Ivory Bill

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Monday 10th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, noble Lords would expect me to deal with Amendments 25 and 27 in this group. However, they are almost identical to Amendments 21 and 23 respectively, which were in the last group that we debated. Normally in my experience it is Back-Benchers who try to degroup and the Government who try to group up, so this situation must be somewhat unusual. Noble Lords will be pleased that despite the Minister’s response, which did not really address the issues, I do not propose to make the same points again. Instead I will simply say that they apply here as well.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the exemption definition of musical instruments with less than 20% of ivory content. The backstop date at which Asian elephants were first listed in Appendix I of CITES was 1975, before the poaching crisis of the 1980s. Evidence provided through the consultation, including from the Musicians’ Union, showed that that the vast majority of commonly played and traded instruments, including violins, pianos and bagpipes, contain 20% ivory or less by volume. Unfortunately, I understand that Northumbrian pipes would not qualify under this category due to their size. I appreciate the high esteem that these pipes enjoy and the passion with which my noble friend Lady Quin has spoken, but I gently suggest to my noble friend that there might be other ways in which that tradition can be kept alive for future generations. Instruments containing ivory can still be gifted, donated and bequeathed—perhaps, for example, to a dedicated local organisation or even the Northumbrian Pipers’ Society itself—to enable future pipers to enjoy their music. The region could also grant or fundraise for newly manufactured instruments to use ethical alternatives for ivory. I would like the Minister to confirm that that solution would be possible for the Northumbrian pipers. I also reiterate my previous comment that the registration of any exempted items, including musical instruments, is necessary to ensure compliance.

Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 15th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords, this country has always prided itself on being at the forefront of the preservation of animal welfare, especially at the point of slaughter. That was why the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995—the regulations which preceded WATOK—contained, in addition to rules to implement the then EU directive, national rules, including for religious slaughter, which gave greater protection for animals than was contained in the directive. Therefore my first question for my noble friend is: can he confirm that those national rules will all remain in place under WATOK?

I understand that the FSA’s most recent animal welfare survey, in 2013, showed that less than 21% of all poultry during the survey period was killed by a religious method and approximately 18% of birds were stunned prior to slaughter, so, to put this in context, less than 3% of the total poultry production in Great Britain is—or at least at that stage was—not stunned. I would prefer to see all animals stunned before they are slaughtered. Equally, like my noble friends, I respect the rights of the Jewish and Muslim communities to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs. It is, I think, helpful that WATOK introduces welfare enforcement notices, which allow the official vet to slow down or stop a procedure or operation, or to require the business operator to take specified steps to remedy a breach of the welfare regulations.

In a nutshell, this debate is about the balancing act between animal welfare and religious freedom. So, returning to the concern of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I ask my noble friend the Minister for his assurance that, despite WATOK not applying the stunning parameters in annexe 1 of the EU regulation to halal slaughter, welfare standards are not being weakened or compromised.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the House last debated the regulations on welfare in animal slaughter in a QSD raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in January 2014, and I am grateful for his contribution again tonight. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, was a Minister at the Dispatch Box at that time, and his comments are welcome, as are his questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, raised his concerns at that time and I am grateful to him for bringing them back to us for examination. I declare my interest as a dairy farmer but I do not have any poultry.

As we have heard tonight, matters since that QSD have not continued smoothly. Later in 2014, the Government brought in regulations but revoked them before they came into force, citing that the potential impact of some limited aspects of religious slaughter needed further consideration. At that time, your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered that the inadequacies of Defra’s handling of the consultation appeared to have reduced the quality of policy-making and to have contributed to a process that was protracted, uncertain and still unresolved more than 18 months after the key consultation took place.

A further 18 months have now gone by. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee remained concerned. In its 11th report in 2015 it said:

“The delay that has occurred since revocation of the 2014 WATOK Regulations may have allowed a better articulation of policy in the light of those views, but we remain concerned that the Department’s uncertain handling of the relevant secondary legislation will have caused confusion to those interested parties who have awaited decisions on implementation of the EU Regulation”.

Since 2014, there does not appear to have been any further consultation, yet Wales and Northern Ireland have already implemented a crucial variation that has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. This omission has consequences for the welfare of chickens in that in England’s regulations no stunning parameters are prescribed that would help to ensure an effective stun during water-bath stunning. Other noble Lords have drawn attention to this.

I should also like clarification on why this has been designated by the Minister as a negative SI. I understand that, under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, in making a decision that designates an SI as a negative instrument the Minister must satisfy a list of tests. Taking into consideration the negative procedure in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and the wide range of opinions on these regulations, can the Minister explain his ministerial thinking in making the decision to designate this as a negative SI?

The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Byford, asked the Minister to explain the issues behind the considerations that brought about the withdrawal of regulations last year and why the review came to the conclusion that it did, differing from the regulations in the devolved Administrations.

The use of electrical water bath stunners raises concerns that this in itself has a detrimental impact on bird welfare. The shackling and inversion of live birds is both stressful and painful. In addition, it is not currently possible to ensure that all birds receive an effective stun in this procedure. This leads to the situation where operators cannot distinguish between an unconscious bird and an immobilised bird, and so cannot assess stun efficacy. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has described, the omission of parameters for electrical water-bath stunning can lead to an ineffective stunning of birds with resultant suffering.

It would appear that the Minister’s SI needs to address two crucial aspects. First, stunning parameters must be set at a level that are known to achieve a consistent effective stun. Secondly, these stunning parameters must be specific to and acceptable for use by the relevant religious authorities, ensuring that the parameters will reliably and consistently provide a recoverable stun.

Labour appreciates that organisations including the British Veterinary Association, the National Secular Society and the British Humanist Association have all expressed concern about the animal welfare implications of religious slaughter. These views have been contested by Jewish and Islamic groups.

Under EU law, there is no requirement to label meat as “stunned” or “non-stunned”. The EU Commission is currently considering the practicalities of enforcing such regulations. That announcement is awaited. Labour believes that labelling should not be faith-specific so that the issue remains one of animal welfare and is not in any way religiously orientated. Consumer interests are best served through transparency in food production and processing. Consumers have the right to know exactly where their food comes from, how it has been raised, and how it has been slaughtered and processed. Labelling is important, as production supply according to religious procedures is in excess of that demand and the resulting excess becomes part of the national food chain.

The Explanatory Memorandum does not highlight any differences between the regulations that apply in England and those that have been introduced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The RSPCA has provided an excellent briefing note that highlights the omission of one paragraph on the general prohibition. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, quoted this and underlined the differences resulting from this in the effects that pertain in the devolved Administrations.

It is important that the Government get these regulations right to be consistent with EU legislation and to balance welfare and the demands of the religious authorities.

Soil Quality

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer receiving CAP payments. Healthy soils were also identified in the Pitt review, which recommended,

“water retention through management of infiltration”,

to reduce flood risk and delay water flow during flash-flood events. Given the pressures for efficiency in farming, with the ever increasing use of heavy machinery leading to soil compaction and run-off, what were the principal reasons behind the Government’s recommendation that the EU withdraw its proposed soil framework directive to establish a common framework to protect soils, bearing in mind that none of us wants excessive bureaucracy and regulation?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord makes an important point. He is right that matters such as compaction affect flood risk. The proposal from the EU lacked flexibility and it was overly prescriptive for member states that already have effective soil protection measures in place, such as the United Kingdom, where we have cross-compliance rules that specifically have measures in place to stop erosion, to maintain a minimum level of soil cover and to protect soil organic matter. There is already a large tranche of existing EU legislation that addresses soil protection.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Once again, the Minister has provided the Committee with an excellent introduction to, and explanation of, the regulations. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, brought up the situation regarding farming and these regulations. In case there should be any anxieties, I declare my interest as an owner of a dairy farm. However, my reading of the regulations is that of the nine classes of regulated activity to which they pertain, none applies to dairy farming—except, possibly, the water discharge activity. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify the extent to which farming is affected by these regulations, and how they might work together with the regulations under the common agricultural policy.

The Minister has clarified that these regulations introduce no new requirements and make no changes to existing offences and existing enforcement mechanisms, but merely allow the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings when they are on offer. I agree that the order is constructive in that it allows the Environment Agency greater flexibility in its approach to transgressions, and follows his department’s Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government. The regulations will make a positive addition to the Environment Agency’s ability to do its job well. The benefits to society include giving priority to restoration of harm ahead of criminal convictions.

The Explanatory Memorandum states, with regard to guidance, that the department will write to the Environment Agency setting out the expectation of how these enforcement undertakings will be used to ensure that enforcement is in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Will the Minister update the Committee on this progress? When does he expect that the Environment Agency will be able to publish its guidance on enforcement matters?

As the Minister explained, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no impact assessment, on the basis that the order has no impact on business or other organisations unless they fail to comply with the law. However, this was the subject of extensive discussions in the other place. The changes proposed in 2010 would have significantly reduced costs to both the Environment Agency and Natural England. As the Minister said, at the very least the order will help to free up the Environment Agency’s time.

In addition, since 2010 it is understood that consideration has been given to costs recovery. Did the Minister’s department give any consideration to recovery of the Environment Agency’s costs for monitoring and administering the new enforcement undertakings element of the order? Will he confirm that the Environment Agency can recover its costs from the order? The reply of the Minister in the other place rather missed the point to a certain extent, in his statement that it has no effect on business. It should surely be possible to produce an impact assessment on the benefits to business in this Better Regulation measure. After all, it is the aim of Better Regulation to bring benefits.

Finally, the ability to quantify the value of ecosystem services has also developed greatly since 2010. Are the Government able to give an estimate of the ecosystem services benefit of the increased compliance resulting from this change? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify his department’s approach to the benefits of this order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked how farmers will be affected by these changes. Under the new system, farmers will be treated in the same way as any other business. The regulations will enable farmers who have a general approach to compliance to propose enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency as part of the regime. It will form part of the way in which they can resolve issues. He has reminded me that I should probably declare an interest as a landowner.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of questions. He asked about guidance. I am not sure I am going to be able to satisfy him entirely today but I can say that my department will be writing to the Environment Agency, setting out the expectation of how environmental permitting enforcement undertakings will be used. It has already consulted on and will pay heed to the existing guidance on the use of environmental undertakings, which is currently being reviewed. That is probably as far as I can go today on that point.

The noble Lord asked about costs recovery. The regulations do not affect the level of inspection or enforcement. Enforcement undertakings will be an alternative to prosecution in suitable cases. Advice and guidance from the Environment Agency will remain the foundation of the environmental enforcement system. I do not think they will have an upward impact on costs at all. I think he also asked why there is no impact assessment, which I hope I explained. No impact assessment is needed for what is, in effect, a voluntary measure that will impact only on those who are not compliant and who voluntarily offer enforcement undertakings. For the delivery of this final part of the Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, we have chosen to rely on the original impact assessment from 2010.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the question I asked. I well understand the logic in both the Explanatory Memorandum and the noble Lord’s words that this has no impact and does not require any new regulation to be complied with. Nevertheless, this is a measure that will bring benefits, so I wonder whether any assessment has been made to quantify what is likely to result from the benefits of better regulation.

[Lord De Mauley]

I referred to what I think is the best estimate we can make although, as the noble Lord will understand, it is quite difficult to do because it depends on take-up. However, if I can add anything to what I have already said in my opening remarks, I will write to him.

The noble Lord also asked whether I can update the Committee on the Environment Agency’s guidance. I have already said a few words about that. The agency has its guidance, trained staff and an established approval and governance process, which includes oversight by a director-level national panel to promote consistency and the sharing of full information. On that basis, I hope that I have answered most of the questions that have been put to me, but to the extent that I have not, I will write.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order today. We agree with him that this advisory committee has gone the distance and that it serves no useful function, not having met since 2005, with its role having been devolved to national committees. I note that its former functions are now discharged through separate arrangements in each Administration and it has no property, rights or liabilities, so a transfer scheme under Section 23 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is not required.

The Minister makes the order under the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, and it meets the tests under that Act that it improves the exercise of public functions, does not remove any necessary protections and does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom.

Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is content with the order and considers that the Minister’s department has handled the consultation process appropriately. I have asked the Minister on previous occasions when considering organisations under the Public Bodies Act to update the Committee on progress generally. If the Minister has any further news, that would be instructive for the Committee.

The measure today is non-contentious, the Minister’s department is to be congratulated on its presentation to the Committee, and I approve the order. Meanwhile, I would be grateful to hear from his department whether the forestry estate is now safe in public hands, and to hear what delayed his department from bringing forward legislation as promised.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. My noble friend Lord Dundee asked what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from the national advisory committees. In my opening presentation I mentioned various bodies which now act in place of the former HGTAC in advising the Forestry Commission on the discharge of its functions. However, the totality of that advice adds to the Forestry Commission’s overall ability to advise the Government on development of forestry policy. Additionally, the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics has influenced policy on supply and demand of timber in that it quality-assures the Forestry Commission’s production of forestry statistics, which policy analysts interpret and use as the basis to inform the development of forestry policy.

My noble friend also asked, essentially, about how we will ensure adequate reserves of growing trees. We have not set planting targets for England, but in refreshing forestry policy we have set out an aspiration to increase woodland cover in England from 10% to 12% by 2060. That would require on average creating 5,000 hectares of new woodland per year. We readily acknowledge that that is a challenging aspiration, and we have been clear all along that it will require the Government’s support measures plus private-sector investment to make it happen. The Rural Development Programme currently supports about 2,000-plus hectares of new woodland per year, but non-RDP-funded expansion is currently quite low, at about 800 hectares.

To maintain our woodlands, we have also set an aspiration to bring 66% of them into management by 2018 and expect the proportion to rise beyond that, towards 80%, in due course. Since 2011, we have already progressed from 52% to 57% of woodlands under management.

My noble friend Lady Parminter asked how we would monitor our performance. I have already partly explained that the Forestry Commission will be responsible. It is exciting that the sector has seen British sawn timber grow its market share of UK consumption from 8% to 38% over 30 years. Softwood deliveries have grown steadily from just over 8 million tonnes in 2009 to closer to 11 million tonnes now. UK businesses have invested in some of the most advanced sawmills and panel board mills in the world. We are supporting growth in the wood-based economy in several ways. We have worked closely with the sector’s Grown in Britain initiative and welcome regional growth initiatives such as the northern Roots to Prosperity strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what progress we were making under the public bodies programme. We have made quite good progress in that area. So far, we have abolished 52 NDPBs, including the Commission for Rural Communities, and transferred the functions of British Waterways in England and Wales to the Canal & River Trust. There are now only one or two bodies still to be abolished, which are mainly defunct or non-operational.

The noble Lord asked, rather provocatively, whether the forestry estate was now safe in public hands. Yes, it is—I do not know how many times I have to say that. I think that the noble Lord is quite aware that we were unable to secure a legislative slot in this Session of Parliament, but we remain committed to setting up an independent body to manage the public forest estate.

I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions. I will of course check Hansard and write if I need to. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, legislation on public rights of way is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. I declare an interest as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of uncontentious footpaths.

In Committee, many of the issues behind the proposals in the Bill were examined. One of these was the question of procedures and costs involved in addressing the complexities highlighted by footpaths going through gardens and farmyards and alongside private homes, with the consequential privacy and safety concerns. I agree with the noble Lords that this is an important issue and the stakeholder group did address it. However, the measures in the relevant passage of the Bill should alleviate most of the problems. This is not to deny that there may be the further concerns to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has drawn our attention.

In Committee, we were concerned that these measures and others should be subject to follow-up through a report to Parliament. They are, as I have said, very important measures and progress must be made. From the debate in Committee, it is clear that there are several channels of communication through which progress can be monitored and outcomes highlighted, and I am not sure whether there is a need for this proposed new clause to be in the Bill. The Minister at the time may find that a Written Statement would be entirely sufficient and satisfactory as a method of addressing this, but there may be others. The stakeholder working group can issue reports for deliberation. However, if progress is not forthcoming, then we shall certainly return to the issue.

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

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Byford and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I declare an interest as the owner of a farm across which there are public rights of way and, indeed, as a user of public rights of way myself.

We have considerable sympathy for those people, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Byford, who face problems with a public right of way that passes through their farm or garden and who feel that the system has let them down or conspired against them. Where these cases occur, people may indeed experience acute problems, but they are comparatively few and we should ensure that any changes we make to legislation are proportionate to the extent of the problem.

Rather unconventionally, I will go in reverse order, and turn first to Amendment 12, in the name of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I understand that the intention behind the regulation it proposes is to enable the creation of rules prescribing how local authorities must make decisions on applications to divert or extinguish rights of way. We believe that the combined effect of our existing measures, which have cross-party support in both Houses, will make a significant difference and that we should not legislate further before seeing how these measures work out in practice. I will explain why that is.

There is clear agreement among stakeholders on the working group that the major difficulty for landowners is in getting local authorities to make a diversion or extinguishment order in the first place. Our plans to implement the right to apply for such orders are designed to overcome this. The right to apply will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way. With that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it. Therefore, local authorities will no longer be able to ignore requests or dismiss them out of hand; they will be obliged either to make an order or to be prepared to justify their reasons for not doing so on appeal to the Secretary of State.

The right to apply will be extended to land-use types other than those for agriculture, forestry and the keeping of horses—for example, to private residential gardens. The right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. I suggest that guidance such as this, which has been introduced though agreement among stakeholders, is far more likely to prove successful in practice, regardless of whether it has statutory backing.

I realise that there is the further hurdle of getting an order confirmed. However, my noble friend Lady Byford quoted my words in Committee to the effect that, according to Ramblers, which keeps accurate records of these matters, of the 1,257 diversion orders which have reached a conclusion in the last three years, 94% did not attract any objections. Of the 6% that did, less than 1% were not confirmed following submission to the Secretary of State.

In addition, the guidance will give authorities more scope to confirm orders made in the interests of the landowner in circumstances where a right of way may cause hardship because it goes through the garden of a family home, a working farmyard or other commercial premises where privacy, safety and security are a problem. In light of the guidance, authorities would have to put forward compelling reasons for not confirming an order in such circumstances.

We appreciate, and my noble friend will be the first to point out, that the numbers of orders confirmed without objections may fall under the right to apply. Each case will depend on the merits of the proposal. However, given the statistics I have outlined, we believe that the combination of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect and that we should not rush to legislate before giving these measures a chance to work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested groups to recommend the changes to the Bill as a package, to streamline the process, and to make quicker progress with less contention and confrontation, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026, the cut-off date under the CROW Act 2000. We agree with the measures in the Bill as a balanced approach to speed up the process. We wish to retain the consensus and build on it. I am grateful to the Government for listening to our views and those of many others, reflecting on the proposals and coming forward with these further technical clarifications. We agree that the stakeholder working group must be retained following this excellent report, and its remit extended to experience more contentious, protracted issues. Indeed, in the other place, the Minister agreed to set this up.

The problem raised through Amendment 17 is one that needs addressing, but not in the context of this Bill. This is not to deny that there are issues, costs and damage created by the use of off-road all-terrain vehicles. However, they must be addressed in the context that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access, with the remaining 38% due to recreation. The damage done by this 38% cannot be denied, and the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Judd have highlighted this tonight. But 70% of byways are without drainage, and much damage can be done by farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance. The stakeholder working group must be allowed to examine the issue to find solutions first, to be arrived at through dialogue, a process more likely to result in less conflict, more compromise and thus acceptance, reducing the need for enforcement. Ministers could then make better informed decisions. These measures relating to public rights of way will bring benefit to all interests—land owners, local authorities and the public, even with their competing interests.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, and particularly inside national parks, we are addressing similar issues to a debate we had in Committee. We sympathise with genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads, encapsulated in Amendment 17 by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. I have seen some of the pictures that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, referred to. We agree that this is an issue which needs to be tackled and some means of resolution found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Deregulation Bill said as much, but also recognised that this Bill is not the right mechanism for doing so. The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is an emotive and contentious one, where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said that by no means all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is by the recreational use of motor vehicles, and I broadly confirm the figures that he mentioned.

We believe that the best way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model. I am grateful to noble Lords who echoed those sentiments. That approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the stakeholder consensus on the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in this Bill form the major part. This has resulted in mutually beneficial solutions being arrived at through dialogue and negotiation.

The Government plan to set up such a motor vehicle working group, with an independent chairman, as soon as possible after the Deregulation Bill has completed its passage. My department will work with Natural England to organise a secretariat, and it will invite stakeholders with the relevant experience and expertise to join the group. We propose to invite interested organisations to put forward their suggestions for suitable members. In response to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s specific question, I say that a key principle is that the group should contain a balance of interests across all sectors. We plan to have members who can represent the interests of national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, national trails as well as all the different types of users of rights of way.

Within such a group, recognised professionals can explore all the viable possibilities and their likely consequences. Resolutions arrived at in this way, based on agreement and mutual interest, are likely to result in less conflict and reduce the need for enforcement. Solutions will work best if based on compromise, and I have been assured by those representing the anti-vehicle groups that it is not their intention to change the legislation in relation to allowing motor vehicle trials and competitions. I welcome this approach, as I do the points made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale raised a point about access for disabled people to the countryside. This is a complex issue with many different aspects, which is why it needs to be considered carefully by a working group and fully consulted on.

My noble friend Lord Bradshaw asked about timing. I have said that the stakeholder working group will start its work upon completion of the passage of the Bill. We will set a target time for the group to report. The original stakeholder working group took 18 months to report and I believe that a similar timeframe is realistic for this group to work to. I can confirm that a public consultation will follow the report.

While the group needs to have a clear remit, it will be invited to come up with its own terms of reference. I expect that it will look at all the issues in the round and include assessments of any economic and social benefits of the current recreational use of unsealed roads as well as an assessment of the costs and burdens. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw will be prepared not to press his amendment.

Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and questions. Let me do my best to address them. My noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer raised a number of questions. She started off asking which databases are approved. We will be publishing a list of the databases that inform us that they are compliant by 6 April this year, which is the date by which the microchipping database operators must comply with the requirements set down in the regulations. In answer to her second question, they will not be approved unless they can perform 24 hours a day, seven days a week. She asked a question about change of keeper. I suspect I might return to that but basically the buck stops with the new keeper. The new keepers are the people in whose interest it is to make sure that the dog is microchipped, because they are the ones who will suffer if the dog does not come back to them. I will return to that in a moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of points. He referred to the issue of dog breeding and he should be aware—I know he is—that this is not the primary purpose of these regulations, which is to allow more easy reunification of a dog and its owner when the dog has strayed. I will return to the breeders issue in a moment. The noble Lord raised issues related to the Deregulation Bill. We are looking at those issues and the record-keeping requirements on dog breeding. My colleagues dealing with the Bill are well aware of the issues, and they are considering whether any action or clarification is necessary.

[Lord Grantchester]

My anxiety is raised because the Minister at the time mentioned a consultation and yet the various sector bodies in the industry seem to be unaware of that consultation.

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand that. I will return to him in writing on that particular point.

Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in introducing these regulations I disclose an interest as owner of a stretch of a tributary of the River Thames and an interest in a lake used—among other things—for fishing.

Diseases and parasites of fish in the wild can, of course, adversely impact fish stocks. Non-native invasive fish species also pose a significant threat to native species through predation and competition as well as being potential carriers of diseases and pests, with additional potential impacts on the biodiversity of habitats. These present risks to the environment and to commercial and recreational fishery waters, so the stocking of fish into inland waters for recreational angling and other purposes has to be balanced with appropriate safeguards for aquatic environments.

Under these regulations a new permitting scheme will enable the regulatory body and the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish in our rivers, lakes and waterways. This will reduce burdens on the angling and freshwater fisheries sector and help promote growth in the rural economy. The legislation, subject to the approval of Parliament, will be made under Section 232 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. These regulations would repeal Section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 in relation to England. We will shortly also modify the Prohibition of Keeping or Release of Live Fish (Specified Species) (England) Order 2014 so that its scope excludes inland waters, to prevent the duplication of legislation.

The proposed regulations introduce a new permitting scheme which would replace the existing legal requirements to obtain the consent of the Environment Agency for each separate introduction of any fish into inland waters, and to obtain a licence for the keeping and release of non-native fish in inland waters. These regulations would make it an offence to keep fish or introduce fish other than in accordance with a single permit granted by the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency will also have the power to impose conditions on the permits relating to matters such as the number of fish introduced and minimising the risk of fish escaping from inland waters.

The new permitting scheme will enable the Environment Agency to adopt a risk-based approach to managing the introduction and keeping of fish. Under this proposal, species that are high-risk are given greater scrutiny while the movement of low-risk species will be allowed to take place more freely. This is a significant improvement on the current system. The Environment Agency will also be able to revoke and vary permits if information comes to light that changes the level of risk the fish pose to the environment. The regulations also provide more effective enforcement powers to enable the Environment Agency to remove illegal non-native fish where they are found in rivers, lakes and waterways.

The Government consulted on these proposals both in 2009 and as part of the water and marine-themed Red Tape Challenge in 2012. As explained in the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum, most respondents supported the proposals. These regulations would produce a small annual saving for industry and additional savings for the Environment Agency.

The Keeping and Introduction of Fish (England and River Esk Catchment Area) Regulations 2015 will also apply to the Border Esk region of Scotland. Freshwater fisheries are best managed on a river basin catchment basis, and England’s Environment Agency has managed fisheries in the Border Esk region for many years. Under similar arrangements, Scotland manages freshwater fisheries in the River Tweed catchment, which is shared with England. The Scottish Government are fully aware of these regulations, which maintain this policy approach, and are in total support of them.

In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in these regulations will provide a more efficient and risk-based way of protecting local fisheries and biodiversity. They will reduce the regulatory burdens on the angling and fish trade industry. To this end, I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations before the Committee today. I declare my interests as a farmer in Cheshire—the River Weaver defines the farm’s boundary on one side—and as a co-owner of a holiday home in south-west Scotland with fishing rights, although I do not personally partake in the catching of little fishes. I know that there have been many expressions of anxiety concerning the Scottish Government’s upheaval of the governance and jurisdiction structure of inland fishing in Scotland, but that is not a subject for debate today.

Nevertheless, as far as these regulations are concerned, it is good to see that co-operation between the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliament is healthy and continuing. As the Minister stated, these regulations replace the current controls on placing fish into inland waters with a new permitting system, requiring all introductions and subsequent keeping of fish to be permitted by the Environment Agency. Transporting fish for introduction must also be permitted. The main objective should be achieved, which is to support the economic value and growth of the angling sector while ensuring adequate risk-based protection for the aquatic environment from risks associated with the use of invasive non-native fish species. Such high-risk species will be given greater scrutiny, while low-risk fish movements will be allowed to take place, as the noble Lord said, much more freely, albeit against the background of full disease control and other measures the Environment Agency will rightly be concerned with. That a permit is not necessarily set in stone for all time but will run until varied is surely the right approach.

Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee inquired why the department had taken so much time since the public consultation concluded in March 2010 to come forward with these quite modest and uncontroversial regulations. It is interesting that the answer was that the election in 2010 gave rise to the regulations having to be fully evaluated against the new Government’s priorities, and that further delay then flowed from the requirement to reconsult under the water and marine Red Tape Challenge initiative. It is very fortunate that the noble Lord brings these regulations before the Committee today, a mere few months before maybe further inevitable delay as a result of the much anticipated change of Government at the general election next May.

I ask the Minister to provide comfort to the Committee. Is he confident that, following this change in licensing, there are adequate plans in place to deal with any outbreak, emerging disease or damage that could result from any eventuality in the future? Are there enough resources to remove any introduction from the environment affected and to tackle any problems resultant from illegitimate action or trade? I note that one of the contentions expressed in the consultation was that this new scheme might lead to an increase in illegal activity.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, these are the regulations we have all been waiting for. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the instrument before the Committee concerning the amendments to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013.

From this side of the Committee, we support these changes to the SIP regulations. As the Minister has explained, their purpose is to bring Ofwat’s powers to include conditions in an infrastructure provider’s project licence into line with those which exist for a water or sewerage undertaker. With this inclusion, Ofwat is able to refer any disputes over price determinations to the Competition and Markets Authority on request by the licensed IP, in the same way that a water or sewerage undertaker already can. In the absence of such conditions, as the Minister said, the only route of challenge against an Ofwat determination would be by an application for judicial review on a point of law—a costly and time-consuming activity.

The SIP amendment regulations concern infrastructure providers in their activity of financing and delivering large and complex projects, most notably the Thames tideway tunnel. The SIP regulations are entirely sensible. The public consultation recently undertaken produced the five responses to which the noble Lord referred. The purpose of the consultation was not to review the merits of the tunnel but to consider amendments to the SIP regulations. Although most of the points raised were on aspects of the tunnel project itself, and not relevant to the consultation, nevertheless the respondents were supportive of the draft SIP amendment regulations on the grounds that the availability of an appeal route in common with other water industry companies will help lower perceptions of project risk and keep the cost of procuring a proposed IP as low as possible. It would so remove a distinct disincentive to invest and enable any potential future disputes to be resolved promptly.

I am sure that the use of the CMA to adjudicate will be helpful in convincing consumers that the decisions reached have their best interests at heart. The removal of an unnecessarily burdensome process for the appeals should also help to deliver lower costs for consumers. I see no reason to delay further the Committee’s agreement to these regulations.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, the relevant clause before us amends Part 3 of the Clean Air Act 1993; these provisions relate to smoke control areas. The Act requires the Secretary of State to publish lists of authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces that can be used in smoke control areas. Currently, this is done through regulations that are updated every six months. Clause 16 removes the need to issue regulations, replacing them with online lists to be published by the Secretary of State, which will be revised,

“as soon as is reasonably practicable after any change is made”.

The Secretary of State must keep an up-to-date and easily accessible authorised list on the gov.uk website.

This is a probing amendment. Will the Minister confirm that the criteria for selecting which fuels are considered safe and clean enough to be used will not change? If the clause is designed purely to speed up this process, it is one that we would thereby support. It should not be meant to change the terms or processes for the selection of fuels. It is important that it is made absolutely clear to people that this provision is about speeding things up, as opposed to making any back-door changes to which fuels could be used. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Clean Air Act, which was first introduced to combat the smogs of the 1950s, designates smoke control areas within which it is an offence to emit smoke unless using authorised fuels and/or exempted appliances. Clause 16 amends the procedure by which the Secretary of State specifies authorised fuels and exempted fireplaces. They are currently specified by way of six-monthly statutory instruments, as the noble Lord explained. The clause will enable the Secretary of State to specify the products by publication of a list on the Defra smoke control web pages instead. The list will be published on a monthly basis and therefore reduce the delay that businesses and consumers currently face when new products are brought on to the market. The Act provides local authorities with powers to designate smoke control areas, within which it is an offence if smoke is emitted from a building’s chimney unless an authorised fuel or exempt appliance is being used. It is also an offence under the Act to acquire or sell an unauthorised fuel for use in a smoke control area.

The Secretary of State currently has the power under the Clean Air Act 1993 to exempt fireplaces by order and to authorise fuels by regulations, if she is satisfied that such products can be used without producing any smoke or a substantial quantity of smoke. Following assessment by technical experts to ensure compliance with eligibility criteria, the authorised fuels and exempt appliances are specified in statutory instruments which are made every six months. Under the current system, manufacturers face a delay of up to eight months between that assessment and bringing new fuels and fireplaces on to the market because they have to wait for that legislation to be made.

In answer to the noble Lord’s question, I confirm that the amendment made by this clause will not change the technical standards that products have to meet to be specified. Applicants will still be required to prove via testing that their products are capable of being used without producing any—or any substantial—quantity of smoke, thus keeping the inherent safeguards for air quality. The technical experts who currently provide advice with regard to the statutory instruments will continue to assess test results and provide recommendations to government with regard to the suitability of products for use in smoke control areas.

The details of specified products in the legislation are highly technical. The authorised fuel schedules are defined in technical terms covering matters such as the composition of the fuels, the manufacturing process, the shape of the fuels and their weight and sulphur content. Similarly, the exempted fireplaces schedules contain highly technical conditions of exemption relating to how individual fireplaces should be used and what fuels should be used in them to qualify for exemption.

It is worth noting that my department is not aware of the smoke control statutory instruments, which have been issued since 1957 and biannually since 1970, having been debated in Parliament on any occasion. The lists published on the internet will be subject to defined and robust audit procedures to ensure the accuracy of the data entered. These will include checks being undertaken and the lists being signed off by senior, responsible Defra staff. The process will enable specified product lists to be updated on a monthly basis.

In addition to including the same level of detail as the statutory instruments, the lists of specified products on the internet will also indicate the dates of new product specifications and of any variations or withdrawals. This is an improvement on the current system, where it would be necessary to compare lengthy SIs for consumers and local authorities to identify any changes. Therefore, there is an element of safeguarding for consumers as it will ensure that there is legal certainty with respect to which products may or may not be used at any given time. Members of the public without access to the internet will be able to request paper copies of the lists from my department.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee initially expressed concern over the move from a legislative to an administrative process. However, I understand that it now finds the explanation provided by the Government with regard to the procedures for specifying products and the levels of control that will be in place sufficiently compelling in favour of the amendment—that is, the amendment made by the clause rather than the noble Lord’s amendment. It has, however, requested assurance that adequate steps will be taken to ensure that persons who have been lawfully using specified products do not end up inadvertently committing offences as a result of specifications being withdrawn. The Government would not want to create a situation in which people could inadvertently end up being in breach of the law.

A decision to withdraw an approval may take place only if evidence demonstrating that a product is not eligible for use in a smoke control area comes to light. Defra has advised that it is not aware of any specified products ever having been removed from the lists previously. Based on this information, while it is possible that a specified product may need to be withdrawn, it would be highly unusual. Given what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the answer to that is that the inclusion in the published list will be information that the public need. They certainly can contact my department. Ultimately, it would remain subject to judicial review if it ever needed to come to that. The information will be public. All that will happen is that we will streamline the process so as not to clog up my noble friend’s committee.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving me those assurances and for his comprehensive assessment of the clauses in the Bill. I am very pleased that, from his assurances, the technical standards will continue to be monitored. On this occasion, I am happy to comply with the pleadings of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, public right-of-way legislation is complex, often archaic and certainly plentiful. Looking around the Committee today, I notice that there may well be previous Ministers of Agriculture in the Room who put some of this legislation through. It all builds into an important picture that needs some clarity, and I am very pleased that certain aspects of this are in this Deregulation Bill. They cover important aspects of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Highways Act 1980 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, building on the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

I declare my interest from the register as an owner of farmland in Cheshire over which there are a number of footpaths. These are not controversial; they are intermittently walked and do not cause disruption to farming operations. However, across the country the situation is considerably less clear. Under the 1949 Act, local authorities are required to produce a definitive map and statement of public rights of way. This is taking some time and continues, such that in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 a cut-off date of 2026 was introduced, after which routes pre-existing 1949 cannot be added to the definitive map.

Not only is the process of registration slow and complex, certain elements of the legislation have yet to be implemented and are considered to be flawed. In 2008 a stakeholder working group was set up by Natural England with membership drawn up from public access user groups and land management and business interests, including farming, and the local authorities. In 2010 it produced the Stepping Forward report, which proposed the changes that we are discussing today around the procedures introduced in the various legislation.

The stakeholder working group is to be commended on finding and building consensus around the main interested parties to recommend these changes as a package, to streamline the process and to make quicker progress, even though there may appear to be plenty of time until 2026. Some of the recommendations will no doubt help farmers to manage access safely, others will help to bring clarity to user groups and a large number will aid local authorities in bringing forward proposals to reduce confrontation and red tape. The approach from these Benches is to retain this consensus and build on it. The stakeholder working group is still continuing and, with these proposals agreed and implemented through the Bill, it can press forward in addressing further problems and bring these forward as quickly as possible.

Meanwhile, there is the task of following up on these proposals. The amendment before the Committee today is to do just this and annually publish a report on how effective this process has now become, how much quicker applications have become to deal with and any unforeseen issues that have arisen. The whole of Schedule 7 defines the new speedier and more streamlined process, but will it find snags? For example, paragraphs 4 to 6 of the schedule change the procedure for initiating action in the magistrate’s court. That procedure has charges applied to it, and these charges for initiating court action have increased substantially. Will this become a deterrent to the effective working of this provision?

Clause 26 opens the way for full cost recovery from a landowner seeking an order. The effect will need to be carefully monitored. Clause 24 revisits the CROW Act 2000 to correct those perceived flaws. It is important that the impact of this so-called right to apply for orders, both on local authority workloads and on the network itself, is properly monitored. The amendment would enable this and other measures to be monitored and their operations made transparent to ensure that the stakeholder working group is working on the right track.

One effect of the amendment would be to continue to build the esteem of the stakeholder working group and encourage it to continue trying to seek consensus on the most controversial aspects of our rights of way. It should be an important aid to the Minister in communicating the effectiveness of the process to draw up a definitive map and statement of public rights of way, and he should welcome it. I beg to move.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, before I start, like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I should declare an interest in that I am the owner of land over which pass public rights of way.

Perhaps I may also say by way of preamble that the rights of way reforms package, of which Clauses 21 to 27 will form the basis, is founded on the recommendations of the independently chaired stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. The group consists of 15 members—five from each of the key sectors: local authorities, landowners and rights of way users. It contains members of the Ramblers, the British Horse Society, the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the National Association of Local Councils and the Local Government Association. I may say a bit more about that in a debate on a later group of amendments.

Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, seeks to ensure that the Government monitor the success or otherwise of the rights of way reform package after implementation. That is a worthy objective and one with which I have no disagreement. That is why the Government have already given a commitment that they will arrange for the stakeholder working group to carry out a review. We said in the other place during the Committee stage that,

“the stakeholder working group’s advice will be sought on the constitution of the review panel, as was set out in another of the group’s proposals. The panel will be able to advise on how well the reforms are working and whether any further measures need to be taken before the cut-off date”.—[Official Report, Commons, Deregulation Bill Committee, 6/3/14; col. 238.]

While it is important to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the rights of way clauses, it seems ironic to use a deregulatory Bill to impose on government and, in turn, on local authorities the statutory burden of making a formal report to Parliament. The additional bureaucracy that such a formal reporting mechanism would create runs contrary to the aims of this Bill. Indeed, the proposal runs contrary to the recommendations of the stakeholder working group itself. In its proposal 21, the group said:

“A stakeholder review panel should be constituted after implementation of the Group’s proposals to review progress with recording or protecting useful or potentially useful pre-1949 rights of way before the cut-off”.

Since the stakeholder working group has shown itself to be so effective in working together to develop solutions, I suggest that it would be wrong not to entrust the group with advising on the most appropriate mechanism for carrying out a review of the reforms. It is in the interests of each of the stakeholders on the group that they do so. On that basis, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for certain of those clarifications but I should like to press him on the further work of the stakeholder working group. While the amendment limits the annual assessment to a report on the measures in the Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify any further aspects of this group and how he sees further progress being made. Having confirmed that it will continue, does he believe that its membership is sufficiently widely drawn to tackle more controversial aspects, and will the group be encouraged to come forward with proposals in a timely manner? Even though this is a long way ahead, we are aware of the urgency to make progress, as we will see in debates on further amendments that will be coming up shortly. It would be extremely interesting to hear how the working group may approach the more controversial aspects. The noble Lord should be mindful that we may well return to this at a later date, having considered further debate on the amendments. We reserve judgment about how appropriate it is that the Deregulation Bill should include a proposal to monitor its work going forward.

[Lord De Mauley]

I think that I have explained that the stakeholder working group is quite broadly constituted in its membership. It has tackled some pretty contentious issues successfully, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that. In terms of how it will work as this goes forward, once all the rights of way reforms have been put in place in both primary and secondary legislation, that group can start preparing a review. Of course, any review by that group will be published by Defra and put on its website. I hope that that helps the noble Lord.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his further clarifications. While it is a complex and controversial area that we may revisit at a later stage, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the proposals in the Bill will make great progress on many aspects and procedures covering rights of way legislation. We welcome this further debate on many aspects that the stakeholder working group raised. While we have addressed and debated some of them, there is as yet no agreement and it may be a long way off. However, we have welcomed the debate and look forward to further progress after these provisions have been enacted.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend’s Amendments 19 to 22 seek to introduce measures that reflect the valid concerns of landowners and farmers about the impact that claims for rights of way can have on their businesses, and about the costs of dealing with such claims during due legal process.

I am aware that there are concerns about the potential effect on some landowners of applications to record a right of way, particularly about multiple applications in an area or even on a single property. An application fee has been suggested as a solution to this issue. However, the introduction of such a fee or charge would be highly contentious. Ministers specifically asked the rights of way stakeholder working group to look at the impact of applications to record a public right of way, particularly at multiple applications, and what measures, including a fee or charge for an application, might be introduced to mitigate this perceived problem. The group agreed to report back to Ministers in the following terms:

“The problem of multiple applications could be an acute one in some cases but it is not widespread and there is little prospect of coming up with a solution, particularly on application charges, on which the full range of stakeholders could agree”.

However, the group’s view was that measures already agreed as part of the reforms package will in any case alleviate most of the problems. The first measure is to raise the threshold for applications. A local authority would be able to reject applications that did not meet a basic evidential test, effectively eliminating spurious or speculative applications. We are proposing to apply this retrospectively, as agreed by the stakeholder working group, by means of the transitional regulations provided for in Clause 27(7), so it would apply to any existing applications that have not yet resulted in an order.

The second enables newly discovered rights of way to be diverted and/or reduced in width before being recorded. This would be by agreement between the local authority and the landowner, with no scope for the agreement to be thwarted by objections. It is possible that this could also be applied retrospectively through the transitional regulations, thus reducing the overall administrative and cost burden of the procedures for recording rights of way.

Taking each of the proposals in my noble friend’s amendment in turn, the proposition to introduce a time limit on applications for an order to modify the definitive map is not as straightforward as it may appear. While it is possible to envisage such a measure for applications that are based solely on evidence of recent use, most rights of way applications are concerned with recording a right of way for which there will be both user evidence and historical documentary evidence, which may not come to light until many years after a landowner makes a statutory declaration under Section 31(6) of the Highways Act 1980.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the problems arising from recreational motor vehicles—4x4s and motorbikes—using green lanes, unsealed tracks and other classified county roads have become very serious. For today’s Committee I have received a large postbag of submissions highlighting the disruption to quiet enjoyment of the countryside, and indeed the destruction of the pathway that precludes any other use. The Green Lanes Protection Group, made up of some 20 organisations ranging all the way from the Lake District in Yorkshire through North Wales and the Brecon Beacons to Somerset and the South Downs, has provided evidential photographs of the damage, and this is supported by many green lane alliances and concerned individuals.

This is becoming a serious, pressing matter to sort out. We recognise this and, in expressing sympathy, urge the Government to commit to a way forward. However, I hesitate to prescribe how the Minister should approach this, as the amendment does when it says, for example, that within one year of the Bill’s enactment the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report that the amendment calls for.

Perhaps the Minister could say which body, and which process, might be the best way to respond. Would it be once again a stakeholder working group or a sub-committee of wider interest groups that could make recommendations? Legal changes introduced by the NERC Act 2006 have improved the situation by limiting claims for the recognition of additional BOATs and by giving traffic regulation order powers to national park authorities. In places, though, particularly in some national parks, the problems remain extensive and further legislation is most likely to be necessary, along with better enforcement. Any debates on this issue that arise in the context of the Deregulation Bill will be important in paving the way for future legislation.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, in what is an understandably contentious and partly ideological debate about the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsurfaced routes in the countryside, particularly inside national parks, my noble friend’s proposal seeks to place a duty on the Government to assess the burdens and costs caused by the use of mechanically propelled vehicles on unsealed rights of way. Presupposing that the review would conclude that motor vehicle use gives rise to a burden and cost, the clause would give powers to alleviate these but would not seek any assessment of any possible benefits, or seek to weight burdens and cost against such potential benefits.

I have to say that I have considerable sympathy with the genuine concerns of my noble friend and others about the problems that can arise from the recreational use of motor vehicles on unsealed roads. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and others, I think that my noble friend is right to raise it today. Furthermore, I agree that this issue needs to be tackled and some means of resolution to it found. The Government’s published response to the Joint Committee’s report of pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bill said as much, but recognised that this Bill was not the right mechanism for doing it.

The issue of recreational off-road motor vehicle use is a complex, emotive and contentious one where one person’s pleasurable pastime is anathema to another. Research conducted on byways open to all traffic—admittedly, some years ago in 2005, although I am not aware of there being a significant change—found that although there are some acute cases of damage by recreational motor vehicle use in hot-spot areas, some of which my noble friend and I discussed earlier today, there was no evidence of widespread damage to the byway network from motor vehicles. The research found that 85% of byways open to all traffic in England carried either light traffic, at an average of 0.6 motor vehicles per day, or moderate traffic, at an average of 5.0 motor vehicles per day. Not all damage to unsealed roads and tracks is caused by the recreational use of motor vehicles. The research found that 62% of byway traffic is due to land management and dwelling access and just 38% is due to recreation. In addition, it found that 70% of byways were without any drainage. Much of the damage is due to a combination of farm vehicles, water erosion and poor maintenance.

I must also say that there is good evidence that the use of unsealed roads during organised motoring events, such as hill climbs, puts significant amounts of money into rural economies. There are about 150 hill climb events around the country every year, with over 12,000 participants. The motorcycle club trials in the south-west alone are estimated to bring about £120,000 to the local economy. Some groups of motor vehicle users engage in volunteer activities to repair and maintain unsealed tracks, which I think is something that we would all want to encourage.

It is our contention that the most appropriate way to review policy on the recreational off-road use of motor vehicles is for it to be based on the stakeholder working group model and, in answer to my noble friend Lady Parminter, such a group will be established as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill. Despite my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s scepticism, I point out that the stakeholder working group approach has proved to be successful, as demonstrated by the consensus in the face of diametrically opposing positions over the rights of way reforms package, of which the clauses in the Bill form the major part. This has resulted in agreement being arrived at through discussion and negotiation.

Thames Tideway Project: Contingent Guarantees

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 14th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I know that we are always grateful to my noble friend for his grasp of history. He was there. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord West, it is important enough that I will write to him.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard growing anxieties around certain facets of the water industry. Further to the specification and preparatory works notice regarding the Thames tideway tunnel recently published, will the Government look again at the value-for-money condition to provide better clarity concerning financial commitments for customers before agreeing contingent government support?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I agree 100% with the noble Lord that value for money for customers is absolutely key and is an absolute focus of the Government.

Public Bodies (Marine Management Organisation) (Fees) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the ordering. From these Benches, I am happy to approve of the measure. The Marine Management Organisation is a relatively new organisation set up by the previous Labour Government under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It was set up with cross-party support, and it is encouraging that it still receives that support.

We continue with our support for this order to allow the MMO to move towards full cost recovery in relation to the activities it undertakes. The old licensing system under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 was insufficient in a number of ways to allow cost recovery. It is therefore regrettable that, under the charging powers of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, monitoring costs, especially for dredging, are still not fully recoverable. While powers under the Public Bodies Act are being used to move more quickly towards full cost recovery, I join with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in considering that it would be desirable that Defra remedies the situation through an amendment to the MCAA 2009 at an early opportunity.

I also recognise that the MMO has undertaken a review of activities and moved quickly to reduce unnecessary burdens and costs on businesses and other marine users by increasing the number of exempt activities, expanding the use of longer licences and other efficiency measures. Further improvements will be encouraged through the organisation’s stakeholder forum group, customer satisfaction surveys and key performance indicators.

Can the Minister clarify further, however, how the MMO will operate in relation to establishing an ambitious, ecologically coherent and well managed network of marine protection areas, which was also part of the MCCA 2009? Can he confirm that the MMO will be involved under the power to designate marine conservation zones in UK waters? What assessment have the Government made to allow the MMO to move towards full cost recovery in the activity on designation and regulation of the planned marine coastal zones? An independent science advisory panel concluded that 120 sites would contribute to an ecologically coherent network of marine protected areas, and that this network would need to be strengthened. However, in November 2013, the Government designated just 27 zones, covering 8,000 square kilometres of offshore waters and around 2,000 square kilometres of inshore waters. Will these cost recovery powers allow more sites to be designated and monitored at an earlier date—that is, much sooner—following further site-specific conservation advice?

Finally, I ask the Minister whether, under the regulations for fee ceilings, which will limit the cost to smaller-scale projects for small businesses, the cost met by the public subsidy will have a cap attached. If so, at what level will it be and how will it work? With those few comments, I am content to support the order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their comments on the order—in particular those of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, which were helpful.

Noble Lords know that we are committed to achieving a sustainable marine economy, which means, among other things, having an effective system for managing activities taking place in our seas. The marine planning and licensing systems are operated by the Marine Management Organisation and are key to that. In setting up the MMO, the Government have been keen to ensure that it can operate effectively and efficiently, and it needs to have the right people and resources to act as a modern enabling regulator. This means working to find solutions that enable sustainable growth to take place while protecting and enhancing the marine environment. It also means recovering the reasonable costs that it incurs in licensing.

Noble Lords referred to the views of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As I said, the committee has agreed with the Government that, in the longer term, it will be desirable to rectify the deficiency in charging powers through an amendment to the Marine and Coastal Access Act, and we will continue to look for a suitable opportunity to do that.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of questions, partly around MPAs. As he said, we have announced an initial 27. The MMO will be involved in meeting the objectives on marine conservation zones; for example, through marine plans and licensing. We intend to designate further sites and will make a decision on them early next year.

The noble Lord’s other questions centred on capping of fees. Costs will be met by public subsidy, which we will be able to manage through careful case management and efficiencies. If I have missed anything in that answer, I will write to the noble Lord, but I hope that he will accept it.

Approval of the order will enable the MMO to recover the cost of regulatory activities that it cannot currently charge for. As I have said, this change will result in a saving of about £600,000 annually to taxpayers. Despite that not being a huge sum of money, it will make a big difference to the MMO’s finances in these straitened times and is essential to delivering and maintaining a high-quality service. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 14th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that an early initiative of this Government was to enhance our Civil Service’s ability to lead large projects, and indeed to render that ability on a level with the best of the private sector. We set up the Major Projects Leadership Academy, which is run by the Saïd Business School. I met Defra graduates and those undergoing the course there on Monday this week, and an impressive bunch they are.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Given the cost of living crisis, Ofwat rightly rejected Thames Water’s application to increase bills further. Given that Thames Water paid out £2.2 billion in dividends over the past six years and pays little or no corporation tax, what leadership are the Government showing to ensure the right vehicle for financing, managing and delivering the project is put in place, and that it will be subject to parliamentary oversight?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is quite a lot in that question, but I should say to the noble Lord that Labour harps on about the cost of living, yet its own policies—spending commitments totalling £27.9 billion since 3 June last year, unworkable energy policies and increased borrowing—would increase it.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation) Order 2014

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Monday 7th April 2014 Grand Committee

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

I welcome this opportunity to introduce the order. It may be helpful if I explain why the Government have proposed to remove the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. The origins of the committee go back more than 60 years to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948. On repeal of the 1948 Act, the committee’s existence was continued by the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986. The role of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation is to give advice to Ministers about provisions to be included in regulations on tenant-right matters and the amount of compensation for improvements to be paid to tenants at the end of an agricultural tenancy in England and Wales. Ministers are not obliged to take account of the advice of the committee.

There are no current members of the committee and the last time members were appointed was in 1990. It has not functioned for more than 20 years, hence the committee exists in legal name rather than reality. The Tenancy Reform Industry Group, known as TRIG, has provided advice to the Government on agricultural tenancy issues since 2003. TRIG is a non-statutory body, which comprises representatives of the main industry and professional organisations, such as the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Farmers’ Union of Wales, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

TRIG has not replaced the Committee on Agricultural Valuation and provides advice on a non-statutory basis across the range of tenancy matters, rather than just on end-of-tenancy compensation provisions. However, the existence of TRIG means that it is no longer necessary to retain the legislative provisions for the Committee on Agricultural Valuation to give specific advice on end-of-tenancy compensation matters.

As noble Lords know, the Government have made a commitment to reduce the number of unnecessary public bodies. In July 2010, my right honourable friend Caroline Spelman, then the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, announced proposals to reform a number of departmental public bodies; these included the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. The Public Bodies Act 2011 provides the legislative mechanism for the Government to carry out reform of public bodies. The Committee on Agricultural Valuation is listed in Schedule 1 to the Act. This enables the Minister to lay an order under the 2011 Act to abolish the committee.

In accordance with the requirements of the Public Bodies Act, a consultation was carried out in England and Wales last autumn. Having carefully considered the consultation responses, it is now proposed to repeal the legislation which provides for the Committee on Agricultural Valuation by an order under the Public Bodies Act.

Welsh Ministers have given their consent to the abolition of the committee. A legislative consent Motion was agreed without debate in the Welsh Assembly on Tuesday 1 April. The abolition of the committee has no impact on the ability of agricultural tenants to claim compensation at the end of a tenancy. As the committee is already effectively moribund, its abolition will have no impact on jobs, nor will it result in any savings for the Government. However, it will remove an unnecessary public body from the legislative framework.

I should probably disclose the fact that I am a landlord and have a tenant. I hope that this explanation has been helpful.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I will make a declaration of interest as a farmer, but I have no tenants.

The Minister can relax and be assured that we are happy to endorse the order. He will forgive me if I delay the Committee for a few moments to ask a few questions for clarification. I appreciate that the committee has not met for over 20 years and that the term of the last appointments to the committee expired in 1993. Its abolition will have no impact on the functioning of agricultural tenancy legislation, especially as most new tenancies are now farm business tenancies under the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, for which different legislative arrangements apply for end-of-tenancy compensation.

We also have TRIG, as the Minister explained, set up by my noble friend Lord Whitty, to provide advice to government on agricultural tenancy matters as a non-statutory advisory body. Can the Minister confirm that there have been no costs from this committee’s dormancy and that, therefore, there are no savings to be achieved through this abolition.

In the explanatory document, the results of the consultation on this order were summarised. Notably, the Tenant Farmers Association made comments that the abolition should follow the enactment of the amended Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978 agreed by TRIG, which have been with Ministers for some time and need urgent attention. I have no doubt that the Minister would want to bring this forward with any further amendments to the compensation regulations as part of the wider package of tenancy reform to ensure that legislative changes are complementary.

In the consultation, the chairman of TRIG also stated that abolition was supported, provided that TRIG’s proposed amendments to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978 were enacted. I therefore ask the Minister whether the TFA gave any reasons in its consultation response as to why it felt that abolition should follow enactment of the new regulations. Was it consequential in any way or does it merely reveal frustration that these regulations have not been amended since 1983? Does the Minister have a timeframe in mind for bringing forward these amended regulations?

The Minister has already updated us on the situation in Wales, for which I thank him. Finally, I want to widen our consideration to include understanding the current position of his department under the Public Bodies Act 2011. There was some debate in the other place on this point, but no discussion concerning the money saved, which I understand was to be the main justification for the great burning of the quangos. While this order is a tidying-up exercise, no money will have been saved from the committee’s abolition. Will the Minister update this Committee on how much dead wood has now been burnt, how much has been saved by his department and what further savings may be expected?

I should be happy to receive an answer in writing listing the full names with commensurate cost implications of the quangos that have been abolished or reconstituted as a committee of experts, which are being retained and which are still to be reckoned with. We can then judge what percentage have been burnt and how successful the Public Bodies Bill 2011 has been in its contention to save public money. An outline today would be most appreciated, provided that the Minister will confirm that he will write with a full assessment of the Public Bodies Act on his department. With that, I am content to agree to the order today.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for his comments, and for his general support of the order to remove the Committee on Agricultural Valuation. As I said, this order removes what is effectively a moribund body that has not met for more than 20 years. Its removal will have no impact on the relationship between agricultural tenants and their landlords. Qualifying tenants will still be entitled to claim compensation at the end of a tenancy, in accordance with the current legislative provisions.

Following recommendations from the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, we will shortly be consulting on changes to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978, with a view to updating them as part of measures for wider reforms of tenancy legislation. That partly answers the noble Lord’s question, which I shall come back to in a moment. This will ensure that the compensation regulations and other tenancy legislation are brought up to date to provide a modern framework for the future.

The noble Lord asked various questions, the first of which was about savings. I can confirm that there are no savings. This measure is about not savings but tidying-up. Returning to the issue of the order of the various reforms, the abolition of the Committee on Agricultural Valuation is not dependent on amending the compensation regulations. As part of the agriculture theme of the Red Tape Challenge process, my department will be consulting on a number of changes to reform agricultural tenancy legislation. It was felt that it would be more sensible to take forward amendments to the Agriculture (Calculation of Value for Compensation) Regulations 1978, which were proposed by the Tenancy Reform Industry Group, as part of this wider package of tenancy reform. This will ensure that the proposed legislative changes complement one another.

We will be consulting on all proposed amendments to agriculture and tenancy legislation in 2014 with a view to making the changes in this Parliament where the legislative timetable permits. Moreover, as the legislation currently stands, we would be required to reconvene the Committee on Agricultural Valuation to make changes to the compensation regulations. As there are no current members of the committee, it would be time-consuming and would require a public appointment exercise, which would not be cost-effective. We took the view that abolition of the committee should not be delayed but should take place as soon as possible.

The noble Lord asked a more general question about progress on reform of public bodies. We have made good progress on the major reforms. We have been working to reduce the number of bodies from 92 in 2010 to 36 by 2015. So far, we have abolished 50 non-departmental public bodies. There are now only a few bodies still to be abolished and these are mainly defunct or non-operational. We are also making progress on 120 bodies that were due to be retained and substantially reformed. The vast majority of these are internal drainage boards, for which reforms are under way. Substantial reforms have already been made to the Environment Agency and Natural England. On his detailed questions, I will take advantage of his invitation to write to him.

[Lord Grantchester]

Has the Minister any idea on cost savings to his department under the Public Bodies Bill to date? That would be most helpful.

[Lord De Mauley]

May I include that in the letter? On that basis, I commend this order to the Committee.

Food: Adulteration

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Monday 17th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I do agree and that, indeed, is what is happening.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, this is fraud on a massive scale. It is made easier by this Government’s changes to the structure of regulation, which weakened consumer protection by fragmenting the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency between different bodies. Will the Government recognise this mistake and revisit the decision?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has given me the opportunity to answer that question. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the machinery of government changes had any material impact on the response to the horsemeat fraud incident. That incident was fraud on an EU-wide scale and had nothing to do with changes in responsibilities between UK government departments.

Japan: Dolphins

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we regularly call for Japan to cease its so-called “scientific” whaling programme, as we consider there to be no valid argument for lethal scientific research on whales. As such, we therefore agree with Australian efforts to bring an end to these activities through the ICJ, and we look forward to the judgment in that case, which we expect this year.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in other European Governments to ensure that dolphins trapped in this hunt and sold for entertainment do not find their way into European aquariums?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the issue is indeed of concern to a number of EU member states, and was discussed at the EU CITES management meeting in December. We continue to consider what measures the EU can take. For example, parties to CITES can place a reservation on a species, which means that they are not bound by the CITES controls relating to that species. We will, through the EU, continue to encourage countries such as Japan and others to withdraw their reservations on, for example, whale species.

Water Bill

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 6th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for introducing Amendment 118, which, as he said, would insert a new clause into the Bill to place a legal requirement on water companies to include information on their bills about the Water Sure scheme. The scheme provides a mandatory safety net for low-income customers on a meter who, for reasons of ill health or because they have a large family, use larger than average amounts of water. It caps the bills of these households at the average for their company area.

The eligibility criteria for Water Sure are twofold: the household must be in receipt of a relevant low-income benefit and must have three or more dependent children living at home or someone with an illness that necessitates high water use. It is unfortunately a feature of all means-tested benefits of this sort that take-up, as the noble Lord mentioned, can fail to match eligibility. That is why promotion of the scheme is so important. I am pleased to be able to tell the noble Lord that all water companies already voluntarily provide information about Water Sure on their bills.

In addition, Amendment 118 would require all water companies to provide information about tariff structures and the lowest available tariff. This is not the energy sector—water companies do not have complex tariff structures. In fact, the situation is quite the reverse. The choice for the majority of household customers is between paying according to volume of water used—a metered tariff—or according to the rateable value of their home. All water companies provide information on household customer bills about how to get a meter fitted free of charge. Companies also provide advice to customers on whether or not they might benefit financially from the installation of a meter; a role also performed by the Consumer Council for Water. The cheapest option for each household will depend on the location of the property and the amount of water used by the household. Where a company offers a social tariff, information on whether a household may qualify is provided by the company alongside the customer bill. The Consumer Council for Water works closely with each water company on the information provided on household bills to ensure that customer interests are met. Its very practical advice is that customers are likely to be put off by too much information in their bills.

For these reasons, I cannot agree that customers will be best served by placing an increasing number of legal requirements on water companies to include additional information on customer bills. I believe that the current approach of working in partnership with the body responsible for representing the interests of customers is more likely to be effective. I therefore hope that I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for that reply. I had not heard that all companies were already providing this information. My information was that this was not the case and that only some were. I am encouraged that the reassurance has been provided but, nevertheless, feel that the promotion of the scheme could be improved if it was included in people’s bills when they had to pay them. I am sure we will want to return to this issue because, given that the uptake of Water Sure payments is at a rather low base at the moment, we want to be reassured about what more could be done to bring this to the attention of families.

Thanks largely to the Consumer Council for Water, customer service has been improving in the water industry, dominated as it is, as my noble friend behind me has said, by large regional monopolies. Nevertheless, it is regrettably necessary to spell out these requirements. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Natural Capital Committee

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 24th October 2013 Grand Committee

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

I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer for raising this important issue today. I welcome the chance to discuss the vital topic of England’s natural capital. As my noble friend set out, our natural capital provides a range of essential services to society. We all rely on the benefits of natural capital for our clean air, water, food, energy and well-being.

The contents of my noble friend’s speech and, indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, draw me to make a couple of declarations of interest. I have a farm with a river running through it and some trees growing on it, so I hope noble Lords will appreciate that I come to this with an interest in, and a limited amount of knowledge of, some of the issues.

[Lord Grantchester]

The Minister’s comments remind me that I omitted to declare my interests in the farming field.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, natural capital therefore underpins two of the Government’s key priorities: encouraging economic growth and enhancing the natural environment. These two agendas are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the sensible use of our natural assets is an essential precondition of our prosperity.

In its first report, The State of Natural Capital, published in April this year, the Natural Capital Committee made just this compelling argument: that long-term economic growth will be undermined if we continue to erode our natural capital. The Government agree: long-term prosperity is possible only if we preserve the foundations on which our economy and well-being are based.

It is therefore crucial that we measure, value and protect our stocks of natural capital. Indeed, this is why the Government set up the independent Natural Capital Committee in 2012, the first of its kind in the world. The committee has been asked to provide expert, independent advice to government on the state of England’s natural capital assets. In the past, the benefits that flow from our natural capital have too often been taken for granted, and as a result our assets have become eroded.

The job of the Natural Capital Committee is to highlight where we are not on a sustainable path and advise the Government on how they should prioritise action to protect and improve natural capital. This will help us deliver on the White Paper commitment to leave the natural environment in a better state than that in which it was inherited.

I read with great interest the Natural Capital Committee’s first report earlier this year, which set out its views on why valuing, maintaining and restoring natural capital is important. It also presented initial evidence of the benefits of incorporating natural capital into decision-making at all levels.

As my right honourable friend Owen Paterson’s and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury’s official response to The State of Natural Capital makes clear, the Government welcome and fully support the analysis offered in it. However, the specific issue of what resources have been reallocated in light of the Natural Capital Committee’s assessments is as yet difficult to address. I shall discuss that a little more in a moment.

The committee’s first major publication was a framework-setting document that principally set out what it was going to do to inform its next annual report. It contained no substantive recommendations to the Government that required an immediate change in resource allocation. Rather, the majority of the recommendations referred to work that the NCC is undertaking. For example, one of the key recommendations was to develop metrics to value and measure changes to natural capital. This is a job that the committee is undertaking. It is currently doing excellent work to advance our understanding of England’s natural capital assets. This will be reported on in the second state of natural capital report.

As we have yet to be advised to take specific substantive action, it is not yet possible to attempt meaningfully to hold government to account on the Natural Capital Committee’s recommendations. One potential exception to this is the Government’s work to develop national natural capital accounts.

The Natural Capital Committee recommended that work led by the Office for National Statistics to produce UK environmental accounts should be,

“given the greatest possible support by Government”.

I can confirm that that is the case and, despite the scale of the challenge involved, work is progressing well. My department and the Office for National Statistics are working closely with the Natural Capital Committee to ensure that the accounts are completed on target by 2020. Resource had already been allocated to this work.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether we will produce a full response to the committee’s next report. We are very much looking forward to it. We will respond appropriately once we have seen what the report contains and have had chance to consider it.

Another area where resources are being committed to the important subject of natural capital is research—my noble friend Lady Miller referred to that. Following discussions with the committee, the Natural Environment Research Council recently announced that it was contributing £5 million to a programme that will deliver on the research priorities of the NCC and its aim to improve understanding of how the state of the natural environment affects the performance of the economy and individual well-being. This is good news and another sign of how seriously the work of the committee is being taken.

In addition to the Natural Environment Research Council’s important contribution, the Natural Capital Committee is undertaking some research of its own to enhance our understanding of natural capital, which it will advise on in its second state of natural capital report. We are very much looking forward to reading that report, the development of which is under way. It will be submitted to the Economic Affairs Committee in early 2014.

It is, of course, too early to speculate what resource implications this may have for the Government, but we will consider them at the appropriate time. I appreciate that there is eagerness to push forward with the natural capital agenda, and that eagerness is shared by Defra and the rest of government.

My noble friend Lady Miller highlighted the importance of soils, and I echo her enthusiasm for them. We recognise that soils are an essential part of our natural resources and support food production, carbon storage, water filtration, biodiversity and wildlife. I can find little to disagree with in what she said about them.

She also spoke about bees and pollinators. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, also mentioned them. Noble Lords may like to know that today we are holding a workshop of interested NGOs and other parties on the national pollinator strategy. We are working towards the publication of a document at the end of the year which will go for consultation with a view to finalising it in spring 2014. I am excited about that.

My noble friend asked about the common agricultural policy and the extent to which we are moving in what one might describe as away from subsidising production towards paying for environmental benefit. The United Kingdom has always made clear that we would like to move away from subsidies in the long run. We support a greener cap with the emphasis on Pillar 2, recognising that there is scope for using taxpayers’ money to pay farmers for public goods that the market otherwise would not reward, such as protecting the natural environment and supporting biodiversity. We negotiated hard to secure a final outcome that was a significant improvement on the Commission’s original proposals, but it is very disappointing that we did not get as far as we would have liked. Securing the flexibility to transfer up to 15% from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 was a good outcome of this set of negotiations. The Government have always made the case that transferring funding from Pillar 1, which is subsidy, to Pillar 2, which is in favour of the environment and the rural economy, represents the best use of taxpayers’ money while supporting farmers to deliver the valuable goods and services that the market left alone would not provide.

As part of our consultation on the implementation of the new cap in England, we would welcome the views of interested parties, including, of course, noble Lords, on how much that transfer should be. That consultation will commence shortly.

My noble friend also mentioned the Thames tunnel, but in the interests of economy of time, I hope she will forgive me if I leave that until the next debate.

My noble friend Lord Courtown mentioned work he has been doing in the north Swindon area, which I know well. He talked about retaining existing features—hedges, trees and so on—while conducting development between them. I congratulate him and thank him on that.

My noble friend asked about co-operation between Defra and other government departments on natural capital. The natural environment White Paper is a cross-government document. It contains a number of important cross-government commitments, and we have made good progress on them. We work closely with the Treasury and have produced new supplementary Green Book guidance for all government departments on valuing nature in policy appraisal. The Natural Capital Committee will report to the Chancellor’s Economic Affairs Committee. In the planning system, the new NPPF is a good outcome. I regularly meet Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government. There is also good work in the area of schools and health, so I can confirm to my noble friend that we work across government departments.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised a number of issues. In forestry, he will know that we have accepted the vast majority of the recommendations of the independent panel led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, who we thank enormously for his work.

The noble Lord spoke about tree diseases and pests. He will know that since concerns about Chalara arose some 12 or 13 months ago, we have developed a risk register of pests and diseases, and we have progressed substantially with contingency planning. Both those elements were recommended in a report by the experts we convened.

He asked whether the Government will provide advice on marine conservation zones. The NCC’s terms of reference are very clear that the committee may not perform a watchdog or advocacy role with respect to government policy decisions or be policy prescriptive in its advice. However, the NCC is interested in all categories of natural capital and will provide advice on whether all assets are being used sustainably.

I am running out of time. If I have not answered all noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them. I ask your Lordships to accept that we have already shown international leadership in this field and no longer take our natural capital assets for granted. We recognise that natural capital is integral to delivering sustained, and sustainable, economic growth in England. As a result, the Government fully support the work of the Natural Capital Committee and are looking forward to its upcoming advice.

Agriculture: Common Agricultural Policy

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Well, my Lords, that is indeed a question. In the context of the reduced CAP budget, the UK’s key aims for the CAP reform negotiations were to increase the resilience, market orientation and international competitiveness of EU agriculture; to improve the CAP’s capacity to deliver environmental outcomes; and to simplify the CAP for farmers and authorities. We want an efficient and responsive agricultural sector in the EU and globally, and we want the future CAP to achieve this.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I declare my interests in the countryside. Does the Minister’s department recognise that success in greening policies relies very heavily on good will and implementation from farmers? Is the cart before the horse in this instance? Will the Minister outline what the Government want to achieve from greening measures, rather than transferring funds into Pillar 2 from Pillar 1 simply because they can?

[Lord De Mauley]

I understand the noble Lord’s question, and others have asked that. The Government’s view is that environmental outcomes can be more targeted and more effective if they are delivered through Pillar 2. There will be a new set of environmental measures within Pillar 2 but we will honour the obligation in Pillar 1 to achieve the greening that is set down.

Food: Waste

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 17th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the waste review commits us to exploring the potential for a successor to Courthauld 2. The UK Government are working with WRAP and current Courthauld signatories and trade bodies to determine the best way forward following the completion of the second phase of the Courthauld commitment and the agreed outcome will aim to build on the significant progress made so far. As I say, the agreed outcome will build on progress and it is anticipated that we will launch Courthauld 3 in the spring of this year.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, under the Waste Strategy 2000, the Government have strict targets for recycling household waste. By 2020 the amount of biodegradable municipal waste for landfill must be reduced by 35% of the amount produced in 1995. Do the Government have plans to go further, such as a ban on all food waste to landfill?

[Lord De Mauley]

No, my Lords. We do not plan to ban all food waste to landfill. However, we are making significant progress and we will continue to make significant progress—building, I may say, in a spirit of friendliness, on progress made by the previous Government.

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

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

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.

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I am sorry to hear that the noble Earl thinks that I am being hesitant. I do not think that it is reasonable to imply that we have been dragging our heels. The process was triggered in 2008 during the previous Government’s term of office by a report from the Competition Commission. I would not criticise the previous Government for dragging their heels because, in fact, they were getting on with the business of trying to persuade the grocery industry itself to put in place a process. The industry did not do that. We all want to get this right, which is why we have been through a thorough process of pre-legislative scrutiny—and I think that that is something of which noble Lords generally approve.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, we all wish to see the consumer get the best possible deal. However, this should not be at the expense of suppliers to the supermarkets; their confidence is crucial if this is to be seen to work effectively. If I might press the Minister again, will he confirm whether the adjudicator will have authority to levy financial penalties, should an abuse of power be upheld against any supermarket? Furthermore, however any resulting fine may be levied, will he confirm that this will not simply disappear to some central agency but rather be paid directly to those businesses deemed to have suffered abuse?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s question is in line with comments from the BIS Select Committee, which said that the arguments on whether to introduce fines from inception are finely balanced. I think that that is fair, and the Government’s view is that financial penalties should be kept as a reserve power, as I have said. We consider that the appointment of the adjudicator is in itself important to the effectiveness of the groceries code. The adjudicator already has sanctions available, and large retailers will immediately be conscious that if there is evidence of significant non-compliance and the existing regime seems not to be sufficiently effective, there is the prospect of a swift introduction of financial penalties. As to the noble Lord’s last question, as the Treasury Whip I could not possibly say where the proceeds will go.

Dog Control Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Friday 4th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his constant championing of a better control regime for dogs over many years. He has worked tirelessly with all the organisations in this area and has brought forward this Bill in conjunction with the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group, which consists of nine high-profile organisations including the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Blue Cross, the BVA and many others.

While it is appreciated that private Members’ business will often proceed at an extremely gentle pace, I remind noble Lords that the Second Reading of this Bill occurred on Friday 9 July 2010. The Bill was scheduled to have its Committee stage on Friday 21 January, but, unfortunately, that day became filled with other business. We on this side of the House wished to take this Bill on that date, and our amendments were not intended to wreck the Bill. They were, as are appropriate to Committee on a Bill such as this, probing amendments to trigger debate. They should not be described as wrecking. Furthermore, most of the amendments were from the author of the Bill.

That the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said what he did on that day has been taken extremely seriously, especially as we have tried over many days to meet him. We spoke with his office and left several messages, including yesterday, but no response has been received. I should like the noble Lord to withdraw his remarks when he comes to reply.

We have asked for our amendments to be grouped with this stand-part debate to present our approach to the Bill. We share the noble Lord’s concerns that dog control legislation is not working effectively. We understand the anxieties of the public as each week brings further reports of dog attacks. Several consultations on dog control have been undertaken in the recent past. The most recent consultation was conducted from 9 March to 1 June 2010, which was one month prior to Second Reading. We are now 10 months on without the Government coming to Parliament to say how they wish to proceed.

It is important that everyone works together to agree and support the best way forward. I have commended the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, for his work with the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group. Unfortunately, the results of the consultation reveal that the police and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals are not united behind his Bill. In its submission, the RSPCA has said that the Bill is “fundamentally flawed”. It stated:

“We believe updating and consolidation of the law is long-overdue. However, this Bill is unlikely to improve the situation and we are extremely concerned it may actually make matters worse”.

Those are strong words.

What is the response of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and his group to these remarks? Does he agree that the best way forward is one that can be supported by all the enforcement and animal welfare organisations? Will he await the outcome of this consultation? Will the Minister convene a meeting with all interested parties to find the best way forward?

How the Government respond to this situation is crucial and needs to be carefully considered alongside the Bill. We understand that the Government wish to review the workings of the anti-social behaviour orders and that they might bring elements of dog control into those new arrangements. We would like the Minister to explain the thinking in his reply. What cross-government discussions have there been with other interested departments such as the Home Office? We note that the Permanent Secretary, Dame Helen Ghosh, has recently transferred to the Home Office. Will the noble Lord and the Minister advise us on any discussions that have taken place?

We have tabled Amendments 19 and 20 to underline to the Minister and the Government that they must engage and contribute in bringing forward improvements to dog control.

[Lord De Mauley]

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

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

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

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

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

Agriculture: CAP Direct Payments

Debate between Lord Grantchester and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for that question. We recognise that the future of the uplands is a matter of considerable concern to a great many people and organisations. We have a wide range of policies and schemes in hand—the uplands entry level scheme and others—to address individual issues raised by the Commission for Rural Communities. We recognise the potential of the uplands for generating greater public goods and we are working on unlocking that.

[Lord Grantchester]

I declare an interest as a farmer receiving payments. Does the Minister agree that, to capture improved returns, agriculture needs to move beyond primary processing and up the value-added chain? What is Defra doing to help in this regard?

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with that. I have explained a bit about what we think is the right way to go in terms of competitiveness. I will leave it at that for today.