Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly, in part to echo the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in his introduction and, as has been pointed out by the noble Viscount, the key point was that gene editing involves no introduction of novel genes into the genome. In so far as it involves no introduction of novel genes, it is surely in principle something that could arise by natural reproduction—in the normal process of breeding that takes place in agricultural crops and animals. So I do not buy the argument that the definition is unclear; I thought that the Minister was very clear.

The only other point I want to make is on the question of whether something “occurs naturally”. That is quite a risky approach to take since nothing in any agricultural crop or any livestock is natural. These are things that have been produced over the last 10,000 years by selective breeding. If we are trying to create some prelapsarian nirvana where things are natural, we will have to turn the clock back 10,000 years and forget about all the things that we survive on today. So, although I regret having to disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on this occasion I do so.

I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to one point raised by the noble Baroness about the problem of different parts of the United Kingdom when crops drift across from one side of the boundary with Wales or Scotland to the other. I would think of it more in terms of the retail of the products. Let us suppose that a blight-resistant potato is developed by gene editing, as seems quite likely, and it is on sale in the shops in England. What will the retailers do about stocking the shelves in Wales and Scotland if their product is not allowed there? I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.

My basic point, however, is that I totally support this statutory instrument and, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I do not think that the arguments against it are at all compelling.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, like the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or SLSC, which is an easier mouthful to get through. Also like him, I believe that our report has been misunderstood in some quarters. It was not seeking to comment on the purpose of these draft regulations but acknowledged that there were shortcomings in how they had been laid. The shortcomings did not add up to the summary that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, used—that we saw them as technically flawed—but none the less we set out in the report where we saw shortcomings. We felt, for instance, that there should have been more detail in the Explanatory Memorandum, we could have done with more clarity regarding the qualifying criteria, and we felt that the relevant guidance should have been available to the SLSC at the same time as our scrutiny of the draft regulations.

The concerns we set out in our report are not at all unusual and I regret, I think on behalf of the whole committee, that this is the case. Too often at the moment we find that the parliamentary scrutiny of proposed SIs is hampered by the accompanying information being short on detail, obscure or indeed missing altogether, such as with impact assessments that are due but have not been produced on time. As a committee, we raised some of these systemic concerns in our recent report Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament, which I hope the House will have an opportunity to debate in due course.

My second, indeed main, point is about the purpose of these regulations, which I strongly support. I welcome the prospect of controlled field trial research involving plants produced by genetic technologies such as gene editing, where the resulting genetic changes are the same as those that could have been developed using traditional plant-breeding methods. Gene editing is a potentially transformative research tool, and plant-breeding techniques are much more precise, effective and rapid than the traditional breeding methods can ever hope to deliver.

My noble friend the Minister made a very relevant point: current regulations in this area are outdated; they were enacted more than 30 years ago, before these techniques were even conceived of, let alone developed and applied. We need to reform and update these regulations, particularly in relation to gene-editing techniques. Indeed, this is also recognised at an EU level. The SI marks a relatively modest but very important step towards aligning our regulatory approach with the approach already adopted in other parts of the world. The other reasons I support the SI have been well articulated by the Minister, so I will not repeat them, given the hour.

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief, but I start by declaring an interest as the owner of a farm. I am a newcomer to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, but there is a danger here that those reading our reports could confuse our criticism of the Government’s process, which is our legitimate purpose, with criticism of the policy, which is neither our purpose nor our duty.

Unfortunately, much of the developing world has been misled into a suspicion of GM technology by a misapprehension that the EU has operated under a blanket ban on GM crops for many years. The reality is different: in fact, the EU has a long-standing regulatory process designed specifically for GM crop approval. In practice, however, polarised views across the EU member states have meant that the scientific evidence has often been ignored, crops have remained stuck in the system, and it was therefore difficult to make progress. However, views seem now to be changing in the EU.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

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

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool)]

It may help the House to understand what is going on if I clarify that the debate is now on Amendment 28. We will continue with the speakers’ list, as written down, for this group. At the end, after the Minister has spoken, I will call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to respond to Amendment 28.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support everything that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe has said in moving Amendment 18, so I shall be brief. I added my name to this amendment for reasons I outlined at Second Reading. It is irregular for a Bill—even for a framework enabling Bill—to be sent to Parliament without any sort of formal impact assessment. It is yet more irregular for a Bill of this consequence not to be accompanied by a primary stage impact assessment at the very least.

For well over a decade, successive Governments of different political hues, have for good reason seen the requirement for departments to produce impact assessments alongside proposals for new legislation as central to their commitment to better regulation. Accompanying impact assessments enable parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of proposed new legislation to be better informed. Parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny further benefits from impact assessments because of the role of the RPC, which my noble friend mentioned. The RPC is the government-appointed Regulatory Policy Committee which independently assesses the quality of a departmental impact assessment of the costs, benefits, risks and opportunities of a proposed new measure. It then publishes an opinion, which is available to Parliament and others, on whether the evidence and analysis contained in the impact assessment are sufficient to support whatever is being proposed. As my noble friend said, it is an essential and valuable discipline. It helps Parliament, Ministers and the departments themselves.

I am glad to say that it is rare nowadays for a department to produce legislation without an accompanying impact assessment, but it has happened in the case of the Agriculture Bill. This omission is especially regrettable, given the varying impacts of the wide-ranging measures that this Bill proposes to enable. That is why I have put my name to this amendment.

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

My Lords, my interests are as listed in the register. I should add in relation to Amendment 18, to which I wish to speak, that I am a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive and worked closely with the Regulatory Policy Committee which has been referred to already. I also worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has tabled this amendment, and with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey, who has supported it. I fully endorse their comments. I am particularly disappointed in Defra’s poor performance with regard to the impact assessment of this Bill or, more accurately, the lack of an adequate impact assessment. When I chaired the BRE, Defra was one of the better performing departments and regularly produced satisfactory IAs. As the Minister knows well, I fully support this Bill and the policy changes it will introduce. As has been stated numerous times, this is the most serious change in agricultural policy in a lifetime. We need fully to understand the implications of this fundamental change.

Of course, this amendment is a process issue. For many, it is rather tedious and not “sexy”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stated. However, it is a crucial part of understanding how new policies or changes in regulation will impact on those affected by it. As one well-known system is demolished and another unknown system is introduced, we have a huge void by not having an impact assessment better to understand of the economic costs and benefits of this change. I hope that the Minister will explore this further with his department and be able to reassure the House that this issue will be addressed as the Bill progresses on its journey through both Houses and into legislation.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as I have listened to this debate my speech has got shorter and shorter. If ever there was a person ringing a bell and saying: “Press officer beware”, it is my noble friend Lord Greaves. I find myself strongly agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Randall, who said that the Government are getting into trouble here. Will they please do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said and honour their own manifesto? That is all we are really asking for, and any of these amendments would take steps towards making sure that we know the standards are there.

It is an old cliché that we trust this Minister implicitly but the one who follows him could be the devil incarnate. However, the closest we get to binding anybody to anything is to put it in to law, even though, ultimately, it can be changed. If we do not get something on the face of the Bill—and I cannot see any other bit of legislation it could go into—there is no other way of at least making the Government stand up and say: “Yes, we are changing it because …” That is what this is about.

I hope that the Minister is taking this on board. As my noble friend Lord Greaves also said, there will be ping-pong; a backhand, a forehand and the odd smash might be involved in this one. The House could get involved in a long discussion, asking the Government to honour their own manifesto commitment. I would not have thought any Government would want that.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I share the concerns about how standards will be maintained when negotiating new trade agreements and therefore, in principle, support what many of the amendments in this group are trying to achieve. In that context, I welcome the establishment by the DIT and Defra of the new Trade and Agriculture Commission. However, at the same time, I strongly support the important point made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lords, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, Lord Cameron of Dillington and Lord Krebs, and others. A trade standards commission needs to be more than a temporary body with a six-month lifespan. It should be a permanent body with a continuing and influential role in any and all future trade negotiations, as is the United States International Trade Commission, among other examples.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lindsay [V]]

My Lords, as vice-chair of the APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture, I believe that the Bill is a timely opportunity for the Government to consult on and thereafter create the option in future to oversee and regulate precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies. I therefore fully support the amendment and agree with everything said so far in its support. I also note the wide support that the amendment has attracted from reputable institutions across the UK, in mainland Europe and elsewhere in the world.

It is universally accepted that agriculture and food production must become more sustainable in a world that faces considerable challenges from climate change, environmental degradation and an increasing and more affluent global population. Most would accept that we need to be more innovative if we are to reduce the dependency on pesticides and fertilisers and tackle biodiversity loss while at the same time providing food that is sufficient, nutritious, sustainable and affordable.

The new generation of precision-breeding tools, properly regulated, would make a major contribution to delivering these vital objectives. It would be a step change in our ability to deliver a more sustainable, productive and climate-resistant agriculture. Finally, it would also align with the regulatory stance of other countries around the world whose scientists, breeders, farmers and consumers already benefit from access to these valuable precision-breeding technologies.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone [V]]

My Lords, I have rather drawn the short straw in being the first speaker to disagree with the rather stellar line-up promoting Amendment 275. I have huge trepidation in doing that because all noble Lords who have spoken so far are people whose views I hugely respect and who have the best possible motives.

I have listened very carefully to what they have said and remain pretty concerned about any loosening of the regulation of gene-edited crops. I shall not talk about health issues and the health impact, but will focus on the environmental issues associated with gene-edited crops. I was chairman of English Nature at the time that this was giving the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, scars in the late 1990s and I was on the opposite side from him then, but I hope that the noble Lords who have spoken so far will not dismiss my arguments as emotional. I am talking about science as much as they are, and I would be disappointed if that were dismissed as Luddism. One of the failures of this debate to date, as it was 20 years ago, is that it immediately starts polarising, opposing voices are demonised and there is a sense of battle lines being drawn up. That is something that we should not repeat.

There is no doubt that there may be benefits from gene-edited crops that would be hugely valuable in the face of growing world populations and climate change. Some have already been talked about, including high yields, increased nutritional content, greater proof against drought, pests and extreme weather, less use of land and less application of fertilisers, but there are undoubtedly well-evidenced down sides as well. Let me go through those that bear weight with me. First, there is the undeniable issue that once gene-edited species have been released, that is irreversible and if there are any consequential ill effects, they cannot then be put back in the bottle. So this is important and tricky stuff. Secondly, there is the possibility of gene flows taking place between crops and close wild relatives. The impacts of that, which may be unforeseen, need to be carefully taken into account. Thirdly, and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on this one, producing insect-resistant crops is not just stopping the insects eating the crops; it will have an impact on the biomass of insects in just as dramatic a way as killing insects with pesticides. We have to think about what is happening to our insect populations if many of our crops are to be developed with insect resistance. That is their food source. Fourthly, although gene-editing tools are coming on by leaps and bounds, even CRISPR and the like are not yet as precise as is claimed and there is substantial research evidence of unforeseen changes in other parts of the genome.

At the moment these crops are regulated as GMOs and there is a full assessment of the environmental impact before they can be released. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, responding to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on 4 March this year, said that the Government would take a “science-based approach” to gene editing and there would be “strict controls” to safeguard the environment with

“a robust case-by-case safety assessment taking full account of the scientific evidence.”—[Official Report, 4/3/20; col. 609.]

How does the Minister see such assessments taking place if there is a change from the regulatory framework for gene editing, and where will scientific advice on the impacts on the environment come from? I made some inquiries with the chairman of Natural England a couple of weeks ago, which formally advised the Government on the impact of genetically modified crops on the natural environment, and he has revealed that Natural England, English Nature’s successor, can no longer afford a specialist team in this area so it has disbanded any expertise that it had.

Of course, a perfectly good EU review of the whole issue of gene editing of crops and animals is under way and due to be published next April, so why are we rushing to make an amendment to the Bill that would jump the gun? Can we not wait to see what that review reveals? Rushing to deregulate gene editing, as some wish to do, to bring us into alignment with the US risks us pursuing the US market, which will always be a smaller, specialist market for UK food products, and risk our not being able to continue to do business with our major existing EU markets, depending on what they decide.

Therefore, why not wait to see what the EU decides to do after April 2021? In the meantime, the Minister would have the opportunity to lay out more clearly how his assurances on controls to safeguard the environment would work and it would enable a much broader public debate on acceptability. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, talked about open and transparent consultation, but changing the entire regulatory regime for gene editing under cover of darkness in the Agriculture Bill without any prior public consultation does not seem the right way to start off in an open and transparent way with the general public, who, for good reason or bad, are sensitised to this issue.

This artificial need for haste feels very like going back to the bad old days of the late 1990s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, recalled during a debate on previous amendments. Monsanto tried to ride roughshod over British public opinion and the British political process. It got a very bloody nose and set any case for responsible genetic modification back by 20 years.

The signs are there again. One side has terrific zeal that this technology will solve all problems; the other side is denigrated as an unscientific bunch of woolly- pully tree-huggers. Public concerns are reduced to an equation that says, “Well, if we explain it more carefully to the public, of course they’ll accept it”, but that is the worst possible way of approaching a public consultation exercise that involves something very near and dear to the hearts of all people in this country—what they put in their mouths and what happens to the environment.

Let us not fall into the trap of 20 years ago. Let us take this steadily and have a properly scientific, open and transparent debate, and let us not set off on the wrong foot by accepting this amendment.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

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

[The Earl of Dundee [V]]

My Lords, I agree with Amendment 170, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, which calls for United Kingdom food security reports properly to reflect the necessary link between food provision, diet and the environment. Amendment 169, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and others, points out that such reports ought to assess not just food supply but how much of it is wasted—a point made by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. Clearly, these reports must also be closely connected to targets and actions, as additionally emphasised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and others. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, I am also in favour of her Amendment 62, which would require the Government to produce their report on food security annually, rather than every five years, as in the Bill.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the amendments in this group that propose that the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. A more frequent reporting cycle will give the Government and others a quicker and clearer understanding of the issues and emerging trends, a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle. At Second Reading, I also said that a more comprehensive understanding of the realities would be gained from reporting if it included reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability. I therefore welcome the spirit of Amendments 163 and 172, in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. Their exact detail may differ from what I was proposing, but they would broaden the scope and context of the reporting in a not dissimilar direction, as well as encouraging the Government to detail any proposed changes to policy.

Finally, while declaring my interests as a Scottish farmer, I note that certain amendments in the group, notably Amendment 164, seek to ensure liaison, co-ordination or collaboration with the devolved Administrations. This should be seen as an important objective, both in Clause 17 and elsewhere in the Bill.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few brief words in support of what I think is the key amendment, Amendment 173. We need a national food plan. We heard very strategic speeches from my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other members of his committee, but it has to be a national plan. I say to the Minister that something like this new clause will be in the Bill, and it would be better if it were done with the Government’s agreement.

We in the UK are going to be alone once the transition period has ended, and we need to build our alliances. We can never be self-sufficient: our geography and climate do not allow it, nor does the shape of our country. We will always be food importers. I am in favour, as I have said before, of using as much of our land as possible to grow our own food, and it may not always be land that is open to the sky. It is not a nanny state approach; it requires a national plan. It simply cannot be left to market forces. Market forces have left us with between 2 million and 5 million people without enough food to eat.

Before Covid-19, I think that the general estimate was that about 40% of household meals were eaten outside the home. All that might change, but that 40% is pretty crucial, because the portions are not controlled by those who eat; they are controlled by the food business. As I said in a previous debate—a week ago, I think—portion control science within the food industry is very precise. It is designed to be obesogenic and to make us eat more. Therefore, there is an issue here that has to be dealt with and it is covered in the proposed new clause.

Agriculture Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. In the time available I will raise four brief points and then turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements.

First, do the Government intend to publish an impact assessment before the Bill has finished its parliamentary stages? It is irregular for a Bill, even a framework enabling Bill—and especially a Bill of this consequence —to be sent to Parliament without a primary-stage impact assessment at the very least.

My second question arises from the welcome inclusion of food security. However, like others I believe the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. I also believe it should include reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability to ensure a more complete understanding of the realities. Will my noble friend consider this?

My third question is a United Kingdom question, and I declare my interest as a Scottish farmer. While fully accepting that trade is a reserved matter, I believe the Bill has missed an opportunity to clarify the involvement of devolved nations in setting WTO-compliant ceilings and the assessment of impacts from quotas and tariffs. Will my noble friend look again at these arrangements? In the same vein, I add in passing that this Bill is also an opportunity to embed the principles of fair funding for intra-UK allocation—as detailed in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bew—to add some transparency to the methodology of how any future budget will be allocated.

My fourth point is that, like many others, I believe this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to adopt an amendment that would enable future access to precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies.

I now turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements. I have two points. First, I ask my noble friend whether the Government’s welcome commitment that trade negotiations will not compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards can be understood as referring to UK production standards as a whole. This is critical as, where any production standards are lower than those required of UK producers, imports will impact on the ability of UK producers to compete on a level playing field.

My second point relates to how the importance of maintaining standards in negotiating trade agreements might best be addressed. The UK’s enviable reputation for high standards in food and farming has been achieved through successive Governments’ support for a national framework of standards, measurement and accreditation, collectively referred to as the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure, UKQI. Here I declare an interest as the chair of the UK Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the UK’s national accreditation body and a key component of the UKQI. UKAS accreditation is central to ensuring the effectiveness of standards through underpinning their implementation with a robust verification and certification system.

Furthermore, UKAS and BSI—the national standards body—operate within an international framework, as accreditation and standards are global activities. This mutual recognition of standards and accredited conformity assessment underpins many international trade agreements. Should a trade standards commission be established—and I believe there is a good case for doing so—one of its roles could be to look at how accreditation and linked mutual recognition arrangements underpinning standards should be utilised, protected and, where appropriate, enhanced, as a central part of trade negotiations and agreements.

Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[The Earl of Lindsay]

That this House takes note of new opportunities and challenges for agriculture, fisheries, and the rural economy in the United Kingdom.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, before I introduce the debate, I should first pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Plumb, who will make his valedictory speech today. In the words of the NFU, my noble friend has been,

“a tireless and vocal champion for British farming … For many, there will be nobody to equal the contribution to British agriculture that Lord Plumb has made”.

That contribution reached the first of its many high points in the 1970s. My noble friend was president of the National Farmers’ Union during the British accession to the EEC and successfully negotiated greater support for British agriculture from the common agriculture policy. Thereafter, while he was an MEP between 1979 and 1999, he served as President of the European Parliament from 1987 to 1989—the first and only Briton to hold that post. My noble friend became a Member of this House in 1987, since when he has given us 30 years of wisdom in the Chamber and as a member of many of our Committees. His wisdom and experience will be long remembered and much missed by this House but his contribution to the industry goes on thanks to the Henry Plumb Foundation, which he has set up.

Moving on to the debate, I declare an interest as a farmer in Fife and chairman of Scotland’s Moorland Forum, a body that brings together all the organisations with an interest in the Scottish uplands. The title for today’s debate is deliberately broad for three reasons. First, agriculture and food is a vital sector throughout the UK and is likely to form a central strand in today’s debate. However, we should not forget that other key sectors make up our rural economy—from forestry, fishing and aquaculture to renewable energy, ecosystem services and tourism. Secondly, this debate is deliberately UK-wide; I for one intend to refer to the Scottish perspective. Finally, while the immediate consequences of Brexit raise serious concerns, many of which have been the subject of a recent and very thorough debate in this Chamber, we also need to focus on the significant opportunities that lie beyond Brexit.

A number of organisations with a stake in agriculture, land and the environment are already doing some bold and visionary thinking about the future. They all recognise that the Brexit legacy will give us the first opportunity in at least 40 years to establish a new framework for farming, food, forestry and environmental policies. Some would go further than that 40 years, as in the words of one industry commentator:

“Brexit offers the greatest opportunity to determine agricultural policy since 1947, providing the chance to improve the sector that provides much of our food, environment and landscape—such a chance to shape our own destiny may not come again”.


Many industry and environmental organisations agree on not only the scale of this opportunity but the broad shape that it should take in new policy and support frameworks. All agree that greater integration is the answer. All see a golden opportunity for a new policy framework that combines support for economic resilience with rewards for the delivery of wider public benefits. All see the delivery of environmental and animal welfare standards as objectives.

However, most agree that maximising the benefits of this once-in-a-generation opportunity requires the key challenges arising from Brexit to be successfully resolved. These are: the need for frictionless access to existing and new export markets; for continued access to a skilled and competent workforce; for a domestic market that is a level playing field and is not suddenly exposed to cut-price imports, with inferior environmental and animal welfare standards; and for a targeted support system with, importantly, the UK and the devolved Administrations working together in a creative and constructive manner.

Targeted support will be vital. Most commentators are mindful of the wider truth behind the old adage that farming cannot be green if it is in the red; nor, if in the red, can farming deliver the same high-quality produce that underpins our food industry, nor support the livelihood of so many local communities and the services on which they depend. The Government’s undertaking, as I understand it, to match the £3 billion that farmers currently receive in support from the CAP until 2022 is therefore welcome, as is the pledge to continue supporting farmers thereafter where the wider public benefits of that spending are clear. The design and delivery of that future financial support, as well as the policy framework in which it sits, are going to be key at both UK and devolved levels.

Resolving the Brexit challenges and seizing the post-Brexit opportunities for agriculture and other rural industries, such as fishing and aquaculture, will underpin a much bigger win. These industries are the bedrock of the wider UK food sector, which employs 3.8 million people and contributes more than £100 billion per annum to the UK economy. Last year more than £20 billion-worth of food and non-alcoholic drink products were exported. Most farming and food organisations see significant opportunities to increase that figure if the right new trade agreements are in place. The Scottish food and drink industry has been particularly successful and has grown to the point where the president of NFU Scotland felt able to say that it is a bigger driver of Scotland’s economy than oil and gas. Its turnover is currently in excess of £14 billion, and it accounts for 4.5% of employment in Scotland. Scottish food and drink exports were worth £5.5 billion in 2016 and reached 86 countries. NFU Scotland sees opportunities to grow those markets and to open up new export markets elsewhere in the world.

Critical for the farming, food and drink industries of both Scotland and the UK post-Brexit is a new UK register of protected food names to replace the current EU regime, with mutual recognition for UK and EU protected names having been agreed. The Minister may be able to update us on the Government’s plans on this matter. In Scotland, the current EU regime protects food names such as Scotch beef, Scotch lamb and Arbroath smokies. Elsewhere across the UK, protected food names include Welsh lamb, Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pork pies, Stilton blue cheese and Jersey royal potatoes, to name but a few. It is important that we have a new UK regime for protected names.

Another very important Scottish product that benefits from a protected food name is the UK’s single most valuable food export: Scottish farmed salmon. Some 65% of its production is exported to 64 countries across the world. The industry is worth £1.5 billion and supports 8,800 jobs. It is now the biggest seller in the UK fresh seafood market. It is highly invested, and it sees future opportunities for new value-added products and new markets. Its contribution to the rural economy and local communities is immense. The vast majority of the 2,500 directly employed people—with salaries totalling £75 million—are in remoter parts of the highlands and islands.

Fishing is an industry of importance to many local communities as well as to the rural and wider economy. It is also the sector that anticipates the most immediate opportunities from Brexit. Given the UK’s plans to resume sovereign control of its waters by coming out of the common fisheries policy and the London fisheries convention, this is the first opportunity in 50 years to rewrite existing policies on who can fish in our waters, the management of our fisheries and their sustainability, our fishing effort, the regulation of fish products, support for fishermen and their coastal and island communities, and such thorny issues as quota hopping.

In short, there is a significant and long-awaited opportunity to establish a new regime that is more effective and more responsive; better tailored to UK waters and fishing fleets; based on fairer, more appropriate and more intelligent controls; and developed in consultation with local interests and the local industry. Post Brexit, the UK industry will also be better placed to explore new markets for UK fish products outside the UK among some of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

Also anticipating major new opportunities post Brexit is forestry, which is another vital cog in the rural economy. This is especially the case in Scotland, where the industry is worth around £1 billion and supports more than 25,000 jobs. The widely held belief that policy integration is the key to unlocking future opportunities applies especially to the forestry sector. The industry body, Confor, feels that the single biggest obstacle to new woodland creation in the UK has been the CAP, which has meant that any farmer considering planting trees has faced decades of lost income due to lost subsidy payments.

Furthermore, a lack of integration to date between different land-use policies has created additional hurdles. Farmers considering planting trees, for instance, have had to learn how to navigate different grant and regulatory systems administered by different public bodies, with different processes, timescales and cultures. With a sensibly integrated land-use policy encouraging new woodland and new forestry where that represents the best use of land, a number of opportunities arise—from carbon capture on the one hand to new downstream jobs with sawmills and processors on the other.

It opens up the opportunity for the UK to achieve greater self-sufficiency, which is a worthwhile objective given that the UK is now the second-biggest timber importer in the world behind China. Also of considerable importance, post Brexit, the UK will have the flexibility to take greater control over imports that are deemed to be high risk in terms of tree pests and diseases. This of course has been a real concern for the sector and indeed for anyone with an interest in trees.

I recognise that in the time available today I have not been able to cover all the many different sectors and diverse strands that make up our local rural economy, or all the wonderful regional patterns and local circumstances that make up this wonderful, rich tapestry. I hope that others might touch on topics such as renewable energy, tourism, planning and housing. That said, I hope I have done justice to the local rural economy sectors that I have been able to cover. Most are facing some short-term and very real challenges arising from the uncertainties surrounding Brexit. These can and must be avoided or resolved. But, looking further ahead, above and beyond those challenges there are undoubtedly a number of very significant opportunities, all of which are seen by the industries and organisations involved as once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Lindsay]

My Lords, I am hugely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very stimulating and timely debate. I am also very grateful to the many Members of this House who raised the topics that, with regret, I did not have time to mention in my opening remarks. The sheer number of topics we have touched on today proves just how multidimensional our rural economy and rural life are.

I am grateful to the Minister not only for doing a very able job in summarising the kaleidoscope of issues that have been raised today but for the specific assurances that we have had on protecting product and food names and on the United Kingdom’s approach to solutions that genuinely involve all the devolved nations. I shall not summarise any other key themes—they have been well explored and well expressed.

I think we all agree that we are living in a period of significant change. We all accept that that change is driving challenges but, equally, most of us accept that it is also driving some very real opportunities. As my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness said, it is now a question of grasping those opportunities. They are there to be grasped.

The breadth and depth of the wisdom and expertise that we have had in today’s debate, in the finest traditions of the House, has been entirely appropriate, given that the House is saying farewell to someone who has been a pinnacle of wisdom and expertise. All the tributes we have heard expressed have been greatly deserved. The remark from the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that my noble friend is the most recognised “Henry” in Britain is a nice way for him to be remembered.

I will just finish by sharing a comment from my noble friend Lord Plumb, who is sitting next to me. It was not picked up by Hansard and probably was not heard by many other Members of the House during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged that my noble friend is usually right, and in fact my noble friend Lord Caithness even offered the thought that my noble friend is right 99.9% of the time. My noble friend next to me said, “I’m always right”. He is.

Motion agreed.

Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Grand Committee

I could go on analysing all the elements here, but it is clear that the Government should have taken this action a very long time ago. Now they have gone part of the way along the road with much ado. Any sensible Government would have looked not at a laboratory experiment, but at the actual result in Wales of how the public have responded to the initiative taken there. However, the Government have chosen to ignore that and to carry out their own research, which was both unnecessary and otiose. They should not be applauded for this belated initiative.

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

In speaking, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of BPI, which is one of Europe’s largest manufacturers and recyclers of polythene film. However, I stress that BPI has no interest in single-use carrier bags. I welcome this order and its overriding purpose is admirable. However, it is of concern that some of the details of the order go against the unanimous advice of the Environmental Audit Committee, the advice of the British Retail Consortium and a number of other retailers outside the BRC, and the advice of a number of industry organisations. I should stress that it is the detail of the order, rather than its overriding purpose, which has caused a number of organisations and the Environmental Audit Committee some concerns.

In addition, I believe that the detail of the order is, in parts, at odds with the Environment Agency’s own life cycle analysis. Therefore, it is regrettable that, while there may have been—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson suggested—a delay in bringing forward the proposal, the order itself has been rushed as regards the opportunity to discuss with other parties what the detail of the order should contain.

The EAC held exhaustive investigations into the proposals, and concluded by flagging a number of concerns to Defra in its report, including the fact that the exemptions proposed in its charging scheme for small retailers, and paper and biodegradable bags, would make the scheme too complex. More specifically, the Environmental Audit Committee ruled that an exemption for biodegradable carrier bags was not viable because of the damage such an exemption would cause to the UK plastic films recycling industry. I will focus on the exemption relating to biodegradable bags, because of its unintended consequences.

The summary of the EAC’s report states:

“The options for disposal and recycling of bags are complex, with significant risks around contamination, and must be coherent with the Government’s wider approach to reducing and managing waste. The proposed exemption for biodegradable bags risks damaging the UK plastics recycling industry, could undermine the reduction in bag use, and is not necessary. It should not proceed”.

The Packaging and Films Association agrees, pointing out that if biodegradable or oxodegradable plastic carrier bags are used, they will result in an adverse impact on the recycling process of plastic, rendering recycled plastic totally unusable for certain applications and severely reducing its performance for others.

It is not just the PAFA. Studies by universities have proved that with inclusion rates in recyclate of biodegradable and/or oxodegradable materials at very low levels—between 2% and 5%—the quality of the recyclate is severely impaired. There are also concerns, incidentally but not unimportantly, that such an exemption would send a confusing message to consumers, whom the industry wishes to encourage to reuse and recycle products at the end of their life.

The industry is wholly committed to the reuse of its products, and many in the industry have no problem with the proposed levy and support this order. However, they are widely concerned about the scale of the impact that an exemption for biodegradable and/or oxodegradable products would have on the UK’s existing plastics recycling industry. Those concerns have been recognised in Europe, where oxodegradable technology has now been recognised by almost every major European retailer and every other major western EU member state as not being a suitable alternative to biodegradable materials.

The UK polythene film recycling industry, which supports thousands of UK manufacturing jobs and is an excellent example of advancing the circular economy, has no financial or business interest in the manufacture or sale of single-use carrier bags and thus has no competitive interests in those products. The oxodegradable manufacturers’ association, which I understand is promoting such an exemption, supports just 32 jobs in the United Kingdom.

It is inevitable that if an exemption for biodegradable or oxodegradable single-use carrier bags is included in any regulation at a future date, as anticipated by this order, it will result in an increase in these products becoming included in the UK plastics recycling waste stream. My noble friend pointed out that more sophisticated methods are needed for separating biodegradable from non-biodegradable materials—he is right. Not only are more sophisticated methods of separation needed, but we have to be economically realistic. This difficulty is likely to play into the hands of exporters, whose recyclers can hand-sort, and would undermine the UK recycling business, which has been driven towards automation and cannot afford to add labour to hand-sort.

To allow those products to enter the UK plastic films waste stream would have other regrettable consequences as regards the existing reuse of plastic and plastic films. I will give noble Lords just one example. One of the major uses for recycled plastic pellets is the manufacture of building films and membranes used in the construction of all new housebuilding. From June 2015, all materials supplied to the UK housing and construction markets will be required to include a lifetime guarantee. To give such a guarantee will not be possible if the raw material used in the manufacture of these products could include bio or oxodegradable content, which could cause product failure within the lifetime guarantee. This will result in the manufacture of these products reverting from using recycled sources to using prime or virgin raw materials, and thus reduce the available market for UK-manufactured recycled plastic pellet. It has been suggested that this is a small price to pay for the inclusion of a biodegradable exemption. However, with so many UK manufacturing jobs at stake, such a suggestion is viewed as being incomprehensible. I could cite plenty of other examples of similar unintended consequences.

I must restate that the UK plastic films recycling industry does not have any interest in the manufacture or sale of single-use supermarket carrier bags and supports the Government’s purpose in introducing a charge on single-use bags. However, the proposed exemption for bio or oxodegradable bags will have a detrimental impact on the UK plastic films recycling industry and will lead to immediate problems and unintended consequences. Also inherent in such an exemption are real difficulties in terms of policing and the opportunities for fraud. I do not know whether Defra has considered this inevitable dimension and the resourcing of this oversight. Can the system be properly administered? I am not sure.

The chairman of the British Plastics Federation’s recycling group said recently:

“Over the last three years, the UK has seen the emergence of significant infrastructure to support plastics recycling. This is at a critical stage where it is necessary for these investments to demonstrate profitable growth and to meet the needs of higher overall recycling targets. This policy exemption could undermine these businesses due to the potential for contamination”.

The director-general of the British Plastics Federation, speaking on behalf of the wider industry group, Plastics 2020, said:

“All this will spell a loss of jobs in what has been a potentially thriving plastics recycling sector and put paid to further progress in meeting Government’s ambitious recycling targets”.

Let me finish with a quote from the British Retail Consortium. It stated:

“Biodegradable bags can be really confusing for the consumer and very challenging for the retailer to be able to communicate how to dispose with these bags correctly. Biodegradable bags cannot currently be recycled along with single use carrier bags—a challenge for those supermarkets providing front of store carrier bag recycling points. There are serious doubts about the environmental benefits of oxo biodegradable plastics. They cannot be composted, they add nothing to incineration, there is mixed opinion about their fate in landfill, and reprocessors do not want this material because their customers have doubts about the effect on the longevity of constructional plastics”.

I strongly urge the Minister to think carefully about how the review that the order requires to be carried out by 5 October 2015 is carried out. The requirements of that review, which are set out in the order, should include a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of implementing an exemption for bio or oxodegradable plastics.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I am sure that one would not want a bishop to put himself forward as a paragon of virtue, but I have in my hand a bag that I have used for the last 20 years, which my Danish mother-in-law bought in Copenhagen. It is a shopping bag, and I walk around your Lordships’ House with it. There it is. I have two of them, which I treat as one might treat one’s pet cat or dog.

I welcome the order and hope that cathedral shops, which do not employ anything like 250 people, and other such places involved in the life of the church, will join the spirit of the change, make the charge and not just pocket the benefits for their own charitable purposes.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will the exemptions in this order parallel exemptions that apply in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland? If not, why are some greater than others? It would be helpful to have that information and the logic of that. Also, the figure of 250 seems quite high. How easily would the Government be open to a reduction in that figure? Indeed, what is the equivalent figure in the other parts of the United Kingdom? Are other materials used in packaging single-use? Lots of vegetables are presented in plastic packaging that is essentially single-use. As I look around the roadsides at this time of year, when you especially see all the plastic debris before spring comes, the litter is by no means only single-use plastic bags from supermarkets.

My final question relates to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. If a plastic bag biodegrades, what does it biodegrade into? I had a misspent youth as a chemist and my guess is that the bag biodegrades into carbon dioxide, inasmuch as there is carbon in the plastic. Other people here will probably have greater scientific skills than me, but that is what happens. When plastic biodegrades, the carbon in the plastic becomes carbon dioxide—as I understand it and unless I can be corrected. Why make this order under the Climate Change Act and provide an exemption for biodegradable bags when they biodegrade into carbon dioxide? That is, if I have got my primitive chemistry correct, some decades on from when I last practised. I want to welcome this but some broader questions should be asked around the order.

Deregulation Bill

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as being the chairman of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, because it is from that perspective that I want to speak to the noble Lord’s amendment. It is by virtue of that role that I am familiar with the intentions of Professor Löfstedt when he compiled his report and with the concerns that lie behind the amendment. Equally, I am familiar also with the thinking that has gone into the way in which the Bill, and particularly this clause, are drafted.

I firmly believe that accredited certification of occupational health and safety management systems could support almost every scenario. It could certainly support and benefit the status quo; it could certainly support and benefit the approach that Professor Löfstedt has proposed, which is one of positive exclusions. Equally, and probably importantly in terms of the House’s consideration of this amendment, it could also support and benefit the clause in terms of positive inclusions.

Accredited certification can provide the regulator with an authoritative assurance that the businesses concerned have good health and safety policies, procedures and controls in place. It allows organisations to earn recognition for their efforts to manage their own health and safety obligations. Accredited certification could act as a safety net for those industries, businesses and professions which may be excluded from the Act. In other words, if in doubt whether a business, profession or an industry should be within the ambit of the Act, one can safely err on the side of deregulation by putting in place a system of voluntary or mandatory accredited certification to underpin safety standards.

The accredited certification would be carried out against the recognised standard for occupational health and safety management—that is, BS OHSAS 18001—which is soon to become more formally recognised by the international standards organisation through its adoption as ISO 45001. The certification bodies would need to be accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, ensuring their competence to carry out the certification.

There may be concerns that a management system approach may not be suitable for very small businesses. However, the standard is flexible enough to be adopted by all sizes of organisation. Alternatively, size limits could be introduced whereby all businesses in a sector above a certain threshold would be required to comply.

Certification to BS OHSAS 18001 is now widely available in the United Kingdom. Some 40 certification bodies are accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service to offer certification to the standard. It is estimated that more than 10,000 businesses are now certified as complying with the standard, and that figure is growing.

BS OHSAS 18001 was developed by a range of organisations specialising in health and safety management, certification and end-user businesses. It was co-ordinated by the British Standards Institution, the national standards body for the UK. The standard would bring immediate benefit in workplace safety to the status quo. It would bring benefit to the approach that Professor Löfstedt proposed. Most importantly, it would certainly benefit and support Clause 1.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this clause has emerged out of a series of consultations during the past four years. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, remarked in his very detailed and constructive speech, the first consultation took place in 2012 on the principle that there should be a list of undertakings prescribed in regulations that are excluded from health and safety law. That did not find large favour in the consultation. The most recent consultation has not found very large favour for the Government’s current proposals. We are finding it difficult to satisfy all those concerned. I note that the noble Lord did not quote the Federation of Small Businesses’ response to the current consultation, which is a good deal more favourable that those that he did quote. On the question of the current consultation, it took a certain amount of time; we had a lot of responses to the consultation and we had to put them all together. It has now been published and the Government will, of course, consult and consider what their response should be. We very much hope that we will have time to consult further and return to this issue before we get to Third Reading.

The Health and Safety Executive has, of course, been actively engaged in this entire process over the last four years; I stress that it is very much part of the process of policy-making. We all share the underlying purpose, which is as it should be, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, suggested in his speech, a lessening of health and safety burdens on those self-employed who are not at risk and are highly unlikely to put others at risk from their activities. That is what Professor Löfstedt suggested in his earlier report; it is part of the German system. To the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I say in passing that there are many parts of the German system of employment, training and employment protection that we would very much like to take on board. I am happy that this Government have indeed taken us a good deal further down the road towards apprenticeship training than their predecessors. There are other aspects—including some aspects of the Meister system, now that I have begun to understand that—which are clearly restrictions on trade and which we do not wish to follow. However, one cannot ever take an entire model from one country and put it into another.

There are other areas over which I have spent some time arguing with German policymakers over the years; the idea that, just because a system has worked since the 14th century, one should maintain it at all costs, is not always an idea that one wishes to promote. I was one of those involved in the British side of the argument over the Reinheitsgebot, which the noble Lord might remember. It was to do with the purity of beer and was passed in about 1351. However, we will leave the German dimension aside and return to the current issue. We apologise that the consultation document has only just appeared. The Government will respond as soon as we are ready and we hope that we will have more to say on this before we reach Third Reading.

The issue at stake is which side one takes in reducing the burden, and whether to make a list of those, as this proposal suggests, whose activities are at greater risk of putting others in harm’s way from the way they are conducted—those involved in construction or a range of other activities that involve interaction with others. Professor Löfstedt prefers a system in which there is only a prescribed list of those activities that are exempted from the current health and safety regulations. The argument that we have been having through two series of consultation has been about how one defines “low risk” and “high risk”. This is an area, after all, on which one can spend a great deal of time, having a large number of consultations without meeting consensus. I regret that we have not yet reached an entire consensus.

The noble Lord’s first proposed amendment reverses the effect of Clause 1, so that all self-employed persons continue to owe a duty under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act unless regulations are made to exempt them from that law, whereas the Government’s proposals exempt them unless they are on another prescribed list. This approach, we argue, would increase confusion for the self-employed because there are a plethora of low-risk activities that would need to be captured to ensure that the regulations were as extensive as possible. Furthermore, each of these activities would need to be appropriately and carefully defined. This could create further uncertainty in the law and make it unwieldy for the self-employed to comply with. This is part of what the Federation of Small Business was saying in its response to the current consultation.

The noble Lord’s second amendment seeks to impose various conditions upon the making of regulations before self-employed persons can be exempt from Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The amendment would require an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force. We do not consider this necessary. The Government amended Clause 1 in Committee so that regulations made under the power that it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the list of prescribed activities to ensure they are fit for purpose.

The conditions which the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by both Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers those factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making them. That report will seek to assess the extent to which the intended objectives of the proposed change have been met. Given the safeguards already in place, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of this alternative proposal would be of any benefit.

It is imperative that self-employed persons, especially those involved in conducting high-risk activities, understand when health and safety law will continue to apply to them after this legislative amendment is made. For the reasons I have already given, we do not consider the noble Lord’s amendments to be the best way of achieving that. They are unnecessary and overly burdensome. After all, the purpose of the Bill is to reduce unnecessary burdens. The clearest and simplest way to achieve this change is by having a list of prescribed high-risk undertakings together with guidance produced by the Health and Safety Executive which will make it clear and unambiguous to those who continue to owe a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

I repeat: the Government are currently considering the comments just received following the 2014 consultation on the draft regulations already produced. These raise a number of important issues which the Government will consider further before Third Reading. In that context, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Peatlands

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Grand Committee

[The Earl of Lindsay (Con)]

My Lords, I join my noble friends in thanking my noble friend Lord Greaves for raising this important debate. I declare two interests. One is that I am a patron of the IUCN’s Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands. The other is that I am the chairman of Scotland’s Moorland Forum.

Given the title of this debate, and the proportion of the United Kingdom's peatlands that are north of the border, it would be appropriate if I said something about the Moorland Forum and its relevance to policy-making in Scotland. The Moorland Forum has developed into a unique partnership consisting of 30 or more member organisations, all of whom have an interest in the uplands and moorlands of Scotland. These member organisations are drawn from across the Government, the public sector, the private sector, the NGO community and the science and research sector. With every relevant perspective involved, the Moorland Forum is able actively to engage on all interests and all issues, with a breadth of focus which I think my noble friend Lord Cavendish would welcome; is able to actively seek consensus; and, importantly, actively to promote improvements in policy, as well as practice and management.

The Moorland Forum’s value to policy-making is proven in practice and we are regularly consulted by the Scottish Government and their various agencies for advice and commentary on policy options and policy delivery. Five years ago, I and others were concerned that peatlands in the United Kingdom were on the edge of the policy agenda, both in Westminster and Edinburgh. I therefore start by commending the United Kingdom and the Scottish Governments that that is no longer the case. Both have shown leadership and commitment to safeguarding our peatlands.

I initially focus on developments in Scotland. I welcome, as did my noble friend Lord Greaves, the new Scottish planning policy, announced by the Scottish Government this summer, with its special provisions for peatland protection. Like my noble friend Baroness Parminter, I also warmly welcome the National Peatland Plan that is being developed and overseen by Scottish Natural Heritage in consultation with all interested parties. The National Peatland Plan, which will be launched in March, will include a strategic vision for Scotland’s peatlands, an analysis of their current state, and opportunities for achieving better collaboration in order to deliver healthier peatlands.

For the first time, in Scotland we will have a clear set of long-term objectives for peatland restoration, and I commend the Scottish Government and Scottish Natural Heritage for this overarching initiative, and for their ambition. The National Peatland Plan would be even more valuable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom if it was linked to similar initiatives elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I also welcome the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide £15 million for peatland restoration. Five million pounds of funding is already in place through the Peatland Action project, and restoration work on the ground is under way on approximately 120 projects. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he has plans for measures and initiatives similar to those that are taking place in Scotland.

As have other speakers, I want now to touch on a UK-wide point—the importance of the development of the peatland code. As we have heard, of the many benefits that will flow from having an agreed peatland code, perhaps one of the most significant is its potential to provide the confidence that would unlock corporate funding for peatland restoration. If corporate and private sector funding could be secured, as has been so successfully the case for forestry and woodland planting through the UK Woodland Carbon Code, it would enable the restoration and improved management of tens of thousands of additional hectares of peatland over and above those that can be afforded through government and EU-funded schemes. I would be interested to hear from my noble friend what steps are being taken by the Government to encourage private businesses to fund peatlands through the peatland code.

I should also ask my noble friend what steps the United Kingdom and Scottish Governments are taking to support and co-ordinate their efforts with the IUCN UK Peatland Programme, as it is that programme which is overseeing the all-important development of the peatland code. The IUCN UK Peatland Programme deserves considerable credit for attracting and maintaining a solid partnership of relevant interests. However, if it faces a challenge, it is the same challenge that I believe Governments are facing, and that is the mixed success to date in reaching out beyond the usual suspects of the academic and NGO communities to inform, influence and motivate the mainstream private owners and private land managers of our peatlands.

Private owners and managers will be key if we are to secure and save our peatlands, but so far they have had little substantial engagement with the debate. To this end, the Moorland Forum is promoting the establishment of demonstration sites as one way in which private owners and private managers can become better engaged. The forum also feels that there are fears among land managers that peatland restoration techniques could trigger problems relating to livestock health, heather management, increased costs and foregone income. We are of the view that policymakers and others must understand and address those concerns if the efforts of land managers are to be fully harnessed.

In closing, therefore, I ask for my noble friend’s thoughts on demonstration sites for restoration purposes and other initiatives to engage private landowners and land managers. I also ask about the extent to which efforts are being made to understand and address the concerns felt by land managers.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Earl of Lindsay Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

I am not alone in viewing this as an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs. If the department is allowed to continue in the same vein of simply not listening to people with genuine complaints, it surely puts at risk the success of a very important part of the department’s environmental and recycling objectives. It cannot be right all along to alienate those upon whom the department is going to rely for the delivery of the policies it seeks to implement. Yet that is precisely what has been happening and I hope my noble friend will agree that it must be stopped.

[The Earl of Lindsay]

My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for introducing these draft regulations and setting out the objectives that he and his department seek to achieve. I preface my remarks by declaring an interest as a non-executive director of British Polythene Industries, Europe’s largest manufacturer and recycler of polythene products. BPI has production and recycling operations in the UK, the European Union, North America and China.

I wholly associate myself with the remarks of my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding. I have had access to much of the same documentation and analysis from the industry that he has had, in addition to the analysis and forecasting that is available to companies such as BPI. There are, as my noble friend set out, a very large number of detailed concerns about the substance and detail of what these proposed regulations seek to implement. I do not intend to go into the depth of those details, nor do I intend to dwell on the real unhappiness that many in the industry feel about so many of the issues that relate to the process that culminated in these proposed regulations. Once again, my noble friend has set out some of the specific concerns related to that process—indeed, the unhappiness is manifest and deals with many more points than any of us would be comfortable about.

The nature of the discussions between the industry and the department has left many in the industry very upset. The extent to which the industry has felt that its input and advice has not been efficiently, effectively or actively sought, welcomed or understood is another source of unhappiness. My noble friend mentioned the difficulties the industry has had in being able to engage with the relevant Minister. The extent to which the department is felt by many in the industry to have based the case on evidence that it has been assembling has caused serious unhappiness, given the very late hour at which that evidence became evident to the industry.

For the purposes of this debate, suffice it to say that we are where we are. The main focus should therefore be on how we move forward from these draft regulations, and perhaps look at that more than how we arrived at this unhappy state of affairs. It is in that spirit that I echo my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding in stressing that the industry remains ready and willing to engage positively in whatever is the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

This includes recycling more plastic pots, tubs and trays and more plastic films. We recognise that increasing the collection and recycling of these types of plastic represents a challenge, but we are seeing some encouraging trends. For example, in the past four years more than 100 local authorities have introduced collections for pots, tubs and trays. This has seen the recycling rate for these items more than treble over the past five years from 5% in 2008 to 18% now. To meet the proposed plastic recycling target we are looking for the recycling rate to increase from the current 18% to 28% over the next five years. There is also a range of planned waste policies that will encourage local authorities to collect a wider range of plastics for recycling. In particular, WRAP is investing £5 million, through its mixed plastics loan fund, by which it means to deliver, by 2015, a further 100,000 tonnes of recycled pots, tubs and trays—double the 50,000 tonnes we anticipate will be needed from this stream to meet the overall target.

Of course, the higher packaging recycling target being debated today will help provide extra stimulus for local authorities to roll out collections and for MRF operators to invest in new sorting technology to handle a wider range of plastics. Other waste policies will encourage greater collection of plastics. These include the landfill tax, which is set on an increasing scale, making disposal of these items less economically attractive, and the revised waste framework directive, with its focus on separate collection of plastics and other dry recyclates by 2015.

We recognise that there are concerns about infrastructure capacity. However, I understand that most new sorting facilities, or MRFs, are being designed to handle mixed plastics or will have suitable capacity to add additional materials at a later date to support changes to local authority collection services. Furthermore, the Environmental Services Association, the main trade body for waste management companies, has stated that there are plans for an additional 6.6 million tonnes of MRF capacity to come on stream between 2013 and 2017. On that basis, the 50,000 tonnes of additional plastic anticipated should be manageable.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to glass and asked about meetings. There was recently a meeting with British Glass to discuss the targets for 2012. I am not aware of wider requests for meetings from the glass sector. It is important to recognise that the glass targets before your Lordships today are flat and only slightly above the minimum 60% necessary to achieve the target set in the EU directive.

I listened carefully to concerns about the costs of the new regulations on certain business sectors. I ask noble Lords to accept that this needs to be seen in the context of the overwhelming benefit to the economy as a whole, including the UK’s recycling and reprocessing industry. Most businesses on which the obligation to meet the proposed targets will fall are in favour of them. In setting them, we sought to balance the costs to businesses, and we did not increase them unless there was a sound business case for doing so.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked about exports. I am fully supportive of the need for a level playing field. As part of the ongoing review of the packaging regulations, we are exploring the issue and considering options for how it may be addressed. I believe that there is significant scope for growth in domestic demand for recovered plastic. Security of feedstock has been cited as discouraging some reprocessors from entering the market. We believe that the proposed targets will provide greater confidence in supply, plus the financial support to enable investment in increasing domestic reprocessing capacity.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to the Advisory Committee on Packaging suggesting lower plastic targets in its report of work carried out in 2010-11. The ACP’s response to the consultations actually supported the Government’s preferred option of higher plastic packaging recycling targets. Its report of work in 2011-12, published earlier this year, confirmed its advice that the higher plastic packaging targets suggested by the Government would be achievable provided that there was an increase in the provision of collection infrastructure and that participation rates increased. Furthermore, more new infrastructure is, as I have said, coming on stream to cope with supply and demand.

My noble friends Lord Jenkin and Lord Lindsay asked for a mid-term formal review. I think that I can go further than that. I assure the Committee that my department will monitor progress throughout the period in question and will take appropriate action if needed. The ACP has a standing agenda item at its quarterly meeting to review packaging recycling achievement data and to advise Defra on trends and impacts on achievability going forward. I will keep a close eye on that. I am also happy, as my noble friend requested, for discussions to continue between those he represents and my officials.

My noble friend Lord Lindsay suggested—perhaps I am paraphrasing him unfairly—that Defra used its own evidence. Defra used a range of evidence sources, including WRAP research on collection costs, industry data on waste from groups such as PackFlow and the ACP, as well as evidence submitted as part of the consultation.

[The Earl of Lindsay]

My Lords, I will clarify what I said because the paraphrase did not quite catch the point that I was trying to make, which was that the evidence that the department used to underpin the regulations currently before us was not seen by key players in the industry until such a late stage of the process that, while they had reservations and doubts about some of it, there was no time to properly discuss it with the department before it became a fait accompli.