Agriculture Bill

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I will make a small contribution, focusing on Amendments 12 and 13. Education, training and skills development in the whole area of farming, agriculture and the environment are vital. When young people are educated about farming, agricultural and food production, and the food system, they can begin to fully appreciate the rural environment, its value and its importance to our overall economy. That form of education, training and skills development is important.

I also agree with the amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, which seeks to insert

“forestry, and the impact of climate change”.

As the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said, one adds value to the other. I can see that there could be some compromise between the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and that in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. If we believe in the principle of public money for public goods, we should ensure—I urge the Minister to pay particular attention to this—the provision of funding for education, skills and training in our local environment, agricultural industry, the food system and forestry, closely aligned with the impact of climate change. Our environmental system and our food system are directly linked, and people—particularly the young—need to be educated about that. I do not see how the amendments conflict; one adds to the other, and I would like to think that they could both be accepted by the Minister in some form of compromise.

Can the Minister advise whether any discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations as part of the ongoing conversations about the Bill and how it will impact on various regions? Perhaps he could specify whether there has been any particular discussion about the environment, education and training. We must make sure that environmental and agricultural education and training are not diminished or missed out in the Bill, or in any part of the UK.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 43 and 61. Although in the form they are tabled, these amendments appear at first glimpse to be making two different propositions, when combined, they produce a very new approach to developing microenterprise. Amendment 43, with its proposal for the local production of agri-foods, and Amendment 61, with its call for subsidised energy costs in selected areas of the agricultural economy, combine to offer a strategy that could greatly aid in the post-Brexit world of import substitution, which we must all want.

The advantage of that approach is that it reinforces an argument that I used to employ in the Commons, years ago, when representing a constituency with high peripheral regional unemployment: you can use energy costs as a tool in regional policy. Cheap energy will always attract footloose, energy intensive enterprise—paper, board and chemicals are good examples of this. If you combine cheap energy availability and labour-intensive micro-agricultural production in the areas outlined in these two amendments, you will create the conditions in which you can influence the movement of investment capital.

I argue that that incentive is as good as any regional development assistance as provided under former assisted area programmes. Indeed, it has an advantage, in that it is not a one-off allocation of grant aid. On the contrary, it can be profiled in such a way as to provide sustainable assistance over the longer term, tapering away as enterprise becomes more established. This form of assistance can be of real value in the development of labour-intensive microenterprise in food and in other areas of the agricultural economy.

I strongly support these two amendments, as they cause us to think out of the box on the use of energy as a regional incentive. I hope that both movers will combine to bring forward a new amendment on Report. Furthermore, I hope that the Government take a new look at the potential for subsidised energy to be of real assistance in the new economy that must now be built post Brexit.

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer as set out in the register. I support Amendment 12, set out by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. As it says,

“increasing understanding, knowledge and skills relating to the environment, farming, food production, and the impact of climate change on agriculture”

should be in the powers to give financial assistance.

Among the many purposes of the Bill is the aim of revitalising the industry through facilitating retirements, new technology and, most importantly, encouraging new entrants to the industry. As the current generation of farmers retires, we need to replace its valuable skills, and the amendment recognises that. The Agricultural Productivity Working Group, chaired by Sir Peter Kendall, highlighted that issue and called for action to address the low uptake of agricultural skills and training.

Agriculture: Dairy Prices

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I should first declare an interest. I am not a farmer, but I own a farm and my tenant is a dairy farmer. Obviously, these are difficult circumstances. Dairy farmers have a particular problem. I know that there is a great difference depending on where dairy farmers sell their milk. For example, if they are selling their milk to supermarkets, that is okay, but those selling to other enterprises that are not functioning in the same way have different problems. I know that some have had to pour milk down the drain. I will take the right reverend Prelate’s specific question away and make sure that I get him a sensible answer because I do not know the details at the moment, I am afraid.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, can give me a written answer to my question. I understand that Meadow Foods pays more to its farmers in Cheshire than those in Cumbria for milk. Furthermore, it cannot give any guarantees that the price in Cumbria will not fall further, thereby threatening the viability of the industry. How can the industry survive under such conditions without the Government temporarily—I repeat, temporarily—setting a national minimum price for milk, as happened under the old Milk Marketing Board? I suggest a price of 25p per litre.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord makes a very powerful point. I will ask my noble friend Lord Gardiner to answer that specifically. He raises an important issue about differences between parts of the country. I have just seen a message that my noble friend is having technical difficulties; I think we knew that anyway.

Flood Response

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we will be assessing vis-à-vis farmers and the impact on them. The investment of £2.6 billion that I outlined is also designed to protect an additional 700,000 acres of agricultural land, but we will certainly be assessing what the situation is for farmers following Storm Ciara. On Flood Re, as I said, we are undertaking a review. I cannot pre-empt that but I have taken all the points that have been made.

On Bellwin, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for MHCLG has announced that. I will pass back the points made about Bellwin but I think it indicates that we recognise that the parts of the country that have had these terrible floods and that impact need assistance, and our intention is to help them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to take the Minister back to the question just asked by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about Flood Re. He is not being drawn on three critical areas that she mentioned: private rented property cover, commercial buildings cover and post-2009 developments. These are critical areas that have to be considered by the review. The Minister could at least give us an assurance that those three specific areas will be a subject of the review so that we can further consider them when the review is published.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the whole point of a review is to review all matters arising from this. Obviously, I cannot pre-empt the result of the review, but it is helpful that the points that my noble friend and the noble Lord have raised are precisely the sorts of areas that we need to look into. As the noble Lord has mentioned to me, in parts of Cumbria there have been leaseholders for whom this has been a problem. I assure your Lordships that I will take back the points made about the review, and we will be reviewing insurance cover with those points in mind.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, the amendment is a little too restrictive on Kew, although I recall that at one time it had a plan, or at least a dream, to make available some of the properties for short-term accommodation for Kew’s partners when they needed to spend time in London and with Kew. However, to try to restrict the new power to residential property is going a bit too far.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervened in Committee and put to the Minister a series of questions to which I hoped he might give me the answers in writing. They have not come, so perhaps he might ask officials to consider the questions I asked during that debate.

The most important protection for the land at Kew Gardens has been the fact that leases could be granted for a maximum of 30 years. The moment you transform that system and change the arrangement such that you can grant leases of up to 150 years, you transform the discussion about the future of that land and its potential use by developers. Even though covenants and restrictions will be in place, developers will look seriously at the long-term potential of the use of the land.

The question for me is: what has been Parliament’s intention during the passage of the Bill? As I have understood it, it is to ensure that no commercial development takes place on the site and that residential development should be restricted to a very small proportion of the land. I am not convinced by that. Parliament is being naive in thinking that the position will remain the same for the next 150 years.

So last night, lying in bed at midnight—as happened on the previous occasion—I went through the documentation that the Minister has provided for us in the past week. That is the framework document, from which I want to cite a number of paragraphs in support of my case.

Paragraph 27.1 refers to a “light touch” annual review of the framework document. It then talks about three-yearly full reviews. What will happen at the end of three years, six years, nine years, 12 years, 15 years, 18 years or 21 years? At what stage do Ministers envisage being under pressure, because the Secretary of State retains powers in these areas, to change the arrangements for future development possibilities on that site?

Paragraph 28.2 confirms the sharing arrangements for developers’ gains—so in the framework document there is recognition that there will be developers’ gains in the future. I am sure developers will study that closely. It may be that, because the intention of Parliament is not altogether clear, lawyers pore over our debates. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that they often refer to parliamentary debates to try to identify what the intention of Parliament was when a particular Bill went through.

Paragraph 7.4 refers to a requirement on Kew,

“to maximise opportunities to increase income”.

Again, that is a pressure point on Kew to maximise income available from the site. In my view, it would be for the development of commercial and residential property.

Under paragraph 7.2, the Secretary of State can set conditions on grant-in-aid funding. In other words, they could pressure Kew to maximise alternative income streams when deciding on the grant-in-aid funding to be made available in any particular year.

Paragraph 21.1 emphasises the requirement for Kew to have regard to “efficiency, costs and resources”—again, that is a pressure.

In paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3, there is a requirement to avoid balances. Under the agreement as I understand it, Kew must not pursue a policy of having balances at the ends of years. In other words, it cannot save money in that way, which will in itself put pressure on resource availability—so much so that I believe that it will seek profits from the development of land on the site.

In paragraph 25.1, a process is set out for Defra’s approval of breaches of the MPM rules, guidance and advice, and in paragraph 9.2 there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to sign off land sales. This, of course, works both ways: it can put a block on sales, but on the other hand it could serve as a notice to future generations that in 2019 it was envisaged or foreseen that land sales would inevitably take place. The question is: what land? I am not suggesting for one moment that it will be land in the body of the site, but I believe that that site has rich future potential and that developers will look at it and argue that, on the periphery of the estate, particularly near the river, there is potential for substantial development.

In Committee, I pointed to a footage price for flats on the present market. Flats down there would sell, even in today’s market, at £1,500 per square foot. That property in the future, on the river at Kew, will fetch far more money than even today’s prices, because it will become prime property. Ministers have completely underestimated the pressure that will be put on the trustees and the people who will be running Kew in the future to maximise their profits through property development on that site. I heard nothing during the debate in Committee that in any way interferes with my view. I believe that that is what will happen, and what we have in the Bill offers insufficient protection, despite all the conditions that the Minister referred to in his responses on that previous occasion.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I well understand that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to restrict the application of the Bill solely to residential properties. It is true that the properties currently in the contemplation of Kew following the Bill are those seven residential properties that are either currently occupied on one-year assured shorthold tenancies or are vacant and require substantial renovation work. That is not to say that these are the only opportunities for Kew, but these are the definite properties that could immediately benefit from the Bill.

I know that noble Lords want only the best for Kew—I absolutely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is saying. In both what I believe I put on record about the protections and, if I am permitted, in suggesting what might follow on the next amendment, Parliament is very clear about the requirement to protect Kew. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Eccles that restricting leases to residential properties only would have a significant adverse impact on Kew’s ability to benefit from the Bill. All noble Lords have said that we have great trust in the current trustees but we are worried about what might happen in the future. The current trustees and executive feel very strongly that to restrict the Bill will not be helpful to Kew in the future. I want, therefore, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords by setting out in more detail further properties that Kew might, for example, plan for the future.

Other properties will be considered for the possibility of the grant of a longer lease when opportunities clearly present themselves; for instance, if buildings become vacant and surplus to requirements. As noble Lords know, the care and protection of Kew’s collections is one of the primary duties of Kew’s board of trustees. The board must ensure that its collections are well managed, widely accessible and secure, and provide an optimum environment for scientific collaboration and discovery. This statutory duty will entail developing contemporary world-class facilities for the collections and science research at Kew Gardens, to provide a platform for collaborative, discovery-driven, botanical science to find solutions to the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.

As these facilities are realised over the medium to long term, this could enable other buildings to be repurposed for a means appropriate to furthering Kew’s mission and statutory objectives. These other buildings could include office accommodation which becomes surplus to requirements or is in need of significant renovation. In such cases, Kew should be able to explore options that deliver the best possible return for Kew, whether for commercial or residential letting, and which can be reinvested to further its statutory functions.

One such opportunity is 47 Kew Green. This is currently an office building for marketing and commercial staff, albeit not fit for purpose as modern office accommodation and requiring significant renovation work. Should Kew identify alternative space for staff to move out of this building into more suitable accommodation, it would be faced with a choice of renovating the building itself or finding a suitable and sensitive lessee to take the building over and improve its condition. I should add that Kew is very clear that, even with renovation, this building would not be suitable as research facilities to further Kew’s purpose—investigation and research into the science of plants and fungi. Kew may not require the office building in the future, but, equally, preventing Kew leasing it out as a business premises would restrict it, even risking that building becoming obsolete. That is clearly one of the key aims that the Bill seeks to remedy.

Another possibility is Descanso House, a grade 2 listed Georgian building on the edge of the Kew Gardens site. It is not accessible to the public and is underutilised due to its condition. It is currently office accommodation for a small number of Kew staff, with a small office let to a Kew partner on a one-year lease. It is in urgent need of repairs. If alternative office accommodation could be found, this building could be considered for refurbishment, subject to listed building consent and in accordance with guidance in the Kew world heritage site plan.

To restrict the Bill to apply solely to the residential properties would not help Kew. On the basis that the protections are already in place, which I have set out at great length—and, if I may be permitted to say, I believe those protections will be considered in the next amendment—there is no reason to distinguish between residential and commercial leaseholds. From my experience of other large estates such as Kew, I would expect a mix of leasehold lets.

I will look into the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I recall committing to write on the specific issue of the car park. A copy of that letter should have been placed in the Library and sent to all noble Lords, but I will check. I know I signed the letter, so I am confident that—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will look at Hansard again, because if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, thinks that I have not attended to other matters, I of course shall.

On the question of the framework document, Kew is protected but it is absolutely essential that there is rigour in that document, given the use of public money, over the arrangements between the sponsoring department and Kew. All noble Lords would be displeased if there were not confidence that there was rigour in the custodianship of public money. I do not resile from the fact that it is important that there is this arrangement between Defra and Kew. From my experience, the relationship between the two is proper, but with a mutual respect that we understand absolutely the functions that the trustees and the executive undertake on our behalf.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister has to accept that what we are discussing today in the Bill is on the basis of the framework document that we can now see. We do not know what the framework document will say in 15 years’ time, yet we are carrying the Bill today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 2 and 3 from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Proposed new subsection (3)(b) refers to,

“the ability of the Board of Trustees … to carry out its functions under section 24 of the … Act”.

The first of these functions is to,

“carry out investigation and research into the science of plants and related subjects, and disseminate the results of the investigation and research”.

That is a very widely drawn function. It was drawn that way because, when the draftsman drew up the 1983 heritage Act, he discussed what Kew was doing and was looking for continuity. He was not looking for change.

The point I want to stress concerns the related subjects. In a period of climate change, biodiversity problems and environmental problems, the status of and the concentration on related subjects will change. Kew could help us, particularly with some of the points raised in the course of the Bill, if it gave its interpretation of its policy at a given moment in relation particularly to this first function, but indeed to all of them. The rest are a little easier to interpret. At the moment, in its annual report Kew states these functions, but says nowhere what it has concluded these functions mean it should be doing.

As has been said, completely correctly, Kew is constrained by its resources, particularly money, and by all sorts of history and agreements. It is in a context. If Kew wishes to explain how it sees that context, it should set it out. I hope that my noble friend, in his conversations under the Memorandum of Understanding or in any other way, will seek agreement from Kew that it will volunteer its own policy approach to the functions in Section 24.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I obviously support any amendment that in any way restricts potential future development, but I want to clarify how, in my view, these amendments will be interpreted. If a developer surfaces who wants to build a block of flats on the edge of the Thames, who can go through the planning hurdles and all the covenants and somehow satisfy all these restrictions, he is left with this final restriction:

“The Secretary of State may grant a lease in reliance on subsection (1) only if satisfied that the lease would not have an adverse impact on”,


paragraphs (a) and (b). Would a block of flats on the Thames have an adverse impact on,

“the outstanding universal value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as a World Heritage Site”?

I can see lawyers on behalf of applicants going to an inquiry and saying, “We don’t think it will have any adverse effect. We are not in any way interfering with the heritage site. It might even enhance it, because it is a beautiful block of flats. It’s some of the finest accommodation in the country and fits nicely into the Kew Gardens arrangement”.

Secondly, in relation to,

“would not have an adverse impact on … the ability of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”,

I cannot see how building a beautiful block of flats on the side of the Thames could in any way have an adverse impact on the,

“ability of the Board of Trustees to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983”.

In the future, lawyers may drive a coach and horses through those words. I still support them, because at least someone is trying to introduce some restrictions.

I am sure the Minister was very pleased when he had to deal with this amendment because his officials may well see the dangers in the amendment that I see. We support it because it is a little shift in the territory—at least lawyers in the future will have to argue their case before some kind of inquiry. That is my case. I support the amendment but with huge reservations.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to these amendments and to hear the support that the Minister has now pledged for them. I am thankful to my noble friend Lord Whitty for the well-crafted words he put forward, which seem to be receiving widespread support around the Chamber.

In contrast to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I argue that it provides a double lock on future extended leases because, first, they must not endanger Kew’s status as a UNESCO world heritage site. UNESCO does not grant world heritage site status lightly; it looks at integrity, beauty and function. Before a block of flats was even built in the middle of Kew, UNESCO would have made its views very clear. Having looked at the UNESCO judgment on Kew, I was very impressed by the detail it went into before it made its final recommendation about world heritage status. I am pretty confident that it would intervene before anything that would be considered a scar on the site was allowed to be developed.

Secondly, the National Heritage Act 1983 states that development must not endanger research, education, open scientific access and public enjoyment of the site. The public enjoy visiting Kew because it is such a beautiful site. I think the comments we have made in the Chamber would be echoed and magnified if we asked the public what they thought should happen on that site. I am sure they would have very strong views and would be quite conservative about any proposed developments. I have more confidence than my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that the provisions about UNESCO and the National Heritage Act provide the reassurance for which we are looking.

Of course, nothing is ever watertight—as we said in the previous debate, lawyers will pore over the wording, the intent of our discussions and so on—and we cannot legislate for the future or the difficult choices that the trustees and the Secretary of State may face. I accept that this is a compromise, but these amendments go as far as could reasonably be expected at this time. This is a good way forward and I am grateful that we have resolved this matter so effectively.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

As I say, it goes back to those areas. I want to pin down this point. This is absolutely not about suddenly cherry-picking: “That looks like a nice site; that would be quite lucrative”. It is about enabling longer leases to ensure that there is more money for Kew to do these things. Part of the issue, shall we say, is accessibility for the public, whether that be parking or other general facilities. Yes, such things are part of enabling scientific endeavour, but they also enable the nation to appreciate what Kew does by way of visiting the gardens.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, could non-core—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am sorry, but would it not be easier for me to develop the argument, because much of this will I hope be covered? I think that that would be more constructive.

I want to go back to the advice I have received, because my response to my noble friends and the amendment hinges on that. These leases of the land at Kew are not regulated by the Charities Act 2011 as the land is Crown land, so in its current form the amendment is not an appropriate safeguard. Kew Gardens is land held by the monarch in the right of the Crown and is Crown land currently managed by the board of trustees and Defra. The board was established under Section 23 of the National Heritage Act 1983. While that Act gave the board a power to purchase land and other powers to deal with land that it purchased, it did not transfer title of the land at Kew Gardens to the board, nor did it give the board any powers of management over the land at Kew.

In granting leases on the land at Kew Gardens, the Secretary of State will act as the freeholder on behalf of the Crown. The Bill does not create the power to grant a lease, merely to make a longer one. Since title is not held by the charity RBG Kew, these leases will not be regulated directly through charity law. It is not the intention of the Charities Act 2011 that the Charity Commission will be consulted on the management of Crown land as it relates only to the disposal of property that is in the title of a charity, which the Crown land at Kew is not. As I say, having taken counsel’s advice, it is important that I say this.

The Secretary of State, in exercising his powers of management of the land at Kew, balances the freedoms to manage Crown land free of any restrictions. Parliament’s intention was that the land should now be occupied by Kew for use in furtherance of its general functions under Section 24 of the National Heritage Act. However, in reality proposals will be initiated by Kew and in making the decision to support the grant of a lease, the trustees would act in the best interests of Kew, in line with the National Heritage Act and pursuant to the framework agreement between Kew and Defra. That agreement was laid before both Houses of Parliament last year, and I will circulate the framework document to my noble friend Lord Eccles and indeed to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Could I just clarify something? Does non-core land include land on which planning permission can be secured to build new residential developments?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

All land within Kew and the Crown land, including non-core land—I used that unofficial language, shall we say, to describe the sorts of properties for which Kew recognises that it would wish to avail itself of this legislation—is subject to many protections. I digress slightly from these leases, but for instance if Kew, in its scientific endeavour, wanted to build a new science block or something to enable it to be ever more proactive, as my noble friend Lord Eccles said, given that this is a world heritage site with many listed buildings it would have to be in sympathy with all that. I perhaps wish I had not described it as “non-core land”, but it was a genuine attempt to distinguish between the estate—where all the functions of the National Heritage Act are undertaken, and those functions are set out in statute—and land and property, such as the seven residential buildings, that Kew does not feel it requires for its core functions and that would clearly require the protections I will unfold not only in this amendment but in others. All land that is going to be subject to this legislation has many protections.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I understand that, but I want to press this. Could a developer, to put it bluntly, build a block of flats on the non-core land, subject to the protections?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

No. On the land under question, one of the seven residential buildings is not listed and all the rest are. On a later amendment I will go into some detail on the conditions that there would be on the leases, because that is probably where I can explain it better. In the leases there are standard conditions and those that recognise the world heritage site, the listed nature and all those things, so any proposal by anyone would have to go through all those hoops. If the noble Lord is asking me what would happen if someone came along and said, “I would like to build some modern flats in the place of those listed buildings”, I cannot see—I am happy to put this on record—the local authority agreeing to it, anyone saying that this was the proper function, or the Secretary of State granting a lease.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

But he could.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The protections are available for ever to ensure that this would not be the case.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

But it cannot be ruled out.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I think it can be ruled out, because the protections are absolutely, fully in place for the land at Kew, whether the seven residential properties—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Forget those.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am not forgetting those, because they are the areas being dealt with. I am going to make more progress; I am happy to continue these considerations outside Committee.

One thing is clear: if a lease was at odds with anything, the Secretary of State would decline to grant it in the first place. With this in mind, and on the advice of departmental lawyers, the Secretary of State would not grant a lease that was in any way contrary to Kew’s objectives as set out in the National Heritage Act 1983, the governance document of Kew Gardens dated July 2017, and the Kew framework document dated June 2018, since this would risk placing the board in breach of its own statutory obligations and the framework and governance documents. For example, no lease of any land or building could ever restrict public access to the plants, collections and other facilities at Kew as this would be contrary to Section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, as this debate has gone on I have become more and more concerned. When I supported the Bill at Second Reading, it was very much on the basis of emphasising Kew’s world excellence in its particular fields of science. The emphasis on raising the extra money from new sources of private income was entirely based on an understanding that this was what the additional resource might be used for, so I am really anxious.

While I do not want to repeat all the arguments made so far, it seems that unless we specifically indicate or reinforce the original objectives of Kew in the Bill and establish why this change is being introduced, as my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Jones seek to do here, there is clear potential for reputational damage to Kew. It is not just among the public that there would be huge reputational impact; it would have an impact on Kew’s ability to raise further funds subsequently because its reputation will have been harmed. Even if the form of words is not right, given the aim of reasserting Kew’s main objectives—I was grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, for reinforcing the point that the scientific excellence of Kew and its scientific interrogations are its prime focus—I hope the Minister will reconsider.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I shall intervene only briefly. I sense that the Minister has difficulty in mouthing the words that residential property development could be considered on that site, not now but perhaps in 20 or 30 years’ time when there is a lot of pressure. I understand that, under residential development for flats, that land would probably fetch in the region of £1,500 per square foot. That provides some fairly expensive property. There will be people who, under pressure and needing funds, might take a chance and put in for a development, perhaps on the car park that was just referred to. I support the amendment suggested by my noble friend. In the event that it is rejected at this stage, I might come back at a later stage to see how the legislation, whose subtext is residential development in the long term, can be interfered with and greater restraints than currently exist introduced.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I say from the outset that I take the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, with the seriousness that I know he takes Kew. I also recognise the direct knowledge of the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Kramer, down to the last tree in the car park, which is probably the one that unfortunately has had most bonnets interfere with it. I understand the local and historical knowledge of the former Minister and the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for protections. My noble friend Lord Eccles is a former chairman of Kew. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, talked about reputational damage and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, talked about how we ensure that the Bill, which is laudable in so many senses, gives protection for ever. The whole basis of why I am seeking consent for the Bill is to help Kew. I absolutely recognise that your Lordships all want to help it too.

I am, therefore, grateful to the noble Lord for his amendment and for the clear indication that your Lordships regard Kew in the same light as I do, as the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for it. This is an establishment of unique value and an institution worthy of the highest protection. I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, said about children. I was fortunate enough to go to one of the early openings of the children’s garden last week. I did not detect commercialism there; I saw a lot of children running around enjoying plants and understanding more about them. Taking off the rose-tinted spectacles of previous times, families have changed. We have all changed, as have the sorts of things that engaged us. I am afraid I did jump on a trampoline—it was a very small one. There are all sorts of things we can do to engage children. My analysis of the children’s garden and its design is that it gets children engaged. I want children from all backgrounds to think, “I want a life in plants; I want to come to Kew as a scientist; I want to work for Kew”. Those are my ambitions for Kew’s reach to local communities and beyond. I have teased this out myself, because I clearly want Kew to be protected forever. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the restrictions.

First, as a UNESCO world heritage site and conservation area with 44 listed buildings, Kew Gardens is subject to some of the highest level of scrutiny and statutory approvals available under the planning system —as it should be, of course—and this will not change under the Bill. Regardless of any additional conditions that might be placed on the lease by the Secretary of State, any significant internal or external developments under the lease, whether structural or otherwise, would be subject to the relevant development permissions. The local planning authority, with advice from Historic England, in particular, would be responsible for deciding whether a proposed development should be allowed to go ahead and whether to grant planning permission for new buildings, major alterations, including any to listed buildings, or significant changes to the use of a building or piece of land. The Bill will not change or replace this governance process.

I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships to set out in detail the separate planning controls that protect Kew’s unique heritage. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is the legislative basis for decision-making on applications that relate to the historical environment. Sections 66 and 72 of the Act impose a statutory duty on local planning authorities to consider the impact of proposals on listed buildings and conservation areas. This is particularly relevant to the Royal Botanic Gardens and the Kew Green conservation areas, as well as the many listed buildings in the Kew UNESCO world heritage site that contribute to its outstanding universal value.

The National Planning Policy Framework, the NPPF, sets out the Government’s planning policies and how they are expected to be applied, dealing particularly with the historical environment. The Government’s national planning practice guidance gives further information on how national policy is to be interpreted and applied locally. As the relevant local planning authority, the London Borough of Richmond would apply the policies of the NPPF to its local plan, setting out policies for making planning decisions in its area, including those covering historic buildings and conservation areas. The local planning authority is advised by Historic England on all aspects of the historical environment, and by the Greater London Archaeology Advisory Service on all archaeological matters.

The NPPF provides clear direction for planning authorities on the determination of applications affecting designated and non-designated heritage assets. The framework recognises that UNESCO world heritage sites are of the highest significance and that great weight must be given to the conservation of their significance and their setting. It says:

“Heritage assets range from sites and buildings of local historic value to those of the highest significance, such as World Heritage Sites which are internationally recognised to be of Outstanding Universal Value. These assets are an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations”.


The framework also provides for key policy tests for developments that would harm the significance of designated assets, including world heritage sites.

I hope noble Lords can see that these sections clearly set out the importance of a world heritage site and the local planning authority’s duty to ensure that the greatest level of consideration and protection is applied when implementing national, London-wide and local planning policy. Kew Gardens is also located in a conservation area, a designation that ensures that extra planning controls and considerations are put in place. Any significant alterations to buildings or new developments would result in further scrutiny from the local planning authority as a result. Further, 44 of the buildings and structures on the Kew Gardens site are listed, acknowledging their special architectural or historic interest. This designation regime is set out in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and the list is maintained by Historic England. Any works to alter, extend or demolish Kew Gardens’ listed buildings would require listed building consent from the local planning authority and Historic England, whether planning permission is needed or not. Listed status covers the entire building, internal and external. It is a legal offence to carry out works to a listed building without permission. The Bill will not alter this.

As I have mentioned, any development on a world heritage site or its settings, including any buffer zones, should conserve, promote, make sustainable use of and enhance its authenticity, integrity, significance and outstanding universal value. In particular, it should not compromise a viewer’s ability to appreciate its outstanding universal value, integrity, authenticity or significance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am supportive of these amendments but in saying that I was quite taken by the compromise proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. That was not the subject of an amendment but I hope that Ministers will seriously consider what she said when she proposed the withdrawal of part of the Bill.

What interests me is what will happen in the event that the Government decide to drive through the Bill in its current form with the possibility that at some stage in the future, when we are all pushing up daisies, someone might come along and say, “We are going to develop more of this site”. As I understand it, apart from the protections which the Minister has referred to, along with the tight planning arrangements and highly restrictive covenants that might exist in terms of the land, there is the possibility that it might be decided to raise money by selling land for development. We may not be here, but we are making provision now for what is to happen over the next 150 years.

The questions I am about to ask might sound a little hysterical, but they are not beyond the bounds of possibility. In the event that a developer was brought in, would the land be tendered for? Could the land possibly go out to public auction? As long as the conditions of the covenants and the restrictions and the protections are in place, the land could still go to public auction. Alternatively, could this be decided by the board under private treaty arrangements? Is there the possibility of a clawback on profits made by developers in the form of some kind of betterment levy? How would the ground rents be set? If the board or the department had control of the ground rents, that might well be the way of influencing to some extent what might happen in the event that the land was used for residential development in the future.

Another question that has to be asked if housing development takes place at some point in the future is whether there would be a social housing component. I understand that the local authority is subject to the provisions that apply elsewhere in London. What about subleasing? Would the state in some way be in a position to approve the subleasing of the land? I did not altogether understand what third-party partnerships were when they were addressed by the Minister at Second Reading given that I was not able to be here. Is there an as-yet-unpublished internal development options document written on the basis of maximising the revenue within the planning constraints I have already referred to?

I have never visited the site, although I will. I only really learned about it last night at midnight when I sat up in bed to read the documents and looked it up on Google Earth. It is a vast site, and it was only when I saw the size of it that I realised that on its fringes there may well be the potential for development, which people in the future may grasp at because they need the money, because other budget arrangements are somehow contracting. If the Minister cannot answer my remarks today, I would be grateful if he would write to me.

Infrastructure Planning (Water Resources) (England) Order 2018

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the purpose of the order is to amend the Planning Act 2008. The Act sets out a streamlined national planning process for infrastructure projects which are “nationally significant”. If a project meets certain thresholds set out in the Act, it will be considered under it, with the Secretary of State as the decision-maker.

This order will change the thresholds under which reservoirs, dams and water transfers will qualify as “nationally significant”.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain what the driver is behind this order? Who is pushing for it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Government are pushing for it on behalf of the nation in so far as we undertook consultation. With climate change and population growth, we need to prepare. We wish to place a greater emphasis on the environment and therefore to deal with overabstractions. We need to find ways of having sufficient water, given the projections of an increase in population. This is about planning. We do not expect the projects to which this measure will apply to take place in the next five years; this is about forward planning. We think that these changes will probably embrace about six projects in England. The noble Lord asked who is driving this. We need to take a public responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient water for the nation. Yes, we should cut consumption where we can, but, because of population growth and climate change, we are bringing forward this measure now as part of our forward planning. It will involve public engagement, but that is the background to it.

On conclusions and criteria, we needed to make sure that we consulted, so we consulted on our initial proposals last November and then held a more detailed consultation in April. There was broad support for our approach from a range of stakeholders who responded, including water companies, environmental groups and other interested groups.

In reaching a conclusion on the new thresholds, we considered a number of factors, including the physical size of the infrastructure in question, the size of population that could be served by its output and the major infrastructure the Government anticipate will be needed in future. This is likely to require developers to engage with a number of planning authorities and other regulatory regimes. We also wished to move to a level playing field so that different water resource schemes are all required to meet thresholds that are as consistent as possible to qualify for consideration under the Act. This should help avoid developers favouring one scheme over another just because they prefer one planning route over another.

In making these amendments, we are introducing a consistent metric to measure the output of each infrastructure type. This metric is known as deployable output and is commonly used by the water industry for water resource planning. Deployable output is an annual average measure of the number of litres of water a particular piece of infrastructure can be expected to produce in a day under drought conditions. We concluded that a project expected to have a deployable output of 80 million litres per day—a level that could serve a population of around half a million people—is a nationally significant infrastructure project.

As explained, the order will amend qualifying thresholds for two existing infrastructure types mentioned in the Act and introduce a third—desalination plants. In the case of water transfers, this order would reduce the size of the threshold that projects would need to meet to qualify as nationally significant in line with the number of people served—that is, 80 million litres per day.

There will now be two ways for reservoirs to qualify for the streamlined planning process under the Act. The order would introduce a deployable output measure, consistent with transfers. However, we have chosen to retain a measure based on physical volume, recognising that the size of reservoirs matters. This is not just because of the impact they can have on neighbouring communities, but because a large reservoir takes a long time to drain down. Thus, with a relatively low deployable output, it can be an important part of overall water resource resilience. We have increased the volume for reservoirs to qualify under the Act from 10 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic metres.

We have also introduced desalination plants as a new infrastructure type. Consistent with the other infrastructure types, if the deployable output of a given desalination plant is expected to exceed 80 million litres per day, the project can be considered under the Act.

While the national level is the right one for decisions on nationally significant infrastructure, it is vital that those communities directly affected have their say and are heard in the decision-making process. The Act and regulations made under it set out the consultation requirements for development consent order applications. I can assure your Lordships that extensive pre-application consultation and engagement with those affected by the proposals will need to be undertaken by applicants. Furthermore, members of the public can participate in the examination process by registering their interest, thus ensuring that local views can be heard.

The main benefit to the developer of projects meeting the criteria in the Act is that they will face a less complex, consenting process with quicker decision-making. A number of consent requirements, such as planning permission, listed buildings consent and scheduled ancient monument consent, are replaced by a single consent, issued by the Secretary of State, following advice provided by the Planning Inspectorate.

It is the Government’s intention to designate a national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act. This policy statement will summarise government policy—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it is the Government’s intention to designate a national policy statement for water resources infrastructure under the Planning Act. This policy statement will summarise government policy on water resource infrastructure, including setting out the need for nationally significant infrastructure. It will make clear what the Government expect a planning inspector to take into account when examining an application. We plan to lay a draft of this in Parliament by the end of the year. I look forward to engaging with your Lordships on this in more detail next year.

The amendments in this order are part of how we make sure we have enough water now, and in the future. Population growth, climate change and making sure we leave enough water in the environment will become more challenging in the future. We expect proposals for nationally significant infrastructure to originate from statutory water resource management plans, as these are where options to reduce demand and increase supply have been assessed. We know that some new infrastructure will be needed to meet water demand in the future. Our assessment of the current draft water resource management plans is that around half a dozen proposed projects, needing to start in the next decade or so, are likely to qualify as nationally significant under the Act as amended by the proposed order. For all the reasons that I have outlined and because of the Government’s strong view that we need to plan for the future, I beg to move.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, we all want water but we also want safeguards. Much of my contribution is going to be about safeguards. When I saw this order—which was only this afternoon—I had to do some pretty speedy homework and make a few phone calls. I also looked up on the internet the definition of NSIPs, and they are described as,

“major infrastructure project developments in England and Wales that bypass normal local planning requirements”.

Whenever I see those sorts of words, I think immediately: what are the safeguards? There are no safeguards that I can see defined in the order before us.

I want to draw attention to a particular example of where things could go wrong when there are no safeguards. I will tell the story of what happened over the Thirlmere reservoir in the Lake District. I am presuming that United Utilities and other water companies are among those to which the Minister referred when he spoke about the consultation that took place. I am sure that they would have a primary interest in ensuring that this order goes through, because I would imagine that in certain circumstances they will certainly be the beneficiary of it and use it.

Thirlmere is in my former constituency in Cumbria, which I represented for some 21 years. For many of those years, it was a major problem because of the way the legislation had originally been framed in terms of protecting the interests of consumers and residents in the area. The primary use of Thirlmere, as it was described in a letter from one of the senior managers in the Environment Agency, is,

“as a water resource reservoir for United Utilities. In addition, United Utilities has voluntarily drawn down the reservoir to enable some flood storage during winter months. However, as the low reservoir levels during the 2018 dry weather period show, there needs to be a careful balance between Thirlmere’s primary use as a water supply and its use for flood storage”.

That is what I am on about—the balance. There is nothing in these regulations that even refers to the need for safeguards as part of the discussion around the balance between the availability of water and flood risk in local communities.

I want to now refer to some incidents that took place and the response of the local communities. In January 2005, November 2009 and December 2015, Keswick, a town where I have lived for most of my life, was flooded. On the last occasion, 515 properties were flooded during Storm Desmond. As the formidable Lynne Jones, secretary of the Keswick Flood Action Group, said in correspondence to United Utilities:

“I make no apology for continuing to contact you. I know that UU will never really manage the reservoir with a view to our safety without legislation to enforce them to do so”.


That is precisely why I am speaking on this order, because it is not in here. In the end, the solution is in your hands; you who are far away and who cannot understand the fear that so many in our community live with.

There are 2,630 residential properties in Keswick, and 515 properties flooded during Storm Desmond in 2015. Let me explain to the Committee what that means. Keswick is a town in two parts: there is the lower part and the higher part. In the main, the higher part does not flood, although certain parts of it do. But the lower part floods extensively. In the lower part of the town, there has been a dramatic drop in property prices. I do not live there, but the people who do worry constantly about the fact that they cannot sell their properties and have difficulty insuring them. Throughout the winter months, they are haunted by the prospect of being flooded. The river Greta, which runs through the town, has built-in flood defences, which broke down on one occasion. The truth is that the town is living in fear because of inadequate safeguards.

Today, legislation is going through that will make it easier for water companies to pursue the development of reservoirs without the safeguards that the people in Keswick demand for Thirlmere. It is a very clear idea. I imagine that they are the people driving this on because they know that they will be able to bypass much of the planning arrangements that currently exist.

I want to refer to what people think should happen in the future to resolve these problems. Within these regulations, there should be reference to measures to ensure that communities are safeguarded. Lynne Jones has been in contact with me today, and I will refer in this debate to what she said. She said it is obvious that the reservoir should be managed for flood alleviation alongside water supply. However, legislation is needed to make this a reality, and the present Floods Minister refuses to consider this possibility. So we are going to have more reservoirs, without safeguards, and the potential of future flooding. She went on to say—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I wonder whether I might help the noble Lord. I can see the line of approach he is developing and would be the first to say that all Governments need to address flooding concerns.

Important to the context of this work is that it is all predicated on the Reservoirs Act 1975, which sets out extensively the safety requirements of large reservoirs and contains a number of provisions, which I am happy to outline.

This piece of work is from the Planning Act 2008. There is already legislation on the matters that the noble Lord is raising. I apologise for intervening but I just wanted to say that this is not in isolation; there is other legislation which deals with safety. The noble Lord may well question the 1975 Act but there is legislation, passed by Parliament, which deals with the safety of reservoirs. I hope that is helpful to not only the noble Lord—I am sure he knows about this legislation anyway—but other noble Lords.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My case is very simple: the legislation does not work. That is why half of Keswick lives in fear every winter. If you go to Keswick today and take a poll on the street and ask people what their major concern is, it is that their houses are going to be flooded. In the last flood in that small town, 515 properties were flooded. Many of them had to be evacuated. So when we talk about legislation being there to protect these communities, I am sorry, it is just not working. We need legislation that works. This order offered us an opportunity to deal with these matters. It could have referred to other regulations which could be introduced to deal with those safeguards but there is no reference at all to them. So I will carry on.

The second point Lynne Jones makes is on scheme funding. She says:

“The way that the EA look at the financial viability of a scheme does not lend itself to a full catchment approach. Funding is limited to the cost of damage to the individual towns and each is considered in isolation. If funding looked at the damage to farms/infrastructure/footpaths etc. from the high fells to the coast then perhaps Cumbria/our catchment/Keswick would have a better chance of getting viable schemes. The EA has trumpeted a full catchment approach loud and long since the 2015 floods but the only actions are, frankly, an excuse to have various NGOs have their snouts in the trough and get money to plant trees/reconnect the river to the flood plain/re-wilding and other tinkering schemes which keep them in jobs and have no real impact on the kinds of flows which threaten homes”.


This is what people in Keswick believe, yet we are putting through an order which makes it easier for these water companies to build without safeguards.

Lynne Jones goes on to say:

“We need to tackle the series of intense and prolonged winter storms that we experience. Doing easy/cheap/relatively ineffective things and expecting us to cheer is not really helpful. I firmly believe that 6.4 of the Habitats Directive is not applied in the spirit for which it was created … Flood risk needs priority over environment. Brexit is an opportunity to improve legislation for community protection from flooding”.


She then says:

“The government’s funding formula is unfair. The Derwent catchment has no money for any major works which could reduce flood risk. The funding formula does not take into account much of the costs which a community like ours faces: damage to bridges, pathways, parks, sports facilities, tourism and business in the area; nor does it take into account depth of flooding, repeat flooding and the detrimental effects it can have on the health and well-being of the community”.


I return to my case: there is nothing about safeguards in this order. We drive such orders through, give these big companies the right to build more of these reservoirs and the regulations are not in place to safeguard communities.

Finally, the letter talks about resilience:

“Government has to stop praising our resilience. We have no choice. Resilience is used as an option instead of addressing the real risks. I doubt the Dutch would accept resilience as an option”—


I am sure they would not. She continues:

“Resilience leaves people open to cowboy builders, inflated prices, product companies that don’t last long enough to honour their guarantees. People are encouraged to buy flood gates when the water seeps in through the brickwork/up from the floor and the only dry section is the flood gate itself. Resilience is useless if flood water is over a metre deep as water then has to enter homes to prevent structural damage. Unscrupulous firms will sell products anyway”.


My point is very simple and I will repeat for a fourth time: this order gives big companies the right to build new water facilities—which the Minister has talked about and we all welcome—but the safeguards are not there. People are going to suffer. There will be more flooding in the future, probably as a result of these developments, because the legislative background that the Minister referred to does not work. People in the north of England, particularly in Keswick, desperately want legislation to deal with a problem that in many cases is ruining their lives, in some cases is ruining their livelihood and in many cases is ruining their health. I appeal to the Government to listen to these people and stop fobbing them off with silly little schemes.

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and sympathise with the situation in which people find themselves in Keswick. The Minister has already referred the noble Lord to the previous Act and said that there are restrictions in it. If they are not being observed or things are not being done, that is a slightly different issue from what is before us today. However, I well understand the vehemence with which he has—“used” is the wrong expression—taken the opportunity to raise the whole issue of having a development in not the right area and not protected in the same way. I suspect that other Members of the Committee will come back on the issue of flooding.

I support and welcome the measure before us. The question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, was: “Who is driving it and why are we having it?”. From my very amateur point of view, it is looking to the future. There are going to be more people and we are going to need more water, so the ability to have four or six newer, larger innovations that will enable us to use water in a better and more sustainable way has to be the right approach. Still, I say to the noble Lord that it is not that I do not sympathise; it has been a terrible experience for people who have been troubled by flooding.

I welcome this statutory instrument. We need to plan for the long term. We cannot suddenly find ourselves short of water with nothing to fall back on. As someone who comes from the farming community, I am only too aware of the many demands there are for growing more food. The one crucial thing that we need is water. For those who live on the west side of the country, water is not an issue—it is there all the while—but for those of us who farm on the eastern side it is a huge problem. So being able to enlarge a reservoir or have desalination as a backstop has to be a welcome new initiative.

The Minister mentioned climate change. I agree with him, whatever the way in which it is changing. I think this last year will have reinforced the fact of climate change for all of us: it was a very cold winter, then we had a lot of rain and then in East Anglia we had three months of no rain at all. So we need the ability to be able to drain off water in order to supply crops. Those in rural areas who were not able to do so lost crops and could not get them off the fields because there was no water to enable it to happen. So we face big challenges.

I gather we have more consultation coming in a draft towards the end of the year. Perhaps when that draft comes through, it could include some of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has indicated today. We need to ensure that where new reservoirs or desalination plants are being built, they are in a suitable place and not likely to reproduce the experience that they have had up in Keswick. There have been various consultations, and as far as I understand it they have on the whole been supportive.

I have one query for the Minister about the Explanatory Memorandum. There was one part of that I picked up on and did not quite understand because it struck me as slightly odd. I refer the Committee to paragraph 6.4:

“The development also cannot relate to the transfer of drinking water”.


I thought: why not? I am sure the Minister will be able to tell me why, but it seemed odd that we are dealing with different things. However, I suspect from listening to the earlier debate with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that it will go back to a previous Act, where something will be written in to define what it is. Again, I think it should be slightly clearer in the memorandum because I do not understand why.

I am happy to support the statutory instrument, but I should like the Minister to bear in mind some of the comments that have already been made on the question of where such developments are positioned. This is a key issue. In some areas, I am sure that people will accept that they need to be there. They may be rural areas—I do not know quite how they would be defined, but in future years we will need to balance flood protection with water conservation and using water to the best of our ability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I point out at the outset that although I am not as aware as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is about the flooding in his part of the world, as a Defra Minister, and beforehand, I absolutely understand and have seen the devastation and horror of flooding—indeed, the fatalities there have been—across the country. I am thinking particularly of the flooding experienced in one sense on the west side of the country, while on the eastern side there has so often been coastal flooding where the most terrible events have also happened.

I want to take away all that the noble Lord has said, and would be very happy to hear from any of the people who may have contacted him. I am not the Minister who has direct responsibility for flooding but in this House I take responsibility for all Defra matters, and I want to hear much more about the situation of residents there. I have friends in Cumbria who have suffered from the flooding, and I know that communities have been in a very difficult situation for many years. Perhaps I may spend some time outside of this discussion understanding more about the particular points that the noble Lord raised about Thirlmere and the issue of safeguards.

I know it was probably incorrect of me to intervene as I did, but I wanted to ensure that what we are trying to do here, through the Planning Act 2008, was on the record early on. I would of course want to hear in more detail whether there are issues with safety in reservoirs and the 1975 legislation, or issues arising therefrom, that we need to consider. This provision comes from the Planning Act 2008, and I suggest that it enables us to deal with the small number of what we believe to be nationally significant infrastructure projects for water. This is the route that that Act envisaged. We are seeking to add some detail to it and, as I say, include desalination plants.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am sorry to intervene. I want to ask one question. A part of the town now lives in fear of flooding, as I said, and in a large part of the town there has been a major drop in the property values of people’s homes. I presume that there must be people now who are in difficulty over their mortgages. Because of the lack of legislation at the moment, with no way of controlling the operations of United Utilities, is it not possible for some national fund to be set up to help people who are in difficulty over the sale of their properties? I heard about a house last week that was on the market at nearly £600,000 and is being sold for £350,000. These are huge losses, which do not derive from the actions of the people that own them but directly from the absence of legislation that governs flooding. As I say, the danger in this order is that there will be more in the future.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. Clearly, I am not in a position to talk about resources, as he will understand very well. But obviously, in a different sense, this is why the Government brought forward Flood Re—there was a lot of consideration in the insurance world vis-à-vis it—to seek to address some of the difficulties that householders had. In fact, the noble Lord and I have had conversations about this and some of the distinct elements of where it has been successful. However, I understand generally that Flood Re has been a considerable success for householders with this problem.

Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will of course address that. I am grateful to my noble friend.

FAWC also identified the significant benefits of CCTV systems to slaughterhouse operators, from in-house review of their operations and effective staff training to providing evidence of due diligence, which can increase public confidence in the meat industry and its adherence to the UK’s high animal welfare standards. FAWC’s report provided a useful basis for the Government’s proposals on mandatory CCTV which we published last summer. We received nearly 4,000 responses to this public consultation, with more than 99% in favour of mandatory CCTV recording in all slaughterhouses.

These regulations will require all slaughterhouse operators to install and operate a CCTV system that provides a clear and complete picture of areas where live animals are present. This will include where animals are unloaded, lairaged, handled, restrained, stunned and killed. We would expect CCTV installations and their use to be proportionate to the size of premises and their throughput. Slaughterhouse operators will be required to provide access to CCTV recordings for the official veterinarian of the Food Standards Agency and other authorised inspectors. An official veterinarian is required in every slaughterhouse when in operation. Access to CCTV recordings for monitoring, verification and enforcement purposes is essential and will be especially useful where the official veterinarian is undertaking other duties in the slaughterhouse and does not directly witness an incident.

We would expect official veterinarians to carry out a timely review of CCTV to address any immediate welfare incidents and take advisory or enforcement action. Nevertheless, the slaughterhouse operator will need to retain recorded images and information for 90 days. This is in line with the requirements of some farm assurance schemes. While CCTV should not replace, reduce or be considered a substitute for the current inspection and control of slaughterhouse practices by official veterinarians, access to CCTV recordings will provide more opportunities to assess compliance with animal welfare requirements on a proactive and reactive basis. Requirements for mandatory CCTV recording should be applied to all approved slaughterhouses on the basis that all animals should be offered the same level of protection at the time of killing.

Ninety-five per cent of our meat is killed in abattoirs which have CCTV in some form. The regulations ensure that all slaughterhouses of whatever size must now have CCTV at all stages of the process.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but I want to clarify something at the beginning of the debate. The Minister said that the Government expected the arrangements to be “proportionate”. Can he explain what “proportionate” means, because it might worry some of us?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)]

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if the Minister introduces the regulations. I can then put a Question to the Committee and we can have a debate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Sometimes a debate is helped by an early intervention on the Minister.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I would like the opportunity of finishing these remarks. I am afraid that I am not acquainted with the practice of not permitting a Minister to introduce regulations. I will be more than pleased to receive comments when I have unfolded the argument. That helps the flow for the Minister. My task is to give a respectable introduction, deploying all the points of the regulation. I will then of course be very pleased to answer the questions that come from it.

We are conscious that some of the businesses that will be affected by this legislation are small, so we thought it appropriate that the regulations should allow six months for them to become compliant. In view of the considerable gains to animal welfare and the many other benefits identified, particularly for the slaughterhouse operator, the Government consider that the benefits justify the costs involved and do not deem financial support to the sector to be borne by the taxpayer.

This legislation will introduce mandatory CCTV recording in all 270 slaughterhouses in England as an additional monitoring and enforcement measure to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, distress or suffering during the slaughter process in all approved slaughterhouses. These regulations form part of an important package of reforms that the Government are delivering to improve animal welfare, such as the new system of local authority licensing of activities involving animals and the publication of updated animal welfare codes of practice. The regulations are proportionate and targeted, and will help to improve animal welfare at slaughter.

These regulations have been widely welcomed. Indeed, following our recent announcements, I have heard from a number of farmers who are pleased that we have ensured a respectful end for the animals they have cared for throughout their lives. These regulations will also assist the Food Standards Agency, which has been most supportive, as has the British Veterinary Association as well as a large number of other interested parties. I want to emphasise once more that the regulations will work in the interests of the slaughterhouse operator. It is the case that many people will be reassured that with the enforcement of these regulations, animals are much more likely to reach the end of their lives in a manner which shows them respect.

Many noble Lords along with many Members of the other place have been extremely supportive of these measures. For all those reasons, I endorse the regulations. Again, they are proportionate. I have mentioned specifically that for smaller slaughterhouses, the extent and cost of their installations will clearly be less than those for larger enterprises with no CCTV provision. Again, 95% of our meat is killed in abattoirs that already have CCTV in some form. For those operations, the regulations may be about updating or if necessary upgrading their systems so that all the stages of the process are covered. For those with no CCTV provision, it will be a cost, but the Government believe that this measure is in the interests of the sector. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has already said why the voluntary take-up of CCTV has been disappointing. I am certain that this regulation will satisfy customers, consumers, retailers, certification/assurance scheme operators, NGOs and animal welfare organisations who have been pressing for CCTV in 100% of slaughterhouses. I should probably declare that I farm in Norfolk and we have livestock. We like to give all the livestock a really good life while they are with us on our farm, and when they go to meet their maker, we want that to be to the best possible standards, stress-free and humane. If that does not happen in slaughterhouses, perhaps CCTV will help.

I want to concentrate on two areas. The first is the cost and the second is the effective viewing or reviewing of the CCTV footage. I know that the Government think that the installation will cost only about £2,500 per slaughterhouse, but I think that is way too low. Even a small slaughterhouse needs about five CCTV cameras to ensure that all areas are covered. At £1,000 per camera, that alone will come to £5,000. I have been told that it will cost between £5,000 and £10,000 per slaughterhouse to install.

In 2012, it was reported in the Scottish Parliament that the cost of installing CCTV in a slaughterhouse in Scotland varied between £6,000 and £25,000. Whatever the cost, it will be considerably more than the Government’s £2,500. For small plants, that cost may be prohibitive, and that is not the only cost. There is also the annual cost of maintenance, which will vary according to the number of CCTV cameras and could be between £500 and £1,000 per annum. Then there is the cost of a secure, locked cabinet to store the 90 days of footage per camera to prevent tampering with the evidence. Then there is the cost of training and employing CCTV monitoring staff.

That brings me neatly to my second point: who, if anyone, will be viewing or reviewing the CCTV footage? Obviously where there is a known incident the relevant footage can be pulled out and looked at, but CCTV is really effective only if it is viewed or reviewed, and here is the rub. One of the limitations of CCTV is that it is rarely viewed or reviewed in a systematic, consistent and effective manner by the slaughterhouse operator, enforcement agencies or the official vet. If it were, considerable costs would be incurred in training the staff required to view the footage in real time—that is, as it is happening—or to review large amounts of footage from multiple cameras. Whether this is done by the slaughterhouse operator or the official vet, ultimately the cost will be borne by the slaughterhouse, which already balks at the hourly rate charged by the official vet—£70 to £80 an hour or around £600 for an eight-hour day.

Twenty years or so ago, there were probably six or eight slaughterhouses near my farm in Norfolk; now there is one large one quite near me. In the past 20 years, about 100 small slaughterhouses have shut down, as have a further 100 medium-sized ones. This does no good at all for the welfare of animals as they must now travel further to their final destination. I can understand the need for this regulation, but I hope that an unintended consequence will not be that more slaughterhouses have to close down.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I will deal with the issue of cost. The costs of the CCTV equipment have dropped dramatically over the past seven or eight years. In many areas, they are a quarter of what they were. So it is quite probable that the estimates that have been given by the Government are not accurate, even though the ones that were given in Scotland will have been accurate at the time.

What drew me to this issue was paragraph 42 of the FAWC report of February 2015, where it says:

“Where examples of animal abuse have been brought to light … FBOs, AWOs and OVs”—


that is, food business operators, animal welfare officers and official veterinarians—

“have consistently asserted that they were unaware of such abusive practices”.

That is a shocking statement. Professionals went into slaughterhouses where the law was being breached, yet they were unaware of what was going on. I congratulate the Government on bringing in this extremely important measure, which I warmly welcome. I also welcome the policy position of my own party on this matter: the document produced by Sue Hayman, our spokesperson in the other place, which has come up with some fairly radical measures to deal with this problem in slaughterhouses.

In addition to that concern, I noticed in the Explanatory Memorandum the following statement, in paragraph 8.1, under the heading “Consultation outcome”:

“The responses from slaughter industry bodies and abattoirs were more balanced”—


when I hear those words, I always think, “Oh yes, here it comes”—

“with a number arguing against the proposal on the basis of proportionality of application of the requirements to all slaughterhouses regardless of size or record of compliance and the length of time records should be retained for”;

in other words, there was opposition. I would like to know what the scale of the opposition was. Perhaps it is reflected in the fact that, as we were told before, only 50% of slaughterhouses have even introduced these cameras. In the case of the ones that have introduced them, we are told, as I think the Minister alluded to, in paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum:

“Moreover, those slaughterhouses that have installed CCTV have not generally installed cameras in all areas where live animals are kept and where animal welfare could be compromised”;


in other words, there is a real problem out there and I regard these regulations as a good attempt to deal with it.

However, I have one or two concerns. One is about the retention of documentation. The committee recommended three months. In this measure, is it nine months?

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

It is 90 days.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Oh, it is 90 days. So basically we are talking about three months. So the Government followed that recommendation. But I wonder why not five years? We are talking about equipment which produces a tiny disk, I presume—why not keep it long term, unless it deteriorates? If we are talking about prosecutions, we may need more evidence than simply one or two occasions. It might be that consistent breaches can be revealed only in the event that there is far longer retention of the tapes in question. So I suggest not 90 days but five years—let us really retain this in case we have to prosecute.

Another issue that interests me is the question of visits. I heard someone refer earlier to a charge of £80 an hour for veterinarians to visit. I presume that there must be many slaughterhouses that rarely get a visit, if visits are charged up to them. Why do we not have more impromptu visits? So many visits in such areas are never impromptu. I remember when I was dealing with nursing homes some years ago, we found out that the managers were often informed in advance of when the so-called impromptu visits by the Care Quality Commission, or its predecessor, would be made. I presume that in these cases, too, information may well be provided to a slaughterhouse that there will be a visit by a veterinarian officer, charging for his services at £80 or £90 an hour. I would like more impromptu visits to these places. Then they would be more on guard against potential abuses.

Under “notices”, the regulations say:

“Any notice required or authorised to be served under these Regulations on any person may be served by … delivering it to the person; … leaving it at the person’s proper address; or … sending it by post to the person at that address”.


Can we presume that there are no options? In the case of slaughterhouses, a number of routes could be used to ensure that they actually received the notice. If the attitude of slaughterhouses is as my earlier quotation from paragraph 42 of the report suggests, it seems that there will still be some resistance in the industry.

As in all such cases, even with the presence of cameras, people will try to find their way round the regulations in some way. They may perhaps even position the cameras in such a way that they do not fully reveal what is happening in that slaughterhouse. Who decides where the cameras will be? Who decides whether a certain camera is going to point here or there? At the moment, this comes out only in the enforcement proceedings. I could not find anything in the proposed arrangement that said that the authorities—I presume that would be the veterinarians—would tell people where to put the cameras to ensure maximum coverage. There was one reference to requiring,

“any person to produce or make available for inspection any images or information retained and stored”,

and making,

“any enquiries, and take recordings or photographs”.

There is nothing really, although there is something about requiring,

“any person to provide such assistance, information, facilities or equipment as is reasonable, without delay”.

There is nothing about directing slaughterhouse owners to use the equipment in a particular way so that it will reveal fully what is going on. That is a bit loose in the regulations.

Perhaps, in winding up, the Minister can give us an assurance that that will be dealt with, and that more than guidance will be given. There should be requirements; there should be some sort of arrangement whereby, at the beginning of this process, people are required to place the cameras in a particular position so that there is no avoidance of what is intended under the law.

I have the FAWC recommendations here. They start in paragraphs 90 to 94, and there is then more detail. I want to go through them briefly. I am sorry if I am delaying the Committee. I normally speak quite briefly in such Committees, but I want assurances that all this is being implemented—that there has not been a selective acceptance of what is required. They say:

“CCTV systems should be installed in all live animal areas within the slaughterhouse including those used for unloading, lairage, moving live animals through the facilities, stunning and killing”.

I think the Minister said that before, but I was not absolutely sure whether a word or two had been missed. I would like an assurance that that will be the case—that that recommendation has been accepted. The recommendations continue:

“CCTV … should be recorded at all times when animals are present in the areas listed above … CCTV … should be installed so as to permit a clear and uninterrupted view of the processes being recorded at all times … Cameras should be installed in a manner that facilitates easy access and repair … CCTV cameras should record continuous visual images but, if audio is captured, should not record conversations between slaughterhouse personnel … footage should be viewed, whether in real-time or from recording, from designated areas that permit detailed review”.


I will stop at that point.

Can I assume that civil servants, in reviewing the debate, will go through that list of FAWC recommendations as a checklist from paragraph 90 right through to paragraph 101 and give us an assurance that they intend to implement every one of those recommendations fully? We will know then if any of the FAWC recommendations have not been accepted and that they will be subject to further scrutiny, perhaps at a later stage.

Finally, I repeat that I thoroughly welcome this. I think it will be one of the big changes from this Government. To some people it might not seem important but for people outside, animal welfare is a huge issue, as we know. I believe that if this policy is managed, organised and implemented properly, it will be a feather in the Government’s cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this has been a really worthwhile debate. I have learned a great deal about the intricacies of this matter from some of the experiences of noble Lords, but I repeat that we are absolutely clear that these regulations require all slaughterhouse operators to install and operate a CCTV system that provides a clear and complete picture of areas where live animals are present. To directly reply and reaffirm to the noble Lord, Lord Curry, this will include where animals are unloaded, lairaged, handled, restrained, stunned and killed. It is the complete operation within the slaughterhouse.

Some really fascinating questions have been asked and I will take them in the order they were asked. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, encapsulated that this is a matter of zero tolerance, in which nothing can be as important as ensuring that welfare during the operation at a slaughterhouse is of the top order. I will not go into the other questions associated with this because they are not directly germane to the CCTV issue, but this is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Curry, spoke about and that noble Lords alluded to. If this country wishes to have a recognition and a reputation for high animal welfare standards, this is precisely the sort of area where we can say to consumers at home and abroad that we are doing everything possible to assure them that the meat they consume is of the top animal welfare quality through our farm assurance schemes, that it is produced and lives a life to good animal welfare standards—in fact, above the norm of animal welfare standards—and that the animal has met its end in a proper and dignified and respectful manner. The contribution that these regulations make is that it will be absolutely clear to everyone, from the operators and everyone engaged through to the official veterinarian, and indeed to the person undertaking the work, that this really is of prime importance.

For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked who would decide about the positioning of the cameras. FSA official vets will discuss with operators where the cameras should be sited in order to meet the requirements set out in Regulation 3(1) which states that the CCTV system must provide,

“a complete and clear image of killing and related operations”.

That is essential. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, also talked about the FAWC recommendations being implemented. Those which were directed to the Government are precisely what is set out in the regulations and the guidance. They all address the challenges which have been posed to Government, which is why we are dealing with them today. I do not have in front of me the precise wording of the recommendations, but I identify what the noble Lord has said as being the very essence of the creation of these regulations. Let us remember that some of the FAWC recommendations were directed at the industry as well.

My noble friend Lord Cathcart asked about who will be viewing and reviewing. As a part of normal duties, official veterinarians will view about 10 minutes to 20 minutes of the footage, but I emphasise that the moment they think something needs to be looked at, they will be able to do so. The point of keeping these records is that they will be able to go back and review the situation. The FSA welfare assurance scheme will also review footage as part of any audit process, and the number of audits depends on the size of the operation.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The noble Lord is talking about viewing and reviewing the operation. There may be a dozen slaughtermen of whom just one has been identified as being at risk of bad practice. Surely a far more extensive backlog of material will be needed to nail that one slaughterman. You need to look at this selectively over a long period of time. That is the argument behind the 90-day period. It is not sufficient to gather enough material to identify one particular abuser of the law.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I understand the essence of what the noble Lord is saying. The FSA feels that 90 days is sufficient for its enforcement purposes. However, because I believe in zero tolerance in these issues, I contend that with all the CCTV provision, I expect that the official veterinarian will be able to identify someone who is not behaving properly very much earlier. The point about the 90-day period is that we are looking at the official veterinarian and the other means which I will come on to.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I am sorry to come back on this again, but I go back to my opening comments where I quoted from paragraph 42 of the FAWC recommendations which points out that in many cases the officials were unaware of what was happening in terms of animal abuse.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I understand that. It is why CCTV will cover all areas, and that will provide the extra scrutiny. The FSA and the official veterinarian will be able to enhance animal welfare and, if necessary, identify people in slaughterhouses who are not behaving properly. Obviously the CCTV will need to cover all areas of the operation and the official veterinarian will need to look at the footage. The whole purpose of this is to enable the official veterinarian to see when any elements of the operation are not being undertaken properly.

I think some of this will unfold in a way that I hope will satisfy the noble Lord that we are really keen to get this one properly sorted. As I say, the FSA will be viewing the tapes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and, I think, my noble friend Lord Cathcart may have raised this in terms of viewing the tapes. The FSA inspectors will include the OVs, meat hygiene inspectors and FSA auditors from the health and welfare angle. In addition, I will be mentioning random visits; it is somewhere in my papers.

The noble Lord, Lord Curry, asked whether it is an offence not to retain footage for 90 days. This is indeed an offence under Regulation 9(1)(b). The penalty for a breach is a fine of unlimited amount. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Curry and Lord Campbell-Savours, and a number of your Lordships who have raised this, official veterinarians must be on the premises at all times, but the FSA also undertakes random inspections and risk-based audit visits of slaughterhouses. So with the requirement of the official veterinarian being in place at all times, the random visits, the arrival of this new regulation and the work we will need to undertake in that respect, I believe this advances these points.

Brexit: Environmental Enforcement Agency

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I will be straightforward. We want to proceed with this because we think government and public bodies should be held to account. We have existing frameworks, regulators, judicial review processes and Parliament ensuring that the Executive are accountable to them and, ultimately, to the electorate. This is an important matter, and we are going to consult widely. We have not ruled anything in or out. We want a full consultation so that we can understand what stakeholders and other interested groups think is the best way forward in holding government and public bodies to account.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, Mr Gove, in his general approach to amendments in the law, has suggested that there will be a tightening up of slaughterhouse regulations through the use of CCTV cameras. Will the Minister comment on what is being proposed and when we might see legislation?

Air Quality

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Monday 24th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I shall ensure that my noble friend’s points are put to officials who meet fortnightly with GLA officials to discuss air quality. I think that that would be the best way forward.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the real problem, in London in particular, lorry emissions? Why do we not have a national programme of conversion of diesel trucks to LPG systems, because tests by Millbrook and HORIBA MIRA show that conversion of trucks to LPG leads to substantial reductions in carbon emissions and substantial savings by lorry operators, with a payback period of as little as 18 months? I have identified a firm called Quicksilver-AFI that has a system that is made for truck conversions, which is not too expensive, and which the Government could pump prime with public money, because the emissions from trucks are very much more substantial than from individual motor cars.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, what the noble Lord said is extremely helpful. I have mentioned retrofitting quite a bit during this Question, but that is a point that I would like to take back, and I am most grateful to him.

Flood Defences

Lord Campbell-Savours Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.