are not so often thought of, such as watercress, pears and trout. They are fabulous, health-giving food. At the other end of the scale, we have consumers who are malnourished or obese. What are they living on? They are living on processed food saturated with sugar, palm oil and salt, which is doing no good to their health. That has nothing to do with the EU; that has to do with the food system, which has broken down. That is what we have to mend. In this country, we need an overarching food strategy that covers the spectrum from what Defra covers to what the Department of Health covers. Not since the Second World War have we had that.

From the EU, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, mentioned, we have lots of good regulation. We have had regulation about water pollution, air pollution and all sorts of other things without which we would probably have never had the incentives to make those steps forward. Of course, we have also had overregulation, and the noble Earl has cut short what I had to say about that, because I, too, was going to mention my hope from what the new commissioner has said about deregulation.

I remember that a few years ago the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, was championing the cause of honest meat. With that, he had a point: it is about labelling meat so that consumers here can really see what they are buying. If, like me, he had been at the meeting of the All-Party Group on Agroecology yesterday—I must declare my interest in that I chair it—he would have heard from John Turner, who initiated the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association. It is a vibrant and growing association which ensures that we are using grass, which grows so well in the UK—probably better than anywhere else—to produce the absolute highest quality meat. The results of studies show that meat from pasture-fed animals has a higher nutritional quality than meat from animals fed on other things. That group did not mention that it is suffering from EU regulation, but it is suffering from the lack of proper, open labelling, which would make it much easier for consumers to see what they are buying.

One effect of the tabling of this debate was to make me look at UKIP’s agricultural policies. I was most surprised to see that number one on its agricultural policy list is to impose stronger controls on bush meat. Controlling bush meat, with all its health implications, is clearly very important, but that is not really a British agricultural issue. It is not in competition with beef or lamb. To mix my metaphors, it is a total red herring. That is an issue for the Home Office and border controls. The second top policy of UKIP is to support the trial culling of badgers for the control of bovine TB if veterinary opinion substantiates it. That is not original. It is common to all sides of the House so there is nothing to disagree with there. The third is that UKIP supports the principle of science before emotion on any agricultural topic. Who does not?

There is the issue of how strong the precautionary principle should be. Noble Lords have today raised the issue of neonicotinoids, which is highly important. We cannot do nothing about our pollinators dying out. There is a good argument for trying different approaches and not just allowing the continued use of neonicotinoids as a blanket solution to pests without seeing whether their use is what is causing such a dramatic fall in the number of our pollinators.

I contend that UKIP’s proposals would be an environmental disaster for farmers themselves because they suggest that pollution does not matter. Not only that, they would be a disaster for the wider community and for the food-buying public. The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, made fun of the fact that the policy defines what a farmer is, but there is good reason for that. Why should CAP public money go to support the so-called slipper farmers? People who put their feet up and do nothing should not be receiving public money. It is understandable that the Commission is to try to define what a farmer is. The UK Government would join it in being anxious to ensure that public money does not go to people who should not be receiving it.

As for the effects of UKIP’s proposals economically, I will simply echo the words of Ross Murray of the CLA. He said that it was a fallacy to argue that if we opted out of Europe, British farmers could survive, let alone survive well. He said:

“If we opt out of the EU our exports will be cut to shreds and we will be completely at the mercy of the supermarkets, who will always buy on price”.

I go back to where I started with this. The food system in this country is broken, but it is not the fault of the EU. One of the big steps that this Government have taken was to bring in the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which we need to do more to strengthen. We can see that from the dairy sector, but that is a different issue. Socially, UKIP’s policies would be an utter disaster. UKIP has nothing to say about young farmers, the price of land, capital machinery investment or food quality assurance and it wants to get rid of all of these border controls and regulations. What is going to happen when we have another horsemeat scandal? Finally, UKIP seems to have nothing to say on animal welfare issues, which certainly concern the Liberal Democrats and the public, and should concern the noble Lord.

Soil Quality

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the soils in England will sustain food production at current levels in the long term.

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

My Lords, we are committed to delivering the natural environment White Paper aspiration of ensuring sustainable management of all soils by 2030. We have introduced new cross-compliance rules to protect soils while reducing paperwork for farmers. Through our agri-tech strategy and sustainable intensification platform we will help farmers to take advantage of the latest techniques, to help them improve productivity while protecting the environment.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to this issue, because of course no soils equals no foods. He will know that 2015 was designated the International Year of Soils to help to highlight this fact and the enormous soil loss, which in the UK is 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil alone per year. He mentioned the new rules that have been introduced. Perhaps he could tell me how farmers will receive practical advice on their soil management from people who are not seeking to sell inputs. Could he also tell me—given the rate of the loss of soil and microbial health, and even the loss of soil scientists, as they are not being replaced at the rate they need to be—whether he thinks that the actions being taken are urgent and effective enough to ensure the continued and, indeed, increased production of British food?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend asks a number of questions. The Farming Advice Service is a service to help farmers understand and meet the requirements of cross-compliance, greening and the European directives on both water protection and sustainable pesticide use. It has a helpline, newsletters, guidance and technical articles. During 2015 its priorities will be to give advice on the changes to the cross-compliance rules, which include the new soil standards, which go to the prevention of erosion, which she mentioned; maintaining soil cover; and the protection of organic matter.

Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations deliver one of the main measures contained in the package of policies set out in my Written Ministerial Statement of 6 February 2013 to tackle issues relating to dog welfare and irresponsible dog ownership. We have amended the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that its criminal provisions on dangerously out-of-control dogs are extended to private property. We have also increased the penalties available for the worst dog attacks and provided authorities with new preventative powers in the form of community protection notices. In addition, these regulations will make it compulsory for all dogs in England to be microchipped.

Over the past three years, an average of just over 100,000 stray dogs a year were passed to English local authorities and welfare organisations. Of those dogs not able to be reunited with their owners, some 38,000 dogs were re-homed and a further 8,000 were put down. The annual cost incurred by local authorities and welfare organisations in dealing with stray dogs is more than £30 million. That is not to mention the distress caused to dogs and owners.

Since we first announced our intention to introduce this requirement in February 2012, the number of dogs microchipped is estimated to have risen from 58% to 70%; but we consider that we are close to the ceiling of the number of dogs that would be microchipped if we were to maintain the voluntary approach. Microchipping a dog is a welfare measure. Increased traceability allows lost dogs to be reunited with their keepers more quickly and therefore avoids dogs having to spend unnecessary time in kennels with possible resultant welfare problems or the need to be re-homed. I expect compulsory microchipping to have the additional benefits of reducing kennelling costs to local authorities and welfare organisations and allowing abandoned and nuisance dogs to be traced back to their keepers, who may then, if appropriate, be held to account.

The regulations require that, from April 2016—unless a vet has certified that a dog should not be microchipped for reasons of its health—all keepers of dogs in England must have their dogs microchipped. The regulations define “microchipped” as both having a compliant microchip implanted in the dog and, crucially, having the keeper’s up-to-date details on a reunification database. The details of the dog and its breeder, where known, also need to be recorded. This should help to encourage more responsible breeding as breeders will be more traceable.

Only trained people, including vets, veterinary nurses and others who have passed an approved dog microchipping course, will be able to implant microchips. Microchips and database operators must meet certain standards, including the ability to supply information to authorised persons to enable dogs to be reunited with their owners on a 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week basis.

In keeping with the Government’s wish to have light-touch enforcement of the regulations, the microchipping requirement is enforceable primarily by the issue of a notice. Any keeper of a dog found without a microchip can be handed a notice by a local authority authorised person or a police constable requiring them to get their dog microchipped within 21 days. There is then a fine on conviction, currently up to £500, for non-compliance with such a notice. Finally, all dogs must be microchipped before they can be transferred to a new keeper, unless a vet has certified otherwise.

Microchipping is a relatively simple process which a number of animal welfare groups and local authorities have been offering free for many years. Blue Cross and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home offer free microchipping at their respective centres, and the Dogs Trust has offered to meet the cost of microchips and has set aside £6 million to help ensure all unchipped dogs are microchipped ahead of April 2016. Animal welfare groups are already campaigning to raise awareness of this new obligation as well as of the benefits of microchipping. We also plan to undertake significant communications activity ahead of April 2016 to ensure breeders and keepers are aware of this new duty.

These regulations will help tackle the problem of stray dogs and help to reunite keepers with lost pets more quickly. They will also lessen the burden on animal charities and local authorities and protect the welfare of dogs by encouraging responsible ownership. I commend these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on bringing these regulations forward. The Minister was right when he said that the voluntary scheme is probably reaching its upper limit and that to catch the last pool of dogs that are not chipped, compulsion is needed. At the same time as congratulating the Government, I congratulate the many animal charities he mentioned—Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the Kennel Club—on how proactive they have been in working on this issue. I congratulate Dogs Trust on coming forward with its offer of free chipping because that makes a tremendous difference. The Minister mentioned that the saving to the public purse would be over £30 million every year, which is a significant sum.

I have three questions. First, Regulation 6 relates to the conditions to be met by a database operator. The Minister mentioned that Defra will advertise the reunification databases but, if you are dog owner, how do you know which databases are approved? The regulations state that the database must be approved and lays out all the things that have to be done for it to be approved, but how will the dog owner know which databases advertising on, say, the internet have that approval from Defra and which are just rogue databases which will not meet the conditions?

My second question relates to another detail of the conditions that have to be met by a database operator. I can see why the Minister mentioned that telephone and online requests will need to be answered at all times. Having no knowledge of who is going to be operating these databases, I am slightly concerned about whether a 24-hour-a-day, seven-days-a-week service is practical. I am sure that the Minister’s department may have done some research into this.

My last question relates to Regulation 8, which concerns a change of keeper. It is rather worryingly ambiguous that,

“where a dog is transferred to a new keeper, the new keeper must, unless the previous keeper has already done so, record their full name, address”,

and so on. The point is that the person who is giving up a dog that they do not want might say, “Well, it’s okay Fred. I’ve done all that. There’s no need to worry about it”. How would the new keeper know that the previous keeper had recorded all that information? When you transfer a car, there is a very definite document. Therefore, I wonder whether this regulation depends simply on trust or whether there will be something to back it up.

I congratulate the Government and I warmly congratulate the dog charities and all the other charities involved on all their efforts in this area. I think that this will hugely benefit not only dog owners but lost dogs too.

Natural Environment

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend, whom I congratulate on securing this debate, outlined the proposed nature Bill in her admirably comprehensive introduction. I shall concentrate my remarks on green space, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out, is not necessarily a natural environment as we might have found 2,000 years ago—that exists probably nowhere in the UK. There are wilderness areas or wilder areas, as in the national parks, but much green space is what we share with other species. With the decline in biodiversity that has tracked the whole of my lifetime, through the 20th century, there has been an increasing pressure on all the places where other species lived, to the point when they often ended up with nowhere to live and breed.

Successive Governments this century have made some very good efforts, and I commend the Labour Government, when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was a Minister, for the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, because there is nothing like getting the public involved in being a major part of the protection of green spaces. One of the major steps for this Government was the report from John Lawton, Making Space for Nature, which talked about protecting what we have, the SSSIs and the EU habitats, which of course we are obliged to protect. In mentioning the EU habitats, I say to noble Lords who are Eurosceptics that without the EU’s input into areas such as water pollution and protection of species we would be in a much worse place than we are in now. The EU can claim enormous credit for turning around what was a pretty grim picture in the 1960s and 1970s.

We should expand and join up these spaces for nature with wildlife corridors. That was Sir John Lawton’s contention. The babies that came out of that report were the nature improvement areas, of which there are currently 12—and that is a start. In their assessment of 2013, the Government found that each pound invested by the Government results in nearly £6.80 of additional support from communities, businesses and individuals. It is actually very good value. However, there is still a tremendous amount more that can be done. One area that has been overlooked until now is local wildlife sites, which are important havens, identified and selected locally for their high-nature conservation value and with great public support from the people on whose doorsteps they are. The Wildlife Trusts, which I must commend for their work, because their mission is to connect the public with wildlife and to protect that wildlife, produced a report entitled, Secret Spaces: the Status of Local Wildlife Sites 2014. It found enormous pressures on those sites. It may surprise your Lordships to know that, although they are recognised within the planning system, local wildlife sites are not protected by law. That was one of the recommendations—that greater protection should be given to them—that Professor Sir John Lawton came out with. It would be one thing at the top of my list of things to be done.

Of course, we have had lots of strategies beyond the ones that I have mentioned. We had a biodiversity strategy from Defra in 2011 and the important natural environment White Paper, as well as the work on eco- systems services, all of which are important contributions. However, I would agree that putting the work of the Natural Capital Committee on a statutory basis is one of the most important steps that we can take now, because its work values the synergies that we find between, for example, farming benefiting wildlife, clean water and more absorbent soil, as well as more interesting landscapes. We have found that there are lots of indicators of the health of an ecosystem: pollinators, for example, which is an issue that we have debated in your Lordships’ Chamber before, frogs and farmland birds. The Government are committed to reversing the long-term decline in the UK farmland bird indicator, which is made up of 19 species. Noble Lords will be aware of the different reasons for that decline, particularly different farming methods.

I would particularly like to mention one initiative from LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming—that is important in helping to reverse this decline. It is starting its big farmland bird count within the next month and will involve farmers. It is looking at what can be achieved by the adoption of simple management techniques to improve habitats and bird numbers and includes information on bird identification, because it is not a given that every land manager can identify all the species. There is much work to be done. The mistle thrush and the yellowhammer have declined enormously since the 1970s here in England, but oddly in Scotland, that decline has now reversed and the populations are becoming much healthier. Perhaps there is something that we can learn from Scotland.

To conclude, I would like to talk about bats, which are the subject of a Private Member’s Bill in the other place on Friday of this week. The Bat Habitats Regulation Bill is sadly geared toward preventing bats from living in churches. There have been many claims that bats are contributing to a health hazard—which Public Health England denies—but why do bats need special protection in the first place? It is easy to kill a whole roost of bats, and people have often had a prejudice against them. They, perhaps more than any other species, have suffered from declining habitats, with barn conversions and so on. The Bill, which perhaps will come before your Lordships’ House, refers to enhancing the protection available for bat habitats in the non-built environment. That is all very well, but then it refers to limiting the protection available for bat habitats in the built environment,

“located inside a building used for public worship”.

That is a very dangerous precedent. Anyone who does not like bats can claim that people are gathering to worship. I hope the right reverend Prelate will take this up, as I think it is a very sad comment on the churches’ attitude towards wildlife. There is a simple solution: if bat faeces are falling in an embarrassing place, you simply need to nail a board under that, as many people have learnt to do in their own homes.

Milk Production

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am very happy to take that back.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

This side. This side.

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

Order. We need less of the shouting of “This side, this side” during Question Time. If we are going to follow the convention of sides, which is not the only convention we follow at Question Time, it is the turn of the Labour Benches, so we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley.

[Lord De Mauley]

Certainly, my Lords, some producers are able to produce milk at a much lower rate—I met a farmer the other day who claimed to be producing milk in the mid-teens. We do not have strong views on the size of units of farms. What matters is stockmanship.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that milk coming from grass-fed cows kept out of doors is of a superior nutritional quality? Further, will he say how important that is to the look of the countryside in all those areas dependent on tourism? Does he think that that would be answered by large industrial units?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is a strong case for extensive farming. We see it in this country and some farmers are practising it very profitably. It depends to a large extent on the part of the country—on the rainfall, the quality of the grass and so forth. As I have said before, we think that there is a place for various different types of farming.

EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken about all the rational reasons why it is important not to waste food. Certainly, food security is not a given: we are in a very frail food chain.

As other noble Lords have mentioned, when we waste food we are wasting energy, which is an especially important consideration at a time of climate change. But we are also wasting water when we waste food. In fact, enough water is used in the irrigation of food grown globally that is wasted—that is, water irrigating just wasted food—for the domestic needs of 9 billion people. I got that figure from the wonderful Tristram Stuart, and I find it really shocking.

Furthermore, when we waste food we are wasting land. Here in the UK good quality agricultural land is pretty limited. Some people do not think we even have enough to spare some to allow the small percentage that it would take of extra hedgerows, grass strips and small copses to turn our farmland from somewhere that is failing wildlife at the moment into somewhere that is rich in biodiversity. I thoroughly agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, when he said that it is in fact the nutrition per hectare that is important. That is an interesting shift in thinking, which has started in the last two or three years.

Finally, when we waste food we also are wasting money. Those are all very sound reasons not to waste food.

I believe that this report hits such a spot because food is such a cultural thing. If we think of the word “company”—as in “I enjoy your company”—it comes from “cum pane” and means literally “with bread”, as in “I am breaking bread with you”. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, will appreciate, with her big dinner tonight, when you invite good friends round, you invite them for a meal; you do not invite them round just to sit on a chair. Therefore, the importance of the issue reaches beyond the actual numbers; it is a very cultural thing that we are wasting food and a comment on society. That is why I am very pleased that this excellent, measured and hard-hitting report from Sub-Committee D has already contributed so much to the essential movement to limit and eradicate food waste. The press coverage that it got when it came out is a credit to my noble friend the chairman and to the quality of the report.

The conclusions and recommendations struck me as very sound, and I shall just mention a few. As the committee says in its report, I was horrified by how little effort or emphasis the Commission has put into this subject so far. The report spells that out very clearly. But equally, here in the UK, I was saddened, as paragraph 159 demonstrated, by how little has happened over the past 10 or 15 years with regard to domestic food waste reduction. Of course, I appreciate how difficult that is. The reason why I have taken that timescale is that I stood down as a councillor in 2005, and in the nine years since then little seems to have changed.

I was interested in the reply—this was in the briefing pack for this debate from the Library—to a Commons Question on 23 June this year, which shows the breakdown of separate food waste by local authority. It is really patchy; some are performing pretty well, but the performance of some is absolutely abysmal. In Lambeth, where I am a council tax payer, they managed to recycle only a few hundred tonnes, and even that has halved over the three-year period. Yet some small rural districts are managing to recycle thousands of tonnes. When my noble friend the Minister replies, can he say why he thinks that there is such an uneven rate of success among local authorities? I know, and I agree, that normally Governments should be hands-off with local authorities, but this seems a particular case where encouragement and guidance really does not seem to have achieved much.

I am glad that the report’s final conclusion is that a voluntary approach is sound for now but that in five years’ time, if nothing has changed, it might need to be followed up by legislation. That was certainly underlined by my experience earlier in the week when I visited Brussels. My visit was the culmination of a report from the Industry and Parliament Trust, the Food Ethics Council and Warwick University, called The Long and the Short of It, which is about sustainable food supply chains. Among other things, we too found, as this committee’s report mentions in paragraph 212, that the DGs need to improve their co-ordination enormously. We were pleased to hear that at least the new Commission, even though it has been in place only for a short time, has already set up two horizontal working groups between environment and agriculture. Perhaps we can look forward to some more.

We also concluded that much of the investment, focus and drive for more sustainable food chains come largely from the private sector, and that it is the public sector that needs to catch up. However, for the debate today we received a briefing from the BRC that was helpful but struck me as slightly complacent. I would not like to think that the private sector was beginning to coast just because the public sector has a lot of catching up to do.

It is important to practise what you preach, and here in the House of Lords we are vigorously pursing the reduction path. Other noble Lords have mentioned the importance of the hierarchy. There is currently a food waste audit under way that is to report by Christmas. Our catering manager believes, correctly, that you need to know where the various elements of waste are arising, whether in preparation, uneaten portions or food offered but not chosen, before you can go for further reduction. The audit will give our catering department the tools to make us among the most sustainable restaurant categories with regard to waste. Currently, our food waste, which used to go for incineration, goes to an AD plant. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that it is better for it to go to AD than nothing but that it is better for it not to be wasted in the first place.

Natural Capital Committee

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what changes they will make in resource allocation in the light of the assessments of the Natural Capital Committee.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, the Natural Capital Committee is clearly a bit like a bus. There has been no mention of it in either House for ages, and then suddenly this week two debates come along at once. I am delighted about that. We are privileged in this House to have the Defra Minister responsible for it, my noble friend Lord De Mauley, to respond to us.

Although the Natural Capital Committee deals with many Defra matters, it was commissioned by the Treasury and reports to the Economic Affairs Committee of the Cabinet, which is chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The NCC’s job is to advise the Government on the state of English natural capital. The establishment of the NCC is one of the rather quiet but very significant things that the coalition has done. It is part of a package. In 2011, the Government also introduced the natural environment White Paper The Natural Choice and the UK national ecosystem assessment which shockingly found that one-third of the UK’s ecosystem services was declining severely. If the UK’s ecosystems were protected and enhanced, they could add at least an extra £30 billion annually to the UK economy. By contrast, neglect and loss of ecosystem services can cost us as much as £20 billion a year.

The Government made these moves as part of a plan. Previously, successive Governments and the public have really thought about natural capital only in response to a crisis, some sort of wake-up call, whether floods, droughts or food prices. The coalition Government were certainly reminded early on of just how much the public value natural capital when they announced their plan to sell off UK forests. The coalition Government learnt that the public value natural capital, even if they do not consider all parts of it.

I was moved to bring this debate as a result of a conference on soils. Soils are perhaps the most vivid illustration of our natural capital. The development of soil takes between 500 years and perhaps 10,000 years. Even a centimetre of topsoil takes at least 200 years to develop. Soil is the basis of our food production, but it is much more than that. It is important for carbon storage, water absorption and water filtering, and is crucial as the first layer in the food chain. How have we treated this virtually irreplaceable resource? We have allowed it to be eroded, polluted, washed away and built over. People may own the land, but the timescale that soil takes to form puts it into the category of a real commons for the nation—or natural capital.

Let us take another part of our natural capital that has been the subject of debate in our Chamber recently: bees. Pollinators are—to mix my metaphor—perhaps the canary in the coal mine. We do not know why bee colonies have collapsed; there seem to be several possible contributory factors. Only recently have people begun to appreciate that, beyond the luxury of honey, the pollinator services of bees and their many pollinating relatives are critical to food production. The collapse of bee populations is mirrored by those of frogs and other amphibians. Could it be that the use of substances such as neonicotinoids is having a much wider effect, or is it the cocktail of pesticides that needs further examination? It has always seemed bizarre to me that a product is tested alone when in reality a cocktail is being used out there.

That brings me to the first question for my noble friend. The NCC rightly sees developing a research agenda on natural capital as a priority. The research agenda on the constituents of natural capital is badly in need of some major help and overhaul. I have seen plenty of evidence which suggests that attempts to ensure the future health of our natural capital might be undermined unless research priorities are better aligned to overall needs and move away from the quick buck producing areas. The determinants of innovation and factors that influence research choices, such as science policies, public-private partnerships and the career paths available, all combine to favour technological regimes that tend to suit very focused, reductionist approaches rather than the holistic ecological approach that is needed to address ecosystems and the sort of complex interactions that we get between, for example, soil and water. Can my noble friend confirm that the Government will ensure a move to a more appropriate balance of research?

I have referred to a few other elements of natural capital such as water, minerals, stone, gravel and energy sources, whether oil or gas. They are all part of the natural capital that is fundamental to our manmade economy and society. We could not have a manmade economy if it was not underpinned by all those elements. Our failure to adequately protect our natural capital could well be a fatal step towards an economy that diminishes severely over time.

One of the problems is that efforts to protect our natural capital have too often been made on the basis of the intrinsic or aesthetic value of, say, woodlands, uplands, clean streams or bird populations. I accept that we may succeed in better protection if we explicitly demonstrate the value that society places on our natural assets, thereby protecting and maybe even enhancing them for future generations. The Natural Capital Committee is part of that effort. The first annual report of the NCC earlier this year contained a number of important recommendations, and I wonder if my noble friend would be able to comment on one of them. The NCC stated that,

“the Government’s efforts to reform the Common Agricultural Policy be intensified, with a long-term view to phasing out Pillar one support and moving subsides towards Pillar two and the provision of public goods”,

and thereby,

“securing as much flexibility as possible in how funding can be allocated for the period 2014-2020”.

If my noble friend could tell us how that work is going, I would be grateful. Will he also encourage the NCC to consider who should be the innovators of these approaches? Clearly, there will need to be some pilot areas; the national parks are one obvious example, but what about the Crown Estate? It is also responsible to the Treasury, and there it is with swathes of our natural capital under its management. Surely it should be a cradle of innovation.

I have a few comments to make on the NCC itself. It held a useful open event at the Royal Society and its first annual report is quite readable. However, the minutes of the NCC are dry to the point of desiccation. This is important because it needs to be outward facing if it is to succeed in integrating the thinking that is being developed into the mainstream and make it the discussion of the day in boardrooms. It will also need to develop some work with institutions such as Cranfield because it is disappointing to read that the Committee concluded,

“that it is not currently possible to identify with any certainty precisely which natural capital assets are being used unsustainably, especially given the available data and knowledge about limits and thresholds”.

That seems to be under-ambitious, although the Committee does go on to say that the rate at which natural assets are being consumed is “unprecedented”.

In conclusion, I must say that there are plenty of cynics out there who think that the NCC is just a way to suggest that the Government are after some green credentials. Whether that is the case or not will be proven in whether policies start to shift in decision-making across all departments, and by the Treasury itself in the way it allocates resources. We need some startling, if welcome, decisions and some much more radical policies.

The next debate, which my noble friend is also going to answer, is on the Thames Tideway Tunnel. That is a good example of what I am talking about. Faced with the same sort of problem as London, the city of Philadelphia chose a radically different solution, avoided many costs, enhanced its environment amazingly and brought solutions down to a neighbourhood scale. The NCC is perhaps looking at such worldwide examples of practice that could help its deliberations, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, may go into the Philadelphia example. The NCC is subject to review in 2014, and I certainly hope there will be no question but that it should continue. We really need its work.

Pesticides: Bees

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

That was suggested to me this morning and I pointed out that it might not be something the Government would want to call it. The noble Lord makes several very interesting points, most of which I have forgotten in the hilarity. I thank him for his points.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that neonicotinoids are applied as a seed dressing and are therefore in the soil? One of the questions the Government need to look at under the precautionary principle is how long they last in the soil as they are lethal not only to bees but to many of the invertebrates that live in that soil.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, and indeed persistence in soil is one of the tests that is considered.

Horsemeat and Food Fraud

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take these issues extremely seriously. The FSA has certainly not dropped its guard. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth, said, it has been doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances and the Government are supporting it in that. As I explained earlier, the nature of sampling is risk based and focused on protecting consumers. Staff reductions have not affected the level of testing carried out on meat. Meat produced in UK approved slaughterhouses is inspected by official veterinarians and meat inspectors working under their direction. They also ensure that meat hygiene regulations are complied with in abattoirs and meat establishments.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the length of the food chain is part of the problem? For example, in one lasagne you can get four or five sorts of meat from different sources, even if they all comprise beef. There are all sorts of things that people could mistrust, such as salami made from donkey. Labelling is absolutely crucial. If I may say so, checking as much as we can is only ever going to be a case of shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with much of what my noble friend said. She is right: our supply chains are complicated nowadays but that is how the market has developed and we have to work with that. She is also right that labelling is absolutely key. We must ensure that it is accurate.

Crime: Wildlife Crime

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in tackling wildlife crime.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to the fight against wildlife crime. We have made real progress in recent years, including providing funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit and introducing civil sanction powers for Natural England to deal with certain illegal activities. Internationally, among other things, we have helped fund Interpol projects, building enforcement capacity to conserve tigers, elephants and rhinos in the countries where they live in the wild.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. I am sure he is therefore aware of the comments of the CITES Secretary-General, John Scanlon, about the huge increase in poaching of wildlife, especially in Africa, which he feels is going to help fund the insurgencies there. Domestically, in Britain, does my noble friend agree that poaching birds’ eggs, for example, is stealing our children’s inheritance as much as stealing the Crown jewels? What guidance will he give to the new police commissioners to make sure that they realise the seriousness of wildlife crime?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, first, I am aware that John Scanlon recognises the increasing involvement of organised crime in illegal wildlife trade. He has welcomed the UN Security Council’s call for an investigation into the alleged involvement of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the poaching of African elephants and the smuggling of ivory. Police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constables to account for the totality of their policing, which includes the chief constable working in collaboration with other police forces and agencies to address national issues that impact on their communities. As I have said, we believe that there is often a link between organised wildlife crime and other organised crimes, such as drugs and arms trafficking. We therefore expect the police to take wildlife crime seriously where it is a priority for their communities; co-operation with the NWCU will be key to this.