British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. We on this side of the Committee support these orders, but I shall qualify that as I go along, as is my job. It has been a debate in which some good points were made. I will not rehearse all those points, however good they were, for the sake of saving time.

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Martin, not only because I heard him say the word “order” again, which brought back many happy memories from my time in the other place, but because, given that he talked about how well British Waterways was operating in Scotland through development and the various uses of the canals to which he referred, implicit in his speech was the question of whether as a result of this transfer, which does not apply in Scotland, British Waterways will have the capacity to continue doing that work in Scotland: and, indeed, given the demise of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council, whether a voice is being lost in Scotland for the users of waterways.

The ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, around youth unemployment would have been ideal for the former future jobs fund. I shall be interested to hear whether the Minister thinks that the new youth contract will latch on to those interesting ideas about how the waterways and work around the waterways may be used.

The main point I wish to make is that these orders come from a cross-party consensus, and I was pleased that the Minister acknowledged that at the outset. I have heard from various interest groups and stakeholders about these proposals and, with the notable exception of the National Bargee Travellers Association, the feedback on the transfer has been very positive, particularly from the Inland Waterways Association and the British Marine Federation.

As we have heard, the diligence and strength already shown by the trustees of the Canal and River Trust in negotiating its 15-year funding agreement with the Government is a positive sign of things to come. It also demonstrates that many of the building blocks for the new trust are now in place and ready for the transfer. Clearly there is good potential now for improved governance and for new income sources to be developed for our waterways with, I hope, a reduced cost base and, as we heard from the Minister, an increased engagement by volunteers.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, in particular, to its first report, which went into these issues in some detail. It reminded us of the tests that we should deploy when considering these orders, which arise from the Public Bodies Act, including the tests of efficiency, effectiveness, economy and accountability. The report ran through those issues in a helpful way. As the committee has set out, the tests of efficiency and effectiveness broadly revolve around how well stakeholders will be engaged. As I have said, I am comfortable with that.

However, we have now heard from a number of speakers in the debate about the concerns that have been raised with me and many others by the 5,000 to 10,000 itinerant boat dwellers who live on our canals. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on that issue because it also touches on the third test of accountability. The deputy chair of the National Bargee Travellers Association, Pamela Smith, in her e-mail to me—which I am sure many others have received—set out some of the details of the transfer of powers. She said:

“If the transfer takes place, the Canal and River Trust will have powers to make subordinate legislation; powers of forcible entry, search and seizure; powers to compel the giving of evidence and powers whose exercise will necessarily affect the liberty of an individual. Our homes will be at greater risk after the transfer”.

She said that they have no legal recognition or protection for their homes and that the transfer of British Waterways to the Canal and River Trust will remove the minimal protection of their homes that derives from the parliamentary scrutiny of British Waterways. It is obviously quite serious if that group of 5,000 to 10,000 people feel that there will be less accountability as a result of these transfers.

When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he could comment on the role of the Waterways Ombudsman in helping to deal with some of these matters. Given that we are about to go into Committee tomorrow on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, has the Minister given any consideration to a code of conduct for the new trust in respect of its relationship with this group of boat dwellers? With such a code, the ombudsman could then police for us. Would that help to give that community some reassurance about the operation of the trust?

The third of the tests that the committee reminded us of was that of economy. I was pleased to hear the Minister give a commitment to meet its request for a Written Ministerial Statement on the financial position of the new body two years after the trust has formed.

Finally, I should not let the passing of the Inland Waterways Advisory Council go without comment. Reading between the lines of the committee’s first report, I noted that it did not see that much of a case had been made for its abolition and looked forward to the Minister setting out more detail, which to some extent he has already done. I will be interested to know how stakeholders will be heard from in policy-making. However, I shall not die in a ditch over IWAC because, in my single year of being the Canals and Waterways Minister at Defra, I do not recall getting any real input from it. It can perhaps pass, therefore, without too much mourning. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, it is always good to hear from a former Minister about his experience of his portfolio. I understand the points that noble Lords have made, but I am also gratified by the fact that these statutory instruments have received widespread support in what they seek to achieve. That is a reflection of the fact that Parliament has felt that there is a role for a new form of governance for British Waterways, and the CRT represents just that.

I have a number of points to make, which I could rattle off in one go but it might be better to refer to them as best I can as I summarise the debate. There may be some things that I miss, in which case I hope that those behind me will remind me of them so that I might at least write to noble Lords.

The welcome given to the orders by the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, reinforced the view of the Grand Committee that they are proper orders to be presenting to Parliament. It was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, his understanding of what the Government are seeking to achieve. We are looking at the possibility of bringing the Environment Agency’s waterways into the Canal and River Trust. I spent Friday afternoon at Black Sluice on the South Forty-Foot Drain, which is an example of the way in which the agency has provided for waterways users. It has built a lock at that sluice, and plans for that area and the Haven at Boston will mean that there should be increased use.

The Fenland waterways partnership represents important recognition that the Fenland waterways, which have relatively underused water courses, can be developed in this way. There is logic in that development, and we look forward to working with the Environment Agency and the noble Lord on achieving that. He was right, too, to tell us that there are important elements of flood risk management in the management of canals and, if we dare cast our minds back three or four months to when we talked about this, water management and supply. It is important that these elements are part and parcel of that. Leisure use is of course very important and will be the way in which most people judge these developments, but other aspects of policy will look to the waterways for other reasons.

On the creation of the CRT, I reassure the Committee about its transparency and openness; that is what it is about. We have set up a governance structure through the board of trustees, the council and the waterways partnership that is inclusive and gives all interested parties an opportunity to be represented and have their voices heard. I reassure my noble friend Lady Parminter that the council has four directly elected boaters within its ranks. It is not designed to be an exclusive body; it is inclusive in its very essence.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the NBTA. I understand that this group has been vociferous in trying to bring its particular concerns before Parliament, but I hope that it in turn is reassured, as the Committee will be, that the CRT is actually setting up a small advisory committee to advise senior managers responsible for boating and navigation matters—on a less permanent basis than the IWAC, I might say, but it will include at least one boater without a home mooring. I hope that his or her understanding, and the campaigns that they will be able to bring to that advisory committee, will be in the interests of itinerant live-aboard boaters.

It is important to emphasise to my noble friend Lady Parminter and indeed others that the rights of boat dwellers will not be removed or weaken as a result of this transfer order. The Human Rights Act, the Equality Act and the Freedom of Information Act will all apply to the CRT as it carries out its statutory functions. It will be a charity that seeks to engage with all its stakeholders, and there will be opportunities at every level of the organisation for stakeholders to be involved. It will be up to members of the public who are passionate about the waterways and want to get involved to get engaged with the CRT through its governance structure. I have already mentioned the advisory committees, which will have the responsibility for advising on boating and navigation matters.

I think that I have covered the point about resident boat owners. Their rights are contained in statute in the British Waterways Acts, not the charity’s articles of association. A number of noble Lords asked if I could reassure them on that; I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, discussed the question of the Inland Waterways Advisory Committee. His personal anecdote reinforced the Government’s belief that we are doing the right thing in abolishing it, and his noble friend Lord Grantchester, who cannot be in his place now, made the same point. While it is right that the IWAC is abolished, though, I thank its members for their commitment and service. I hope that they will, as other noble Lords have suggested, engage with the CRT to enable the trust to benefit from their expertise in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, alighted upon my noble friend Lord Framlingham’s comment. I thought he made a very useful point about the opportunities that exist in the new CRT, and I shall make sure that my honourable friend John Hayes, the Skills Minister, is aware of the comments that he made in debate here today—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I have since discovered that the future jobs fund did provide jobs for a number of people, including 56 young people who worked on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, for which the fund won an award. Perhaps the Skills Minister will be pleased to learn of the success of that previous scheme and will look at ways for it to be replicated using the Groundwork charity.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Here was I thinking we were in the vanguard of new ideas, but now I discover that we are actually trundling along behind. None the less, I shall still make sure that that is done.

Finally, I am delighted that HRH the Prince of Wales has agreed to be the trust’s patron. It is wonderful that the CRT canal boat was in the jubilee pageant, along with 60 others. I believe that we are achieving something very different and exciting for our historic and much-loved waterways, and that they will be cared for by future generations as a result.

Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to introduce the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012, to add to the points that were made in the explanatory document accompanying the order.

This is an order to be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011—a number of noble Lords will have fond memories of that piece of legislation. It reflects one of the outcomes of the Government’s programme of reform for public bodies. The order will abolish the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and pave the way for the reconstitution of its successor as an expert scientific committee.

I reiterate that this is not an attempt on the Government’s part to stem the flow of impartial and independent scientific advice on hazardous substances. We want this advice to continue, but we want to improve the process. We firmly believe this reform to be necessary and that there will be benefits from the successor committee operating in a different way, while of course retaining its independence.

We need new arrangements to reflect wider changes in the regulatory landscape for hazardous substances since the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances was set up, more than 20 years ago. We need to establish a broader, more strategic and proactive role for the successor committee in that landscape while meeting the continuing need for independent expert scientific advice in this area.

At the same time, we have taken a considered view of how better to manage scientific advice and evidence in my department. In particular, as an expert scientific committee, the successor body to the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances will work in a more co-ordinated and peer-reviewed environment under the purview of our Chief Scientific Adviser and our Science Advisory Council.

The rationale for this reform was, of course, articulated in the context of the passage of the Public Bodies Act in which we sought powers to abolish the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. We also consulted widely, as required by the Act, on the future of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and, as we reported, there was clear public support for our proposals. We also have the full support of the devolved Administrations and have secured the required clearance from the devolved legislatures for the order.

I believe that we have this support because we have given thought to the successor arrangements, as I will explain shortly, in relation to the terms of reference for the expert scientific committee that will replace the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. It has been decided, subject to the coming into force of the order, that the successor body will be known as the Hazardous Substances Advisory Committee. This will avoid confusion with the existing committee, which will have been abolished, and mark the start of the new enhanced arrangements.

I turn to the report of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee and give the assurance to the Committee that in future all Defra orders deriving from the Public Bodies Act will carry the preface in their title, “public bodies”. This is a specific request of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee so that the statutory instruments can be clearly identified.

In its consideration of the order, the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, now of course renamed as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, concluded that my department’s case for the order probably just crossed the statutory threshold for the exercise of public functions. I believe that our case is stronger than this and that this order, and the new arrangements which will follow it, will deliver the benefits that we anticipate. We have listened to the committee and responded to it, and as part of these new arrangements, and in anticipation of the order coming into force, I have agreed new terms of reference and, as I mentioned earlier, a new name for the successor body. I know from the report that there is particular interest in these terms of reference, with their central importance for ensuring that the new committee can operate in a truly independent manner. The report invited Ministers to say whether these terms of reference have been agreed in a form that will address the committee’s concerns. I believe that they have. I have arranged to share with the committee my recent correspondence with Professor Stephen Holgate, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, on this matter. As chairman-designate of the successor body, Professor Holgate has welcomed these new terms of reference, which are those recorded in the report of what we must now refer to as the Scrutiny Committee, as part of the information which my officials provided to assist consideration of the order. The only change made, for greater clarity, was to separate out in two supporting protocols the committee’s relationships with our Chief Scientific Adviser and Science Advisory Council, and with Ministers. We are getting ready for this change, and to this end I commend the draft order to the House.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the Minister and to have heard him talk about public bodies again, as the father of the Public Bodies Bill through this House. What a joy it is to hear him talk about it. Even though I disliked the Bill intensely, I enjoyed the way in which he steered it through this House and the way in which he listened. I am sure that he will continue to listen as we talk about some of the detail in these SIs.

I am also grateful to the Merits Committee, as was, for its 56th report on this order. As I understand it, it was the third order made under the Public Bodies Act that has been considered by the Merits Committee. As we know, the committee did not recommend it for the enhanced scrutiny procedure—we have one of those coming shortly—but made it clear that this was a close decision, as the Minister has said. In paragraph 18, the committee said that it,

“struggles to see much discernible benefit in the proposals”.

It describes the case for the order as “far from compelling” and says that,

“it probably just crosses the statutory threshold”.

I accept that the Minister thinks that it does a little bit better than just crossing the threshold, but it is important that that is noted.

The committee poses questions for the Minister to answer in the debate. In particular, it points to evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry recalling that Parliament and especially this House insisted in 1989-90 that the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances was established as a statutory committee. This was to ensure that Ministers and officials took proper scientific advice before taking decisions on controls on hazardous substances.

Let me put the questions implied by the committee. I am grateful, through signalling, that I have gone first. I thought it would be helpful to the Minister’s in-flight refuelling if I were to answer the questions first to give maximum time for the fuel to surge through to the Minister. First, the current cost of the advisory committee is £30,000 per annum. Will the new body cost the same or less than that £30,000 and how much will the preparation form passing the order cost the department in staff time and Parliament in printing and staff costs? That will give us a rough idea of whether this move is good value for money.

Secondly, how will the Minister ensure that the newly constituted committee will, in the words of the code of practice for scientific advisory committees, be able to,

“operate free of influence from the sponsor department officials or Ministers, and remain clear that their function is wider than simply providing evidence just to support departmental policy”?

Thirdly, the framework proposed by the Government is as follows—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The new body is to operate within a closer network of expert scientific committees overseen by Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser—the Minister has said as much in his comments—and is to be supported by its Scientific Advisory Council, the SAC. The chair is to meet Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser at least annually to discuss its work. The chair is to attend the annual meeting of Defra’s Scientific Advisory Committee.

Fourthly, there is to be routine reporting by the new advisory committee after its quarterly meetings—it is worth knowing to whom—in addition to its reports on specific projects and its annual report. There is also to be other reporting to Ministers by the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Scientific Advisory Committee on the new body’s work. Ministers are to set and change the new body’s terms of reference—we have heard some discussion of that—and will possibly attend its meetings from time to time. I would be grateful if it could be confirmed that that is all correct. If that is all correct, what independence is left to the committee? Is not the price of better co-ordination and peer review that the Minister mentioned in his opening comments a loss of independence? The form of the set of questions is: what is the problem to which the Government’s proposal is the solution? For example, on which scientific initiatives have Ministers been less well advised than they would wish? Which scientific developments has the present committee overlooked?

Fifthly, the Government’s case for improved accountability and independence of advice hinges in part, as the Merits Committee and the Minister have said, on the proposed new terms of reference. Have they now been agreed in a form that would support this objective, as the Merits Committee requested? Will the Minister share with us the correspondence he referred to with the incoming chair?

Sixthly, if the current terms of reference in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are out of date, could they not have been changed or a power inserted in the Act to amend them by statutory instrument subject to parliamentary approval? Seventhly, is not the key to these proposals that whereas the terms of reference for the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances are set out in statute and thus decided by Parliament, in future they will be set and amended by the Secretary of State? How will that be subject to transparency and scrutiny? Why was Parliament right in 1989-90 to insist that the committee was statutory, but wrong now?

Finally, if the purpose of the proposal is not increased ministerial control, is the real explanation that the Government want to be seen to be culling quangos—in the end the motivation for the Public Bodies Act—but because the Advisory Committee performs a sufficiently important role, it is keeping the members and staff intact and simply making an appearance of change? Should the Cabinet Minister responsible for public bodies not be watching this very carefully? This feels like business as usual. A name has been rejigged with a few words in a different order, but everything continues as normal with no real financial saving. In the end, a headline two years ago about culling quangos now has to be delivered and is taking up parliamentary time.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, this is a short Bill of three pages, so there is a chance that we will have read the whole thing. That is a good thing, as is the Bill’s brevity. It is difficult to oppose the Bill as it stands, as it does only two things and in principle I support both. Who would not want South West Water customers to have some relief from their extraordinarily high bills or for the River Thames to be relieved of unacceptable levels of sewage? The Bill is also difficult to oppose because, of course, it is a money Bill. That means that in this House, as we have heard, we cannot oppose it—even if we want to—because we do not have the power. We must therefore make all our comments this evening—even at this ridiculously late hour. The timetabling of the debate at this late hour is ridiculous and is yet another huge discourtesy to this House by the Government. That is becoming a habit.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley has had to catch a train to chair a conference in Glasgow in the morning. So seriously has he taken this issue that in order to prepare for this debate he even travelled to Brussels last week to discuss with the Commission the risk of infraction. It is deeply regrettable that he will not be heard. I have therefore agreed to pass on an edited version of his speech in my speech and we will therefore get two speeches for the price of one.

My noble friend asked why there was the urgency in having to pass this Bill tonight instead of waiting until next month when we have time. The answer is obvious and perhaps a little tawdry: the Government want to be able to give households in the south-west their promised £50 before the local elections in May. The urgency to pass this Bill tonight contrasts with Defra failing to fulfil its promises to Parliament to make announcements today on dangerous dogs and carbon reporting. It is a shambles.

I should move on to what is my main problem with the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Grantchester said, this is the wrong Bill. We need a proper water Bill, as promised by the Government, that is properly debated in both Houses and gets on to the statute book over the next year—not as a draft Bill with further delay until the year after—to do these and other important things, such as dealing with abstraction, which is essential if we are to reduce drought risk, and putting in place a proper water affordability scheme involving the social tariff that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, talked about.

The two issues in the Bill are urgent and raise complex issues. As we have heard, noble Lords have carried out detailed work on the issues relating to the Thames tunnel and I pay tribute to noble Lords’ speeches on that subject. This short debate has yet again demonstrated this House’s expertise and why it is so important in improving legislation for Parliament. Yet, because Defra could not secure a slot in the Queen’s Speech for a proper Bill, that expertise is being sidelined. Frankly, it is an insult to your Lordships, but I suspect that the Government are finding us a little too tiresome and troublesome these days and are therefore keen to invoke financial privilege a lot more.

My other difficulty with the Bill relates to the extent of the powers that it confers on the Secretary of State. Again, this could have been properly debated in relation to a public Bill, but now we are victims of the need to avoid hybridity. I have no wish for the Bill to be hybrid—the parliamentary long grass is not a place for me. As Defra’s Explanatory Notes to the Bill make clear, this is a Bill to assist consumers on the south-west peninsula and the Thames Water area only, but the Bill cannot say so for fear of being hybrid. The consequence is that the Secretary of State will have the power to give financial assistance in any form to any English water company, with any conditions that she sees fit, as long as the assistance is used to reduce charges for customers for water supply and sewerage services. Similarly, she can assist any water or sewerage company with any large or complex infrastructure project in England if she,

“considers it desirable to do so”.

The Explanatory Notes, which do not form part of the Bill and are not endorsed by Parliament, clarify that the costs will be £40 million for the south-west and up to £4.1 billion for the Thames tunnel, but that clarification has no status. Unless the Minister can advise me otherwise, Her Majesty’s Government could, if they were to be persuaded of another scheme, perhaps as a pre-election giveaway in some area precious to the coalition parties, just go ahead with that scheme without coming back to Parliament. That is unacceptable.

In that regard, can the Minister tell me whether he has considered a sunset clause on the Bill’s provisions? Should we not have some mechanism that requires the Government to come back periodically to justify this expenditure? Is this approach a long-term solution? Does it really pressure water companies to maximise efficiencies in the interest of consumers? Can we be convinced that this is not a long-term subsidy to water company shareholders?

So I am not keen on the Bill because of its process and extent. It is effectively a blank cheque. However, let me briefly address the substance of South West Water bills and the Thames tunnel. As we have heard, the Bill will enable the Government to make a £50 annual payment to households in the South West Water area to reduce their water bills. South West Water is a classic case study of what happens when privatisation goes wrong.

When the previous Tory Government introduced what became the Water Act 1989, it was supposed to be a new start for the water industry, but in the south-west, as we have heard, it created a water company responsible for 30 per cent of England’s coastline, but with a customer base of just 3 per cent of the population. There had been no investment in sewerage infrastructure, so the £2 billion needed to clean up the coastline was paid by the unfortunate South West Water customers through their bills, leaving them with the highest average unmetered bill in the country. As a resident of the south-west, I am happy to say that I live just outside this area and am served by Wessex Water.

In some ways, Part 2 is intended to prevent the same thing happening to consumers in the Thames area as their sewage infrastructure is brought up to standard. We welcome the £50 a year for households in the South West area, but the Bill will do nothing for households in other areas. I repeat the question from my noble friend Lord Grantchester: will the scheme exclude second home owners? It would be very popular in the south-west were it to do so.

From April this year, water bills will rise on average by 5.7 per cent, or about £20 a year. The Government have taken a hands-off approach and are considering leaving it to water companies to decide whether to introduce social tariffs. Ofwat, the independent water regulator, estimates that one in 10 households currently spends more than 5 per cent of their income on water and sewerage. That is 2.26 million households across England and Wales: almost 1 million single adults, 73,000 pensioners and 540,000 families with children. The Government had promised a draft water Bill in the spring. As I said, we will have to wait until Defra finally gets its ducks in a row before we get that Bill.

On the Thames tunnel, I have read the various views on this huge project. No one denies that we need to do something, but I am struggling, despite the compelling speech by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, to see what alternative there is to the combined sewage outflow tunnel. Bubbling appears discredited, separation of rainwater and sewage too expensive and lots of mini-schemes highly uncertain. I am therefore persuaded to support this scheme as well.

However, I would like the Minister to address the concerns of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. In the speech he would have delivered tonight he says that the Bill represents the failure of the industry and its regulator to get companies to perform efficiently and to reduce charges. He has grave concerns with regard to the Thames tunnel. He would have said that the costs are estimated at £4.5 billion plus EU fines, but the risk of cost overruns in such a major tunnelling scheme are not properly thought through and are also likely to be high. The cost to London’s consumers could be as much as £80 per household per year for 30 years.

My noble friend is worried about state aid. This looks like potential for massive state aids to one monopoly supplier company. What criteria are being used for choosing one company—or will all get help? Have the Government checked with the European Commission whether either of the state aids proposed are legal and what conditions are likely to be attached? This is a major project, now with government support and finance if things go wrong and therefore no incentive to save money or look at alternatives.

When my noble friend heard Ministers continue to repeat that the project was necessary to clean up the Thames as required by the European Commission to avoid infraction proceedings, he went to Brussels last week to meet officials dealing with the infraction and hear at first hand what they thought. It is important for the House to hear what they thought.

The European Court of Justice is currently considering the case and is likely to give its judgment this summer. The Commission expects to win, but can of course never be sure. Following the Court decision, if the EC wins, it will give the UK three to five years to complete whatever scheme is necessary to comply. Almost certainly, the UK will be fined, but it will be a little less the quicker a compliant scheme is completed.

Public statements by Ministers about intentions are not relevant. The Commission noted that this directive should have been complied with by 2000 and that, if this did not happen until 2022-23, a large fine was likely. Clars Environmental has estimated that the fine could be as high as £750 million. The amount can, we understand, be mitigated by completing any compliant scheme quickly, perhaps by a maximum of five years. The Commission’s case is that it has always required an output specification for the water quality but it has never given the UK Government any instruction or indication that a particular solution is required or desirable. It emphasised that the choice of solution was down to the member state as subsidiarity. The Commission was not of course certain whether the currently proposed tunnel scheme would meet the criteria, and of course it has to wait to see what is said in the ECJ judgment, expected this summer. It is then up to the Commission to enforce the judgment and, at that stage, to consider whether the tunnel solution or any other will comply with the judgment. So we have a Thames Water scheme costing £4.5 billion racing ahead without any up-to-date consideration of alternatives or, more importantly, whether that scheme as designed will meet the ECJ and EC requirements and therefore stop the fines continuing.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley would have gone on to talk about some of the alternatives put forward by the noble Earl and Chris Binnie. He thinks that many of these could be implemented sooner than the Thames tunnel scheme, with a consequent reduction in the infraction fine and in capital costs. Therefore, his second question to the Minister is: will the Government set in train an urgent review of alternatives by someone without a vested interest in the present scheme which will take into account the likely and actual decisions of the ECJ and EC enforcement people to achieve a more cost-effective and efficient solution more quickly, and one that is more environmentally friendly than the existing scheme? Is the massive potential fine of £750 million enough to persuade the Government to think again? Who knows? A series of smaller schemes might even get the job done quicker, he says, with a consequent reduction in infraction fines. I would ask: given that the fines could reach hundreds of millions of pounds, can the noble Lord tell us the department’s view on this? Can he also promise your Lordships that, if the Government lose their case in the European Court, a Minister will come back to this House with an urgent Oral Statement to tell us how the Government will fund the inevitable fines?

I have other concerns but I shall not delay the House further. I deeply regret that the expertise of this House has been sidelined and that we cannot debate more fully and amend to improve, but of course I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Drought

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to protect communities, food producers and habitats from the threat of drought in England.

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

My Lords, droughts happen in the natural order of things, and the Government’s reaction to the current dry spell is being planned for in detail with the Environment Agency and water companies. The Government recognised the risks early on and, since May 2011, the Secretary of State has held three drought summits to agree actions to manage the impact of drought. Water companies are working closely together to conserve public water supply, and government and key sectors are meeting regularly.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I thank the Minister for that reply. The effects of drought are now too apparent in some parts of the country. For example, the River Kennet has in part dried up already. Does that not reinforce the urgency of taking forward the Government’s proposals on water abstraction? The contents of the Queen’s Speech have been even more pre-briefed than today’s Budget. Why has Defra failed to land a slot for a water Bill that would mean that we could get on with urgent action on water supply?

Food: Waste

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Tuesday 20th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the catering industry, because the hospitality and food service commitment, which we are pressing across government, is directed expressly at that sector. Ministers in other departments are ensuring that the Government are taking up the commitment, and Members in another place and in this House are working to ensure that Parliament’s own catering is signed up to this commitment.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is right that 16 million tonnes of food waste is way too high and that the potential for energy production is great. The Minister gave a fine answer in respect of catering, but can I press him on the subject of energy production, particularly from anaerobic digestion? What will Government offer to incentivise people in catering and elsewhere to put their food waste into that energy production?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord is right: anaerobic digestion is a very good process for converting food waste. I was trying to emphasise that the most important aspect of food waste is to eliminate it at source, if you can. However, where food waste arises, AD is a very effective method. Indeed, we have an AD strategy plan, which includes a £10 million loan fund to set up new capacity. WRAP offered the first loan of £800,000 to a Wiltshire-based company, Malaby Biogas, in January 2012. Other actions to promote innovation in the AD sector, particularly on a small scale, are very much part of our strategy.

Agriculture: Schmallenberg Virus

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is exactly what is being investigated at the moment. We do not have a blood test at present, but it is clearly going to be very important. This is a very new virus, and we know relatively little about it except the background from which it comes. We have very strong indications as to how it has come here. The work is ongoing, but I assure the noble Baroness that we are working hard to get a blood test.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the spread of this virus is clearly of concern to farmers in this country, and I welcome the update that we have had from the Minister. Does he agree that the department’s risk assessment on climate change suggests that this sort of disease, borne by midges, will become more common, and that how it is handled now will set a pattern for the future? On the basis of openness and transparency, will he agree a simple request that the Chief Veterinary Officer urgently provides a briefing to interested Peers so that the House can be updated regularly?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am most happy to do so. I welcomed this Question because I was aware that this matter must be of concern to a number of Peers. This is an opportunity to inform the House on the subject, and I give the assurance that a “Dear colleague” letter goes to all interested Peers on this matter.

EUC Report: Agriculture

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I start by warmly thanking the European Union Committee for what was an extremely interesting and, as I found out over the weekend, highly readable report—that is not always the case. In particular, I thank my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles for leading on this piece of work and for leading the debate so ably earlier this afternoon. I certainly join in the joy in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and in complimenting him on his excellent maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just reminded us, Capability Brown was also from Kirkharle, so it would appear that capability is in the water there, and we look forward to many more capable speeches and contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has personally done in the area of science and agriculture, and I very much look forward to hearing his wisdom when he winds up.

I do not want to provide a commentary on all the many and interesting areas covered by this report— I am sure that we have other things that we want to do this evening—so I will pick out just a few themes. First, this is clearly a report about not just the future of agriculture but the future of food, where it comes from and how we consume it. The report is about more than just guarding against the future; it is about how we shape the future of agriculture. That is the basis on which I have been trying to think about this—the Foresight report was also certainly very welcome in helping us to think about these issues.

We face an uncertain future: world population growing, as we have heard, from 7 billion to 9 billion; increasing food prices; changing diets; more pressure on land and water; and climate change—I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for the briefing that we had a week or two ago on the department’s assessment of the implications of climate change. Agriculture needs to contribute by less input and more output, and it needs to make a contribution to sustainable energy production and consumption. In addition, there is the uncertainty over future CAP reform, which has been discussed and debated this afternoon. All this was excellently set out by, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who reinforced the sense of urgency on these issues.

To shape this future and to harness the potential for growth and jobs in the agriculture and food manufacturing sectors, I think that we need: a pro-science climate in which to discuss these issues; international co-operation; and active, strategic government. Those are the three things that I want to touch on in my comments. Paragraph 183 of the report states:

“We welcome the fact that greater prominence is being given to agriculture in the deliberations of the European Commission, and we urge that it should be given a similar priority in political debate in the UK”.

I would be interested to hear both whether the Minister agrees and, beyond the high profile given by a debate in the Moses Room on a Monday in February, how we should do that. If we are to move forward and discuss issues such as GM and biotech, do we not need to try to fashion a more pro-science environment in the media in particular? I do not underestimate the challenge in doing so, but any comments on how we might do that—given the Government’s excellent ability to spin for the media—would be most welcome.

At paragraph 130, the report states:

“Many of our UK witnesses considered that the UK Government should take the lead in communicating scientific innovations as regards food. Professor Moloney was clear that the only way to offer clarity to consumers ‘is through national leadership’ and Dr Bushell suggested that politicians have ‘an amazing opportunity to shed light on the real risks associated with food and not the imaginary ones’”.

The report goes on to say that the Minister in the other place, Jim Paice,

“took a contrary view, suggesting that Government are the worst source to offer such advice”.

I have some sympathy with the view that perhaps trust in politicians is at its lowest possible ebb, but there is certainly a role for government in trying to stimulate that debate and ensure that we give a platform to scientists—government scientists—in trying to extend and inform the debate.

The report also wanted more done in schools. Of course, as well as spending a year as a Defra Minister, I had three years as Schools Minister. Paragraph 177 of the report talked very much about the importance—as did the noble Lord, Lord Plumb—of engaging with young people and attracting them into the industry. Does the Minister think that the narrowing of the curriculum in the English baccalaureate predicates against that engagement and makes it even tougher for schools? What are the Government doing, probably in combination with Lantra, and perhaps with the Minister’s noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, to develop university colleges for agriculture? They are an interesting development in 14 to 19 education, but I have not yet heard whether more is being done with the land-based industries in trying to go upstream and attract younger people into the industry than we are doing through the FE sector and its land colleges.

The report states in paragraph 61:

“When we put this concern to Mr Paice, he agreed that there was a need to make the food and farming industry an attractive industry, but saw the Government’s role as to ensure that the industry could ‘deliver a satisfactory income and terms and conditions’”.

I agree with the committee when it states:

“We see this as necessary, but not sufficient”.

We need to go further than what the Minister said in his oral evidence. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, I very much support the work of FACE led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. I should like more of this in our education system.

I move on to international co-operation. The EU’s framework programme for research is the world’s largest research programme, with funding of €1.9 billion earmarked for the area of food, agriculture and biotechnology. There is differential development in this sector across Europe, given its different geographies, and it is certainly the case that no one size fits all. However, different development needs a more sophisticated differential approach by the EU. The UK has an advanced and relatively mature sector, and we have heard about the interesting work that the Netherlands is doing. However, such work in parts of eastern and southern Europe is far less developed, and we have heard about the very small farm units in some of those areas. Like others, I feel frustration at the projections of only a 4 per cent growth in productivity across Europe. The continent as a whole needs to meet future challenges, grasp opportunities and work together to ensure that the single market area achieves sufficiency.

How much is the Minister concerned about UK food security in isolation? If that is the aim, how will he shift consumer demand to seasonal UK food, especially given that what is seasonal and local changes with the climate? How can the UK use what residual influence it has left on the margins of the European Union to encourage co-operation and convergence of the agricultural economies across Europe? Surely, it is only then that we can do more for less, as is essential, and achieve food security within the single market. As the climate changes and the geography of food production migrates north, how can we develop co-operation between producers across borders so that we can learn from each other’s innovative practice? That sort of co-operation is essential.

Finally on international co-operation, what are the Government doing to encourage higher education co-operation, perhaps through the Bologna process, in these areas? I understand the scepticism articulated by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and others, but we need to redouble our efforts on co-operation rather than on isolation so that we can address these challenges.

I turn to the question of active, strategic Governments. There was a difference between the evidence given by the Minister of State, Jim Paice, and the Government’s official response to the report, which read very well. One was the voice of the Minister and the other, from my experience, was the voice of officials signed off by the Minister. The Government’s response to the report is helpful but I would rather look at the Minister’s choice of words.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, I was concerned about continued government spend on research. I note that the response to a Parliamentary Question in the other place on 20 January at col. 925W of Hansard was that core Defra research and development spend for the last five years is contained within the evidence budgets, and that while the proportion of R&D and the evidence budgets is to remain the same as a proportion of the total programme, that will reduce by 29 per cent in real terms. The figures show a reduction from £210 million in 2010-11 to £167 million in 2014-15. The department’s evidence investment strategy also shows reductions in spend in this area, and that has to be a concern when we are thinking about these issues.

I also have a concern about whether there is a difference in philosophical approach. Paragraph 27 of the report says that the Minister—not the noble Lord here but Jim Paice—said that,

“the present Government had no plans to publish any new document, and that he did not believe in ‘some Government-determined plan’; and he saw no conflict between the Government’s emphasis on localism and the need to respond to the challenges outlined in the Foresight report”.

I disagree with that. It suggests a hands-off Government who believe in getting out of the way rather than enabling, but we need a more strategic approach than is reflected in the Minister of State’s words. I acknowledge the dominance and the vital importance of the private sector in this industry, but surely there is a role for Government in this area, as I detect being strongly argued in this committee’s reports.

The committee says that most farmers are understandably risk-averse. The committee quotes in paragraph 109 Philip Richardson, who said:

“the great deal of uncertainties (weather, disease and price volatility) inherent in farming … make farmers more risk-averse than other business people”.

We all understand that, hence the committee’s view that innovations need a sound business case for farmers to take them on, but innovation needs a higher appetite for risk to make necessary investment than farmers are going to be willing to make in that sort of environment. Hence the importance of the supply chain—and I noted the interesting evidence given by Morrisons. We need either direct top-down investment or investment via the common agricultural policy. We also need other activity from government. I would be interested to know whether there is any progress on the grocery adjudicator to help give us some leverage over that supply chain and address some of the waste reduction issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, rightly raised.

I will not take any more of your Lordships’ time. This is an interesting area that needs action from the EU and from the UK Government. It needs the urgency that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about. I very much commend the report and look forward to the Minister’s response.

EU: Sow Stalls Ban

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is a totally separate issue. The sow stalls directive is an individual directive focused on sow care and welfare.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, this country can be proud of being ahead of the game on banning sow stalls, as we have heard. As a regular customer of Pampered Pigs of Tolpuddle, I know that happy pigs are tasty pigs. But the current problems with eggs, as we have heard, demand a more robust position on enforcement of EU directives. Will the Government give notice now, with almost a year’s notice, that they will take legal action against other countries’ non-compliance as soon as this directive comes into effect so that the Commission can get its ducks and sows into a row?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

As I mentioned before, we have already sought information on this matter. We are knocking at the door, and the Commission has already learnt lessons from the cage ban on laying hens. We have sought early information that it is asking all member states how close they are to compliance. To date, we do not have that information, but we are determined to press on this issue. We are hoping to have on the agenda of the February Agriculture Council a discussion topic on this item.

Gangmasters

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have made it clear that Defra values the GLA and sees it as being a particular responsibility to make sure that it is properly funded. Not only is its budget protected for this year, it is protected for the next four financial years in its enforcement activities. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by that and the determination of the department to make sure that it is effective in performing its task.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, last month, when I raised the issue of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority in Questions, I was much reassured by the Minister’s answer that the authority would remain free-standing. In his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, he talked about a new “enforcement architecture”—that was the pithy phrase he used. Does that mean that the position has changed around its remaining free-standing? If so, what has changed that the Government want to weaken the focus of this highly effective body?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There is no way in which the Government wish to weaken the focus of this highly effective body. The previous questions pointed out that there are experiences that the GLA has in its field which could well be useful in other fields of employment. That is why my honourable friend Ed Davey, in conducting his review, is looking at the GLA to see how its practices can be incorporated into a broader brief.

Food: Waste

Lord Knight of Weymouth Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is an ongoing project, and an important one. As my noble friend quite rightly points out, there is confusion. Defra recently published date-marking guidance. This should help to ensure that dates are applied consistently—for example, that all hard cheeses display “best before” dates—thus making it easier for consumers to understand their meaning. I have already seen date marks that drop the confusing “display until”, in line with our guidance. I will shortly be visiting Sainbury’s to see its new eco-labelling system. My noble friend is quite right to congratulate supermarkets on the efforts that they are making.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, as we agreed in the debate last week, household food waste is still way too high. The voluntary approach is having some effect with retailers, as we have heard. Many are moving away from BOGOF—as the Minister likes to refer to it—and for that they should be applauded. However, these actions are easily undermined by more unscrupulous competitors. Is the Minister still planning an effective grocery adjudicator, and will it have a remit to report and act on measures to reduce food waste?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Indeed, my Lords, the grocery supply code of practice aims to prevent retailers from transferring excessive risk to their suppliers through unreasonable business practices. Two of its conditions cover wastage and forecasting errors, clarifying the conditions in which compensation for these may be sought. The greater certainty provided to suppliers and the role that the groceries code adjudicator will play may help to reduce food waste; we certainly hope so. The body will indeed be set up.