Thames Tideway Tunnel

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what will be the costs to the consumer of the Thames Tideway Tunnel.

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

My Lords, for Thames Water’s 13.8 million domestic sewerage customers, the tunnel is estimated to have an average maximum annual impact on bills of £70 to £80 at 2011 prices. This includes the cost of financing the project. The exact profile and duration of the cost to customers continues to be analysed. Spread over several decades, bills could gradually be affected from 2014-15, with the maximum impact estimated from around 2019.

[Lord Berkeley]

I am grateful to the Minister, and glad that they are still looking at the finances. Does he agree that if Thames Water had paid a reasonable dividend appropriate to a utility for the past 12 years and Macquarie Bank had not taken £48 million a year on management fees, this project could have been funded out of Thames Water’s assets without any extra charge on the customers? Will he therefore instruct the regulator Ofwat to look at all this again—to look at alternatives such as a sustainable drainage system—so that customers can perhaps get a reduction in their fees rather than this horrendous increase?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, Ofwat has ensured that the regulatory ring-fence in Thames Water’s licence was tightened following its acquisition by Macquarie. The ring-fence licence conditions on Thames Water already include a condition requiring Thames Water to ensure that its dividend policy will not impair the company’s ability to finance its functions. As for alternatives to the tunnel, studies have looked at all kinds of alternatives over the past decade but none has shown a viable cheaper solution that would simultaneously address the current sewer overflow problems within a decade, deliver value for money and meet environmental objectives.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, this project has been known about for decades, I imagine, but over the past 10 years Thames Water has paid out £3.5 billion to shareholders. Should it not have known that that sort of money should have been saved to provide this essential ring system in London? Why should every customer of Thames Water pay for this project? Would it not be better if Thames Water did not pay any dividends for the next 10 years at the rate that they paid in 2012, and that covered the whole of the cost of the new project?

[Lord De Mauley]

What an interesting suggestion, my Lords. The standard model in the water sector is for customers to pay the financing costs of the company’s capital expenditure on underground assets together with a charge to reflect expenditure required to keep them in a serviceable state. I do not think that we would find investors if we were not able to finance it in this way.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, over the past two years Thames Water has paid out £650 million in dividends and £100 million in management fees. Can the Minister assure the House that Thames Water is not simply a private equity vehicle designed to save tax for its overseas investors at the expense of London customers and UK taxpayers, who are supposed to stump up for its infrastructure investment?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords; Thames Water pays its tax. All UK companies are allowed to claim capital allowances when they spend on capital investment programmes. Tax relief is allowable against the capital expenditure incurred with the aim of encouraging investment by companies. Water and sewerage companies have significant capital programmes in comparison with their revenues. They therefore benefit from tax allowances proportionately more than others. HMRC remains vigilant in ensuring that companies operating within the UK pay the tax they are legally obliged to pay.

[Lord Bradshaw]

Does my noble friend believe that the people who privatised our utilities expected that within 10 years they would be in the hands not only of foreign administrations and foreign countries but actually of the Governments of those countries? We have denationalised here and renationalised from abroad. Surely the regulator should get a lot tougher on these people who are making absolute fools of people who have to subscribe increasing sums to the maintenance of essential services.

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a fair point, my Lords, but we believe in free capital markets.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, does the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mean that the Government are indifferent to the extent of foreign ownership of our critical national infrastructure? Are they indifferent to the possible implications of that?

[Lord De Mauley]

No, my Lords, we are not indifferent; we take these things very seriously. As I say, however, we believe in free access to our capital markets.

[Lord Lea of Crondall]

My Lords, has the noble Lord seriously considered whether he has given adequate answers to all the questions that have been asked in the last five minutes? Will he write, and put in the Library, a full letter on the considerations in the Government’s mind about where we go from here on all these matters?

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot think of anything that I would like to expand upon but I will look at the record and, if there is anything, of course I will write.

[Lord Bowness]

My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not giving him advance notice of this question. My understanding is that properties not connected to mains drainage do not pay sewerage charges. By analogy, are those properties within the Thames Water area which have no physical benefit from this proposal actually liable to pay the charges, or should there not be the equivalent of what used to be described as differential precepts? I declare an interest as somebody who lives in a property that may be in that kind of position.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my understanding is that those who are not connected and not currently paying sewerage charges will not pay this charge. If that is not correct, I will write to my noble friend.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I, too, live in a property that may be affected by the construction of the tunnel and I, too, have not given advance notice of my question to the Minister.

Although I see no other option but to proceed with the project, I agree with my noble friend Lord Berkeley that the huge cost to the consumer is of great concern. How will the Minister ensure that, in the interests of consumers, there is proper parliamentary scrutiny—in this House and in the other place—of the cost, which may well rise, and of the funding vehicle, which has now, by ministerial answer, been guaranteed by the taxpayer?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is a fair point. Anything that needs to come to Parliament will, of course, do so. If there is anything else that the noble Lord and I think it would be appropriate to debate, we will put it up for debate.

Bee Population

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 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 Moynihan for initiating this debate and for giving me this opportunity to highlight what the Government have been and are doing to improve honeybee health and to outline our future plans for this important area. I would like to thank all noble Lords for their fascinating contributions. They have almost talked me into developing a healthy conflict of interest.

Honeybees are extremely important for pollination, yet, as almost every noble Lord who has spoken has said, they are facing a growing number of threats from pests and diseases that pose a significant challenge to beekeepers. Noble Lords will also be aware of the very poor summer we experienced in 2012 and the effects that this had on agriculture and the environment. Last year was described as the most difficult beekeeping year ever, even by experienced beekeepers, and the annual honey crop is estimated to be down—as I think my noble friend Lord Moynihan said—by more than 70% compared with 2011. Therefore, we are taking this very seriously and are taking action to improve honeybee health and support beekeeping for the future.

Let me first explain the work we have already got under way. The main focus of our efforts in protecting bee health is through the work of the National Bee Unit, which is acknowledged as having one of the best bee health surveillance programmes in Europe, with a global reputation for excellence. The first of the unit’s main activities is inspection and enforcement. We have a team of professional bee inspectors out in the field, about which my noble friend Lord Patten asked and to which I will return, controlling notifiable diseases and surveying for exotic pests. I am pleased to report that, because of their work, we are able to say that the incidence of the two notifiable diseases—European and American foulbrood—remains low, with infection rates around half of those observed during the 1990s. Most importantly, no evidence of exotic pests, such as the small hive beetle, has been found and fortunately these pests remain absent from the UK.

Secondly, the unit provides advice to beekeepers, which was particularly important in view of the very poor summer weather, and specific advice was published to help beekeepers during this period. Thirdly, among the unit’s main activities is research development, such as developing control methods for small hive beetle. Fourthly, it contributes to evidence-based policy development, including quantifying risks to bee health from current and emerging threats, diagnostic services for pests and diseases, and contingency planning against the arrival of exotic pests and diseases.

Fifthly, the unit helps beekeepers to become more self-reliant in controlling pests and diseases through training and education programmes jointly run with beekeeping associations. The National Bee Unit was involved in nearly 500 training events last year, which were attended by more than 22,000 beekeepers. Feedback from those attending has shown that beekeepers have valued and benefitted from these events.

The Healthy Bees Plan, which has now been under way for more than three years, was initiated by the previous Government and has been enthusiastically pursued by this Government. Let me set out what has been achieved so far and our plans for the future. A first priority of the plan was to get a more accurate picture of the numbers and distribution of beekeepers and the health of their colonies. Between 2009 and 2011, the NBU visited and took samples from around 5,000 apiaries in England and Wales, which was one of the biggest surveys of its kind ever undertaken.

As the results on the health of our bees became available, we began a review of our pest and disease control policies. This was undertaken by the Food and Environment Research Agency, the Welsh Government, the NBU, representatives from beekeeping associations and an independent scientist. The review considered how best to manage pests and diseases in the future to ensure that effective policies and support are in place; that priorities for future collective action by government and beekeepers are clear; and that we are making the best use of public funding. I should like to take this opportunity to announce to your Lordships that today we are launching a consultation seeking views on the proposals which emerged from this review. These proposals build on current policies and, importantly, set the future direction for pest and disease control.

The second priority of the Healthy Bees Plan was to improve beekeeper training, about which several noble Lords have asked. We have co-funded initiatives with beekeeping associations, of which an example is 400 new beekeeper trainers and a suite of new training materials and courses. These jointly funded programmes will continue during the next phase of the plan to 2015. One of these programmes is the development of an apprenticeship scheme to be launched shortly to encourage young people to become bee farmers and we are working with the Bee Farmers’ Association to take this initiative forward.

The third priority of the plan was to increase the number of beekeepers registered on the NBU’s BeeBase database. BeeBase is an important tool in the control of bee diseases and pests, and the chances of successful control are significantly improved if the location and contact details of beekeepers and their apiaries are known. I am pleased to report that the number registered has increased from around 18,000 when the plan was launched to nearly 29,000 now, which is a tremendous achievement.

We are also working to improve the availability of medicines for the treatment of bee diseases and have developed an action plan involving manufacturers, beekeepers and bee inspectors. Details of bee medicines which veterinarians can import from other member states are available on the Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s website.

Turning to the ongoing issue of the effect of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned, as did several other noble Lords, perhaps I may stress to your Lordships that I take very seriously any threat to bees and other pollinators. We have kept evidence on neonicotinoids under close and open-minded scrutiny and will restrict the use of these products if the evidence shows the need.

Government scientists and the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides advise that, while the potential for toxic effects has been shown, the evidence currently available does not indicate harmful exposure in the field. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to the fact that we are working rapidly to fill crucial knowledge gaps. We have research under way which is nearly finished to look at field effects of neonicotinoids on bumble bees. We are studying historic data on bee health and neonicotinoid usage. We are analysing the implications of possible restrictions for the environment and for agriculture. These work streams will deliver very soon. We will consider the results and the action required as a matter of urgency.

I turn now to research funding, about which several noble Lords have asked. We have joined some of the UK’s major research funders to tackle the decline in insect pollinators. Understanding the causes of this decline will help us to identify the best possible action to support and sustain these species for the future. This is important given the role of pollinators in local food production and in our overall food security. The initiative’s total spend is up to £10 million over five years. Nine projects were announced in June 2010 that will look at different aspects of the decline of insect pollinators and bring together researchers from many disciplines, including ecology, molecular biology, mathematics and computing. Some will focus on specific species and/or diseases; others will look broadly at factors affecting the health and survival of pollinating insects more generally. Two of these projects focus specifically on honeybees and six will benefit both honeybees and bumblebees. We look forward to seeing the results of these studies over the next two years.

My noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord Hodgson asked about progress on developing a bee strain resistant to Varroa. Many attempts have been made both in this country and worldwide to breed Varroa-resistant or Varroa-tolerant bees. This includes work carried out at the University of Sussex since 2008. I understand that, despite anecdotal evidence to the contrary, this has so far been unsuccessful. This is in part due to the genetics of honeybees. Other novel molecular approaches are currently being developed for the control of Varroa. The recent sequencing of the genomes of Apis mellifera and Varroa destructor could aid the identification of tolerant strains in the future by targeting relevant genes and traits more effectively.

My noble friend Lord Moynihan, among others, stressed the importance of education. A key priority of the Healthy Bees Plan is to deliver an enhanced training and education programme for beekeepers, driving up husbandry standards and the management of pests and diseases. Defra has so far co-funded education and training initiatives with beekeeping associations and I referred to that a little earlier.

My noble friend Lady Thomas asked whether neonicotinoids were used by local authorities on verges and, indeed, in private gardens. Agriculture and horticulture is by far the largest market; although they are also authorised for use in other situations including, for instance, use on high-quality turf on golf courses. They are unlikely to be used by councils on roadside verges where herbicides are more likely to be used. They are authorised for amateur use in private gardens but these products are authorised at much lower doses than are allowed in professional applications and are used on a much smaller area. Furthermore, they are only authorised if they can be used without harmful effects on human health or unacceptable risks to the environment. No product is authorised for home or garden use if its correct use requires training or protective equipment.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked about the results of the IPI—the Insect Pollinators Initiative. I can tell her that all projects within it are progressing well and we look forward to seeing the results in 2014. She also asked whether research has been carried out into the nature and variety of diseases affecting plants and trees and whether there is any evidence that diseased plants or trees are for some reason more attractive to insects. In fact, a considerable amount of work has been carried out by Defra, Fera, Forest Research, universities and research institutes into the nature and variety of diseases affecting plants and trees. That may be, perhaps, a subject for further debate. However, specifically in respect of whether diseased plants or trees are more attractive to insects, it is true that certain studies have indicated that this can sometimes be the case. For example, a recent paper shows that a plant pathogen can make the host more attractive to insect vectors and there is, of course, a risk that they further spread the pathogen.

A paper published in 2005 suggested that the pathogen causing Dutch Elm disease makes host trees attractive to insect vectors. However, a recent Dutch paper showed that white clover mosaic virus infection can decrease the attractiveness of white clover plants for female fungus gnats. I hope that my noble friend is aware of the expert task force set up by Defra’s chief scientist specifically to see what can be done to enable us to be on the front foot in anticipating plant diseases from abroad that pose a potential risk to us. The interim report of that expert task force is very welcome.

My noble friend Lady Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke about restrictions on neonics in other countries. There were several incidents in May 2008 in which these pesticides killed bees in Germany. As a result, the circumstances in which they can be used have been restricted in Germany although the products have not been banned. According to the German authorities, the incidents resulted from the inadvertent exposure of bees to one of the neonic products applied as a seed treatment to maize seed. We have assessed the risk of the German situation being replicated here as negligible for a variety of reasons. Three other EU member states, France, Slovenia and Italy, have introduced some restrictions although all have neonic products authorised. Slovenia took action following incidents similar to those in Germany. Italy has restricted the use of these pesticides in the wake of the German incident as a precautionary measure and in France Imidacloprid has been suspended for seed treatments on sunflowers since 1999, and on maize since 2004. The basis for the recent French action is not entirely clear. They cited a review by the French agency ANSES. However, ANSES did not in fact call for a ban and its review does not appear to support one. The UK is therefore in step with most other EU countries and, most importantly, we are acting in accordance with the evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether we agree with the use of the precautionary principle. We fully accept that the precautionary principle is applicable in considering the appropriate response to the potential effects of pesticides. The principle guides decision-making when a serious potential risk has been identified and where, following the best possible risk assessment, there remains scientific uncertainty. It does not dictate the appropriate decision.

My noble friend Lord Patten asked about bee inspectors. I assure him that they exist. I have met them, or many of them, on a course on my visit to Fera in Yorkshire. There are about 60 National Bee Unit inspectors. They are an extremely important component of the bee health programme and they are gearing up for another busy year. I can tell my noble friend that, far from reducing, their numbers have increased since the 2009 launch of the Healthy Bees Plan. He asked whether the inspectors have a uniform. It is grey and has the Fera logo on it.

My noble friend also asked about the quality of science obtained by Her Majesty’s Government and our European partners for any decisions on pesticides. The Government have made clear their determination to act on the evidence. We have therefore commissioned a number of research projects to fill gaps in what is known. These include, among a number of other projects, a study of real exposure of bumblebees in the field to oilseed rape treated with neonics and a study of the significance of pesticide residues in disease levels in healthy honeybees. This work is being taken forward as rapidly as possible and is nearly ready for consideration by the independent experts of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. In Europe, the focus is on using the new science to update the standard process for assessing the risks of pesticides to bees, and UK experts are actively involved. My noble friend referred to the need to improve pesticide management and hygiene. I absolutely agree with that. That is a key aspect of the consultation we are launching today.

My noble friend Lord Jones of Cheltenham asked what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the loss of habitat on bee populations. In 2011, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment concluded that since 1980 wild bee diversity has declined in most landscapes. It identified land use change and habitat loss as key drivers of the decline in wild bees as well as other pollinating insects alongside disease and the use of some pesticides. We have lost 97% of our flower-rich grasslands since the 1930s. This is why the focus of our conservation effort for pollinators is the protection and management of habitats through protected site policy, agri-environment schemes and new initiatives such as nature improvement areas.

He asked whether the Government would consider protecting meadows in any future planning legislation, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised questions in that area as well. Protection for meadows is in place. Flower-rich grasslands, including lowland and upland meadows, are already recognised in the list of habitats of principal importance for the conservation of biological diversity in England, published by the Secretary of State, under Section 41 of the NERC Act 2006. The National Planning Policy Framework, published in 2012 requires planning authorities to promote the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Environmental Impact Assessment (Agriculture) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 protect uncultivated or semi-natural areas, such as hay meadows from being damaged by agricultural work, such as planning, draining and use of fertilisers and herbicides where the uncultivated land or semi-natural areas directly affected are two hectares or more in area. I could go on, but I am conscious of the time. Perhaps I might suggest that a detailed debate on the Bill, to which my noble friend referred, could be conducted when it comes before your Lordships’ House.

My noble friend Lord Jones asked whether the Government agree with Buglife. While important, honeybees are only a small part of the insects which pollinate crops. Of course, we agree. Recently published research from Reading University suggested that managed honeybees were responsible for about a third of pollination in the UK, noting that this was after a decline in managed bee populations. The national ecosystem assessment suggested that wild pollinators contribute a significant proportion of that total. My noble friend also asked what the Government were doing to conserve wild bees and other pollinators. Perhaps I will write to him on that because I have covered it a little already and can expand on it. He asked whether the Government will invite responses from Buglife and other organisations to the consultation. The Government would welcome responses from any individual or organisation with an interest in protecting our bees.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson asked who is in charge. Well, my Lords, I am. I am the Minister responsible for bees. To be slightly less glib, Defra has the co-ordination role and collaborates closely with the Welsh and Scottish Governments who also fund Fera in part. I will write to noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, invited me to do so. I think that I have rather good answers to some of his questions but I have simply run out of time. There are continuing challenges for bee health that need to be addressed and there are no signs that these are likely to diminish. Although the number of colony losses noted by the National Bee Unit inspection during the beekeeping season has fallen from 12.5% in 2008 to 5% in 2012, the poor summer weather could see this trend reversed, so the challenge continues. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to continue to play their part in working with beekeepers to sustain the health of honeybees. Our successes in recent years provide a clear platform for determining the priority actions necessary to achieve that important goal.

Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft order laid before the House on 22 October 2012 be approved.

Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 13 December.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012.

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, the order is made under the Public Bodies Act 2011 to modify the funding arrangements for the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The order will enable the inspectorate to charge water companies for the regulatory activity from which these companies benefit.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate is the drinking water quality regulator for the water industry, providing independent assurance that water supplies in England and Wales are safe and that drinking water quality is acceptable to consumers.

The inspectorate is currently funded entirely by Defra, with the costs of its operation falling to the taxpayer. However, a significant proportion of the inspectorate’s activity relates to scrutinising the way in which water companies meet their regulatory requirements through technical audits and inspections.

The proposal to introduce a charging scheme was first raised in the consultation on the Flood and Water Management Bill in 2009. The proposals were not included in the Act. The charging scheme will enable the inspectorate to recover the cost of its regulatory activities from water companies. This is considered to be a much fairer way of recovering costs. It will make the inspectorate consistent with other related water regulators such as Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Consumer Council for Water, all of which charge for their regulatory activities.

The scheme will not enable the inspectorate to recover all its costs from industry: it will not cover the costs of prosecutions and court-related activity associated with enforcement orders and other sanctions.

Defra will continue to fund the inspectorate for this work and the inspectorate will seek to recover these costs through the court system. Defra will also continue to fund the activity to support drinking water policy such as the advice the inspectorate provides to Defra on scientific and technical matters.

The water industry in England and Wales values the activities of the Drinking Water Inspectorate very highly and companies are supportive of this proposal. The inspectorate has consulted with water companies to seek their views on how a charging scheme could identify the cost of regulatory activities. The outcome is a charging scheme that will be based on two elements: part of the fee will be based on the number of sample results checked and the other part based on the time taken in auditing water supply arrangements, investigating incidents and investigating consumer complaints.

I consider this approach to provide a fair means to allocate the costs while keeping the charging scheme reasonably simple to administer. The rates to be applied to determine the annual fee for water companies will be fixed by the chief inspector and subject to approval by Ministers.

The order will introduce charges for water companies which supply wholly or mainly in England. A similar order has been approved under the Public Bodies Act 2011 by the Welsh Government, which will apply to water companies that supply wholly or mainly in Wales.

The benefits of this scheme are twofold. Allowing the inspectorate to charge the water industry for its regulatory work will save the public purse around £2 million per annum. The introduction of a charging scheme will also provide an incentive for water companies to review their procedures for water safety management.

In its consideration of the order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee cleared the draft order but requested clarification of the way the order promoted effectiveness and economy in the delivery of the inspectorate’s regulatory functions. I am happy to provide that clarification now.

The order will enable the inspectorate to assess and improve its effectiveness by providing transparency in the cost of the regulatory functions it delivers. This will enable direct comparison of the effectiveness of the inspectorate compared with other water regulators.

The order will also assist the promotion of economy by providing an incentive for water companies to consider the value of the regulatory activity provided by the inspectorate against other options for the management of quality assurance. An example of this is where water companies now attain accreditation from UKAS which undertakes technical audits of laboratories. The inspectorate has an agreement with UKAS which means that it does not routinely inspect laboratories which have UKAS accreditation. Transparency of costs will allow water companies to compare the services provided by the inspectorate with other accreditation bodies which offer audit and quality assurance services.

I hope that the Committee will agree that the introduction of a charging scheme will provide transparency of the cost of regulatory activities and will assist in the long-term effectiveness and economy of activity to safeguard drinking water. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the order. I will not detain the Committee for long, as it seems largely straightforward.

The issue is the switch of payments for the regulatory function of the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which will be made in future by customers rather than by the taxpayer, and how this will work. The Minister has explained that the Public Bodies Act 2011 enables him to change the funding arrangements to reflect the fact that if an industry needs regulation in undertaking an activity that could cause adverse effects in others, then the industry should face the regulatory cost. There is no more important product than safe, clean, hygienic drinking water. The change will comply with the Hampton review recommendations for better regulation and with the Defra charging handbook strategy aims. It will bring funding into line with that for other water regulators, such as Ofwat and the Environment Agency.

The new system will ensure that regulatory costs are recovered in proportion to the individual relative regulatory burden, serving as an indicator of the relative efficiency and effectiveness of each water company or supplier. Furthermore, only one of the 21 responses from the 33 key stakeholders consulted did not support this policy change. I note the proposed charging system will apply to all water companies and that none is classified as a micro-business, with the result that there are no discriminatory burdens that will weigh disproportionately.

The cost of the regulatory function of the inspectorate is in the round rather small, and the Minister may well say this is a tidy-up exercise, with the modest cost to consumers judged to be more than outweighed by the non-monetarised benefits already highlighted. Nevertheless, I would like the Minister to expand where he can on some of the potential implications and the public information for customers.

The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the total charge being transferred from taxpayers to customers amounts to £1.9 million, less than a 0.1% increase to most individual bills, or around 15p per annum. The 13th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee updates this figure to include unmetered and metered households to produce an estimate of 9p or 10p per annum. While noble Lords will not be expecting front page exposure in the Daily Mail of “the thin end of the wedge” even if charges were to increase, can the Minister say what would trigger concern and action on any report to Ofwat? Will Ofwat’s approval be required for all and any increases? Will it be looking at cost control and cost-cutting measures if it is to address the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the change in the charging system does not appear to promote economy in the inspectorate’s delivery. The scrutiny committee had asked for more clarity on how the charging structure will promote this effectiveness and economy, and I thank the Minister for his further explanation in his introduction of the order.

In the Minister’s officials’ meeting with the industry has any discussion taken place on how water companies will spread the charge across their customer base? Will the charge be made per customer bill, or will it be volume related, a question especially pertinent to metered supplies and high-volume commercial operations? Will there be consistency across the regions, will intercompany performances be monitored and published, and will this include Wales?

Will the Minister indicate whether the water companies will be highlighting the admittedly small charge with a separate line on the face of customers’ bills, even if only annually, and therefore fulfilling the very reason to make the charging change? No doubt this will require public information arrangements to be made for customers.

Finally, water affordability is becoming an ever increasing concern to more and more households. While the Minister may be reluctant to go into detail today on the proposed social tariff scheme, will he at least confirm by stating the commitment that this fee will qualify to be included under the social tariff umbrella?

I have no intention not to agree with this order. But if the Minister could indicate any understanding on how this change will be implemented, it will be of great interest to consumers.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government are committed to everyone in England and Wales having access to clean, wholesome drinking water and keeping water bills at an affordable level. Approval of this order will enable the Drinking Water Inspectorate to recover the cost of regulatory activities from the water companies which benefit from them. This change in funding will result in a saving, as I said earlier, of about £2 million to the taxpayer each year and may increase the average annual customer bill by about 10p, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned. He asked about the way in which the charge will be passed on. Explicitly in answer to his question, Ofwat must approve any passing on of charges. Therefore, if water companies propose an inappropriate means of passing on charges, it would have the chance to object.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the consistency of how charges will be passed on. For instance, will it be a separate line on the bill? On the one hand, that is up to the companies to put forward a proposal but, on the other hand, how it is dealt with is subject to Ofwat approval. It will be included in the social tariff scheme.

To the extent that I have not answered the noble Lord’s questions, perhaps I may write to him.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the Minister has done very well in answering all the questions but one, which was regarding Ofwat having to agree to any changes and increases in the charges from year to year.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the cost will not be subject to Ofwat control but will require approval by Ministers. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. On the basis of that, I thank the noble Lord for his questions and I ask the Committee to agree the order.

Motion agreed.

Badgers

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hoyle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further plans they have to cull badgers.

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

My Lords, badger culling is part of a package of measures to tackle bovine TB. The policy will be piloted, initially in two areas, during the summer of 2013 to confirm our assumptions about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. An independent panel of experts will oversee and evaluate the monitoring of the pilots and report back to government; only then will Ministers decide whether the policy should be rolled out more widely.

[Lord Hoyle]

I thank the Minister for his reply. However, scientific evidence conducted over 10 years says that the killing of badgers makes hardly any difference—indeed, no difference—and in fact eminent scientists say that it makes it worse. In view of that, will he now follow the Welsh Assembly and decide on a policy of vaccination rather than elimination?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord and I will disagree on the science. Ultimately, of course, we want to be able to use vaccination both for cattle and for badgers, and we are investing in this option through extensive research and development. However, there are practical difficulties with the injectable badger vaccine, which the noble Lord refers to as being used in Wales and which right now is the only available option. The difficulties involved include the need for each badger to be trapped and the fact that vaccination does not appear to cure already infected badgers, along with the cost and the fact that it has to be repeated every year.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I have spoken in your Lordships’ House before about the scientific evidence for the efficacy of culling as a way to control TB in badgers, and I do not wish to repeat myself. However, I should like to ask the Minister two questions. First, how will the success or failure of these two pilots be judged? The independent panel will make the judgment, but what will success look like? Secondly, is it not right that the Government should take the opportunity between now and next summer, when the cull is proposed to resume, to review all the options for controlling TB in badgers, bearing in mind that not even the most optimistic proponent of culling would consider it a credible strategy for the eradication of this dreadful disease?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as always, I respect the noble Lord’s position. An independent panel of experts will oversee the monitoring and evaluation of the two pilots for the badger control policy to test our assumptions, as I said, about the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of controlled shooting. The expert panel will play an important role in overseeing the design of the data collection and their analysis, and in providing additional advice on interpretation of the data. It will be on the basis of both the pilots and the panel’s report that Ministers will take a decision on whether the granting of culling licences should be authorised in areas besides the pilot areas, and whether the badger control policy should continue to include controlled shooting as a culling method. On the noble Lord’s second point, we are constantly reviewing the options. As I said earlier, we are working hard on a vaccination, and there are a number of other measures in progress. In a general sense, we are doing as the noble Lord suggests.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, how much have this year’s aborted culls already cost the police in those two areas? What is the estimate for the cost to the police if the two culls go ahead in the summer and who is going to pay this money?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, to put things in context, we should bear in mind that in 2011-12 the total cost to the Government of controlling the disease in England will be about £90 million but that, without further action, the disease will cost the taxpayer approaching £1 billion over the next decade. In terms of the costs, a large proportion of which are borne by farmers, £750,000 was spent on surveying costs, which gave us the more accurate estimate of badger populations, £300,000 on Natural England’s costs and approximately £95,000 as part of humaneness monitoring.

[Lord Harrison]

My Lords, given that 92% of the people of this country are against the proposed cull, what conversations has the Minister had with his partners in the European Union who have successfully introduced vaccination?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord raises an important point. I can only repeat an extract from the report following the visit to the UK in March 2012 of the EU Commission’s bovine tuberculosis sub-group of the task force for monitoring animal disease eradication:

“It is however of utmost importance that there is a political consensus and commitment to long-term strategies to combat TB in badgers as well as in cattle … There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. However there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle”.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister mentioned which areas were going to be part of this experiment. During the six years that I was at MAFF, people in Devon begged me to have a culling operation. Is Devon part of the experiment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, it is for the National Farmers’ Union to decide where it wants to conduct pilots. Natural England issued west Somerset and Gloucestershire with licences for the two badger cull pilots and these licences remain valid for the duration of the cull next summer. We are working with the farming industry so that badger control in two pilot areas can be implemented effectively in 2013 in the best possible conditions and with the right resources.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a resident of the Forest of Dean, a cull area, and as a member of Gloucestershire Against Badger Shooting. My party still believes that there is no scientific, economic or moral basis for culling. What is the estimated additional cost to farmers or others of a more intensive cull, and are the Government confident of recruiting enough marksmen to do the work?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I have referred to costs already. I can only repeat that the cost of not bearing down on TB in cattle through, among other things, controlling the badger population is currently about £90 million a year and is increasing.

[Lord Dixon-Smith]

My Lords, I am a farmer but not a cattle man—

[Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior]

I thank the noble Lord. My Lords, in view of the vast compensation paid for the slaughter of cattle that react to the tuberculin test, and in view of Britain’s vast experience of vaccination of wildlife—not only of badgers but all over the world—what attention is being paid to the vaccination of badgers in this situation by using techniques that are commonly used elsewhere in the world in very difficult circumstances?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I mentioned earlier the injectable badger vaccine, with which, as I explained, there are complications. The other alternative is the oral vaccine. An oral badger vaccine is in development but is still several years away. It is therefore not possible to say with any certainty if and when such a vaccine might be available for use in the field.

Employment: Rural Employment

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they have introduced to boost rural employment in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, employment will be boosted in all areas by national initiatives to promote economic growth. Support for apprenticeships will provide the skills that employers need, while welfare reforms will help people into work. In England, a £165 million package to stimulate rural growth includes five pilot rural growth networks and funding to transform rural business performers. Investment and action to improve rural broadband and network services will support rural economic growth and employment opportunities. I declare an interest as the owner of a farm, and therefore involved in rural businesses.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response, as far as it goes. There was no mention of rural employment in today’s Autumn Statement. The Chancellor referred to the interesting report of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, on growth, yet the only mention of rural issues was a passing reference to European funds and to the paltry £15 million being spent on the five rural growth network pilots that the Minister mentioned. However, my question to the Minister is on those five networks. The first job created by Labour’s Future Jobs Fund was for a young farm worker in Wiltshire. Will the Minister tell me how many rural jobs the rural growth network has generated to date?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a specific answer on that, but I will try to give him an answer that is of interest to the south-west of England. The South-West Skills Programme offers vocational and technical training opportunities for farmers, foresters and agrifeed businesses. The programme has provided training for a total of 9,497 trainees.

[Lord Vinson]

My Lords, for many years I was lucky enough to be chairman of the Rural Development Commission. One key policy that we recognised was the cost of getting to work. Today the Chancellor, by reducing, or rather holding, fuel duty, has enabled many more rural people to be able to afford to run a car. That is a key component of rural employment, and I congratulate him.

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. I will give more examples of how the Autumn Statement will benefit rural growth. We will extend small business rates relief for a further 12 months from 1 April 2013, benefiting more than 500,000 small businesses. We will devolve a greater proportion of growth-related spending to local areas from April 2015. We will provide further support to businesses and motorists, which my noble friend referred to, by cancelling the fuel duty increase that was planned for 1 January 2013, and we will defer the 2013-14 increase to 1 September 2013. We will ensure that businesses—particularly small businesses—can access finance and support.

[Lord Harrison]

Given that 98% of rural employment is not related to farming, will the Minister outline the strategy for encouraging small businesses in our towns, villages and hamlets by increasing broadband coverage and better transport links? In addition, has he thought of the idea of business advocates for the countryside to encourage the formation of small businesses?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord raises a very good point about broadband. I absolutely agree with him on that. The rollout of superfast broadband infrastructure is vital to boosting sustainable economic growth and creating jobs in rural areas. Online business, whether rural or urban, grow four to eight times faster than their offline counterparts. Broadband is a key government priority. We are working to deliver the best superfast broadband in Europe by 2015, backed by a £530 million government investment to support rural areas.

[Lord Palmer]

My Lords, what estimates does the Minister have in his department for the exploration of shale gas in the countryside of the United Kingdom?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I think that that is a bit wide of the Question, but more will become clear shortly.

[Lord Lee of Trafford]

My Lords, tourism turnover in the rural economy is nearly three times that of agriculture. Yesterday at Westminster, the Cut Tourism VAT campaign was launched, supported by the whole of the industry. Compared with our 20% rate, accommodation VAT is 10% in Italy, 8% in Spain and 7% in France and Germany. As a former Treasury Minister, does my noble friend appreciate that independent reports indicate that a cut in VAT on accommodation would boost Exchequer revenues, boost tourism and thus boost employment in the rural economy?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend has rather overpromoted me. However, in answer to his question, the Government recognise the importance of tourism to rural employment. I do not think that we can go as far as he asked, but the Rural Economy Growth Review showed that tourism is a significant contributor to the rural economy, with potential for significant further growth. Before the Autumn Statement, the Government announced a £25 million initiative to promote rural tourism and to support rural tourism businesses.

[Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke]

My Lords, further to that response, which is very important for the tourism industry, does the Minister agree that in view of that importance of tourism to the rural economy, his department should join with other departments in putting pressure on the Home Office to address the issue of visas to Chinese visitors, who are a vital component of inbound trade? Does he agree that that action needs to be taken urgently?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an interesting question from the noble Baroness. I think that it goes a bit beyond the original Question. The departments co-operate closely, particularly on rural tourism.

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden]

My Lords, is it not the case that in rural areas village shops provide a valuable social good for many people, especially those without motor cars? Perhaps we may hope for recognition that the supermarkets, more distant but very powerful as they are, simply cannot hope to provide that sort of service. May we hope that the Government’s policies for rural areas will reflect the special value of village shops?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble and learned friend. We recognise the importance of rural service outlets such as village shops, post offices and pubs in sustaining strong and thriving rural communities. New community rights are being introduced that will allow local assets such as village shops to be put on the local asset register, giving communities first option to bid for them if they are under threat. In rural settlements with a population of less than 3,000 where there is only one retail outlet, it will receive rural rate relief. Consumer Focus is identifying rural issues as part of its help with the Post Office Local model. In 2012, Defra supported a number of community shops through the RDPE programme.

EUC Report: EU Freshwater Policy

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, for initiating this debate, and his committee for its report, An Indispensable Resource: EU Freshwater Policy. We are also debating the recent publication of the European Commission’s communication, A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Granchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm, through which a tributary of the Thames flows. I am also the proud possessor of a bore-hole.

As our recent weather has shown, in many parts of the United Kingdom we currently have too much water, but noble Lords will recall—and several have referred to—the position we were in last winter, heading into spring with parts of the country facing severe drought. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, how quickly the rain came, and that position changed. While we cannot, as the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, change the weather, we can ensure that we are in the best position to deal with its implications and plan appropriately for those times when there is too much or too little of this essential resource available for both humanity and the environment.

The Government welcome the European Union committee inquiry into the blueprint and its recommendations as a helpful contribution to the debate. The Government are committed to improving the quality of our waters and we welcome the committee’s conclusion that the water framework directive has been a force for good. We are committed to implementing the directive, not merely from a legal point of view but because we believe we have a clear moral imperative, and an economic one. Many of the committee’s recommendations have also found their way, in some form, into the recently published blueprint communication.

A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources outlines a three-tier strategic approach: first, improving implementation of current EU water policy by making full use of the opportunities provided by the current laws; secondly, increasing the integration of water policy objectives into other relevant policy areas; and thirdly, filling the gaps of the current framework, particularly in relation to the tools needed to increase water efficiency.

The UK Government have welcomed the communication and are pleased that, by and large, new regulatory tools are not proposed as the method for filling in the gaps. We strongly believe that the right framework is in place and efforts must be made to make that work, rather than automatically turning to the regulatory toolbox to provide the magic wand to solve a particular problem.

The majority of the blueprint actions are voluntary measures, such as new guidance documents to be developed with other member states. Other actions involve calling for the integration of EU water policy into other EU policies and improving the enforcement of EU legislation. There is only one possible legislative proposal on developing standards for water reuse. While we would prefer not to assume that regulation is the most appropriate vehicle for achieving this, we can understand the potential benefits for doing so, particularly with regard to meeting commercial and food production requirements on ensuring food safety.

In responding to the committee’s recommendations, I would like to highlight the following developments. We have committed to delivering improvements to our aquatic environment through a catchment-based approach, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, referred. We have established 66 pilots with a range of hosts, including charities, private water companies, established partnerships, and of course the Environment Agency and Natural England. These hosts are engaging with interested parties, and planning water improvement actions at the local level. The evaluation of these pilots will inform the approach for wider national adoption from April next year.

Water catchment plans will help target and share delivery of the measures we need to tackle both urban and agricultural diffuse sources of pollution. This will make a very real difference and up our game in improving the environmental status of our waters. We have recently published a consultation on how to address urban sources of diffuse pollution.

In the rural sector we now have various options available under agri-environment schemes to protect water quality. We will also have invested over £70 million within this spending review period, giving practical advice and grants for water quality improvements to farmers, through the catchment-sensitive farming project.

Last year we published the water White Paper setting out our vision for a resilient water industry that can meet future demands, and we are well on our way to achieving our goals through measures to tackle water efficiency, leakage, pollution, unsustainable abstraction and more. The draft water Bill published in July is another of the tools we are using to help us deliver the water White Paper’s vision for an efficient, resilient water sector that can attract long-term investment. The Bill will reform the water market and remove barriers to competition.

Our reform package will drive forward both innovation and efficiency by bringing in new players and new ways of thinking and by using market forces to keep down customer costs. This will not only benefit customers and stimulate growth, but will also contribute to our future resilience, and the environment.

As regards abstraction, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others spoke about, we know that damaging over-abstraction is happening. We are reforming the abstraction regime to ensure that it is fit to meet the challenges of climate change and increasing demand. These are complex long-term issues. We need to make sure that we get this right. We will be consulting on proposals next year. It is worth saying that the Environment Agency’s “Restoring Sustainable Abstraction” programme is returning around 55 billion litres of water per year to the environment in England and Wales, which represents the domestic water use of a city the size of Leeds. We are also working with Ofwat and the Environment Agency to develop better tools and incentives to help water companies manage their abstractions sustainably.

Noble Lords have raised a large number of questions. I will do my best to address them. The noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Grantchester, raised the question of reuse. At this stage the Commission is considering developing a regulatory instrument setting EU standards for reuse of water for irrigation and industrial purposes. This could help remove obstacles to the free movement of agricultural produce irrigated with reused water, encourage reuse, and reduce pressure on water resources. No proposal is likely before 2015. There is not enough information available on the Commission’s thinking to form a view, but any initiative to reduce pressure on increasingly scarce water resources is worth consideration.

The noble Lords, Lord Carter, Lord Cameron and Lord Giddens, all asked about our attitude to metering. Metering can have advantages for some customers, cutting their bills and encouraging efficiency. Although many customers would see reduced bills if they were on a meter, others, especially large families in properties with low rateable values, would see their bills rise. For some, water might seem cheap and for them metering could have a perverse impact; they may say, “I am paying for it, so I shall use as much as I like”. Metering is not a solution in itself; it needs to be supported by good information and help to drive down water use. In view of those complexities, the Government do not propose to put in place a blanket approach to universal metering across the country. Water companies are best placed to find the appropriate local solution in discussion with their customers. They need to consider it as an option in water-stressed areas. As the climate changes and the population grows, the case for universal metering may change, but our view is that it will do so at different times in different areas.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked how we would take forward our plans to deal with enforcement. The Environment Agency and the Rural Payments Agency, where appropriate, enforce the existing suite of regulations that are in place to protect our aquatic environment. In regard to abstraction, we are using a power in the Water Act 2003 to enable licences causing serious damage to our rivers to be removed or altered without compensation.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about the pricing of water. The independent regulator, Ofwat, sets price limits for water and sewerage companies every five years through a price review. The Government are not involved in price setting, although the Secretary of State uses a strategic policy statement and social environmental guidance to Ofwat to inform the price review process. That sets out policy objectives that Ofwat must have regard to in the performance of its functions. Currently, the Government are consulting on their guidance to Ofwat ahead of the next price review in 2014. That will reflect the Government’s policy objectives set out in the natural environment White Paper and the water White Paper. He also asked how we are making water pricing more transparent. As part of Ofwat’s price review, stakeholders, including the Consumer Council for Water, are working with water companies as part of customer challenge panels with the aim of improving the transparency of water bills.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about reporting. Domestically, the Environment Agency will improve reporting procedures by publicising the number of chemical and ecological components that show an improvement in status each year. That information will better reveal the level of progress that is often hidden by the aggregated description of overall status. Work is already under way to develop a statistically robust system for reporting the number of improved individual components. At EU level, the water framework directive sets out what has to be reported to the Commission and current reporting information systems are structured accordingly, reflecting the method for assessing the state of the water environment. Updates of the river basin management plans will contain an assessment of progress towards the achievement of environmental objectives and the European Environment Agency is publishing data that show the individual components of good status. Changes to the formal reporting system would require amendments to the directive and restructuring of the information systems, so that may not be achievable in the short term.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Caithness asked about urban diffused pollution. We have just published a consultation on how to address pollution from urban areas. A strategy will be developed in 2013 in light of feedback from the consultation and of the views of and report by the committee. There is a wide range of issues in the urban environment and it would be key to work with local authorities to develop solutions to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about sharing experience between catchments. My department and the Environment Agency have put in place processes to foster the sharing of best practice and the things that have not gone so well between catchments. We also promote the work of the catchment-based approach at the European level through the various fora that exist.

My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer asked about public participation in implementing the water framework directive. The UK was complimented by the Commission on the steps that it took to engage people in the first river basin management plans. However, we recognise that we could do more and the development of the catchment-based approach is one step towards engaging more interested people at a more local level.

My noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Caithness asked about control at source of pharmaceuticals. The control of sources is generally more cost effective and better for the environment than trying to clean up after the event. However, current EU pharmaceuticals legislation does not allow for authorisation of a human medicine to be withheld on environmental grounds. DG SANCO is drafting a report into the effect of pharmaceuticals on the environment, which is expected to be published mid-2013. We expect that report to contain recommendations for possible amendments to the current regulatory framework for medicines.

The noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Berkeley, spoke about integrated river basin management. The water framework directive, and its delivery through river basin management plans, essentially forms the basis of adopting an integrated river basin management approach. However, the Government recognised, after the publication of the first set of river basin management plans in December 2009, that we needed to adopt a more local-level approach to water management that brings together quantity and quality issues as well as flooding. That is why we are currently piloting the catchment-based approach to see whether that could form a stronger basis on which to bring together the various parts of the water cycle and to consider issues in a more integrated way.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about the Commission’s policy on taking action against member states which do not meet their obligations. The Commission has commenced proceedings against some member states in regard to non-conformity with the water framework directive, such as those that did not publish their river basin management plans by the deadline of 22 November 2009. My noble friend also asked whether we will have a water security task force, as the whole area of water covers so many government departments. We do not propose to have a water security task force, but a cross-government network already exists to deal with water security issues and it was called upon most recently, this year, to deal with our drought problems.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about our attitude to the European innovation partnership. We aim to use the participatory process of the catchment-based approach to ensure that those working at practitioner level have the opportunity to engage with the European innovation partnership on water. The Water Sector Innovation Leadership Group will also consider ways in which practitioners and other stakeholders can make the most of the opportunities offered by the water EIP. He also asked about innovation. We are in the process of refreshing the Water Sector Innovation Leadership Group. That comprises representatives from my department, Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the water sector and provides leadership and direction to drive innovation to meet future challenges. It will meet in January 2013. We have provided £1 million towards a water security competition, run by the Technology Strategy Board.

The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked how we can develop a national programme despite privatisation. Privatisation does not stop our aim to meet our future resource requirements. We are considering the possibility of water trading between companies and look forward to working with other member states and the Commission to consider how we could use that mechanism. He asked how we can measure virtual water, and several noble Lords spoke about that. My department has commissioned a research project to evaluate the resources that are available to businesses to assess and understand the impacts of their water use. It will be published very soon. We are developing new guidance for businesses on how to measure and report environmental impacts. That will encourage organisations to consider their water use, including along the supply chain and to report against that. He also asked how we can change people’s behaviour to increase efficiency. That is an important point. A number of campaigns have been undertaken by water companies, the Consumer Council for Water, the Environment Agency and others to increase efficiency in water use by the public and by industries.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the issue of the Thames tunnel. He mentioned that we had a meeting recently. It is unacceptable on environmental and health grounds that about 20 million tonnes of untreated waste water currently enter the Thames in London when we receive as little as 2 millimetres of rain. Thames Water’s Thames tideway tunnel project offers the most cost-effective, comprehensive and timely solution compared with all the other solutions that we have seen. We are working with Ofwat, Infrastructure UK and Her Majesty’s Treasury to ensure that the financing and delivery costs of this large and complex project provide value for money for Thames Water customers and UK taxpayers. We are conscious of the impact on local communities and we welcome Thames Water’s two public consultations, which were an opportunity to hear from those affected. Thames Water’s planning application to the Planning Inspectorate is expected to be made in early 2013 and local communities will continue to be able to voice concerns on the proposals within the 18-month process.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords—

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am sorry but I am running out of time and I have a number of questions still to get through. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I will have further discussions on this subject.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked for an update on the chemical status of water samples. Across the EU, the Commission is focusing work under the common implementation strategy in regard to chemical monitoring and reporting for the next phase, commencing next year. This is an area where there is wide variability across the EU. The UK is in a stronger position than a number of other member states, but we recognise that we have more work to do in this regard. That is why the Environment Agency has made reducing uncertainty in classifications a priority in the first half of this river basin planning period. More than 12,500 investigations will be completed by the end of this financial year, which will improve significantly our understanding of the aquatic environment and provide the building blocks for taking decisions and developing the next set of river basin management plans.

My noble friend asked what the Government are doing to improve the “one out, all out” principle. The Government believe that this is essentially a sound way of assessing the state of the water environment. Domestically, the Environment Agency will improve reporting procedures by publicising the number of chemical and ecological components that show an improvement in status each year. This information will show the level of progress that is often hidden by the aggregated description of overall status. Work is already under way to develop a statistically robust system for reporting the number of improved individual components.

My noble friend asked about the £21.5 million available this year from the RDPE. This contributes to the Catchment Sensitive Farming project, which offers practical advice and capital grants to the farming community to make changes on-farm. The majority of this funding goes into the small capital grant scheme to make actual on-farm changes. The farmer also contributes 50% of the payment. This year the £7.9 million that Defra invested in the Catchment Sensitive Farming project has brought in £22 million per annum from European funds and £20.5 million from farmers.

Noble Lords have asked a large number of questions. I have done my best to answer as many as I can. I am trespassing upon the Companion already and I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write in response to any questions that I have not so far answered. I thank again the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, and all noble Lords who have spoken. I will take away the words that they have given me today and think carefully about them.

Flooding: Insurance

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to make sure that house insurance is available for residents in areas that are liable to flooding.

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

My Lords, the future of flood insurance is a priority for the Government. We remain committed to discussions with the insurance industry and others about what replaces the statement of principles. We want a solution that ensures affordable insurance bills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer. Our primary focus is flood-risk management, on which we are spending more than £2.17 billion over four years.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, there are now at least 200,000 households in high-risk flood areas whose properties are virtually uninsurable against flood. The discussions with the insurance industry have been taking place for years. There are now only seven months before the existing statement of principles runs out, and that itself is less useful by the week. Do the Government support the practical proposal from the Association of British Insurers, on behalf of the insurance industry, for a non-profit-making flood insurance fund to provide insurance against flooding for properties in high-risk areas basically funded by cross-subsidies from the rest of us who are fortunate enough not to live in high-risk flood areas? If so, why are the negotiations on this matter being blocked by high-ranking Ministers in the coalition Government from another party?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, this is a serious matter. We have been working very hard with the industry on this extremely complex issue. We need a lasting solution that ensures affordable insurance bills for those at flood risk but does not place unsustainable costs on wider policyholders and the taxpayer. The ball is now in the industry’s court. The ABI understands the Government’s position. It is up to the ABI to come back to us with a practical and sustainable option that provides insurance for those that need it without increasing bills for all or placing unacceptable burdens on the taxpayer.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, first, I offer sympathy to those who have lost loved ones and suffered the trauma of flooding in the past week. This is the third time since July that this matter has been raised at Question Time. The Minister consistently tells us that the Government are in intense and constructive negotiations with the insurance industry. Today, he tells us that it is a priority. Yet today I received an e-mail from the Association of British Insurers saying that negotiations are currently at an impasse. The Minister now says that it is up to the Association of British Insurers to come up with a better deal and yet he has been asked a perfectly good question by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on whether he agrees with the proposal that it has put forward. When will Defra sort this out and give comfort to the 200,000 people who are really struggling to get flood insurance?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord on his first point. We really feel strongly for those affected by this. The emergency services, local authorities and the Environment Agency have been working extremely hard for them and I pay tribute to that. In answer to the noble Lord’s question, the statement of principles that his party put in place takes no account of the affordability of insurance, so I will not take any criticism from the other side.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having been flooded in 1997 and 2008. In his discussions with the insurance industry, does my noble friend ever mention not just that those of us who are in that position are very nervous about what will happen to our insurance next year but the fact that our houses are unsellable? There are elderly people who need to go into residential care, but they cannot sell their home. Others, like me, retire and want to move nearer to their families. Those properties are blighted. In a very small lane in rural Devon that has a lot of old thatched houses and cottages, some of which are listed, if they are not insured, eventually they will just be allowed to deteriorate and fall down.

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is of course right that there are concerns about the continued availability of insurance to householders—mortgage holders and those looking to sell their houses. We are working with those involved better to understand what the impact on the mortgage market might be. I am certainly encouraged that the Council of Mortgage Lenders is quoted as saying that the focus needs to be on finding a solution on flood insurance, rather than worrying householders unnecessarily about how lenders might choose to react. That has a knock-on effect on the selling market to which my noble friend refers. I also point out that in July, we published a guide to obtain flood insurance in high-risk areas in collaboration with the National Flood Forum and industry representatives, which I think is helpful.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

I, too, encourage the Minister to bring those discussions to a conclusion as soon as possible. I declare an interest: I was chair of a mutual insurance company until the end of last year. I have a further concern. Those companies which have a strong CSR policy could be commercially disadvantaged in the marketplace compared with those who take a purely commercial approach. It is also deeply regrettable that planning permission is still being granted in areas that the Environment Agency has identified as potentially subject to flooding, which is simply aggravating the problem in the long term.

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord makes a couple of good points. In answer to his last one, development in areas of flood risk is permitted only exceptionally, where there are wider sustainability considerations, and must in all cases be safe, must not increase flood risk elsewhere; and, where possible, overall flood risk should be reduced.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2012

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16 October be approved.

Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 20 November.

Motion agreed.

Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank my noble friend for initiating a debate on this order. He has made an expansive analysis of the situation. I also praise the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on its very interesting exposition yesterday in the other place about the disease. Two points came out of that which I thought would be worth bringing to the attention of the Minister. The first is that it seems as if there is not yet a properly thought through control plan, which I would have thought was one of the first things we need to be on top of. Following on from that, we need a comprehensive communication plan of what the control plan means, including making clear the dos and don’ts to people up and down the land.

I should declare my interest as a farmer in Cheshire, and I want to add to the excellent exposition by my noble friend only a word on his first point, which concerned what I perceive to be the striking difference between the handling of animal disease threat and plant disease threat. I would not wish the point to be lost among all the other excellent points he made. It appears that we have not applied the lessons learnt from animal diseases to plant diseases. I think I am right in saying that when a dangerous animal disease is present or breaks out overseas, the importation of animals from the region in question is immediately banned. For example, we still ban imports from South America because of foot and mouth disease, imports from Canada out of the dormant fly season and so on. Imports have not been allowed to continue up to the point when disease is recognised as being present in the UK.

In regard to plant health issues, it seems that the same regime does not apply. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the import of ash trees has already been banned from countries such as Denmark, where the impact of Chalara fraxinea has been devastating. I ask this because the order before us seems to be the first reaction to the disease, which has only been to ban the importation after its presence in the UK has been detected. Had a regime similar to that which applies to animals been followed from the outset, not only could it have delayed the presence of Chalara fraxinea in the UK, it would have allowed this country to exploit its position as a disease-free area, in which cases exports could well have been made from this country back into Europe. However, there now seems to be no possibility of this sort of trade being undertaken.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Like others, I should declare an interest as a grower of ash trees. On 15 November, I had the opportunity to see for myself the effects of Chalara fraxinea in Wayland Wood in Norfolk and to meet Forestry Commission staff working on the ground there to identify the disease. I am enormously grateful to those in the plant health authorities, the industry more widely and, indeed, the public, who have all contributed to the response to this harmful disease, including the many volunteers who have given of their time to help.

I was particularly reminded on my visit to Norfolk of the long-term nature of forestry. The foresters were already planning their felling for 2071, hoping that they had selected the right trees that will thrive over the coming 60 years, whatever those years might bring in terms of climate, pestilence and environmental change. In recognition of the scientific advice that it will not be possible to eradicate Chalara fraxinea and on the basis of the experience in Europe that there is no effective treatment, we are now focusing our efforts on minimising the impact of the disease on our economy, our environment and our society. The next step will be the publication of a control plan which will set out our approach to four key objectives. Those are: slowing the rate of spread; developing resistance in the United Kingdom ash population; encouraging citizen, landowner and industry engagement; and building resilience in UK woodland and associated industries. At the same time, the independent expert task force, convened by Defra’s chief scientific adviser, Professor Ian Boyd, will examine further ways to prevent pests and pathogens from entering the country and will publish an interim report. The work of the task force has been to look at the similarities and differences in dealing with animal and plant disease outbreaks and what each can learn from the other. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to this, and I think he made a very important point.