Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Myners]

My Lords, I support the Bill and the amendments the Minister has presented today. However, I am left pondering that if we have a situation here where we are concerned about a customer abusing a supplier, should we also not be alert to the issue in banking where we have suppliers potentially abusing customers? Should there not be a similar mechanism in place in which customers of banks, and I think here particularly of small businesses, have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator about the treatment they are receiving from the banks? It is right that we should be concerned about a situation of customer abuse but the potential for supplier abuse in the banking industry, which is even more concentrated than the supermarket industry, is clearly higher.

I know this goes beyond the Minister’s brief and I do not for one minute expect him to give a detailed reply, but I suggest to your Lordships’ House that if we are seized by the importance of this Bill and believe that it is the right and proper thing to do, most of the arguments on which we have drawn apply with even greater force to the banking industry.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Myners made a similar very interesting point at Second Reading. It was interesting then and it is interesting now, but it is not a point I am going to dwell on and he will understand that. I am very sorry to disappoint the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that as the lead for Her Majesty’s Opposition I am not opposing more on this Bill but the Government have found the right way of doing things. They have taken a policy that was developed by the previous Labour Government and have bought it forward in legislation. As the Bill has gone through Parliament, they have listened to voices, including from Her Majesty’s Opposition, pressing for the adjudicator to have teeth from day one with the right to fine. I am delighted that they have given concessions. Even before the introduction in the House of Lords, following the BIS Select Committee and pressure from my own party, they removed the restriction on third parties, such as the National Farmers Union, from submitting evidence. Then we had a concession from the Government on powers to fine. We had argued that right from the outset.

I am absolutely delighted and I pay tribute to the Minister, Jo Swinson, and her colleagues, including the Minister, for listening to the arguments made in both Houses. I also pay tribute to my colleagues Ian Murray and Huw Irranca-Davies in the other place for the work they did on this Bill and take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for listening to our arguments on accountability when we were debating this Bill in the Lords. She most graciously conceded the points so that there will now be an annual report before Parliament. A final concession with an amendment in the Marshalled List today will see a move from a negative to an affirmative procedure around the level of fines. That, too, is extremely welcome.

I am delighted with the Government’s approach. I would like to see that repeated in many other ways across legislation. We are looking forward to the Queen’s Speech. Perhaps in that we can look forward to the Government having listened to Labour policy and brought it forward in legislation, and then listening to the Labour Party and changing things as they go through. We have not got everything we wanted—we believe that the code needs to remain a live document. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, made a good point about the possible abuse of power in the supply chain by Nestlé, Kellogg and other intermediaries. We have concerns about that. Commercial pressure and bullying in the supply chain that can drive down food standards and health and safety remain a concern, even with the code and this adjudicator. Recent scandals around horse meat, pressures from the horticulture industry to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board and ease immigration rules to drive down the cost of wages to meet the demands of supermarkets are all evidence that this is an extremely competitive industry where competition can at times lead to abusive behaviour.

On balance, we are very happy with this Bill. We support the amendments made in the other place and those before us this evening and we look forward to its speedy implementation.

Marine Conservation Areas

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords. First, it is worth saying that a sizeable proportion of the 58 are included in the 31 that are currently out for consultation. As regards the others, there are questions over data certainty and cost to which my noble friend Lord Eden referred earlier. We will have new scientific evidence to use along with responses to our consultation when making our final decisions on which sites should be designated this year. Further evidence will continue to become available thereafter and will be considered when making decisions on future tranches of marine conservation zones to complete the network.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the aim of the marine Act was, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, said, to establish an ecologically coherent network of sustainable conservation zones. The Government’s current suggestion of just 31 falls way short of achieving that aim and ignores the Government’s own science. The environmental and social gains of protecting our marine environment are obvious, but has the Minister seen the analysis showing an economic gain of £10 billion in Scotland alone through this sort of protection? Instead of trading insults with Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall in the Guardian, should not Richard Benyon, the Minister in the noble Lord’s department, build on what the previous Government established and, as the noble Lord, Lord Eden, has asked, give us a clear timetable—not “shortly”—for further implementation?

Horsemeat and Food Fraud

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, this is a very serious issue of public confidence in the food that we buy. I share the Minister’s outrage that horsemeat is being passed off as beef. Food prices are rising sharply and those having to buy cheaper food are therefore more likely to buy processed and cheaper sources of meat. We must particularly ensure that these people are confident that food standards and labelling are accurate.

Equally, food processing and manufacturing is one of the most important employers in this country. British food is an area of great potential growth for us and we must do all that we can to maintain and sustain confidence in our industry. In that vein, I am grateful to the Foods Standards Agency for its briefing and its work in providing reassurance that there is no risk to health.

However, I am concerned at the Secretary of State’s media performances over the weekend, which will have raised doubts in some people’s minds over health. For example, he said:

“We may find out, as the week progresses as the tests begin to come in, that there is a substance which is injurious to human health … We have no evidence of that at all at the moment. At the moment this is a labelling issue”.

He is sowing the seeds of doubt. For the sake of clarity, will the Minister be clear now as to whether he believes there to be any risk to human health from food sold as processed beef in this country?

Health worries focus on the traceability of horsemeat, and in particular any bute or other medicines consumed by horses entering the food chain. In 2012, the Food Standards Agency found eight instances where UK horsemeat was contaminated with bute, which is banned from entering the human food chain. In five instances the horsemeat was exported to France, in two it was exported to the Netherlands, and in one it was consumed in the UK.

There are 75 horse passport-issuing organisations in the UK, making it difficult to check their status. Each has a different design of passports, making it easier to produce forgeries. Last May, a truck was seized in this country and false horse passports were seized. I gather that abattoirs do not have to keep records of passports but should return them to owners or to Defra. Is it not time to rationalise this system so that we can trace horsemeat properly?

I also understand that the FSA carries out rigorous inspections in abattoirs. Does it inspect further upstream in manufacturing and processing plants? If not, should that now be introduced as random inspections to increase public assurance up the supply chain? Will the Minister guarantee that cuts to the Food Standards Agency have not, and will not—the Secretary of State again was very uncertain about this in a Channel 4 news report that I saw over the weekend—compromise meat hygiene inspections and its ability to ensure that meat is legal and safe?

The Minister will know that his Government removed responsibility for the labelling of product content from the FSA in 2010. Three government bodies are now responsible for ensuring that our food is correctly labelled, legal and safe: namely, Defra, the Department of Health, and the Food Standards Agency. Is that not incoherent and open to the sort of confusion that we all know can occur between different government departments? Would it not be sensible for the Government to centralise that function once more?

I understand that two types of tests are taking place—those carried out by retailers and those carried out by local authorities under the supervision of the Food Standards Agency. The local authority tests are of retail, wholesale and catering premises. Are the councils concerned being reimbursed for the cost of this work? The tests being carried out by retailers, which are due to the Secretary of State by Friday, will cover only the major retailers. Should he not ask large wholesalers and large caterers to carry out similar tests under a similar stringent timeline?

The timeline for the local authority tests is four weeks to collect and screen samples to ascertain the presence of horse DNA and another four weeks for confirmatory tests to give the proportion of other meats. As I understand it, the plan is for all those results to be published at once in mid-April. This seems an excessive timeline. I understand that we have to get the results right, but will the Minister consider releasing the results on a weekly basis as they come in, as part of his commitment to transparency? Can we also get a cast iron guarantee that schools and hospitals will be tested across the country? The Secretary of State is clear that the retailers are responsible for the food that they sell. Will the Minister tell us who he considers to be responsible for food served in schools, hospitals and prisons? Is it the head teacher or the chair of governors, the hospital manager or the prison governor? If it is the retailer who is responsible, we need to know who to hold account for food, should there be a problem in those circumstances.

The Secretary of State has also speculated in the media that there is a criminal conspiracy. Has the Minister involved the police, having acknowledged evidence of widespread criminal behaviour? Is he passing information on to the police if he has those suspicions? Can he reassure us that no UK companies are currently being investigated by Defra, the FSA or other UK authorities in respect of passing off horsemeat as beef?

Can the Minister tell us, given the Government’s growing influence as committed Europeans, how he is working with the Commission? The Irish appear to have blamed the Poles for the first case back in January, the French appear to blame the Romanians for the Findus case, and the Poles and Romanians are denying responsibility robustly. Is the Commission going to get a grip and answer questions on where the horsemeat comes from so that we can begin the important work of traceability?

However, it is not just the Commission that needs to get a grip. We need the Government to give clear advice to people and public sector caterers on what they should do with their frozen beef products. Ministers need to stop sending mixed messages about whether they would eat beef lasagne or not. A full police investigation into the alleged criminal adulteration of meat products is needed. The European police are being involved. We have heard about an international criminal conspiracy. What is happening with the UK police? The Irish Government called in the police and special fraud investigators at the beginning of this month. Perhaps our Government must do the same.

A quicker testing regime is needed to reassure the public about what is happening. Supermarkets and food industry tests must be reported by Friday, but the Government need to speed up the official tests that they are conducting across 28 local authorities. We need some positive release around the horse slaughter tests that are going on at the moment. Those in the UK are testing for bute, which is banned from the human food chain. Given the concerns about the horse passport system and horse traceability, we believe that meat should be held in storage until proven clean.

With these sorts of measures and robust action from Ministers on the front foot, I think that we can get some reassurance back into our food supply. At the moment, I do not see that from Ministers. I see uncertainty in their media performances and their performances generally on this issue. Our British food industry needs them to step up to the plate and raise their game.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations are principally to transpose in England and Wales the industrial emissions directive. It is not a completely new directive. It recasts seven current directives into a single one about regulating emissions from various industrial activities. It therefore provides a welcome simplification of EU legislation.

It also maintains and in some cases clarifies or strengthens the provisions of the component directives. Like the component directives, it aims, through a permitting system, to achieve a high level of protection for the environment taken as a whole. That is consistent with our belief that we need to improve the environment for future generations, make our economy more environmentally sustainable and improve our quality of life and well-being. The directive applies to some 10,000 industrial installations in England and Wales, ranging from power stations to intensive pig farms and from waste incinerators to dry cleaners. Nearly all are already subject to one or more of the component directives.

The directive contains provisions to improve the implementation of current controls on a range of industrial activities where appropriate, particularly through better development and application of best available techniques, known as BAT. The concept of BAT is founded on the need for the techniques to be both technically and economically viable in the industry sector concerned.

The directive includes only relatively small and justifiable additions to the range of industrial installations covered by the directive. Reflecting productive UK input during negotiation, the directive reflects UK practice in respect of risk-based inspections and site monitoring. For the same reason, it also contains important optional time-limited transitional provisions regarding control of emissions from large combustion plants—notably those in the electricity generating sector. These should assist the UK in managing the transition to low-carbon power generation while maintaining security of electricity supplies.

The directive also covers waste incineration plants and a wide range of activities in which volatile organic solvents are used. Its requirements in those respects are virtually unchanged from those in the component directives. In both cases, we have taken the opportunity in England to ensure that only those requirements will be applied.

We also considered whether, for installations subject only to the directive’s controls on solvent emissions, we should take the directive’s option of requiring only registration rather than permitting. Consultation showed little support for that and so we have not done so. However, we continue to explore with the local authority regulators how further simplification can be made in the current permitting requirements and the associated compliance assessment procedures. That exploration will include further review of the case for a registration system. If a case is found, we will further amend the regulations at the first available opportunity.

Another directive derogation allows a single permit to cover several operators. While this may be of use elsewhere in Europe, consultees in England and Wales could see no practical use for it. These regulations therefore do not transpose it but, again, we would amend the regulations if businesses were to demonstrate to us that a single permit for several operators would be of significant practical benefit.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there has been extensive discussion with industry and regulators throughout the negation of the directive and during the preparation of these regulations. Nothing in them should therefore come as any surprise.

The component directives are currently transposed through the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. They transpose not only the component directives but a wide range of other environmental directives in a way that standardises, as far as possible, the mechanics of permitting, compliance assessment and enforcement. The regulations before the Committee therefore amend those regulations so as to transpose the industrial emissions directive. Within that framework, we continue to look for ways in which administrative burdens on operators subject to the directive can be reduced. In particular, regulators continue to develop simplified arrangements for permitting, compliance monitoring, data reporting and charging for permits.

The regulations before the Committee also remove some otiose descriptions of industrial activities which have no foundation in the component directives and they repeal three other statutory instruments which have no current purpose. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee as providing transposition of a directive in accordance with our EU obligations, simplification of current regulations and protection for the environment.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his opening remarks on what are clearly very important though somewhat technical regulations. I am sure that the noble Lord has been sweating under a towel overnight and getting his head around all the detail.

The Opposition obviously support the notion that we should take a set of regulations and try to bring them together under a single overarching regulation. That is good practice. It is something that we sought to do in the past and will seek to do in the future. Certainly, as the impact assessment says, leaving the existing regulations unamended would lead to infraction and the probability of heavy daily fines for failure to transpose. Clearly it is in the public interest that we proceed with these regulations.

I am also extremely happy with the process that the department has adopted of consulting properly on how the transposition is taking place, with a very full impact assessment so that we can transparently see how this all works. As I say, these are quite technical, so the only questions I have may well have answers in the documentation and I just have not been able to resolve them, and perhaps one or two do not have answers in the documentation, and that would be a result as far as I am concerned because then I might have added a bit of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank the noble Lord for his helpful comments. I shall deal with last question first. I have been given a dictionary definition of “otiose”; it is “of no use”. I hope that is helpful.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

It is extremely helpful. One could argue that my comment was otiose, in which case we become circular. However, that is a clarification.

[Lord De Mauley]

I would never argue that.

These regulations make the amendments necessary to transpose an EU directive which, in recasting seven into one, is largely a simplification. The alternative would have been yet another set of freestanding regulations obscuring the continuity of the regulatory requirements that the industrial emissions directive requires. Implementation of the directive’s requirements will correspondingly be in continuity with current arrangements for the permitting, inspection and compliance assessment of the installations it covers. For those installations subject to integrated pollution prevention and control, the concept of best available techniques and the consequences for periodic permit review is already well established and should hold no surprises. By definition, best available techniques cannot remain static. By that same definition, they have to be technically and economically viable. It is for industry to contribute the information which, ultimately, only it can provide in order to ensure that conclusions on BAT accord with that definition.

In answer to the noble Lord’s first question, all derogations have been utilised, except for two cases where industry and regulators called strongly to keep the current UK systems in place. The consultation indicated that one derogation that would allow solvent emission activities to be registered rather than permitted might increase the regulatory burden rather than reduce it. Consultees could see no practical benefit in another derogation allowing one permit to cover multiple sites and operators. As I intimated in my opening speech, in both cases we would further amend the regulations to provide the derogation if a need were subsequently demonstrated.

The noble Lord asked when we would publish guidance on the directive. In relation to activities subject to integrated pollution prevention and control, it will be published very soon, in the light of consultation last year. For other activities, it will be published in the course of the next few months, subject to our consideration of the need for, and the form of, guidance from government and regulators.

The noble Lord asked a specific question about costs. The answer is that it refers to the costs additional to the current regulations. He asked how one is to know that the large combustion plant and power station provisions will not erode security of electricity supply. The provisions were negotiated on the basis of significant input from the industry and the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The indications were that the operational flexibilities that we gained would help to prevent a cliff edge developing as plants are retired during this decade.

He asked a question about air quality. The directive addresses pollutant emissions to air from industry and will contribute to maintenance and improvement of air quality, particularly in respect of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. However, industry is not the only source of these pollutants. In 2010, industry accounted for some 43% of emissions of nitrogen oxides in England, while transport sources accounted for some 45%. For particulate matter, industry accounted for some 31% and transport 27%.

Economic growth is ultimately dependent on a healthy natural environment. The directive is about environmental protection and so is key in this regard. In transposing the directive, these regulations will play a significant part in nurturing that dependency. We look to the regulators to use to the full the proportionate approach that the regulations allow, and we look to industry to respond creatively. We look forward to the growth and further environmental improvement that could result.

Food: Banks

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I think I have laboured the point on that enough.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, we have heard about the increasing reliance on food banks from a number of noble Lords. We know that a quarter of parents put food back when they get to the checkout in the supermarket because they are struggling with rising prices and falling wages, and that the hereditary poor are increasing again. Will the Minister agree to visit a local food bank with me so that we can thank its volunteers together and ask the recipients whether they are in work and what is their view of benefits reform under this Government?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as I said in my initial Answer, I shall shortly be visiting FoodCycle. I agree with much of what the noble Lord says.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

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

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

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

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

[Lord De Mauley]

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

Employment: Rural Employment

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

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

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

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

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

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

[Lord De Mauley]

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

Flooding: Insurance

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

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

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

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

[Lord De Mauley]

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

Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Grand Committee

Moved By

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012 (SI 2012/2707).

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I have taken the perhaps slightly unusual step of a Take Note debate on a negative instrument not because I oppose it—otherwise it would not be a take note debate; I want to make it extremely clear that we do not oppose this order—but because, when I read the Explanatory Memorandum to the Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012, it raised a series of questions. Given the high level of public interest in the spread of ash dieback disease—Chalara fraxinea—I felt it appropriate for me to take a bit of the Committee’s time to ask some questions that arise from the Explanatory Memorandum.

Since I initiated this debate, I see that we now also have an additional instrument undergoing its passage: the Plant Health (England) (Amendment) Order 2012. I note the 16th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which was published yesterday and reports on that order. I may link the two slightly and I hope that the Minister can deal with that. No doubt, with the number of questions that I will ask, he will want to write to me. That is perfectly fine. There are questions I want to put on the record, and in time the answers can be on the record, too. That is entirely the purpose of this debate.

The first question is about this combination, now, of two orders. As the committee says, one order is in respect of the Forestry Commission as the competent authority while the other is for the Secretary of State to act as a competent authority in respect of specific emergency measures against Chalara fraxinea. In passing, it would be interesting if the Minister could confirm why this could not have all be dealt with in one piece of legislation for the ease of scrutiny and to help people understand what is going on. However, the principal questions I have probably focus around paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is headed:

“Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments”.

I start with the timings that are set out there in terms of the process and the sentence that,

“evidence that ash trees infected with Chalara fraxinea were supplied from Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium during 2011 and 2012”.

That leapt out at me because previously my understanding was that the first evidence of the disease in this country was in a nursery in Buckinghamshire in February 2012. The starter for 10, if you like, is: when did the evidence about 2011 first emerge? My assumption is that it emerged relatively recently but I would be interested to know the timing on that.

The countries also interest me. The suppliers were from Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium during 2011 and 2012. I gather from Forest Research that the first cases of this disease happened in Germany in 2002. The rapid risk assessment was, I believe, published by Forest Research on behalf of the department on 9 August 2012, and it shows that since 2002, we have imported 2.75 million ash trees from Germany alone in that time. The impact assessment elsewhere talks about half a million trees a year over 10 years, so 5 million imported in that 10-year period.

If a significant number were, as suggested, imported from countries that already had the infection, the significant question is raised as to why, when dealing with plant disease, we in this country have not learnt from dealing with animal disease. My understanding is that as soon as we know of an animal disease outbreak in a member state of the European Union, we would ban imports straightaway from that member state, without having to go through any kind of consultation. It would certainly be a matter of great public interest if the Minister could tell us why we have not been following that process in respect of plant diseases. Belgium suffered its first outbreak in 2009, the Netherlands in 2010 and, as I have said, Germany in 2002, and yet we continue to import from those countries. It appears to be probable that the disease found its way into this country as a result of that import activity. Were the sapling nursery trees that were imported kept indoors once the investigation started in February/March when the first case of the disease was found, so that the sporelation that takes place and which causes the disease to spread, was contained?

My second area of questioning is around the consultation period. Paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the order refers to a “shortened 8-week consultation”. In the circumstances of an emergency such as this, I have absolutely no problem with a shortened period of consultation, and indeed my question is: why was not an even shorter period for consultation set, given the scale of the threat to our ash tree population? Paragraph 4.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the November order states that:

“Article 16.2 of the Plant Health Directive provides for a Member State to take temporarily any additional measures which it deems necessary to prevent the introduction or spread of such harmful organisms in its territory, or the EU more generally”.

I assume that these are similar powers to those used in terms of animal health. They suggest that the UK had the powers, if it wanted to use them, to enforce an immediate ban on imports of ash trees if there was a fear that the disease would spread. Could the UK have imposed a ban straightaway, perhaps when the rapid risk assessment was published by Forest Research in August, and then consulted on how the ban was operating and what questions needed to be asked? Could we have had a four-week consultation, or perhaps even one for two weeks, after which the ban could have been put in place?

Paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that:

“Evidence from 2010 was that over 200,000 trees had been exported to the UK from other Member States during the 21 day period from 29 October to 19 November”.

What the department is arguing in the memorandum is that it did not need an earlier ban because a substantial amount of import activity takes place in the autumn. Does the Minister have any statistics on how many trees were imported during the preceding 21-day period in 2010 so that we can make a comparison? If the consultation had been shorter—of, say, four weeks’ duration—a similar amount of importation could have been stopped and perhaps some of the infection avoided.

My next series of questions are around surveillance. The process set out in paragraph 3 of the memorandum talks about,

“the investigation into the scale of the import trade … investigation into the level of infection in the nursery trade in Great Britain … investigation into the presence of the organism in the wider environment”

and a pest risk assessment, to which I have referred. So surveillance activity took place as part of the investigations and is continuing to take place. Is the Minister able to update us on whether there remain any clear, pest-free areas? Which are those pest-free areas? What is being done in terms of controls on those pest-free areas to try to prevent any further spread? It would be helpful to know that. To have some understanding of how many are sited at nurseries as opposed to trees infected in the wild would equally be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. I do not know how quickly the noble Lord can finish his remarks.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I cannot guarantee to do it quickly enough that I would be comfortable.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, we will adjourn for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, we have had our 10 minutes, and so I ask the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, to continue.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Thank you. When the Division Bell rang I had read out the end of the rapid risk assessment published by Forestry Research on 9 August 2012 and referred to paragraph 3.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says,

“Such legislation would have been based on poor technical evidence (in the absence of a risk assessment and surveillance data) if introduced earlier and would have had little practical impact because there is little movement of ash for planting during spring and summer”.

The question clearly then arises: given the nature of the risk assessment that had been done in early August, what if there had been a rapid consultation through August, let us say, until mid-September, and a ban introduced then? We are always a little vague in Government and elsewhere about when these seasons begin and end, especially when we are asked to make decisions, but I would define autumn as starting in September or possibly October. We could have had a ban in place at the beginning of October, and would that not have been a good idea?

I would be interested to know in what period the investigation into the wider environment and the presence of the organism in Great Britain took place. The perception we now have is that as a result of the surveillance activity that is now taking place, and which has taken place since the ban, we have discovered the widespread infection of the disease across the wild trees of this country—widespread, that is, not necessarily in terms of volume but in terms of various locations. I would like to know during what period those investigations prior to the ban took place, and why we did not discover more infections at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for contributing to a useful debate. I join the Minister in showing gratitude to those who are working, including volunteers, to battle this disease. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his updates, which I am sure will be examined carefully. He was, as ever, assiduous in trying to answer my many questions. I know that he is equally assiduous in reviewing the debate and writing with answers to questions that he was not able to cover; I am grateful to him, in advance, for that.

I see noble Lords queuing up for the interesting debate being introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn. We are all looking forward to that.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

My second question is in line with what my noble friend Lord Jenkin put to the Minister. If it is not possible to review and revise what is before us, can we now have a commitment from the Minister on behalf of the Government that there will be an interim review of the details set out in these regulations, specifically of the timescales attached to the targets set. If it is at all possible, could we seek to entrench that commitment in the legislation so that in, say, two years’ time there is certainty that the timescales will be reviewed and that that review process will lead to a revision if a proper case is made for it?

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, given the debate so far, the Minister might be pleased to know that we support these regulations which build on the 2007 regulations brought in by the last Government. Obviously we are mindful of the impact assessment on the estimate that £400 million-worth of overall benefits have derived from them, so it is good that there are occasions when this Government believe that statutory targets and regulation can bring an economic benefit. That is not always the message we hear. However, I note the comments that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Given the first question put by the noble Earl, I am also concerned about the timing of the regulations. Should the Minister listen to our debate and decide that, unlikely as it may seem, it might be best to withdraw the regulations and think again, there would not be time to bring forward new regulations before those currently in force will run out at the end of the year. We would then be in a very awkward position.

In effect, there is a fait accompli in respect of these regulations. I do not think that that is desirable and it is not good, transparent law-making. Indeed, the sorry tale of lack of engagement with the industry related by the noble Lord also suggests that there are some in Defra who perhaps need to smell the coffee in terms of how good law-making is conducted. The days of “Whitehall knows best” are over so far as the public are concerned, and we need to ensure that there is proper engagement—even with those who you know are going to oppose the laws we are making—so as to ensure that the best possible compromise between the competing interests is arrived at. I think that the estimate in the impact analysis was that there would be losses of just over £22 million to business as a result of these regulations. There are going to be losers as well as those who will benefit from the jobs and economic activity that attaches to recycling. I want to make those points of sympathy, even though we are on different sides of the argument in respect of these regulations, for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay.

The only questions I have for the Minister are to try better to understand what criteria he used in setting these new levels. We have heard figures like three percentage points a year for aluminium, five for plastics, one for steel, while glass is being held on the assumption that the target will be split by end use. There are other targets for paper, wood and so on. The department must have carried out a sensitivity analysis of what is the right level of increase that is sustainable for the packaging industry and in terms of capacity in the recycling industry. Even if he cannot give us a detailed assessment now, it would be interesting if he could either point to where the analysis is in the Explanatory Notes—if it is there, I have lost it—or if he would drop us a note to let us know. I am sure that that transparency will be useful as the ongoing discussions take place.

My second question is asked in part on behalf of my noble friend Lord Haskel, who was hoping to speak in the debate, but while he has been able to move in and out of it, unfortunately he missed the opening speeches and so feels unable to contribute. He, too, is critical of these regulations. One question that he was going to ask—it is in his speaking note, which I have seen—concerns the adequacy of local collection services, and what analysis the department has made of the capacity of the services to deliver on these regulations. Clearly, if the recycling cannot be collected, the system will not work very well. Any answer on that for my noble friend and for me would be gratefully received.

Finally, I am interested in the Minister’s views on what will happen after 2017 when the regulations run out. I am sure that if he is sympathetic to the notion of a mid-term review, which he has been asked about, we would be interested to hear that, too. Does he think that continuing with targets is the right way forward post 2017, or is this a measure to extend the existing approach while he thinks about a new one? What is his view on whether the infrastructure is broadly right, and whether it will remain stable and go beyond 2017? Any indication on that would be well received by the interested parties who will be listening carefully to his comments as the responsible Minister. I know that often he has to respond for other Ministers in the department, but in this case we are hearing the words direct from the Minister’s mouth, and anything he can give us to elucidate these matters will be warmly received. As I said, I am broadly supportive of the regulations.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that the policy produced by the industry—the Plastics 2020 Challenge—continues to 2020. The industry would ensure by then that nothing will go to landfill.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

In making that comment, the noble Lord reinforces his point that engagement with the industry is a wise course, alongside engagement with the recycling industry, which stands to gain more business and more employment as a result of these regulations.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I start by thanking noble Lords for taking the time to get into this very complicated subject and to debate these important issues today. I listened very carefully to the points made, including to very specific concerns about aspects of the regulations, and will try to answer as many of them as I can. Before I respond to the points about targets, I will address concerns raised about the process of developing the regulations.

First, I assure the Committee that all responses received to the consultation were given due consideration, and that information presented was taken into account when building the evidence. I can only apologise sincerely to my noble friend Lord Jenkin for the time it took him to get a meeting. I will add that I hear clearly the message of my noble friend Lord Lindsay. As part of the consultation process, my department considered carefully the advice of the Advisory Committee on Packaging. This is an important body that represents most of the packaging chain.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin suggested that the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the regulation did not provide an accurate summary of the consultation responses received, and that opposition to the plastics targets was not properly represented. The memorandum states that overall, taken as a whole, respondents to the consultation were supportive of increasing the targets. However, it acknowledged that there was some concern about the level of increase for certain materials, notably plastics. I ask my noble friend to accept that this reflected the fact that the plastics producers who opposed the preferred option on the grounds that it was unachievable represented between 10% and 15% of the total obligated tonnage for plastics. The majority of respondents who expressed a preference supported the higher targets; only a minority expressly opposed them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the calculations I have been given indicate what I have just stated. Furthermore, I understand that there were opposing views even among the members of those associations who responded to the consultation. I do not argue with the fact that there has been opposition and that it is important to consider it. Indeed, I have and am considering it.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I have a question about the Advisory Committee on Packaging. It used to be an arm’s-length body, but after the review it was taken into Defra. I think that this Committee would find it valuable to know what opposition was expressed within that committee. Is the Minister willing to publish the minutes of the advisory committee’s meetings to see how the debate was represented?

[Lord De Mauley]

If I may, I shall come to the advisory committee later in the debate.

My noble friend Lord Jenkin referred to his concerns about the achievability of the targets. I shall go into some detail on that because I think it will be helpful to noble Lords. The 42% recycling rate was consulted on and, as I said, the majority of the consultation responses supported the proposal. I acknowledge that the target is challenging and we will monitor progress closely, calling on the expertise of the Advisory Committee on Packaging. In responding to the consultation, waste companies, reprocessors and local authorities felt that the infrastructure was sufficient to deal with demand and that further infrastructure would come on stream by 2017 to cope with increased supply and demand—I think that that is the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred. The quality of recyclates is also something that the Government take seriously. My officials are working on an action plan, to which my noble friend referred, to address the quality of recyclates, and it will be published shortly.

I turn now to the targets themselves. As I say, it might be helpful to noble Lords if I go into a little detail on these. Defra has conducted a full analysis of how the targets can be achieved. As with any projections, assumptions have been made. That is why we exposed our analysis to scrutiny through public consultation and we asked industry if we had got it right. Most of the organisations that will be required to collect, sort and reprocess the additional material thought that the higher targets would be achievable. However, as we heard today, some in the plastics manufacturing industry remain concerned about the achievability of the plastics targets. Officials have met representatives of the industry and, as my noble friend said, I myself have met them. I have carefully reviewed the concerns raised and the evidence provided.

I will take the different targets in turn, starting with plastic bottles. The lion’s share of hitting this target will fall to bottle recycling. Good progress has been made, with the UK now recycling just over half of the bottles that are thrown away. However, around 240,000 tonnes of household plastic bottles that are disposed of in households with access to plastic bottle recycling collection points still end up in landfill. This makes no sense. The material has a value of at least £18 million. We must get it out of landfill and into recycling. This can be done relatively cheaply because the infrastructure is already in place. Nearly every local authority in the country is collecting bottles, while the sorting and reprocessing infrastructure is well established and the end markets are thriving. The key to capturing thousands more tonnes of plastic bottles is communication. I want to see industry and local authorities working together to communicate to the householder. For example, the plastics industry could follow the model adopted by the metal packaging and reprocessing industry under its “Metal Matters” campaign, which has increased householder participation in recycling schemes by up to 40%.

The other source of plastic packaging we expect to make a major contribution to achieving the targets is from the commercial and industrial sector. Our estimates suggest that a significant tonnage is currently being recycled but is not being counted by the PRN system. Indeed, in 2005 almost 350,000 tonnes of commercial and industrial plastic packaging was collected for recycling compared with apparently less than 280,000 tonnes in 2010. We believe that the disappearance of 70,000 tonnes was largely because there was no need for the material to be counted towards meeting the recycling targets, but that it actually continues to be recycled outside the PRN system.