Carbon Budget Delivery Plan: High Court Ruling

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Wednesday 8th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

This is a matter on which my colleague, my noble friend Lord Callanan, will have the facts at his fingertips. I will make sure that he or I contact the noble Baroness for the details of how carbon capture and storage will deliver and can be a major source of decarbonising our energy system.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the amount of carbon we are emitting is less than 1% of the world’s emissions? Can he confirm that, when we come down to zero, there is a serious risk that the Chinese will still be burning vast quantities of coal and fossil fuels, and that world carbon levels will be rising?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend may be right—but why would we not want to do this? The net-zero economy grew by 9% last year, and there is £74 billion of gross value added to British businesses in the net-zero work being done right across the industrial sectors. So it makes sense to do this from an economic and a business point of view. Why would you not want to decarbonise your business or your home? That is why we have to work to hit these carbon budget targets, and there is an economic reason for doing so as well.

Water: Wales and England

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Through our direction to Ofwat, the Government have made this an absolute priority. The latest figures show that three-quarters of companies are meeting their leakage targets and some have reduced leakage by more than 10% in the past two years. We will continue to crack down on the amount of water lost through leaks with targets; we expect leakage to reduce by 16% by 2025.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is obviously right when she says that water supplies are limited and finite. On the other hand, if the water companies stopped all their leaks and if we built more reservoirs when there is surplus water, we would not have a problem.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

There are plans for more reservoirs. A reservoir in East Anglia has increased in size and, I hope, we will very soon see plans being brought forward by Thames Water for a major reservoir that will resolve many of these issues. The reservoirs in London were closed because a ring main was created, which is sometimes quoted erroneously in this case.

Air Quality Strategy Consultation

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

What I would say to the noble Lord, whom I respect for his experience in this area, is that running campaigns to create new laws sometimes misses the most effective way to deliver. The most effective way in which the Government in England can be responsible for this is to support the local authorities which have to do it. We are doing that with money, and we are doing it with policies that require them to hit certain targets—on PM2.5, on nitrous oxide and others. That is the best way to do it. If the noble Lord wants a piece of legislation that will deliver that, it is the Environment Act.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, surely when it comes to pollution in London, if you have bicycle lanes and increased traffic jams, you do not reduce pollution, you increase it.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend talks about an issue which may well be the case in certain areas. Encouraging cycling, walking and the use of public transport is undoubtedly better for health, as the previous Question showed; it is undoubtedly better for the quality of life in our cities. On the other side, if you get it wrong, you make the problem worse. That is why local solutions are better, and it is why the Government’s policy provides resources and targets and why they will take further action if local authorities fail to deliver.

Environmental Land Management Schemes

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Thursday 16th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I shall certainly keep the House informed about this. My discussions with the Treasury are very fruitful in this area. The noble Lord seems sceptical of that, perhaps, but I assure him that there is a cross-government intention to provide better security for farmers in future and that schemes such as our exit scheme have the right tax framework to make them a good incentive—but also that the other aspects that we are talking about here, such as access and getting more people out in the countryside, are understood. The work that I have been doing with my noble friend Lord Agnew has been really important in trying to make sure that we get more people into the countryside.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my minimal interests in agriculture. Does my noble friend not think that there is an inevitable conflict between rewilding and public access, because nobody actually wants to walk through countryside that is covered in stinging nettles and brambles?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend. What people want in our countryside is variety. Rewilding Britain, the charity promoting rewilding, has an ambition of 5% of the UK to be rewilded by the end of this century, which seems a perfectly achievable figure. The work that we have to do in the farmed environment, as well, is really important —so I do not think that he can make a sweeping statement like that.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part one
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, could he answer the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, that this is Article 13 with bells on? Why is so much added into this legislation, which goes way beyond Article 13?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

It does not go way beyond Article 13, but it does create a committee that did not exist. There were other measures in the European Union which sought to give substance to the wording in Article 13—we will come on to talk about some of them, perhaps in the next group of amendments—by referring to cultural and other issues that were of concern to member states. We have tried to transpose the legal wording recognising animal sentience into UK law and have sought to make the Government’s decision-making better by giving them an expert committee to advise them.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part two
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My learned noble friend will know that there will be attempts to judicially review Governments at every stage of a process of policy, particularly in areas that are emotive and that carry great weights of public opinion in one way or the other. The question is not whether judicial review will be attempted but whether it will be successful. Last week Defra won a court case—as we do many times—against an attempt to take things to judicial review because the judge said it was not permissible to take the matter any further. That is why we have strictly limited the duties on Ministers that lie behind the Bill to only two areas. So I am not saying at all that there will not be attempts to judicially review, but I hope I can convince my noble friend that those attempts will not be successful because we have been so careful to limit the scope of the Bill.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Would the attempt at judicial review not be more likely to be successful if there had been a report from the animal sentience committee saying that there was something illegal about ritual slaughter?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

With respect to my noble friend, no. As long as the Minister has set out that, “We have received this report and here is our response; we hear what you say but there are wider cultural and religious factors that I have to consider in taking my decision”, that will be absolutely within the terms of this legislation and will not be able to be successfully judicially reviewed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If, as my noble friend suggests, we put details in the Bill that incorporated the types of people who had to be on the committee, and then if, for example, someone were off sick or had not been appointed or for whatever reason was not available at the point at which the committee wrote a report, that would leave the Government open to a successful judicial review. These are matters that we think sit absolutely in accordance with other committees that are set up across government, where the terms of reference are amendable without having to go back to legislation. This is a fast-moving area of policy and, in future, we may feel, after thinking about it for a while, that the terms of reference need to be amended. This allows, in an entirely normal way, the Secretary of State to make those amendments in consultation with others. I do not think that it would be wise to put it in the Bill because that would increase the risk of judicial review.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I have two questions for my noble friend before he sits down. Does he accept that the Animal Welfare Committee could have been put on a statutory basis and its remit expanded to take in animal sentience? Secondly, if there were a change in Government after the next election, could a Labour Secretary of State put totally new people on the sentience committee?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Let us deal with the second question first, then I will see if I can remember the first. A future Government can bring in legislation, if they have a big enough majority to get it through, to do anything they like within the law. We are a sovereign nation and they could take those decisions—indeed, they could populate arm’s-length bodies and expert committees with who they like.

On the first question, no we could not, because the Animal Welfare Committee has a different remit. For starters, it is a UK-wide committee and it is not a creature of statute; it gives expert advice as and when required. We wanted to have a body that is a creature of statute, so that there is parliamentary accountability in the process of policy-making.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Report stage & Lords Hansard - part three
Monday 6th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I hope I can reassure my noble friend that science and good scientific evidence is at the heart of decision-making and that is why we need the right advice for Ministers—so, yes. However, his experience and mine will have been that one can get conflicting scientific advice, so one needs to choose scientific experts with care and make sure that they give clear, unbiased opinions to Ministers and that their information can make better policy. Therefore, scientific evidence will be at the heart of this and we will follow it in the selection of committee members.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Before my noble friend sits down, does he think that Mrs Carrie Johnson has the expertise and rigour to be on the animal sentience committee?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I will make sure that every single person who applies for the committee has the necessary expertise, whatever background they come from. We will be looking for a range of people, from those with agricultural experience, those with experience of animals at the end of life in the slaughter process, and veterinarians. I made a list earlier; I will not repeat it because there were some long words which I cannot remember, but they will undoubtedly be a factor in deciding who will be members of the committee.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Grand Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)]

I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I want to follow up on the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about ritual slaughter. We have been reading in the newspapers that, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will become illegal to drop lobsters into boiling water to kill them. Is that one aspect of the thinking behind what the Government are doing? If that is the case, where does it leave pigs being slaughtered? They are highly intelligent animals and with a very high sense of smell. One might say that the slaughter of pigs does serious damage to them and to their feelings. I would just like to know where the Minister stands on this.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

If my noble friend is referring to the article that I read at the weekend, it was full of inaccuracies and hyperbole, which is not what this Bill is about. At a later stage in this afternoon’s proceedings, we shall move on to talk about decapods and cephalopods. In relation to the amendments concerned, if the government Minister in the future felt obliged to include some of those species within the terms of the Bill, they could be looked at by the committee, which could advise a future Minister what they could or should be doing in terms of how different animals are treated at end of life. However, my noble friend is absolutely right to point out that there are gradations in unpleasantness involved for the animal, whether it is a pig or a lobster. The point is that the Bill does not dictate how a lobster is killed at the time of cooking or how a pig is killed at the time of slaughter. This is about informing policy using experts who can guide a Minister to take the right position. But that Minister, when considering all the factors that my noble friend mentioned, can take into account other matters, such as the value of sustainably produced seafood in a diet or the importance of the rural economy or the Government’s balance of payments in terms of rearing pigs. This Bill does not affect that, and so my noble friend can be quite relaxed about his concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned the predation of badgers, which of course do not come under pest control; they are protected. He did not mention that badgers very much like eating hedgehogs. They are skilled at rolling them over and disembowelling them. When we worry about the decline in hedgehog numbers, very rarely does anybody mention that perhaps badgers are responsible for this.

Another protected species is the sparrowhawk. If you shoot a sparrowhawk you get fined £1,000 because all hawks are protected, but 34 songbirds every week account for their diet. We have to bear in mind that in nature, almost all species are predated on by others. We just want to get all this into perspective.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I would be going down a very dangerous path if I moved on to cats and how many songbirds they account for, and would probably find this getting out of hand, but my noble friend is absolutely right. What we seek to achieve through not just animal welfare provision but other legislation and regulation is a balanced countryside. We do not get it right; we are suffering a cataclysmic decline in species, which means that our children and grandchildren will not see the species that we have perhaps relied on seeing regularly. That is a tragedy that we are seeking to reverse through a variety of other policies. At the same time, when it comes to pest control, we can do it as humanely as possible, and we can have management techniques that protect both species and landscapes. It is not an exact science and it will be got wrong at certain times, but, by and large, I think there is a great unity of purpose in trying to reverse these tragic declines in species.

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Benyon and Lord Hamilton of Epsom

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarity and entirely endorse what he says.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for responding to my remarks on Amendment 1, which I am about to withdraw. He has honoured the pledge he made on Second Reading to tell us about the resources being made available for this new committee. I must confess, I think I am getting more naive the older I get; I was rather hoping we would have some serious figures on how much money was involved, but maybe we will have to wait a bit longer for that. In the meantime, I am very grateful to my noble friend and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.