Invasive Non-native Species (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Earl of Selborne

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

My noble friend in his helpful introductory remarks reminded us that this country produced its own strategy for invasive non-native species first in 2008. That was followed in January 2015 by the EU invasive alien species regulation. When the second strategy was published later the same year, the document stated that the EU regulation,

“represents a step change in approach and requires Member States to implement a range of measures for the prevention and management of”,

invasive non-native species, from which I think we can infer that the EU regulation of January 2015 upped our act and that of other member states.

Of course, invasive non-native species, whether terrestrial, freshwater or marine, can have devastating commercial effects. The question on which we have to satisfy ourselves in scrutinising the regulation and hearing that the EU regulation is destined to be retained is: are there opportunities, now that we will be separated by Brexit—if that is to happen—because we can define the area from which we expect to be protected from invasive non-native species? We are no longer thinking just about continental Europe and this country. Rather than wait for the list to be amended in future, is there an opportunity that would not have been available under the previous administration to start looking at the list of invasive non-native species from a totally GB perspective?

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and for agreeing to a meeting with myself and the Labour Front Bench prior to the introduction of this statutory instrument, given that it is the first of what we know will be many for Defra. As might be expected in those circumstances, we on these Benches regret the necessity of these statutory instruments should we exit the EU. However, we support the statutory instrument’s intent because controlling non-native invasive species is important for those of us who care passionately about biodiversity loss, which non-native invasive species are a primary means of achieving, and the cost to the public purse.

I will touch on a number of points for clarification. First, the preamble of the invasive alien species regulation, which frames the overall intent and ecological context of the regulations as they stand and therefore guides the implication of any future policy decisions, is not included in this statutory instrument. Can the department say why? I imagine the Minister will say that it is because of the expectation of a forthcoming environment Bill, on which we have heard warm words from the Secretary of State about the inclusion of overarching environmental principles. Of course, this House cannot see that Bill at the moment and therefore cannot be assured that critical matters in the preamble to this statutory instrument, such as the precautionary principle, will be a fundamental building block in it.

That point is particularly important given a letter sent by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—she cannot be in her place today—in which the noble Baroness said: “Policy and decision-makers are likely to want to have regard to supporting material, such as recitals and preambles, to assist them in addressing questions of how policy might be made and how decisions might be taken in future”. Therefore, we as a House are beholden to ask the Minister to explain precisely why the preamble was removed from the regulations.

Secondly, as the Minister stated, there is a clear transferral of functions from the EU’s committee on invasive alien species and the forum, both of which are independently constituted bodies for the specific purpose set up in the regulations. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a few more words about who in our domestic setting will take on those duties because they are particularly rigorous in terms of both scientific expertise and data processing capacity. I would appreciate more information about that.

Equally, the Minister kindly made it clear that there will be a ministerial duty to ensure close co-operation with European partners and other countries on non-native invasive species. As he rightly said, both flora and fauna are not singularly in our country, but are transported on the wind and via other mechanisms to and from the European mainland, so we need that level of co-operation. Critical in that is the European Union’s invasive alien species information system. Clearly, the Minister cannot say at this stage whether we will have access to that critical system, which collates information about non-native invasive species from across the continent, but the department is obliged to say what domestic route we might take to replicate that remarkable database if we do not.

Governance is also an issue. The Minister was very clear that the responsible authorities will have a duty to report, but the overarching question is: who will they report to? He mentioned the office for environmental protection, which is as yet unconstituted because it will be introduced under the forthcoming Bill, and said that the responsible authorities have a reporting duty. As it stands, that office has no capacity to hold the Government to account; therefore, the systems currently in place for the European Commission to hold the Government to account will not be replicated in the processes and procedures in this statutory instrument. Equally, as other noble Lords may comment on, we are not expecting the office for environmental protection any day soon, given that we have not even had the legislation yet. So there is a question about how we are going to manage the reporting in holding the Government to account in the meantime.

Finally, because there are not significant costs to private companies, there has not been an impact assessment for this statutory instrument. Yet the Explanatory Notes make it quite clear that there will be a cost to the Government and public bodies, although it is below the plus or minus £5 million threshold. Given that this is the first statutory instrument—there will be many—there will clearly be significant costs to the Minister’s department in delivering the new mechanisms and bodies to deliver the levels of safeguards we need for our environmental protection in this country. I hope the department has—I am sure this is not the right term—a running tally of costs, given that there is no impact assessment that we can see. It is important that we know the costs to the Minister’s department, which does not have a significant budget, and that it will have the resources in future to deliver the services that our environment requires.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Earl of Selborne

Tuesday 25th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, for raising this issue, which I, along with other colleagues around the House, moved an amendment on in Committee. I am not going to repeat the argument that I and others made at that time, but there has been new information since then. In preparation for Report, Water UK contacted all water companies, asking for their views on this issue. They all saw the requirement to seek permission from the Secretary of State for metering as an unnecessary constraint. They think that the water stress status should not be a requirement for metering; rather, they should be able to decide what to put in their water resources planning framework on the merits of the case, including what customers want.

Wessex Water and Northumbrian Water have gone on the record separately on this issue, Wessex Water saying:

“In our WRMP we considered the pros and cons of compulsory metering, even though being in a non-water-stressed area we couldn’t introduce it. Our analysis showed that metering on change of occupancy was a better approach as it gave greater long-term water savings whilst retaining customer acceptability. Metering on this basis will be put in our WRMP and business plans, even though we can’t introduce it”.

This seems to me to be a reasonable amendment. All it does is give companies the right to speak to their customers and manage their businesses to their benefit and that of increasingly scarce water resources. I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, by saying that it is not just Cross-Benchers who are prepared to swim against the tide; the Liberal Democrats are well used to being out of step with the other two main political parties, and on this occasion I am happy to join fellow Cross-Benchers to support them on this important issue.

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I think those on the Conservative Benches should support the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, as well—as indeed I am sure many of us do. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who says that we simply have to value our natural resources. We in this country are totally out of step with the whole movement towards valuing natural capital and understanding the extent to which our natural resources underpin our economy and our quality of life. It makes obvious sense, therefore, that we should all be aware of our footprint, and if we think that we have the right to buy water at a rate that reflects some old rateable value as opposed to our actual consumption, we are simply denying our responsibility to understand our long-term impact.

As I understand it, this amendment is tabled more in order to demonstrate that the water companies can already do what the amendment seeks that they do, so I expect that the Minister will say that it is unnecessary, but it is certainly not unnecessary if it demonstrates what is obvious. I cannot understand why anyone should say that it is against the tide of the day; it is my understanding that every party supports the idea that we should value our natural resources properly, and who could say, therefore, that water should be exempt from that process?

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Earl of Selborne

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

I rise to support the intention of Amendment 120, if not the intention of Amendment 122, which is grouped with it. The issue of bad debt and the implications of what that means for the affordability of all our bills is an important one.

At Second Reading I asked the Minister why the Government, unlike the Welsh Government, are not implementing the bad debt provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. If they were to do so, it would help company debt recovery and bring down household bills. The response I received was that the Government were wedded to the idea of a voluntary scheme, with a database that the water companies were helping to fund, which would be brought in, probably via regulations, in the next month or so. I may be wrong, but I suspect that, with only an intervening 10 days between Second Reading and now, that is the answer that we will get again and that the Government will not wish to support these amendments.

Therefore I ask the Government, if they are determined to stick with the voluntary approach, whether they will set a reasonable review period to evaluate whether or not the voluntary scheme for landlords is effective. All the evidence to date, from the voluntary schemes of companies such as Northumbrian Water and others, shows that they do not work. It seems to be a reasonable request, if the Government are not prepared to move ahead with a mandatory scheme, for them to give an indication to the House of a reasonable review period, so that if the scheme is found to be ineffective—as most of your Lordships believe it will be—the regulations can be changed to make it compulsory.

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, I have a lot of sympathy with the thrust behind the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to deal with those who will not pay as opposed to those who cannot pay. Some six or seven years ago I had the privilege of chairing a report of the Science and Technology Select Committee on water management. We were appalled by the number of affluent people in South East Water’s area who had worked out that they could never be deprived of their water supply as it is illegal to turn off the water, so they simply did not pay for it.

The cost of taking someone to a small claims court is a difficulty. Where there is a change in population, such as happens in some areas more than others, the cost of trying to trace defaulters can be more than the cost of the debt. The two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, seek to deal with this. I suspect that it would be better to deal with this in secondary rather than primary legislation, as was originally intended. Nevertheless, I believe that my noble friend on the Front Bench should encourage the thrust of these amendments, to make sure that those who can afford their water perfectly well should be induced to pay for it, and that the water companies should be assisted in this, particularly by those with information on who is responsible for paying the bill. Landlords are often in a position to provide that information. All assistance should be given in this case. It is galling to know that people who cannot manage their affairs but are living an affluent lifestyle are advised by debt managers, “Well, don’t bother about the water bill”.

Water Bill

Debate between Baroness Parminter and Earl of Selborne

Tuesday 4th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests, as I did at Second Reading, that, like the Minister, I am a farmer with an abstraction licence, although I have not been flooded—so to that extent, I do not claim the same interests.

The amendment would require Ministers to issue rules for the,

“designation of … procedures, responsibilities, status and governance”,

of a market operator. I cannot believe that such ministerial control would assist in the implementation of a successful market. In regulated utility industries, whether energy, communications or water and sewerage, the management and control of market operations is initially the responsibility of the regulator, working alongside the industry. Once the market is up and running, it becomes the responsibility of the industry, supported of course by the oversight of the regulator, which provides the framework. This approach helps to ensure that the regulator and the industry work together; the industry will need to adapt to innovation and new circumstances. We recognise that in this Bill we are promoting innovation and we have to ensure that the regulation adapts accordingly. The industry will need to adapt to innovation and these new circumstances, and it is for the regulator and industry to ensure that working practices are aligned in the regulatory framework that we are establishing in the Bill. I simply do not believe that it would be helpful to have a politician—the Minister of the day, of any party—fulfilling the role of controlling the market operator in this far-reaching way.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Amendment 95 is grouped with the amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I wish to probe the issue to get a bit more information from the Minister on the shadowy role of the market operator. Before I do that, however, I take the opportunity on this first day in Committee to say that the truncated nature of the parliamentary process, with less than two weeks between Second Reading and going into Committee, has presented certain challenges to those of us who are trying to do our duty and give proper scrutiny to this complex Bill, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said. Like others, I thank my noble friend the Minister and the Bill team for the briefings and the clarity of the briefing papers, but that still leaves certain gaps in our knowledge. Noble Lords will be aware that the comments of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the Bill were published only on Friday, and we still await the Government’s response. Clearly, we have had to table our amendments before the Government have provided us with the response to important points that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has made, and that is not particularly satisfactory or helpful.