Rural Bus Services

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, when we talk about sustainable rural communities, we are covering a very wide range of communities where how we define sustainability and the things we need to do to achieve it can be very different. Social, economic and technological changes are as inevitable in rural areas as they are in towns and cities, and harking back to what we used to have is likely to prove unfruitful.

I live in a very small village in Suffolk with a population of 275. Our facilities are a post box and the parish church with its associated church room. It is not just a place of worship; it is the focal point of our social life. The 1901 census showed that the village had a population of 229. Even then, we were not able to sustain a shop or a pub. Every employment listed was related to the local farms. Around 95% of the population were born in Suffolk, and most of them in the village. The incomers lived in the rectory.

The village is not much larger now but its inhabitants come from across the United Kingdom and from abroad. The range of occupations is wide, and the uniting factor is that we have all chosen to live in the village, notwithstanding its lack of facilities. We expect to have to travel. I do not know how long it is since we had a decent bus service. When my now husband first came to the village about a decade ago, he asked, “When is the next bus?”. “Thursday”, I told him, but we do not even have that now.

Of course, we need alternatives to the private car, and that gap is filled by neighbours, by local taxis and by a demand-responsive community transport system. However, as we have heard, councils have been forced to divert money from discretionary schemes such as community bus services in order to fund the statutory scheme, which increasingly is not available in rural areas. If you ask the residents in my village what they need to keep their community sustainable, they tell you that it is better broadband access.

Just down the lane is a village around eight times larger. It has a range of facilities, and sustainability there is rather different. The residents there want planning policies which preserve the space between them and the nearby town so that they keep their village identity. Having always had a good bus service, they want to keep it. People have chosen to live there because of the location and the services, and the bus service now being under threat is posing a major problem for those who rely on it.

I am afraid that “rural proofing” by government is a total myth. During the passage of the Bus Services Bill, the question of rural public transport was raised and the Minister referred to the statutory guidance. To his embarrassment, when it was published it contained two lines about rural buses. The Bill could have provided a really good opportunity to bring the benefits of area-wide franchising to rural areas—in effect permitting a cross-subsidy with more profitable routes—but, because the opportunity is limited to areas with elected mayors, places like mine are not likely to benefit.

Whole swathes of government policy are based on the assumption that accessibility is easy, when for those in rural areas it is not. Government should not assume that poverty and social inequality are something you find only in towns—they are real and harder to spot in rural villages because families are often very isolated. The Suffolk Community Foundation has done superb work on this in its Hidden Needs reports.

Sustainability is very much about diversity—of age, occupation, background and economic situation. Keeping that diversity, especially in very small communities, does not need dramatic government intervention, but it does need proper attention to the detail of legislation and policy to make sure that they are genuinely rural-proofed.

Agricultural Sector (EUC Report)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Responding to Price Volatility: Creating a More Resilient Agricultural Sector (15th Report, Session 2015–16, HL Paper 146).

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity this evening to debate our report on such an important issue for our farming sector. In one way I rather regret that it has taken so long to find an opportunity to debate this, but the fact that our report predates the referendum adds a different dimension to our work. I had the privilege to chair the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee for three years, and I can honestly say that it was the most rewarding work I had done in my 16 years in the House. I therefore thank each of the members with whom I served, including those who, like myself, have been rotated off. However, I will mention two noble Lords in particular.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, chairman of the European Union Committee. His leadership and encouragement on the main Select Committee was invaluable, and I am certain that he will continue to be as supportive to the current EU sub-committee chairs as he was to me. His wisdom and experience will be much needed by the House as we approach this immensely complicated challenge of withdrawal from the EU. Secondly, my noble friend Lord Teverson is now chairman of the sub-committee. I have no doubt that as chairman he will lead it through these challenging times and ensure that it plays its proper role in informing the debate on Brexit. I also place on record my admiration of and thanks to the committee clerks, policy analysts and committee assistants with whom I worked. Without their skill and total commitment to the role of this House, we would not be able to function. Finally, special advisers are often the unsung heroes. In this case I thank Dr Dylan Bradley and Professor Berkeley Hill.

As your Lordships may know, the remit of the sub-committee I chaired includes not only agriculture but fisheries, environment, energy and climate change. While the topic of this report was agriculture, it went much further. Like many of the inquiries we undertake, it was cross-cutting, and the evidence led us to think as much about the environment and rural development as it did about farming.

The report was published on 16 May and its title, Responding to Price Volatility: Creating a More Resilient Agricultural Sector, summarised the motive for conducting the inquiry and our main findings. Our headline recommendation was that the European Commission should consider restructuring the common agricultural policy and focus it mainly around the provision of public goods, aiming for an eventual merger of the two pillars that currently govern direct payments on the one hand, and rural development on the other. We were of the firm view that wherever possible, agricultural policy should facilitate the provision of public goods, such as a well-managed environment. Those conclusions hold as well for life outside the EU as they do for life in it.

We found that price volatility is an inherent feature of agricultural commodities markets, and that adverse effects at farm level are caused much more by unanticipated periods of sustained low prices than by increased levels of volatility. This was a significant conclusion because it leads to different recommendations. We examined the issue of direct payments and found that although they continue to provide a degree of financial stability, helping farmers to withstand protracted periods of low prices, they can also reduce incentives for innovation and efficiency gains.

We drew another significant conclusion on insurance. We heard from some that the US insurance model could be adopted in the EU as an alternative to Pillar 1 arrangements under the CAP. I was perfectly open to this possibility, as I think other members of the committee were. However, having heard all the evidence, we strongly concluded that while insurance undoubtedly has a role to play in unexpected and catastrophic events, the case for a wider application—as a replacement for Pillar 1 or as a future outside the EU—was simply not convincing.

We highlighted that much more work needs to be done by the UK Government and the European Investment Bank in developing and adopting appropriate financial instruments, which may help farmers access much-needed finance. Significantly, we also drew attention to the desperate need to equip farmers with improved business skills and the expertise to calculate and manage their production costs and overheads. We also recommended that the UK Government work to identify the main barriers which prevent farmers exiting the sector.

The official response from the European Commission was received in July, and the Commissioner described our work as,

“a valuable input to the upcoming discussion on the Common Agricultural Policy post 2020”.

The fact that he wrote that after the referendum suggests that it really was positive, whatever the future for British agriculture. The Government’s response noted that, following our vote to leave the EU, the Government would work with the industry to,

“look at a future package of measures and support for farmers and the environment”.

Their response continued:

“It is premature to say what that might look like, but the Government will be mindful of the Committee’s recommendations as we develop a new policy and funding framework for UK farming”.

This is encouraging for the committee. I would be grateful if the Minister shed further light on how this new thinking has developed some five months later.

We were also encouraged that the response included an agreement that an agricultural policy must deliver public goods, and the assurance that the management of natural resources will be considered when the Government begin to,

“look at the future of farm support in the UK”.

It was also acknowledged that the Government recognise the concerns about barriers to exiting, as well as to new entrants to the sector. I am also told that the Minister of State, George Eustice, has since written to the committee explaining that the Government will use some of the so-called exceptional adjustment aid made available under the CAP in response to the persistent challenges faced by dairy farmers, and that they will be trained in new risk management tools and benchmarking skills, as the committee’s report suggested.

I note with interest that the Government’s response gives an assurance that they will consider the recommendations emerging from the Commission on access to financial markets and risk management tools when developing domestic alternatives to the CAP. That task force has now reported, so I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the Government’s response to that work.

There is no doubt that there are immense challenges ahead for the agricultural sector. There is uncertainty about the new UK agricultural policy and about what a trading regime for agricultural and foodstuff products with the EU and the rest of the world will look like. Together, these two concerns underline an immediate need for UK farmers to develop better resilience to future price shocks and market developments.

Reviewing and replacing the CAP could be an opportunity for the UK to develop an agricultural policy which promotes competitive and environmentally sustainable farming. It could be an opportunity to move away from direct payments towards a system that gives farmers subsidies to deliver certain public goods, such as environmental stewardship and high animal welfare standards, as suggested in the committee’s report. It could also be an opportunity to think afresh about how to create a more resilient, innovative and effective agricultural sector. There are real concerns for farmers: some 55% of total UK farm income comes from CAP support. Farmers and rural communities across the UK receive substantial and essential funding for agri-environment projects, farming and infrastructure projects from both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2. These will all need to be replaced by similar UK schemes, or they will fall away once the UK withdraws. I welcome the Chancellor’s statement on 13 August, in which he guaranteed that current levels of support would remain until 2020. That gives some short to medium-term comfort, but of course, it does not address the longer-term problems in an industry already beset by volatility.

Another challenge is that of trade in agricultural goods once the UK has left. Nearly two-thirds of UK agricultural exports measured by value go to the EU, while 70% of agricultural imports measured by value come from the EU. Food supply chains are immensely complicated nowadays. Some components of processed food products start their life cycle in the UK, are processed in another member state and then return to us for consumption. Any change arising from those trade patterns is bound to impact on UK farmers as well as the wider food processing industry.

In leaving the single market, we will leave the rules that govern our current trade arrangements with the EU and with the world. The EU’s external tariff barriers on agriculture and food are high, and in the absence of a preferential trade agreement with the EU, the UK agriculture and food sector could find itself subject to high import tariffs and reducing exports. In fact, tariffs affect the whole supply chain because they cover both imported products and inputs such as machinery, feed and fertilisers. I do not underestimate the potential for negotiating future trade agreements with the wider world but as recent examples have shown us, free trade agreements take a very long time to negotiate and are immensely complicated, particularly in the area of agricultural goods. Therefore, there will be added uncertainty for UK farmers about the future of their imports and exports post-Brexit.

The agricultural and farming sector is vital to all of us. As a society, we are dependent on a secure, affordable and high-quality food supply, as well as on the public goods which farmers deliver. Rural communities across the UK are still sustained by the agricultural sector, the funding it receives and the jobs it creates. So now, more than ever, the agricultural sector needs certainty and political clarity to strengthen its resilience. I encourage the UK Government to deliver on these points as a matter of urgency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this debate. I had not thought about it until my noble friend Lord Teverson mentioned it, but this might be the last proactive report of the sub-committee. It has been a tribute to the huge amount of farming experience that exists both in this House and in the committee. Nowhere could that be better seen than in the noble Lord—who I will describe as my noble friend, because I think he is—Lord Curry of Kirkharle, without whom I think our committee report would have been much poorer. Unfortunately, he was unavoidably detained on his way to the debate this evening and was unable to take part. I think we are the poorer for that.

I was very heartened to hear about the Government’s commitment to the agritech strategy because this general theme of the importance of research, data-sharing, knowledge transfer and innovation was recurring through every speech. When members of the sub-committee went on a site visit to see a young farmer brimming full of ideas and innovation, we asked him where he was getting them and learning and he said “YouTube”. His ideas are coming from around the world. It is a very good example of the importance of good rural broadband and what you can do with it, as opposed to broadband which takes eight hours to download a two-minute video. Good, superfast broadband is essential.

With regard to financial measures, I hear and have a lot of sympathy with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull—that most farmers are small businesses and complex financial instruments are simply not going to be of help to them. On the other hand, there may be others that do, so it is about the appropriate level of tools. It is certainly almost an extension of the tax-averaging into something like a New Zealand, Australian or Canadian deposit system, which seemed to have support from around the House on the Joseph’s lean-and-fat-years principle.

The Minister has heard the very strong feelings from across the House about the need to integrate the 25-year environment and farming plans. It does seem odd that the same department cannot integrate the two plans, because to us they are inextricably linked. That is particularly important as we move into the post-Brexit environment. If farmers are to receive considerable financial support from the public, the Government will have to make the case and explain why the money is going to them rather than the health service, education or anything else. That can only be done by framing the debate within this whole question of public goods. The Minister will have heard the very strong views about that. I again thank the Minister and everyone else for participating in this debate.

Motion agreed.

Brexit: Environmental and Climate Change Policy

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking my noble friend for tabling today’s debate and giving the House an opportunity to debate an aspect of Brexit which was underdiscussed both during the referendum campaign and subsequently.

At the outset, it is worth reflecting on how far we have come in the last 40 years. Occasionally you still hear people of a certain age refer to London as “The Smoke”, which reminds us of what the air quality was like here in our capital just four decades ago. Many people who swam off Britain’s beaches will regale you with horror stories about doing the breaststroke through pools of raw sewage; just last week the Guardian published some pretty gruesome photographs of Blackpool beach 40 years ago, which showed just that. Standards of animal welfare have increased significantly, and measures to reduce the harmful effects of pesticides and fertilisers have had a significant impact.

However, of course there is still a lot to do. The World Health Organization recently warned that dozens of British cities were failing to meet air pollution standards and it is estimated that over 16,000 deaths in 2012 were caused by ambient pollution. Recently, 4.9% of bathing sites in the UK were revealed to have poor water quality. We are just beginning to understand the impact of tiny plastic microbeads in our oceans on marine ecosystems. The threat to native species from habitat destruction, alien species, or diseases such as ash dieback is very real. The State of Nature 2016 report found that more than 10% of species are at risk of extinction in the UK and nearly 60% have declined since 1970.

It seems to me that, in reflecting on how we have made the progress we have, we find the pointers to how we will deal with the challenges we have yet to face. It is true that some change has been effected by individuals and organisations who are motivated to do the right thing, and in some cases the power of public opinion alters behaviour. But overwhelmingly, public policy drives change, through fiscal instruments, regulatory measures or by using targets to alter behaviour.

The development of environmental policy in the European Union has taken place over the last 40 years and continues today. In doing so, it has revealed some of the many strengths—and, if we are honest, some of the weaknesses—of a common EU approach. However, it is based on the inarguable logic that most environmental issues are cross-border in character or impact, and are better addressed by co-operative action than unilaterally. The transboundary and sometimes global nature of many environmental issues means that a collective approach is either more efficient or simply essential to address them effectively. Obvious examples apart from climate change include the protection of migratory birds and air and water pollution.

The importance of the single market and its development has also given an impetus to create common EU rules, particularly for environmental and technical product standards, which enables benchmarking and target setting to take place. Negotiating common standards can allow a degree of environmental ambition which would not be available to individual Governments acting alone because of fears about short-term impacts on competitiveness. Common standards also inhibit the possibility of economic advantages accruing to those countries that have lower environmental standards. A further advantage of the EU system is that it has a range of legislative, funding and other policy measures which can work in combination, and of course EU environmental legislation is backed up by hard legal enforcement mechanisms of a kind that is rare in international agreements.

It is also true that the EU has several institutional advantages that other international fora lack. First, contrary to Eurosceptic myths, EU institutions make decisions on a democratic basis, through a process of debate and adoption by both the European Parliament and the Council, which gives them the authority to monitor, report back and enforce binding legislation. The requirement for member states regularly to report on progress has created a culture of transparency which allows citizens to see how their country is performing.

A practical example of that is air quality. Our Supreme Court ruled that the UK was in breach of the 2008 directive, which resulted in the UK Government publishing a new air quality plan last year. I am not convinced that British citizens would have known about the scale of the problem or that government would have done anything about it had we not been subject to EU law. Indeed, the breaching of EU quality regulations was cited by Zac Goldsmith as a reason not to extend Heathrow, which shows that even the most ardent Brexiteer is not above praying the EU in aid when it suits their argument.

In the debate about “taking control” very little has been said about what that means for the future of our environment. The outcome closest to where we are now, the so-called soft Brexit, leaves the UK outside the common fisheries and common agricultural policies. I argue that that is a mixed blessing. But both the birds and habitats directives and the bathing water directive would no longer apply, and those policies have provided the backbone of conservation in the EU and have generated significant improvements for species and habitats. Of course, if we were to maintain some sort of access to the single market, we would still have to comply with a whole raft of EU environmental legislation, while having no say in its creation.

However, it looks as though we are heading for hard Brexit, and there is a wide consensus that this will create identifiable and substantial risks to future UK environmental ambitions and outcomes. Either because of political ideology or necessitated by a damaged economy, there is a significant risk that environmental standards will be lowered to seek competitive advantage outside the EU.

As we move towards the date identified by the Prime Minister for triggering Article 50, we should be seeing much more clarity from the Government on the relative priority they intend to give to environmental issues. If the approach is, as we have heard, to keep all the legislation at the point of exit and then to review it as we go along, that seems perfectly sensible, as it will mean that we will not have immediate legal uncertainty and can debate individual elements as time goes on. However, it is worth reading the report, published today, from the House of Lords EU Select Committee, which shows that even this relatively straightforward-sounding approach is not as simple as one might think. In the longer run, there is no reason why we cannot adhere to EU standards, if that is what we agree, but of course we will then fall outside the legal enforcement mechanisms, so we would have to think about how we would do that.

What business needs above all is regulatory certainty, and ironically it is often the slow pace of getting agreement in the EU that provides that certainty. Things, once agreed, are not easy to change. There is now a significant period of uncertainty, which could go on for some years.

Taking control means taking responsibility. We now have to decide as a nation what sort of agriculture we want. Is it about the production of cheap food or do we continue to put value on the environment, landscape and animal welfare? And if we do, are the Government prepared to reframe financial support for farmers to sustain this? What sort of framework do the Government envisage for managing fisheries in a sustainable way, and how do they intend to work with our European neighbours to achieve this?

The EU sub-committee which I chaired until May produced a report on regional marine co-operation which suggested that national Governments need to do much more in working together for the marine environment. I am afraid that the Government’s response to that was pretty tepid. They will need to rethink that because, outside the EU, that will be the only show in town. In any event, the WTO is about to start discussions on a global fisheries scheme, so taking control may not be as easy as it sounds. In addition, are we going to hold on to the principles enshrined in the habitats directives, and the targets for recycling and ending land-filling?

It seems to me that as we go forward, while we cannot expect detailed answers, especially today, from the Government on how they will tackle all these things, we should expect a sense of how they are going about it. Whom are the Government talking to? Whom are they consulting to identify the risks and opportunities as we go forward? Significantly, from the point of view of this House, how is Parliament to be involved?

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

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report of the European Union Committee on Counting the Cost of Food Waste: EU Food Waste Prevention (10th Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 154).

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)]

My Lords, the scale of the food waste problem that emerged from our inquiry was truly staggering. Around 15 million tonnes of food are wasted in the United Kingdom every year and around 89 million tonnes across the EU. Those are probably conservative estimates of what is recognised as a data-poor area. Our inquiry did not cover food losses in the developing world; they are a rather different although equally pressing matter. Nor did we cover the trickier question of waste through overconsumption.

If one message comes from our report that I would like everyone, including the Government, to understand, it is that there must be a recognition that whatever the technical difficulties of defining and measuring food waste are, these should not distract us from the importance of taking urgent action to address a problem that is not only morally repugnant but unsustainable. It is becoming increasingly recognised that in the years ahead food security will be a very serious matter. Surely it makes sense to start by wasting less of what we already have.

As set out in our report, there are clearly some big issues to be tackled, not least the need to think about the supply chain as a whole rather than thinking about food waste prevention at each stage. Taking this approach helps to deal with the tendency we observed for individual participants in the food supply chain simply to pass the waste elsewhere so that their statistics look good at the expense of someone else’s, but the problem is not addressed.

The picture that emerged was not entirely gloomy. Our evidence uncovered a raft of initiatives and efforts that are being undertaken. It was also clear from our consideration of EU policy that the United Kingdom has taken a lead in this area, due in no small part to the work of WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme. Now, six months on from publication, I will not rehearse the conclusions and recommendations of our report. While they all remain salient, I would like to reflect on some of the developments since publication and then perhaps consider some next steps.

First, a recurring theme that emerged throughout our evidence sessions was that when people and organisations begin to think about food waste, they quickly start to reduce it. For that reason, I was delighted by the degree of media interest in our report and the subsequent debate that it sparked off. Particularly heartening was the response by some individuals, organisations and businesses as a result of that media coverage. Many of them have made contact with me and I have met with quite a few of them. I have spoken at conferences and seminars, including one organised by the Dutch embassy, and I have undertaken a visit to Birds Eye in Lowestoft to try to understand the role that freezing can play in reducing food waste. The week after next we are going to the restaurant chain Nando’s, which is going to demonstrate how it will use technology to redistribute leftover food from its outlets.

Through that dialogue, I have learnt more about what is being developed. For instance, Tesco has taken its 25 most wasted products and taken a whole-supply-chain approach to see what target actions could be taken to reduce that waste; for example, with bananas, it has reduced wastage at the farms by 6% and has changed practices at the warehouse and in store to reduce waste there. Consumers are being educated in how to store bananas and given recipes for what to do with overripe fruit.

Secondly, the excellent work of WRAP has continued. Its completion of a farm-to-fork assessment of the potato supply chain, in collaboration with Co-operative Food and Co-operative Farms, is an example of the kind of study it undertakes. It highlighted that a particularly wasteful point in the supply chain is the packhouse. Here it recommended a review of size specifications, as well as alternative options for those of “abnormal” size; for example, the development of a product range of small roasting potatoes could eliminate more than £250,000 of lost value, based on a sample of 50,000 tonnes.

During our inquiry, we were most concerned to hear about wastage on farms caused by overzealous specifications set by retailers, last-minute order cancellations and punitive clauses for undersupply. We look to the retail sector to address those issues with its suppliers. The role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in setting fair terms of contract might well have a positive effect on food waste, but we wait to see.

Thirdly, our report considered the role of the EU. As many noble Lords will be aware, the European Commission published in July a wide-ranging series of proposed amendments to its waste legislation. These included an EU-wide aspirational food waste reduction target of 30% by 2025. The Commission says that it wants to use the baseline set in 2017, and we would be concerned about this because it would not recognise the very real progress that the UK has made before that date. Also included was a definition which excludes on-farm waste—another serious matter—and a requirement that member states develop national food waste prevention strategies. While this is welcome progress, it falls far short of the more holistic approach that we recommended in our report.

We had always understood that a communication on sustainable food had been drafted earlier in the year and was to be published at the same time as the waste review, but it has never seen the light of day. This debate takes place six days after the new Juncker Commission has taken office, under which responsibility for food waste has been transferred from the Directorate-General for the Environment to the Directorate-General for Health and Consumers. My fear is that this might signal a resistance in the Commission to the whole-supply-chain approach to food waste. So I would welcome the Minister’s observations on this change, and on whether he knows whether the communication on sustainable food is now likely to be published, with the new commission in place.

As I emphasised earlier, time is of the essence. One very practical area where it is possible to take action swiftly is food distribution. In that regard, I commend the work of charities such as FareShare, the Trussell Trust, Company Shop and FoodCycle. FareShare, for example, has reported a recent step change in the willingness of some supermarkets to donate food to them. FareShare is now providing enough food for more than 1 million meals per month in the areas where it works. This, it estimates, is with just 2% of the food out there. These meals are provided in outlets run by voluntary organisations such as daycare centres. These organisations are struggling with reduced budgets, so the provision of cheaper food through FareShare is a lifeline for them.

There appears to be growing momentum. Food banking is controversial, but given that it is increasing we were interested in how more fresh food could be included. We heard in our evidence from the Netherlands that food redistribution which includes fresh produce is entirely possible. However, whether it is FareShare or food banks, you need infrastructure for storage and delivery and that takes money. So, in this regard, I am really interested in bringing some of the supply chain participants together to thrash out some of these issues, to see whether the barriers are perceived or real, and to come up with some solutions. It would be very helpful if the Government committed to working with us on how redistribution of fresh produce can be boosted.

Looking to the slightly longer term and beyond UK shores, food waste prevention has to be made a reality across the EU. Last week, I had the opportunity to raise the issue with members of other EU national parliaments. Many of them went on to refer to my remarks, so I detected a willingness—although there are no concrete proposals—to do more. Can the Government tell us what they are doing, or plan to do, to boost the prominence of this issue among ministerial colleagues?

There are three specific areas where national Governments and the Commission could make a difference. One is to ensure that where food is not consumed by humans, it is, where safe, consumed by animals. The second area is to ensure that regulations aimed at making packaging more easily recyclable do not have the effect of reducing shelf life, so that packaging waste turns into food waste. The third is to ensure that the whole question of date labelling is kept under review, to ensure that it reflects genuine risk.

I thank the Government, notably the responsible Minister, Dan Rogerson, for very helpful evidence, the comprehensive response to our report and the subsequent correspondence between us.

This is a wide-ranging topic, and I am proud to say that our members worked meticulously over the nine months of the inquiry, with invaluable input from our then clerk Aaron Speer, our policy analyst Alistair Dillon and our specialist adviser Dr Julian Parfitt. I have covered only a few aspects of our work today. Noble Lords will no doubt pick up on others and I look forward to a stimulating debate.

Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot find very much to disagree with in what the noble Lord says. We worked very hard in the direction in which he is moving. The cut to the CAP budget was €55 billion, which is roughly equal to the annual level of spending on the CAP budget and better than a real freeze.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

My Lords, given the very different patterns of agriculture across the 28 member states, to what extent is there flexibility within the new arrangements for member states to implement the greening measures in a way that suits British farmers and builds on some of the very real progress that they have already made?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We have fought hard to achieve an element of flexibility in the greening requirements. Perhaps we have not got as far as we would have liked but we are negotiating with nearly 30 other states and, of course, the Parliament.

Flooding: Defence Programme

Baroness Scott of Needham Market Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am acutely aware of the impact that the recent flooding has had on victims and my sympathies go out to them all. This summer was the second wettest on record. Despite hard times, we protected the flood budgets as far as possible with a 6% reduction in spend over the four years 2011-12 to 2014-15 compared with the previous four years. As a result of the investment that we are making, we expect to exceed our goal of 145,000 households better protected by March 2015. The Environment Agency will deliver real-term efficiency savings of at least 15% in procurement over the spending period and is aiming to increase the number of households receiving free flood warnings to more than 1.1 million.

[Baroness Scott of Needham Market]

Is the noble Lord able to update the House on the progress of talks which were being held with the insurance industry as there are now many thousands of households that face the problem of living in properties that are virtually uninsurable at prices that they can afford to pay?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we want to reach an agreement that ensures both the availability and affordability of flood insurance. We are in intense but constructive negotiations with the industry and further announcements will be made in due course after more discussions with it and other relevant parties.