Farming Regulation Task Force

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have to emphasise that this is not direct income support and therefore it is designed to strengthen the productive capacity of the dairy industry. The scheme will be launched in the autumn, so this is not immediate relief and I do not want to mislead the House by pretending that it is. I understand the difficulties that a lot of dairy farmers are facing with the very poor weather that we have had this summer.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, while Defra has accepted the majority of recommendations that outline the new partnership approach between government and industry, we ignore the far more important matter of relationships in the supply chain between sections of the industry. Today, as we have heard, we see turmoil in the dairy sector. Surely regulation must have the objective of improving the workings of the industry. Regulatory proposals must make a difference to those on the ground. How will the Minister and his department measure and evaluate their success?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that we can measure success by having a prosperous and successful agriculture in this country that is capable of expanding its market. There are huge opportunities for our high-quality agricultural products within the European Union and I hope that we can encourage the industry to look in that direction.

British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his introduction of these two orders. If the Committee will allow me, I shall make a few remarks, reserving the right for my noble friend Lord Knight to respond from the Front Bench. I apologise and ask the Committee to forgive me if I have an eye on the clock and do not stay quite long enough to hear the Minister’s full response to the debate. I have pressing duties elsewhere.

From the perspective of south Cheshire, where I live and which along with neighbouring counties has extensive canals across it, the abolition of the IWAC is greeted mostly with resignation, neither receiving widespread support nor opposition. This would be in keeping with the low number of responses received to the consultation. In the past, I have been approached on several waterways issues, although on this one the Minister can be relaxed by and large. However, this lack of enthusiasm seems to be because there is a feeling among IWAC members that this order is a fait accompli, as evidenced when Defra announced the abolition of IWAC ahead of announcing the findings of the consultation about IWAC. I know that the Minister in the other place, Richard Benyon, had to issue apologies to Graham Evans MP for John Edmonds, the chairman of IWAC. Having said that, the arrangements, protections, appeals processes and so on will very much remain as before, so the change is viewed as largely cosmetic.

I know that all members of IWAC are very passionate about waterways and will always have their best interests at heart. I urge the Minister and his department to make full use of the knowledge and expertise of IWAC members, especially on such issues as volunteering, environmental protection, tourism and restoration, all of which will need to be addressed by the new Canal and River Trust. I know that members of IWAC, which is an independent, advisory and unpaid body, will give their time and expertise freely and would have gladly continued under the umbrella of IWAC. No doubt they will continue to do so. I am sure that the Minister would wish to confirm that his department recognises that that will continue to be the case, as these members would provide an excellent conduit to the CRT on behalf of all waterways users on all matters concerning the waterways.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in setting out a number of issues around this order. Given that there are quite a few speakers, I shall focus on one issue and invite the Minister to say a few more words at the end.

The issue that I wish to raise is how we will ensure that the new charity—the Canal and River Trust—reflects the full duties and responsibilities entrusted to the British Waterways by Parliament. I refer specifically to the duty towards those who live on waterways without a fixed mooring. I have checked the Charity Commission website and can find no mention for the new charity of duties to those whose homes are on the bodies of water that the charity will control. As such, the new charity’s purposes and responsibilities do not reflect some duties that currently exist in legislation and which British Waterways undertakes. This is not a newly contentious matter as, at the beginning of the 1990s, British Waterways sought to remove the rights of boat dwellers who did not have a permanent mooring. Parliament took a different view and the result was Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, which enables boats to be licensed without having a permanent mooring as long as they do not spend more than 14 days in one place. The committee is concerned that people who have had the right to live on the waterways but without a fixed mooring might lose those rights.

As my noble friend mentioned, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee produced an excellent report on this recently. The evidence from Mr Evans of British Waterways to the committee says that the Canal and River Trust,

“will be a much more engaged organisation that will reflect the will of the people”.

However, reflecting the will of the people is not at all the same thing as recognising historic duties and responsibilities.

Having met representatives of the proposed new charity—as a former chief executive of a small conservation charity, I wish it well and know just how difficult it is to meet all the competing needs of stakeholders—I have no doubt that it intends through its council, its waterway partnerships and its specialist advisory groups to construct a far more open constitution than ever before on the waterways. However, engagement with some stakeholders is not always easy. Itinerant boat dwellers, for example, do not have a representative body, but their needs need to be considered alongside those of all other waterway stakeholders. To that end, it is illuminating that in the Government’s own explanatory document for the transfer, paragraph 7.16 highlights the “greater involvement” of,

“communities which live alongside waterways”,

and “waterways’ users” in how the waterways are to be managed in future, but excludes any mention of communities that actually live on the water.

I understand that any future by-laws from the charity will be subject to ministerial confirmation and I am grateful for the clarity from the Minister on that point. However, I would like it to be explicit on the record that the department will write to the CRT to ensure that the new charity must take all specific needs of stakeholders into account in developing future by-laws.

Further, it should be explicit that the grant agreement, which my noble friend also mentioned and which I think is for £800 million, accompanying the grant will set out the terms of the final agreement, and that it will make clear that the safeguard to consider the specific needs of all stakeholders, including itinerant boat dwellers, will be part of a condition for the grant being given.

To be clear, the House has a long history of ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are upheld on the waterways. In the absence of any duty towards those people who live on the waterways in the new charity’s charitable remit, the Government must by other means ensure that this duty is safeguarded in the future. I welcome what the Minister has said, but I would like to be absolutely clear on the specifics of how the Government will assure that.

Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order 2012

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords,

“Infrastructure investment is vital to the UK economy and jobs”.

That is the first sentence in the background paper to the order today. It is wonderful to hear the Minister speak to it and, as we have been reminding him and his Government constantly, place it at the top of the action for growth agenda. This order is coming forward just before the Recess. The Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill was scheduled for the day before the Easter Recess. From this side, we welcome them at whatever time. We will very much take these orders as a quasi-Committee stage—as a Committee stage was denied to the water industry Bill as a money Bill—to follow up the progress of activity.

This order fulfils the recommendation in the EFRA committee report on the draft waste water national policy statement that the Government should bring forward proposals to amend the Planning Act 2008 to bring large-scale sewerage infrastructure, such as the Thames tunnel, within the planning regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects. As the Minister said in his introduction, this order is concerned with the construction and alteration of infrastructure for waste water. Currently, around 39 million cubic metres of waste water enters the Thames every year from London’s combined sewage overflows. When storm water capacity is exceeded, they discharge. On average, that happens once a week. The urgency of the work as a health hazard and to improve the environment is increased by the infraction proceedings being pursued against the UK by the European Commission for breaches of the directive.

Is there any update the Minister could give since the passing of the Bill in March? Is he now more confident that the scheme will be fit for purpose for the long haul? Is there an outcome he can share from the consultation undertaken by Thames Water Limited in the early months of this year, a measure spoken to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who also asked questions about the costs and outcomes of the scheme? It is very encouraging that the amendment to Section 35 of the Planning Act 2008 came into force in April instead of in December this year. The memorandum points out in its policy options analysis that this will save costs: each month’s reduction in time will save in the region of £5 million.

I thank the Minister for his letter following the passage of the Bill in March. I shall follow it up with a few questions for information on the detail of the order today. The memorandum lists the groups contacted in the consultation process undertaken last year on the capacity threshold of 35,000 cubic metres and indicates 62% agreement with the threshold and 73% agreement with the proposed supplemental provisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, mentioned the local groups established in response to the Thames tunnel proposals. Will the Minister give an indication of the percentage agreement of community groups within the overall figures? Can we be assured that the worried section of the population, apart from all the relevant authorities and planning associations, is on the whole happy with the proposal? I know the Minister mentioned this in his opening remarks.

On the capacity threshold, will the Minister indicate what increase in capacity over today is indicated by 35,000 cubic metres? What level of occurrence will overwhelm this capacity? Has there been any assessment of what increases in households the system will adequately cover or for how long, assuming all other activity remains the same?

From our debate on the Bill in March, the Minister will know that we look to encourage many more water efficiency proposals to come forward: to separate out as far as possible water runoff from the sewerage system; to reduce the replacement of gardens and green space with paved areas; to replace hard non-permeable surfaces with porous materials; and, last but not least, to encourage measures to reduce household consumption of water. Can the Minister update the Committee today on any of those aspects since the Bill’s passage?

The memorandum also outlines the fact that 350,000 cubic metres capacity was informed by experience of large projects. Could the Minister explain what is meant in the memorandum when it says that in the next 10 years the proposed Thames tunnel has an estimated capacity of 1,580,000 metres? The memorandum also mentions the reviews of the scheme into the future. May I ask that the Minister builds into that regime a review to be implemented as any overspill occurs? That will underline that the hygiene problems of London are to be consigned to the past.

Finally, in a debate on the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill, we called for apprenticeships to be set up and included in the project. We welcome the remarks made by the Minister on future projects in his opening statement. With all that said, we agree to take note of the orders today.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it has been an interesting if fairly brief debate and exchange of views that I hope will inform your Lordships for future occasions. I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that perhaps it might be useful to have a meeting of Peers and those at Defra some time in the autumn where we can bring together all those matters. A debate such as this has helped considerably to bring to the fore some of the issues that are being considered by government. After all, there is a contingent liability to government in the Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill in these matters, and those are not undertaken lightly or without the Government having a proper care of what is involved.

As I said in my opening speech, it is appropriate that the issue of this order amending Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008 should be separate from the specific matter of the Thames tunnel. However, I do understand that the Thames tunnel is the only one that fits the Bill at the moment. So we have two elements to the debate today—one about the statutory instrument before us, which I have commended to the Committee, and the other about the broader issues. I hope that I can indulge the Grand Committee by talking about Thames tunnel matters, because it is clearly a public platform.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Parminter for her general support for this project. As I say, it is not something that the Government have entered into lightly. Indeed, it is of course Thames Water that is entering into the project; the Government are providing a framework against which they can make their application. I assure her that Thames Water expects to commence its publicity notice in mid-July, which will publicise the impending planning application in early 2013. There has been a lot of public liaison by Thames Water itself, but of course that will mean that the consultation on the planning process opens up formally at that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, whose professional and parliamentary expertise on matters of tunnels I respect, mentions the Binnie report. Our view is that the environmental criteria set in 2007 remain robust; they are not gold-plated in any way, and we cannot afford to downgrade them. Alternatives such as a western tunnel or a piecemeal approach—and I do not mean that in a derogative sense—which the noble Lord recommended, showed that there can be considerable problems. None of the alternatives identified during the extensive studies carried out over the past decade has been able to deal swiftly and adequately with the true environmental and health objectives of the Thames Tideway, while at the same time complying with statutory obligations. For example, separate rainwater from foul water sewerage systems would be far more costly, possibly £12 billion. It would be extremely disruptive and would take far too long to complete.

The shorter west London tunnel coupled with green infrastructure measures would still not fully reduce the volume and frequency of discharges either sufficiently or quickly, so we would not, in fact, be able to meet the environmental and health objectives.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

It would be useful. I am satisfied that Defra has thought this matter through. Clearly, at the current stage of the economic cycle, we are not looking to spend money that it is beyond the capacity of this Government to endorse. I will come on to the European Court in relation to that. The interim measures, as I said, will not meet the waste water directive. That is one of the difficulties. We have to consider the urban waste water directive. The proposal to construct a tunnel should be sufficient to avoid fines completely if it is delivered to the planned timetable.

Within that process, it is important for the noble Lord to understand that although we expect a judgment concerning London in the next few months, if we lose and the European Commission wishes to pursue fines because it does not think that we are addressing the issue properly, it needs to return to the Court for further judgment. The Court has wide discretion about the levels of fines depending on several factors including the seriousness and the duration of the breach. In this case, we would expect the level of fines against the UK to be significant and set at a level to act as an incentive to remedy that breach as quickly as possible. But fines would be levied until the breach is rectified. Currently, the proposed Thames tunnel offers the solution most likely to rectify the problem within the shortest time.

We cannot prejudge this issue, but clearly we are seeking to address it. It has arisen over a century or more of the growth of London and the growth in its sewage. Much of our sewerage infrastructure was built by Bazalgette 150 years ago and is clearly no longer capable of coping.

I think that I have covered those questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I now wonder if I have some points to help the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I am grateful for his contribution, which was supportive of the process that the statutory instrument is trying to bring about. Indeed, he is grateful for the Government tabling this debate because it is something that the Opposition have supported in the past.

There is no question of us seeking to curtail debate. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that. The money Bill was a money Bill and we were not able to debate that further. I hope that he is happy with the suggestion I made to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. There were a number of detailed questions that he asked me and I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him on those matters. I can make sure that other noble Lords who spoke in the debate get a copy of that letter.

[Lord Grantchester]

I am grateful to the Minister for offering a meeting in the autumn so that we can get to grips with some of these more pertinent matters.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I thank the noble Lord very much for that suggestion. I conclude my remarks by saying that the order will help to prevent some of the indecision and delay that has gone on around many of these projects and the additional costs incurred by them. I hope that it will prove to be of utility for this Government and future governments.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the business before your Lordships’ House tonight was flagged up as a Bill only last month, at the beginning of February. It is indicative of a poorly balanced legislative programme whereby the other place has completed its deliberations and is therefore largely inactive while your Lordships' House is kept busy night after night. Having this Bill designated a money Bill partially cures that imbalance. However, it is deeply unsatisfactory, and conducting a one-stage passage late at night in your Lordships’ House underlines the fact. It is regrettable that several noble Lords are unable to participate because of that.

This short, two-clause Bill belies the years of deliberation, reports, campaigns and research that have gone into the two areas that the Bill covers: South West Water and Thames tideway. Calling it a money Bill deprives your Lordships’ House the opportunity to scrutinise much of the background work and reduces parliamentary governance to a unicameral dimension. Avoiding the Bill being hybrid has resulted in it being unnecessarily wide ranging in its scope and the powers it grants to the Secretary of State. Set against the water White Paper, the national policy statement on waste water and the infrastructure planning changes, that is deeply unsatisfactory.

The Minister outlined the Bill and its purpose, although it cannot be stated in the Bill. But this is the wrong Bill. Your Lordships’ House cannot amend it. Rushing it out in the last weeks of the Session says something deeply troubling about the department and the coalition’s programme next Session. Has Defra missed the opportunity to put forward the right Bill, a new water Bill, in time to be included in legislation for next Session? The Minister has already said that he has secured a consolation prize of a draft Bill instead. How long does that put back the necessary measures that are badly needed?

Clause 1 is of benefit to South West Water householders and brings relief from the legacy of privatisation, as bills in the south-west have risen 43 per cent more than in other areas. Water bills are becoming a nationwide pressing anxiety, with rises set to be 5.7 per cent per household this year. As yet, there is no generally recognised definition of water poverty in the same way as applies to fuel poverty. Nevertheless, 11 per cent of all households spend more than 5 per cent of disposable income on water, with 23 per cent of households spending more than 3 per cent.

The Opposition support the Government in reducing the discrepancy in South West Water bills for consumers. Nevertheless, there are anxieties about the measure. With a cost of around £40 million per annum, South West Water will receive £50 per household. This is rather a blunt instrument. While happily confronting the universality of certain payments, such as universal child benefit, the coalition is introducing another such payment here. Has the Minister considered other options? He will know that for farmers and growers water use is a key factor of production. Has his department looked at whether visitors and holiday homes could contribute further or be denied the subsidy? With a new water Bill, the benefits of WaterSure, introduced by the previous Labour Administration, could be brought to a greater number of claimants for a more focused and targeted operation.

As the Bill is silent on how long the subsidy will be paid, can the Minister give the House more detail tonight? The Explanatory Notes quote the water White Paper, which states,

“until at least the end of the next spending review period”.

Indeed, the Minister stated that in his introduction. It would be helpful if he could confirm that date and say what his department has in mind after that period. We understand that it might be continued as part of Defra’s own budget. Can he say which part and for how long? In view of his department’s eagerness to introduce budget cuts, what other expenditure will need to be cut to fulfil this payment to the south-west? Will his department come forward with transparency through a statutory instrument so that Parliament can fulfil its role in scrutinising expenditure? There are grave concerns that the Bill is being used for election purposes.

Lastly, can the Minister inform the House whether his department has sought to see strings attached to the payment? South West Water is a company with a monopoly in the area. Many fund managers have water utilities in their portfolios because of the high dividend policy followed. Have the Government expressed any views regarding company bonuses or regarding any reduction in leakages or an abstraction review while this payment continues?

The opposition Benches support the Bill in relieving financial pressure on South West Water bills. However, we would like to see the introduction of social tariffs across the industry to help those on low incomes. We also call on the Minister to undertake reviews and to make reports to Parliament so that the situation can continue to be monitored. More importantly, we wish to see a sunset clause introduced, whereby the Government have to promote proactively any further payments and state where the payments will come from.

Clause 2 is intended to fund a vitally needed infrastructure project—the Thames tideway tunnel. London’s sewers carry both raw sewage and rain run-off. They were designed for a capacity of 4 million inhabitants but London now has in excess of 8 million inhabitants. Because rainwater is included, this means that there are 50 to 60 overflows every year straight into the Thames. Small amounts of rain—even 2 millimetres—can result in massive amounts of untreated sewage discharges. It is extremely unfortunate that past works included rainwater with the sewage. How to tackle the problems has been the subject of a decade of argument, proposals, options and reports. The cost has increased to £4.1 billion and the project could take until 2020 to complete.

I know that several noble Lords—most notably the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who chaired a report on behalf of several local authorities—will speak further about the scheme details and their alternatives. I shall concentrate on some wider issues that need to be taken up. First, we need to understand in some depth the risks of infraction proceedings. It is deeply unsatisfactory that my noble friend Lord Berkeley cannot speak at this late hour, as he has specifically researched this position in Brussels. If the United Kingdom is at risk now, will this continue to be the position until works are complete? Will the Government seek some accommodation that proceedings will not be initiated, especially as construction may temporarily exacerbate the situation? While the Bill gives the go-ahead to finance the tunnel solution, it will still be subject to the planning process and no doubt be called in by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Can the Minister assure the House that while the decision-making process with DCLG is a legal one, the lead will continue to be taken by his department?

This is all the more interesting as the Explanatory Notes state:

“As the Bill is concerned solely with public expenditure, no Impact Assessment has been undertaken”.

That will be deeply worrying for many noble Lords as it means that there will be little parliamentary opportunity to monitor the progress of works, that environmental concerns are being properly addressed, and that innovation and technology advances will be promoted so that value-for-money outcomes can be achieved. Can the Minister say how effective scrutiny and governance of the scheme will be in the future? The scheme no doubt will be promoted by Thames Water in commercial circumstances.

The opposition Benches will support the scheme provided that it meets the EU directive and its standards. Does the Minister know that that can be the case? There are enough valid concerns and criticisms in much of the alternative options that an impact assessment of future complementary projects could be vital. There are the Deephams discharges and whether it is better to rebuild the plant on existing footprint or to rebuild on a new site. Can the Minister say whether that will be designated a nationally significant project as well?

Can the Minister also say whether measures complementary to large infrastructure projects such as SuDS—sustainable drainage systems—will also be given due weight so that the tunnel will be fit for purpose for generations to come? Rainwater and sewage should be separated on all new build. Climate change will necessitate many behavioural changes and much of England will be subject to water restrictions from 5 April this year. On this side of the House, we are worried about the lack of thought on how to reduce per capita water usage. In the UK, household water consumption has grown to around 150 litres or 35 gallons per person per day, which is double what many other western countries achieve. From these Benches, we call for more action, including the publishing of the so-called missing chapter of the water White Paper to ensure that water efficiency measures are taken more seriously.

We welcome the 4,200 new jobs and maybe a further 4,000 that will be created in the supply chain. We would wish to see the requirement to include apprenticeship programmes to level 5 and level 6 standard. At this late hour, I do not wish to detain the House long. The Bill gives the Minister wide powers. He must ensure that Thames Water can finance the project in the most cost-effective manner and report this to Parliament to reassure us that costs will not continue to increase. Can the Minister assure us that Ofwat has strengthened its capacity to focus on the tunnel? Lastly, can the Minister be confident that none of this expenditure will fall foul of state aid rules? Does he have confirmation from Brussels that the Thames tunnel will be fit for purpose?

Dogs: Microchipping

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am not sure that the respondees to the consultation share my noble friend's view on the matter, and I am not sure that the Government share it, either. We see microchipping as one measure we can take to address an increasing problem. The cost of stray dogs is something that we have discussed. The human cost of dog attacks is another matter that the House should bear in mind in considering these measures.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the House has heard many times before from the noble Lord that these matters will be dealt with soon. May I press him again on when “soon” may be? I was told that microchipping had already started and that six databases were up and running. The information on the databases will be useful only if it is up to date and accurate. What plans do the Government have to ensure that this will happen?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Some 58 per cent of dogs are already microchipped on a voluntary basis. The noble Lord asks about timing. When I say “very shortly”, I do mean “very shortly”, but the timing is not within my gift. I have clearly flagged up the possibility of an expansion of microchipping in the responses that I have given today, and we are working with everybody to make sure that this will happen.

Subsidiarity Assessment: Food Distribution (EUC Report)

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, it is very good to hear the principle of subsidiarity being upheld and defended. I am also inclined to think that this House should be consistent in maintaining the reasoned opinions that it has previously given.

The Commission, and perhaps some member states, might like to examine how food stamps in the United States have worked out in practice. The United States probably has less comprehensive and less long-term social welfare arrangements, compared to many European countries. On the other hand, I expect those who devised the food stamp scheme took full account of the interests of commercial food producers and of the market generally.

I conclude by asking the Government how many civil servants within the Commission have been employed, or are still employed, in dealing with these matters. If things go ahead in the way that we wish, will some of them no longer be needed? What will happen to them? Having said that, I support the Motion.

[Lord Grantchester]

Like others, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles for the work of European Union Committees that they chair and for their exposition tonight. The House has heard that this is essentially a repeat of the Motion debated on 3 November last year, since the amended Commission proposal does not materially alter the thrust of the original document. All sides of the House concur that the revised food distribution programme is still defective, as the substance and objective of the measure remain basically the same.

We have heard how the proposal has fared since the debate last year. In April this year, the European Court of Justice annulled the provisions of the 2009 distribution plan providing for purchases on the market. As a consequence, the budget for 2012, based entirely on intervention stocks, accounts for only €113 million against a proposed €500 million. This is a success indeed against the mission creep of the original scheme. However, in July, the European Parliament called on the Commission and the Council to develop a solution to avoid a sharp cutback in food aid as a result of the reduction in funding. The memorandum states:

“Numerous representations of the European civil society, ranging from local authorities to NGOs and charities, have expressed their worries for the future of the scheme”.

This suggests that it will not be a simple matter to resolve the situation in the manner this House would wish. The Minister at last year’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, assured the House that no charitable organisations in this country had asked the Government to participate in the scheme. He also stated that,

“no member state at the moment actually supports the scheme”.—[Official Report, 3/11/10; col. 1691.]

Where does the support for this programme seem to come from? There does not appear to be a member state that looks on this as part of its budget. Is there any similarity or region characteristic to the 18 million people said to have benefited as recently as 2010?

On cofinancing, the memorandum states, in very similar fashion, and again on page 4:

“National authorities of participating member states and very numerous representatives from the civil society have recently expressed their wish for the scheme to remain fully funded out of the EU budget”.

What discussions have taken place between those member states and the Government? While the Minister last November, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, commented that there was some way to go before this proposal would succeed, the intervening period seems to underline that the proposal’s supporters will not easily be deterred. The Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of the European Union also came out in favour in January this year.

I support the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and commend the committee for its deliberations. I understand that although the question of subsidiarity did not feature in the treaty of Rome, the position is covered under the Lisbon treaty that, in matters of shared competence, the EU can act only and in so far as the objectives of the proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states. Could the Minister clarify the Government’s position? Are the Government content that the reversal to the original intention to distribute only out of intervention stocks could still continue, albeit now on a much reduced budget? Do the Government consider that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union can be used as a legal base to the amended proposal? I look forward to the Minister’s update and his proposals to carry forward the determination shown tonight by all sides of the House against the amended proposal.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the EU Committee for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter this evening, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, for introducing our debate and for chairing the committee. Its report is welcome. This debate has been opportune and I am able to update noble Lords on meetings as recent as today. Let me make it quite clear at the outset that the Government continue to share the committee’s view that the Commission’s latest proposal is not consistent with the subsidiarity principle. In that position it is supported not only by the committee but by all speakers in our debate this evening, so many of whom, I am pleased to see, are members of the committee.

I know that your Lordships are well aware of the background to this scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, pointed out that we had debated this topic as recently as last November. When the scheme was first introduced in 1987, it was used as a mechanism to derive benefit from the growing intervention stocks and to save European embarrassment in running down these stockpiles. I point out to my noble friend Lady Byford that the 18 million people who benefited from these stockpiles came mainly from the following list of countries. In the 2012 allocation, the countries were: Spain, €18 million; France, €15 million; Italy, €22 million; Poland, €17 million; and Romania, €12 million. In fact, all member states participate, other than Denmark, Germany, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and the UK.

Agriculture: Egg Industry

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

I would like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl on securing this debate at this time. All speakers have expressed concern as it was only on Friday 28 October that EU Ministers met to discuss how to address the problem of eggs being illegally produced in contravention of directive 1999/74, which lays down minimum welfare standards for laying hens and will take effect on 1 January 2012.

We have heard tonight about the cost that the UK industry has borne to convert conventional cages to the new standard and that all of the UK will be compliant. I know that an egg producer in the next village to me, Betley, has invested £10 million to convert, with a continuing added cost of 5p to 6p per egg over and above the cost of production under a more conventional system. He will be looking to the Government to protect his investment from competition from producers in some overseas countries that do not meet the same standards to which he must abide.

The EU commissioner for health John Dalli has confirmed that, despite predicted high levels of non-compliance, the Commission has no intention of postponing the 1 January ban. He is quoted as saying that the Commission,

“will not hesitate to start infringement procedures in cases of non-compliance”.

Is the Minister satisfied that the Commission has the power to act? The industry is concerned that the Commission has not yet come forward with firm proposals for enforcement and penalties.

Furthermore, from the meeting in Brussels on 28 October, there is concern that egg-production units with conventional cages will be allowed to continue until at least July 2012, subject to certain rules and that these rules are less than robust—for example, no non-compliance shell eggs to be exported outside national borders and all non-compliant shell eggs to be prohibited from being placed on the shell market as class A but are to be processed within that member state. However, if there is no processing plant or insufficient capacity in that member state, shell eggs will be allowed to be processed in a neighbouring member state and then returned. Such egg products could then be used in prepared food and products and exported. Could I ask the Minister who will monitor non-compliant eggs moving across a border, and who has the responsibility and by what process to ensure the egg is then returned?

Could the Minister confirm whether any analysis of supply and demand has been undertaken to determine that there will not be any massive market distortions or a displacement effect on seconds from compliant producers? Has the Commission got robust data from all member states on the conversion status of their industries?

In a batch-housing production system, the industry is also sceptical that the reduction in stocking density can be actioned between batches. At the Egg and Poultry Industry conference, the Minister of State for Agriculture and Food in the other place welcomed the British Retail Consortium’s commitment to ensure that all major retailers source their shell eggs and own-label products containing egg from producers with the new enriched cage system. What evidence will be available to consumers, and will any labelling system be put in place? Could I ask the Minister what action his department will be taking to ensure non-compliant shell eggs and egg products do not enter the market place? Is his department confident that there is ample consumer recognition of the industry’s food assurance schemes and is there more it would like to see being done?

The Minister will know that in the past certain countries have banned imports of certain foodstuffs—I am thinking of beef in particular. Has the Minister’s department made any plans to ban the import of shell eggs or egg products from any particular country that poses a more extreme risk of being non-compliant?

The UK industry and its farms in particular must be congratulated that they have met the demand for higher welfare standards. There is cross-party support for these measures. The consumer must also be sure that the food supply is legal, especially if a product has been procured overseas.

Dog Control Bill [HL]

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, before we pass the noble Lord’s Bill to the other place, I am reminded that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report in June stated that he might have some more to say at Third Reading. Seeing the new Minister in his place, perhaps I may ask him if he would like to say a few words more.

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

My Lords, I think the House knows that it is not customary for the House to debate the resolution that the Bill do now pass. Given my noble friend Lord Henley’s commitment to say something at Third Reading, I will briefly update the House.

I hope that I can reassure all noble Lords that I understand their concerns about dog control. However, the Government cannot support this Bill. My noble friend Lord Henley had been working on a comprehensive package of measures to deal with dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog ownership. I continue to carry on his good work, including meetings with key stakeholders, and I hope to announce this package shortly.

Agriculture: Animal Feed

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as a very eminent scientist, the noble Lord is right to draw the attention of the House to the scientific evidence. At this stage there is no question of lifting the ban on feeding to cattle. We are talking purely about non-ruminants, such as pigs and chickens, at this stage. Obviously we will look at the evidence and at what the Food Standards Agency has to say, and then make a decision.

[Lord Grantchester]

We must proceed only on a risk-based approach and, as the Minister said, the other element to be considered is the acceptance by consumers of food so produced. The supermarkets are the gateway to the consumer. Can the Minister tell the House the attitude of supermarkets to reducing food waste by this change of policy? What discussion has his department had with supermarkets and the Food and Drink Federation?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we will continue to discuss these matters with the supermarkets and others. Obviously, where it is appropriate, food waste can go to feed animals—already some food waste can do so, when it has been appropriately separated from meat and other such products. However, as I made clear earlier, any loosening of what is happening will depend on scientific evidence and consideration of these matters. I also think that it is important, as the noble Lord makes clear, that we take opinion along with us on this matter.

Agriculture: Regulation

Lord Grantchester Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and to welcome her return to your Lordships’ House following her recent illness. We have missed her contributions, and once again she has demonstrated her acumen by securing this important debate tonight, as also illustrated by the number of speakers it has attracted.

Reducing the regulatory burden on agriculture has been a challenge to all Administrations and each has initiated programmes to tackle the problem. It was unfortunately inaccurate of her, in her opening remarks, to try to single out the previous Administration in this respect. The impact on agriculture cannot be overstated. The noble Baroness referred to the recent NFU farmer confidence survey, where regulation was cited, at 64 per cent, as the highest negative impact on business. Anecdotally, one of my neighbours cited it as the reason behind his decision to quit farming.

I declare my interest as a dairy farmer in Cheshire. One part of my business was the import and export of cattle, which was brought to an end over the winter of 1995-96, and finally on 20 March 1996, by the announcement from Stephen Dorrell, Secretary of State for Health in the other place at the time. The effect and cost of that announcement was immeasurable. This present Government’s recognition of the problem was immediate, and demonstrated by the establishment of the Task Force on Farming Regulation, led by Richard Macdonald. It is due to report this summer. For the farming community, nothing short of a fundamental reanalysis is demanded. This must start with the analysis of the scope of each EU directive, policy initiative and UK programme objective. In this review, the influence that can be brought to bear by the supply chain, and especially the retailers, must be harnessed. I refer here to the various sector assurance schemes, freedom food initiatives and other marketing ploys that are demanded of agriculture. Mention should also be made of the proposed supermarket ombudsman.

Both government and industry should turn the telescope round and look at the regulation from agriculture’s point of view—the compliance costs, the information that has to be researched and retained, the added load on the business agenda and the incentives and benefits to be derived. Agriculture needs to be able to identity the relevance of the activity to operational improvements, business development and value added. Tackling regulation is often to tackle the symptom, when we really need to tackle the cause. Cutting red tape by introducing a one-in one-out rule is a case in point. Rather, I ask the Minister whether there should be a sunset clause imposed on each regulation, so that the need and relevance of each is systematically reviewed—I suggest five years as a suitable length.

The Conservative-led Government define their objectives in terms of cutting the deficit. I suggest to the noble Lord that nothing less than the effort that is put into that is demanded from agriculture to cut red tape. Has the noble Lord’s department interpreted activities in relation to deficit reduction by focusing on the costs of implementing regulations to government, of complying with regulation to industry and interpreting regulation to consumers? I very much look forward to the task force review and whether it can rise to the challenge of remapping the landscape.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I apologise to the noble Lord but we are under a lot of pressure for time. Three minutes is the limit, and we are now well in to the third minute.

[Lord Grantchester]

I have finished.