Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: New Breeds

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my interests on the register, including the fact that I am an honorary associate of the British Veterinary Association.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, we take dog attacks very seriously and are making sure that the full force of the law is applied. This ranges from lower-level interventions to more serious offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act. The Government have commissioned urgent advice on what steps they can take on dangerous dogs. As a critical first step, we are immediately convening police experts and other stakeholders to define the breed for the purposes of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer but it is clear that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not working as it was intended. Dog attacks are on the increase, the public are feeling threatened and the Act is putting huge pressure on veterinary professionals and animal welfare charities. Can I urge my noble friend to use his good offices to take this opportunity to have a complete overhaul of the Act; to focus not on the breed but the deed; and to look increasingly at anti-social and aggressive behaviour on the part of dog owners, which should not be tolerated?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Every single one of these attacks is a tragedy. So often, they happen in the home, and some of the people involved really should not be in charge of a dog. We are concerned about the breed that people are concerned about now, XL Bullies, because we see from the available data we have that they are disproportionately involved in serious dog attacks. There is a divergence of opinion on this. My noble friend mentions organisations that campaign on this and are unhappy about the breed-specific nature of it. They have one view; another view is that none of the fatal attacks that have taken place in recent years were carried out by a prohibited breed that was registered under the Act. We want to get this right. That is why we are talking to everyone, including the police, vets and campaign groups. We want to make sure that we are keeping people safe.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the United States, the National Rifle Association argues—spuriously, in my view—that it is not the firearm that is the problem but the person carrying it. In this country, we control dangerous firearms and have very few mass shootings—the opposite of what we see in the United States. Does the noble Lord agree that a dangerous dog that is bred to fight and is inherently dangerous is rightfully being looked at as being banned?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I entirely understand the noble Lord’s point. Most of us who keep a dog can know its breed precisely because there is a breed registration book and it is perfectly easy to describe it. There is no evidence of how you define some of these “fighting dogs” or “status dogs”, as some people call them. I am not making some bureaucratic excuse for not taking action because we are taking action but, in order to make the law effective, if we are going to ban a breed, we have to really ban it and not allow people to get round it by having some nuance of that breed.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I was chief constable in Merseyside when a five year-old child in St Helens was murdered by one of these awful breeds. As the Minister said, there are difficulties in defining the breed; I think a Labrador can be regarded as one of these breeds on some occasions so it is really not straightforward. One of the things I instigated at the time, with the agreement of the CPS, was an amnesty for owners of illegal breeds because the main thing is to get these dogs off the streets and not leave them in position. Of course, it is hard for the owners to hand them over voluntarily because they are declaring that they are an illegal animal; it is hard for neighbours to declare it, too. At a time when the Government are considering what to do next, might they consider a national amnesty for the present illegal breeds to get the dogs off the street rather than worrying about, as has been explained, the consequences?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, there is an exemption procedure whereby the person can keep the dog provided that they stick to various conditions, such as it being taken out on a lead and wearing a muzzle. Of course, that does not solve the problem entirely. We want to see these dogs removed. There are ways of doing that and very serious penalties, including up to 14 years in prison, for people who break those rules. We are talking to the National Association of Police Chiefs and making sure that we are doing everything in the realm of the possible but our priority is to get dangerous dogs off the streets.

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend is taking such urgent action on this. I suggest that he should be more radical when looking at the Dangerous Dogs Act. It is time that that was sent to the knacker’s yard and a new system instituted altogether. I say this with some regret because I was the one who introduced it in the other place in the first place.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I know that the Act is sometimes held up as a poster boy for the malign effect of knee-jerk legislative reaction to a terrible incident. However, as I said, the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro—the four species banned under the Act—are not breeds that have been involved in these awful attacks. One could therefore argue that there may have been more attacks if they had not been banned, but we are looking to make this effective and we want urgent action.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the phrase that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, is patchy as breeds vary considerably. Spaniels are excellent at identifying victims in earthquakes; border collies are excellent at working with sheep. Labradors are brilliant assistance dogs; Alsatians and Rottweilers are brilliant guard dogs. For all, it is part of their inherent nature. The DDA should be reviewed bearing this in mind. Will the Minister give assurances that, if such a review takes place, it takes account of more evidence than just a single video clip?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I absolutely can give that assurance. We in government are lay people in this. There are real experts who understand animal behaviour and lawyers who can advise us on what will stand up in court. If we are to review this Act, we must make sure that we do not lose any benefits we have had from it and that we keep this House informed of every stage of the process.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the great increase in pet dogs in recent years, particularly during the pandemic, should we not reconsider reintroducing dog licences?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I love agreeing with my noble friend but I cannot in this case. It was a very bureaucratic document that cost more than it amounted to and was no more than a tax on dog owners. It would not deal with this problem effectively because the people who keep the predominant dog species involved in these attacks would not, by and large, have bothered getting a licence anyway.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we know that the American bully is easily recognisable but concerns have been raised that it would be hard to define it within the framework of the Dangerous Dogs Act as it exists at the moment. The breed is not recognised by the Kennel Club, for example. The Minister and other noble Lords have talked about the importance of replacing or updating the legislation. It is not working at all for cross-breeds. The Minister has talked about the fact that many of the attacks are not done by dogs that are covered by the legislation, so I really do urge him to commit to updating the legislation because I cannot see how we will move forward without it.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am very happy to have a discussion with the noble Baroness and any others about what precisely they mean by updating this legislation. Many campaign groups, such as the Dogs Trust, want us to get rid of its breed-specific nature as part of any reform. I am concerned about that because it might remove some of the elements that work, but we are open to those discussions.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords, two weeks ago, the “Today” programme interviewed a leading professor, I think from Chicago University, who specialises in the behaviour of dangerous animals in contact with human beings. She said that, in America, they are breeding these specific dogs and changing their genes to increase the chance that they will fight. She was asked for her opinion—“What would you do?”—and said, “Ban them totally”.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I totally understand my noble friend’s point; that may well be what comes out of this urgent review. It is of concern right at the top of the Government. He is absolutely right that these species are bred for purposes that we do not want to see in this country, in our homes and certainly not on our streets. Since 2022, there have been 16 fatalities, nine of which involved some form of cross-breed bully dog. The clue is in the name.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, which were laid in draft before the House on 28 June, be approved. They amend part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The Government committed to amending these regulations in the response to the 2021 consultation on the extended producer responsibility for packaging—EPR—scheme to obtain enhanced packaging waste data from materials facilities. The EPR scheme will move the cost of dealing with waste generated by households from local taxpayers and councils to businesses that handle and use packaging, making producers responsible for the packaging that they place on the market.

In 2020, Defra undertook a post-implementation review of part 2 of Schedule 9 to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The review included a recommendation to explore the connections between materials facilities’ data reporting and the EPR scheme, and concluded that Defra would consider amending the regulations. These amendments will improve the quality and quantity of packaging waste data that materials facilities are required to collect, record and report. In turn, this will support fair and accurate cost assessments and payments through the EPR scheme.

I now turn to the details of this instrument. These amendments to the regulations will introduce enhanced sampling, recording and reporting requirements for materials facilities and increase the type of facilities in scope of the regulations. Materials facilities will be in scope of the amended regulations if they receive and manage at least 1,000 tonnes of household or household-type material a year for the primary purpose of reuse and recycling. The sampling requirements will include a higher input sampling frequency and more material categories for facilities to sample and report against. Materials facilities will also need to separately measure, record and report against packaging and deposit return scheme material proportions. This data will support packaging composition calculations or exemptions under EPR. The enhanced recording and reporting requirements will require materials facilities to provide more information on waste suppliers and samples taken, as well as to report all raw data to regulators to support improved analysis.

To give an example of this in practice, my local council, West Berkshire, contracts Veolia, a waste management company, to perform household waste collections. When a Veolia truck picks up household waste and delivers it to a materials facility for reuse and recycling, that facility will sample the waste so that we know how much of it is EPR packaging material and how much is newspapers and magazines, deposit return containers, contamination or other non-packaging materials. The waste collected by Veolia from neighbouring councils or from its own commercial contracts with businesses would be sampled separately. This will help ensure that the EPR payments to my local council reflect the quality and quantity of packaging materials collected from households. This will provide valuable new information to help my local council optimise waste collection operations and, through EPR payments, provide a new means to incentivise councils to improve performance and ensure that producers get good value for money.

We consulted industry through the 2021 EPR consultation and continue to engage with the waste sector on these new legislative requirements and the implementation of the wider collection and packaging waste reforms. We have also published guidance on these requirements and will work closely with the Environment Agency to support facilities in preparing to meet the new requirements over the next year.

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 detail the regulatory functions available in monitoring and enforcing these regulations. These amending regulations apply to England and Wales only; Scotland and Northern Ireland are aligned in our policy intent regarding bringing in enhanced materials facility sampling requirements and waste data reporting to support EPR. My officials have worked closely at an official level with the relevant departments in the devolved Administrations in the development of this legislation.

These measures will be crucial for providing a mechanism to obtain the enhanced data on packaging and waste management services needed to achieve the effective implementation of EPR and realise the associated environmental benefits. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?

A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?

Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must

“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.

Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?

During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Baronesses for their interest in this. I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is a waste nerd. Her social life is fascinating—having dinners discussing this—and I will seek to answer in a way that respects her genuine expertise. She is absolutely right that consumers will play a key role. In a way, this also responds to what consumers are demanding. When I was a councillor, my local authority recycled and diverted away from landfill approximately 17% of waste. I am glad to say that the administration who took it over raised the rate of diversion away from landfill to 90%. Householders are determined that the circular economy described by the noble Baroness should be relevant to their lives. They object dramatically to the idea that waste diverted from landfill goes to other countries, so we want to make sure that we are creating a circular economy in this country and that there are markets for the amount of waste produced.

The noble Baroness is right that we are increasing the amount we require to be checked to 60 kilograms per 75 tonnes. After close consultation and discussions with experts and local authorities and working with materials facilities operators, we think that is realistic and will give us the data we require to have a really clear view of what is being provided by these facilities. I cannot tell her what percentage will be separated waste and what will be mixed waste because different local authorities have different contracts and arrangements, but I assure her that we are involved in a detailed level of engagement and that issues such as the EPR administrator are fundamental to making sure that this progresses.

Both noble Baronesses raised the question of deposit return schemes. Noble Lords will be aware that we want to try to align our deposit return scheme across the United Kingdom, if possible. That has required us to talk closely to Scotland—which has, frankly, messed it up—and we now seem to be in a position to take forward, by some point in 2025, an effective and meaningful deposit return scheme that will deliver a massive environmental benefit. I am reminded that the plastic bag levy has seen a reduction in the use of plastic bags of more than 95%. We think that a properly structured deposit return scheme should have only a marginal inflationary effect and should incentivise people to be part of a scheme that will see a dramatic reduction in waste.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, touched on the timescale of the deferral. The deferral does not apply to all obligations and requirements under EPR. The start of producer payments under EPR will be deferred by 12 months. This addresses another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Producers obligated under EPR are still required to collect and report data as per existing regulations. We need this data to develop and then share estimated EPR fees. Gathering and sharing this information will help businesses prepare for these changes, and it is something that businesses have asked for. EPR payments deferral will also impact on some specific timelines, including the introduction of modulated fees and binned packaging waste fees and payments.

We are concerned about cost, and our response to the consultation on the EPR scheme included an impact assessment, which has been referred to and which covered the expected costs to materials facilities. As we developed the amending legislation, the definition and types of materials facilities that would be in scope were clarified. As a result, we updated our assumptions regarding the number of facilities that would be in scope from 739 to 159, reducing the sampling burden where possible. Using these updated numbers, we have estimated a lower cost associated with this legislation.

This is really important: the costs associated with the new requirements within this SI were found to be lower than previously estimated in the impact assessment produced for the EPR scheme. Although the scope has reduced, the methodology to estimate the impact on the materials facilities of enhanced sampling remains unchanged from the previously published EPR impact assessment.

Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023.

Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved. In doing so, I hope that it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2023.

The purpose of the instruments before the Committee is to strengthen environmental civil sanctions and provide environmental regulators with the tools that they need to hold operators to account. The instruments have been grouped as they form a package of amendments to the civil sanctions available to Natural England and the Environment Agency.

A public consultation on these proposed changes was held earlier this year, first trailed in the plan for water, and received majority support from the public and a range of operators under the legislation in question. Strengthening regulations that hold polluters to account, from water companies to waste operators, is part of the Government’s wider plan to reduce pollution and protect the biodiversity and ecology of our natural environment. Earlier this year, we published our environmental improvement plan. It provides an ambitious five-year road map for a cleaner, greener country, with a delivery plan for restoring nature and improving environmental quality across the board. We have since gone further with our comprehensive integrated plan for water, which will deliver clean and plentiful water.

To deliver on our ambitions, we must ensure that regulators have all the tools they need to take action on unacceptable breaches of environmental regulations. The current provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 is capped at £250,000. This means that some operators may think that they can price in the penalty rather than follow the law. Therefore, current penalties do not act as a strong deterrent, particularly for large operators with significant turnover.

The limitation can be resolved by the amendments before the Committee today, which will entirely remove the cap. This will future-proof penalties to ensure that Natural England and the Environment Agency can determine the amount of the penalty in line with their enforcement policy. Penalties will be based on the degree of environmental harm and culpability as well as the size of the operator, ensuring that penalties are calibrated to act as a proportionate deterrent and punishment.

Currently, there is no provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The majority of Environmental Agency investigations are conducted under the environmental permitting regulations but the agency is limited in its enforcement options to warnings, advice, guidance or criminal prosecutions. A “justice gap” exists for moderate to severe offences. This limitation can be resolved by the instruments, which will introduce variable monetary penalties to the environmental permitting regulations.

Strong safeguards for determining the penalty, including a requirement on the Environment Agency to take into account an operator’s ability to pay, remain in place. The Environment Agency will also continue to use the guidelines for environmental offences published by the independent Sentencing Council as the basis to determine the amounts of all variable monetary penalties. The guidelines include a number of safeguards to ensure that penalties are proportionate and take into account the size of an operator, its ability to pay, its degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the incident. The instruments require the environmental regulators to update and publish guidance that sets out their methodology for determining the amounts of these penalties. A consultation on updating the guidance has been launched and will ensure a fair, proportionate and consistent approach.

The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area. The Government’s environmental improvement plan and integrated plan for water make our commitment to protect the environment clear. These instruments will ensure that the regulators are able to act swiftly against those who would threaten to harm it. They build on announcements earlier this year, with the proceeds of fines going into water improvement schemes through a new water restoration fund, and on water company dividends being linked to environmental performance. Together, this is a strong package designed to target those companies most egregiously harming our environment.

I commend this draft instrument to the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on these two statutory instruments. It is regrettable but not entirely surprising that businesses find it cheaper to pay the current fine of up to £250,000 than to fix the problem causing the breach of environmental law. There have been numerous debates in the House on storm overflows and the resultant sewage spills into waterways. It is time that this was resolved in a way that effectively deters the polluters from their anti-social activities. I fully support the removal of the cap of £250,000 for a larger fine and hope that the threat of a more substantial fine will be a sufficient deterrent.

I have looked at the consultation questions and responses on changing the cap. There was enormous support, with 88% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals to change the cap. I smiled to myself when I saw that the lowest support for this change came from the waste and resource management and energy sectors. Some 27 organisations ranging across a wide variety of interests are listed as having taken part in the consultation, from the Clean Rivers Trust and the River Otter Fisheries Association to Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water. There was a good cross-section of responses.

I noted that there was some concern that removing the cap might result in disproportionately high penalties. This would obviously depend on how someone had been affected by the breach of legal protection; the Minister set out the process for assessing fines. A minor breach is unlikely to receive a high penalty whereas a major incident that results in contamination over a large area and on a scale that takes huge resources to clean up should, quite rightly, deserve a substantial penalty.

Only by implementing the “polluter pays” principle in full will our environment eventually be cleared up. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also supports closing the gaps in the enforcement regime. I fully support this SI.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a delight to be back in the Moses Room. I hope noble Lords all had a rewarding and relaxing recess—if they can remember it after eight days. We come together again after a summer of yet more horrendous headlines about illegal discharges into our waterways, amateur athletes being taken ill after swimming in our rivers and, apparently—according to the Office for Environmental Protection—the Government and our regulators may have broken the law with regard to the 852 sewage discharges that are now occurring daily. This is a sorry state of affairs.

It is only right and proper that we review the current regulatory and enforcement framework so that we ensure that criminals are punished for breaking the law. I just worry that the proposals in the legislation before us are more of a political stunt rather than a plan to deal with the current crisis affecting our waterways, given that uncapped fines are already available to the financial regulator.

I know from personal experience that the Minister is truly committed to protecting our environment. His record is clear and not to be questioned. However, we are seeing such mixed messages from the Government regarding their commitment to environmental regulation: they promised not to reduce regulation yet, even as we speak, their proposals in the Chamber regarding nutrient neutrality in the levelling up Bill are seemingly a broken promise related to this issue. So I am sure that the Minister understands why some of us have some concerns about the current state of environmental regulation and enforcement.

I turn to the substance of this SI. We will of course support these changes but, as was made clear during the debate in the other place, His Majesty’s Opposition are not convinced that these actions alone will make any real impact on the sewage crisis currently before us. Given the urgency of the situation and the facts that your Lordships’ House sat for longer than the other place prior to the Summer Recess, that MPs agreed the legislation on 18 July and that it was laid before us on 12 July, can the Minister confirm why this SI was not brought forward for approval sooner?

There is a long history of regulators having the power to issue fines or pursue legal action but there are relatively few cases of these steps reaching a conclusion. What, if anything, makes the Minister believe that this time will be different? Can she provide the Committee with more detail about how these fines will be set aside and spent? The Secretary of State has previously said that they will go into a dedicated fund, which will, where possible, invest in local improvements. Can the Minister provide a definition of “local”? I do not aim to be difficult but is this an aim or a requirement? What will happen if it is thought that infrastructure improvement elsewhere would have a greater impact on future discharge levels in a locality?

While I have the Minister’s attention, can he update us on when the sewage task force established by Defra last met? I believe that it has met only once in the past 12 months. If the Government are truly serious about tackling this crisis, the task force may wish to meet more regularly than once a year. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank both noble Baronesses for their response to this instrument and their qualified support for what the Government are doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, rightly pointed out that the consultation produced a clear level of support, which is why we are taking this through.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, asked why this is being brought forward now. It has been through a process, including the consultation and the response to it, and SIs cannot be done overnight. They need to be drafted and brought forward properly; I think that we brought this one forward in as timely a way as possible. I hope that she does not think that this a stunt or any form of window dressing because it is a very serious attempt to tackle the justice gap that I referred to in my earlier remarks. The SI was brought in to address precisely the justice gap that exists within the environmental civil sanctions regime. Expectations of the Government and the public on protections for the environment are higher than ever. We need to address this gap and ensure that regulators have the right tools to take action against environmental offences.

The noble Baroness asked whether this will make a difference. Deterrent is the best form of avoiding pollution in the first place. If the level of fines was no deterrent and was being priced in by some bad actors, that will no longer be the case and they will face very severe financial penalties indeed. It should be added that, since 2015, the Environment Agency has concluded 59 criminal prosecutions against water companies and secured £150 million in fines. The regulators—the Environment Agency and Ofwat—have recently launched the largest-ever criminal and civil investigation into water companies’ sewage discharges, at more than 2,200 treatment works. The Environment Agency will act against non-compliance. This will include criminal prosecution, for which there can be unlimited fines. On 12 July we began legislation to introduce unlimited civil penalties, which is before the Committee today.

This needs to be seen in the context of more activity than there has ever been to try to address the quality of our waters. The storm overflow actions start from the basis of knowing where the storm overflows are, which we did not when we came into government. The coalition Government set about requiring water companies to tell us where their overflows were. We are now at the point of knowing every single one, and that is part of the reason why a light has been shone on the activities of some water and sewerage companies. Transparency is the best form of sanction because people can see what is going on—and so can the enforcement authorities. We have increased monitoring and will have 100% monitored by the end of this year.

Other continuous efforts will be part of this. In 2022, 93% of our bathing waters in England met the highest standards of “good” or “excellent”, up from 76% in 2010, but that statistic will not see us rest on our laurels. We want to make sure that all bathing waters are of good or excellent standard. We are eliminating all storm overflows and seeing investment levels never seen before.

The noble Baroness asked about the sewage task force. I do not know when it last met, but I am happy to find out and share that. There are a whole lot of engagement activities, including talking to water and sewerage companies and working with the Environment Agency. Just because one body has not met, that does not mean there is not a resolve to deal with this problem; this is part of it. I hope that, with those remarks, I have addressed this statutory instrument.

Motion agreed.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2023.

Relevant document: 48th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Motion agreed.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, we have already spent a considerable time on this first amendment. I take what I think is a minority view about the purpose of Committee: it is to look, in detail, at amendments to improve a Bill or reject various parts of it, as the case may be. Speeches should be closely argued on the amendment concerned, or the amendments if they are grouped, and they should be concise. The time spent on this amendment has been miniscule in comparison with the time spent on what were, in effect, Second Reading speeches. I am sorry, but I deplore that as a Committee issue.

I turn then to the actual amendment. It gives the Secretary of State the requirement, not just once but each year, to make

“a statement in writing to the effect that, in the Secretary of State’s view, its operation will not cause unintended and perverse consequences for wildlife conservation”.

I once chaired the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I was always very wary of giving the Government, Secretaries of State or anybody else unfettered discretion to do things. This seems to me to fall into that category, because there is not even a whiff of parliamentary scrutiny. For that reason, I am very much opposed to this and, as I wish to be concise, I will sit down and leave the Minister to speak.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for tabling and moving this amendment, and the other Peers who have proposed amendments. However, I must say that the Government are disappointed that the House has not thus far been able to agree a way forward for this important legislation. My experience is that there is always a deal to be done, and I hope we may yet find some way forward. I was interested to hear the words of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, whose experience in these matters is hugely valued. I will take up any opportunity to find a way forward.

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for giving way; I am most grateful. I too would like to have found a way forward, which is why I made clear what my proposal was on 16 June at Second Reading. I am very sad that my noble friend Lady Fookes has declined to discuss it with me. I asked on three occasions, but she felt she could not—that is her right, of course. I also rather regret that over two and a half months, the first squeak I heard out of the Government was last week, and no proposal or ability to find common ground was offered. The only direct approach I had was yesterday, 24 hours before Committee. That is no way to find agreement; nevertheless, my door is open and I look forward to agreement, because most of my noble friends here do not wish to kill this Bill. We would like to see a good Bill on the statute book.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank my noble friend and understand the point he makes. Like other noble Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Fookes for her commitment to this Bill and her hard work to support it.

I shall set out the Government’s position on the Bill and speak to the issues raised by a number of amendments. First, as noble Lords will know, the Bill before us would deliver our manifesto commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from endangered animals. I recognise that this is a controversial proposal in this House, and I accept that there is a range of views and evidence on trophy hunting, including that it can be beneficial in conservation terms and for local livelihoods if well managed. The Government’s position, having listened to a number of different sides and gone through all the options, is that an import ban is the best way forward. An import ban would address the public’s concern about imports of hunting trophies, delivering a policy that is clear, comprehensive and practical to implement and enforce.

This is why we have a problem with the so-called “smart ban” amendments put forward, such as Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 19A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness; Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft; Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; Amendment 40, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan; and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bellingham and Lord Roborough. What is being proposed in those amendments is effectively a licensing system based on criteria about conservation impact or wildlife management practices and regulations. That is, broadly speaking, what we already have in place. The effect of these amendments would be to negate the purpose of the Bill.

There are a great number of amendments which deal with items in scope of the ban, concerning changes to the definition of a hunting trophy or the species, items or conditions under which a hunting trophy would be subject to the ban. This includes Amendments 3 to 7, 9, 10, 12, 15 to 18, 20 to 28, 31 to 33 and 35 to 38, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Leicester and Lord Caithness, the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Hamilton, Lord Swire, Lord Robathan, Lord Reay, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Roborough, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

The definition of a hunting trophy used in the Bill, in Clause 1, is consistent with the definition agreed by CITES and is already used by our authorities for CITES controls. Our current controls would continue for imports that are not hunting trophies. There is already provision in the Bill for consideration of imports for scientific or educational purposes, for example for the import of items for personal use that were not obtained through hunting. The scope of species is clear and comprehensive. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, including elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. It makes Clause 1 subject to Clause 4, which relates to the advisory committee, which we will come on to discuss in some detail. I think it is a very flawed clause of the Bill, which needs amendment. The point of this amendment is simply to make certain that the advice will be understood and taken on board by the Government when it comes to the implementation of Clause 1 of the Bill.

It is very depressing that the Government have turned their back on and totally ignored the information from their advisory body, the JNCC. It has set a bad precedent. It has undermined the JNCC and has reduced the efficacy of the Government’s work on conservation abroad. It is a very damaging decision that the Secretary of State has taken, against normal precedent. I hope therefore that, by my simple amendment, at least the consideration of the advisory board will be taken a little more seriously by the Government than they are taking advice at the moment. I beg to move.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I have already set out the Government’s position on this matter in my response to an earlier group. I have no further comments to make, and I will not be supporting this amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for all the support around the Committee I have received on that one. In view of the brief but factual reply from my noble friend the Minister, I am happy to withdraw this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

Does that mean that my noble friend thinks that we should have trophy laws for domestic animals?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to add to what I said earlier, but my noble friend has asked me something specifically. There are considerable concerns about the hunting of captive bred animals, including what is termed “canned hunting”. Such trophies should not be exempt from the import ban. The concept of what most of us imagine canned hunting to be is one that excites all our wrath and indignation about a practice that, in risk terms, is like shooting a cow in a field. I entirely understand, and I think that everybody is keen to find a way in which to differentiate it.

We could find ourselves dancing on the head of a legal pin here. What is an enclosure? There could be a small enclosure the size of this room, which would of course be ridiculous; there are also hunting concessions that are fenced in and, effectively, a managed population of animals. I do not want to get into that debate or make legislation that would create circumstances in which a court would be sought to adjudicate that legal definition. Therefore, I cannot recommend that this Committee supports this amendment, and respectfully urge the noble Earl to withdraw it.

[The Earl of Leicester (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, who highlighted many examples around the world, and the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who highlighted the importance of differentiating between wild and captive animals. However, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I will not seek to divide the Committee on this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fookes (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships will probably not be surprised that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this. I prefer the fact that there is a wider scope with the wildlife trade regulations annexes A and B. If they do not cause a problem, nobody will worry about that. I was amused by my noble friend Lord Mancroft and his molluscs, but I really do not think it is of any significance whatever. However, what I do notice is that as we go through the various amendments, a little bit here and a little bit there is chipped away, and if they were all accepted, we would see something very different indeed. Therefore, I stand by the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I set out earlier my thoughts on these amendments. My noble friend Lord Lucas is a very intelligent and assiduous parliamentarian and raises an important point. But I suggest that this amendment is not necessary, because the species in scope are provided for in Clause 2. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord Mancroft says, that is for the simplicity of the functioning of the Bill, so I hope I can persuade my noble friend Lord Lucas to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

I will just add on that last point: surely we should stick to the manifesto commitment, which is on endangered species. That is what we said in the manifesto. Maybe the Minister could stand up again and answer that point. Widening it in this way in Clause 2 to the 6,200 species goes far wider than what we committed to in 2019.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, to follow that up, it seems strange that my noble friend the Minister lamented that there was not a compromise on the Bill—that was when he started his reply to me on my first amendment. The Bill as presented before us is much wider than the manifesto commitment. Surely this would be an area in which a sensible compromise, achieving the aims of those of us who wish to improve the conservation of animals throughout the world and what the Government seek to do, is a possibility. If my noble friend was serious in saying that he laments the lack of a compromise, he ought to tell us where he thinks a compromise might be.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, one of the reasons I enjoy being in this House is that we have to achieve compromises in so many things. I try to work across the House to try to get half a loaf rather than no loaf at all. Here we are trying to achieve something that is workable. Annexes A and B of our wildlife trade regulations implement appendices 1 and 2 of CITES in Great Britain. They cover species at risk from international trade, listing nearly 6,000 species, as has been mentioned. These include elephants, giraffes, rhinos, big cats, bears, primates and hippos. By covering all animal species in annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations, we are removing any possibility of permitting the import of a hunting trophy from these species into Great Britain. Estimates of the number of species that are trophy hunted vary, but they are in the hundreds rather than the thousands. The Bill would apply to hunting trophies from all annexe A and B species. That is clear and comprehensive, avoiding confusion about what is or is not covered. Current rules on importing hunting trophies similarly apply to all annexe A and B species.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

I wonder whether my noble friend would give consideration to answering the question I put to him.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are seeking to implement the manifesto commitment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am naturally disappointed in that, but I shall not give up during the course of rest of this Committee trying to find other ways in which we might reach a compromise and a way forward.

I reassure my noble friend Lady Fookes that I view these amendments as alternatives—different ways of dealing with what I regard as a Bill that has gone too far. I do not wish it to die a death by a thousand cuts; I wish it to flourish as an effective and important piece of legislation. I think it needs improving but, given the Minister’s response, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, having listened to the debate so far, I think that this amendment is slightly closer to Amendments 14 and 33, which are in my name, so it might be for the benefit of the House if I say my remarks now rather than repeating them at a later stage—if such a thing happens.

The Government have not told us why the present licensing system does not work. I think it is important for us to recall and think about how the present licensing system works. If anybody wants to import a trophy into the UK from a species that is listed in CITES appendix 1 or 2, there is a requirement for an export certificate from the country and an import certificate from the UK. The issuance of these certificates is based on a science-based assessment that there will be no harm to the species—that is worth stressing. In CITES terms, this is called a non-detriment finding, or NDF.

In the UK, implementation of CITES happens domestically via the principal wildlife trade regulations referred to in the Bill. The two annexes of the wildlife trade regulations that are referred to, annexes A and B, are broadly aligned with the CITES appendices. In the UK, the JNCC, as I have said before, is the relevant public body for overseeing imports of animal species, including hunting trophies. For any species listed on annexe A, JNCC is required to determine, first, that the import will not have a harmful effect on the conservation status of the species or on the extent of the territory occupied by the relevant population of the species—this is the NDF—and, secondly, that the import is taking place for one of the purposes referred to in CITES Article 8(3): that is, for research, for education, for breeding aimed at the conservation of the species, or for other purposes that are not detrimental to the survival of the species concerned.

The JNCC has interpreted other purposes that are not detrimental as including hunting trophies—as long as trophy hunting is part of a careful species management plan that should, as appropriate, be based on sound biological data collected from the target populations; clearly demonstrate that harvest levels are sustainable; be monitored by professional biologists; be promptly modified if necessary to maintain the conservation aims; demonstrate that illegal activities are under control; produce significant and tangible conservation benefits for the species; and provide benefits to, and be in co-operation with, the local people who share the area with, or suffer by, the species concerned.

For species on annexe B, the measures are less strict since, by definition, the species on this annexe are less threatened by trade, and no certificate is required other than for six exceptions: the African lion, African elephant, argali sheep, hippopotamus, polar bear and white rhinoceros. For these species, the UK has the equivalent stricter measures that it applies to annexe A species, meaning that import permits are required—including an NDF. Thus, if a hunting trophy has been issued with an import certificate by JNCC, we can be confident that this is because due process has been followed: a non-detriment finding assessment has been conducted and the assessment has indicated there is no risk to species survival.

This Bill is about conservation and preventing the further endangerment of threatened species. The system in place under CITES already performs this function through a process that has been agreed multilaterally by over 180 countries. The Bill does not need to concern itself with those species that are not under annexes A or B. I have an amendment coming up to delete annexe B. However, the amendment before us is a better one and I would be very happy to support it should it be taken to a Division. However, if it is not, I give notice to my noble friend the Minister that I will wish to divide on my amendment in due course.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, I spoke at some length on the first amendment and covered many of these points. However, to address this precise amendment, it would narrow the scope of the ban to species considered threatened on the IUCN red list. Where this assessment identifies trophy hunting as a threat, it would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope, which the Bill currently does through annexes A and B of the wildlife trade regulations. This amendment contradicts Clause 2, which clearly sets out the species in scope of the import ban and would remove the power for the UK Government to determine species in scope. With that in consideration, I respectfully ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I note that almost all the speeches have been in favour of this amendment. That is because it is about conservation. I am a conservationist—I think everyone who has spoken is a conservationist—but this Bill, which my amendment aims to improve, is not about conservation. I find that very distressing—I really do.

The two noble Baronesses on the Front Bench said that they had letters from people supporting a trophy Bill when they were in the Commons. They may have done, but I remember a rather dreadful organisation called 38 Degrees, which ran campaigns the whole time. I discovered that some of my constituents who wrote to me and emailed me on standard responses that were given by 38 Degrees had not even sent them themselves; they were sent for them. We all know how campaigns can work.

I am disappointed that the proposer of the Bill and the Minister do not think that we need to highlight conservation in this Bill. I was not going to divide the House because it is time for my bed; I am getting rather old.

Clothing Sales: Sustainability

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what they assess to be a sustainable level of clothing sales by volume and material in the United Kingdom.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have not made an assessment of sustainable levels of clothing sales, but reducing textiles waste will be critical to hitting our net-zero goals. Our Maximising Resources, Minimising Waste paper, published in July, outlines our initial policy proposals for reducing textiles waste. We propose to ban textiles waste from landfill, require clothing retailers to provide in-store take-back of unwanted textiles and ask businesses to separate textiles waste for reuse and recycling.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer and am pleased that he acknowledged the critical place of dealing with the fashion sector, given that 20% of the world’s water use and 10% of greenhouse gases are generated by this and that the level of waste has trebled in the last 20 years. However, in the EU they are actually making very strong rules compared with what the Minister offered: clothing must become more durable, more repairable and more recyclable, and they are demanding extended producer responsibility. When is the UK going to catch up with—or, if we are to be world leading, exceed—what the EU is doing now?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have very demanding targets in our Environment Act commitments, which include reduction by 50% to 2019 levels. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about the impact of fashion and textiles in terms of both carbon and the use of embedded water, and we will be publishing details next year of how we are going to progress the producer responsibility for textiles. Our priority is packaging.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, there are some outrageous claims made by people in the fashion industry about the sustainability of their products. What are the Government going to do about greenwashing and about tackling those claims, some of which are fabricated claims? The EU, as we have heard, is taking action, and that is one of the things it is going to legislate on. Are the Government similarly going to take action on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

What the Government can have the most control over is what happens to clothing when it has finished being used, so we are working with the industry on durability and then diverting it away from landfill. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right that the supply chain comes from right around the world. The amount of clothing produced doubled between 2015 and 2020. This was because of a higher number of middle-class people and their demand for clothing, and it has come at a great environmental cost. The clothing industry may not be the biggest emitter, in terms of carbon and its impact on water, but the Government are working internationally and domestically to tackle this very serious problem.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, as the chair of a new commission on plastics and the environment, I am conscious of the contribution of clothing to the mass of plastics gradually killing off our oceans. Are the Government doing anything to reduce the amount of plastics used in clothing materials in order to begin to address that problem?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We are certainly having ongoing engagement with the industry to try to reduce the amount of plastics. Of course, there is sometimes a trade-off with plastics when you are trying to get more durable garments that are not disposed of so quickly, but the UK water industry research project, which was done by the UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, reported in April last year that wastewater treatment plants remove 99% of microplastics by number and 99.5% by mass. We are looking at what France is proposing, which is a mandatory filter in washing machines, and that may be a direction down which we will go.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister talked of a variety of sources. Could he Minister tell us how much cotton has come to us in the last 18 months in products grown in Xinjiang? This cotton is grown by slave labour and can be checked out by the technical element analysis system pioneered by Oritain, rather than by paper trails. Cotton products can be checked to see where the cotton was grown, and the Government have consistently promised they will check on the sources of cotton. What have the Government actually done about it in the last 18 months?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Our anti-slavery legislation went a long way towards requiring companies to develop robust information on their supply chains. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise answer about the amount of cotton that has come from that area, or how many of the workers involved were or were not—by our standards—properly employed. However, it is a very serious issue. The consumer can create a great demand on retailers and retailers can have a great effect. The Government must play their part, though. Domestically, we have 62% of clothing retailers signed up to our voluntary agreement, which goes precisely to the point the noble Lord makes. That means there are still some that are not, but we will continue to make sure that we have full transparency within the supply chain.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, we are now well into Second Hand September. Speaking as somebody who made a vow 12 years ago to never buy anything new for the rest of my life, might I encourage my noble friend to join this campaign? eBay, charity shops, Swishing and Vinted are all alternatives to us buying new clothes and creating more of a problem.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is a living example that buying from thrift shops is what we should all be doing. This month in particular, we should be encouraging people to do that. Slow fashion is the way forward. We need to continue to make sure that we are requiring manufacturers and retailers to make and sell goods that last longer, are properly supplied and do not go landfill when they come to the end of their natural life. Recycling is an emerging technology, but the most important thing is that we all stop buying so many new things.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste are created annually by the fashion industry. This is set to increase by 2030. Thinking of Marrakesh as an example, would the Minister agree that it would be better for this redundant clothing to go to parts of the world where people have lost their homes and possessions, instead of to landfill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Like everyone in this House, I pay huge tribute to those charities and organisations that do precisely that. It is absolutely vital that support is given to people in vulnerable circumstances who have lost everything so that they can clothe themselves and their families. It also shows us the importance in our lives of trying to develop policies, both as a Government and societally, so that we use less, consume less and, where we can, support those in need.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, with three-quarters of UK exports going to Europe, fashion is yet another creative industry detrimentally affected by Brexit. Has the Minister seen the new report produced for the industry by the University of the Arts London and the University of Leeds, detailing the many difficulties, which include concerns over sustainability and improving ethical practice?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I have not seen that document, but I know that the UK fashion industry directly generated an estimated £28.9 billion gross added value contribution to the UK economy. That is a factor. Of course, we want that to be a sustainable industry, but I hope we take great pride in the fact that this country has a leading role in the international fashion industry and we want that to continue.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, textiles recycling varies significantly across different local authority areas. As we have heard, although some fashion retailers offer their own recycling schemes, both councils and retailers have the same problem: not everything is recyclable, so a proportion of material will always end up in landfill or being incinerated. This situation is not helped by fashion brands and retailers that purposefully destroy old stock rather than offering it at a discount. How do the Government plan to improve access to textiles recycling, while also ensuring that there is transparency about its limitations?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We have made some progress. The Textiles 2030 policy, promoted by WRAP, helps signatories to reduce their water and carbon footprints per tonne of clothing by 18.2% and 21% respectively. We want to help local authorities with the work that they are doing and they are being funded to bring forward changes to packaging recycling collections through the extended producer responsibility payments. Separate food waste collections will be funded via new burdens payments, and new collection requirements for consistency in recycling for households in England will come in shortly.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the question from my noble friend Lady Jenkin, might we all be able to avoid buying new clothes if the authorities in this House did something about the moths?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I spoke earlier about consistency; it is always freezing in here and boiling out there, so you never know what to wear.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Order of Commitment discharged
Tuesday 5th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Black for his good stewardship of this Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for his engagement on it. I refer the House to my letter of assurance, which has been placed in the Library of the House.

Motion agreed.

Orphan Sites: Hazardous Waste

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mann]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to incentivise the clearance of hazardous waste from orphan sites.

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon)]

My Lords, the Environment Agency has discretionary powers which it can use to remove hazardous waste from orphan sites where it poses a significant risk to the environment or human health. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a landfill tax grant scheme at the last Spring Budget which will help local authorities cover the cost of landfill tax in land remediation projects. The grant scheme is currently under development.

[Lord Mann (Non-Afl)]

It is not local authorities which own orphan schemes. There was a superb scheme brought in by the Government in 2018, but not renewed in 2019, that took away the landfill taxes so those orphan sites could be cleared. Some 80% of the cost of clearing them is landfill tax. Since then, the Government have had no revenue. Could we have some common sense and reintroduce what the Government rightly brought in, in the previous Parliament in 2018, which would work if it was given time?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know he has raised this in both Houses in relation to an area that he used to represent. We have a system in place where orphan sites are transferred to the Crown Estate, which finds a new beneficial owner, and from which the vast majority then get contaminant clearance. Working with local authorities, it has been successful, but I will work with the noble Lord to try to find the best possible system that works in most cases.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about a different type of hazardous waste; namely, fly-tipping on private land, which is the scourge of the countryside? Can he update the House on any government policy and on what the Environment Agency and local authorities can do against this dreadful rural crime?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I once asked the then president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England what he thought the Government should do about fly- tipping and littering, and he said a shoot-to-kill policy. I think he was joking, but at times, I am sort of with him in spirit. The Government have provided more funds, increased the fines for fly-tipping and increased the ability of local authorities and the police to, for example, fine people for littering from a vehicle and to accept dashcam evidence. We are serious about trying to prevent this scourge. There is an organisation which now brings different groups of people together to assist landowners, who bear the brunt of fly-tipping, to minimise the chances of fly-tipping taking place in hotspots, but also provides them, through the local authority, with funding that will catch the criminals and take them to justice.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites can be enormous—as in the case of the sheepskin factory in Glastonbury bought by the previous RDA, where sections of land had to be abandoned. Given the extreme shortage of housing, does the Minister agree that it would be more cost-efficient to clean up orphan hazardous waste sites for new homes rather than paying to clear up newly and deliberately nutrient-polluted waterways? Given his comments on water pollution in the past, can he please explain the volte-face on this issue?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness is conflating two very different issues. What we are talking about here is orphan waste sites where the owner has in most cases gone out of business and nobody, in effect, owns them. We need a mechanism whereby an owner is found and the contaminated waste is cleared. What she is referring to is a system that has failed to unlock much-needed new housing and which has been grossly misrepresented with respect to its impact on our waterways. I would be very happy to have a longer debate with the noble Baroness on that matter.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is quite complex cleaning up this sort of toxic waste, because you need a lot of good science to help you do it. I happen to know that several dozen scientists are outside this building at the moment. They are protesting about the Government not developing any new oil deposits, but they could perhaps also help with cleaning up this toxic waste.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Contaminated land is a very broad term. It relates to land that poses no risk to the environment or to public health right through to really toxic, unpleasant substances such as parts of fridges which, if burned, can release cyanide. It is rightly the job of the local authority, working with the Environment Agency, to make sure that, where there is a problem, it is cleared up. We have had a system in place since 2018 seeking to do that and, in certain circumstances, the Environment Agency can go in and do the work itself. It is important that we work with the best possible science and evidence, and that we take action where we need to do so.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us about another type of waste—radioactive waste—and how the geological disposal facility is moving ahead? Is it moving ahead as we hoped it would? What sort of timescales does it have?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord is asking about an issue that is not in my knowledge. I will therefore write to him on the matter.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The Minister knows that the dumping of hazardous waste is on many occasions undertaken by organised crime gangs. Given that, how many successful prosecutions have there been over the last 12 months of individuals who have abandoned responsibility for hazardous waste sites?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness is right that organised crime is involved in this, as well as very low-level speculative crime, and it is important that we have measures in place to deal with that. In the financial year 2021-22 the Environment Agency brought 94 prosecutions against companies and individuals for waste-crime offences, resulting in total fines exceeding £6.2 million. In the three years since the Joint Unit for Waste Crime was launched, it has worked with 102 partner organisations and engaged in 175 multiagency days of action, and there have been 51 associated arrests.

Land Use in England Committee Report

Lord Benyon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I refer you to my entry in the register. I start by paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle. His contribution to this House and the wisdom of his involvement here over a decade was well known to me as a new arrival, and I pay tribute to what he said today but also for his service to this House. He talked about many issues that came up in this debate, and his interest in social welfare is of course very pronounced. It was great that he could speak in this debate, because I think understanding nature’s ability to heal us in body and mind is fundamental. I know that he will continue to take a great interest and we wish him well for the future.

On behalf of the Government, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and members of the Land Use in England Committee for its report. I reiterate the commitment made in the government response: that the land use framework to be published later this year will build on the committee’s insights and recommendations. It is certainly one of the most readable reports that I have read from a committee of either House. It was evidence-based and took a wide range of advice, and I pay tribute to the depth in which it went into the matter. He said in his remarks that we live at a time of a whole new agenda for land use, and he is absolutely right. I will come on to talk about how we have got to this point and how I hope the Government can take forward the very important work that he has set in train.

The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, who cannot be here today, was absolutely right to press the issue of land use as a priority for this House to address with a year-long special Select Committee inquiry. Like the committee, the Government have tried to take a long-term view on land use. Somebody, I think from behind me, said that they rather suspected that we just wanted to muddle through. I can only try to reassure the House that this is a serious attempt at doing the very opposite of muddling through: this is about being strategic, understanding the difficulties, complexities and contradictions and coming forward with a plan—a strategy that will work for the future.

The Government have legislated to tackle the challenges of our times through the updated Climate Change Act, the Environment Act and the Agriculture Act. Meeting these challenges will require a shift in the way we think about land and how it is used.

We still live in a country shaped by the 1947 Agriculture Act and the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act. These Acts built on the Scott report of 1942, which began with an observation that still holds true:

“that Britain is exceptionally fortunate in the great diversity of physical environment in a small space, and that successful planning consists in finding the right uses for each type of what is a major national asset—the land”.

Even just 40 years ago—a heartbeat in terms of the natural environment—the Wildlife and Countryside Act was made law. In that piece of legislation, there was no mention of climate change or the crisis of species decline. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, because too often, Governments, officials and agencies talk about biodiversity decline. There is a real and present crisis in species decline, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, talked about Professor Partha Dasgupta’s report, which showed that it is not just an environmental crisis; it is an economic one as well, one that we have to address. It is absolutely at the heart of this issue.

It is often said that we live in a time of unprecedented challenges, but these reforms that I have spoken about—these different Acts of Parliament over those decades, often prepared in the midst of World War Two—put our present challenges into perspective.

In that spirit, I turn to four of the challenges raised by the committee: climate change, nature recovery, food security and economic infrastructure. Each of those challenges presents a different chance to make a virtue of the huge diversity of England’s natural capital. The framework will explain how policy development can more accurately reflect the value of land as a durable asset. This is not a simple task, but the work is already under way to bring the latest advances in spatial data science into government. This represents a step change in policy-making. There are probably few people in this building who understand multifunctionality more than my noble friend Lord Leicester. He spoke with real understanding about joining together the need to produce food, to sequester carbon, to create new habitats for biodiversity and to tie all that in with innovation. He spoke really well. The work that we have undertaken means that we can now consider not just the market value but the public and intrinsic value of land.

Our landscapes have a major part to play in contributing to our emissions reduction targets. We must mitigate climate change while adapting to a changing climate as well as restoring nature and delivering resilient infrastructure. This is in addition to building on the high levels of resilience in our food system. With those challenges come opportunities. These objectives can be mutually supportive, with improved infrastructure leading to enhanced rural and agricultural productivity, nature restoration supporting food production by improving soil health, and better green infrastructure improving the quality of urban places. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, soils are absolutely at the heart of this, as is increasing organic matter—Sadhguru, who I heard speak in this building and was probably brought by the noble Lord, is leading a global campaign on this.

What is needed is the proper metrics. The Government have set out what good looks like in terms of enticing large amounts of private sector capital into nature conservation. We have sought to tackle what some people have referred to as what did exist with a plethora of different baselines and measures of what is good in terms of carbon and biodiversity. We are providing support to farmers to baseline through our farm resilience advice scheme, which is paid for by government. We recently gave 30 contracts around the country to people who will guide farmers. We talk about farmers a lot in this, because 70% of the land that we are talking about is farmed. Therefore, it is right that we support farmers in making the right decisions on land use.

Our legally binding targets will drive forward action to restore our natural capital and protect our much-loved landscapes and green spaces. These efforts will be boosted by our pledge to protect 30% of the UK’s land by 2030. Delivering on this pledge will also demonstrate our commitment to lead by example internationally on nature recovery. As we implement these measures, we will continue to ensure that habitats are restored and created as part of a joined-up ecological network. Local nature recovery strategies will support local authorities to establish the most appropriate actions to take in their area to contribute to this national effort to restore and enhance our natural environment.

The Government committed broadly to maintain the current level of food that is produced domestically in the food strategy White Paper that was published in June 2022. The land use framework will prioritise food production and thriving farming businesses. Our environmental land management schemes will ensure our long-term food security by investing in the foundations of food production: healthy soil, clean, plentiful water and diverse, resilient ecosystems. In March this year, the Government published the Nature Markets framework, which clarifies our vision and principles for accelerating the development of high-integrity nature markets. Later this year, we will consult on the role of specific steps and interventions to be taken by government and regulators to enable the growth of these markets. We are committed to ensuring that policy builds on a strong evidence base and to monitoring and analysing the operation of markets as they grow.

We must ensure that the planning system capitalises on these opportunities. The Government are working to streamline the planning regime for large-scale infrastructure to ensure that we deliver the Nationally Significant Infrastructure: Action Plan for Reforms to the Planning Process—a snappy title, but it does what it says on the tin. As part of this, Defra is working to introduce a new biodiversity net gain requirement for new nationally significant infrastructure projects from November 2025.

I am sorry if I was chuntering while the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was speaking. It is not my usual behaviour and I have great respect for her, but does she really believe that all biodiversity net gain can be done within the curtilage of a development? That surely is a massive missed opportunity. As much as possible can be done on development sites, but there is an opportunity here to create new wetlands, forests and open spaces for people. If we are so timid as to allow developers to think that they can just do it on-site, this would be impossible and we would miss out.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his remarks, and say how much I look forward to his committee’s report. His point about nutrient neutrality was extremely well made, because it showed the difficulties that we face. I am often brought to the Dispatch Box to talk about the quality of water in our rivers and why more homes are not being built. It is often because, unless we put in the right measures, those new homes would contribute towards a poorer quality of rivers. My noble friend’s point about multifunctionality was absolutely heard by the Government.

The noble Earl, Lord Devon, seemed to predict the result of the next election slightly, but it is far from being decided yet. To his point I say this: in many elections of my youth, the Labour Party’s manifesto used to say that it would nationalise land. I remember it well, and I hope that those days are gone, but we all have to be careful that we do not nationalise the use of land by mistake.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt but, as a point of information, the Labour Party did not propose to nationalise land after 1935.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I remember standing in an election party meeting and hearing a Labour candidate stating this. Perhaps that was his view, but I do not want to get bogged down in this. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord later.

My point is that we have to be careful that we are using the right incentives. I think my noble friend Lord Inglewood needs cheering up a bit. He is not in his place—he has gone to catch a train, and that may be why he was a little acerbic in his remarks. I wanted to cheer him up and say that I understand the value of incentivising private land ownership, as we should in this country. I understand the power of markets when correctly incentivised and regulated. They can be an extraordinary agent for change in the land management scenario.

We value my noble friend Lady Rock’s report very much. I think small farmers are often most able to be engines of change and to adapt. There are huge opportunities here, and I agree with her that we must ensure that the tenant farming sector remains vibrant and a key part of our land use and agricultural policy in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, talked about the value of the emissions trading scheme. The main purpose of the emissions trading scheme is that it drives down greenhouse gas emissions; that is the key point of what it seeks to do. To the noble Earl, Lord Devon, I just say that the scope of this land use framework is the terrestrial area of England. Many policies, plans and projects referenced in the framework reach across the marine and intertidal areas, which is important for aligning objectives and avoiding issues for projects which span these different zones.

To all noble Lords who are concerned that this is Defra-led and therefore just a Defra matter, I say that they could not be more wrong. I reassure them that several government departments have targets with land use implications We are working with them to understand and take account of their land use expectations, as well as those within Defra. This includes the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We want to make absolutely sure that this is being embraced across government; I will come on to talk a bit about that in my concluding remarks.

To the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would just say that the Government’s plan is to complete the King Charles III England Coast Path by the end of this Parliament. We are nearly there; over 2,000 miles of the England coastal path have now been approved, with over 850 miles now open. I pay tribute to those officials in Natural England who have driven this forward. It is extremely complicated and brings into clear relief the kinds of issues we are talking about; you are dealing with access, activities that might be unsafe for people using that access, and the legitimate use of land for people to run their business, whether it is farming or any other activity. I have been there and seen how they have worked through these problems, and I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that we are making great progress.

The Geospatial Commission recently concluded that a cross-government land use analysis task force was needed. The intention is that departments should draw from shared data on land use to ensure that national priorities are deliverable within our finite supply of land. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, on two key points—I agree with most of what he said, but certainly on these two key points. This work is of a continuing nature; it is not a one-off piece of government policy-making that is then considered to be done and dusted. It is like any other long-term policy of the Government, whether it is the NHS or education. It will have to be taken forward; the world is fast-changing and this needs to be an iterative process that delivers and changes policy as and when needed.

The second thing I absolutely agree with him on is that some level of cross-government co-ordination is required. That may or may not be a commission—the noble Lord knows that we are uncertain about that as a way forward—but it certainly will need a group of experts, and a degree of co-ordination.

People sometimes say to me that these matters should be taken out of politics. Well, you cannot take these sorts of matters out of politics. If the wrong decisions are taken, the Government of the day are rightly accountable, so this does need to have an accountable political element to it. Whether or not that manifests itself in some machinery of government position, I assure noble Lords that there will be a clear understanding that this is a cross-government initiative, that it is for the long term and that it does need to be driven by a force in the centre that co-ordinates that. I hope that I have given my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh the reassurance he needed.

The framework is intended as a guide for anyone involved in land use decisions, whether it be businesses looking to invest in new developments or farmers considering how to build a more resilient business—or indeed the Government themselves. Departments are already making good progress towards developing their estates into multifunctional landscapes, and we must continue on this path, demonstrating clearly that what we are asking of the wider land ownership and land management community, the Government are doing themselves.

I will respond to certain other points that have been made. My noble friend Lady Rock asked whether Countryside Stewardship Plus will be as tenant friendly as SFI. We are making it as tenant friendly as it is possible for it to be. Sometimes, when a massive change of use is being made, you need consultation with the landlord, but we understand the need for tenants to be part of these schemes. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his point.

On what is often called the right to roam, I would love the opportunity to have a full debate on access because I have done it all my life in a land management role on the outskirts of a large town. I know how people can be encouraged into the countryside, how they can get the benefits of it and how we should be greening the green belt and creating more space. The Government’s commitment that nobody should be more than 15 minutes’ walk from green open space is the kind of policy that really starts to develop into a realistic way to allow land managers and the wider public to benefit from it in terms of what can be achieved. The chairman of Natural England made it very clear in an interview he gave to the Times some months ago.

I refer back to my points in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. We have a crisis of species decline, which we are determined to reverse in a very few years. Nothing must stop us doing that, because it is fundamental to the future of the kind of society we want. My noble friend Lord Hodgson made a bleak remark at the end of his speech. I do not want our children and grandchildren not to know the species of plants and animals that I have been brought up with. It requires us all to be part of that. I am not saying that access is exclusive to that. It is not—it is totally complementary if we do it in the right way, in a way that is meaningful and through co-operation.

My noble friend Lord Lucas talked about the churn of people within the Civil Service. I think the churn of people in politics is sometimes quicker, but he is absolutely right. That is why we need to make sure that corporate knowledge on this continues. That is why the House of Lords committee will continue to do that, I know.

A number of noble Lords spoke about water and water resources management. I wish I had more time to go into it because there is a real requirement now for water companies to have water resources management plans that look at not just 10 years or 20 years but to the end of the century, and we are building infrastructure to support them.

In response to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, we are absolutely addressing the needs of rural communities. I urge her to read the response to this report and our Unleashing Rural Opportunity report, which shows exactly what we are talking about: protecting the kind of countryside we have in this country and the communities that depend on it and live there. I think that would mean that she would be more informed about how we are supporting those very important communities in this country.

When we imagine a scene of rural idyll or a favourite view on a chocolate box or in our minds, it tends to be silent because we are looking at a photograph. I hope that what we can create through this is a very noisy scene that is full of wildlife but also human life, with tractors on prosperous farms, a chainsaw going somewhere in the wood, harvesting sustainable timber, and a rural school playing field with children playing on it, bringing life to that image.

That is just part of what this committee has set out to do. I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I again thank the committee for setting us on a path, and I urge all noble Lords to look at what we produce. I am not so conceited as to think that it will be perfect, but I hope noble Lords will think that it is genuine and that it is a start to bring together all the conflicting requirements of this single piece of real estate in a meaningful strategy that can inform how we manage land in the future.

Animals (Low-Welfare Activities Abroad) Bill

Lord Benyon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken in this debate. I am pleased to be speaking in support of the Bill and to see such interest in this legislation from across the House. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Black and his colleague in the other place, Angela Richardson, for the eloquence and passion that they have put into this and the excellent work they have done with a variety of different organisations to make sure that we have some legislation here that will be effective and will reflect both the need and what our public demand, which is ever higher animal welfare standards.

This legislation is welcome, as domestic travel agents are currently able to advertise and sell unacceptably low-welfare activities abroad to tourists without any regulation. The Bill will prohibit the advertising and offering for sale in England and Northern Ireland of tourist-related activities abroad involving animals. The Bill will provide a framework under which secondary legislation may be used to implement bans on specific low-welfare activities abroad, examples of which include riding, bathing and taking selfies with animals. The animals used in such practices are often trained using, as my noble friend said, brutal methods that allow tourists to get within touching distance of them. For any activity to be deemed within scope of a specific ban will involve animals that are kept in conditions or subject to treatment that would not be permitted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 or the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011.

Throughout the Bill’s passage it has been made clear that low-welfare activities involving Asian elephants are likely to fall within the scope of this legislation. There has been especially strong support for a ban to be introduced in this area. Asian elephant rides, bathing and other similar activities are extremely popular with tourists. However, aside from the suboptimal conditions that the elephants are often kept in, what is not seen is the cruel training methods that they are subject to in order to make them a safe tourist attraction.

While close interactions with captive wild animals are seen by many as a once-in-a-lifetime experience, surely it would be far more fulfilling to observe these animals displaying natural behaviours in natural environments in just the way that nature intended. The Bill aims to encourage tourists to visit high-welfare attractions where animals are free to display more natural behaviours and cruel practices are not used to train them for human entertainment.

World Animal Protection’s 2022 report The Real Responsible Traveller states that sanctuaries that are certified by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, and which do not breed for commercial purposes, are likely to offer the highest standards of care to their animals. An example of a high-welfare attraction is ChangChill in northern Thailand, which has become one of the first elephant attractions to transition to an observation-only model. The venue has become a popular tourist attraction, demonstrating that there is a demand for animal-friendly, observation-only tourism.

A scant look at what is being advertised as we sit here today shows quite the opposite in other locations. From the comfort of the UK you can

“pre-book your joy ride on the back of an elephant”

without any knowledge of what that elephant went through in order for you to have an experience that you might think was trouble-free but, clearly, so often is not.

It has been predicted that, as the travel industry picks up following the pandemic, the UK’s outbound travel figures will surpass pre-pandemic levels. It has been estimated that by 2024 up to 86.9 million outbound travel bookings could be made per year. In 2019, 79% of travellers who witnessed animal cruelty said they would pay more for an activity where they knew that the animals did not suffer. However, it is often difficult for tourists to make that judgment on whether the animals they are interacting with are, or have been, subject to cruelty.

I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to Save the Asian Elephants for the endless work that it has done on this and so many other areas in protecting this extremely at-risk species. Today I also remember my late friend Mark Shand, who set up and ran Elephant Family, which continues to do noble work in trying to create the wildlife corridors that will allow that extraordinary species to survive in its own environment at a time when there is huge human pressure on it, as there is on so many species.

I shall address some of the questions that were put to me by the two noble Baronesses who represent their parties on the Front Bench. The Bill focuses on advertising and sales taking place in England or Northern Ireland, not those taking place abroad. If an advert is distributed by means of electronic transmission and the person does not carry on business in England or Northern Ireland, we could not prevent that from happening—that has to be said. However, we hope that, if we bring in a domestic ban, awareness-raising will influence potential tourists and dissuade them from pursuing unacceptable activities abroad.

The guidance that we are giving to enforcement bodies will be developed for trading standards in England and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland so they will be able to effectively enforce the Bill. The guidance will be produced as and when specific bans are introduced.

Despite not being UK-wide, the Bill will still make it possible to ban the advertising and sale here of low-welfare animal activities abroad to consumers in England and Northern Ireland. That will send a strong message that these activities are not deemed acceptable.

While it will not be possible to stop prospective tourists purchasing unacceptable activities abroad from a travel agent in Wales or Scotland, the Government hope that consumers living in England or Northern Ireland who are planning a holiday abroad will make a positive decision, in line with the legislation in England or Northern Ireland. We work closely with the devolved Governments in both those countries to make sure that, where possible, our animal welfare policies align. In some cases, they have been a little ahead of us; in other cases, like now, we are a bit ahead of them. But there is an inexorable acceptance that we want sensible animal welfare policies such as this to be UK-wide, and we will continue to work with them to ensure that that happens.

On the question of the “principal market” point, the use of the term “principal market” relates to the market for which a publication is intended. Clause 2(5) is aimed at ensuring that a business is not treated as having committed an offence if a publication is printed and published outside England or Northern Ireland and is not intended principally for a market that includes an audience in England or Northern Ireland. Therefore, the exclusion in Clause 2(5) does not apply to a publication that is printed outside England or Northern Ireland and contains a prohibited advertisement if it is published or distributed in England or Northern Ireland and the publication was principally intended for a market that includes an audience in England or Northern Ireland—I promise your Lordships that that makes sense; I read it through several times before I said it.

I want to make sure that we have legislation that works, and what I say to the House is this: let us not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have a very tight timetable, particularly for Private Members’ Bills, and if we have to bounce too much back and forward between the two Houses, there is a timing risk. I am not using that as a threat, but just saying that I live in the realities of the timetable. I know that all sides appreciate that. I just want to get this on the statute book as quickly as possible.

The Government will have the ability, through supporting the Bill, to bring forward future targeted bans on low-welfare activities involving animals. The details of these bans will provide clarity to the tourism industry and their consumers on whether specific activities are deemed acceptable or not. With the knowledge of animal welfare that we have as a nation, we must take the necessary steps to steer UK tourists away from entertainment overseas that involves the unacceptable treatment of animals, and instead towards activities where animal welfare is appropriately protected. By disallowing the advertising and sale, here, of attractions abroad involving low-welfare practices, we can also encourage the providers of such low-welfare animal activities abroad to switch to better methods.

No matter how big or small, any change that we are able to make to influence global animal welfare for the better should be seen as a positive move. The Government are committed to raising animal welfare standards worldwide and take such matters very seriously. From the debate today, the importance of animal welfare to us is clear, not only domestically but across the world. I hope that the introduction of this Bill marks a step in the right direction towards fundamental changes in the way that animals are treated in the tourism industry. In closing, I reiterate my support for the Bill and my huge appreciation to my noble friend for bringing it to the House today and to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.