Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

I say again that I, like all in this House, have enormous respect for the Minister. I am genuinely very grateful to her for the courteous discussions we have had and again for her suggestions today, but this is not about good will between transitory individuals. It is about ensuring within the Bill public transparency to assist society and regulators in holding more effectively to account the companies entrusted with what is, after all, the most vital resource we all need to survive. They need that simple, publicly accessible check on the factors that have brought them to their current mess—not after a further review or by words from the Dispatch Box, but now. I will listen with care to what the Minister says but I believe that, before the matter passes out of our hands, I may need to ask this House to ask the Commons to think again on this. I beg to move.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion 1A by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to amend Commons Amendment 1, and my own Motion to disagree with Commons Amendment 2. Before I begin, my noble friend Lord Roborough and I remain very grateful to the Minister for her excellent engagement and spirit of openness throughout the discussions on this Bill. We are also grateful to her excellent team of officials, who have been very helpful throughout. Where we have agreed, there has been fruitful progress and where we have disagreed, I hope that we have done so constructively.

I speak first in support of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who has argued convincingly for improved financial reporting and transparency by water companies. We support his amendment. On Report, the noble Lord explained:

“This amendment is not complex or onerous, but it is vital. It requires simply that water companies report annually on their financial structuring, debt levels and any associated risks”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 236.]


He emphasised the need for this to be set out in plain language and prominently displayed.

We all know that debt levels in the water industry are simply too high. Last year, the BBC reported that water companies have a combined debt level of £60 billion; the cost of servicing that debt has grown significantly in recent years. Most notably, Thames Water faces serious financial difficulties. Although the Government have previously argued that the noble Lord’s amendment is duplicative, his Motion today makes his objective even clearer. Yes, existing reporting requirements are already in place for water companies but we know that they are not working. Stronger reporting and transparency requirements are a step in the right direction.

The Minister has accepted that debt levels are being monitored by Ofwat already. On Report, she conceded that

“more can be done to ensure that debt levels are more closely monitored in future”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 249.]

We agree with her; more can be done, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has given us that opportunity today. The official Opposition will support him in his Motion, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House.

Turning to the Motion in my name, I am seeking to restore the wording of my noble friend Lord Roborough’s amendment to the Bill following the decision in the other place to remove it. The Bill as drafted allows Ofwat to set rules on water company governance and remuneration for executives without appropriate oversight. Our Motion would ensure that the first rules are provided to the Secretary of State by Ofwat and put before Parliament through the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments.

I am grateful to the Minister for sharing the Ofwat letter with us but, if I may say so, it is a wee bit feeble. A drop-in session for Members of Parliament is not enough. Parliament, without being arrogant about it, deserves the right to greater scrutiny than that.

My noble friend Lord Roborough’s Motion strikes at the heart of what is wrong with our water industry today: the failure of our regulator to tackle problems in the sector and the inability of Ministers to intervene on the independent regulator.

In opposing our Motion, the Government have effectively argued that Ministers and Parliament do not need additional powers to hold the regulator to account. At the same time, Ministers have told us that whole regulatory framework of our water industry needs to be reviewed, and have already started work on that review. So, which is it? Either the water industry is not properly regulated, and therefore Ministers and Parliament need appropriate powers and processes to challenge and scrutinise the regulator, or the sector is regulated well, and these powers are not necessary.

The Minister said that the Government say that they do not want to interfere with the independence of Ofwat, but I was under the impression given by the long-term review that the Government intend to interfere in a mega way and possibly scrap Ofwat. The Government have recognised that the sector is not regulated as well as it needs to be, so it follows that we should put additional oversight in place.

I do not think we can wait for the Government’s review to conclude. Ofwat is not performing as it should, and this House should have a role in scrutinising its plans under this Bill. I believe our Motion delivers that much-needed scrutiny, and I intend to test the opinion of the House when my Motion is called.

[Lord Remnant (Con)]

I declare my interest, having been a non-executive director of Severn Trent, the largest of the listed water companies, for eight years between 2014 and 2022, chairing the board’s remuneration committee during that time.

I support Motion 2A in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and will address the reasons given by the Minister in the other place, and essentially repeated just now by the Minister, for objecting to the clauses this Motion this seeks to reinsert. Those reasons are that the additional process of requiring an SI risks compromising Ofwat’s independence, that it would represent significant government interference in the independent regulatory process, and that that kind of interference could have adverse effects on investor confidence.

These arguments have little merit. Ofwat is a government department, and the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing, and has the power to remove, the chair and members of the board. In no way is Ofwat independent of government; nor can the Government escape association with and responsibility for the rules generated by Ofwat, and their consequences. Ofwat is directly accountable to Parliament. If that is so, why should it not account to us for these rules when drafted?

In any event, independence is a red herring when considering the impact on investor confidence. Investors will focus on the rules themselves and their effect on the ability to attract and retain management, and so on the investability of the water sector. In this, they have legitimate cause for concern. The Government are choosing to abrogate their responsibility in this area to Ofwat—an economic regulator, the core competence of which is certainly not the setting of rules on remuneration, and for which it is unsuited.

There are already signs that Ofwat’s approach will be unduly punitive, particularly regarding its retrospective application. However, I thank the Minister for her letter to me at the end of last November following Report, when she confirmed that Ofwat would look closely at the impact retrospectivity has on long-term incentive plans, but the intent was for the provision to cover performance for the 2024-25 financial year onwards only.

None the less, taken as a whole, these rules may discourage the best people from working in the industry, restricting water companies in rewarding good performance and, which is just as important, penalising poor performance. They are likely to force companies away from bonuses and long-term incentive schemes linked to performance, towards a compensating increase in fixed pay. Thames Water has already indicated that this is the line it is likely to take, and others will surely follow. Is this really the result we want to achieve? At the very least, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the proposed rules and assess for itself the potentially damaging impact on future investment in the sector.

The scale of investment required to clean up our waterways and rebuild our broken water infrastructure is unprecedented. Institutions have a choice of where they invest. In such a heavily regulated sector, they will make a critical assessment of the quality of management tasked with the delivery of the financial plans underpinning that essential capital programme. If Ofwat gets it wrong, it risks starving the water sector of the investment it desperately requires and which all noble Lords wish to see. At best, it will increase the returns investors demand, with the cost inevitably passed on to consumers.

Given the stakes, it must surely be right that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise and approve the relevant rules before they come into effect, so I am very much in favour of Motion 2A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I have listened closely to what the Minister has said this evening, but the opportunity for noble Lords to ask questions in a drop-in session is a poor substitute for further parliamentary scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

2A: Leave out “agree” and insert “disagree”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these amendments, which were inserted by the Government in the other place. Amendments 4 and 8 introduce the requirement for all water companies to have a social tariff for those consumers who are unable to pay their water bills due to their circumstances. Some water companies already have a social tariff in place but others do not. I welcome this measure to ensure that all water companies will be required to assist those vulnerable customers who are unable to pay the full water rate.

These amendments are almost identical to those tabled by my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place. Those amendments were rejected by the Government, prior to them subsequently tabling their own social tariff amendment—the ones we have before us today. Although it would have been preferable for the Government to have accepted the original Liberal Democrat amendments, it would be exceedingly churlish of these Benches to reject the amendments before us this evening, which achieve the same outcomes. We are therefore happy to fully support this group of government amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, in the nicest possible way, that I feel she did me a disservice in her remarks in the previous debate when she suggested that our support for a statutory instrument was to slow things down. Our support for the statutory instrument was to get better parliamentary scrutiny. As a former chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am well aware of the speed at which the Government can go at times, and making statutory instruments is not a slowing down measure.

However, I officially rose to speak to the government amendments in this group which were made in the other place. The principal, substantive amendment relates to the special provision in water company charging schemes and will help the Government to ensure that water companies take a consistent approach when supporting vulnerable customers. We are firmly in favour of protecting consumers from unaffordable increases in their bills, and we are disappointed that the Government rejected our amendment to protect consumers from higher water bills at Report.

The other government amendments largely relate to the commencement of the Bill, and we will not oppose those changes at this stage.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for her support and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for not voting against anything that we are proposing.

On the questions put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, obviously, money owed by customers is bad debt and anything that we do to address the amount of money that is owed for vulnerable customers will clearly have an impact, so these amendments will affect the issue that she raised. I appreciate the point she makes on energy costs and water poverty. Poverty needs to be addressed in all sorts of ways. I am pleased that I am a member of the Government’s child poverty task force; these are the kinds of issues that it is looking at and considering how best to address, because there is no point looking at the issue in just one place. You have to look at it right across the piece. That is what we hope to address in this case. With no further ado, I thank noble Lords very much for their time on the Bill so far.

Avian Influenza

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as the shadow Secretary of State said in the other place on Thursday, this is a very difficult time for bird-keepers and farmers, particularly those whose birds have died or been culled, and all those who have had to upend their flocks and move them inside, given the impact that doing so can have on the mental and economic resilience of individuals. Will the Government commit to looking to remove the restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so and also consider the possibility of vaccinations?

While avian flu has been financially devastating for farmers, the last outbreak was devastating and disastrous for wild bird flocks. Will the Government therefore continue monitoring seabirds, including using citizen science, which delivers much of the monitoring, and commit to funding for research to secure best practice and understand the transfer of avian influenza and other diseases between wild and captive birds, including sub-lethal effects?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, we are clearly very concerned about avian influenza. The noble Lord asked about the removal of restrictions. Of course, we want to lift restrictions as soon as we can, but only when we are absolutely certain that it is safe from a biosecurity perspective. He also asked specifically about seabirds, which is important because we know that there was a huge impact on seabirds in the last, very serious, outbreak. We are committed to continuing our work to monitor the impact of avian influenza on wild birds, together with other threats to their populations. This work is progressing through the English seabird conservation and recovery pathway through Natural England. The noble Lord may be interested to know that we have recently held a workshop with stakeholders to discuss how we can work together to take the key actions from the report forward. I also reiterate that members of the public are encouraged to report any findings of dead wild birds.

Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.

The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.

The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.

Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.

According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.

I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to

“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.

According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,

“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.

Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.

Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.

Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?

While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.

The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.

Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, I echo the comments made by the two previous contributors on compliance for small businesses, which is crucial. It is all very well for large companies to say, “Yes, we support these schemes”, but the burden will often fall heavily on the small retailer, in one form or another. I should start with a mea culpa, in that I was head of personnel for Coca-Cola when it introduced the first ever plastic bottles into this country, so it is all my fault. For the benefit of my noble friend next to me, in particular, the first plastic bottles produced in this country were made in a factory in Leeds—a bottling plant in Pudsey.

I therefore also have a memory of glass bottles and the system that worked then. The glass bottle return system had gone out of operation in most parts of the country when plastic bottles were introduced. At the risk of being accused of regionalism or being rude about the Scots, that system lasted longer in Scotland because that part of the country returned their products to the retailers to reclaim the deposits available.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

A thruppenny bit.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

It is important to small businesses and, because we are talking about companies that operate worldwide, both producers and retailers. How closely will our system meet that of the other countries that the Minister identified? I am aware that there are negotiations in other parts of Europe on some form of return system; it would clearly be better for all concerned if there is either a common or a virtually common system. That is particularly the case for Northern Ireland versus Eire, as many of the products will move from one side of the border to the other.

My concerns are about why glass is excluded, the international basis of the operation and its similarity with others, and small businesses that will carry a burden in one form or another. Given the experiences that I witnessed in my previous role for many years—I should add that I later went on to become head of the British Soft Drinks Association, and therefore saw operations not only from Coca-Cola’s side but for waters and fruit juices—it is important that this works across the whole country. I recognise and expect that the returns will operate much better in some places than in others.

--- Later in debate ---

I am extremely frustrated that we as a country cannot get our act together over collecting the waste arising from our drinks industry. I support this SI, but I am looking to the Minister to provide reassurance that it is going to work and be operating in the shortest possible time, and by October 2027 at the latest.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by commiserating with the Minister on the enormous amount of work she has to handle in this House. The Commons have four Ministers carving up the legislation between them, but the noble Baroness has to do the whole shooting match on her own—to use an unwoke term, probably. Last Monday we were into the details of free-range egg definitions in this Room, while on Thursday it was just a simple little thing like saving the world from destruction. Today it is one of the most difficult and complex instruments we have seen for some time, with 108 regulations and seven schedules—97 pages of controversial detail. In the last debate I heard my noble friend Lord Lilley complain that the heat pumps regulations ran to 32 pages—he should be so lucky.

If I were to comment on or ask questions on every section and subsection that concerns me, it would be an hour-long speech—I will not do that to the Minister or the Committee. Even so, I still have a lot to ask, but I have notified the Minister about my questions since clarity is more important today than trying to put one over on the Minister. I am a recycling enthusiast but not a fanatic, and I hope I am realistic. When I heard my noble friend Lord Hayward talk about the Scottish experience, I interjected to say “A thruppenny bit”, because I recall that if, as a 10 year-old boy in the Highlands in the early 1960s, you collected the glass lemonade bottles with their bakelite screw-on tops, you could get a thruppenny bit back every time. I had a nice little business going collecting those bottles, although admittedly some of them were probably not capable of being refilled. In the terms of the current legislation, they were a bit soiled. But it was a good little business—and I am probably the only person in this Room who did recycling at that age and at that time.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

I am afraid that my noble friend is showing his age, because the deposit went from a thruppenny bit to 6p and then to a shilling—so to be able to recall the thruppenny bit collections displays an age that I am not sure he wishes to do.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Because I had engaged some others to help with collecting the bottles, to whom I paid 1.5p while I took the thruppenny bit, I was put out of business prematurely before I could collect the 6p.

The last Government started this in 2019 with their first consultation, and there have been two more since, as well as various workshops and draft regulations like these. The fact that we did not lay those regs for approval was not through lack of belief in recycling but because there were still far too many loose ends to tie up. I am one of the 84% of consumers who like the concept of this, but I am deeply worried about the detail—just like the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We saw the Scottish SNP Government, with their usual fanatical incompetence, rush into this then have to pull back. My principal concern is that this may be one more recycling initiative too far at the moment.

First, we have just done the EPR, which will force all manufacturers of glass, plastic, cans, paper and cardboard to do more recycling. Then, on 3 February, we are due to have the regs on consumer recycling, whereby we will allow all cans, glass and plastic to go into one bin, which will boost recycling. I am totally in favour of that, as long as paper and card are kept clean and pure in a separate bin. In March, the commercial simpler recycling scheme will come in, which will boost commercial recycling. With all that going on, why do we need a scheme to take back empty drinks containers to the shops when it is easier and cheaper to do it at home? It is not just me who is concerned. WRAP said in its response that it is difficult to understand the full impact of deposit return schemes on local authorities before they go live and before adaptations to the EPR and simpler recycling are known.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that we looked at foreign deposit return schemes, and the enthusiasts all cite Germany, which has a phenomenal 98% return rate for its DRS. That is fantastic, but let us look at the German history of this. Germany started a refillable bottle scheme in the 1950s, then had initial legislation on recycling in 1991 and gave a big boost to it in 1996. In 2003, it introduced yet more legislation to introduce DRS for single-use containers and there was a big change in 2006 when it legislated to make all retail outlets take back other shops’ bottles. That encouraged deposit return schemes to take off. One year later, the German company TOMRA sold over 9,000 reverse vending machines, of which 25% of return locations in Germany have one. Incidentally, TOMRA was created way back in 1972 to handle refillable bottles.

Germany is still tweaking it. Only in 2022 did it bring in a DRS for alcoholic drinks, juices and nectars in single-use plastic bottles and cans, as well as milk-based drinks in cans. I can only assume, to borrow the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, that the Germans were faffing around for the last 50 years before coming to the present scheme. They have been at it a long time, slowly adding to the legislation as experience, technology and acceptance grew. Their success has depended on three things: first, 42% of all beverages in Germany are filled in refillable containers, and they get a 98% return rate on that; secondly, they have over the years built 135,000 return locations; and the third aspect is the German mentality. That is not a jibe at an alleged Teutonic tendency that orders will be obeyed but comes from the fact that the Germans have been doing this deposit return scheme for about 50 years. It is their modus operandi, and they know little else. The main pick-up from their kerbside collection is lightweight stuff such as wastepaper and card.

Thus, we have to look at this from the point of view of the English and Northern Irish householder. We are used to separating waste into different bags and bins—far too many in some council areas—for kerbside collection and to taking plastic, card, glass and paper to big recycling bins. Norway launched its DRS in 1996 after 10 years of discussion, development and testing. I presume that it was also “faffing around” in taking 10 years to get it right. We have neither 10 years of testing nor 30 to 50 years of experience of DRS and I fear that the Government are biting off more than they can chew here, especially with all the other recycling initiatives.

Let us look at a few of my many queries. Wales has already been mentioned. Retailers and importers working in Wales will face the practical difficulties of operating under different schemes—separation of stock, unique label identifiers and new accounting systems. How can the interoperability of the four UK schemes and an avoidance of unique identifiers in the Welsh market be assured? With Welsh proposals not yet published, how can an October 2027 introduction date be assured, to avoid material switching under the EPR scheme? Are the UK Government considering a United Kingdom Internal Market Act exemption for the Welsh DRS? Will they ensure that the divergence of the Welsh scheme does not impact the governance of the UK-Northern Ireland-Scotland DRS on the appointment of a scheme administrator?

A unique approach in Wales threatens seamless intra-UK trading and risks delaying the October 2027 start date. The Welsh Government will not publish their proposals for their scheme until spring and they plan additional initiatives, such as glass reuse and refill schemes. It looks like Wales wants to do in two years a full-on German scheme that took the Germans 50 years to perfect. Unless the Government can persuade the Welsh Labour Government to fall in with the rest of the UK, I would be loath to support this whole scheme in England and Northern Ireland, much as I like the concept of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The takeaway joints—the Prets and Leons of this world—do not sell groceries, but people buy cans of drink from them to take away. Irrespective of size, are they included or are they not grocery retailers?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

No—as I said, takeaways such as those will not be required to host a deposit return point, but they can opt in if they choose to do so. Automatic exemptions also do not currently apply to rural stores, as we need to ensure that there is sufficient return point coverage for all consumers, regardless of where they live. However, rural businesses are still able to apply to the deposit management organisation for a return point exemption, based on store size, proximity to another return point and suitable premises—for example, if they cannot adapt their premises to host a return point. There are grounds around what premises look like that permit them to apply for an exemption. I hope that has helped to clarify that point.

It is critical that we have sufficient return points such that consumers can take things back to get their deposits back. We also need to minimise the demands placed on businesses wherever possible, particularly on the local businesses that are essential to rural communities. Return point obligations will be kept under review as the scheme becomes more established, because this is clearly complicated, so we need to watch it as it is implemented. We need to ensure that the network is appropriate, is accessible and does not overly burden rural businesses. Coming back to the noble Lord’s final remarks, the DMO, with due regard to work already conducted by the ONS, will help retailers determine whether they are in an urban or rural area. They will not just have to read the regulations, as he pointed out.

I was asked whether hospitality venues, airports and railway stations can host voluntary return points. Under the regulations, other types of organisations that sell in-scope drinks containers, including hospitality venues, food-to-go stores, schools, hospitals, gyms, sports centres and community centres, will not be mandated to host a return point, although all could operate one voluntarily if they wanted to. Grocery retailers in locations such as airports and railway stations will be obliged to host return points in the same way that any other grocery retailer would be. In practice, we expect these businesses to be pragmatic when considering how to host a return point, which may be best achieved by having a centralised return point that operates on behalf of all the retailers in that area. The regulations contain provisions for exemptions and strategic mapping of return points to ensure that the deposit management organisation can work with businesses in high-footfall areas to deliver appropriate return point accessibility.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked how the Government define “same” in the definition of low-volume products and how we police the potential for cheating, as he put it. The deposit management organisation will work with producers to help them determine whether a product should be regarded as a low-volume drink. The producer will need to clearly demonstrate how the product constitutes a new product line, with relevant branding and labelling for the drink. The low-volume exemption is designed to support the smallest producers and, due to the cost of labelling production processes, it is highly unlikely that larger producers will be able to take advantage of this measure through the creation of multiple product lines.

I was asked about consumer research on how well a varied deposit would be received by consumers. There was a consultation in 2021; this included consideration of a variable and fixed deposit level, with many respondents agreeing that the DMO should be responsible for determining whether to adopt fixed or variable deposits. It also discussed how it could be varied with respect to many elements, such as material or container size. Our consumer research suggested a preference for simplicity in introducing a DRS, but recently the Republic of Ireland successfully launched a DRS with a variable deposit, based on the size of the container.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked how a deposit level is set appropriately. The deposit management organisation, as I said before, will be responsible for setting that level. It is incentivised to balance the need to ensure that returns are at the targeted level with the need to ensure that products remain affordable. We have commissioned research that showed that an effective deposit level is typically around 15p to 25p. This aligns with international precedents. For example, the DRS that launched in Ireland last year has a 15 cent and 25 cent variable deposit level based on volume. We are confident that the risks of a deposit level being too high or low are being managed, and we have sufficient levers in place to mitigate it being set at a level which impacts consumer affordability. But, as a last resort, Ministers also retain the power to remove the deposit management organisation and take control of the scheme under certain conditions.

I was asked who keeps the deposit if I buy a drink from a shop but recycle it at home. Consumers must return the container to a return point to redeem the deposit. Any financial surplus made by the scheme, for example through unredeemed deposits, will be reinvested into the scheme to fund the overall running costs. Again, this is in line with international schemes. I hope that answers my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s question about where the money goes.

However, for material which is recycled in kerbside collection, we anticipate that the deposit management organisation will work closely with local authorities to ensure that as much material as possible is returned via return points, and to help meet collection targets and keep material within the closed-loop model of the DRS. Local authorities and, where relevant, waste operators will be able to separate out containers and redeem the deposit on them, provided they meet the criteria for return.

Noble Lords asked specifically about Tetra Paks. The deposit return scheme focuses on containers made wholly or mainly from PET, aluminium or steel. This material can easily be recycled through the closed-loop system and reused by producers to make new containers. Unlike PET, aluminium and steel, which are collected from all local authority kerbside collections, just 64% of local authorities in 2022 collected beverage cartons. As the noble Lord said, that does not happen in our area. But with the introduction of simpler recycling, beverage cartons will be collected from all kerbsides. Therefore, Tetra Paks and other material combinations which are harder to recycle will be captured by the pEPR legislation and associated fees.

A number of noble Lords asked about the exclusion of glass. As was rightly pointed out, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland will not be including glass when the DRS is introduced. The Government’s position is that glass would add considerable upfront cost and create complex challenges to the delivery of DRS, particularly for the hospitality and retail sectors, as well as disproportionately impact small breweries, and be inconvenient for consumers due to its weight and potential for breakage in transit to a return point. Glass drinks containers across the UK are included in the scope of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme to make sure that they are appropriately and efficiently recycled. Additionally, the glass recycling targets within the packaging scheme have been increased from 83% to 85%, but we are also considering how reuse systems could be developed in the future.

Free-Range Egg Marketing Standards (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, on Thursday this week the Minister and I will be discussing how we save the planet, so this important subject is good practice for that mega-issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out simply the unfortunate need for these amendment regulations. The Official Opposition support them. As she has pointed out, under the current regulations, eggs can be marketed as free range for a maximum of only 16 weeks if the hens are shut inside; after that, they are to be called barn eggs. However, as we have seen in recent years, housing restrictions for free-range hens due to Chinese avian influenza outbreaks have often exceeded the 16-week limit. Within 2021-22 and 2022-23 the outbreaks required measures for 22 and 23 weeks respectively. That has caused significant logistical and financial challenges for the egg industry, and the amendment rightly seeks to address those issues.

The amendment is essential, as the Minister has said, because the EU has removed its 16-week limit and, unless we do likewise, our producers will be at a huge disadvantage. We would be importing eggs from the EU labelled “free range” while ours had to be downgraded to barn eggs. As long as there is a trading market in eggs in Europe, we need to stay consistent.

On consistency, I was going to ask the Minister about Wales because, when I drafted my speech last week, I was under the impression that Wales was possibly going to stick with the 16-week rule, but I am delighted that it seems all four countries of the union will now be at the same level of derogation.

I want to ask about enforcement. Producers in areas where there is a danger of Chinese avian flu will benefit from this amendment, but can the Minister assure us that it will not be possible for these measures to be abused, so that free-range eggs will be permitted to be advertised as such only when hen housing has been mandatorily restricted, not for any other reason?

While this amendment is necessary at the moment, what if anything has the Chief Veterinary Officer said to Defra about how long these lockdowns may be necessary? I appreciate that that is a difficult question to answer and some of it is guesswork, but I hope that Dr Middlemiss will be able to remove the restrictions as soon as she thinks it is safe to do so. We, the Government and the industry must not get into the cosy rut of maintaining these lockdowns unnecessarily. We have already had a six-month one and if we have lockdowns that last a lot longer, as long as may be necessary, we will need to take a serious look at the definition of “free range”.

I understand that in the consultation 66% of respondents felt that the proposal would cause little or no confusion among consumers. Of course not, since how are consumers to know how long the hens have been shut inside in the first place while the eggs are still labelled free range? I am not worried about consumers being confused but I am worried about misrepresentation.

That brings me to my last point. As the Minister knows, the definition of “free range” is a bit farcical in any case—or perhaps it would be safer to say not what most people would think free range actually is. I recall in 1990, as a junior Minister in MAFF, three different supermarket directors marching into the ministry to demand that we adopt their own various definitions of free-range eggs, when we entered into negotiations in the EEC later that year. They varied from chickens getting a sniff of fresh air occasionally for a few minutes each day, to their being let out on a tiny patch of grass, to roughly the current definition that henhouses have little pop-out holes where the chickens could theoretically go out if they wanted to but, in many cases, the majority do not. No matter how unfree the range is, that is the current definition in Europe and we cannot get out of step with it. I suspect that there is no mood in Europe to change that definition and I hope that we in the UK will not take unilateral action to tighten it further, even if some animal welfare groups may demand it.

As the noble Baroness said—I believe this too—if hens are confined inside for six months, nine months or even more, consumers have a right to know that their eggs are not really free-range. On how we address that, I am glad that the Minister is in charge and that it is not me back in MAFF, as it was in the old days, having to tackle this problem. Nevertheless, we are where we are; I support the amendment and what the Government intend to do here.

Movement of Goods (Northern Ireland to Great Britain) (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health etc.) (Transitory Provision and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister again for introducing these regulations and for the extremely constructive way in which she has taken a personal interest in trying to find pragmatic solutions to this undoubtedly very complex set of issues.

It is clear from the several debates we have had on the Windsor Framework regulations, today and previously, that they provoke strong emotions and reactions from the noble Lords of the DUP and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. However, it is true that in Northern Ireland there are also different points of view on these matters, which we heard very clearly, eloquently and constructively expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.

I will not repeat the Brexit arguments that I have made previously, but it is none the less true that we would not be debating these issues if we were still in the European Union or if the whole of the United Kingdom had remained in the EU single market. There are genuine and legitimate issues about how to carry out parliamentary scrutiny of EU single market regulations when we no longer have representation in EU institutions and have to be a rule-taker without a say in the process. I have suggested previously that it would be useful for the whole House to have a wider debate, at some point soon, on our relations with the EU and on the much talked about reset with the EU and what it would look like in reality. It would also be useful to have a debate on the approach towards parliamentary oversight of decisions and regulations adopted by the EU and their impact on UK businesses in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

On the specifics of the regulations we are debating this evening, from these Benches we broadly welcome them as a further pragmatic and temporary step to try to make this complex arrangement work slightly more effectively. As these regulations apply only to sanitary and phytosanitary controls on European Union and rest-of-world goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland, we believe that they sharpen the competitive advantage of Northern Ireland traders moving qualifying Northern Ireland goods.

I have three questions. The first is the same as the one the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked. Can the Minister say when this long-term approach to these issues is likely to be published and adopted? As she said in her introduction, these temporary measures will apply only until July next year. Can she say how MPs, noble Lords and all Northern Ireland political parties and businesses will be consulted in this process?

My second question is the same as the one the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked. Can the Minister say a little more about progress or otherwise on an SPS and veterinary agreement? It is clearly for the new Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in your Lordships’ House to decide its own programme, but it would be very useful if it were to look at some of these issues when it starts work next year.

My third and final question is something I ask every time. Can the Minister explain a little more about how these regulations will be enforced and policed in reality? Other noble Lords have raised this in a different way. I conclude by thanking her once again, and I look forward to hearing her responses.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, for bringing this regret amendment to the House. I listened to some very powerful speeches by him and his noble friends on both sides of the House.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have some significant doubts and concerns about these regulations, given the impact they may have on goods moving from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, but we will not oppose them. We welcome that some goods will continue to have unfettered access to Great Britain, but we are concerned about the non-qualifying goods and the effect this will have on businesses that trade across the Irish Sea.

While the Windsor Framework was a significant improvement on the original protocol, that is not to say that improvements cannot be made wherever necessary. The Opposition will continue to scrutinise the secondary legislation and assess its impact. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the Government will keep these regulations under review and take any action necessary to lighten the burden on businesses trading across the Irish Sea where possible?

The businesses affected by these regulations may need extra support. Can the Minister outline the steps that the Government are taking to give businesses in Northern Ireland the support they need? Indeed, what assessment have the Government made of the effect of these changes on businesses in Great Britain trading with Northern Ireland? How will the Government support that smooth trade?

Goods from Northern Ireland must be traded as freely as possible, and they should not be at an unfair disadvantage. That was at the core of our work when we were in government. We all know that the Windsor Framework was the result of a painstaking negotiation with the EU, but the Government should do everything they can to ensure Northern Ireland’s smooth and unfettered access to the UK internal market. As my honourable friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar said in the other place:

“The Windsor framework, I believe, is better than the protocol. ‘Safeguarding the Union’ is better than the Windsor framework, but that does not mean that further progress is not possible”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/12/24; col. 627.]


Does the Minister agree with that assessment?

We look forward to scrutinising the Government’s approach to Northern Ireland policy further, and to the Minister addressing our concerns about smooth trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and about upholding the importance of biosecurity—biosecurity not just in GB but Northern Ireland for goods that stop there. We will press the Government to bring forward plans to encourage businesses to trade across the sea so that we all benefit across the whole of our United Kingdom.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, for his very thorough and clear introduction outlining his concerns and why he has tabled a regret amendment. Many thoughtful and constructive points have been raised, which reflects the importance of the legislation and the principles that it upholds but also the concerns. This Government take very seriously maintaining our biosecurity, supporting the smooth functioning of the United Kingdom internal market and honouring our commitments under the Windsor Framework. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her extremely kind comments and her recognition that I have been working very hard to understand fully the challenges and concerns that a very complex area of legislation entails.

This instrument is looking to deliver the necessary provisions to ensure that Great Britain’s responsibilities on biosecurity and food safety are upheld and safeguard the health of our people, animals and plants. At the same time, it reaffirms and strengthens the Government’s unwavering commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, ensuring that businesses in Northern Ireland can continue to enjoy their unique position in the UK internal market.

Turning to the points that were raised in this debate, I will focus specifically on the questions regarding the legislation and do my best to address them. I have been listening very carefully—I can assure noble Lords of that—but a meeting has also been arranged between me and noble Lords from Northern Ireland in January, and I am sure that we will be picking up many of these issues at that meeting.

The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, asked about consultation engagement. A period of engagement on the border target operating model, which contained an overview of controls that are introduced in this instrument, ran from 5 April 2023 for six weeks. There has not been specific consultation on this SI because it is delivering the approach that was set out in the BTOM, which was consulted on extensively.

As noble Lords have pointed out, the instrument is temporary and does not set out the approach for the long-term treatment of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Great Britain from Northern Ireland. Any future long-term approach will be developed with input from stakeholder engagement. Noble Lords have asked about that long-term approach, and I can come back to that.

The noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord McCrea, asked about the response from stakeholders on this legislation and other legislation coming forward. The feedback from the six-week BTOM consultation was published on 29 August 2023. As we did not specifically consult on this SI, the feedback did not specifically relate to it, but there were calls from Northern Ireland agri-food businesses that there was a desire to focus the benefits of unfettered access more closely on Northern Ireland traders, which is what this SI seeks to address. We will provide a further update on the timeline for implementation by next summer.

Collaboration with devolved Administrations was also raised in the debate. We will continue collaborating with the devolved Governments and all border stake- holders to support implementation readiness across the vital points of entry, to better protect UK biosecurity. We will communicate any additional updates well in advance so that traders have the time that they need to prepare. The Government will also work closely with devolved Governments to develop plans for the delivery of the long-term approach for the treatment of European Union and rest-of-the-world goods entering Great Britain from the island of Ireland. Noble Lords might be interested to know that only this morning I met with devolved Ministers and officials to discuss issues around BTOM, so that work is ongoing and very hands-on at a ministerial level. I wanted to reassure noble Lords of that. This was from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, so there is a lot of work going on. I have implemented those meetings to ensure that we all work together and understand each other and what we need to get out of any decisions that are taken. The important thing is to preserve that unfettered movement of qualifying Northern Ireland goods into Great Britain.

Storm Bert: National Preparedness

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, Storm Bert was a tragedy for home owners who were flooded out and whose homes and businesses were destroyed; they have our sympathy and support. It was also a disaster for farmers, who are already worried about increased cost and tax burdens as a result of the Budget. The Conservative Government introduced the farming recovery fund to support farmers in these exact circumstances. Can the Minister tell the House exactly how much financial support has been given to farmers through the fund in response to Storm Bert, since she confirmed that the scheme has already been opened?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, we recently announced £60 million to be distributed through the farming recovery fund for the previous floods. It is very important that we support farmers. It is a very difficult time when your land is flooded; it can take a long time to recover and be very expensive. We are currently looking at this.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Grand Committee

I have asked the Minister a lot of questions. If she is unable to provide answers this afternoon, perhaps she would agree to meet to discuss this important matter, about which I readily admit to having something of a bee in my bonnet.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I too thank the Government for bringing these regulations to the Committee for debate. I think all noble Lords agree that reducing the impact of pollution by waste on our environment is an important goal. These Benches wholeheartedly support that objective and we want the Government to foster innovation in the packaging sector that drives down the harms of pollution.

We all agree that recycling rates are too low in both domestic and trade scenarios. Domestic recycling is not helped by councils operating dozens of different schemes. Standardisation is essential, but these regulations impose huge bureaucratic burdens on the regulator and the industry to the very tight timescale of April 2025. As we all know, the Environment Agency is hard pushed to deliver on all its current commitments, including on flooding, and it will have massive new responsibilities under these regulations. Just look at the information which has to be sent to the EA for registration and at all the six-monthly reports that it will now have to plough through.

Here is my first question for the Minister. I should say that I, too, have a number of questions, some of which are technical; I would be happy for the Minister to write to me, as I do not expect her to be able to come up with, off the top of the head, the answers from around 500 pages of regulations. What estimate has been made of the extra staff required by the EA and what funding will be available to it? The Minister said that £1 billion will go to local authorities for their expenses, so who will pay the EA for its additional burden? If local authorities are to get an extra £1 billion, I hope that the Government will clamp down ruthlessly on this nonsense where some councils want to collect garbage—I apologise for that awful American word—and rubbish such as dirty nappies and rotten food only once a month. That is simply not acceptable; I hope that the Government will clamp down on it and stop it.

I hope that the Government will also stop councils charging for the collection of garden waste. Garden waste such as grass clippings is recyclable. There should not be a charge for that.

Then we have the cost to businesses. Many have expressed concerns with the illustrative figures suggested by Defra since most producers think that the fees will be at the top end of the illustration. For example, Defra has, I believe, suggested that the illustrative fees for glass will be between £115 and £215 per tonne. How can businesses plan on that basis, with such a wide variation, while also adding the planned increases in national insurance and business rates? This is not freeing up business to go for growth, as the Chancellor claims. I understand that, in October, 85 industry businesses signed a joint letter to the Minister, Mary Creagh, calling for the scheme to be delayed. They are not opposed to extended producer responsibility but they want to know what fees will be charged—and in good time, so that they have more time to register with the Environment Agency.

Wines and spirits member companies account for 70% of the glass used in the drinks business. They have 300 member companies and more than 60% of them are small and medium-sized enterprises. They also want to see the scheme delayed for a year, in order to sort out not just the fee structure but the definitions of “non-household waste” and “packaging designed for business use”. They say that the vast majority of waste generated in the hospitality sector is disposed of via business waste streams, which they pay for, but they will also incur EPR fees so will pay twice. Defra had promised to avoid this double counting, I believe, but it has now decided to press on with these regulations regardless, and the double counting is included. Why? Can the Minister justify this unfairness? The Wine and Spirit Trade Association says

“that all packaging sold to the hospitality sector or on-trade operators should be classed as non-household and exempted from additional EPR fees”.

Again, I would like to hear the Government’s explanation on that in due course; the Minister may write to me.

Paper and card are major recycling commodities. I understand that approximately 50% of business waste is made up of paper and card. It is important, therefore, that the regulations work—and work well—for the paper recycling industry. The Confederation of Paper Industries has a number of concerns about the

“proposed policy, particularly in the context of the … Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) and the illustrative base fees”.

With regards to the RAM, it is concerned that

“the thresholds for non-paper components in the paper and card category are high and not aligned with industry standards. This methodology will lead to high levels of contaminants, potentially increasing plastic waste, reduce the quality of recyclate, and limit opportunities for innovation and sustainable packaging design. They create barriers for the recycling industry and risk undermining the recycling process”.

I simply ask: is it right about that? I do not know, but I think that we deserve an answer.

Another of the CPI’s key concerns relates to the proposed fee structure. It says that

“the structure creates a cost advantage to choosing plastic due to its lightweight nature, which risks driving material shifts from paper to less sustainable, fossil fuel-based plastics, and disproportionately affects the competitiveness of paper and board packaging”.

This concern is similar to the one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, when she was talking about the difference between glass and plastic.

Further, the paper industry is concerned about

“the inflationary effect of the fee structure due to higher per-unit costs; aside from these costs being passed onto consumers, it could also see the UK’s competitiveness reduced, potentially leading to disinvestment in domestic production”.

Again, I do not know whether that is right. I hope the Government can explain whether the industry is right to be concerned about that or whether it has the wrong end of the stick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The fact that there are incentives for producers to reuse is part of the purpose. It is about not just about recycling, but about changing behaviour to encourage producers to have packaging that can be reused. I hope that is the answer to that. I will write to the noble Baroness on energy from waste.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Will the Minister write to me on the technical points made by the Confederation of Paper Industries? I think we would all like to see that response.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Absolutely. As I say, we have had quite a long debate with a lot of questions, so I assure noble Lords that we will go through Hansard and write with detailed responses on any outstanding questions.

This legislation is necessary to initiate the circular economy for packaging in the UK, ensuring that materials and products are kept in use for longer. I trust that noble Lords understand and accept the need for this instrument; I very much welcome their broad support.

Windsor Framework (Non-Commercial Movement of Pet Animals) Regulations 2024

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

It is this side, thank you.

My Lords, I refer to the register of Members’ interests, as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House and of the Government’s Veterinary Medicines Working Group. We had a similar debate on the Windsor Framework some weeks ago and I suppose that we have had debates like this on other statutory instruments in relation to the Windsor Framework. It is an issue that divides communities in Northern Ireland along broadly political constitutional lines. However, we must not forget that the Windsor Framework is a result of Brexit. It would not be here if we did not have Brexit. That is the political reality that we all face and must countenance.

I for one support the Windsor Framework and I supported the protocol, which I believed was the best means of dealing with the challenges that were presented by Brexit for trade in goods on the island of Ireland, both north and south. Before Brexit, goods moved freely across the island, helping to sustain and underpin our economies, both north and south. That fact was recognised in the Good Friday agreement, which was referred to earlier today, and in the three-stranded relationships as a result of that agreement, whether it was the Northern Ireland Executive, the Assembly, the North/South Ministerial Council or the British-Irish Council.

Prior to and since the vote on the Brexit referendum, many of us have insisted that there was a need for a special status for Northern Ireland because of those unique trading and political relationships on the island. That fact has not diminished and now manifests itself in the Windsor Framework, which exists to manage those challenging relationships that exist—there is no doubt they are challenging. I believe that where there are imperfections with some areas of trade within the Windsor Framework, they need resolution through dialogue and negotiation between the UK and the EU.

On veterinary medicines, my noble friend on the Front Bench very ably chairs our Veterinary Medicine Working Group, which is trying to understand and deal with the challenges presented to our agri-food industry in Northern Ireland and to resolve with the EU those challenges with the supply of medicines to our veterinarians in Northern Ireland, as well as looking at an SPS veterinary agreement. I believe the same applies with pets and companion animals; it requires sensible management of this issue to ensure that there are no impediments.

I say to those who supported Brexit and who bring forward these regret amendments to your Lordships’ House to challenge every piece of secondary legislation on the Windsor Framework as an attack on the constitutional sovereignty of the UK and Northern Ireland that I believe that is disingenuous. I recognise their reasons for doing so, but I do not agree with them. At the end of the day, those same people and those same representatives argued for the hardest possible Brexit, and sometimes you get what you argued for. Put simply, I believe we would have been better to remain in the EU, and I am pleased that my colleagues in the new Labour Government, via the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers, are working with the EU on a reset of those relationships, notwithstanding the realities of the situation. For my part, I have my own political identity as a democratic Irish nationalist, but I recognise the difficulties that my colleagues on the Front Bench are presented with.

The purpose of the instrument under discussion this evening is to ensure the smooth movement of pet dogs, cats and ferrets from GB to Northern Ireland, while ensuring that any pet movements from GB and Ireland or other EU member states remain subject to the relevant EU requirements. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I am a member, considered that this instrument

“is an example of where wider consultation would have been desirable”.

Our role in that Committee is largely process-driven, and effective engagement and communication through a publicity campaign and notices in veterinary surgeries will definitely be vital to improve public understanding of how the scheme will operate in practice.

Therefore, can my noble friend say whether there are any plans to do such publicity, and will she talk to ministerial colleagues, maybe through the usual channels, about the necessity for more consultation in relation to statutory instruments as per the Windsor Framework? That would help in explaining the detail not only to public representatives but to wider business and the communities throughout Northern Ireland.

Businesses want to see a resolution to all the challenges presented by Brexit and the bureaucracy of the Windsor Framework, and many businesses have said to me that they welcomed any agreement when faced with the catastrophic alternative of a no-deal Brexit. Business and trade in Northern Ireland welcomed an agreement that provided continued access to the all-Ireland market, which many businesses in Northern Ireland relied on. Furthermore, it welcomes a unique solution for a unique place with trade, social, family and emotive ties with both Britain and Ireland. It is also worth noting that in the assessment of the recent Queen’s University survey, most respondents—around 57%—again want MLAs to vote in favour of the continued application of Articles 5 to 10 of the protocol/Windsor Framework. That vote is expected by the Secretary of State to take place before the Christmas Recess of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

In wanting the dismantling of the Windsor Framework, I wonder whether those who object realise that their fervour for opposition could result in tampering with the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement that the Windsor Framework seeks to protect, as well as the single electricity market which exists on the island?

In conclusion, I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that I totally support this statutory instrument. I support the Windsor Framework because it is a necessary legal device to deal with the complexities that were presented to us in Ireland, north and south, on the issue of Brexit. We need a pragmatic solution rather than choosing to have political contests and duels simply for the sake of them.

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that debate is necessary in a democratic society, but that all of us have to ask whether this is in the best interests of our businesses and economy? Perhaps my noble friend could also tell us how this statutory instrument can be progressed to full implementation stage and what she sees as evolving and developing as part of that full implementation?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for moving her amendment and securing this important debate. She made a very powerful and detailed speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, on his excellent contribution. As I know the Minister appreciates, there are many noble Lords who feel very strongly about the Windsor Framework. I hope the Government will take these concerns seriously as they work to deliver a fair settlement for Northern Ireland now that we have left the EU.

In particular, the Government’s stated policy of seeking closer ties with our partners in the European Union is concerning to many in Northern Ireland, and we on these Benches are clear that the Government must not do anything that undermines Northern Ireland’s access to the UK internal market.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Browning (Con)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to have added my name to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has just spoken to, and the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, both of whom have outlined very clearly their concerns.

Amendment 89, in my name, is really about abstraction. I mentioned the over-abstraction in chalk streams, which is genuinely a real problem. It is claimed that the Environment Agency rarely inspects water company abstraction monitoring records.

There is also no requirement for continuous volumetric monitoring and publication of real-time or up-to-date data. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been no effective enforcement where there have been breaches of abstraction licences. Spot-check results indicate neither the duration of the breach nor the seriousness of such breaches, either as against the licence condition or for the rivers or groundwaters from which the abstraction has occurred unlawfully.

Therefore, this amendment proposes that the Water Resources Act 1991 be amended so that all licences for abstraction held by water undertakers should include a condition that real-time abstraction volumetric data is recorded and made publicly available in as close to real time as is practicable. This is very straightforward. The Minister must have a view as to whether she thinks the Environment Agency carries out rigorous checks, and if it does not, I believe my amendment is the answer to it.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare my interest as on the register. Since it seems to be de rigueur in the Committee tonight, I declare my wholehearted support for the controlled reintroduction of beavers into appropriate locations.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for leading this group of amendments on improved monitoring and publication of data and I rise to speak to Amendment 48 in my name. First, I was rather impressed by the points on telemetry made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We find in Natural England that the use of modern technology can replace hundreds of people on the ground trying to carry out inspections, and this sort of technology has to be the way to proceed.

It is important that the nature of emergency discharges is collected by water companies and is made available to the public and Parliament in an easily accessible format and location, as has been said by every noble Lord tonight. The damage of pollution caused by emergency overflows has become an issue of increasing concern to the public in recent years, and they deserve more information on how water companies are performing. It is sensible to require water companies to publish the extent of emergency discharges, as this data is indicative of the strain on our water sector and will provide valuable information as to what kind of infrastructure development is necessary to prevent overflows in the future.

We support the Government’s intention in this part of the Bill, but we feel the Government can go slightly further to ensure that the monitoring data is available to the public on the water company’s website. My Amendment 48 is a modest little amendment that would deliver that change. We on these Benches feel that this relatively small amendment would do a great deal of good in ensuring that consumers can access this information easily on the website of their own provider.

A number of noble Lords have moved amendments on monitoring and reporting. We are broadly satisfied with the Government’s measures to improve monitoring and reporting in the Bill, but we are also keen to see some movement from the Government in the direction of making this information more readily accessible to the public and have taken on board many of the points raised by other noble Lords tonight.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the interest they have taken in this debate. I turn first to Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Amendments 44 and 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and Amendment 59, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. The Government agree that it is vital to understand the causes and impact of sewage discharges, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, that this needs to be timely and accessible.

Clause 3 requires water companies to provide information on the frequency and duration of discharges from emergency overflows. This information will enable regulators and the public to see, in near real time, when a discharge from an emergency overflow has occurred, and how long it lasted for. This will enable resource to be directed to investigate the cause as well as the impact of a discharge, with a view to resolving any issues.

While the Government agree with the intention behind the amendments seeking to require companies to specify the volume of discharges in their publications, we do not see the value in doing so, as this would not provide the meaningful insights that we need about the actual impact a discharge has had. Monitors required to measure volume as well as concentration are also very costly to install and could delay the rollout of other monitors.

The volume from sewage discharges is measured through flow monitoring, and the installation of flow monitors would likely require construction projects to install them at the majority of emergency overflows, hence the large cost. This is because the pipework in emergency overflows would require modification for flow monitors to be able to record accurate measures of volume. Therefore, the Government do not believe the expected high costs are proportionate to the information we would get. With respect to the cause of discharges, it is not possible for companies to provide this information in near real time. This is because an investigation and site visit are often required to validate the cause.