Japanese Knotweed

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. Indeed, the regulation has now been approved by COREPER and the European Parliament’s environment committee. It has also now cleared the scrutiny committees of both the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. I understand that the regulation will now be presented to the European Parliament’s plenary session on 16 April. If approved there, the regulation will be presented to the next suitable Council meeting and should then come into force on 1 January next year.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that he views this with a proper sense of urgency? A recent survey has said that there is not six square miles of land in this country which is not infected with this weed. In Swansea, they have calculated that they have 62,000 tonnes of it to get rid of. It is clear that this is a major problem. The effect upon Network Rail and the railway system is absolutely dramatic. We want the Minister to demonstrate a real sense of urgency on this issue.

[Lord De Mauley]

I am sorry if the noble Lord thinks that I am not. He is right about the effects. He specifically mentioned Network Rail, which is a member of the project consortium for the natural control of Japanese knotweed, and it is fully involved in our discussions about how the trial proceeds. It has been a major funder of the research and was among the instigators of the project. If it would meet with noble Lords’ approval, I would like to offer a briefing session to those who are interested on our approach generally to invasive non-native species.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, because the major problem is below there.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, when, some three decades ago, the Conservative Government privatised water, did they expect that a company such as Thames Water would pay no corporation tax in the past year, as has been stated, despite considerable profits and a major distribution of dividends, and that it would then come to the taxpayer for necessary investment on this major project? What will be the basis of equity in these terms as far as this private company is concerned?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thought I had addressed that question when I answered the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Thames Water does not avoid paying tax. HMRC’s capital allowance regime allows companies to delay—not to avoid—paying corporation tax, based on how much they invest. Capital allowances are simply the allowed amortisation of an asset for tax purposes and they exist to encourage companies to carry out crucial investment. The mechanism enables tax to be paid over the lifetime of the asset. If capital allowances did not exist, that would mean either less investment or higher bills for customers.

Japanese Knotweed

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Countess has a point but this Question is about the use of a biocontrol against it. She mentions Network Rail, which, as a matter of interest, is a member of the project consortium for the natural control of Japanese knotweed and is fully involved in discussions about how the trial proceeds. Along with Defra, it sponsored the Environment Agency knotweed code of practice, published in 2006. It has been a major funder of the research and was among the instigators of the project.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Royal Horticultural Society calls this plant “a real thug”. It does so because of the immense damage that it does. There was a person in my neighbourhood whose house was worth £350,000 but was sold for £50,000 because the weed had invaded the premises. We are also well aware that Network Rail spends a very large sum of money every year protecting the permanent way from knotweed. I fear that the Minister is talking rather gently about a very severe problem, and I hope that he will inject some urgency into the Government’s response.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am aware of frankly tragic stories about people having trouble selling properties and obtaining mortgages, and I have huge sympathy for them. That is why this work is so important.

Aviation: Passenger Duty

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we have recently gone through a full consultation exercise on this. In answer to my noble friend’s question about the effect on the economy, the Government’s top priority remains to tackle the fiscal deficit. That means that these APD revenues must be maintained for the foreseeable future. The Government believe that the aviation sector should continue to make a fair contribution to the public finances.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, both the noble Lord today and the Minister on Monday made it absolutely clear that this tax is about revenue-raising. Why, therefore, has he indicated this concession for private jets, while the tourism industry, particularly in relation to the Caribbean, is being affected adversely? Why are the Government not consistent in their approach to industry?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am speechless that the noble Lord opposite, who was an esteemed member of the previous Government who did nothing about the taxing of business jets for 13 years, should raise the issue at all.

Companies Act 2006 (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Order 201

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, I am grateful that I waited for the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, because as a veteran of the discussions on that very long Bill—while I was idly occupied, or underoccupied, elsewhere—he is to be congratulated on the work that he did on it. Of course, that Bill was such a massive measure that it led to anxieties about whether it was sufficiently comprehensive in ironing out aspects that affected previous legislation. That was a cause of concern, which he expressed at the time and which I recall my noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Turville being concerned to respond to. I agree with him that it hurts a little bit for the Official Opposition to congratulate the Government even in minor ways, but we are relieved to see that there are only minor emendations in the draft order. We also note that the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee found no reason to express anxiety about it.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clearly and accurately expressing the salient aspects of this really rather complex issue while sparing us the considerable detail with which he could have belaboured the Committee if he had cared to do so. However, one aspect on which I had a little anxiety, although this is probably more concerned with language than with substance, is that the Explanatory Memorandum from the Treasury—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, was half-reflecting this—uses that wonderful word “impliedly”. As I have never used that word nor heard it used on any occasion, although I could not doubt that the Treasury had used the term accurately, I looked it up. Indeed, the Treasury has used the term accurately, as there is such an adverb, used somewhat infrequently in this context, which means,

“hinted at or suggested; not directly expressed”.

Well, I understand the point that is being made, as we are clarifying the issue and making explicit what is in the legislation. However, I would just say that the word has a slightly weasel quality, as if it is covering certain anxieties about the past. Therefore, I will say that I am grateful that it is now being made clear that what was impliedly in the legislation is now there explicitly and properly as a result of this instrument. For that reason, we welcome the order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments and to the Committee for considering this draft order. As I said earlier, the draft order is uncontroversial. Most of its articles make amendments to regulations by updating them so as to refer to the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006 rather than, for instance, to the superseded provisions of the 1985 Act.

My noble friend Lord Razzall referred to the lengthy process of the 2006 Act. I congratulate him and those other stalwart noble Lords who had the stamina to sustain them through that process. I thank him for his support today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his helpful comments. I commend the order to the Committee.

Dog Control Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Friday 4th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset that, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Redesdale for drawing our attention to the need for the proper control of dogs through this Bill and for the considerable amount of time and effort that he and others have put into it. He will be aware from the speech made by my noble friend Lord Henley at Second Reading that the Government are unable to support it. I can, however, assure him that the Government are concerned about dangerous dogs, are well aware of public concern and are very keen to promote responsible pet ownership.

As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, the previous Government launched a public consultation exercise on dangerous dogs legislation last year. I can assure noble Lords that we are firmly committed to taking forward the issues raised in that exercise. We have received more than 4,000 responses from a wide range of individuals and organisations.

We are currently considering all the comments received and are discussing the issues raised with the relevant people. They are complex issues and we need to consider our approach very carefully. It is very important that we make the right decisions, but we hope to make an announcement on the Government’s proposed way forward shortly. I can inform your Lordships that we are considering a number of different options, which range from legislative changes to guidance and working with local authorities and the police at a local level.

We are also working with other government departments—in particular with the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government—on other initiatives that affect dogs. For example, we have been working with the Home Office on its current public consultation exercise on tackling anti-social behaviour, in which dogs are regrettably often involved.

We are keen to ensure that departments are working together properly to deal with this important and complex issue. I hope the noble Lord will accept that it would not be right for the Government to give this Bill their support at this stage, although, as I said, we are grateful to my noble friend for his work on the Bill and to other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has a chance to respond to this clause stand part debate, I was on the opposition Front Bench when we discussed a Bill concerned with marine matters. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was critical of the Opposition for what he considered were wrecking amendments to his Bill. I was not able to respond to that because, interested as I am in the control of dangerous dogs—I have some sympathy with the noble Lord and his Bill, and we have discussed these issues in the past—I was not at all briefed at that stage because we were dealing with other matters. Consequently, I was obliged to accept what the noble Lord said in his criticism of the Opposition. I checked it out immediately, of course, and I considered his comments to be completely and totally unjustified. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will today withdraw the position that he adopted on that day.

Government Spending

Debate between Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. I am convinced that there are substantial increases in productivity to be made, despite making these cuts.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, the Minister has not been his usual frank self in responding to the question about front-line services, which are crucial to this debate. Nor has he been frank when he maintains that introducing cuts at this stage may not do irretrievable damage to the economy with a double-dip recession. After all, his party argued that in the general election and did not achieve a majority, while two other parties—the Liberal Democrat party included—argued the danger to the economy of cuts at this point. Why, therefore, is he persisting with this position?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government believe that the line they are taking is the right one to achieve the best results for the country.