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

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[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 Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, I have had some experience of this subject over the last 20 years. I declare an interest in that I farm in Northumberland and have livestock. During the 1990s I chaired the Meat and Livestock Commission for eight years, during which time we had the outbreaks of BSE and foot and mouth disease. Noble Lords might be interested to know that when I took over there were about 750 abattoirs, and I presided over the decline of a large number during that period.

Noble Lords have quite rightly highlighted concern about the geographic positioning of abattoirs and their importance to local and regional food production. I continue to monitor this as chair of the Prince’s Countryside Fund because we have been requested to assist where abattoirs appear to be under threat. The most recent case was in Orkney where the abattoir was closed, although it is crucial to the economy of Orkney. Work has been taking place to try to assist in the retention of critical small abattoirs. However, according to the association, over the last two years the decline has stabilised and the number of closures has been matched largely by new abattoirs opening. I am quite encouraged by that recent data.

I will ask the Minister four questions and then make a final comment. First, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that inspections should be unannounced and made at random. I assume and hope that the Food Standards Agency will adopt the practice. Secondly, I hope that the CCTV system will include views of the lairages so that the standard of animal welfare there is also monitored by the cameras. Thirdly, I hope that if CCTV footage is not retained for 90 days, and there is evidence, it would fall under a penalty. I know that mistakes can be made and footage can be lost, but it is often too easy to lose the CCTV footage to cover up potential breaches in regulations. I hope that that will also be regarded as attracting a penalty.

Fourthly and finally, on the issue of proportionate penalties, like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I was horrified to read of these suspended sentences. If that is an example of how penalties will be applied under this legislation, it is not good enough. We need to make sure that the penalties are penalties and that they are meaningful so that businesses are stopped if it is proved that their animal welfare standards have fallen short of what is desirable.

My final comment is that the Secretary of State has made it very clear that he wants Britain to be seen, post Brexit, as a nation with very high animal welfare standards. We should be trading in a world where animal welfare standards are recognised and provide us with a potential commercial advantage. It is essential that that happens and that we use this regulation to help present ourselves as having very high animal welfare standards. I remember only too well through the 1990s how confidence in our abattoirs and our meat processing was at an all-time low. That was because of bad practice. We must never let that happen again.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, again I thank the Minister and his officials for their time and extensive briefing ahead of today’s debate, and for the Minister’s introduction. We welcome these regulations. I declare my interest as a district councillor.

The public are extremely concerned about animal welfare in slaughterhouses, regardless of whether they eat meat or are vegetarian, as everybody has demonstrated. Currently, CCTV is in place in some slaughterhouses but the coverage is not comprehensive and the cameras may not be in the right places. CCTV is present, as the noble Lord has said, in 50% of red meat and 70% of poultry slaughterhouses. Making it compulsory in all slaughterhouses regardless of size will reassure the public and, we hope, ensure that animal distress is kept to a minimum. We note that the CCTV film has to be kept for 90 days and be available for inspectors to scrutinise at all times. The film and equipment will be owned by the slaughterhouses but they are still required to conform to the regulations. Enforcement for slaughterhouses with no CCTV is to be welcomed, as is making it an offence to obstruct an inspector in his or her duty.

We are concerned about the cost of installation for smaller slaughterhouses, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, about this. We understand that installation can cost about £2,500, although there seems to be some debate about the actual cost. Obviously systems will be proportional and therefore smaller outfits will need smaller installations, but we do not want smaller slaughterhouses to be put out of business, resulting in animals having to travel further to the next nearest slaughterhouse. The transportation of live animals is in itself a stressful process for them, as has already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I attempted to find a map of the slaughterhouses in England on the Food Standards Agency website, but I was not successful. We would be grateful if the Minister could provide such a map so that it is possible to see just what kind of coverage there is, especially in deeply rural areas.

There has been a lot of debate about the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses. Since 2001, many slaughterhouses have fallen victim to the catastrophic foot and mouth outbreak in that year. I have not seen the figures on the reduction but I suspect that quite a number will have closed as a result of that outbreak. There are 290 slaughterhouses in England—or 270, depending on your maths—and it is of some concern that there may not be enough staff and vets to oversee what is going on. Other Members have made that comment. Many vets are EU migrants. Is the Minister confident that there are currently sufficient numbers to ensure animal welfare at the point of slaughter? What are the arrangements for overseeing vets? As well as the issue of the sufficiency of overseeing vets, is he confident that the current numbers can be retained, given the impact of the impending Brexit Bill? Official veterinarians are currently partly paid for by the slaughterhouses themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has said, and partly by the Food Standards Agency—that is, by the taxpayer—so we need to ensure that there are sufficient OVs.

As well as CCTV monitoring, there are also meat hygiene responsibilities. We understand that 80% of the slaughterhouses in England are owned by two companies—although that is not what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, so there may be some discrepancy in the figure. This has led to larger rather than smaller operations. In the larger plants, meat inspectors will also be needed on site. Given their current budget constraints, are local authorities able to fulfil their requirement to provide meat hygiene inspectors for those larger plants?

We fully support the introduction of this statutory instrument, which comes into place in May, with enforcement coming in six months later. I thank the Minister for his time and effort in explaining the processes.

Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests: I farm in Northumberland and am a trustee of a Devon estate. Other interests are listed in the register.

This is a hugely important debate at this point in our history. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for his sponsorship of it and his comprehensive opening statement. As has been said a number of times, this is a generational moment, so I expect we will continue to debate this topic over the next few years as we try to influence and shape this new chapter in our history.

The debate is important also because, as we all know, it marks the retirement of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, of Coleshill. I thank him for his excellent valedictory speech. I make no apology for commenting on his importance. I met an elderly friend in Hexham market on Friday. We were only a couple of minutes into our conversation when he said, “And how is Henry?”. I did not need to ask who he was referring to. The noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has achieved the remarkable feat of being the most recognised “Henry” in Britain. Having gazed around the Prince’s Chamber next door and seen the portrait of Henry VIII, I have concluded that we need a new portrait of our most important Henry.

It is not an exaggeration for me to state that I would probably not be here, in this House, if it were not for the inspiration I received from observing Henry Plumb. My wife and I started our farming business in 1971 by renting a farm, Kirkharle. This coincided with the election of a new NFU president, one Henry Plumb. I attended the Northumberland AGM to hear him speak and was inspired. I hope that Henry’s successor presidents will forgive me, but no one since then has had the same ability to charm an audience, had the same gift of oratory and been able to establish themselves on the European and global stage in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, has done. He has been, without question, one of the most influential figures in agriculture of the past century, and we all owe him immense gratitude for what he has achieved and how he has helped shape British agriculture. As we have heard, he has devoted recent years to encouraging young people to become established in business through his foundation, which is a wonderful thing. Perhaps what he has not realised is that there are many people in Britain today, such as myself, who have been, in an unstructured way, mentored by Henry himself. As he steps down from this place he leaves an amazing legacy.

Rather than duplicate comments that have already been made regarding the seriousness of the need for a new, sustainable policy, particularly those made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, which I fully endorse, I will make three comments.

First, like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I am concerned about soil. In conversation with one of our leading soil scientists recently, he bemoaned the fact that we have degraded so much of the world’s soil, compromising our future ability to feed ourselves. He said that it is not possible to recreate soil. We, who have the responsibility of being stewards of God’s creation—which includes soil—are not being very responsible. So I hope my noble friend the Minister will take this issue very seriously in the design of new policies post Brexit, and find ways of encouraging farmers to adopt cropping and management practices that improve the organic matter and the quality of our soil. If anything is fundamental, this is.

Secondly, and again looking forward, we need to address the uptake of stewardship management schemes. I am sure that Defra, the RPA and Natural England had the best of intentions when they redesigned the schemes but the current suite is unpopular and participation is declining. Having achieved almost 70% of eligible land under stewardship management, largely through the entry-level scheme, which I had some responsibility for, we are now going in reverse. Post Brexit we need to reinvigorate the stewardship management of our countryside and have well-designed schemes that address the environmental challenges we face on a landscape scale.

Thirdly and finally, I will comment on the rural economy. The briefing provided for this debate was very helpful indeed. The figure that jumped off the page for me was that 24% of all businesses are located in rural areas and they employ 3.5 million people. However, the data underplay the importance of farming businesses in contributing to the rural economy. The noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord De Mauley, commented on this subject and I fully endorse their comments. Over 50% of farm businesses have diversified into an alternative enterprise so a significant proportion of the 24% of businesses are located on farms. This diversified activity is sustaining many of these businesses and recent data show that those without an alternative source of income are under severe pressure. It is really important that we replace the incentives that currently exist within the rural development scheme in the new design of schemes.

Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I, too, am a member of the committee and I want to express my appreciation for the excellent support that we received, and continue to receive, from our clerks and the staff team. I declare my interests: I am a partner in a farming business in Northumberland and a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates, both of which are in receipt of the EU basic payment scheme and engaged in environmental stewardship. My other interests are listed in the register and include chairmanship of the National Land Based College and the Prince’s Countryside Fund.

For the agricultural sector, Brexit presents the most important event since the Agriculture Act 1947. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape British agriculture and make sure that we design appropriate support arrangements and negotiate sensible trading agreements, so that we really can ensure that agriculture continues to contribute to the economy, is valued by the food industry, can shape and influence the management of the countryside, and can influence the health of the nation.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already highlighted the economic importance of agriculture, which, together with the food industry, is the largest contributor to the UK economy by far. However, with well-designed policies, and appropriate access to markets, British agriculture could contribute much more. Brexit presents an exciting opportunity to reshape the future for farming in the United Kingdom. The trade negotiations are of critical importance, as we highlighted in the report, and I am pleased to see that the Trade Minister is negotiating a split of the tariff rate quotas with the EU, as we recommended, even if this proves an interim measure for a transitional period while we negotiate longer-term trade deals. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already mentioned this issue.

Access to the EU market is critical for all agricultural products, particularly our lamb and pork. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has passionately referred to this. I fully understand the need to take a tough stance in negotiations and threaten to walk away, but I hope common sense will prevail on both sides and that we secure access to markets without major disruption. I also hope agriculture is not sacrificed as part of the panic to reach trade deals, to open up markets for the rest of British industry. Moreover, we need a period of transition or implementation—I really do not mind what it is called.

We also need to take this opportunity to review our performance as an industry sector and to seriously examine whether we are fit for purpose and able to withstand greater competition, as we anticipate more exposure to global markets post Brexit. We should seize the opportunity to address our own productivity record. Productivity needs to be a major driver of policy. Time is short so we should develop, as a matter of urgency, tailor-made solutions focusing on skills and the application of science. We need a professional industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, that attracts bright talent. Our record in the application of scientific knowledge—knowledge exchange—has not been good enough. As I said at the beginning, I declare an interest in these areas. It is essential that the Government recognise the potential to improve our productivity and ensure that targeted support and incentives are available to address this. It should be an important component of a redesigned policy.

The Prince’s Countryside Fund has already been doing some important work with a programme aiming to assist family farm businesses to improve their confidence, efficiency and resilience. I know the Minister is well briefed on this work. Many farm businesses are under severe pressure and need sound advice to make both short and long-term decisions on the future of their businesses. A recent analysis by the PCF shows just how dependent many family businesses are on the basic payment scheme. Only 16% made a profit from farming activities without the benefit of the BPS and other diversified income. Many of these farms are impacting on our productivity and need help. For some, a well thought-through exit scheme would be a sensible solution.

We also referred to regulation in the report and, as a former chair of the Better Regulation Executive, I am very concerned, not only about the transfer of EU regulation into domestic law but also that we take the opportunity to simplify support systems. We said:

“Brexit presents a new and important opportunity to replace elements of EU agricultural regulation that are bureaucratic, ineffective or ill-tailored to farming conditions in the UK”.


I hope the Government will bear this in mind.

There is lots of speculation and debate about how to design a new support system that properly recognises the public goods that agriculture delivers, and has the potential to deliver, in its management of the countryside. We address this in some detail in the report. It is vital that we try to quantify what those public goods are, their value, and how they can be applied and targeted to deliver specific outcomes in different geographic areas. Obviously, caring for the environment, in both environmental protection and improving habitats—building on the progress that we have made—is critical, but these are not the only public goods that agriculture delivers. I have been trying to encourage Ministers and officials to view this as an opportunity to be clear about the outcomes that we want from the management of the countryside. These include environmental outcomes, of course, but also outcomes in water management, carbon sequestration, public access, healthy and wholesome food, vibrant rural communities and so on. Once we are clear about these outcomes, we can then target policies to deliver them if the market will not do so.

Finally, let me move on to the need to replace the CAP with a UK framework. We address this in the agriculture report. I fully understand that the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom will see Brexit as an opportunity for further devolution of both resource and policy. However, the potential for having very diverse polices throughout the United Kingdom create confusion and conflict is very high. We said in the report:

“This will require either a UK-wide framework or the negotiation of co-ordinated agricultural policies by the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations”.


We need to take this seriously: it is a real concern and it is urgent.

In conclusion, it is a real privilege to have the opportunity to contribute to post-Brexit policy design. Most of us were too young in 1947. It is also a huge responsibility, and we need to think very carefully about how we do it. This is such an important point in our history: we will leave a legacy that will be judged by future generations.

Single Farm Payment Scheme

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, there are a number of reasons for this. In part, as I said in my first reply, it is because this is a new CAP with a lot of complication, which we in the UK sought to make less complicated. The noble Lord will know about disallowance, and one of the issues that comes forward is ensuring that we have a much-reduced disallowance situation. Money was available but there were very sound reasons why we had to ensure that there was a reduction in disallowance.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, the recent National Audit Office report was quite damning about the administration of the scheme. Not only are we suffering disallowance because many farmers are not receiving their payments, as the Minister has acknowledged, but some have had to submit a second year’s application form before the first year has been confirmed. They are deeply concerned that they may suffer other disallowance penalties because the original form may not be complete.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I hope your Lordships will understand, not only am I aware of these issues but I have great sympathy and understanding of them. The remaining claims that we have to deal with concern some very complicated commons issues, cross-border issues and issues like probate, where we have the money but there is as yet no grant of probate for people to receive those funds. There are a number of reasons why we are down to about 1,200 claims, but still I am looking for progress.

Milk Production

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. Certainly, innovative deals such as that are of real value to farmers. Sadly, not all farmers are able to negotiate those deals, but we are working with them, as I have said, on various ways to resolve the problem.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, I was at the summit yesterday hosted by his colleague George Eustice. While the long-term prospects for the dairy sector would appear to be good, what is also clear is that volatility is now an ongoing feature of global trading. I am concerned, as is the right reverend Prelate, about the long-term sustainability of the British dairy industry and the fact that we may lose market share. I understand that the Irish Government have introduced five-year tax averaging for businesses, which has existed in Denmark for a long time. Would the Minister consider approaching the Treasury to see whether that might be possible?

Rural Economy

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this important issue. I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for stimulating this debate. I need also to declare a number of interests. I farm in Northumberland; I am a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates in Devon; I am chair of the Waitrose farm on Leckford Estate; and I am a member of the NFU and the CLA, along with other various interests.

I will not try to duplicate the comments already made by noble Lords, which I fully endorse. I particularly endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, on the importance of education and the role of FACE—Farming & Countryside Education—and how important it is to ensure that young people have a good understanding of farming, food and the countryside.

I want to comment on three specific issues regarding the rural economy. First, it is difficult to define. The rural economy does not have a ring-fenced border: it merges into urban and city economies. For rural businesses and enterprises to succeed there needs to be a recognition that rural, urban and city are interdependent. Too often in the past—and it is still a serious risk today—government policy, and therefore government spending, has been focused on cities and urban areas without appreciating that an inclusive policy that embraced the hinterland would be more effective.

City deals are a current vehicle for stimulating economic growth and I understand why. However, there are very few parts of England that are more than 15 miles from a city in this densely populated country of ours—although that is not quite so true of Scotland and Wales. Rural areas have suffered in the past through urban-centric policies. The rural development agencies, with few exceptions, struggle to embrace the rural economy. Having been established initially to deliver urban regeneration, they remain committed to that cause. I worked closely with them on the sustainable farming and food strategy during the 2000s.

The local enterprise partnerships are now crucial to this issue. They, too, in the main, are primarily focused on urban and city areas, so we need, with the help of Defra and the Minister, to ensure that they firmly embrace rural issues and the rural economy within their remit. With their expanded role to help and administer rural development funding they need knowledge on their boards of the rural areas they cover. They need appropriate consultation mechanisms to ensure that they are spending funds wisely. The LEPs need to develop strategic plans that see the integration of rural and urban within a single plan, as I said at the beginning. To present the option to businesses looking to locate into an area with either a rural or an urban location would be a step forward.

The rural areas of Britain have so much to offer in terms of quality of life, the working environment, parking and so on. I ask that the Minister satisfies himself that the LEPs have strategic plans that they implement and that recognise the importance of rural areas.

My second point is one that has already been made and will be repeated, I am sure, a number of times this afternoon—that is, the importance of agriculture within the rural economy. I continue to hear lots of comment about: the relative value of energy generation and how that could dwarf the value of agricultural output; the importance of tourism and how that could put farming into the shade; and that diversification away from agriculture and other business activities contributes far more to the rural economy than agriculture does. All these things could be true; we definitely need a diverse rural economy. As the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, said at the beginning, the more diverse the better. We need to create employment and wealth to sustain rural communities and maintain rural services. We need affordable rural housing, as has been mentioned already. We urgently need high-speed broadband in every hamlet.

I want to give an example of what is possible. In the farm from which I took my title, Kirkharle, which is where we started farming in 1971, I employed two young men. Latterly it was farmed by contract and no one was employed directly. Through the development of rural business help and a retail visitor centre, 13 businesses are now established on that holding, employing about 30 people; so it can be done. The legislative framework within which rural businesses operate is also important; the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, referred to that. I congratulate the Minister on departmental progress in that area. There is still much more to be done.

I stress that agriculture is the platform on which to build our diverse rural economy. Mention has been made already of the dreadful experience in 2001 of foot and mouth disease, when the whole rural economy was shut down. Farmers have buildings; they have housing plots, with planning permission; they live near to villages. They can be the engines for enterprise and innovation through diversification as well as contributing to the nation’s food security through efficient food production.

My final point is to stress the importance of the work my noble friend Lord Cameron is engaged in in seeking to rural-proof government policies. We need to go further than has been the case to date, to ensure that impact assessments undertaken for new legislation include not just the impact on business, as they do now, but specifically the impact on rural business. That is very important.

I have already apologised to the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, for the fact that I need to leave to go to a long-standing engagement. I apologise that I will not be able to hear the rest of the debate, but I will read Hansard with keen interest.

Water Bill

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and me to discuss this amendment. I do not wish to say anything at length but I shall make a couple of simple points. If we accept that Flood Re, according to the Government’s own figures, will build up a reserve, we can ask what this surplus might be used for. It could be used for future discounting of policy charges; it could be saved up for—excuse the pun—a rainy day when the call on insurance may be greater than anticipated; or, as our amendment suggests, it could be used to manage down future risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, this is in effect a proposal that Flood Re should invest to save, to reduce both its own future costs by encouraging household-level protection measures and to help those householders to exit at the end of the period of operation of Flood Re.

According to the work of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, about 190,000 properties could benefit from property-level protection. It would seem reasonable that some of the money that accrues as a surplus in Flood Re should, given the returns on investment to which the noble Baroness has already alluded, be used to help some or, I hope, eventually, all of these 190,000 properties to become more resilient.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I have some concerns about the amendment. If I can describe the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, as friends, I hesitate to object to their amendment, but I have concerns. I declare an interest in that I was, until two years ago, a chair of an insurance company.

My concerns are around the following issues. First, as a policyholder contributing to the funds that will be accumulated to create Flood Re, I am concerned that some of my contributions will be used to create resilience measures—which are, I assume, measures to reduce the risk of flooding—for a select group of properties. That is not why we will contribute the funds.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Does the noble Lord not accept that in the long term the insurance company will benefit because it will save money?

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

Perhaps I may respond to that as I work through my argument.

Secondly, identifying the properties that will be subject to this special treatment will require the wisdom of Solomon and might create division and resentment among other property owners who are not able to benefit from the resilience measures used.

Thirdly—here I have some sympathy with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter—Flood Re needs a strategy for the amount of reserves that will be appropriate and need to be built up to cover flood risk. A strategic approach to the amount of surplus required is important. It will be very difficult to determine what the reserve should be to cover flood risk over a period of years, but it is essential that a reserve is established to maintain adequate funds to cover significant flood risk.

Finally, my most important point—I respond here to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours—is that, as a policyholder, I do not want to continue contributing to a fund that has established a significant surplus. Once the surplus has been determined and achieved, I would hope that the Government and the ABI would have a mature discussion about reducing the contributions to the fund so that they do not establish an ever-increasing fund which may never be used. It would benefit the insurance companies if they did not need to continue collecting funds to contribute to this reserve. Resilience measures are essential and should be taken as properties are restored after flooding, but it is not the role of the fund to provide the resources to do that.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I can see the immediate attractiveness of the amendment but I share some of the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Curry. If we are going to do this, we have to be more precise than the provisions in the amendment. The noble Lord rightly said that Flood Re will need a strategy for its surpluses and the limitations on the degree of cross-subsidy it can require from policyholders more generally. There will be a limit as to what is acceptable in that regard. It will also need a strategy to ensure that resilience and mitigation measures are adopted by those at the highest risk. If this amendment means that, and if it is a relatively small part of such surpluses—by which I mean a very small part—I can probably go along with it. If, however, it is as open-ended as it appears—and we know what the demands for flood mitigation as climate change and population pressures increase are likely to be—the temptation for insurance companies outside the system, the Government and the population to try to raid the Flood Re surplus for those purposes will begin to increase as well.

Despite the initial attractions, I do not think I can support the rather open-ended nature of the amendment as it stands. However, as we move forward and review the scheme, I hope that the Government and the administrators of Flood Re, along with other stakeholders, will find ways of ensuring a maximal take-up of resilience measures by those who own properties at risk and their insurance companies.

Flooding: Somerset

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords—

[Baroness Northover]

I think it is the turn of the Cross Benches.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I have a very similar question. The speed at which water is now running from hillsides and from urban areas—tarmac and concrete—is part of the problem, coupled with the extreme weather events that we are now seeing. Catchment management is critical to try to reduce and mitigate the risk. I hope that the department is taking that very seriously.

[Lord De Mauley]

We spoke about that in the debate on the Statement last week, at which stage I said how seriously the Government take that strategy.

Winter Floods

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

First, I reassure my noble friend that proper, ongoing local co-ordination is vital and is being, and will continue to be, undertaken. On his comments on dredging, I hear what he says and am conscious that he is quite right that it is not good enough to do it once: you have to do this process continually. I agree with him on that.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and by the noble Baroness earlier on, on the impact of flooding on the farmers whose land has been submerged under water for weeks on end. This is the second year in succession that many of those farmers have suffered this effect. May I take the opportunity—I am sure the whole House will support me in saying this—to thank His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales for going down on Tuesday? His visit was very well received by the residents and farmers of the Somerset Levels. I have to declare an interest: I am a trustee of the Prince’s Countryside Fund and His Royal Highness announced that £50,000 would be made available to help the farmers of the Somerset Levels. His Grace the Duke of Westminster also made a contribution, so we are very grateful for that financial support.

The funds will be channelled through the agricultural charities for the immediate costs incurred by farmers as a consequence of flooding, whether for animal feed or whatever. However, it will not restore the pastures and crops that have been submerged under water. The longer-term impact of this is not well understood. My noble friend may well have views on that. May I ask him to think longer-term about how those farmers might be assisted in maintaining their livelihoods following this dramatic impact on the land that is under water?

[Lord De Mauley]

First, I echo the noble Lord’s thanks to the Prince of Wales for his visit and financial contribution, and for the contribution of the Duke of Westminster, which are extremely welcome. We want to ensure that farmers are able to deal with challenges such as bad weather, to grow their businesses, create jobs and compete effectively in the marketplace. It has been very helpful that, in response to recent events, our colleagues at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency have agreed to a derogation to move cattle in Somerset without a pre-movement test. That may sound like a small thing, but it is important. I am aware, as the noble Lord said, that a number of charities are supporting struggling farmers more generally. I can also say to him that we have not heard from those charities that they have yet experienced a huge increase in demand, but I take on board his comments, which were extremely important.

Bees

Lord Curry of Kirkharle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as regards my noble friend’s second question, I am very grateful to him for resolving the thorny problem of how I should spend my Friday evening. As regards his first question, I am not absolutely sure of the chemicals to which my honourable friend referred. However, in the absence of neonicotinoids, we expect farmers to use the available products, such as pyrethroids and organophosphates, for their particular pest problems. Without something effective, the consequence for farmers could be a reduction in crop yields, potentially substantial in scope. Despite not being as effective as neonics, these other products are legal and have passed the safety tests set in legislation.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, the scientific evidence supporting this is sketchy at best. It appears that some useful work has been done in Australia. Are the Government researching the work that has been done in Australia to help us better understand the impact of these chemicals?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we certainly are aware of the work that has been done in Australia. In fact, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State went there recently and is certainly aware of it. We used that in making our case prior to the vote. That did not seem to work, so we are now working towards doing our own trials to fill out those evidence gaps.