Agricultural Products, Food and Drink (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord German Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to clarify the parts of these regulations relating to the movement of wine into this country from the EU. I also have a question relating to the shipment of wine from Great Britain to the EU. This industry is important. The UK is a major global hub for wine. In the UK we consume 12 million bottles of wine a day, and about half of those come from the EU. In the first two weeks of this year, businesses were able to import only 144,000 bottles from the EU, meaning stocks were depleted by some 11.7 million bottles a day during this period. Can the Minister provide the latest information on amounts imported? The obvious outcome of stock depletion at this rate is scarcity and an increase in prices, as has been pointed out by south Wales wine importer Daniel Lambert in many media outlets.

As for trade in the other direction, wine is the sixth most important food and drink export from Great Britain—more valuable than beer and beef. The main question I wish to pose about these regulations is on the nature of this six-month easement. Is it an opportunity to get a new smoother procedure in place, or is it simply to provide a period for the wine trade to get used to handling the proposed new system? Will policy change? Will there be further negotiation to remove the non-tariff barriers that trade is now facing?

The VI-1 form, which was used to protect EU wine from cheap imports, is proposed to be largely replicated save for the lab test requirement for alcohol content. This is a cumbersome approach. The clunky government CHIEF system operated by HMRC is already proving very difficult for the wine trade. Parts of it are impenetrable or not functioning adequately, and this will have contributed to the drastic reduction in the number of bottles imported into Great Britain. Is there now a telephone hotline for advice in place, or must the trade rely on an email system which returns queries within five days? Article 3 of annexe TBT-5 to the TCA refers to a preference for an electronic system for documentation. That would be a major improvement. Paperwork is a major non-tariff barrier, and I would be grateful for an explanation of whether the Government intend to achieve that electronic process within the six-month period.

The Minister will be aware that wines from countries such as Chile are imported tariff-free into the UK in bulk, bottled at a UK bottling plant and then re-exported to the EU. There are great fears that the additional costs of re-exporting will endanger this trade and bottling plants in Great Britain. Can he provide any reassurance to this part of the industry?

The Wine and Spirit Trade Association is finding it very difficult to be able to express its concerns to Ministers. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and its representatives to discuss their concerns? This would be a really important indication that the Government wished to allay the fears of the sector.

I realise I have asked a lot of questions of the Minister and I hope that, if he cannot reply today, he can do so in writing.

Heritage Organisations: Coal Supplies

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My understanding is that, of the 26,000 tonnes of coal used for heritage rail, 90% comes from four British open-cast mines, and therefore any requirements will be about negotiating a suitable ongoing domestic supply. As I said, we want to work with the heritage sector on these matters. My understanding is also that coal imports are overwhelmingly not from EU countries.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the Great Little Trains of Wales, Snowdonia, Talyllyn, Llangollen and others, are critical for the hospitality offer, yet heritage trains as a whole emit only just about half of the CO₂ that people use in their domestic barbeque charcoal briquettes. The challenge is to find a solution to this problem to keep the trains running. I note that in his responses so far the Minister has not yet offered what the potential solutions might be. So will he support research into this matter and, in particular, into whether the residue steam coal in our unsafe, above-ground coal tips can be manufactured into the lump coal needed to ensure that these trains and the jobs they support survive into the future?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I have been very clear that we are working with the heritage sector. Indeed, the legislation that relates to domestic consumption is being phased in so that we can work not only with consumers but with the heritage sector. So I reject the tone of the noble Lord’s question, because this is an area we want to work on. I remind your Lordships that we are doing this because fine particulate matter is very damaging to people whose health is vulnerable. To work on a cleaner health agenda, we need to apply our minds to how we can find alternatives.

Agriculture Bill

Lord German Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 10th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I echo the views of many speakers in this Second Reading debate: we need to ensure that imported foodstuffs do not undercut the high standards of UK food production. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he supports the view of Liam Fox, who said that putting such matters in the Bill would mean that

“the USA would walk away”

from a trade deal with the UK. Having had responsibility for constructing a trade deal with the USA, he may well know how the Americans were thinking so, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think Liam Fox gave the game away: support chlorinated chicken and the like, otherwise no deal with the USA is possible. Does the Minister agree?

I wish to address the devolution aspects of the Bill, particularly as they concern Wales. In Wales, direct payments to farmers account for a much higher proportion of farm profits than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Direct payments account for an average of 81% of Welsh farm profits. This is very understandable, given the small family farm and upland nature of the farming industry in Wales: 40% of all Welsh lamb produced is exported to the European Union, so Welsh agriculture needs a trade deal with the EU more than anything else, and the Welsh Government should be part of that negotiation.

The changes envisaged in the Bill to direct payments in England are clearly not wholly appropriate to Wales. There are some welcome signs that the Bill recognises this fundamental difference, but there are equally some areas where the current level of independent action accorded to the Welsh Government is not clearly carried forward. Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and my noble friend Lord Thomas, fundamentally I wait for a framework agreement between all parts of the United Kingdom that encompasses the wide areas of the Bill. For example, a framework agreement is needed to provide a replacement for the state aid regime. It is important that the Bill is able to accommodate any agreements reached in due course by the UK and the devolved Governments in respect of the common frameworks, which are to replace the areas where EU law intercepted with devolved matters. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what progress has been made on the proposed framework agreement.

There remain outstanding matters of difference between the Welsh and UK Governments, which require resolution if the legislative consent Motion in the Welsh Assembly is to be passed. In particular, what is the UK Government’s view on the disagreement surrounding Clauses 40 to 42, on the World Trade Organization? I understand that some bilateral agreements have been made regarding those clauses. Will the Minister provide me with a copy of that bilateral agreement and place a copy in the Library? I am concerned that written intergovernmental agreements sitting behind powers in the Bill will undermine the ability to change in the future. Governments change, and written agreements, which are not recognised in the Bill, cannot provide the certainty that the legislation requires.

Concerns also arise on powers between the UK and Welsh Governments in the areas of the identification and traceability of animals, agricultural tenancies and the regulation of organic products. Will the Minister, in his response or in writing, outline what progress has made in each of these areas?

Most powers over agriculture are currently devolved, and I hope that the Bill will respect that level of devolution in this important agricultural field.

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Bill

Lord German Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to tell noble Lords the story of the campaign run by Redhill Prep School in Haverfordwest in support of this Bill. It is a school in the western part of Wales. This debate gives me an opportunity to offer to all noble Lords a happy St David’s Day, especially in a week when our national pride was so enhanced last Saturday.

The Redhill Prep School decided to support and has been campaigning for Finn’s law. In so doing, it found a way of using parliamentary procedure to make that happen. As part of its campaign to understand what happens in this Parliament, it is engaging in a Parliament week in May and has invited, through the Lord Speaker’s Peers in Schools scheme, one of us to attend. I shall go to the school to talk about this law in particular. I also pay tribute to Sir Oliver and to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for bringing forward this Bill, which is common sense and understandably a short Bill. It does one thing simply: protect the animals that protect us.

The Peers in Schools scheme has enabled the Redhill Prep School to examine this Bill, as part of the process of understanding how the House of Lords and the House of Commons work. Part of its exercise has been to campaign with its local Members, both of the National Assembly for Wales and the House of Commons. In fact, it campaigned vigorously with the local MP. I would not say it hauled him in, but it invited him in to discuss matters political and then confronted him with this Bill. I was told that the honourable Member for that part of Wales ended the whole session in tears, not because he had been driven into the ground but by the passion with which these young children had spoken about this law. I pay tribute to them. It is also a message to us all that the Peers in Schools process that the House of Lords has put in train, the Lord Speaker’s programme here, does have an effect. It may give us an example of how we can use parliamentary procedure. This is a straightforward, two-clause Bill, which means it is straightforward to understand its purpose. That is helpful, and this is one way we can use Bills of this sort.

In supporting this Bill, I also look forward to understanding the timetable of legislative consent Motions in the National Assembly for Wales. I reassure this House, as I will reassure the children of Redhill Prep School, that the National Assembly for Wales is doing its job properly. I would not want the Members of the National Assembly to be subject to the wrath of these young people by finding themselves delaying the laying of a legislative consent Motion that would bring such a conclusion to this Bill, which we very much hope will become a law very rapidly indeed. I place on record my support for it. I hope that everyone will listen to the children of Redhill Prep School and their support for this Bill, and use it as an exemplar of how we can very well connect young people with the work this House does.

Inland Waterways

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 8th March 2018 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord German]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the future of United Kingdom inland waterways.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who have joined us today for this debate. I declare my interests as a member of the Inland Waterways Association and honorary president of the Monmouth, Breconshire and Abergavenny Canals Trust.

There are currently 4,700 miles of navigable waterways across England, Scotland and Wales—plus, of course, the waterways in Northern Ireland—and a further 1,800 miles of unusable waterways, 700 miles of which are proposed for restoration. The ownership and control of these thousands of miles of waterways rests with more than 100 navigation authorities. The largest manager is the Canal and River Trust, which looks after 2,000 miles, followed by the Environment Agency, which manages 650 miles.

Our inland waterway network is a unique and precious national asset, which has the potential to transform places, enrich lives, improve mental and physical health, support communities and promote economic development. More than half of the population live within 10 minutes of a waterway. Because of their historical role as the motorways of the past, waterways pass through not only wondrous countryside but also the heart of our conurbations. Take a few steps from Paddington station or the Birmingham International Convention Centre and you are immediately on the canal and towpaths of a country-wide waterway network. Unlike the grand places that are among the primary assets of the National Trust, which are often tucked away in some glorious piece of countryside, our waterways pass through some of the most deprived communities in our land. My purpose in this short debate is to shine a light on the value of our waterways, to examine the economic potential that they can unlock and to put to the Government a range of issues where government action can make a difference to realising the waterways’ full potential.

I start by concentrating on the economic potential that waterways provide. Analysis and research of this impact are somewhat sketchy, but they suggest that the value of land and property alongside a navigable canal is some 10% greater than comparable land alongside a disused canal; so values rise where working waterways exist. This rise in value is a vital tool for local authorities up and down the country where there are disused canals. The potential for planning gain should be of great interest to local authorities seeking to promote economic development. Planners have long used development potential to fund public goods such as roads, schools and other forms of community infrastructure, so applying some of this development gain to the restoration of the canal would be a wholly appropriate use for the public good.

The question I pose to the Government is: where is the economic planning policy that would drive this enhancement to our communities, and what steps are the Government taking to encourage local authorities to think carefully about the link between economic development and canal restoration? Another consequence of restoring canals is increased tourism spend. I know that my noble friend Lord Lee will expand on this later. My challenge here is to ask the Government what they are doing to encourage this economic potential.

Like other noble Lords, I should like to have a better understanding of the recent decision by Ministers to put on ice the transfer of the Environment Agency’s navigable waterways to the Canal and River Trust. Perhaps the Minister can tell us where these discussions are at the moment. Has the Minister met with the CRT to explore its offer to take over the operation of these waterways? Can the Minister tell us whether the department is looking for an improved offer from the CRT? If that is the case, can the Minister tell us what more the CRT can do to improve the merits of its offer?

There is some speculation that this is related to the large structures on the waterways that are controlled by the Environment Agency. Of course structures of that size also bear a risk of failure or decay. The Government presently stand behind the Environment Agency as the guarantor for dealing with any damage or consequence of an event to those assets. If an asset of that sort were to be passed to the CRT, there would obviously be a need to either crystallise the risk into a form of payment or to back it with some form of guarantee. Can the Minister let us know whether this issue is one that needs to be resolved and, if so, what is the timescale?

The Canal and River Trust can leverage funding in a way that the Environment Agency cannot. As Environment Agency budgets are squeezed, so its ability to maintain structures and the assets that it manages for government becomes equally restricted. Its ability to restore and repair is reduced. These were precisely the reasons why the CRT was established, and why there was always an expectation that the Environment Agency waterways would eventually be included in the transfer to the Canal and River Trust. The CRT has guaranteed government funds through to 2027, which enables it to borrow and lever additional funds and invest in the longer-term future of our waterways. It produces a return which far exceeds that which the old British Waterways could provide. The sad state of canal closures in Scotland demonstrates the value of the trust structure that we now have in England and Wales.

If our waterways are to maximise their full potential, the Government must engage and appreciate their worth. There is some feeling—I have experienced it—that the Government, having passed on much of the work to the Canal and River Trust, have stood back from promoting the worth of our waterways which, after all, is not necessarily an economic issue for government but it is something that government can promote. It would be reassuring if the Minster could tell us the number of visits that he and other Ministers have made in their official capacities to see our waterways in action. It is not just Defra Ministers who need to engage. Waterways provide access to millions of people; they touch many of our most deprived communities; they can address health inequalities; and they reduce physical inactivity, obesity, diabetes and poor mental health. Through adoption by local people, they can help to build strong, resilient communities—more than 200 community groups have now adopted a stretch of waterway and that number is rising by 20% each year. Beyond that, waterways support learning and skills, covering such diverse areas as natural science, engineering, heritage, arts, technology and mathematics. They help to restore natural habitats and protect endangered wildlife species—and so the list goes on.

Waterways play a role that spans so much of the life of our country, be it in education, health, leisure, sport, local government, tourism or the environment. In reality, this spans many government portfolios. What role is the Minister’s department playing in co-ordinating the government overview of the impact of our waterways on life in our country? It is so important for joined-up action in the promotion of the role that waterways can play. Our waterways are our asset on the doorstep. They need to be nurtured, treasured and—most importantly—used to the full, and the Government have a major role to play in providing that support.

British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Lord German Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, when I first heard about this transfer by way of what I still call the quango cull Bill, I welcomed it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith, that the settlement seems pretty good. The Parliamentary Cycling Group, of which I am a member, was taken along the towpath from Islington to a very nice cycle repair café on the canal called Lock 7. We were given a very interesting briefing about the changes taking place on the waterways. It was an excellent presentation and I came away thoroughly impressed. It is a great place to pedal along in the winter because there is a high-voltage cable under the towpath, so when everything else is snowy you can still go along without slipping into the canal.

The Minister said that the British Waterways Board had a prudent track record in property management, but that is not the view of the people who sent me e-mails—other noble Lords may have received similar messages—which I presume reflect the tenants’ view. The National Bargee Travellers Association, many of whose questions the Minister sought to answer, states:

“These families live on the waterways lawfully by virtue of s.17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995”.

Will the same rights of occupancy exist even if those families have to move under the new trust? They are clearly worried, saying:

“The assurances given by British Waterways of greater public accountability exclude itinerant boat dwellers”.

That is quite worrying, because there is no way in which they can seek parliamentary discussion as they could when BWB was state-owned. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that nothing is going to change in that regard, even if there is less parliamentary scrutiny.

I heard also from a man who is one of apparently some 200 people who are in litigation with the British Waterways Board. I do not want to go into the detail of individual cases, but there are allegations of “criminally extracted licence fees” during the past 20 years on the Grand Union Canal and talk of costs reaching £500 million, which seems surprising. What will happen to cases that are pending or currently being heard in court when the transfer takes place? It is clear that people are worried about that. The Minister said that the Government would provide a Written Statement on the Canal and River Trust in two years. It might be useful to include in it a progress report on outstanding court cases from the old regime. I hope that these matters can be resolved without any more uncertainty. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord German]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the orders, which I believe are the result of long and very hard negotiation. If the preparedness of the new trust to handle the financial affairs of our waterways is an issue, satisfaction should be drawn from the number of noble colleagues and noble Lords opposite who have congratulated it on the amount of money that it has been able to extract from the Government. It is indicative of the robust way in which the new trust has engaged that it has brought to a conclusion financial matters that started some way back from the £800 million which the Minister mentioned. That protection over 15 years will enable the new trust to make plans, and the asset base along with that will provide it with a very useful way of driving forward change.

The issues I am slightly concerned about, and about which I seek some clarification from the Minister, concern the way in which the new governance structure will run and the ability of the new trust to ensure that it is inclusive and serves those who use our waterways. From the documents before us, it appears that the trust has decided not to go for a membership-base as an organisation, unlike the National Trust, which some people have suggested fulfils a similar task. Could my noble friend tell us what was the reasoning behind not going for a membership organisation, when this is clearly an opportunity to develop the uses of our waterways both for leisure and health purposes—not to mention the tourism benefits, which are obviously very important to us? The current structure of the organisation is that we have trustees, a national council and 12 waterways partnerships. I would like to congratulate those involved in the negotiations to secure an all-Wales waterways partnership in addition to that—and here I declare my interest as president of the Monmouthshire, Brecon and Abergavenny Canals Trust, part of which is affected by this order, part of which is not because it remains in local authority and other ownership.

The third issue I would like to raise, apart from governance, is that of safeguarding for the users. Paragraph 8.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 talks about access to towpaths and refers to an explicit safeguard in the trust’s obligations. While it states that the transfer protects the status quo, a sentence or two further on it states:

“As the majority of towpaths are not currently public rights of way and access is permitted at British Waterways’ discretion, this is a significant new protection”.

There seems to be a contradiction here in that the status quo may prevail, but it is not clear whether it is the intention of this order to extend towpath access or simply to transfer the status quo and give the Canal and River Trust discretion over access? I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain this.

The other safeguarding issue relates to the by-laws, which I believe my noble friend referred to earlier. It is a requirement that they should be approved by the relevant Minister. Could my noble friend explain the publication procedure that the Canal and River Trust will undertake prior to these by-laws being submitted to the Minister and what the process will be for ensuring that this happens?

My final question, which again is a bit of a cheeky one but I am going to ask it anyway, refers to paragraph 8.13 of the same memorandum, which reports that the Government sought views on a name for the new charity. The most popular was the National Waterways Trust, “waterways” being the most popular word in the consultation. The trustees subsequently named the charity the Canal and River Trust. However, in Wales it will be known as Glandwr Cymru, meaning Waterways Wales, which seems an unusual choice when it is to be called the Canal and River Trust. I do not understand whether Canal and River Trust/Glandwr Cymru is the title of the new trust in its entirety, or whether waterways in Wales will come under a trust that is a subset of the Canal and River Trust known as Glandwr Cymru. Perhaps my noble friend could explain the translation, and indeed why the word “waterways” will be used in Wales but not in England.

I have one further point, which the noble Lord, Lord Smith, reminded me of: the Environment Agency transfer of navigation rights, which, as the noble Lord says, is part two of the agenda here. The Canal and River Trust as it now stands does not manage large-scale infrastructure in our waterways or large-scale weirs. Is that a necessary part of the exercise in this interim phase on what that transfer should do and where the expertise should come from in order that the Canal and River Trust can then manage these larger structures, which, like Teddington lock, are very important to the security and safety of our land in this country?

Common Agricultural Policy

Lord German Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord German]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Greaves on the timeliness of this debate. There cannot be many people who can co-ordinate a major announcement by the European Commission and a debate in Parliament on the same day and almost to the same hour.

My understanding of the agricultural community in Wales leads me to counterbalance some of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, about the current nature of agricultural payments. I refer also to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, about the need for payments to be a central part of the future CAP for farmers because of our interest in food security. By way of illustration, in 2008-09 almost 90 per cent of average farm income in Wales was provided through the single farm payment—the reason being, of course, that we have a large number of hill farms and less-favoured areas, and the average age of farmers is increasing, with their sons and daughters saying that it is not worth farming and the consequent danger of land abandonment. In addition, there is the burgeoning of other industries in a rural economy to match the changes that are occurring in our rural environment. Looking across the European Union, it is interesting to note that the share of subsidies in total agricultural income, in both old and new member states, is between 30 and 40 per cent, whereas in regions and countries with an extensive livestock sector, it is close to 100 per cent. Therefore, we must be capable of having a policy that distinguishes between need and future food security.

As we have heard today, the central arguments on the future of the common agricultural policy are coming nearer to a conclusion. We have heard from the Government of a future decision on the overall European budget, and the Commission is currently putting forward proposals on the overall architecture of the future programme. However, what will remain unclear for some time yet is the size of the slice of the cake that the common agricultural policy will have within the overall budget. Although it might be tempting to dwell on that, it is likely that it will not become clear until the ink is finally dry on the overall budget. It is worth noting, as other noble Lords have mentioned, that the gradual reduction in the size of the CAP’s slice of the budget is expected to continue. That is certainly the view of officials in the Commission.

It would be interesting to dwell on those issues, but I should like to spend a few moments developing the arguments about the architecture of a future common agricultural policy. We know that this will be a much more complicated exercise than in past spending rounds because the final decisions will be made by co-decision between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. That will be a complicated political process—perhaps one of the most testing and demanding of the co-decision-making processes that we have seen in the current round. Different national and regional policy interests will need reconciliation. Of course, it is only by being at the heart of the debate that the UK Government can exert their influence. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what level of discussion is currently taking place between the UK Government and the European Parliament on trying to find common ground.

The current debate centres around the policy’s core aims and objectives but there are reformers in this debate who would like to see further objectives in addition to the original ones, such as the provision of environmental security, so ably discussed earlier by my noble friend Lady Miller, with a move to a land management policy focused on the delivery of social and environmental goods.

It seems that there is no inherent conflict between the original and the proposed objectives. Food security and environmental security go hand in hand—they are dependent on each other in many ways. By contributing towards both, farmers can both increase and diversify their income, particularly in areas considered to be less favoured. The common agricultural policy is one of the main mechanisms for providing strong incentives for good environmental behaviour. Therefore, the current debate provides an important opportunity to deliver on many of the social and environmental goals that the United Kingdom and Europe share.

Placing those two goals into separate funding pillars, therefore, seems to be an artificial division. Surely it is possible for agri-environmental and less-favoured schemes to sit alongside the single payment scheme, perhaps with a new enlarged Pillar 1. I understand the complications and difficulties involved in that, especially in relation to matched funding, but those are technical arguments. We should concentrate our arguments mainly on the objectives and policies that we want to see, and the architecture should be led by the policies which seem to work and which would make those objectives much more favourable.

The issue of modulation tends to become the argument by moving between Pillar 1 and Pillar 2, rather than the overarching use of the resources available. Concentrating too much on the structure results in an artificial and unhelpful distinction between agricultural support and rural and environmental development. In fact, it can lead to polarised opinion and an unfortunate skewing of the debate. Perhaps an extended Pillar 1 would lead to a clearer Pillar 2.

In conclusion, the Government and the European Commission need to do far more to promote the purpose and benefits of the CAP. It undoubtedly has a bad name, typified by the commonly heard statement that it is simply about subsidies for farmers. However, there are powerful arguments in its favour, not least of which is food security in a world where shortages are anticipated. However, it is also a system that has given us strong local and regional diversity, developing small producers and primarily ensuring high-quality produce. I would welcome such support from the Minister for promoting the CAP in his reply to the debate. After all, the CAP is not just for farmers; it is for our citizens as a whole.