Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order 2012

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, there is clearly widespread support for this order, as the Minister said. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in another place recommended that the Government go down this route and the responses to the consultation contained widespread support, including from the local authorities that would be affected by the Thames tunnel proposals. Therefore, on this side of the coalition, we support the order. It is important to remind ourselves why it is being brought forward. It is not about trying to speed up any decisions; it is about making a process that is timely and minimises unnecessary cost but remains democratically accountable.

This is a new type of engagement for the public in terms of how they respond to major sewer proposals; in the past DCLG has been very good at public education campaigns about how the public can engage which allays fears that these are processes that are somehow to speed things up and stop them being involved. Will the Minister be speaking to his colleagues in DCLG to ensure that a proper public consultation campaign is undertaken so that people realise how they can engage in this new major infrastructure order?

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I spoke about this project—well I did not actually speak, my noble friend made my speech for me because I was on the sleeper to Scotland. He did an extremely good job especially when it apparently diverged from our party policy, but there we are. I do not have a particular problem with the concept of an order such as this amending the planning process because I have always supported the Infrastructure Planning Commission and its successor. I did, however, have a chuckle when I read the impact assessment for this project: in answer to the question of what was the CO₂ equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions in millions of tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, the answer was “not applicable”.

When I worked out that for the Thames tunnel— I do not know whether Thames Water is still going to move all the spoil away by road—that was going to be 500 trucks a day, the idea that that would not produce any CO₂ was laughable. Of course, many other bits of CO₂ will come out of the construction, let alone the operation. The matter might be a little detailed but it needs looking at again.

Since the debate on 27 March, things have moved on and Thames Water has produced a second consultation report. It has made some changes but I do not think it has recognised that it may have an unnecessarily expensive scheme. The eminent water engineer, Chris Binnie, produced a report, about which I shall speak in a minute and which could reduce infraction fines by obtaining improvement much sooner than 2023, which I believe is the latest date for the scheme to be completed. We must not forget that the cost is now something like £4.2 billion, plus I think that the estimate of infraction has gone up to £1.5 billion. There is, of course, always a risk of cost overrun in tunnelling. Further, there is the estimated £80 per annum for 30 years that every Thames Water customer will have to pay, with or without the extra subsidy from the Government that was agreed a couple of months ago. Therefore, I suggest that the Government ought at this stage to take a step back and reflect before spending nearly £6 billion of taxpayers’ money, which may not even satisfy the European Commission’s requirements. Indeed, we do not yet know what those requirements will be until the Court has concluded its deliberations.

Mr Binnie’s report refers to a possible fine of £1.5 billion. He believes that the fish issue can be addressed much more cheaply and that the same applies to the problems of sewage, litter and health impacts in the London docks. He says that these rather smaller issues could be addressed within two or three years, although one of them will not be resolved until 2023, which is more than 10 years away. However, all this is dependent on the European Court’s judgment, which will go back to the European Commission. Therefore, I argue that it is well worth trying to introduce some interim measures. That would probably reduce the fine significantly as the matter is assessed on a five-point basis and if you make improvements, the fine goes down.

This project has gained a momentum of its own, as do many big projects, some of which one likes and some of which one does not like. This theory of mine as regards projects gaining a momentum of their own goes back many years. Ministers like to put their names to big projects but these projects do not always survive political pressures. That is true of Governments of all parties, and 2023 is a very long time away, although I am sure that the Minister opposite does not fall into that category. However, I am concerned about where the independent advice is to be found in all this. I understand that the person in Ofwat who is responsible for this project used to work for Thames Water and that the person responsible for the technical advice on this scheme used to be responsible for the Mogden sewage works. I also understand that during the hearings that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, held a few months ago, Thames Water referred to Ofwat and the Environment Agency as its team. This should not be a team. The regulator has an independent role. It is all wrong that they should all be one happy family when they are spending £6 billion of taxpayers’ money. Nobody is looking at alternatives. The Minister said in his introduction to the debate that this was the best scheme, having considered alternatives, but who is considering the alternatives?

I suppose it is not surprising that people are not looking at alternatives but this needs to be done. If one looks at some of the mitigating measures produced by Mr Binnie and others, there are probably many of them. We also need to make sure that if the Thames tunnel scheme goes ahead, it achieves the results we want. However, we do not know what the Commission will decide in this regard. I hope that the Minister will advise his colleagues that it is time to take a step back and look at alternatives. I would very much welcome a quick meeting with him to go through this in more detail. In the mean time, I shall not oppose the order and wish it well. However, I am not sure that I wish the project well at this stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it has been an interesting if fairly brief debate and exchange of views that I hope will inform your Lordships for future occasions. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that perhaps it might be useful to have a meeting of Peers and those at Defra some time in the autumn where we can bring together all those matters. A debate such as this has helped considerably to bring to the fore some of the issues that are being considered by government. After all, there is a contingent liability to government in the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill in these matters, and those are not undertaken lightly or without the Government having a proper care of what is involved.

As I said in my opening speech, it is appropriate that the issue of this order amending Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 should be separate from the specific matter of the Thames tunnel. However, I do understand that the Thames tunnel is the only one that fits the Bill at the moment. So we have two elements to the debate today—one about the statutory instrument before us, which I have commended to the Committee, and the other about the broader issues. I hope that I can indulge the Grand Committee by talking about Thames tunnel matters, because it is clearly a public platform.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Parminter for her general support for this project. As I say, it is not something that the Government have entered into lightly. Indeed, it is of course Thames Water that is entering into the project; the Government are providing a framework against which they can make their application. I assure her that Thames Water expects to commence its publicity notice in mid-July, which will publicise the impending planning application in early 2013. There has been a lot of public liaison by Thames Water itself, but of course that will mean that the consultation on the planning process opens up formally at that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose professional and parliamentary expertise on matters of tunnels I respect, mentions the Binnie report. Our view is that the environmental criteria set in 2007 remain robust; they are not gold-plated in any way, and we cannot afford to downgrade them. Alternatives such as a western tunnel or a piecemeal approach—and I do not mean that in a derogative sense—which the noble Lord recommended, showed that there can be considerable problems. None of the alternatives identified during the extensive studies carried out over the past decade has been able to deal swiftly and adequately with the true environmental and health objectives of the Thames Tideway, while at the same time complying with statutory obligations. For example, separate rainwater from foul water sewerage systems would be far more costly, possibly £12 billion. It would be extremely disruptive and would take far too long to complete.

The shorter west London tunnel coupled with green infrastructure measures would still not fully reduce the volume and frequency of discharges either sufficiently or quickly, so we would not, in fact, be able to meet the environmental and health objectives.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I have heard that statement from him and others before. But this kind of thing needs debating. Nobody is quite sure what standard is trying to be achieved that would meet either UK or European legislation because we do not know what the European Court will say. I hope that that is something we can talk about in the meeting in the autumn and I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to that meeting.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would be useful. I am satisfied that Defra has thought this matter through. Clearly, at the current stage of the economic cycle, we are not looking to spend money that it is beyond the capacity of this Government to endorse. I will come on to the European Court in relation to that. The interim measures, as I said, will not meet the waste water directive. That is one of the difficulties. We have to consider the urban waste water directive. The proposal to construct a tunnel should be sufficient to avoid fines completely if it is delivered to the planned timetable.

Within that process, it is important for the noble Lord to understand that although we expect a judgment concerning London in the next few months, if we lose and the European Commission wishes to pursue fines because it does not think that we are addressing the issue properly, it needs to return to the Court for further judgment. The Court has wide discretion about the levels of fines depending on several factors including the seriousness and the duration of the breach. In this case, we would expect the level of fines against the UK to be significant and set at a level to act as an incentive to remedy that breach as quickly as possible. But fines would be levied until the breach is rectified. Currently, the proposed Thames tunnel offers the solution most likely to rectify the problem within the shortest time.

We cannot prejudge this issue, but clearly we are seeking to address it. It has arisen over a century or more of the growth of London and the growth in its sewage. Much of our sewerage infrastructure was built by Bazalgette 150 years ago and is clearly no longer capable of coping.

I think that I have covered those questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I now wonder if I have some points to help the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I am grateful for his contribution, which was supportive of the process that the statutory instrument is trying to bring about. Indeed, he is grateful for the Government tabling this debate because it is something that the Opposition have supported in the past.

There is no question of us seeking to curtail debate. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The money Bill was a money Bill and we were not able to debate that further. I hope that he is happy with the suggestion I made to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There were a number of detailed questions that he asked me and I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him on those matters. I can make sure that other noble Lords who spoke in the debate get a copy of that letter.

Food: Waste

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank my noble friend. In fact we are doing just that; Defra has commissioned a desk study, which is being operated by FERA at the moment and is due to report this summer. All noble Lords will appreciate that people have anxieties that we need to assuage. We cannot afford the repeat of the foot and mouth outbreak of 2001, as I think all noble Lords understand.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that food waste is one of the three main constituents of biomass, which, along with branches of trees and imported pellets, it seems many power stations are being encouraged to burn? What incentive is there for these companies to burn this food as an alternative to anaerobic digestion? From my discussions with the industry, there seems to be no incentive at all.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The Energy from Waste programme is subsidised and incentivised. It is up to local authorities to decide the best channel for their food waste. I mentioned before that Defra sees huge advantages in the use of anaerobic digestion as an efficient method of converting food waste into energy.

Thames Tunnel

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with Thames Water about the increase in lorry traffic in London caused by the construction of the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, we have regular contacts with Thames Water on all aspects of the tunnel proposal, including its strategic approach to transport. Details on lorry movements are a matter for the project sponsor, Thames Water, and are included in its current public consultation. Final proposals will be in its planning application, expected in autumn 2012. The planning process ensures that environmental factors such as transport impacts will be considered.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. He is certainly right that, in its second consultation, Thames Water has reduced the volumes of lorry traffic by half by agreeing to transport the spoil by river, which is about half the total. However, is he aware that in Network Rail’s construction of Blackfriars station most of the materials, not just the spoil but other construction materials as well, are coming in by river? I am sure the Minister will agree that that is very commendable, given the traffic jams around there. What will he do to try to persuade Thames Water to do the same for that very much bigger project, including bringing in tunnel linings, concrete and things like that by river?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, that is an unusual suggestion, which even in my wildest moments I had not anticipated being asked. I am sure that anything that makes my noble friend feel more at home must be a jolly good idea.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for suggesting the use of china clay waste—I live in Cornwall and it is dear to my heart. I wonder if I could press the Minister a little further, though. Half the materials may be transported by road, which would mean around 250 trucks a day. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has also mentioned the risk of accidents to cyclists and so on. Surely it would be a good idea for a planning condition to be put on this development saying that perhaps 90 per cent of all materials must come by river or rail.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As I have tried to emphasise, those terms ought to be set in the planning decision. It is not for us at this stage of the process. I have tried to make it clear that there will be consultation, planning and then the award of the contract.

Thames Tunnel

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the environmental benefits of the proposed Thames Tunnel.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, the Thames Tunnel proposed by Thames Water would reduce the frequency of spills of untreated waste water into the Thames from the current average of once a week during rainfall to three or four times a year, and reduce spill volumes from 39 million cubic metres annually to around 2.3 million cubic metres. This would meet the dissolved oxygen standards identified by the Thames Tideway Strategic Study and protect local ecology.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I agree with him that the tunnel will help to clean up the Thames but in the process it could make a serious mess of London. One of Thames Water’s proposals is to concrete over most of Barn Elms Playing Fields and other greenfield sites and to remove spoil by road, involving some 500 trucks passing through London every day. Will the Government insist that Thames Water takes the majority of the spoil out by water down the river, because the line goes under the river? Secondly, will the Government safeguard the necessary brownfield sites, such as the Battersea power station site, to avoid the need to use greenfield sites in the construction?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for stressing the importance of the fact that it will clean up the Thames. That is very important, both in itself and in order to avoid infraction proceedings under the urban waste water directive. I note the noble Lord’s other points, which are really matters relating to planning issues. Thames Water will be consulting later this year on the route and where to put the various access points for the tunnels. After that, these are matters that should be left to the planning process rather than to Government.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I hope very much that we maintain the more than 9 per cent of the country which is so protected. However, I do not suggest that the national parks should always go on in exactly the same way and that the elected Government should not interfere with them in any way. For four years I was responsible for the national parks. I do not think that anybody could have criticised the way in which I sought to protect the countryside. However, the national parks are a problem because in many ways their structures do not meet today’s needs. It is perfectly true that you could suggest that Ministers may not behave perfectly but to seek to protect a section of the population and more than 9 per cent of the land to the extent that no one can propose necessary alterations is unacceptable. Such a situation has arisen only once before in connection with the church. I much prefer the church to be in that position, as long as it is the true church, but that is a different issue. I say that in the presence of the right reverend Prelates. It is difficult to defend the argument that a certain organisation should be immune from government concern and the necessity for the Government to deal with the nation as a whole.

A national park, which will be nameless, seemed to me to represent neither the people it was supposed to represent nor the people who lived in its area. As Secretary of State there was nothing I could do to protect them against the pretty extreme decisions that the relevant national park authority took. We have to have a balance here. The way in which Ministers have explained how they intend to use this provision leads me to believe that we have the right balance. It is not acceptable to believe that the only way you can protect this area of Britain is by exempting a particular structure from any kind of debate. All that this provision seeks to do is to give the Government the opportunity to represent the generality of the population’s relationship with the particularity of the national parks.

I therefore hope that Ministers will not give way to these proposals but will seek of course to give maximum independence to the national parks. However, in the end, Ministers have to uphold the interests of the generality of the public and it seems unacceptable to have a system which excludes them from doing so. Having been in that position, I believe that I was not able properly to protect people in certain national parks from the way in which institutions operated, because they were so independent that there could be no second choice. That is not acceptable in a democratic society, particularly when a national park authority is not directly elected or when the people concerned are not in that position.

I very much hope that Ministers will accept the good offices and good grace of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, but accept also that many people who live in the national parks are hoping for a proper way in which the fiat of a national park authority could, at least at some stage, be questioned by those who are elected. I therefore very much support this part of the clause.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, it is interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben. My interest is in the Norfolk Broads, rather than the national parks. I note that in the coalition agreement the Broads Authority was not included in the same bracket of potential changes.

My interest in the Norfolk Broads came from having the privilege of chairing a Select Committee when the Broads Authority brought forward a private Bill to change its structure. It was interesting listening to the different petitions made over a number of days. There was the challenge of balancing the conservation and navigational issues, and of balancing the interests of those who wanted to drive motor boats at high speed and those who wanted to sail in comparatively narrow areas. The most important issue that came out of that evidence was that all the people who petitioned had the interests of the Broads at heart. Most of them, but not all, lived locally and were prepared to accept a structure and compromise that gave them as much of what they wanted as they recognised was reasonable. That represents a much better way of managing an area such as the Norfolk Broads than doing it by central government. However, we can probably debate that later.

I asked the Broads Authority whether it had been consulted by the Government about these potential changes. It was very brave to put its answer in writing, which stated that the authority had not had any detailed discussions with the Government. That is rather sad, actually. Surely the whole point of these potential changes is that the Government should consult the people involved. The authority is very concerned about its inclusion in Schedules 3, 5, 6 and 7. That is a pretty wide range of options that cannot give the authority much comfort as to where it will go. Its feeling, which I fully support, is that it would not mind if its name was changed to the “Broads National Park”, but that that would change the emphasis of its objectives and how they were implemented. Not only that, but the conservation budget has to be kept separate from the leisure budget, and there are special arrangements for navigation officers and so on. The authority was also concerned about the governance procedures and worried that the Government would be getting into too much detail. There was also the potential for changes to the reports and accounts process.

I have not heard anything so far that indicates that there would be benefit to the inclusion of the Broads Authority in any of these schedules. If it has to be in one, it believes that Schedule 3 is the least bad. The Broads Authority spent a lot of effort putting through the private Bill. It cost time and money, much of which came from its users. Why should it not be allowed to get on with what it does pretty well rather than having yet further uncertainty and changes? The Minister may have some different ideas about this, in which case I should be very pleased to hear them.

[Lord Cameron of Dillington]

My Lords, like many noble Lords, I have a great love for and affinity to our national parks. In my case, that probably stems from the fact that I was conceived at about the time of the legislation in 1949 and came into the world roughly when it received Royal Assent. However, in my capacity as chairman of the Countryside Agency, I have also had the privilege of overseeing the creation of two of the more recent additions to the national park family—the New Forest and the South Downs.

Our national parks are very special and they are unique to the UK. They are not wide, open, wilderness spaces, as in less densely populated countries; they are parks for a crowded nation in the 21st century. The Peak District National Park, for example, has, I believe, some 21 million people living within an hour’s drive of it. It is a very special place and has very special value because of that fact. Our national parks also have very special governance arrangements, and rightly so. Although they are privately owned, they are politically managed in terms of their appearance—the planning aspects—their environmental characteristics, their economic and social well-being and their accessibility. All that comes about through a fine balance between local government and the local people, and they bring benefits to the nation as a whole. Of course, that fine balance has been thrashed out in various bits of legislation since 1949 and it is something that we tamper with at our peril.

I realise that the Government are currently going through a consultation on the precise form of local representation regarding the national parks, and that is absolutely right. There have been problems with some local representation in some national parks in the past. I am sure that in today’s big society improvements can be made to the local representation, but I wonder whether we need the heavy hand of Schedules 3, 5 and 6 to achieve this. As ever, these schedules might be satisfactory and mean no harm to the national parks in the hands of today’s Ministers. I am sure that the Minister shares our love of national parks and can reassure us that his Government have no wish to interfere with the unique planning powers that keep them so special, even when those planning powers are delegated to others, as with the South Downs. However, what of the future? Should we allow Schedules 3, 5 and 6 to stand indefinitely as a threat to national park authorities? Even if the current Government’s honourable intentions are spelt out clearly for now, it seems to me that the Bill would be better off with greater clarity and also with a sunset clause. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in responding to the stand part debate on Clause 3, steered towards responding to the sunset clause, but he seemed to veer away from it at the end. Perhaps I got that wrong and did not quite understand what he was saying, but it would be interesting to have some clarity on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 70 and all the amendments that go with it, and obviously address the government amendments, Amendments 74A, 95A and 105ZA. I will not comment on what legislation was going through when I was born, as did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, rather coyly refused to comment on what legislation might have been going through when she was born. Those are matters for all of us to think of in due course.

I underline and fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, about the importance of national parks and their iconic nature—the fact that they are national parks. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, they cover 9 per cent of the land area of England— or is it the UK? I forget which, but it is large. As my noble friend said—he did not use these words but I think that he would accept them—they should not be cast in stone. He did not want them to be protected in the way that some of the church lands were in the past until Henry VIII appeared. I am no Henry VIII on this occasion. I want full protection of the national parks and I want them to work as best they can. I hope that in dealing with the amendments I can assure the House that that is exactly what we are going about.

Currently, they are managed by bespoke public authorities. I make the point that they are bespoke and vary from authority to authority. They are not identical. They are constructed on local government lines, but those authorities have been doing an excellent job since they came into being, some as long ago as 1948, when the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was conceived—or was it when he was born?—and for a long time since.

Just as they have been doing an excellent job, the local authorities, and the planning boards which preceded them—in some cases, until much later, thinking of the more recent national parks—also did a very good job. However, those authorities now face the challenge of ensuring that they can continue to deliver their core purposes in very different times: in what—dare I say it?—are rather straitened times. They seek to minimise the impact of the spending reductions on their front-line services and see how they can continue to improve what they can offer in some areas.

National park authorities have a long tradition of managing very small budgets, engaging with their local communities and making very good use of volunteers. That experience will serve them well in devising innovative approaches to delivering key services in future. The important point to get across—this is dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, particularly when he discussed the six questions that were put by the Government to the national parks authorities and others in that consultation—is what they do in the future. We are currently considering the responses to that consultation on their governance arrangements and honouring the commitment made in the coalition agreement. The consultation closed on 1 February, and we are committed to announcing the outcome of that by the end of March. I can give an assurance to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that the Broads Authority was consulted, as were all the other authorities, about what was going to happen and what it thought would happen. The six questions were put to it, and it was made aware of what the Bill would allow Defra and it to do. It might be that the Broads Authority and some of the others do not feel that they were consulted enough. If that is the case, the door will still be open, and my honourable and right honourable friends will listen to what they have to say.

[Lord Berkeley]

I shall quote from an e-mail from the chief executive of the Broads Authority dated 29 November, which is when I thought we were going to start discussing this. He stated:

“We haven’t had any detailed discussions with the Government”.

[Lord Henley]

The noble Lord said that the e-mail was dated 29 November. That is some months ago. My assurance is that there have been discussions with the Broads Authority. I will certainly write to the noble Lord if that is not the case, but the assurance I am giving to the Committee is that there have been discussions and consultations and we will certainly listen to what it has to say.

Each national park authority and the Broads Authority have suggested improvements which meet the needs of each individual authority. I go back to the words I used earlier: “bespoke arrangements”. They each have different needs that must be met, reflecting the expectations of the people who live in, work in or engage with the national park or the Broads Authority. Their suggestions will form the basis of the agreed outcomes which we plan to announce before the end of the month. If the noble Lord is worried that consultation has not been open enough, and I have heard criticisms of consultations that have not been open enough, I refer him to the letter sent out by my honourable friend Mr Benyon in August last year. I think it is worth quoting the penultimate paragraph:

“I can assure you that, at this stage, I have no fixed view. I am well aware of the strong feelings any review will generate. I also appreciate that National Parks differ greatly in how they are run and how they are accountable and engage with the local population. The Department and I are approaching this process in an open and transparent manner with no pre-conceived formula for National Park structures or governance”.

The noble Lord could not wish that to be more open or transparent. It is there on the table in writing. We will continue to offer that openness and transparency.

Provisions in the Bill will allow us to work quickly, effectively and flexibly with all those authorities to review all key aspects of their governance arrangements. It is governance arrangements that we are discussing. It is not some sword of Damocles that is being held over them, as noble Lords are implying. It will allow the national park authorities to focus resources on the key tasks that can be delivered only through the authorities themselves while also formally permitting other groups, of which there are many, with a real and supportive interest in national parks to take forward functions where it is appropriate so to do.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government accept the solution that we have been working on together and that they will start drawing up the necessary statutory instrument to implement a railway heritage scheme. When we first discussed this, the Minister told me that he thought this was in line with the Government’s big society approach. That was his phrase, not mine. It would indeed reduce the number of NDPBs by one. It would save public money because the National Railway Museum would provide administration support, saving the employment costs of the one member of staff who is currently involved in running the RHC. It would also provide an opportunity for volunteers to continue to do what they already do very effectively. It is a sensible way forward and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I fully support what my noble friend has said about the concerns and needs of the railway heritage sector. I congratulate him on the work that he has put in over many years to look after and preserve the heritage of the railway, which I think is unique. I suppose I would say that because I am very interested in it, but it is part of our national heritage.

Many noble Lords will know that the whole of the Great Western Railway was built to broad gauge by a fellow called Brunel, whom we all revere as having built wonderful smooth tracks, great bridges and excellent locomotives. However, many noble Lords might not know that not a single broad-gauge locomotive has been preserved because at the time the industry was much more interested in conversion, making money and moving forward. However, if this organisation had been around then, I am convinced that one or two locomotives and other pieces of equipment would have been preserved.

I worked on building the Channel Tunnel for 15 years. We managed to preserve one of the boring machines on the UK side and stuck it beside the motorway at Folkestone. The French half of the organisation put another one on a roundabout on the motorway at Calais. The UK one has been chopped up for scrap but the French one is still there, so we do not have a very good record in preserving these things. When something has lost its usefulness, people say, “Let’s make some money and scrap it”, or they are too busy doing something else. Therefore, this heritage committee forms a very important link in ensuring that a selection of the most important pieces of the railways is preserved.

My noble friend also mentioned the history of the heritage committee, starting off in its British Rail days. It went through the Strategic Rail Authority stage and then, as he said, became a bit of an orphan. The Government are going through another reorganisation of the railways at the moment. I do not know what it is going to produce but a similar thing has happened every five or 10 years for the past 20 years. My noble friend’s proposal that the Railway Heritage Committee responsibility should be transferred to the National Railway Museum, which I hope will have a much longer life, until the next railway restructuring is an excellent idea, so I wish him well in his onward negotiations with the Minister. I hope that the Minister in his response will give us some comfort that this might actually happen.

[The Earl of Mar and Kellie]

My Lords, in a single sentence I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to point actively to a secure and active home for railway heritage preservation.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I must say that this is a bit of a puzzle because Schedule 1 lists the bodies where power to abolish is being given. My noble friend has suggested that the FLA be moved to Schedule 7. I have a theological difficulty with that because—

[Lord Berkeley]

Schedule 5.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

Yes, it is Schedule 5; I would like to see Schedule 7 removed from the Bill. It is very difficult to know why the noble Baroness’s department is not using the Bill in the way in which it is constructed. Schedule 5 is headed “Power to modify or transfer functions: bodies and offices”. Why on earth is the FLA not in that schedule?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, this is something a little different. The purpose of Amendment 39 is to remove the Inland Waterways Advisory Council from Schedule 1. This is not the most controversial proposal in the Bill, but I believe that the 14 members of the IWAC, all of whom are volunteers and unpaid, its part-time chair, John Edmonds, and the two support staff deserve at the very least an expression of public thanks and recognition for what they have achieved since April 2007, when the council was set up as a consequence of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The same goes for the predecessor body, the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, which was formed in 1968.

The IWAC does exactly what its title suggests. It gives independent advice to the UK Government, the Scottish Government, navigation authorities and other interested parties on matters appropriate to our inland waterways. If no one wants to listen to that advice, of course that is up to them, but before IWAC disappears it is worth making the point that the next two or three years are going to be absolutely critical for the inland waterways as the British Waterways Board turns itself into a charitable trust. That will represent a huge change in culture as well as in status for the BWB, and I would have thought that it would benefit enormously from being able to call on the Inland Waterways Advisory Council for advice, particularly bearing in mind that there is not a lot of experience in Defra in this area.

My question to the Minister, who on this occasion I think is going to be the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is: how long do the Government expect the IWAC to stay around for? Would he not agree that it makes no sense to get rid of it before the British Waterways Board has completed the process of converting itself into a charity? One only needs to look at the CVs of the IWAC board members to realise how much talent is assembled at its meetings. It has economists, accountants, environmentalists, campaigners, academics and heritage experts—they are all there.

What I feel is so sad about the Government’s approach towards the quangos is that it seems to be based on knowing the price of everything but the value of very little. Most countries would give a great deal to be able to draw on a group of volunteers who are experts, who cost the state virtually nothing and who come together out of a sense of public duty and service. It may not be apparent for some time just how much is being lost as a consequence of this Bill, but we should be in no doubt that we shall as a nation be the poorer because of it. I beg to move.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Faulkner in this amendment. He has outlined the role of and described the people involved in the Inland Waterways Advisory Council extremely well and he will be aware from the briefing that we have all had from Ministers that two secretarial staff are involved in the council. To abolish something because two people are employed there seems quite extraordinary.

The role of the IWAC seems to fit very well with the Government’s plans for localism because canals are a wonderful local amenity. However, there are challenges in maintaining them. We have all read of how volunteer labour is used so often because canals are expensive to maintain and do not produce a lot of revenue. Their transport was rather taken over by the railways about 150 years ago, but they remain a wonderful amenity for leisure purposes and for what they provide to communities. We shall debate this issue again when we talk about the future of the British Waterways Board, but there will be some tension when the BWB becomes a charity. We have not been and we probably will not be told where it will get its funding from and it struggles hard to find funding at the moment. Indeed, there are occasions when I see it turning itself into a property company to the detriment of people trying to use the canals.

I heard about an example of this a couple of years ago in Brentford on the Thames. Some of the BWB people had done a deal with a property company to build some very nice waterside houses at Brentford. To make them even more attractive to the buyers and to make more money, some pontoons were put into the canal so that lots of canal boats could be moored there. The problem was that the pontoons and the boats together were so wide that it was almost impossible to get a canal boat into the canal, which is after all the point of the lock connecting to the River Thames. There are quite strong tides there. Anyone who has driven a canal boat will know they are not like motor cars. They respond to the wind and the tide and they do not steer very well, so you need a bit of space not to hit things. But these people were quite happy to put these pontoons in the river at the entrance to the canal and to allow things to moor, because that would make more money. There were allegations, which I do not want to pursue, that people were making personal gains but, regardless of who got the revenue, it affected navigation.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Whitty. I, too, am a former Minister at Defra, although we did not manage to coincide: I came after my noble friend moved on to other things. The points that he makes in his speech and through his amendments are important. On looking at the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, I see that the intention is for it to become a committee of experts working directly to the department. At one level, the difference between having it as a non-departmental public body or having it internalised within Defra looks fairly finely balanced, if the same people are providing advice on the same sorts of things to the same Ministers. Indeed, I note from the website that the secretariat to the NDPB is within Defra anyway. On all those levels it might not make much difference. I would be interested in the Minister’s response as to how much financial saving might be made in terms of these changes to these two committees so that we can judge whether that is part of the motivation.

In the end when I looked at it and tried to understand why these changes were thought necessary for Defra, like my noble friend I concluded that it must be something to do with the arm’s-length nature and the independence of the scientific advice. In that respect, this is a very important principle around whether or not that scientific advice should be independent of any other interests within the department. My experience from a year within Defra is that there are considerable, highly vocal, well organised interests that exercise Ministers and it is helpful at times to be able to have that independence.

By way of illustrating it, I refer to a story not from this country but from India around what happened to the vulture population, which collapsed by about 95 per cent in a very short period. As a result of having very few vultures to feed off the carcasses of cattle that were left out for the vultures because of the cultural issues in India around cattle, there was a population explosion of feral dogs in India—about 5.5 million more than usual—because they had this free food to sup on. And as a result of more feral dogs, more people were getting bitten. It is estimated that just under 50,000 more people died of rabies in India because of this explosion in the feral dog population. Meanwhile, others suffered from leopards attacking urban areas because the leopards expanded in population in order to pursue the dogs. In the end people were obviously concerned as to why the vultures had died. It came down to the improper use of chemicals—of diclofenac, the anti-inflammatory drug that was being fed to cattle by farmers, perfectly innocently, but which caused instant renal failure within the vulture population. It is the most extraordinary example of how an ecosystem can work and have an impact on a human population as well as on biodiversity, and indeed it is a fantastic example of the importance of biodiversity to us wherever we are in the world. But it is equally an important example of how agricultural vested interests should be kept separate from analysis of chemicals and pesticides.

I am not suggesting we might have that scenario playing out here, but you never know. I put it to the Minister, in using that example, that independent scientific advice at arm’s length is lost at a cost. If he could tell us what the saving is, if that is the motivation, then I am sure we would be very grateful.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my noble friends have set out very well the argument against the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

I compare the proposed abolition of the two committees with the recently announced cancellation of the Food Standards Agency. To a non-scientist like me, such abolition can only mean that in future people’s diets in schools and elsewhere will be more controlled by the burger manufacturers. Ours is the second most obese country in the world after the United States of America, but that situation looks like it will only get worse rather than better. If the Government’s intention in abolishing the committees is to have less government and to allow the industry to take its course, there will clearly be a risk that the manufacturers of these products—nasty or otherwise—could populate any committees that the Minister may create with academics who are funded by their companies. There is a great danger that we could end up in a similar situation to the one that both my noble friends have outlined.

The independence of such committees is absolutely fundamental. I hope that the Minister can give us confidence that their scientific independence will be preserved. As I have said, the precedent of the Food Standards Agency is extremely important. People will probably only get fat and die sooner without the FSA, whereas the abolition of these two committees will probably have a much more urgent effect. However, a similar principle is involved. I look forward to his comments.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Whitty on Amendment 18 and to use this opportunity to probe the Government’s intentions regarding these two bodies—or, perhaps more accurately, these three bodies, since the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in Northern Ireland is included.

Like my noble friend, I am glad that the Minister who is to reply is from Defra. Given the large number of bodies being modified or abolished by this Bill that are part of Defra’s area of responsibility, it is good that the Minister is responding to the debate on these bodies and, I hope, on the other agricultural bodies listed in the Bill. Given the many bodies that are listed in Schedule 1 that the Government are to have the power to abolish, it is absolutely right that each body should be looked at in turn. In many cases, the bodies in question have existed for a long time, so there certainly needs to be proper consultation about their future and how their work, especially when that is evaluated as having been very valuable, can be taken forward.

First, perhaps I may ask a few questions about the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. The committee not only has a distinguished membership but holds regular meetings and has produced a large number of reports, which I understand have been accessed by many people. The committee has also been very open about its proceedings. I notice that, when Defra first announced the changes to arm’s-length bodies on 22 July, the Secretary of State—the queen of the quango cutters—said that she intended that, as a result of the proposed changes, the subjects covered by such bodies would be dealt with more openly. Having looked at the website for the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, I find it hard to imagine how much more open it could be. Its agendas, minutes and proceedings are made fully available. I understand that it has held a number of public meetings and that it expects—if it is allowed to do so—to hold such meetings in the future. Indeed, I understand that the next public meeting is scheduled for 7 December. Will that be an occasion when the future of the organisation could be aired publicly? Indeed, will the Government be involved in that meeting by giving their view on how a successor organisation might look?

I turn to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Given that the committee was set up in 1985 following legislation by the then Conservative Government, it is fair to ask a Conservative Minister why it is no longer felt necessary to have such a committee. As my noble friends have said, there is a great deal of public concern about pesticides, the use of which can give rise to many problems, particularly if they are not properly evaluated and subject to appropriate expertise at every stage. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned, we need to consider how bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides overlap with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is concerned not only with the use of pesticides on food and agricultural products but with the health of creatures and plants. The Government are required to consult the committee in certain circumstances. Could the Minister tell us how useful that process of consultation has been?