Peatlands

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, of course, we have to take all factors into account in these decisions, but I shall pass on my noble friend’s comments to my colleagues at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, reminded us, only around 4% of our deep peat is in sufficiently good condition still to be actively forming peat. That is a decline from 6% in 2003. We also know that Birmingham, Exeter, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield, as well as all of Cornwall, rely on peat catchments for their water. The Peak District peatlands alone supply 4 million people. Will the Minister therefore tell us what estimate the Government have made of the costs that could be avoided if the water storage and purification services provided by upland peat were restored?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I do not have a figure for that, but the gist of his question is entirely right. Peatlands perform an absolutely essential function in ensuring that we have clean and pure water supplies.

EU: Regulation on Chemicals

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 27th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, there are significant consequences for small and medium-sized enterprises of incomplete registration. Can the Minister please tell us how many businesses have already been informed by the European Chemicals Agency that their registration is incomplete, and what action has he taken to ensure that businesses complete all of the agency’s registration requirements in time to avoid those significant consequences?

[Lord De Mauley]

In terms of specific numbers, no, I cannot. However, I will write to the noble Lord on his question.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perhaps I should clarify the answer I gave to the noble Lord. Research by Professor Christl Donnelly indicates that up to 50% of infections in the high-incidence area are due to badgers. Bovine TB can affect a wide range of species, including pigs, sheep, goats and camelids; it can affect wildlife—for example, badgers and wild deer—and pets, including cats and dogs, and of course humans. The key thing, however, is that in cattle and badgers the infection is self-sustaining. It is thought that most other species generally only act as spillover hosts.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s strategy is obsessed by badgers and the transfer in what is a really difficult issue for farmers and is costly to the taxpayer. What are the Government learning from the recent outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in County Durham, clearly caused by cattle-to-cattle transmission?

[Lord De Mauley]

I cannot accept the noble Lord’s first contention, but in response to his question about Durham, this is a beef-fattening unit, and it will therefore have bought animals in from elsewhere. That is why we introduced risk-based trading in partnership with auctioneers and the industry, to provide fuller information about TB status and history of selling herds to the market. Initially this is on a voluntary basis, but we will look at it again if necessary. We are also considering post-movement testing of cattle for those moving from high-incidence areas.

Food: Waste

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a very important point. Indeed, that is why we are continuing to pursue the Courtauld commitment initiative, which was started under the previous Government and which has been extremely effective.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, as the growth in popularity of TV food programmes shows, we Brits love our food but we also love a two-for-one offer and the convenience of bagged salad. Between bake-off and BOGOF is the contradiction that many of us throw away more and more food while the numbers becoming reliant on food banks are spiralling, as people struggle with the cost of living crisis. Is there not a need therefore for the Government to work with retailers, broadcasters and others to help educate consumers, rather than having an Education Secretary who stigmatises and blames food bank users while downgrading the importance of cooking in the curriculum?

[Lord De Mauley]

I was with the noble Lord until shortly before the end, which is why we place such store by the “Love Food Hate Waste” programme, which was initiated by WRAP. The good news, which the noble Lord may not know, is that “Buy one, get one free” deals represent a relatively small proportion of supermarket promotions. The majority of promotions are temporary price reductions: for example, “Was £8, now £6”. “Buy one, get one free” deals are often on non-perishable items or items with long lives, and WRAP is working with retailers to encourage alternative promotions for perishable foods.

Bees

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 30th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I am really very grateful to the noble Baroness. Farmers have not been complaining to me recently about the numbers of elephants but I shall keep my ears open.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, reports this weekend that bees and other pollinators have bred well this year are most welcome. More concerning are reports that the lead government scientist on the effect of neonicotinoids on bees is joining Syngenta, one of the leading manufacturers of the insecticide. She previously worked on a Syngenta-funded project on bees and pesticides for Fera. Given the widespread concerns among the public about bee health, what assurances can the Minister give us that this closeness between policymakers and commercial interests benefits taxpayers more than shareholders?

Working Time (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Monday 22nd July 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend, we are returning to what is, for us on this side of the Committee, the vexed question of the abolition of the agricultural wages board, which we have consistently opposed. In opening, the Minister implied that the agricultural wages board was all about the minimum wage for farm workers. It is worth reminding the Committee at the outset, by way of clarification, that it is about so much more than just the minimum wage. This is doing away with a whole wage structure, training, regulations and measures in respect of accommodation and farm dogs, and all sorts of other things.

My noble friend Lord Whitty talked about the timing. I will return to the issue of Wales in a moment, but this also follows yesterday’s Tolpuddle festival—an occasion on which, in beautiful sunny Dorset, we remember the Tolpuddle Martyrs. In 1834, George Loveless, James Loveless, James Hammett, James Brine, Thomas Standfield and Thomas’s son John were all charged with having taken an illegal oath and then transported to Australia. That was the basis of the formation of the trade union movement in many ways and is rightly celebrated every year at Tolpuddle, when those martyrs are remembered.

My noble friend was right to probe the lack of an impact assessment. At the time, we kept returning to the impact assessment for the legislation which abolished the agricultural wages board, and we will keep reminding people that 150,000 workers are affected by the abolition of the board and that £240 million will be taken out of farm workers’ pockets. I know that that is contested by the Government, but they did not take advantage of this opportunity to publish any kind of impact assessment on these regulations to repair that.

I also want to comment on the implications for existing terms and conditions for individual employees. The abolition of the agricultural wages order largely protects existing employees engaged prior to 1 October 2013 with no specific contractual provisions. However, I note an article in Farming UK dated 26 June which quotes Colin Hall, a partner at BTF Partnership and a director of the 50 Club Horticultural Employers’ Association, as saying:

“For others, however, such as those more recently employed with a specific contractual provision reserving the employer’s right to amend their contractual terms following abolition of the AWO, or those employed on or after 1 October 2013, the implications are greater.”

There may be some currently employed workers who have particular contractual provisions who will be affected by these changes. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether he and his department are planning on working with agricultural employers and advising them on their new obligations as employers following the abolition of the board and the bringing into force of the regulations that we are debating today.

The Minister may have seen the article in Farmers’ Weekly on 11 July—I know that he is a keen listener to “Farming Today”, and I am sure that he is as assiduous in reading Farmers’ Weekly—about Peter Bailey, who was employed as a tractor driver and stockman in Berkshire for more than 22 years. He was awarded £38,000 for underpayment of wages after working an average 55-hour week at a farm there. Defra took up the case with the board and in the end Mr Bailey was able, through a tribunal, to prove that he was being exploited, not getting the pay he was entitled to and forced to work more hours than he should have, and that his employer was at fault. The tribunal found against the employer. That was a contravention of the old agricultural wages order but demonstrates that some farmers struggle to put existing employment regulations into proper effect. As things change, it is a particularly vulnerable time for employers. We need to ensure that they are properly advised so that they do not, inadvertently, do the wrong thing by their staff.

It is equally important that farm workers know their rights, reduced as they are. For any of them listening, I strongly recommend that if they are not a member of a trade union they quickly join because they will need one more than before as they will have to negotiate their pay and conditions on a case-by-case basis with employers. They will need the advice and support of a trade union to do that effectively. It is also worth noting—this was not something that was in force or that we even knew about when we debated the legislation to get rid of the board—that as of 29 July, this month, workers unfairly dismissed or discriminated against by their employers will be charged a fee for taking their claim to a tribunal. That means, in the absence of the protection of the agricultural wages board, that these typically extremely lowly paid workers will be denied the access to justice of a tribunal unless they are willing to pay a fee, with no guarantee, if the case is found in their favour, that they will get that fee back.

It is worth saying that the law is also changing so that if their employer—who might be their landlord—sidles up to them in the farmyard and makes them an offer to do things slightly differently and change terms and conditions, they would not be able to use that conversation in a tribunal either. That would no longer be admissible. I find that of huge regret, and we were not able to debate it when those orders went through. The changes to their pay and conditions as a result of this order and the new law abolishing the agricultural wages board increase the risk of agricultural workers suffering.

My noble friend Lord Whitty raised the issue of Wales and asked some highly pertinent questions about how this will work given the decision of the Welsh Assembly Government effectively to retain the agricultural wages board in the Principality. I would be very interested to hear how the two will work together. I understand that these regulations were laid before that decision was made by the Welsh Assembly Government, so perhaps there is unfortunate rather than deliberate problems of timing. It will certainly be September before the other place has a chance to debate these regulations. If we do not have a satisfactory answer from the Minister now, we will have to decide whether we want to pray against the regulations or leave it for the Minister to come back with some proper consideration of these matters when they come to the Commons in September. There will certainly be a problem if the agricultural wages board arrangements are to apply in Wales while the changes to leave entitlement are being made in these regulations. The exemptions were put in place in 1998 for a good reason. If they are to apply in Wales while also being changed it will create a problem which the Minister will have to resolve.

So for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Whitty gave, we are not opposing these regulations as such, subject to some reassurance on the Welsh issue, because they are merely tidying up. However we hugely regret the abolition of the agricultural wages board. I do not think that it has been properly thought through. I think that, in combination with some of the other changes that are taking place, there will be more farm workers who are exploited beyond the few who are exploited at the moment, one example of which I gave from a recent report in the agricultural press.

With those words, I am happy to listen with bated breath to what the Minister will tell us.

[Lord De Mauley]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Knight, for their contributions. As I said earlier, the amendments we are proposing to the Working Time Regulations are necessary technical amendments to the legislation as a result of the end of the agricultural minimum wage regulatory regime on 1 October, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, was good enough to acknowledge. The amendments have no impact on levels of protection for agricultural workers and I believe that they are, in themselves, relatively uncontentious. However I recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, recent developments in Wales raise certain issues in regard to abolition of the agricultural wages board which noble Lords are rightly interested to hear about.

The Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill, passed by the National Assembly for Wales on Wednesday last week, would restore a separate agricultural minimum wage regime in Wales. It might be helpful here if I gave noble Lords some explanation about relevant procedural matters.

Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 there is a recognised procedure for the consideration of whether Bills passed by the National Assembly for Wales are within its legislative competence. Essentially, this provides that the Attorney-General and the Counsel General for Wales—either or both—have four weeks after a Bill is passed by the National Assembly in which to decide whether to refer any question of competence to the Supreme Court. After this period, if no referral is made and the Secretary of State for Wales has indicated that he will not use his powers under the Government of Wales Act to intervene, the Bill is submitted for Royal Assent. This applies to all Bills passed by the National Assembly and this is the stage which we have now reached with the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill.

My right honourable friend the Attorney-General is currently assessing the legislation to determine whether its provisions are within the Assembly’s competence, as he does with all legislation passed by the Assembly. It would not be right for me to speculate here what conclusion either the Attorney-General, or indeed the Counsel General, might reach. I will say that, as noble Lords are aware from previous debates on this issue, the UK Government regard the agricultural wages regime as wage-setting and employment law, which are subjects that are not devolved to Wales. However, it is for my right honourable friend the Attorney-General and the Counsel General separately to consider whether or not a reference should be made to the Supreme Court on the question of the competence of the provisions of the Welsh Bill. This is a decision for them which it would not be appropriate for me to second-guess. Should either the Attorney-General or the Counsel General for Wales, or both, decide that such a reference should be made, it will be up to the Supreme Court to consider the Bill and make a judgment.

I hope, therefore, that that makes the position clear. There is a statutory procedure to be followed in the case of all Bills passed by the National Assembly and, quite properly, that procedure is now being followed in relation to the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord effectively asked why we do not wait to press ahead until all this has been resolved. We will not know the outcome of the Welsh position for some time, but we need certainty for people in employment in farming in the mean time. If we did not do this then new employees could effectively be left in limbo.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked what discussions the Government have had with Welsh Ministers about all of this. There has been extensive discussion with Welsh Ministers about the position of the agricultural wages board in Wales, and Welsh Ministers were informed of the Government’s decision to pursue abolition by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act. The UK Government communicated our view that this was a non-devolved matter which did not require the consent of the Assembly clearly to Welsh Ministers.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, reiterated his position when we debated the Act—if I may shorthand it. I understand his position very well. Abolishing the agricultural minimum wage will bring agriculture into line—

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

Before the Minister moves off Wales completely, I would be grateful to know whether he considered the order applying just to England, so that we would not have this issue. Given that detailed conversations were going on with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government, was that an option?

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Monday 8th July 2013 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument seeks to correct an error in the 2012 regulations. The error concerns the formula used for calculating the glass remelt recycling target for producers of glass packaging. The consequence is that the proportion of producers’ glass obligations that have to be met by evidence from remelt applications is inadvertently higher than the intended 63% for 2013-15. This instrument corrects that mistake by substituting an amended formula which ensures that the 63% glass remelt target is correctly applied to a producer’s glass recycling obligation for 2013-15 and 64% for 2016-17. My officials have worked with the Environment Agency to correct the error and to check that no further changes are needed to the 2012 regulations.

Prior to the 2012 regulations coming into force, Defra carried out a written consultation, with officials engaging with a broad range of representatives from industry, regulators and other interested parties. The consultation included the correct target of 63% but the draft regulations accompanying the consultation contained the error, which went unnoticed at the time. To correct it, we recently completed a public consultation on this revised draft instrument. We invited views on the plans to correct the error and there were no responses.

In practical terms the error has had no impact on business, with UK environment agencies using a correct version of the formula and enforcing against the intended 63% target. This instrument does not impose any new burden on any business. However, I apologise unreservedly for the error and hope that I have adequately explained that this instrument is intended to do no more than correct a mistake. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations, and in particular for his apology. He will not be surprised, and may be relieved, to know that I do not oppose them since obviously it is appropriate to correct the error. Indeed, when I first looked at the regulations I naively did what people do, and that is simply to look at them. Of course, there is no mention of the error. I looked at the impact assessment, where again there is no mention of the error. My first question to the Minister, therefore, is what has been the impact of the error? What has been the cost to the taxpayer of getting this wrong and having to reconsult, even though there were no responses to the consultation?

The Explanatory Memorandum is perfectly clear: the instrument corrects an error in the formula for calculating the glass remelt recycling target for producers of glass packaging. He is not yet on his feet in the other place, but we anticipate from the media that the Secretary of State for Education will shortly be announcing changes to the national curriculum, among which will be that primary school children will have to learn their fractions. It is worth asking when Ministers will learn theirs too, so that we do not make these errors in the future.

The regulations are fine and they do a perfectly good job. I note in passing that these are regulations which the Government support—and that occasionally the Government support regulation. These are also regulations from Europe—and occasionally the Government support regulations from Europe. These are also regulations that gold-plate EU regulations, so there are times when the Government support the gold-plating of EU regulations. As I say, that should just be noted in passing. Having dealt with these regulations around a year ago, we are here because an error was made, so my only question of any substance for the Minister is: how much is it costing us?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as always, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Before I address them, perhaps I could say that the target we are talking about offers both economic and environmental benefits for the United Kingdom. As valuable resources for our industries become scarcer and more expensive, we need processes in place to recycle and recover them in order to retain as much of their value as we can in the economy. Indeed, the Government want the United Kingdom to move towards a zero waste economy; that is, an economy where resources are fully valued. We want to see material resources reused, recycled or recovered wherever possible, and only disposed of as a last resort. The targets in these regulations play an important part in achieving this ambition. They will help the UK to go further in recovering the value of discarded packaging materials and help to tackle the wasteful practice of burying these resources in landfill. Overall, we estimate that the whole package of targets will provide a net benefit of over £180 million to the UK economy over the period from 2013 to 2017. Over 95% of those benefits will come from revenue generated from recycled materials. We will also see greenhouse gas savings associated with diverting waste from landfill and energy savings from replacing virgin materials with recycled ones.

The Government recognise that the economic benefits will not be shared by all. These regulations will place an increased cost burden on the producers of packaging materials. However, the recycling targets will help to support wider growth and the creation of jobs in the recycling sector. I am pleased to say that when we consulted on the regulations, most businesses, including the majority of those on which the increased costs will fall, supported our approach. As I said, I am sorry for the error made in the 2012 regulations and I thank the noble Lord for taking the time to debate this instrument today. It will permit producers to continue to meet their obligations under the correct glass remelt recycling target.

We have not calculated the cost of correcting the error. I do not anticipate that it will be material. It will consist basically of official time to check the regulations and prepare amended regulations. As I said in my opening speech, the effective cost of the correction is nil, because everybody has been operating on 63% anyway. The only other thing I would say to the noble Lord is that I always enjoy being ragged by him about my mathematics. With those comments, I commend the regulations.

Flooding: Insurance

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 26th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what agreement they have reached with the insurance industry to ensure that owners of homes at risk of flooding can obtain affordable home insurance.

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

My Lords, we are at an advanced stage in discussions with the insurance industry about the future of flood insurance. We aim to conclude those discussions and announce future measures as soon as possible to ensure that households can continue to access affordable flood insurance in the future.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Secretary of State is currently struggling to agree a fair deal on CAP reform for UK farmers, and his department has one of the worst settlements in Whitehall in today’s CSR. I hope that he does a lot better for 200,000 householders in this negotiation with insurers. This House rises on the deadline for concluding the negotiation. Given the persistent interest from noble Lords on all sides, can the Minister therefore guarantee us an opportunity to question him in here on the conclusion of the negotiations before we break for the Recess?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I had hoped we might have a constructive debate about this. However, since the noble Lord has raised the common agricultural policy, perhaps I should say that it was Labour’s leadership in the last round of CAP reform that cost us €550 million in disallowance and led us to the disastrous administration of the single farm payment. We, by contrast, are tackling another immensely complex negotiation on flood insurance in a measured and sensible way. We have to balance the interests of those at high risk of flood, wider policyholders and taxpayers, while the ABI is a membership organisation with a lot of interests to represent. The noble Lord asks about an opportunity to debate the eventual outcome. I would be pleased about that; it is not my role to guarantee it, but I am sure that we will have a chance to do that.

Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to know that on this occasion, unlike a previous one, I will not seek to give contradictory views to represent the views of some of my colleagues on this side of the Committee. This debate comes at an inconvenient time for Thames Water but, therefore, at an opportune time for Parliament. I will make some general comments and then delve a little into some of the specifics of the Thames tideway tunnel project. In making my comments, I am grateful as ever to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. Its third report of this Session brings these regulations to the special attention of the Committee on the grounds that they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to us. I am particularly grateful that the Committee is willing to delegate me to take forward all those public policy issues. It is right that we should reflect on them.

As the committee points out, the Explanatory Memorandum implies that these regulations are generic and apply to all water and sewerage companies and large infrastructure projects that meet the criteria. That was clearly set out by the Minister. However, the only project to which the regulations are expected to apply over the next 10 years is the Thames tideway tunnel. The impact assessment therefore exclusively estimates the impact of the project in relation to these regulations. We have debated the tunnel before, but there are issues I would like to raise as events have moved on.

First, I will make some generic comments. The arguments put for establishing a separate body to manage the finance, delivery and extraordinary risks of major water infrastructure projects are reasonable. The example of the Thames tunnel is helpful. It will cost more than £4 billion and, while Thames Water will carry out associated investment at its own risk, the cost of the main tunnel is a considerable financial risk to put on a company with a turnover of £1.8 billion. Assuming that Thames Water is well regulated and responsible, there is logic in establishing a separate infrastructure provider to construct the tunnel and have Thames Water effectively lease it back.

These regulations then extend the reach of Ofwat to these providers, which is important to ensure that the public interest is protected. The alternatives discussed by the Minister and in the accompanying papers are to leave things as they are or to require that the project be put out to tender by the water company. Defra discounts the former because Ofwat would struggle to regulate the financial arrangements when they are bound in with the rest of the company’s activities. To some extent, I struggle to see how it can effectively regulate the general finances of a company and then the separate finances of a big project, but cannot manage to do it when they are done together. However, I am happy to believe those involved when they tell me that they cannot. I am also happy with the desirability of a separate provider over the complexity of negotiating a new licence, which is the implication of requiring the company to tender a major project. Therefore, I am happy with the regulations as they stand in the generality.

Let me then turn to the specifics of the Thames tideway tunnel and the figures in the impact assessment. I remind the Committee that I rent a flat here in London very close to one of the sites for the construction of the tunnel, so in that respect have an interest. Thames Water has also been to see me to brief—or some would say lobby—me about the project. I accept the basis of the company’s argument. The capital’s Victorian sewerage system has served the capital well, but urgently needs more capacity to meet the needs of modern-day London. The Thames tideway tunnel will ensure that the capital has a sewerage system fit for purpose for at least another century.

The tidal part of the river remains an environmental and public health hazard. It cannot be acceptable to allow the tidal River Thames to be an open sewer. Sewage discharges into the tidal River Thames breach the urban waste water treatment directive and British taxpayers would face the prospect of substantial fines if the tunnel is not built. Other world-leading cities, including Paris, Stockholm, Helsinki and Washington DC, as well as the Rhine/Ruhr conurbation in Germany, are forging ahead with similar schemes. I agree with Thames Water’s briefing that London is in danger of being left behind and facing substantial fines if we do not act.

I am happy to support the project. The benefits to employment in London should be maximised and the impact on residents minimised, and I am pleased on progress in moving more material off the roads and on to the river during the construction phase. However, I also note the recent remarks by the new chair of Ofwat, Jonson Cox. Interestingly, Mr Cox is a water industry insider. He said last week that some unlisted companies have a moral case to answer over allegations, that they,

“use shareholder loans to avoid UK taxation”,

through “complex offshore holding structures”. He said:

“A good number use high-coupon shareholder loans to improve their equity returns … It appears that this reduces tax liability for the benefit of shareholders”.

He went on:

“Tax policy is not for an economic regulator and these structures may be legal and common in private equity. But some aspects are morally questionable in a vital public service”.

Thames Water has published its annual results this week. It appears that the company pays no corporation tax on its £1.8 billion turnover while continuing to pay executives many times more than the Prime Minister. In my view, this is unacceptable—it stinks. Why should the public be reducing the risk to shareholders of Thames Water through the Water Industry Financial Assistance Act 2012, if it then uses every last trick in the book to maximise shareholder return at the expense of the UK taxpayer? Does the Minister agree that these loopholes must be addressed as a matter of urgency? The logic of allowing profit is to reward the risks, particularly of investment, but that is undermined by excessive profit, excessive executive pay and tax avoidance when Parliament and the Government are acting to reduce the risk to Thames Water customers and shareholders.

When we turn to the impact assessment, why should the taxpayer be funding an extra £5 million of regulatory cost of Ofwat in setting up these arrangements? Could we not find a way of billing Thames Water for this expense, given that Thames Water pocketed a £5 million credit from the Treasury in a year when it made £550 million in profits? Given that the chief executive, Martin Baggs, was awarded a pay rise of 5.9%, taking his basic salary to £450,000 plus a bonus of £274,000 as part of a scheme to,

“reward significant improvement in the group’s financial and corporate performance”,

as well as picking up a further £366,000 in shares next month under the company's long-term incentive plan, maybe the £5 million could be found from senior executive salaries alone. Does the Minister agree?

On the narrow question of the regulations, I am content. On the question of Thames Water fulfilling its moral responsibilities and thereby breaching the trust on which the financing of the Thames tideway tunnel is based, I am not.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate on a number of issues relating to the draft regulation and indeed to the Thames tideway tunnel. I thank the noble Lord for his views and his insightful interventions. I thank him for agreeing that the general approach we are taking is reasonable. That is perhaps the most important thing to come out of today, and it is extremely helpful. I will come back to his specific points in a moment.

As I indicated in my introduction, it is important that these regulations should be considered separately from the specific Thames tideway tunnel project in London. In summary, the regulations enable the creation of infrastructure providers regulated by the Water Services Regulation Authority, Ofwat, to finance and deliver large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. They provide for the procuring, licensing and regulating of an infrastructure provider that is separate from a water or sewerage company. They set out how the Secretary of State or Ofwat can specify to which projects the regulations would apply and how they designate the company that is to become an infrastructure provider. The regulations are intended to apply to all such large or complex water or sewerage projects that may be proposed in the future, where their application would be considered to result in better value for money for both customers and taxpayers.

I turn specifically to the Thames tideway tunnel, and I think the noble Lord has already made similar points. Climate change, population growth and higher customer expectations of environmental standards and supply resilience are anticipated to require larger and more complex infrastructure than the existing regulatory regime was designed to provide for. For example, changing rainfall patterns are expected to result in wetter winters and drier summers—who would believe it after last summer?—and to aggravate water scarcity conditions in the south and the east. This may lead to an increased requirement for potentially complex arrangements for transporting water.

Moreover, heavy rainfall events are likely to become more frequent—that we can all believe. In London, these events will further strain an already overtaxed sewerage system, leading to more overflows of untreated wastewater, containing raw sewage, into the Thames. Even after ongoing upgrades to sewage treatment works and the Lee tunnel are completed by the end of 2015, just over 18 million tonnes of wastewater will enter the Thames every year from London’s combined sewer overflows when storm-water capacity is exceeded. These overflows currently occur on average about once a week and have a significant environmental impact on the river. They increase the likelihood of fish kills, create a higher health hazard for the users of the river and damage the aesthetic appeal of the Thames.

Insurance: Flood Risk Areas

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 22nd May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I have to admit to the noble Lord that this is not in my policy area, so I have not. I attend the regular ministerial meetings so I know a certain amount about what is going on. In negotiations, it is very important that the intricate details are kept confidential, and I hope that the noble Lord will understand that, but, as I say, I am confident that we are working towards a solution.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is right that the time that it has taken to reach this agreement is unacceptable. Last week we discussed the Defra delays over doing something about plastic bags. This week we return to this question. I declare my interest as someone whose home was flooded last July. Why do we keep having these Defra delays? Is it that Ministers are not showing leadership and providing a sense of urgency, or is it that right now it is impossible for this Government to agree about anything?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, whenever we talk about flood insurance, the noble Lord leads with his chin. I just say this to him, once again: the statement of principles, which his Government put in place, did nothing about affordability. That is what we are seeking to tackle this time.

Reservoirs Act 1975 (Exemptions, Appeals and Inspections) (England) Regulations 2013

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Monday 20th May 2013 Grand Committee

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

The amendments to the Reservoirs Act 1975 by Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduce a more risk-based approach to the management of large raised reservoirs, and these regulations are a key component of this process. The regulations are required to be brought into force as soon as the substantive provisions amending the 1975 Act are commenced.

By way of background to the Reservoirs Act 1975, while it is rare for a large raised reservoir to fail, the impact of such failure on life and property could be considerable. During the 2007 summer floods, there was a near-miss incident at Ulley reservoir where a complete reservoir failure was averted only by emergency action. In his review of the 2007 floods, Sir Michael Pitt made recommendations for improvements to reservoir safety. These recommendations were addressed through amendments to the 1975 Act made by Schedule 4 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

Regulation-making powers inserted into the 1975 Act by the 2010 Act include the allowance of specific exemptions from the 1975 Act, the introduction of appeal rights and clarity on the timing of inspections. The regulations relating to exemptions specify what are not to be treated as large raised reservoirs for the purposes of the 1975 Act. Exemptions from the 1975 Act include tips that are covered by mines and quarries legislation and canals and inland navigations, and these exemptions are maintained. Due to the new definition of a large raised reservoir as a result of the 2010 Act, other bodies of water potentially fall within the scope of the 1975 Act. This has led to a new exemption for road and rail embankments with drains that have not been artificially blocked, such as with gates. Where a road or rail embankment effectively acts as a flood storage reservoir, it should be recognised as such and managed accordingly.

The regulations also provide undertakers of large raised reservoirs with the right to an appeal. An undertaker may appeal against the designation of a large raised reservoir as high risk and against notices given by the Environment Agency either to appoint an engineer or to carry out a recommendation of an engineer in the interests of safety. The regulations provide that the First-tier Tribunal will hear all appeals under the amended 1975 Act. To maintain the credibility of the 1975 Act and the efficacy of the designation regime, it is important that the appeals mechanism is independent, efficient and comprehensive and is a fair and cost-effective way of adjudicating any disputes. The process for bringing an appeal is governed both by these regulations and by the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009.

The regulations also set out the timings of inspections. Previously, under the 1975 Act, all large raised reservoirs had to be supervised and inspected, whereas the 2010 Act amends this to include only those large raised reservoirs designated as high risk. Transitional arrangements will be in place to ensure the smooth introduction of these requirements. The regulations also require the Secretary of State to review the operation and effect of these regulations and to publish a report within five years after they come into force. The powers to make these regulations are contained in the amendments made by Schedule 4, which were commenced in October 2011. The substantive provisions introducing a more risk-based approach to reservoir management cannot be implemented without these regulations.

The amendments to the Reservoirs Act 1975 introduce a more risk-based approach to the management of large raised reservoirs and these regulations are a key component of that process. They are a necessary and appropriate statutory obligation and I therefore commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, anyone observing this debate might think that, based on attendance, there is little interest in these regulations. However, I think that this is one of those circumstances where attendance signifies consent, and lack of attendance signifies positive consent. I think the fact that more noble Lords have not attended the debate simply demonstrates the extent to which the regulations are not contentious.

I remember well the floods of 2007 and how perilously close we came to real disaster when emergency action averted the failure of Ulley reservoir. That was why the previous Government, of whom I was a member, asked Sir Michael Pitt to carry out the review, and the Pitt report recommended these improvements to reservoir safety legislation and, in particular, this risk-based approach. It would be extremely churlish of me to be anything but supportive of these regulations given that they reflect the work that was done following the Pitt review. It merely remains for me to ask two or three questions that arise from the regulations.

The first, which might sound slightly oppositional, is straightforward. Why has it taken so long to bring forward the regulations given that Sir Michael Pitt carried out his review some time ago? They are dealing with significant matters of risk in respect of flooding and we have had a lot of flooding activity in the past 12 months. Everyone has noticed the nature of the weather during that time and the flooding that goes with it, so it would be helpful to know whether more could have been done to bring these forward sooner.

The second question is on Regulation 3 and those items not treated as being large raised reservoirs. As the Minister said in his opening comments, certain items such as tips, which have been exempted as large raised reservoirs, and other items are being added here. Assuming that some of those items might have some high risk attached to them on a risk-based approach, how is that risk being assessed? Who is inspecting them and how is the risk then being raised and dealt with by the owners of those bodies of water? If none is of high risk because of its very nature—such as its embankments or drains—then to ask whether the risk-based approach would not have dealt with it without this piece of legislation is perhaps rather a pedantic, subsequential question to that.

Finally, Regulation 4 deals with the right to appeal first against designation and Regulation 5 with the right to appeal against a notice. The basis of that appeal is to be able to go to a First-tier Tribunal. Can the Minister update us on how much capacity the Tribunals Service has to deal with these appeals? What is his expectation regarding the volume of appeals? As we refer more things to the Tribunals Service, there is a general concern that the service’s funding is not growing. I am quite confident in saying that. I suspect that it might be shrinking, and yet we are asking it to do more work. In these matters of public safety, which is what these regulations are dealing with, we would certainly not want appeals to be delayed because of a backlog at the Tribunals Service due to its lack of capacity.

That is probably my most significant question. The Minister has been assiduous in writing to me when things do not initially seem as forthcoming as they could be, and any information that he could give us about the Government’s assessment of the Tribunals Service’s capacity would be very helpful. Incidentally, if an appeal is unreasonably delayed in the Tribunals Service and an incident then occurred, where would the liability fall? Would it fall with the owner of the reservoir or with the Government because they did not have sufficient capacity in the Tribunals Service?

My final question also relates to the Tribunals Service. There was some mention either in the impact assessment or the Explanatory Notes of discussions that are still going on with the Tribunals Service about how it will deal with technical matters as opposed to legal matters when appeals are being heard. If the Minister has any update to put on the record about those discussions that would obviously be very helpful.

To summarise, we on this side are extremely happy to see the Government coming forward with these regulations, although we would have liked them to have happened a little quicker. There are one or two issues of concern in terms of the tribunal arrangements for appeals, but it is right that people should be able to appeal and it is right that it should be done in the context of the Tribunals Service. I therefore do not have any substantial argument with the way in which this is going forward. On that basis, I hope that I have given the Minister enough time, by talking a little longer, for him to give us some answers.

Environment: Plastic Bags

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble and learned Baroness raises an important question. It is one that we are considering. At the moment, we have not been able to find a bag that is of sufficient strength to do the job, but it is a very important subject and we are looking at it closely.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the noble Lord said that it will take until the middle of this year before he gets the data for the first year’s operation of the scheme in Wales. Will he give us a timeline for how long it will take him to assess that data so we know when he will make a decision? Will it take him a year?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, we will get on with this expeditiously. There is a lot of action already. I understand that retailers including Marks & Spencer, WHSmith and Lidl have instituted voluntary charges. Sainsbury, Asda, Tesco, Morrisons, Waitrose and Co-operative Food have put carrier bag recycling facilities at the front of their stores. We are providing funding for various projects in the marine environment, where the problem is often at its starkest. Keep Britain Tidy operates the Love Where You Live education and information programme. As I said, we are actively considering a charge on carrier bags based on the experience in the devolved Administrations.

Pesticides: Bees

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an important question. There is a considerable body of government-funded work that benefits bee species and other important pollinators, but we are open-minded about the introduction of what I might call a holistic strategy. My noble friend will be pleased to hear that I am meeting Friends of the Earth on Tuesday to discuss our current work and to get a better understanding of whether there is added value in bringing it all together in a holistic strategy, such as that organisation’s proposed national bee action plan, or what the noble Lord, Lord Christopher, might like to call a national pollinator action plan.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, bees as pollinators play an essential part in the lifecycle of the fruit and vegetables that we eat. The honey bee is just one of 276 native species of bee, all of which are under threat from the combination of agricultural practice, disease and pesticides. In his department’s negotiations with the EU to reduce hazards to bees, what is the Minister aiming to achieve to protect wild bees, such as the bumble bee that pollinates tomatoes and the long-tongued bees needed to pollinate field beans? As we have heard, with Friends of the Earth calling for a national bee action plan, does he agree that it is finally time for a “plan bee”?

[Lord De Mauley]

That was suggested to me this morning and I pointed out that it might not be something the Government would want to call it. The noble Lord makes several very interesting points, most of which I have forgotten in the hilarity. I thank him for his points.

Marine Conservation Areas

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

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?

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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

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.

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

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Grand Committee

[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.

Flooding: Defence Programme

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Defra’s partnership funding approach provides a contribution to the economic benefits of flood and coastal erosion risk management projects, including avoiding the damage to business, agricultural land and infrastructure. It specifically allows the involvement of farmers and others from the private sector as well as local authorities. Many schemes that are justified principally on the basis of protection of households also protect businesses. Many flood management projects reduce the risk to farmland.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the previous Government negotiated the statement of principles with the insurance industry to guarantee universal flood insurance coverage for homes in flood-affected areas. I should declare my interest as someone whose home was flooded this summer. That statement expires in June next year. The insurance industry has warned that unless new proposals are published by the end of November this year, it will be too late to ensure that the new alternative is in place by July next year. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the Minister told us that he would make announcements in due course. Can he reassure us that that will be this month?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the statement of principles to which the noble Lord referred did not go to the issue of affordability. In answer to his question, we are in intense and constructive negotiations, and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.

Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 24th October 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for their comments and questions. I will do my best to address the points raised.

My noble friend Lady Parminter asked whether the regulations created a two-tier framework for animal welfare, particularly in comparison with zoos. If anything, the status quo signifies a two-tier system. While the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already applies, operators of travelling circuses that have wild animals are, in animal welfare terms, otherwise unregulated. The regulations will address that.

It is right that there are some differences in the detail of welfare standards because we are talking about very different operating environments and different sources of exercise and enrichment, but I do not accept that we are somehow making things worse through these regulations. It is right to introduce targeted welfare standards, inspections and enforcement for travelling circuses, which are exempt from other regimes that would protect the animals.

My noble friend asked specifically about chaining. The new regulations should be thought of as an extension to the Animal Welfare Act and its existing provisions. It is already a criminal offence to cause a circus animal unnecessary suffering or to fail to provide for its welfare needs. If anybody—welfare groups or a member of the public—has evidence of this happening, they should contact the relevant enforcement authority. These regulations will require regular announced but, more importantly, unannounced inspections, as well as routine veterinary visits. They also limit unsupervised wild animal access to a named group of suitably trained or experienced staff and they require circuses to keep detailed records of all aspects of the animal’s day-to-day life. If our inspectors discover any of these alleged cases of abuse or neglect, enforcement action should be taken.

My noble friend asked which welfare organisations were in favour of the regulations. The British Veterinary Zoological Society supports a regulatory approach. She also asked about the issue of the grounds for a ban. The 2007 Radford report on circus animals concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence to demonstrate that travelling circuses are unable to meet the welfare needs of wild animals presently being used in the United Kingdom. The position of lack of scientific evidence has not changed. There is insufficient evidence that a ban is required for welfare reasons and any such ban would be vulnerable to challenge. That is what we must avoid.

Consequently, we are now looking carefully at the means by which a ban can be introduced on ethical grounds. There are a number of issues to consider in developing the ethical case and the exact nature of a ban. We must not rush primary legislation on such an emotive issue. We need to get it right. The detail must be correct to ensure that it will not fall at the first challenge. Nevertheless, we are determined to pursue this and we are confident that we will get there.

The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, suggested that Defra had been procrastinating. The situation has not changed since my noble friend Lord Taylor’s Written Ministerial Statement on 12 July that we expect to be able to publish draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny this Session. We are working on a draft Bill. He specifically raised the issue of elephants suffering under licensing. There is a far greater chance of uncovering animal abuse with regular licensing inspections than without. It should be remembered that the trial of the elephant Annie’s former keeper has not yet been resolved, so I cannot comment any further on that particular case and I am sure that noble Lords will understand that.

Generally, in answer to the noble Lord’s point about cruelty, it need hardly be said that training should not involve animal suffering. These standards prescribe that animals must receive immediate and tangible rewards and positive reinforcement when they exhibit desired behaviour during training and performance. They also prohibit seeking a desired behaviour from any animal in any way that would cause pain, suffering, injury or disease.

I thank my noble friend Lord Colwyn for his supportive words. My noble friend Lord Redesdale made some interesting points, which I have taken on board. I can confirm that the definition of “wild animal” is consistent with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981—therefore, budgerigars are not considered to be wild animals. Nevertheless, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 still applies of course.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, raised a number of issues, some of which I have already addressed in answering other points. Regarding whether the period of seven years would conflict with a ban coming into place sooner than that, the regulations include the standard sunset provision. There is no connection to or conflict with this and the timescale of a ban. Government policy is that all new domestic regulations expire seven years after they are made. That does not prevent the licensing regulations becoming redundant earlier where their provisions are superseded by the proposed ban.

The noble Lord, Lord Knight, kindly raised with me in advance the enforcement provisions and how they would work. If a circus operator chooses not to comply with the law, it will be at risk of a licence suspension and possible revocation. The simple remedy is to comply or to cease using wild animals. It is important to understand what will happen in practice and already happens for other regulations. Ongoing dialogue between inspectors and operators will mean that a suspension could not come as a surprise to the operator. Only if the operator refuses to take action to restore compliance with licensing conditions will the possibility of a suspension arise. If a suspension notice is issued, it will clarify precisely what must be done and by when. Continued failure to comply would lead to revocation of a licence and prosecution. It is not the case that an operator would be prosecuted for taking steps identified in a suspension notice.

Compliance with the licensing conditions could be restored by the removal of all the animals of the affected species from the stock list of the circus. They will then be covered by a combination of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and, of course, the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The circus licensing regulations would no longer apply to those animals, and they would have to be removed from the circus.

I should add that neither the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments nor the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has had any adverse comments on the enforceability of the regulations.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

I hope that the Committee will indulge me in asking a question. If the operator disagrees with the suspension of a licence and wants to appeal under Regulation 14, what will that operator do with his or her animals while waiting for the outcome? Clearly, paragraph (4) would allow the court to permit the operator to continue operating a travelling circus, which is a way out, but if the court were not minded to, my worry is that the animals would then be kept illegally. That is what I do not understand.

[Lord De Mauley]

I am sure that I will be able to give the noble Lord an answer to that question in a moment.

The noble Lord mentioned conflict of interest. Inspectors have been vetted for conflict of interest; the process already in use for zoos will be followed. He also raised a specific point about primates, which interested me. May I ask him to accept that today we are dealing with these regulations but I am quite happy to talk to him outside about the broader issue of the welfare of animals?

The noble Lord asked about new species. Any new animals introduced will be protected by the rigorous new standards required by the licensing scheme and will be inspected regularly, along with the species that are currently used. However, we cannot use regulations made under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 to prohibit the introduction of new animals outright. Any attempt to use these licensing regulations to prohibit the use of certain species would be highly vulnerable to legal challenge. Our position is that a ban via primary legislation on ethical grounds is the most secure way of achieving the successful ban we want. We cannot prevent the use of new animals until that primary legislation has been enacted.

The noble Lord asked about the period of time that animals may travel for. There must be a stationary period of at least 12 hours in any 24-hour period when the circus moves between venues or layover sites. During transport, animals should be offered water, feed and the opportunity to rest as appropriate to their species, age, health and physiological state. Licensed animals should not be taken from the transport vehicle during transport, except at pre-planned rest stops as defined in the journey plan or under emergency conditions. Every effort must be made to make a journey as comfortable as possible for the animals being transported, including adhering to all traffic laws.

On the noble Lord’s earlier point about enforcement and his supplementary question, suspension can be delayed in taking effect. If the court refuses to suspend the suspension, a fine can result. Enforcement and prosecution will produce compliance. I am not entirely sure that that satisfies the noble Lord, and I will write to him on that specific point. I hope that I have answered the main points raised by noble Lords. If I have not, I will write to them following the debate.

Specific legislation setting down welfare standards for animals with such complex welfare needs, especially in such a constantly changing environment, is long overdue. Similar species in more static environments have been subject to their own specific licensing legislation for at least 30 years. By contrast, wild animals in circuses have not been the specific subject of any legislation since an Act in the 1920s.

The Government have promised to bring forward primary legislation to ban wild animals from travelling circuses. This ban will be on ethical grounds and will, understandably, I hope, take a little time. It would not be right to rush legislation through Parliament that sought to prohibit an activity that has long been legal and for which it has proved hard to find evidence that an animal’s welfare is irredeemably compromised. However, the Government are satisfied that there is a risk that welfare issues need to be addressed. In the interim, the welfare of these animals is, of course, paramount. The Government believe that these regulations will safeguard the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses while a ban is introduced.

Flooding: Insurance

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 18th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I will certainly pass that suggestion on.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, a week last Saturday the River Wey rose and chose to flow through the ground floor of my house. I now know the scale of difficulty that this is causing thousands of householders around the country. I take this opportunity to thank not only neighbours but staff in the Environment Agency and the insurance industry for their support. These people tell me in conversations that we will be lucky to end the summer with ground water at anything other than normal winter levels. Is it not therefore urgent that before Defra Ministers go on holiday, they must conclude a deal with insurers to incentivise householders to invest in flood resilience for householders’ homes to be insurable and for their premiums to be affordable?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is a lot in that question. I agree with the general thrust of what the noble Lord has said. Like him, I pay tribute to the Environment Agency staff who have worked tirelessly for 24 hours a day through the recent floods, the front-line emergency services, the Flood Forecasting Centre staff and the local authorities, all of whom have been working extremely hard.

Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) Scheme 2012

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 5th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the sustainability of global fish stocks is currently a matter of considerable concern. That sustainability depends in great part upon effective control and reliable data to inform the science. The electronic transmission of both satellite position reports—or VMS, vessel monitoring systems—and fishing activity reports in the form of electronic logbooks, forms an essential element of modern fisheries control. It is used more and more throughout the world to monitor fishing activity. The old paper-based systems of logbooks and landing declarations are both cumbersome and time-consuming for fishermen to complete. The input of the data from these paper records on to computerised databases is also resource-intensive for fisheries administrations.

Under EU law, the requirement to have this electronic equipment has now been extended from fishing vessels over 15 metres to fishing vessels over 12 metres. Extension of the technology to smaller vessels will significantly improve the monitoring in real time of fishing activity, as logbook information will be transmitted back to shore on a daily basis, rather than having to wait for the vessel to complete its trip, as at present. It will also greatly increase the risk of detection of attempts to misrecord catches and so contribute positively towards improving compliance and ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks.

The benefits of this new technology are therefore clear. Essentially, though, electronic logbooks and satellite tracking devices are control tools. Because of that, the Government have contributed towards their capital cost in the past. We think it right to continue to do so, and the new scheme therefore provides funding to smaller fishing vessels as required by Community law. It also allows for the funding of the installation of similar technology on vessels below 12 metres, should a decision for that be taken in future.

The Government are pleased to be able to offer financial assistance to fishermen in the purchase of the necessary VMS hardware and electronic logbook software. Similar assistance is being provided by other fisheries administrations in the UK and other member states. In England, the scheme will be administered by the Marine Management Organisation.

For VMS, we have appointed a single supplier of the equipment. However, for the electronic logbook software we have aimed to ensure best value for money by adopting a type approval process under which any software supplier can submit a product for approval. Six software systems have so far been approved. This will offer fishermen a choice of software to meet their own needs and introduce competition between suppliers.

Grant aid will be made available only for approved software systems. I nevertheless recognise that some fishermen may wish to purchase more sophisticated software that contains functions beyond those necessary to comply with our EU obligations. It is therefore reasonable to place a cap on the level of financial assistance that the taxpayer will provide, so we propose to limit the total amount of funding that will be available to English fishing vessels to £4,500 per vessel. On this basis, the overall cost of the funding scheme is not expected to exceed £770,000 for the 170 or so English vessels over 12 metres, and 90% of this is recoverable from Community funds under the EU aid regime, which provides cofinancing for member states’ expenditure on statutory control measures. The remaining amounts will be found from existing budgets.

We believe that the relatively modest costs of this scheme will deliver real benefits to both fishermen and fisheries administrations, so the scheme will provide real value for money. I beg to move.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

From the outset, my Lords, I make it clear that we do not oppose the draft scheme. Following the extension of Council regulation 1224/2009, it is clear that a funding scheme is needed to provide for payment to obtain the necessary equipment, and that the installation of satellite tracking devices and electronic logbooks on board fishing vessels is a positive step in promoting better working practices across the industry. We hope that the transition to an electronic system will provide a more effective and efficient method of determining what fish are caught and what location the stocks are fished from and, potentially, to address the difficult problem of discards, which many of us find repugnant. Any steps that are taken to improve industry standards to ensure the preservation of fish stocks will be wholeheartedly supported on this side, as are any measures for better working standards across the industry.

I do not wish to detain your Lordships’ House. I shall merely ask a couple of questions that were asked by my honourable friend Gavin Shuker in the other place which the Minister who was on duty, James Paice, did not have an opportunity to respond to, and I will be delighted if the Minister wants to respond in writing. When will the scheme be implemented, and have the Government set in place a timetable for the completion of the works? Has the EU set a deadline on carrying out this widening of the regulations, and will the Government be able to meet it? As I said at the beginning, though, we do not oppose this draft scheme and indeed welcome many of the elements of it. Any clarification of the details would be welcome.

Animal Welfare

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Thursday 14th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am grateful for the work that my noble friend has done in this area. I think that noble Lords around the House share her horror, as do I, at the conditions in which these unfortunate animals travel. As I say, we are pressing the Commission to adopt the EFSA rules. I am not aware specifically of the position on the transport of animals between South America and Italy, and I will look into it.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, the Government’s record on animal welfare is now in tatters, given that they are not listening to science on badgers, are dragging their heels on animals in circuses and have made a shambolic U-turn on shooting buzzards. [Laughter.] We can see how seriously the party opposite takes animal welfare from its reaction to that. Given that more than a million people have signed the petition on the long-distance transport of horses for slaughter organised by Animal Angels and that MEPs now agree that the limit should be eight hours, is it the Government’s policy that the limit should be eight hours or the 12 hours that the Minister talked about?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, most animal welfare NGOs want an automatic eight-hour limit on all journeys for all livestock going to slaughter. The EFSA report did not recommend such an approach, recognising that different species can be transported over different periods of time without unnecessary suffering. Scientific research supports the argument that the quality of transport and the competence of the driver tend to be the major factors in the welfare of animals during transport and not necessarily the length of the journey time.

Employment: Market and Coastal Towns

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 12th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to increase employment in market and coastal towns in England.

[Lord De Mauley]

The Government are committed to increasing employment in all areas of the country, and national policy initiatives to boost growth and jobs apply, of course, to market and coastal towns. The rural economy growth review and the seaside resorts action plan are examples of current initiatives in support of that commitment, which will benefit market and coastal communities.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Our market and coastal towns are the economic and service hub for many of us in rural England. Yet without the economies of scale and transport links of cities, our market towns too often become victims of market failure in employment, retail and housing. The protections in planning are now being weakened in the Localism Bill; and the regional development agencies, and with them the market and coastal towns initiative, are being abolished in the Public Bodies Bill. How will the local enterprise partnerships fill that gap when there is market failure in market towns, given that attracting inward investment is not in their remit? What about the many rural areas not covered by the LEPs?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a number of questions. At this stage, let me say that our national policy initiatives to boost growth and jobs, which, as I have said, apply to market and coastal towns, include local enterprise partnerships, the regional growth fund, budget support for SMEs and measures in the Localism Bill. The important thing is that they can be applied to reflect the local context. Training and skills are also vital, and greater flexibility has been given to colleges and other training providers to offer the training that reflects the needs of the local labour market.

Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011

Debate between Lord Knight of Weymouth and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Grand Committee

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to introduce these draft regulations to your Lordships. Their purpose is to effect the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains to the statutory water and sewerage companies. Under similar arrangements, sewers constructed prior to October 1937 were, under the Public Health Act 1936, automatically adopted as public sewers and are maintained by the water and sewerage companies. However, since then adoption has been undertaken on a voluntary basis. While it was the likely intention of the 1936 Act and subsequent legislation that sewers should be adopted, for various reasons that has not happened on a universal basis. Even where adoption agreements were reached and new sewers constructed to the requisite standards, the adoption process was not always followed through.

The result is a legacy of unadopted private sewers and drains that has accumulated since 1937. Very often, the owners of these assets—typically householders—are unaware of their responsibilities and liabilities. The repair and maintenance of private sewers can be very expensive for individual householders. Where drainage arrangements are shared, it can be difficult to recover costs from those who use the sewers but are unaffected by any problems. Private sewers may run beneath a neighbour’s land or a highway, such that access is both difficult and costly.

While many private sewers function satisfactorily, the disparate ownership of these assets, which are essential to everyday life and important to public health, means that they are not always maintained in an economic and integrated way to a consistent, high standard. Many of us are aware of examples of persistent sewerage problems that require attention. In addition, there is the inequity that private sewer owners pay not only for the maintenance of their sewers but also, through their sewerage charges, for the upkeep of pre-1937 sewers, which are maintained by the water and sewerage companies. The transfer proposed in the regulations will place the owners of post-1937 private sewers on a similar footing to those with pre-1937 sewers. Successive consultations have concluded that an overnight transfer to the water and sewerage companies is the preferred approach.

Not all sewers will be transferred. Those which carry only surface water and do not discharge to a public sewer will not be transferred. The same will apply to sewerage systems that serve a single, centrally managed site or cartilage, as for example might be the case with a shopping mall or industrial estate. Systems that drain to private treatment facilities or to septic tanks and the like are also excluded.

Action is necessary to redress the failures of the 1936 Act. The objective is to ensure better maintenance of what are currently private sewers, resulting in less environmental pollution, the minimising of threats to public health, fewer complaints from householders and businesses about what is perceived to be a costly and unfair burden, and fewer disputes requiring local authority intervention. In the longer term, an integrated approach will achieve a better managed sewerage system that will have lower maintenance costs and will be more resilient and effective. The water and sewerage companies which already have a sewer maintenance capability are well placed to take this on.

The impact assessment estimates that additional costs will add to water bills an average of £5 per annum from 2011, rising to £8 per annum by 2019, with a range from £3 to £14 across the companies. While increases in charges can never be welcome, at up to a little over £1 a month, these relatively modest annual increases are to be preferred to a system in which costs fall unequally across water charge payers or unfairly on individuals. Overall, they represent a sound investment in the future maintenance of essential assets. The transfer exercise does not itself trigger major expenditure on those parts of the system that are currently working satisfactorily; it will be for the water and sewerage companies to assess and prioritise what is essential short-term maintenance, repair or replacement.

The draft regulations provide, at Regulation 3, for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make schemes for the transfer of private sewers and private lateral drains to the statutory water and sewerage undertakers. Sewers are defined as all drains that are shared. Lateral drains are those which serve a single property but lie outside the boundary of that property. Pumping stations which form part of the system will also be transferred. In order to qualify for transfer, private sewers and lateral drains must be connected to the public system on 1 July 2011. The transfer itself will take place on 1 October 2011, with the exception of pumping stations, which may be transferred individually or in groups at any time before 1 October 2016. As I have said, sewers and related equipment that carry surface water only and do not discharge to a public sewer will not be transferred. Sewers constructed after 1 October will be the subject of separate proposals for mandatory adoption arrangements that are not under consideration today, but which should be the subject of consultation shortly.

Regulation 4 makes provision for the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make supplementary schemes for transfer. Private sewers and lateral drains which are connected to a public sewer between 1 July and the commencement of Section 42 of the Floods and Water Management Act 2010, currently planned for 1 October 2011, will neither qualify for transfer on 1 July nor be subject to new-build arrangements for adoption which will be effective upon commencement of Section 42. Unfortunately, it was not possible to synchronise the dates: therefore it is necessary to introduce a supplementary transfer scheme to cater for sewers connected between these dates. Supplementary transfer is planned for 1 April 2012.

Regulation 5 makes provision for certain exemptions, including for railway land which would present operational difficulties for water and sewerage companies, and for Crown land, where the arrangement is for sewers to be transferred unless relevant land is “opted out” of transfer. Regulation 6 makes provision for sewerage undertakers to make a declaration to vest private sewers by publishing notice in the London Gazette and the local press, and by sending individual notices to the owners of private sewers. Regulation 7 provides that where there are existing declarations, the provisions of the regulations shall not apply. Regulations 8 and 9 provide that outstanding appeals will be discontinued and that Section 104 adoption agreements that have been executed will cease. Where a sewer remains to be built or connected, a Section 104 agreement will remain valid. Existing legislation provides for a right of appeal to Ofwat against transfer of assets for both the owners of private sewers and third parties through whose land a drain may pass or who may be disadvantaged by the transfer.

Finally, the regulations are relatively short-lived in that they are subject to a sunset clause effective in 2016. They provide for a once-and-for-all transfer of private sewers, lateral drains and associated private pumping stations. Once the transfer is complete, by 2016 for pumping stations, the regulations will serve no further purpose and will be repealed automatically. I hope that noble Lords will accept them.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for the opening of the Minister’s speech. I had not been made aware that today’s running order had changed, and I worked off the business papers rather than today’s list. It is just one of those things.

I should say at the outset that we very much welcome the regulations. They reflect the work that we did in government. If you are one of those people who live on an estate with private sewers and you are impatient for them to be adopted by the sewerage undertaker, you might be asking why it has taken so long. We had a consultation in 2003, another one in 2007, a third one in August last year, and now finally we have the legislation needed for this to take effect from October this year.

Certainly some of my former constituents in Shepherd’s Croft in Portland will be delighted. They live in former prison officers’ accommodation where the Crown used to be the owner of the estate and the housing. They are responsible for the sewerage, which was never brought up to the standard at which the water company was willing to take it on. There remained a whole series of problems about who would pay, the Crown or the residents, when sewage was bubbling up in people’s gardens. I do not think any of us wants to see that. It will be a relief to them and to many others around the country that a way forward has now been found. That very much informs my fulsome support for what is being done here.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I have read the accompanying papers, which are very helpful and complete. Indeed, the completeness is probably the reason why I might not have grasped some of the detail. Once I got on to the latter pages, the details might have passed me by, and I can only apologise if my questions are answered in the detail. It appears that over the long term there are good net benefits to be had from making this change. My reading was that after 32 years the net benefit would start to accrue. Obviously that is welcome, but it is important to ask about the short-term costs being borne by the sewerage undertakers. If my reading of the notes is right, the costs are around £1 billion which then has to be absorbed by customers because ultimately the sewerage undertakers, the water companies, will seek to recoup those costs from their customers. The analysis shows that the cost to individual customers of recouping them would be between £3 and £14 per annum.

I am interested in finding out more about how that might break down. I know that this is difficult to anticipate, but I am sure that the department will be in communication with Ofwat about how this is going to be regulated to ensure that customers are treated fairly. For example, it will be interesting to know the difference between business customers and domestic customers. In the announcements that have been made about South West Water customers, and how their situation might be improved given the high water bills paid by domestic users in that region, there is a proposal that business customers should pay more so that domestic customers pay less. That raises a legitimate question not only for the water companies, the sewerage undertakers, but also for businesses across the country about whether they will be the ones asked to pay the bulk of the costs of dealing with the legacy of private sewerage and drainage systems. Alternatively, will they be applied evenly across domestic customers as well?

There is a also question about whether the geographic distribution of these costs will be evenly spread or whether, because of regional variation—in the case of the south-west, the large extent of the coast and the cost of sewerage treatment in that area is high—each undertaker will have effectively to wash their face. Questions will be raised with regard to South West Water in particular, which I know has been very active given the Walker report and other things. Will South West Water’s customers end up losing the benefit of the announcement made by the Chancellor in the Budget if they have to pay extra costs because of the particular liabilities in that region?

My only other question concerns the exemption in Clause 5 of the statutory instrument for private sewers and exempt private lateral drains on Crown land. This goes back to my experience as a constituency MP in Dorset, where prison officers’ houses were built on Crown Estate land and subsequently have been sold on. Where the lease to such properties has been passed on but the freehold remains in Crown ownership, will homes in those circumstances be exempt from this transfer because they are on Crown land or will the transfer go ahead, allowing them to benefit from the sewers being maintained and the possibility of the roads then being adopted as well? I know that this is a big issue for some residents. Having made those comments, I am happy to support the regulations.