Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading. I was very keen to do so but unavoidably had to attend an important meeting at home. I refer to my interests as set out in the register. That includes my family’s management of Holkham National Nature Reserve, one of the most prolific in terms of conservation success in the land. I also stalk red deer in Scotland but have never hunted in other parts of the world.

This Bill will provide the legislative framework for understanding when someone commits a criminal offence. Therefore, in order to be fair and to avoid multiple legal challenges, clarifications around the definition of animals impacted by the Bill and the hunter himself or herself are required. Without clarity around these definitions, the Bill in its current form raises challenges for import and export agents preparing documentation relating to the importation of a hunting trophy into the UK and for Border Force officials tasked with enforcing the new legislation.

The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the extent to which the Bill has expanded in scope from the original manifesto commitment, which addressed endangered species—perhaps 10, in the recent UK context—to over 6,200 species, and the extent to which this highly disproportionate approach will create a far greater administrative burden than seems necessary. Amendment 3 would ensure that the new words “a wild” precede “animal”.

The Bill is clearly meant to be about conservation. That much has been made clear by the Government, who have stated that it was to be enacted in order to protect the world’s threatened species. If the Bill is about conservation, then it should be about wild animals, as the hunting of domestic, non-wild or captive animals is not a conservation concern. Such a ban does not, therefore, advance the intention of the Bill. This is not a small matter. There are many cases where animals are killed in situations which would not be classed as wild. The killing of tigers in South Africa is one such example. While very many of us would find that morally repugnant, it is clear that this Bill is about conservation and that the killing of a tiger in South Africa has no detrimental impact on wild tiger conservation in Asia.

If this is not about conservation and the killing of wild animals but more about welfare, then we should presumably take this time to address the killing of livestock in this country. It is worth remembering that, every year in the UK, approximately 2.6 million cattle, 10 million pigs, 14.5 million sheep and lambs, 80 million fish and 950 million birds are slaughtered for human consumption. Given that people can live perfectly well without meat, and plenty do, it is hard to argue that that kind of killing is not done only for the pleasure of people eating meat, but it clearly dwarfs by many orders of magnitude the average of 90 to 115 wild animals which are imported annually to the UK. The Bill, then, is clearly meant to be about conservation and therefore wild, rather than non-wild, animals.

Although it should be about conservation, in reality it can be tricky to find what is actually wild and what is not. We can see this complexity in our own wildlife legislation. Mark Avery has discussed this matter with regard to pheasants, which, for example, are determined as livestock when bred in captivity but, as soon as they are released, are deemed to be wild. This kind of complexity also applies to the kind of animals we see discussed all the time in the trophy hunting debate. Lions, for example, are one of the most high-profile species mentioned, especially since the killing of Cecil the lion. However, when is a lion a wild lion?

In South Africa, for example, there is a complex scenario where lions may be captive, managed or wild. According to credible organisations such as Panthera, South Africa has between 2,700 and 3,200 wild and managed lions, split roughly 50/50. The wild animals live in national parks such as the Kruger National Park; managed lions inhabit private reserves such as Phinda and Tswalu, and are managed in the name of keeping the gene pool diverse. Others are captive; the South African Predator Association keeps track of captive lions and captive breeding facilities, but not everyone who breeds lions in South Africa needs to be a member, and not everyone who is provides statistics. According to an article in National Geographic, the 2015 estimate was of around 7,000 lions in captivity.

Ideally, the animals covered by this Bill should also be wild animals which are native to that country. There are many cases where exotic animals cause immense concern in terms of their impact on nature biodiversity, particularly in Australia. One trophy-hunted non-native species in Australia is the camel, which needs to have its population controlled after feral populations were established by explorers and colonisers. Another example is the tiger, as I mentioned before. Although prohibited in a country in which tigers naturally occur, tiger hunting does happen in South Africa. Between 2002 and 2011, 17 tiger trophies were exported from South Africa—although, mercifully, none to the UK.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, if Amendment 3 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 4 or 5 for reasons of pre-emption.

Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

The Liberal Democrats back British farmers and that is why we are opposing this SI today. I agree with the Minister: it is not a game; it is deadly serious. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, by reason of pre-emption.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest, as set out in the register, as president of the Rare Breeds Survival Trust. The statutory instrument on direct payments that we are considering today is very short, and should be straightforward, but I have tabled an amendment, as we have some reservations about how the agricultural transition is being managed. This was done with no intention to confuse farmers.

Farm businesses have been facing increased volatility, uncertainty and instability and have been expressing concerns about the phase-out of direct payments against a backdrop of huge cost inflation. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, talked about the huge extra costs being faced. According to the NFU, agricultural inputs have risen by almost 50% since 2019. It says that fertilisers are up by 169%, energy by 79% and animal feed by 57%.

During a time of fresh food shortages, it is worrying that the production of salad ingredients such as tomatoes and cucumbers is expected to fall to the lowest levels since records began back in 1985. Is Defra talking to supermarkets about the need to support British farmers? The NFU survey of livestock producers found that 40% of beef farmers and 36% of sheep farmers are planning to reduce, with input costs given overwhelmingly as the main reason.

Following the survey results, and with the SI reducing payments to farmers by between 35% and 55%, I was perturbed by paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Notes, headlined Impact, which states:

“There is no or no significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”.


How can there not be an impact? I also draw attention to paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which indicates that the Government intend this to be last year of the current direct payment scheme in England. It is being replaced by the delinked payment. Will that process require a further SI, or will what is in front of us today be sufficient to make that transition?

I would also appreciate clarification of the claims in paragraph 7.2, which states that direct payments are untargeted, can inflate land rent prices and can stand in the way of new entrants to the farming industry. These are quite sweeping assertions. What is the evidence base for this and what impact has the reduction in basic payments so far had on land prices and new entrants?

As the Minister knows, we have always supported the introduction of new ELM schemes and we clearly want to see them succeed, but between 2018 and 2022, Defra struggled to provide farmers with sufficient information. This unsurprisingly led to concerns, particularly against the backdrop of changes to our trading relationship with Europe, the Covid-19 pandemic, the impact of the war in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis.

There has been a huge number of differing pressures and uncertainty. It is no surprise that farmers are concerned and worried about all the changes that are happening. But it was very welcome that in January this year, Defra finally published the details of the three ELM schemes and provided much needed clarity to the farming sector. As we have heard, this includes a sustainable farming incentive, an expanded countryside stewardship scheme and a further round of the landscape recovery pilots.

It is important for the different options to be attractive to farmers, enabling them to produce food while helping to protect and enhance our natural environment. We have heard that this year, Defra has increased countryside stewardship payment rates and removed the caps, so that farmers can access more capital to invest in farm infrastructure, improve air and water quality and restore habitats. This is very welcome, but we believe that Defra could go further in offering support. One way could be to increase access to the higher tier options, including for hill farmers. Currently, only about 300 to 500 farmers a year benefit from this, but it has the potential to provide a flexible, effective and more attractive offer to many more farmers. Is this something the department would perhaps consider? Defra has stated that it will manage the budget in a flexible and transparent way but has not made firm allocations to each scheme. When is that information likely to be available?

We know that the successful rollout of ELMS is critical to meeting our domestic and international commitments to tackle the nature and climate crisis we face. Following COP 15, we now have international commitments to pursue more nature-friendly farming. So, while we have concerns about the lack of long-term certainty about the future that farmers are struggling with, and we still need to know details of how all this will work in practice, we do not support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

Analysis by the Green Alliance has demonstrated that a two-year delay to the phase-out of direct payments would halve the contribution of ELMS to the fifth carbon budget, leaving a substantial gap in the UK’s net zero plans. The analysis also found that retaining the previous EU scheme for an extra two years would mean that at least £1.2 billion—that is £770 million in 2023—would continue to be spent on the wealthiest farms in England: in other words, those already receiving more than £100,000 each in public subsidy in exchange for carrying out no public goods whatsoever.

Unfortunately, the Government have dithered for a number of years over the future of ELMS, which has been significantly delayed from the original start date of 2020. There was also uncertainty when Liz Truss even looked at axing it. So, January’s announcement was very helpful, but everything has been moving far too slowly, both for farmers and for our environment. Many farmers are also concerned about a gap in funding as they work out which schemes they are eligible to apply for.

My colleague in the other place, Daniel Zeichner MP, said:

“Unfortunately, it’s hard to imagine the money that’s been lost in direct payments will now be replaced through environmental schemes. Farmers are losing thousands and thousands. Labour is committed to making these schemes work and unfortunately it appears there is no such commitment from this government”.


I know that the Minister is personally very committed.

The extra £1,000 that has been mentioned is not exactly a huge sum for struggling farmers, but this SI is part of the next stage in the transition to the “public money for public goods” approach to agricultural support. We strongly support that transition, and we want it to work. We need to move to a more environmentally friendly and nature-positive food production system, but we remain concerned that the complexity of the schemes currently proposed may hamper take-up. The noble Baroness mentioned the slow uptake of the scheme so far. In terms of food supply and environmental gain, that is something we simply cannot afford. We support the Government’s aims, but they just need to get on now with delivering what both our farmers and the environment so badly need.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I am aware of the time but I have attempted, through this amendment, to find a creative new way of tackling some of the issues that have come up in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said quite some time ago, early on, that we have to reassure the public. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, said in the last debate that it is essential to take the public with us. The Minister said that it is essential to build confidence. This amendment seeks a positive way forward. For anyone still worrying about their dinner break, I am not intending to put this to a vote, for the avoidance of doubt, but I want to suggest a way forward for what has clearly been a very difficult Bill with a lot of issues that remain of great concern in your Lordships’ House and more broadly.

On the first group, I spoke about the number of people whom I know are watching the debate at this very moment and feeling very disappointed about what has happened—or rather, not happened. I also refer back to what I said at the start about the scientists who were coming to me saying, “How do we get our knowledge through to the Government? We feel we are just not being heard”, and these are experts in a range of different fields. This is a creative suggestion. I might have included the word “consultation” but, as we have heard in debates on various amendments today, the Government did consult the public and stakeholders and then entirely ignored what they said. It might be said with some justice that what result you will get depends on how you ask the question. Indeed, I think the Minister at some stage referred to a survey saying, “If we can get drought-proof wheat with gene editing, should we go ahead with it?” If you phrase the question that way, you will get a positive result; however, that is not listening to the academic—a proponent of the technology—who said to me this week, “You cannot drought-proof wheat with one genetic change. That is a fact.”

What I am suggesting here is a process of deliberative democracy. This is something that has really taken hold in government departments—not, that I know of, in Defra, but in others—and indeed across the world. Some of the classic examples of deliberative democracy are in Ireland, on equal marriage and on abortion, where the public, when allowed a chance to deliberate and carefully consider the issues, showed themselves to be significantly in front of the politicians. We have seen climate assemblies in the UK— that may have been under Defra; I am not sure what department they were under. We have seen a very effective climate assembly in France. Lots of local government organisations have been having climate assemblies. It is a way of getting people together and getting themselves informed, both the general public and stakeholders.

I borrowed the term “priority setting partnerships” from an organisation called the James Lind Alliance; I did not ask first. I have spoken to people who have been involved in this process, and it is of particular relevance here because it has been used in a significant number of cases to look at how to set priorities and make decisions about ways forward in healthcare. It brings together clinicians, patients and carers in those healthcare settings. My Amendment 28 is a commencement amendment, but I am not going to push it on that basis. My constructive suggestion to the Minister is that, to find a way forward among many of the issues that have really not been resolved in your Lordships’ House, and have not been resolved among scientists, the Government should seek a deliberative process looking at how the regulations are constructed for the Bill. That process could actually get public involvement and engagement, because I guarantee him that there will be a great deal of public concern and public anger about where we have got to today, and public resistance to the products.

That issue is particularly going to arise around whether gene-edited products will be labelled. I could very easily have tabled amendments on this; lots of people asked me to. We debated it extensively in Committee, but I could not see a different way forward and I did not simply want to revisit the Committee debate. However, if we are going to talk to the public about labelling and about what is happening to their food, we know how deep the public’s concern is about food safety, the nature of their food and the way it is produced. I do not need to list all the scandals and the concerns, including genuine health concerns, that have arisen in recent years. This is an area of public concern, so I am suggesting that on regulations, issues such as labelling and many of the things that remain unresolved, the Government should bring together scientists, government officials, experts and the public and seek a way forward that works.

While I remain gravely concerned, for all the reasons I have set out previously about the Bill and what it could unleash, I think there is a very significant chance that this will go nowhere, both because of the legal tangles and the public resistance. If the Government want to find a constructive way forward, I have set out here a way in which they could co-create a model with the public and the experts. That is my genuinely constructive suggestion, and I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, if Amendment 28 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 29 and 30 for reasons of pre-emption.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who has spoken at length on why she feels it is necessary to delay the implementation of the Bill. The Bill sets in train a considerable step towards precision engineering and a move away from traditional practices. Great care is needed to ensure that all unintended consequences are avoided. The extra protections that the noble Baroness proposes are therefore necessary and I look forward to the Minister’s response and reassurance on this matter.

Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, first, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mendoza on an excellent maiden speech. I am confident that he will bring a lot of his expertise to this House. He shares Oriel College with my noble friend Lord Robathan. I shared my school days with my noble friend Lord Robathan, and that just goes to show what diversity we have both at school and in universities. I congratulate my noble friend on a typically uncontroversial speech.

I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Mendoza that I am sure that those in the Government Whips’ Office are very grateful for the thanks that he gave them. They do not often get thanks but, if there is any place where you can find cultural recovery and renewal, it will be in that office. They are not having a very easy time of it—not helped by my recent voting record—so I offer them my support.

I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner for his clear explanation of the need for these regulations, and I support them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I too am a supporter of organic products, but I think that sometimes we have made a mistake. Other countries—France, in particular—call them “bioproducts”, which might be a little more appetising to the public.

On the other hand, I have always had somewhat conflicted views on GM organisms. In 1999, as a relatively newly elected MP, together with two other MPs on a cross-party basis, I took the Government to the High Court over the regulation of GM seeds. However, this is not the moment to debate the merits or otherwise of GM organisms. As this is a devolved matter, presumably it is possible to end up with different regimes throughout the UK. I am not sure that that is a good thing but, in other ways, I fully support these measures.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Report stage & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendments 90 to 92A not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 92B. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Clause 40: Power to make regulations for securing compliance with WTO Agreement on Agriculture: general

Amendment 92B

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 93 agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 97. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 97

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Does the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, want to move Amendment 101?

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]]

I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 101.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

Amendments 102 and 102A are amendments to Amendment 101. Does the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, wish to move Amendment 102?

[Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]]

I shall not be moving the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group are technical. They amend the list of provisions in the Bill for which the Secretary of State and the devolved Administration Ministers can make supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. We have brought them forward at the recent request of the devolved Administrations—that perhaps pre-empts the question as to why this was a recent request of the devolved Administrations. 

The effect of these amendments is that the devolved Administration Ministers have the power to make supplementary and consequential provision to amend primary legislation, either UK or devolved, in all additional areas of the Bill where a legislative consent Motion is being sought. 

This is not about filling any legislative gap or changing government policy. These are technical amendments which were needed to ensure that the devolved Administrations have the necessary powers to make such provisions, should it be required.  The amendments reflect the slightly different powers each devolved Administration is taking in the Bill. For example, Clause 34, on agricultural tenancies, applies only to Wales.  

Officials from the four Administrations have worked closely together on this issue to ensure that the scope of powers under Clause 50 provides all Ministers with the necessary powers, consistent with the devolution settlements. I am pleased the clause has been amended to satisfy Welsh, Scottish and DAERA Ministers. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is no longer speaking in this group, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this group of government amendments, which has been brought forward at the request of the devolved Administrations to give them the powers they each require, given their separate needs. I thank both Ministers for their patience and forbearance during this long process.

Agriculture Bill

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 15th September 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment 13 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once, and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.

Amendment 14

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has set a wonderful precedent here. Anything I would have said on this has been said by those who have already spoken, so I shall leave it by saying that I support the amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, since Committee I have reflected on two aspects of the broader farming area that we did not really look at in any particular depth at that stage. So I would like to place on record that, in my judgment, horticulture will play an ever-increasing role in the broader farming area. It is land, but of course it may be under glass or may use some of the new techniques for intensive production, particularly of certain vegetables.

Secondly, there is the small but ever-growing viticulture industry. I have done a bit of an inquiry and I declare an interest as a mini-grower, with 100 vines. There are now some major players in the UK who are producing in volume and looking for opportunities to export, which is a very important dimension as we set off on our journey on our own. There are also a lot of micro-growers who are looking for opportunities to develop. So I do hope that land and farming will remember that there is horticulture and, particularly now, viniculture.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, on bringing forward this amendment. It shows what a sense of humour she has: having torn to shreds all the amendments in a previous group as being “little baubles”, she now comes forward with a bauble of her own.

I would like to put on the record that I am quite content with Clause 1(1)(j), which calls for

“protecting or improving the quality of soil.”

I can understand the basis behind the amendment, but for all of us who are concerned about the content of the soil and about good agricultural and environmental condition, I think that it is actually all contained in Clause 1 as it stands.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The primary effect of this amendment would be to provide a new lever to oblige recipients of financial assistance under Clause 1 to meet cross-compliance requirements. This includes parts of the cross-compliance regime where there is no backing in domestic legislation.

A large proportion of the rules currently contained in the cross-compliance regime are replicated in domestic legislation. Rules such as those in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Control of Pesticides Regulations and the Reduction and Prevention of Agricultural Diffuse Pollution (England) Regulations will continue to provide protection for our valuable wildlife, soils and watercourses. It will remain mandatory for individuals to continue to comply with all domestic regulation, irrespective of whether they qualify for financial assistance.

We understand the important role that regulatory standards play in trade, in protecting our environment and in protecting the health and welfare of animals. That is why the Government will take a proactive approach to engaging with industry. Responses to our landmark Health and Harmony consultation, our wide-reaching review led by Dame Glenys Stacey, and our discussion document on the ELM scheme have informed, and will continue to inform, our regulatory framework. This autumn, we intend to launch an engagement package—the intensive consultation to which the noble Baroness referred—which will provide an update on the thinking around the future regulatory system. We want to use this to start a co-design process with industry, opening the conversation with stakeholders on the best approaches to designing a future regulatory system.

The Government are exploring other possible levers that we could use to encourage more effectively industry compliance, which would deliver improved environmental outcomes. The ELM scheme will cover a range of environmental outcomes to ensure that farmers and land managers improve their practices and are rewarded for doing so. We are considering a range of measures to ensure that we deliver these outcomes, including, for example, requiring individuals to meet certain requirements as a condition of entry within the scheme itself.

Finally, I assure noble Lords and emphasise that we should take the time to get this right—and we have the opportunity to do so. Individuals will be expected to continue to comply with all current cross-compliance regulations until we delink payments from the land or direct payments end, and until not before 2022. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, worried about the regulatory gap, but we are striving hard to ensure that this does not occur. Through our engagement process and the development of our ELM policy, we will ensure that our high environmental and animal health and welfare standards continue to remain world-leading.

I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance on this important matter, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received no requests from noble Lords to ask a short question, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]]

I thank those noble Lords who contributed to this debate. The majority recognised that there was a real hole to be plugged and that something needed to be done.

I thank the Minister for her remarks, but before I talk about them in a little detail, I want to address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. This is not just about soils, and paragraph (j) alone does not provide the required protection. To give a couple of examples—one of which has been raised already—one of the provisions in the GAECs concerns cutting hedgerows in the breeding season. Alas, I see that happen too often these days. If there were no requirement for that to be prevented, other than the Wildlife and Countryside Act, I am not sure that farmers would recognise that issue in all cases. The other example is even more germane, because it can impact on the economic profile of a farm business. At the moment, farmers are required to provide two metres of green cover in each direction from the centre of a hedge. If that provision disappeared, we could see the wholesale ripping-up of farm headlands, which would not be protected by any existing legislation.

I very much welcome the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, after Committee on the good agricultural and environmental conditions, but many of the schemes that he outlined in the letter are not statutory requirements but voluntary or guidance schemes—that is, schemes that people need to sign up to. They do not have the statutory and regulatory clout of the GAECs and cross-compliance.

I take the Minister’s point on taking the time needed to get the new regulatory system right, but 2022 is not very far away for the delinking of payments and the abolition of the good agricultural and environmental conditions requirements, so I hope that she means getting it right in terms of both timing and content. Personally, I would welcome the entry requirement for ELM being a statutory provision—as the Minister mentioned—with the maintenance of standards and adherence to a basic range of standards being a requirement for ELM. Of course, the big problem is that ELM is a voluntary scheme and bears down only on those farmers who take up that provision.

There is a lot to be done to get a good regulatory framework. The one thing that we do not want to do is pay for measures that farmers have come to know and love—they have got used to them; they have built them into their farm businesses; they see them as giving them legitimacy in the eyes of public and showing that they are looking after the farmed environment; and they are proud of the fact that they have wildlife and habitats on their farms. We cannot then go back in time and see them as something that farmers must be paid for, rather than the minimal social contract with the nation on how farmers will deliver basic environmental conditions.

I will restrain myself and wait for the consultation in the autumn. I hope that it happens quickly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of an amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 15

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, because they are on to a good point. I also take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just mentioned. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister to clarify exactly how many extra people or units will be able to claim out of the same pot of money. The noble Earl, Lord Devon, made the good point that the current budget—the current amount that comes out of CAP in its two forms—goes to a set number of people. How many more people are likely to be eligible to get their hands on that pot of money? What will the effect therefore be on current farmers, who rely primarily on the basic farm payments system to exist and continue to farm their land? Of course times have to change, and farmers have to become more diverse, but it is important to know exactly what we are talking about, and I hope my noble friend can help us on that before a decision is made on whether to put this to the House or not.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Lord Rooker?

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am now unmuted; the order seemed to have changed.

As in Committee, I support the thrust of the amendments. I may have misread the technicalities of Amendment 15, compared with Amendment 26, but I do not see how Amendment 15 would ignore tenant farmers. It may be that I have misunderstood the effects of Part 6 of the Bill.

I remember farm visits as a Minister, at both MAFF and Defra, when on more than one occasion tenant farmers had a chat with me, out of earshot of others, to say that they were doing things with the land that encouraged other activities; maybe they had done something that encouraged its use as a set for a film or an advert. The landlord would then come chugging down the lane—on one occasion in the form of the National Trust, I remember—demanding a big slice of the extra money, which they had done nothing whatever to create the environment for. This is an important point.

As I say, I am not sure about the difference between the two amendments in that respect, but the Minister has to have a very good case for putting the view that those who take the risk—a point made quite strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—in farming the land and producing the produce should not be the recipients. I obviously agree with the noble Earl, Lord Devon, that this covers producer organisations and others, but it does not cover external landlords who might own the land and receive money from tenants.

This is more or less exactly the same point I made in Committee, and I am glad this has come back. I am not sure whether there will be a Division—I know we are under instructions about various things—but there has to be a point at which, unless the Minister has a really good case, one or both of these amendments should be forced into the Bill.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I did not inform him that the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford and Lord Greaves, had withdrawn.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, on one of the first amendments we discussed in Committee, I said that for all the other things—the environmental benefits, et cetera—farmers are “the delivery system”, and so you have to maintain farmers. This means that you have to define who the farmer is, in a way that has not happened in the Bill, so that we can go forward.

My question to the Minister is this: do we have a definition of what sort of activity is covered by government subsidy here? That is really what needs to come out. For example, forestry would almost certainly come into the same view as agriculture. It may be that I have missed it, so I am trying to get that clarification down; it might make everybody feel slightly more comfortable about this. Who are the people who are supposed to do the other interesting stuff—the access things we have already talked about and the environmental things that are coming to the fore? Who is the delivery system? I cannot see it being anyone other than the farmer and I cannot see any way of it happening other than if they are paid. There simply is not another delivery system for this. There may be a slightly different version of this, but the farmer or land manager seems to require assurance that they are the focus of the activity.

As for supporting the two amendments, I am afraid the Minister has his fate in his own hands on that one, as ever. The fact of the matter is that if we can get out of it only who the groups are, and the definition of why you are going to support them in this changed regime, that would be a useful thing to come out of this, if nothing else.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Northover.

[Baroness Northover (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we already know that our economy will be under pressure in the coming years from the effects and costs of coronavirus and the drop in GDP expected by almost all economists after Brexit, whatever form Brexit takes. The Bill does not spell out exactly how levels of funding will be sustained. As my noble friend Lord Greaves said at the beginning of our consideration of this Report stage, the Bill is permissive, allowing the Government to take action—which does not mean they will take action.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 16 and 17 not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

We now come to Amendment 18. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. She is not responding.

Amendment 18 not moved.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Can I move it?

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

No, you cannot.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I can.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

I apologise—it is always bound to go wrong if I am on the Woolsack—but I have already said that Amendment 18 is not moved.

Amendments 19 to 25 not moved.

Veterinary Surgeons and Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morris of Bolton (Con)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but I have enjoyed listening to the debate so far, and I declare an interest as my son’s lovely girlfriend is a veterinary surgeon. I very much agree with the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Trees. We hear a lot from all sides of the Brexit debate about the fear that there may be a lowering of standards. It is wonderful that this affords an opportunity to ensure that our veterinary surgeons are of the highest possible standard, which we all expect and enjoy. So I too very much welcome these regulations.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

The noble Baroness reminds me that I probably should have declared an interest. My wife, who owns horses, benefits greatly from the services of veterinary surgeons and farriers.

Draft National Policy Statement for Waste Water

Baroness Morris of Bolton Excerpts

Tuesday 5th April 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. Perhaps noble Lords are not aware that there is a speakers list. Having said that, I am sure that if the Grand Committee—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton)]

My Lords, there is a speakers list, so it is possible to speak in the gap. We are in the gap now.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, that is an amusing correction: to find myself up in the right place and being corrected for it. I would like to follow on a little from what my noble friend Lord Teverson has said to my noble friend the Minister.

The question here is the definition of an infrastructure project. I wonder whether, in his response, the Minister could give us some inkling as to why the national infrastructure policy is defined as covering projects affecting a population of more than 500,000. Why is it not some other figure? I ask this question with deliberate intent, because we will be putting major projects through a somewhat simplified but none the less well-defined planning process that will work much more rapidly. Whatever its future legal status may be as a result of coming legislation, we think that this process will work more rapidly than the normal planning system.

I suspect that I could make a good case for suggesting that the threshold of 500,000 people affected should be reduced to 250,000 people. This would bring a much greater number of schemes within the scope of this policy statement. It would, therefore, make accessible to the provision of those schemes an accelerated planning process, which would facilitate improvements to water quality across a wider field.

That figure, to me, is the critical figure in this report; all the rest of it, you might say, is procedure. However, we are dealing with how you define a national policy statement. I accept that there is always a difficulty with that sort of definition and the judging of nationally significant projects, particularly in the field of electric lines and so on, given that they affect a large number of people. However, I am not sure that you could always say that a particular electric line, which would come within the scope of the national policy statement for power generation and transmission, would always affect more than 500,000 people. I strongly suspect that many of those schemes would impact on a much smaller number of people, but, none the less, they are part of the national policy statement structure.

I would be grateful if the Minister would take away with him the thought that that figure should be considered a bit more. I sincerely ask him to consider whether it would be practical to put in a lower figure to facilitate the accelerated planning process that would then come forward to help major schemes. A scheme that affects 250,000 people is still a major scheme.