Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 6th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, the Government are committed to providing an environment for all sectors of the economy in which private enterprise and businesses can flourish. A key objective is to simplify employment legislation and remove unnecessary burdens from businesses. As part of this, the Government have taken forward legislation through the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 to end the separate agricultural minimum wage regime in England and Wales and to bring employment in agriculture into line with other sectors of the economy.

The amendments which the Government are proposing to the Working Time Regulations 1998 are a necessary consequence of the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales on 25 June 2013 and the end of the separate agricultural minimum wage regime after 30 September 2013. Agricultural workers are already protected by the main provisions of the Working Time Regulations, including those relating to the maximum 48 hour week. However, some minor technical amendments are needed to align the position for agricultural workers in England and Wales fully under the regulations with that of workers in other sectors of the economy. If approved, these amendments will come into force on 1 October 2013, when the current special regulatory framework for agricultural minimum wages will end.

The proposed amendments will remove some very specific exemptions in the 1998 regulations which apply only to workers employed in agriculture. These are in relation to the date of the commencement of the leave year and the arrangements for giving notice to take leave. Under the Working Time Regulations, the leave year for a worker begins on the date provided for in a relevant agreement. Where there is no provision in a relevant agreement, the date of commencement of the leave year for a new employee is the date or anniversary of the date of commencement of employment. For agricultural workers in England and Wales, the commencement of the leave year is governed by the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (England and Wales) Order 2012, which will remain in force until 1 October. The order requires that the leave year for all agricultural workers begins on 1 October. There are also specific arrangements in the Working Time Regulations for taking leave which require workers to give their employer advance notice of the intention to take leave and for the employer to give similar notice if either they require the worker to take leave or do not agree to a request for leave from the worker. These arrangements provide transparency and certainty for workers and employers, but do not currently apply to agricultural workers.

If approved, these amendments mean that where agricultural workers in England and Wales come into the industry and enter into employment contracts after 30 September, the arrangements in respect of commencement of the leave year and for leave-taking will be brought in line with the arrangements for other workers under the 1998 regulations. For agricultural workers already employed before 1 October, their existing arrangements will remain in place until the end of their current employment. This will ensure that there is no risk of loss of annual leave entitlement for agricultural workers during a period of employment. Any agricultural worker who is employed between now and 1 October must still be treated in accordance with the full terms and conditions set out in the agricultural wages order 2012. A worker in this position will similarly retain the arrangements for commencement of the leave year and leave-taking as provided for under the order until the end of their current employment.

If these amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998 are not approved, once the agricultural wages order 2012 ceases to be in force after 30 September this year, there would be no default position for commencement of the leave year, nor arrangements for giving notice to take leave for new agricultural workers coming into the industry after that date. This could cause uncertainty and confusion for both agricultural workers and their employers.

It may be helpful here to say something more generally about the proposed application of the Working Time Regulations to agricultural workers after 30 September 2013. From 1 October, all new workers coming into the industry in England and Wales will be protected by the National Minimum Wage Act and the Working Time Regulations, as are other workers in different sectors of the economy. This means that agricultural workers will be entitled to at least the minimum requirements for annual leave entitlement and length of rest breaks as provided for by the 1998 regulations, although we would expect that many employers will agree terms which are more favourable to their workers than the minima set in the legislation.

Currently, under the terms of the agricultural wages order 2012, agricultural workers have enhanced entitlements for annual leave and rest breaks. The Government have made very clear during debates in Parliament on the amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act to abolish the agricultural wages board that agricultural workers will retain any existing contractual rights, including relating to leave and rest breaks. This has been enshrined in the relevant secondary legislation abolishing the board and the agricultural minimum wage regime.

Therefore, let me reassure noble Lords that the amendments we are now proposing to the Working Time Regulations will not have any impact on these existing contractual rights. Workers with pre-existing contracts at 1 October 2013 will retain the right to the annual leave entitlement and length of rest break determined in their contract of employment, unless either they agree with their employer to vary their contract or the contract comes to an end. These amendments are a necessary tidying-up exercise as the result of the abolition of the agricultural wages board and the agricultural minimum wage regime. Without them, for agricultural workers who take up new employment on or after 1 October 2013, there would be legal uncertainty and no clear provision as to the arrangements for the commencement of their leave year and leave-taking. I hope that your Lordships will accept these regulations.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, I should have said at the beginning of the Committee that, in view of the extreme heat, if anybody wishes to remove their jacket they are welcome to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend, we are returning to what is, for us on this side of the Committee, the vexed question of the abolition of the agricultural wages board, which we have consistently opposed. In opening, the Minister implied that the agricultural wages board was all about the minimum wage for farm workers. It is worth reminding the Committee at the outset, by way of clarification, that it is about so much more than just the minimum wage. This is doing away with a whole wage structure, training, regulations and measures in respect of accommodation and farm dogs, and all sorts of other things.

My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the timing. I will return to the issue of Wales in a moment, but this also follows yesterday’s Tolpuddle festival—an occasion on which, in beautiful sunny Dorset, we remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. In 1834, George Loveless, James Loveless, James Hammett, James Brine, Thomas Standfield and Thomas’s son John were all charged with having taken an illegal oath and then transported to Australia. That was the basis of the formation of the trade union movement in many ways and is rightly celebrated every year at Tolpuddle, when those martyrs are remembered.

My noble friend was right to probe the lack of an impact assessment. At the time, we kept returning to the impact assessment for the legislation which abolished the agricultural wages board, and we will keep reminding people that 150,000 workers are affected by the abolition of the board and that £240 million will be taken out of farm workers’ pockets. I know that that is contested by the Government, but they did not take advantage of this opportunity to publish any kind of impact assessment on these regulations to repair that.

I also want to comment on the implications for existing terms and conditions for individual employees. The abolition of the agricultural wages order largely protects existing employees engaged prior to 1 October 2013 with no specific contractual provisions. However, I note an article in Farming UK dated 26 June which quotes Colin Hall, a partner at BTF Partnership and a director of the 50 Club Horticultural Employers’ Association, as saying:

“For others, however, such as those more recently employed with a specific contractual provision reserving the employer’s right to amend their contractual terms following abolition of the AWO, or those employed on or after 1 October 2013, the implications are greater.”

There may be some currently employed workers who have particular contractual provisions who will be affected by these changes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he and his department are planning on working with agricultural employers and advising them on their new obligations as employers following the abolition of the board and the bringing into force of the regulations that we are debating today.

The Minister may have seen the article in Farmers’ Weekly on 11 July—I know that he is a keen listener to “Farming Today”, and I am sure that he is as assiduous in reading Farmers’ Weekly—about Peter Bailey, who was employed as a tractor driver and stockman in Berkshire for more than 22 years. He was awarded £38,000 for underpayment of wages after working an average 55-hour week at a farm there. Defra took up the case with the board and in the end Mr Bailey was able, through a tribunal, to prove that he was being exploited, not getting the pay he was entitled to and forced to work more hours than he should have, and that his employer was at fault. The tribunal found against the employer. That was a contravention of the old agricultural wages order but demonstrates that some farmers struggle to put existing employment regulations into proper effect. As things change, it is a particularly vulnerable time for employers. We need to ensure that they are properly advised so that they do not, inadvertently, do the wrong thing by their staff.

It is equally important that farm workers know their rights, reduced as they are. For any of them listening, I strongly recommend that if they are not a member of a trade union they quickly join because they will need one more than before as they will have to negotiate their pay and conditions on a case-by-case basis with employers. They will need the advice and support of a trade union to do that effectively. It is also worth noting—this was not something that was in force or that we even knew about when we debated the legislation to get rid of the board—that as of 29 July, this month, workers unfairly dismissed or discriminated against by their employers will be charged a fee for taking their claim to a tribunal. That means, in the absence of the protection of the agricultural wages board, that these typically extremely lowly paid workers will be denied the access to justice of a tribunal unless they are willing to pay a fee, with no guarantee, if the case is found in their favour, that they will get that fee back.

It is worth saying that the law is also changing so that if their employer—who might be their landlord—sidles up to them in the farmyard and makes them an offer to do things slightly differently and change terms and conditions, they would not be able to use that conversation in a tribunal either. That would no longer be admissible. I find that of huge regret, and we were not able to debate it when those orders went through. The changes to their pay and conditions as a result of this order and the new law abolishing the agricultural wages board increase the risk of agricultural workers suffering.

My noble friend Lord Whitty raised the issue of Wales and asked some highly pertinent questions about how this will work given the decision of the Welsh Assembly Government effectively to retain the agricultural wages board in the Principality. I would be very interested to hear how the two will work together. I understand that these regulations were laid before that decision was made by the Welsh Assembly Government, so perhaps there is unfortunate rather than deliberate problems of timing. It will certainly be September before the other place has a chance to debate these regulations. If we do not have a satisfactory answer from the Minister now, we will have to decide whether we want to pray against the regulations or leave it for the Minister to come back with some proper consideration of these matters when they come to the Commons in September. There will certainly be a problem if the agricultural wages board arrangements are to apply in Wales while the changes to leave entitlement are being made in these regulations. The exemptions were put in place in 1998 for a good reason. If they are to apply in Wales while also being changed it will create a problem which the Minister will have to resolve.

So for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Whitty gave, we are not opposing these regulations as such, subject to some reassurance on the Welsh issue, because they are merely tidying up. However we hugely regret the abolition of the agricultural wages board. I do not think that it has been properly thought through. I think that, in combination with some of the other changes that are taking place, there will be more farm workers who are exploited beyond the few who are exploited at the moment, one example of which I gave from a recent report in the agricultural press.

With those words, I am happy to listen with bated breath to what the Minister will tell us.

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Knight, for their contributions. As I said earlier, the amendments we are proposing to the Working Time Regulations are necessary technical amendments to the legislation as a result of the end of the agricultural minimum wage regulatory regime on 1 October, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was good enough to acknowledge. The amendments have no impact on levels of protection for agricultural workers and I believe that they are, in themselves, relatively uncontentious. However I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, recent developments in Wales raise certain issues in regard to abolition of the agricultural wages board which noble Lords are rightly interested to hear about.

The Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, passed by the National Assembly for Wales on Wednesday last week, would restore a separate agricultural minimum wage regime in Wales. It might be helpful here if I gave noble Lords some explanation about relevant procedural matters.

Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 there is a recognised procedure for the consideration of whether Bills passed by the National Assembly for Wales are within its legislative competence. Essentially, this provides that the Attorney-General and the Counsel General for Wales—either or both—have four weeks after a Bill is passed by the National Assembly in which to decide whether to refer any question of competence to the Supreme Court. After this period, if no referral is made and the Secretary of State for Wales has indicated that he will not use his powers under the Government of Wales Act to intervene, the Bill is submitted for Royal Assent. This applies to all Bills passed by the National Assembly and this is the stage which we have now reached with the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill.

My right honourable friend the Attorney-General is currently assessing the legislation to determine whether its provisions are within the Assembly’s competence, as he does with all legislation passed by the Assembly. It would not be right for me to speculate here what conclusion either the Attorney-General, or indeed the Counsel General, might reach. I will say that, as noble Lords are aware from previous debates on this issue, the UK Government regard the agricultural wages regime as wage-setting and employment law, which are subjects that are not devolved to Wales. However, it is for my right honourable friend the Attorney-General and the Counsel General separately to consider whether or not a reference should be made to the Supreme Court on the question of the competence of the provisions of the Welsh Bill. This is a decision for them which it would not be appropriate for me to second-guess. Should either the Attorney-General or the Counsel General for Wales, or both, decide that such a reference should be made, it will be up to the Supreme Court to consider the Bill and make a judgment.

I hope, therefore, that that makes the position clear. There is a statutory procedure to be followed in the case of all Bills passed by the National Assembly and, quite properly, that procedure is now being followed in relation to the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty—

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords—

[Lord De Mauley]

I am now coming on to some of the other points. Perhaps I may proceed, and if I do not cover them the noble Lord can intervene then. Would he like me to try?

[Lord Whitty]

Yes.

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord effectively asked why we do not wait to press ahead until all this has been resolved. We will not know the outcome of the Welsh position for some time, but we need certainty for people in employment in farming in the mean time. If we did not do this then new employees could effectively be left in limbo.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked what discussions the Government have had with Welsh Ministers about all of this. There has been extensive discussion with Welsh Ministers about the position of the agricultural wages board in Wales, and Welsh Ministers were informed of the Government’s decision to pursue abolition by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. The UK Government communicated our view that this was a non-devolved matter which did not require the consent of the Assembly clearly to Welsh Ministers.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reiterated his position when we debated the Act—if I may shorthand it. I understand his position very well. Abolishing the agricultural minimum wage will bring agriculture into line—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Before the Minister moves off Wales completely, I would be grateful to know whether he considered the order applying just to England, so that we would not have this issue. Given that detailed conversations were going on with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government, was that an option?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

The words I used apply to both England and Wales. That is the point. It would leave those coming into agricultural employment in Wales in limbo as well. We do not want them to be left without certainty as to commencement of leave year and the other things we have been referring to here.

[Lord Whitty]

My point is on Wales. Although I recognise the delicacy of the position of the Attorney-General in looking at the question of competence of the Welsh Assembly, in advice going to the Attorney-General presumably the department has made clear the point that I made when the Government made a similar point during the passage of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act: that although the Government have now invented the doctrine that this is employment legislation, since at least 1948, the wages board has been the responsibility of Defra or MAFF, not of whatever department was responsible for employment law. That may not be a clincher for the Attorney-General, but it is an important indication of the approach of previous Governments and in previous legislation—that is, as a matter of agricultural not general employment legislation.

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord has been around for longer than I have in these affairs. I am absolutely certain that that has been done, but I will reiterate it. He makes a perfectly fair point and I will make sure that it is made again.

Perhaps I may continue with the next series of points. The Government’s position, as noble Lords know, is that abolishing the agricultural minimum wage will bring agriculture into line with other sectors in the economy. Allowing farmers to compete fairly in the labour market and for agricultural wages to follow market levels will enhance the competitiveness of the sector and may increase employment. This will in turn encourage long-term prosperity in rural areas.

Having said that, my experience is that workers, often on highly complex machinery and managing animals, which these days is also a pretty technical affair, are highly skilled and that the market for them is highly competitive. We have been quite clear that there is uncertainty about what the actual impact will be. The costs and benefits are made up of a number of elements, including the potential impact on wages for workers and other terms and conditions and the reduction in employment costs paid to government and others. The reality will, as I said, depend on demand, which evidence shows is increasing.

The real benefits will be from allowing farmers and workers the same flexibility to agree terms and conditions as employers and workers in other sectors of the economy, while ensuring the same levels of protection for workers. As I said in my opening remarks, workers with pre-existing contracts will retain those entitlements, and that is enshrined in legislation. I take the noble Lord’s point about that.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a number of points. I acknowledge what he said about what is covered by the agricultural wages board. Of course he is right. Essentially, he asked why we had not done any back-assessment on the regulations. As we discussed, these are minor, technical amendments to the Working Time Regulations as a consequence of abolition of the agricultural wages board. They do not have an impact on the level of protection for workers, nor do we consider that they will have a significant impact on businesses, so an impact assessment has not been carried out.

The noble Lord asked whether we would be working with employers to remind them of their obligations. We have prepared guidance on the changes for agricultural workers and employers, which we have already shared with stakeholders. That guidance will be published on the Defra website shortly.

The Government firmly believe that the end of the separate agricultural minimum wage regime is in the best interests of the industry. The proposed amendments to the Working Time Regulations are a minor piece of the jigsaw to complete a simplified employment regime across all sectors of the economy. This will provide simplification, transparency and greater flexibility, thereby encouraging investment, growth and job opportunities in the sector, which will benefit both workers and employers. A successful agricultural industry will contribute to the growth of the wider rural economy, which is one of my department’s four key objectives. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Littering from Vehicles Bill [HL]

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2013 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for introducing his Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Lawson, I congratulate him on his persistence. I know that this is an issue he cares deeply about, as do other noble Lords, and I share that concern. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, I regularly collect litter along the road which runs past my house. Let me make clear that it is thoroughly irresponsible to throw litter from vehicles, as it is to litter in any other way. It is important that we find an effective way to bring home to people that throwing litter from car windows is unacceptable behaviour.

I agree with my noble friend that roadside litter is a blight on some areas of England. I travel around the country carrying out my role and clearly notice that while some parts of the country are clean, others are regrettably less so. This reinforces the fact that those responsible for tackling littering all take slightly different approaches to fulfilling their responsibilities and that some are more successful than others.

What has come out of this debate today, among other important things, is that littering from vehicles has always been a difficult problem to solve. The sense of anonymity that the litterer appears to feel while encased in his car only serves to accentuate that problem. Unfortunately, for many people it seems that it is almost second nature. When confronted with an empty drinks can or a chocolate wrapper in their box on wheels, they see throwing it out of the window as an acceptable course of action, rather than, as they should, taking it home with them.

The high-profile case of the broadcaster Alice Arnold who, like my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, took matters into her own hands and delivered a discarded plastic bottle back to its owner while at a set of traffic lights near Hampton Court, led to her being hailed a national heroine. This highlighted the strength of feeling that many of us have about this matter and the need for action. We also need to ensure that any such action is based on sound evidence in order for it to be effective and to make a difference.

Throwing litter from vehicles is already a criminal offence under Section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. There already are considerable penalties for those who litter, including prosecution in a magistrates’ court where an offender can be fined up to £2,500 and acquire a criminal record. As an alternative to prosecution, a local authority enforcement officer can issue offenders with an on-the-spot fixed penalty of up to £80. The threat of a criminal record for throwing away a piece of litter can act as a strong deterrent, especially as it could have implications for the offender’s career and finances.

However, the seriousness of these consequences also means that it is important that enforcement officers have good evidence which would stand up in court before issuing a fixed penalty notice for littering. When litter is thrown from a vehicle I know that it is not always easy for enforcement officers to know exactly who threw it, especially if the vehicle is moving.

As he explained, through his Bill, my noble friend seeks to enable local authorities to issue civil penalties to the registered keeper of a vehicle if someone inside his vehicle jettisons litter. The key point in his proposal would remove the problem currently faced by enforcement officers of identifying the littering offender with the degree of certainty that would be required for a criminal prosecution. Essentially, this Bill says that we do not quite know who committed this crime but someone should pay, so we will punish the only person we can identify.

The Bill is similar to provisions brought in under the ninth and 10th London Local Authorities Acts, to which several noble Lords have referred, which apply only in London. These powers, which were introduced with the support of London Councils and came fully into force in June 2012, allow London boroughs to issue a civil penalty to the registered keeper of a vehicle where enforcement officers witness littering from it. My department is closely watching this new approach. We have already started the process with London Councils of examining how effective this legislation is and whether it provides a viable way forward in tackling this issue nationally.

However, I have to tell my noble friend that London Councils tells us that there are some emerging questions. Most importantly, as yet none of the London boroughs has issued a single civil penalty notice for littering using the new powers. As a result, as yet we have no data on whether the civil penalty for littering from vehicles in London has been effective in reducing littering behaviour. As the London boroughs have been aware that these powers were coming since the ninth London Local Authorities Act was passed in 2007, this delay in beginning to use the powers in itself seems to suggest that setting up and operating this new approach is not quite as simple as it may seem.

We understand that two boroughs were expected to begin piloting the new approach late last year but they seem to have faced some delays, particularly in setting up the new appeals system. Other boroughs have mentioned difficulties in identifying littering offences using CCTV cameras—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked about that—or the need to reorganise their back office functions to handle enforcement of both civil contraventions and criminal littering offences.

Another borough mentioned the anomaly that the new powers create in that littering is a criminal offence if it occurs outside in the open air but it is decriminalised once it occurs from inside a vehicle. We know that some motoring organisations have expressed concern that making the owner of a vehicle responsible for all littering from it regardless of who committed the offence could be seen as an infringement of an owner’s civil liberties, which of course we want to avoid.

I sympathise strongly with my noble friend’s impatience. We all want to see a reduction in this problem. The approach taken in London may ultimately show us the way forward but, until it has had significant practical use, we will not know for sure whether it makes it easier for enforcement officers to take effective action and whether that, in turn, would lead to a reduction in litter on our streets.

However, the issuing of fines is not and cannot be the only answer. With the best will in the world, enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once and the use of CCTV does not appear to be a magic bullet. Apprehending those who litter at night, at speed, in isolated areas or on quiet rural roads, which many noble Lords were concerned about, will remain difficult.

If we are to tackle the problem effectively, changing people’s behaviour is essential, as my noble friend Lord Cormack said. If people did not feel it to be acceptable to throw their litter out of their car windows, the problem would not exist. As I said in response to the proposals of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones on leafleting a couple of weeks ago, we believe that the most effective way to change people’s behaviour is to change their attitudes to littering. Changing legislation is not the only answer or even the best solution.

The fact that littering is a criminal offence reflects the unacceptable and harmful nature of this behaviour and it has a certain deterrent effect. Treating littering from vehicles as a civil contravention may make it easier for local authorities to tackle the problem but there is also a risk of sending the wrong message about the seriousness of this conduct.

Of course, the balance between taking action against polluters, criminals and those who persistently behave in an anti-social way while protecting the civil liberties of law-abiding citizens is a delicate one, but we must do our best to get it right. Ultimately, we believe in treating people as adults and providing the freedom to do the right thing, rather than simply making it easier for enforcement officers to fine someone—anyone— whether or not they have got the real culprit.

I referred to the need to change people’s attitudes, as did the noble Lord, Lord Judd, very sensitively. We continue to back Keep Britain Tidy’s call to action. The Love Where You Live initiative works with businesses, local authorities and civil society organisations to make an important contribution to behaviour change on littering in all its forms and to enable local authorities, civil society groups and communities to take local action together to improve their neighbourhoods and engender renewed civic pride.

As part of the Love Where You Live initiative, a meeting of representatives from the vehicle sector, trade associations, the Highways Agency, local authorities and civic society groups convened last year to discuss littering from vehicles in general with a view to agreeing a voluntary commitment to raising its profile. Actions arising included commitments by bodies such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the British Parking Association and the British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association to carry anti-littering messaging on their websites and vehicles; to build an anti-littering message into their training programmes; and to provide more facilities for disposing of litter, whether it be in cars or outside the wall of a pub or coffee house. These changes are simple and achievable and I thank all of those who got involved at the time and are continuing to do so now.

We have also raised awareness with other government departments. This collaborative approach, with, for example, the Highways Agency, can be seen in the electronic message signs over a number of motorways or the large banners at motorway slip roads advising drivers to dispose of their litter in a responsible manner. Of course, still more could be achieved by vehicle hirers, motoring associations, manufacturers and service stations.

I should like to comment briefly on Part 2 of the Bill, which would require local authorities to publish, at least once in a financial year, the names of any organisations with which they are contracted to collect litter and the amount paid for this service. I understand that one aim of this proposal is to enable anyone with a complaint about a particular problem to contact the relevant contractors directly. This proposal would constitute a move in the opposite direction from the decision made by the Government in 2010 to relieve local authorities of the burdensome requirement to report information about street cleaning to central government. This requirement had until then been part of a national indicator set for local authorities to report against, which we have now abolished. To reintroduce such a requirement, as the Bill would do, would be an added administrative and financial burden on local authorities and would undermine the principles of localism for very uncertain gains. Much of this information is already published or available through existing access to information legislation, with suitable safeguards to protect commercially sensitive information. Forcing the blanket publication of contracts in this way could also undermine a local authority’s ability to negotiate competitive contracts for street cleansing and waste management, thereby further increasing the cost of these services to the taxpayer. It is surely also reasonable for local authorities to determine for themselves how and to whom people should report concerns. If people are reporting incidents directly to cleaning contractors, it may make it more difficult for the local authority to monitor the performance of its contractor’s obligations.

Turning to noble Lords’ questions, my noble friend Lord Marlesford ragged me and suggested that there had been a too brief consultation on the Bill. These are not government proposals so, of course, we have not conducted a consultation. However, we wanted to know what some local authorities thought about this Bill and views were sought via the Keep Britain Tidy membership network, the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport and London Councils. We were pleased that we received 27 responses within the time available. The views they expressed were mixed. Some local authorities think that it is too costly and complicated to pursue offenders for littering from vehicles. Others were concerned that the potential for different fines for the same offence depending on whether it was criminal or civil, or that the increase in enforcement action, would lead to fewer fines being paid. Some also expressed concern at disclosing details of contracts, citing commercial confidentiality issues.

My noble friend Lord Lawson charged me with speaking to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about this debate—of course I will. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, referred to difficulties in moving new estates into local authority responsibility. I will talk to the Department for Communities and Local Government about that and write to him, if I may.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury suggested deposits on bottles and referred to legislation in place in certain states in America. I seem to remember that in my youth there were deposits on Ribena bottles. We have looked at this idea, which is in use in several US states, as part of our consideration of our packaging recycling targets. Unfortunately, the costs identified by the review appeared to outweigh the benefits, but I am happy to meet my noble friend to discuss this research further if that would be helpful to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Mawson, referred to the removal of national indicators. As I said earlier, a decision was taken in 2010 to relieve councils of the burden of reporting. Of course, a statutory duty on councils to clear litter and refuse remains. The standards to be achieved are set out in the Code of Practice on Litter and Refuse. As a matter of interest, Keep Britain Tidy’s annual local environment survey for England, which is based on the same set of indicators, shows that litter levels have remained much the same over the past decade.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, asked who would enforce the Littering from Vehicles Bill. Of course, it is my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s Bill but my understanding is that the powers will be enforced by a civil enforcement officer, who would be either an employee of the local authority or the employee of a contractor of that authority employed to act as a civil enforcement officer. The noble Lord also asked whether local authorities would be able to keep the income and what would happen to it. My noble friend’s Bill says how penalty charge receipts are to be used. Under Schedule 4 to the London Local Authorities Act 2007, London boroughs are required to,

“keep an account of their income and expenditure in respect of the administration and enforcement of section 61 (penalty charges) of this Act”.

At the end of the financial year, any deficits should be made good out of the council’s general rate fund. If there is a surplus, the borough is required to apply this,

“to purposes connected with the improvement of the amenity of the area of the council or any part of that area”.

I assure my noble friend that we are not closed to the possibility of national legislation to tackle littering from vehicles but, as I hope I have explained, a number of significant issues need to be resolved before we decide to roll out the powers in the London Local Authorities Act to the whole country. So far, London local authorities have had more than five years to prepare for the introduction and implementation of these changes but it has evidently not proven as simple as might have been hoped. As a result, we still do not know whether the new powers actually work effectively to reduce littering. Until we have that evidence—until we are sure that simply issuing more fines for littering from vehicles will change people’s behaviour and lead to a real reduction in littering, and that decriminalisation does not send the wrong message about the seriousness of the offence in question—it would be premature to extend these potentially controversial powers nationwide.

I must express my reservations about my noble friend’s Bill. However, my noble friend has made and continues to make a really important point: litter is a blight and litter from vehicles is an important element of that. My noble friend wants to deal with it. I want to deal with it. I would be more than happy to arrange a meeting in my office for my noble friend to meet the relevant people from the local authorities trying out this method in London so that we can explore it together and see whether this is the best way to tackle it.

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2013 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for introducing the Bill and giving us a further opportunity to debate the important issue of litter. I also thank all noble Lords who have given up their Friday to speak when they would much prefer to have been out in the sun—perhaps, like my noble friend, counting gum spots on the pavement or, even better, picking up litter.

As I have emphasised in several recent debates, litter is a blight on our streets and on our landscape. More than that, it is an entirely avoidable problem. It is never necessary to drop litter, and most people are aware that it is a criminal offence to do so, but that knowledge does not seem to stop them. My noble friend gave us some statistics; here are some more. Research by Keep Britain Tidy suggests that almost two-thirds of people in Britain drop litter, but less than a third admit to it.

Despite that rather worrying statistic, there is also a great depth of public feeling about litter and the need for firmer action to tackle it. More than 10,000 people joined Keep Britain Tidy during Love Where You Live month in June this year to take part in clean-ups in their local areas. My department receives a fairly constant stream of correspondence on the subject, suggesting any number of actions that the Government should take, including those proposed by my noble friend in his Bill: to increase fines or provide more bins.

As I have said several times recently, solutions to this pernicious problem are rarely straightforward. My noble friend’s first proposal is that the minimum fine for littering should be increased. At present, local authorities may set fines for littering and similar environmental offences of anywhere between £50 and £80, with a default of £75 if they do not set a local amount. My noble friend proposes that the minimum fine should rise to £100 without a statutory maximum.

I fully understand my noble friend’s desire to send a message to the public about the seriousness of littering as an offence. Not only does the problem add to everyone's council tax bill in cleansing and enforcement costs but, the very presence of dropped litter can lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour. This in turn increases people's fear of crime and discourages them from going out to use our wonderful and varied public places.

Litter also has environmental impacts: on wild animals and birds which eat it, and on pollution levels in our water courses. However, research by Keep Britain Tidy conducted in 2011 showed that public opinion is divided over whether fixed penalties are an effective way to change people’s behaviour and that in areas where more fixed-penalty notices are issued, the public satisfaction with levels of cleanliness is often still low. An increase in the fine for littering is of course only as effective as the enforcement action which leads to the fine being issued. As we discussed earlier when debating my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s Bill on littering from vehicles, enforcement officers cannot be everywhere at once. The more often that people drop their litter without facing any consequences, the less effective a deterrent—the seemingly remote possibility of a fine—becomes, however high it may be.

Enforcement is also expensive. While higher fines might help to pay for more enforcement officers, the fine will be paid only if the offender can afford it. If he cannot, the case is likely to go to court and will result in even greater costs to all concerned, without ever improving the offender’s ability to pay or the likelihood of those costs being recovered.

The absence of a maximum fine may also leave the system open to potential abuse. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, shared some of those concerns. We already hear stories in the popular press of individuals who are justifiably indignant about having been fined by overzealous enforcement officers for so-called littering when they have accidentally dropped a £10 note, or for feeding the ducks in the park. The public are already suspicious that some local authorities use these enforcement powers to raise additional revenue. I would hope that it is obvious to your Lordships that we do not expect local authorities to use fixed-penalty notices for trivial incidents in this way at all, but I can only imagine how more aggrieved and suspicious those individuals would feel if faced with a fine of more than £100. Some of the local authorities that my officials have spoken to, informally, have expressed concern that this proposal could put enforcement officers at increased risk of challenge or even violence.

What is more, the increase that my noble friend proposes would, I suggest, be disproportionate in comparison with other offences. For example, fines for criminal damage, for making nuisance calls or for possession of class B drugs are all set at £80 and are payable in 28 days, while this Bill proposes fines of at least £100 which are payable in 14 days. With no statutory maximum the perverse situation could even arise where the on-the-spot fine exceeded the maximum penalty which could be imposed if the case went to court. I assure my noble friend that if there is evidence of the current fines being too low to enable successful enforcement I am open to requests from local authorities to review the regulations which set the minimum and maximum limits. However, I have significant reservations about the blanket approach proposed in the Bill.

However, it is the second part of my noble friend’s Bill which gives me most concern. The Bill would require local authorities to “provide appropriate disposal” points,

“for chewing gum and cigarette litter”,

within four metres of the entrance to any building,

“for which the local authority is responsible”,

and at least one disposal point per 100 square metres throughout the area for which the local authority is the responsible litter authority.

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill which my noble friend has helpfully provided suggest that, by making provision for local authorities to finance the provision of these disposal units through advertising, this proposal could be implemented at zero cost to local authorities. This type of litter is indeed a persistent problem, as my noble friend suggested. In the most recent Local Environmental Quality Survey of England, smoking-related litter was found to be the most prevalent form of litter and present on 82% of sites surveyed. Staining from discarded chewing gum was found on 68% of sites, down a small percentage from the previous year, and is known to be one of the most difficult and costly local environmental quality problems to tackle.

However, your Lordships will appreciate that what is proposed in the Bill adds up to a truly staggering number of bins. While potentially appropriate in some busy urban areas, the number of bins required by the Bill is likely to be vastly disproportionate to actual demand in rural areas, on council-owned open spaces or on land with very limited public access. For example, placing one bin every 100 square metres would mean that more than 70 would be required on a council-owned village green the size of a regulation football pitch. This, presumably, does not include the bins that my noble friend mentioned in his speech for what he calls “dog excreta”. Even if supported by income from advertising, the costs of installing such a vast number of bins and their ongoing maintenance and emptying would, I am afraid, be prohibitive to local authorities.

Moreover, even if they were well maintained, the provision of more disposal points might not even resolve the underlying problem because research shows that those who discard their chewed gum or their cigarette stubs often do not perceive them to be litter, so people may not think to look for or use these bins even if they were available. At present, local authorities have the power and, most importantly, the discretion to make their own decisions about how many and what types of bins should be provided throughout their areas to address the specific issues that occur. This is consistent with our commitments on localism, and surely has to be the right answer. Of course, my reservations about my noble friend’s Bill do not mean that I do not share his concerns about this blight on our landscape. However, as I have said several times in recent debates, we do not believe that further regulation is necessarily the right approach to this issue.

Your Lordships may be aware that my department has for some years chaired the Chewing Gum Action Group, which is made up of chewing gum manufacturers and is supported by Keep Britain Tidy and its equivalent organisations in the devolved Administrations. We are of course grateful for the support that chewing gum manufacturers have shown over several years for campaigns aimed at reducing the amount of chewed gum that is dropped on our streets and elsewhere. These have certainly produced a benefit in reduced chewing gum litter, at least for the period of the campaign, in some cases achieving reductions of up to 90% in gum drops in the campaign area. However, in many cases it seems that chewing gum litter levels rise again once the effect of the campaigns has worn off.

Chewing gum remains much harder to remove than other forms of litter, as several noble Lords have mentioned, given the way in which it bonds to pavement surfaces. As a consequence, local authorities still spend tens of millions of pounds a year in laboriously clearing it up, and this cost is much higher per tonne of chewing gum litter than for other kinds of litter. More work is clearly needed, and research shows that the public agree. Recent work by Keep Britain Tidy found that 82% of the British public think that businesses should do more to prevent litter. Work that KBT has done has shown that when a business’s product and brand is seen in the gutter as litter, that can have a real, negative impact on that business’s bottom line, and many businesses are starting to recognise this.

One obvious solution, on which I would like to see much more emphasis, and this was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is the bringing to market of non-stick chewing gums that do not bond to the surface on which they are dropped—although, to address directly one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, I am not sure whether it would still stick to the bedpost. I understand that there are several kinds of non-stick chewing gum that have already been shown to be technically feasible and which could therefore be quickly made available. They could have a taste and texture almost identical to current brands. If these could rapidly replace existing formulations then no one would lose out, and local council tax payers would save the tens of millions of pounds a year that are currently diverted towards tackling this avoidable problem.

Of course education must continue to discourage the extremely anti-social habit of dropping chewing gum, but I believe that manufacturers and retailers could and should play a bigger part in helping here, without the need for government regulation to bring that about. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked specifically what happened following the debate last year; my noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned a meeting. Manufacturers assure us that they have spent a significant amount of resources on developing a biodegradable or non-stick gum. Part of the problem in developing it, I understand, is that the same ingredients that make it gum also make it sticky. The product has to meet safety standards and be pleasant to consume, and these requirements have not to date been met by a cleaner gum. Ultimately, the choice of material is a commercial decision but we would welcome design solutions to the problem of chewing gum litter. However, behaviour change, as the noble Baroness said, is also important in the battle against litter.

I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble friend’s depth of feeling on this subject. I agree with him that local authorities should be encouraged to make it as easy as possible for people to do the right thing and to dispose of their litter responsibly. Unfortunately, though, as I have explained, I must express reservations about his Bill.

Forestry: Independent Panel Report

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further developments there have been since the publication of their response to the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry.

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

My Lords, we have made good progress in implementing the commitment set out in our Forestry and Woodlands Policy Statement, which was issued in January this year. An updated report was published on 3 July that highlighted progress in all areas, including establishing a new body to run the public forest estate, maintaining a core of forestry expertise in government and supporting the forestry sector to improve its economic performance. We are also giving greater priority to plant health.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. How will the Government ensure that the board of the proposed public forest estate management organisation will be inclusive, taking into account the views of users and community groups such as my own HOOF, which are instrumental in safeguarding our public forests and understand every aspect of our forests, including the commercial aspects? The Minister may say that they will be among the guardians, but I firmly believe that they must also have a voice and a vote on the board. I understand that the consultation on the new structure will end in October, so can we expect legislation to be announced in the next Queen’s Speech?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there were quite a lot of questions in there. I can assure the noble Baroness that stakeholders will be comprehensively involved in the process. She refers to HOOF; to dispel some misunderstanding, it is worth saying that, far from reviving the spectre of privatisation, or placing Ministers in total control of our forests, as has been suggested, our proposals involve the legal transferral of ownership of the entire estate from Ministers to a new operationally independent public body. I say to the noble Baroness that there is some misunderstanding; if it would be helpful to her, I would be very pleased to have a meeting with her—and a representative of HOOF, if that would suit her—to see if we can get rid of the misunderstanding.

[Baroness Fookes]

Will my noble friend expand on the issue of plant health, given the very worrying plant diseases that are affecting ash, oak, chestnut and other trees?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, yes, this is a very important matter. We have a plant and tree health task force, which has reached the conclusion of its report. It has recommended that the Government develop a UK plant health risk register and provide strategic and tactical leadership for managing those risks. It has also recommended a number of other courses of action, including developing and implementing procedures for preparedness and contingency planning to predict, monitor and control the spread of pests and diseases. We have accepted both of these recommendations and are making progress on them. It has also recommended a number of other courses of action, which we are actively considering. I had a meeting last week with stakeholders from across the interested parties to discuss those recommendations.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I declare my interest as on the register. Do the Government have a policy for increasing manufacturing capacity for all kinds of wood products, not forgetting poplar in particular?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord has reminded me that I should have declared an interest as a woodland owner. He essentially asks what we are doing to make the woodland industry more creative. There is a new concept called Grown in Britain, which is creating a new and stronger market pull for the array of products derived from our woodlands and forests. We are developing private sector funding that supports the planting and management of woodlands and forests through funding from corporates, as part of their corporate social responsibility, and we are connecting together and harnessing the positive energy and feelings towards our woodlands and forests that many in our society share to create a strong wood culture.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, in the Government’s response, the Secretary of State wrote on the subject of forest acquisition:

“We will focus particularly on woods close to our towns and cities where the greatest number of people can enjoy them”.

Can the Minister advise us whether there has been any success in this? If not, will he consult with the Forestry Commission England to help it bring forward some of its plans to achieve that laudable objective?

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with the noble Lord that that is a laudable objective. It is early days, but we are making progress on those things. If I may, I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to the department.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the Government will keep faith with the recommendation to establish guardians of the public forest estate and, if so, tell us what their role will be in relation to the new management organisation that is being established?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, before I answer that perhaps I should reiterate my thanks to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and his independent panel for the work that they did for us on this.

We envisage that there will be a group of guardians who will draw on the interests and expertise of public forest users and will be able to advise and support the delivery of the new body’s remit. The guardians will be focused on the outcomes that the management body delivers, such as environmental biodiversity and social benefits, and any questions of significant land acquisitions and disposals.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords—

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I am grateful. Will the Minister, with me, step back a little, think about the situation two years ago and consider how different it is now? Two years ago we were talking about the Government wanting to flog off most of the forestry estate. How different it is now. The Minister has congratulated the right reverend Prelate and his independent panel. Will he also congratulate the ministerial team in Defra on the way that they responded to the views of people throughout the country, in particular to the fantastic campaigns that existed? Is it not a win-win situation all round, with my honourable friend David Heath, as the Agriculture Minister, absolutely at the forefront of it?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I could not have put it better myself.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 13 June be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.

Motion agreed.

Japanese Knotweed

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sharples]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in eliminating Japanese knotweed in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, we commenced a controlled release of Aphalara itadori to tackle Japanese knotweed in 2010. The signs are encouraging for the establishment of this highly specialist psyllid. Aphalara successfully overwintered but numbers remained low and so additional releases were made in spring 2012 and spring 2013. No non-target impacts have been observed by the programme of close monitoring.

[Baroness Sharples]

Will the psyllid really be enough to kill off this pernicious weed? There are increasing reports of wretched owners of land who have had their land affected by Japanese knotweed and have been refused mortgages. Why can we not give them natural Roundup which is unpolluted? I managed to kill off my knotweed a number of years ago.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, experience from around the world has shown that biocontrol tends to take five to 10 years from the initial releases to achieve effective control. Despite poor summer weather since its release, Aphalara has shown that it can survive in small numbers and overwinter in the wild here. The question is how we can encourage it to achieve survival in larger numbers.

My noble friend mentions mortgages, and we are aware that some mortgage lenders have become reticent to lend if Japanese knotweed poses a threat to the property concerned. We have undertaken some work to estimate the impact of this. The RICS believes that recent concerns by valuers and lenders are often based on misunderstandings, and it consulted on that in 2011 in order to help valuers and mortgage lenders to understand the implications. Cornwall council has also provided guidance for mortgage lenders.

On the use of Roundup, I understand that others have also had success with it. Of course, it needs to be applied with care, and we are also looking carefully at a couple of other possible biocontrol options.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, if the Government are not willing to legislate, can the Minister at least urge local authorities to co-operate locally? When a resident spots knotweed in an adjacent property, the local authority can be helpful in identifying the owner of that property so that something can be done about it. At the moment, some local authorities wash their hands of the problem.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. I understand the point that the noble Lord makes. We have to balance, on the one hand, a determination to control this odious invasive species and, on the other, an imperative not to unnecessarily penalise people who are simply not in a position to do anything about it. However, I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

I did not take in the name of the treatment—it was “apha” something—but is there any risk of it becoming like the Hawaiian cane toad of Australia and proving to be a menace in itself?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. It is called Aphalara itadori and my noble friend is entirely right. On top of research work that has already been done testing it against more than 90 plant species, we are going through a phased release over five years to make absolutely sure that it focuses entirely and exclusively on Japanese knotweed. That is a really important point.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, Japanese knotweed is frequently found on publicly owned land, such as railway property and council land. In view of the fact that the Government seem to be totally unable to enforce regulations regarding ragwort, how can any rulings be given on Japanese knotweed?

[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.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, on her persistence in this matter, which is vital, and I congratulate the Government on the continuation of the experiments with the psyllid Aphalara itadori. Is it not the case that under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 it is already an offence to plant or cause this species to grow in the wild? Is it not time that that was strengthened and that allowing this plant to grow on your land without taking steps to remove it became an offence?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is certainly right that it is an offence to allow it to be introduced into the wild but we think that that is a step too far. It is a real challenge to get it under control and we want to find an effective biocontrol before we consider a move such as that suggested by my noble friend.

[Lord Glenarthur]

My Lords, can my noble friend say to what extent the spread of this knotweed has developed throughout the whole of the United Kingdom and to what extent the devolved Administrations are playing their part in trying to eradicate it?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is also an important point. The Welsh Government are a member of the project consortium for the natural control of Japanese knotweed and have been a major funder of the research. The licensing authorities in England and Wales work closely together to ensure a consistent approach. We have kept the Scottish Government updated at key points in the project, although, to answer my noble friend’s first question, Japanese knotweed is not such a significant problem in Scotland.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

What do the Japanese do about it?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, they are blessed with this psyllid, Aphalara itadori, and that is where we got it from. The issue is to ensure that it is as effective under our conditions as it is under Japanese conditions.

[Baroness Byford]

My Lords, is it not important that the Government take great precautions to prevent the importation of things such as Japanese knotweed? Such things do not just arrive; they are brought in. I know that there have been discussions at European level on the control of imports of plants; for example, Ash plants that might affect our trees, and many others. That is crucial because once Japanese knotweed gets hold, you cannot stop it.

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is quite right. A non-native species risk assessment of Japanese knotweed has been carried out under the GB non-native species mechanism. It is one of more than 50 risk assessments on plants that have been published. Japanese knotweed is assessed as high risk. There are many others. My noble friend will be aware that we are doing considerable work bearing down on pests such as this which are coming at us from abroad.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

Will the noble Lord explain to those of us who are enthusiastic gardeners but have never seen Japanese knotweed what we should be looking out for? On a more serious note, is he confident that public information—for example, in garden centres and other places where people purchase plants—is at a sufficiently high level to ensure that people who should be aware of what to look out for know what they should be looking for?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness that public awareness is one of the most important aspects. I will resist the temptation to describe the appearance of Japanese knotweed in front of your Lordships.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord De Mauley]

All right then. Defra is helping with the start-up of local action groups which are being established across England to reduce or eradicate invasive non-native plants, including Japanese knotweed. One of the objectives of these groups is to raise awareness of the environmental, social and economic problems that invasive non-native species can cause. They are raising awareness on a local and national scale with landowners, volunteers, potential partners and other interested parties. I should also say that information on GB non-native species is available on the secretariat website, which includes an identification sheet.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2013 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

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

My Lords, this instrument seeks to correct an error in the 2012 regulations. The error concerns the formula used for calculating the glass remelt recycling target for producers of glass packaging. The consequence is that the proportion of producers’ glass obligations that have to be met by evidence from remelt applications is inadvertently higher than the intended 63% for 2013-15. This instrument corrects that mistake by substituting an amended formula which ensures that the 63% glass remelt target is correctly applied to a producer’s glass recycling obligation for 2013-15 and 64% for 2016-17. My officials have worked with the Environment Agency to correct the error and to check that no further changes are needed to the 2012 regulations.

Prior to the 2012 regulations coming into force, Defra carried out a written consultation, with officials engaging with a broad range of representatives from industry, regulators and other interested parties. The consultation included the correct target of 63% but the draft regulations accompanying the consultation contained the error, which went unnoticed at the time. To correct it, we recently completed a public consultation on this revised draft instrument. We invited views on the plans to correct the error and there were no responses.

In practical terms the error has had no impact on business, with UK environment agencies using a correct version of the formula and enforcing against the intended 63% target. This instrument does not impose any new burden on any business. However, I apologise unreservedly for the error and hope that I have adequately explained that this instrument is intended to do no more than correct a mistake. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, and in particular for his apology. He will not be surprised, and may be relieved, to know that I do not oppose them since obviously it is appropriate to correct the error. Indeed, when I first looked at the regulations I naively did what people do, and that is simply to look at them. Of course, there is no mention of the error. I looked at the impact assessment, where again there is no mention of the error. My first question to the Minister, therefore, is what has been the impact of the error? What has been the cost to the taxpayer of getting this wrong and having to reconsult, even though there were no responses to the consultation?

The Explanatory Memorandum is perfectly clear: the instrument corrects an error in the formula for calculating the glass remelt recycling target for producers of glass packaging. He is not yet on his feet in the other place, but we anticipate from the media that the Secretary of State for Education will shortly be announcing changes to the national curriculum, among which will be that primary school children will have to learn their fractions. It is worth asking when Ministers will learn theirs too, so that we do not make these errors in the future.

The regulations are fine and they do a perfectly good job. I note in passing that these are regulations which the Government support—and that occasionally the Government support regulation. These are also regulations from Europe—and occasionally the Government support regulations from Europe. These are also regulations that gold-plate EU regulations, so there are times when the Government support the gold-plating of EU regulations. As I say, that should just be noted in passing. Having dealt with these regulations around a year ago, we are here because an error was made, so my only question of any substance for the Minister is: how much is it costing us?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as always, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Before I address them, perhaps I could say that the target we are talking about offers both economic and environmental benefits for the United Kingdom. As valuable resources for our industries become scarcer and more expensive, we need processes in place to recycle and recover them in order to retain as much of their value as we can in the economy. Indeed, the Government want the United Kingdom to move towards a zero waste economy; that is, an economy where resources are fully valued. We want to see material resources reused, recycled or recovered wherever possible, and only disposed of as a last resort. The targets in these regulations play an important part in achieving this ambition. They will help the UK to go further in recovering the value of discarded packaging materials and help to tackle the wasteful practice of burying these resources in landfill. Overall, we estimate that the whole package of targets will provide a net benefit of over £180 million to the UK economy over the period from 2013 to 2017. Over 95% of those benefits will come from revenue generated from recycled materials. We will also see greenhouse gas savings associated with diverting waste from landfill and energy savings from replacing virgin materials with recycled ones.

The Government recognise that the economic benefits will not be shared by all. These regulations will place an increased cost burden on the producers of packaging materials. However, the recycling targets will help to support wider growth and the creation of jobs in the recycling sector. I am pleased to say that when we consulted on the regulations, most businesses, including the majority of those on which the increased costs will fall, supported our approach. As I said, I am sorry for the error made in the 2012 regulations and I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to debate this instrument today. It will permit producers to continue to meet their obligations under the correct glass remelt recycling target.

We have not calculated the cost of correcting the error. I do not anticipate that it will be material. It will consist basically of official time to check the regulations and prepare amended regulations. As I said in my opening speech, the effective cost of the correction is nil, because everybody has been operating on 63% anyway. The only other thing I would say to the noble Lord is that I always enjoy being ragged by him about my mathematics. With those comments, I commend the regulations.

Motion agreed.

Cultural and Community Distribution Deregulation Bill [HL]

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Friday 5th July 2013 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, let me begin by thanking my noble friend, to whom I have listened carefully—as I have listened to other noble Lords—for bringing this issue to the attention of your Lordships.

I clearly understand that community events underpin many aspects of what creates the social cohesion of our society, and one should never underestimate how important they are in bringing people together. I strongly support such endeavours. However, my noble friend will understand that my ministerial interest stems from the potential by-product of littering caused by advertising leaflets being dropped in public area. While I agree that local authorities should not unduly interfere with the organisation and promotion of these kinds of community events, it would be wrong of me not to explain why I have some reservations about my noble friend’s proposition.

My noble friend’s Bill seeks to limit the restrictions that local authorities are presently able to impose on the distribution of free printed matter in their areas of responsibility. As your Lordships will be aware, local authorities have a statutory duty to keep their relevant land free of litter and refuse under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, generously admitted was put in place by the previous Administration, subsequently gave local authorities the power to restrict the distribution of free printed matter such as leaflets and flyers in specified areas if the distribution of such material is causing a problem.

The Bill could constrain those same local authorities that previously could utilise this provision in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. They could argue that the positive action they have taken to reduce littering will be undone because their resources will have to be diverted once again into dealing with the extra littering that my noble friend’s Bill could inadvertently cause.

On the other hand, and in line with my noble friend’s train of thought, I can say that the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently being considered in the other place, will make some changes to local authority powers in respect of litter which will require us to review our accompanying guidance. I am happy to make an offer to my noble friend that in the course of that review we will also look for opportunities to review the guidance to local authorities on their powers in respect of leafleting in exactly the situation that he contemplates. We are willing to work with the Manifesto Club and others to draw up best-practice guidelines. It would be easy to present the local authority powers as an unnecessary erosion of a citizens’ freedom. This is indeed the argument of the Manifesto Club in its report of last year, Leafleting: A Liberty Lost?, which argues that leaflets cause no more mess than burger wrappers or crisp packets and implies that there are far more compelling reasons for the restriction of leafleting.

Perhaps I may take your Lordships back to the 1990s, when trials of similar powers to limit leafleting were run in London and Newcastle. Westminster City Council had particular littering issues over the distribution of free magazines in the Oxford Street area and, more significantly, with the distribution of free material by language schools. This in turn encouraged a range of other businesses such as tattoo parlours, amusement arcades and nightclubs to do the same. Westminster put up notices to highlight this issue but also hit the problem at source by challenging those language schools that had not registered with Companies House. This approach was welcomed by other residents, businesses and visitors to the area.

The leafleting problem in Newcastle centred on a large build-up of litter in the early hours of the morning, consisting mostly of flyers advertising bars and nightclubs. Since May 2002, Newcastle’s licensing department, in consultation with local trade representatives, has issued consents to enable individuals to distribute flyers within the city, showing what I hope noble Lords will accept is a constructive and helpful approach. These consents undergo regular checks to ensure that individuals adhere to the conditions and, if they do not, distributors risks having their flyers confiscated.

These trials showed that the restriction of leafleting activity in specific problem areas had a marked effect in both reducing litter and helping local authorities to limit their street-cleansing costs. The evidence gathered through these trials led to an efficient piece of drafting as part of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act. However, that does not mean that we have stood still.

My noble friend’s proposal would undermine local authorities’ ability to address a problem which they already know exists. With the best will in the world, not everyone who is handed a leaflet or flyer wants to keep it, and it is a sad fact that many people still think that it is acceptable simply to drop the unwanted flyer a few paces further down the street. Under current legislation, controls on leafleting can be introduced only where there is evidence of a pre-existing problem with leaflet litter. Without these controls, there is a risk of the level of littering rising again in these areas, thus increasing the costs to local authorities of complying with their statutory duty to keep the streets clean. These costs would come at a time when local authority budgets were already under pressure and so would be likely to have a knock-on effect on the ability of local authorities to deliver other local and community services.

The current arrangements enable local authorities to develop appropriate solutions to local issues. If a problem arises, local authorities have the flexibility to consider and consult on an approach which tackles the specific problem and which does not unreasonably inconvenience law-abiding citizens. I put it to your Lordships that the creation of a further exemption, as proposed by my noble friend, would serve only to reduce the flexibility that local authorities currently have to tailor their response to the problem, and this would be directly contrary to this Government’s commitment to localism.

As my noble friend mentioned, exemptions exist to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act to protect well understood and fundamental rights. A local authority cannot apply restrictions to leaflets distributed for political purposes or for purposes of religion or belief, or for or on behalf of a charity. Feedback from local authorities is that they welcome clear delineation regarding to whom these provisions apply.

However, my noble friend seeks to extend the proposed definition of the events to which the exemption would apply. My concern with extending the exemption is that it could open the floodgates to commercial operators putting on events that could potentially attract huge audiences from far beyond the local community. While my noble friend paints a picture of community events or performances by local amateur dramatic societies, in some areas there may be numerous events taking place—for example, in city centres—where the number of leaflets frequently being dropped could be significant. This in itself would create a problem for the local authority enforcement officers. There is certainly no way of policing that only 600 people will see the leaflet, especially now that information of this kind is able to go global at the click of a button.

The focus on leafleting within this debate should not distract us from thinking about the overall issue of littering. In 2011-12, local authorities spent a staggering £840 million on street cleansing, and in the coalition we committed to working to reduce littering. Littering is a criminal offence which imposes unnecessary costs on the public purse and on society as a whole. Dealing with this supposedly victimless crime takes away from valuable services money which could otherwise be provided to the people who need them. We do not accept that more legislation is the only answer to the problem of littering, or even the best solution. If we are to tackle this problem effectively, we need to change people’s behaviour.

It would be remiss of me not to join the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in drawing noble Lords’ attention to the role of digital technology. Let us remember that leaflets and flyers are not the only method of advertising events. The cultural and arts sector is often at the forefront of the innovative use of technology. We encourage such organisations to make full use of digital technology to promote their offer, and indeed to join forces with other, similar organisations to share marketing costs. Arts Council England has made money available for research and development in digital innovation, which could include promoting events through digital mobile technology. This approach has the additional benefit of reducing paper use, which is inevitably better for the environment.

I am sure that even if my noble friend does not tweet himself, he will have dipped into his own party’s Twitter account and seen at first hand the speed at which a message can be conveyed via a digital platform. Many forward-thinking promoters are increasingly using media such as the quick response, or QR, code, in which interested parties use their smartphones to scan an advertised barcode to gain information about promotions or to book tickets for events. Surely these and other emerging and exciting digital tools are the way forward, and the old-fashioned paper leaflet or flyer will soon become an exhibit on the “Antiques Roadshow”.

My noble friend raised the issue of charging by local authorities. These powers are not about raising money for local authorities or placing barriers in the way of grass-roots arts organisations. The licensing fees that local councils can charge for permission to distribute leaflets must not exceed the cost of administering the licensing scheme. Not all councils charge a fee for a licence to distribute leaflets, and many councils have no restrictions at all. My noble friend mentioned some which, he suggested, were charging quite a lot of money. I am happy to look at those at the upper end of what he mentioned in case they exceed the cost of administering the power. To be clear, they can charge only the reasonable costs of enforcing the powers under Schedule 3A that do not extend to clean-up. Associated with that point, we have made informal soundings of councils across England. Pretty well all of them that responded expressed concern about the extra costs of cleaning up the litter generated and the damage to the environment.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me to pass on the content of this debate and the Bill to the DCMS. I am happy to say to him that we have certainly been in touch about this debate, and he is quite right that we should do so. The noble Earl also referred to the possibility of more bins being put out to deal with the problem. Through the guidance that we have published for local authorities, we are encouraging them to look at their bin provision and to think about where they might want to provide additional facilities.

Therefore, I assure noble Lords that it is not the aim of the powers in the existing legislation to impose unintentional, unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on the organisation of community and cultural events, which we see as very important. We want to see vibrant, thriving communities with a strong arts and cultural scene, and we would certainly be concerned if we heard that local authorities were using these powers inappropriately or disproportionately.

I hope that my noble friend is pleased by my offer, in the course of the review of local authority guidance in the context of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, to look for opportunities to review guidance to local authorities, specifically on their powers in respect of leafleting, and that he is pleased that we are willing to work with the Manifesto Club and others to draw up best-practice guidelines.

I do not believe that the legislation as it stands places undue restrictions on civil liberties; rather, it enables local authorities to limit their exposure to unnecessary street-cleansing expenses and to develop controls which are appropriate to their local circumstances. I therefore express significant reservations about my noble friend’s Bill, which has the potential both to increase local authority costs and to make existing controls harder to enforce.

[The Earl of Clancarty]

My Lords, in terms of the exemptions, does the Minister believe that artistic expression is not as important as religious and political expression?

[Lord De Mauley]

I hoped I had made my position clear on that point. I see cultural and artistic expression as extremely important.

Flooding: Insurance

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what agreement they have reached with the insurance industry to ensure that owners of homes at risk of flooding can obtain affordable home insurance.

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

My Lords, we are at an advanced stage in discussions with the insurance industry about the future of flood insurance. We aim to conclude those discussions and announce future measures as soon as possible to ensure that households can continue to access affordable flood insurance in the future.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Secretary of State is currently struggling to agree a fair deal on CAP reform for UK farmers, and his department has one of the worst settlements in Whitehall in today’s CSR. I hope that he does a lot better for 200,000 householders in this negotiation with insurers. This House rises on the deadline for concluding the negotiation. Given the persistent interest from noble Lords on all sides, can the Minister therefore guarantee us an opportunity to question him in here on the conclusion of the negotiations before we break for the Recess?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I had hoped we might have a constructive debate about this. However, since the noble Lord has raised the common agricultural policy, perhaps I should say that it was Labour’s leadership in the last round of CAP reform that cost us €550 million in disallowance and led us to the disastrous administration of the single farm payment. We, by contrast, are tackling another immensely complex negotiation on flood insurance in a measured and sensible way. We have to balance the interests of those at high risk of flood, wider policyholders and taxpayers, while the ABI is a membership organisation with a lot of interests to represent. The noble Lord asks about an opportunity to debate the eventual outcome. I would be pleased about that; it is not my role to guarantee it, but I am sure that we will have a chance to do that.

[The Earl of Selborne]

My Lords, to bring the question back to flood insurance, has my noble friend looked at the precedent in America, and are there lessons to be learnt as to how to deal with flood insurance from the treatment of vulnerable homeowners in America?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, that is something to which we have given considerable thought. However, international comparisons provide no clear model. The state-backed national disaster insurance system in the US was in debt to the taxpayer by $17 billion even before Hurricane Sandy struck. Emergency legislation was required in January 2013 to increase the fund’s borrowing by $9.7 billion when the scheme was days from running out of money, to enable claims to be paid. So we have considered it, but it has its limitations.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, given that previous deadlines have already been missed, as regards bringing the negotiations to a conclusion, what assurance can the Minister give that this will not be announced some time in the middle of August or September, when there is no chance for us to scrutinise the detail? Further, the Question uses the wording “affordable insurance”. Will he comment on the fact that after the Cockermouth floods, my insurance company for my house in Cumbria increased my premium more than sixfold?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. In answer to the noble Lord’s first question, the ABI, in its letter to which we referred when we last debated this subject a month ago, has expressed confidence that we will be able to conclude this before the end of July, and I have every confidence in that. We need a solution that provides affordable insurance, as the noble Lord said, for those at risk, but that does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders or the taxpayer. Obtaining insurance might involve some householders shopping around or going through specialist brokers if flood risks are significant. In terms of help for householders, in July last year, we published a guide to obtaining flood insurance in high-risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum and industry representatives.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, I heard this morning a rustling in the undergrowth, and it was not oncoming water: it was a suggestion that an agreement has actually now been reached between the Association of British Insurers and Defra—the Government. I do not know whether the Minister is able to confirm that, because it has perhaps has not been signed, sealed and delivered yet, but the agreement is there. When that news arrives—perhaps tomorrow—will it be given by an Oral Statement? That would then allow the Opposition in this House to have the Statement taken here, which would be the normal procedure, but can happen only if it is an Oral Statement?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend is unique among your Lordships in that he seems to have both ears to the ground at the same time. As I said, we are at an advanced stage in discussions with the insurance industry about the future of flood insurance. We aim to announce future measures shortly to ensure that households can continue to access affordable flood insurance.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, why should not all policyholders carry the risk? It would mean a very marginal difference in premiums.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. We are trying to arrange a system where those at the highest risk who have difficulty affording the insurance effectively have a continued cross-subsidy from wider policyholders. It is a very complicated negotiation, as I think that the noble Lord is effectively pointing out, and we have a lot of interests to keep in mind here.

[Lord Elton]

Would the negotiations be made easier if the Government decided and announced that any agreement to insure flood-risk property would not extend to any property on flood plains for the building of which planning permission had been given after, let us say, today’s date?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is persistent in raising this issue. The Environment Agency provides advice to local planning authorities on the flood risk associated with new developments, which is used to develop strategic flood-risk assessments. During 2012-13, 99% of planning objections raised by the Environment Agency were amended in line with the advice of the NPPF. Where development is allowed because the risk is low, the proposed development should be designed to ensure that it is safe even in a one-in-1,000-year-scale flood.

Genetically Modified Crops

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in seeking to reform the regulations regarding the commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops.

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

My Lords, the EU has robust and comprehensive regulations governing GM crops. These regulations were designed to provide fair and predictable market access for products that have undergone a rigorous, case-by-case safety assessment. In practice, polarised views across EU member states mean that the scientific evidence is often ignored and crops remain stuck in the system. It is therefore difficult to make progress on this issue.

[Lord Taverne]

I should declare an interest as founder of the charity, Sense About Science. Over 14 years ago, several reports from the Royal Society, supported by every single national academy of sciences in the world, concluded that GM crops were no danger and caused no harm to human health or the environment. Since then, the enormous expansion in the cultivation of GM crops outside Europe and especially in emerging countries has strongly reinforced that conclusion. Will my noble friend convey to the Secretary of State congratulations on basing policy on evidence? Will he assure us that the Government will stand firm against the scaremongering of the Daily Mail, our leading anti-science paper, and recognise that its attacks on GM crops have no more evidence to support them than its disgraceful and scandalous campaign against MMR vaccines?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, first, let me say that my noble friend has a great deal of knowledge in the area of science and GM specifically. His science-based approach is very welcome. I agree with what he says. That is why, despite the difficulties, we will work to unblock the situation. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State says, we are going to need all the tools in the box to feed the rapidly growing world population. As he also says, we want the United Kingdom to have a leading role in feeding the world and increasing the resilience of global food supplies, and not to stand by watching others take the lead and forge ahead. The UK is the natural home for scientific research. We want companies and research providers to know that the UK is the best place for them to carry out their work.

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, I am sure that it will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that a number of Members of your Lordships’ House are genetically modified. When it comes to plants, does he not agree that there is colossal evidence that, given the shortage of water in the world and of food in many countries, the need for genetically modified plants is ever increasing and that this is an important technology to help many people who are starving?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, yes and yes.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has said, there is no shred of scientific evidence to suggest that GM foods carry any risk to human health. All talk in the media of “Frankenstein foods” is nonsense. Many GM crops have been cultivated with improvement in the quality of the crops and in their yields in many countries across the world. Is it not now perverse and misguided for the European Union, for instance, to have imposed a ban on the cultivation of GM crops? Can we do better?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord makes a really important point. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I have discussed this issue with Commissioner Borg in order to emphasise the importance of finding a solution that gets the current system working. The commissioner has signalled that he wants to try to resolve the problems at European level and we look forward to further discussions on this issue.

[Viscount Ridley]

My Lords, can my noble friend explain why, for 20 years, a group of environmental activists has been allowed to deny the British consumer choice in this matter: the choice to buy GM crops if they prefer them because they think they are good for human health and the environment?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is quite right that there are groups—interests—that have been successful in creating controversy around GM which has devalued the public debate and means that people have not been able to reach a balanced view of the pros and cons. We will strive to change that.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, will the Minister undertake to express to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the strength of support in this House for the science and evidence-based approach that he is advocating and wish him luck in the European Union in taking that forward? Would it not be truly irresponsible, given the need, as he has said, to cope with a rapidly expanding and often malnourished and starving population, not to take the opportunities offered by GM and by the independent scientific expertise in this country to move forward and save lives, as GM cotton manufacture has saved the lives of agricultural workers across the world?

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with the noble Baroness. I am extremely grateful to her and other noble Lords who have spoken positively today, and I will certainly take her words and the words of other noble Lords back to my right honourable friend.

[Baroness O’Cathain]

My Lords, in all this euphoria about GM crops—and I think it is wonderful that at last we have some positive news—let us not forget that there are areas in the world that are going to be badly affected by this because the plants do not produce seeds on the same basis as current crops. I suggest that in all discussions that go on about this, particularly with the European Union, steps should be taken to ensure that the people who are going to make a lot of money out of these GM crops, such as seed merchants, do something to help those people in other areas in the world who will not be able to do the usual agriculture they have at the moment. We just cannot lose sight of that. I would like him to make sure that that will happen.

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend raises an issue that is known as “terminator technology”; that is, the concept that seeds may not reproduce. Terminator technology is a concept rather than something that is being applied in practice. There are no GM crops in existence, to my knowledge, that produce sterile seed and no plans to market such crops.