Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. This statutory instrument brings over legislation from the nature directives, which have been the bedrock of nature protection in Europe and the UK for many years. We know that species resident on sites protected by the habitats directive are recovering more strongly than species on sites that are not covered by it. The nature directives are the bedrock of protection and are important for species such as the bittern, which has recovered far more strongly by virtue of the habitats directive.

I shall give credit where credit is due. As the Minister rightly said, this statutory instrument was removed and relaid after concerns were raised by the RSPB and other environmental stakeholders. That is a model of how such matters should be treated. I commend the department on that, and I will not be opposing this statutory instrument.

I shall touch on a particular issue the Minister raised. He did not quite address it to my satisfaction, so I shall press him a little further. It is about reporting under these regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the reporting requirements will be carried across, and I pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which teased out a bit more from the department on that matter to make sure that there was greater clarity about the format of those reports. The formats for reporting are very clear under the directives, but they are not clear in the statutory instrument or the Explanatory Memorandum. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee got the department to put on record that the formats for reporting will be agreed with statutory agencies and the devolved Administrations. That is to be welcomed. However, there is no clarity on the provision for reviewing those reports and highlighting any failures for action. The Government say that they will meet their international obligations, which is welcome, but there is no guarantee that that reporting will be timely or at a pace that will allow failures to be rectified speedily. At the moment, the EU has the power to enforce action for failures. Is there any sufficient capacity to enforce, including by fines for breaches of the regulations?

When he sums up, will the Minister say a bit more about how the Government see these vital reporting requirements being reviewed and how we can be sure that transgressions against them are speedily rectified? I am sure the Minister will talk about the office for environmental protection, which we hope will be forthcoming in due course, but it will not be truly independent since the Government will appoint its board and will be responsible for its budget. Discussion so far suggests that there will be insufficient enforcement mechanisms. For example, there is no power to call the Government to hearings or, as a last resort, to levy fines. We do not have the office for environmental protection yet, so what will happen to reporting in the meantime? If the Minister could offer us some reassurances on how reporting will be reviewed and how we will rectify any failures, I would appreciate it.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

I welcome and appreciate the Minister’s introduction. Overall, what he said is reassuring. In addition to the point that has already been made, I want to pick up on scientific input, which was mentioned in the Minister’s introduction. Will he clarify in a little more detail the point that changes will be allowed only due to “technical and scientific progress”? The statutory instrument does not specify where the expert input will come from and whether it will involve the statutory nature conservation advisers. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the nature of the scientific input, how it will be taken into account, the degree of transparency in the publication of any scientific advice and how it will work across the four nations of the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition on these three statutory instruments. I shall start with the first two on the conservation of habitats and species. I have spent almost 30 years of my life campaigning for the nature directives—for their introduction, refinement and implementation, and, on occasion, in their defence. They have been hugely instrumental in protecting internationally important species and habitats, so I say to the Minister: tread gently because you tread on my dreams.

I am delighted that the Government accepted many of the concerns of the NGOs and others, and withdrew and then relaid the first statutory instrument. I commend the excellent work of Greener UK and its constituent NGOs in that respect. The SIs are certainly in better shape now, but there remain a number of points on which I seek ministerial assurance.

We welcome the new provision for statutory guidance to be produced in consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body. This guidance will be required urgently to ensure clarity across all sectors on the meaning of all these changes. I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that consultation on the statutory guidance will begin right away and not take more than a few months to conclude.

We welcome the new regulation introducing management objectives for special protection areas and special areas of conservation, and for their joint network, but I must admit that I am rather perturbed at the wording of the first SAC objective, which talks about achieving,

“a favourable conservation status … (so far as it lies in the United Kingdom’s territory, and so far as is proportionate)”.

This proportionality is about the management of sites, not their designation, and seems to introduce a new restriction that is not in the habitats directive—which, of course, I read nightly before I go to bed. The Minister kindly organised a briefing session with his civil servants, where it emerged that this was about prioritisation, and we explored on what basis that prioritisation process would take place. Surely if a site has been designated as being of international importance, the objective of achieving favourable conservation status ought to be axiomatic; we do not designate sites in order to watch them get worse. We may have only a small proportion of a particular European habitat and species, but we should still have a responsibility to get it into favourable conservation status. Equally, if we are the principal guardian of a habitat such as blanket bog or a species such as the great crested newt, we have a particular responsibility on behalf of the European biosphere to do a good job in looking after them. Do the Government think we have too many newts and blanket bog sites? I may be misjudging the Government, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what is intended by the concept that management effort should be “proportionate”.

I turn to reporting, which has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We welcome the change to the instrument, which brings in a requirement for reporting on progress, and on exceptions and derogations, but, as the noble Baroness said, the regulations do not make provision for anyone to review these reports or highlight any lack of progress, as is currently undertaken by the European Commission. As it stands, the statutory instrument is a diminution in protection for these vital species, sites and habitats. Although the reports will be forwarded to the Berne convention, the convention has not exactly been alacritous in following up failings and enabling action to be taken.

I ask the Minister to ensure that provisions be made for an independent review to be included, with the stress on the word “independent”. This would preferably have been in the legislation but we are now beyond that point, so can the Minister assure the Committee that a suitable independent body such as the OEP will be given this reviewing role? Although the progress in setting up the OEP is slightly glacial, the first report under these provisions is not due for two years, so I hope it would be set up in time to pick up the reviewing function.

The regulations introduce a new power for the relevant authorities to make changes to the birds and habitats directives’ annexes and the habitat regulations’ schedules, which will include prohibited methods of capturing and killing mammals and fish. Changes would be allowed on the basis only of technical and scientific progress. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that expert input, and a duty to consult relevant statutory nature conservation advisers and take account of their advice, is needed in connection with this change, particularly since the changes would be achieved through negative procedure SIs, with their inflexibility to challenge once laid. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether the guidance that will be issued for this SI will confirm the process by which the Government will seek expert input, including from the statutory advisers, and whether this process will be agreed with the devolved Administrations.

On the amendment to Regulation 36, to move the paragraphs on prohibited means of killing mammals and fish into a schedule that would then be amendable by Ministers, could the Minister confirm, firmly and unequivocally, that these powers will not be used to roll back animal welfare standards? I am not sure the Government understand what a hornets’ nest they are inviting in making it easier to challenge what has been quite a difficult process of changing this particular set of provisions about killing.

A highly important issue, which some may see as a bit of a sideshow, is the name of the network of sites designated under the nature directives—currently Natura 2000. I declare an interest, because about 25% of the sites in that network were designated under my chairmanship of English Nature, a piece of work of which I am immensely proud. We are talking about my children and I love them all.

The statutory instrument proposes that this network be called the national site network. This has problems on three counts. The first is practical: sites of special scientific interest are also known as national sites, since they are important for national and not European criteria. Also, planners across the country risk getting mightily confused, as there is already reference to national sites in the National Planning Policy Framework. These are different sites with different criteria.

The second issue is that several of the Natura 2000 sites in Northern Ireland span the border with the south. I have happy memories of driving along the border in the dark during the Troubles, in an RSPB Land Rover, which I hoped was clearly marked, trying to track down the last crekking corncrake in Northern Ireland. If we crash out on 29 March and have a hard border in Northern Ireland, presumably wildlife will have to wait at the border, in common with everyone else, but we certainly should not call these border sites national sites because they are clearly transnational. Also, “national” has a distinctly different meaning in Northern Ireland.

The third and most important reason for not calling the network of sites the national site network is that the one thing that distinguishes the sites designated under the nature directives is that they are not national in importance, but designated for the very reason that they are international in importance. Therefore, could I persuade the Minister to confirm that no matter what this statutory instrument calls the network, the Government will swiftly announce that for the purposes of clarity it will forthwith be known as the international site network? This network would include the Ramsar sites to complete the set, and would be clearly distinguishable from the SSSIs and the marine conservation zones.

On the impact of the statutory instruments on provisions in Northern Ireland, the office for environmental protection will not operate in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is also the only country in the UK that does not have an independent nature conservation advisory body, so who will take an independent role in overseeing the implementation of these statutory instruments in Northern Ireland? For example, when I spoke on the need for reports to be reviewed by an independent body or for independent conservation advice to be taken, it was not clear who could take this role in Northern Ireland. We are sweeping away the powers that the European Union had in ensuring protections were enforced, but we are not proposing anything to replace that vital function in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, what do the Government propose?

I see from the scrutiny of these statutory instruments in the other place that the Minister indicated that DAERA civil servants had asked that the possibility of the OEP covering Northern Ireland should be kept in play until Northern Ireland Ministers returned and could decide. Can the Minister cast more light on this? I hope he will confirm that these are issues that need to be tackled and tell us what discussions have been held on this with Northern Ireland civil servants. I hope the Minister will also agree that continued environmental co-operation on the island of Ireland will be vital post Brexit, since it is, after all, a single biogeographic unit.

River Ecosystems

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this goes back to the products produced and the importance, with research and technology, of alternatives. It is why our ban on microbeads is tremendously important. We need to do more, both in our own products but more generally with what we put on the land. That is where alternatives and precision farming will be very important.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us his department’s assessment of the impact of future climate change on our rivers and freshwaters and what steps are being taken to deal with the threat of climate change on water quality and quantity?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord raises something hugely important: we have not only to adapt but to mitigate. That is why the environmental land management schemes, involving what we hope will be 70% of the land farmed in this country, will be precisely about how we mitigate and adapt and how we ensure that we improve water quality through things such as planting trees and better environmental management generally.

Farming: Carbon Emissions

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about another key strand of work, which is reducing the extraordinarily high amount of food waste produced by many households. That is happening with retailers through WRAP and the Courtauld commitment, but we need to change how we conduct ourselves and reduce food waste, because it is highly inefficient unnecessarily to produce food.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the climate change committee’s 2018 progress report to Parliament, in which it states that not enough progress has been made in reducing emission from agriculture and land use in comparison with other sectors of the economy. It particularly highlights the failure of voluntary measures to achieve reductions. Does he therefore agree that in future, if we are to move towards net zero in agriculture, there will have to be more mandatory legislation to encourage farmers to comply?

Environment Plan

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Thursday 29th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Baroness indicates the work that is going on with 100 experts from Defra and arm’s-length bodies on the framework, including the Natural Capital Committee, so that we have indicators from the plan that ensure both transparency and accountability. This will come forward as draft legislation, and I cannot pre-empt that, but there will obviously be pre-legislative scrutiny, and I very much hope that noble Lords will engage in that. That is precisely what we should be doing, because we want to advance the environment—the whole basis of the 25-year environment plan—and put it on a statutory basis.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I understand, and hear very often, that this Government have a commitment to protect the environment and, indeed, to leave it in a better state than they found it. Can the Minister explain how he reconciles this ambition with the fact that the budget for the body charged with protecting habitats and species in England, Natural England, has been slashed by 45% during the last five years? According to its chairman, Andrew Sells, Natural England is now gagged by Defra so that it cannot make independent statements to the press. In case this is seen as part of overall austerity, I remind noble Lords that Defra has increased its own headcount by 1,300 staff.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the 25-year environment plan will involve: environmental land management; an environmental net gain principle; a resources and waste strategy coming forward; a clean air strategy coming forward; a review of national parks already in place; and we are reducing plastic waste. These are just some examples of the Government’s intent, the strongest possible intent, that we shall be the first generation to enhance the environment. As for Natural England, it does a very good job. All public bodies have had to ensure that we find enough money for essential services during a very difficult time after 2008, and that has borne fruit. That is how the vulnerable, at a very difficult time, were cared for.

Environment: 25-year Plan

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the advisory board of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, I work for the Wellcome Trust on its programme on environment and health, and I am a former member of the Committee on Climate Change. I welcome this long-awaited 25-year plan. It has not been quite 25 years in the making but it has been quite a long time. I congratulate the Government on their breadth of ambition and their long-term view.

As the plan records, some aspects of our environment, such as our beaches and some of our water bodies, have improved in recent decades. As has already been said, this is in large part a result of EU legislation. Nevertheless, there is a lot to be done. Only one-fifth of English water bodies are in good condition and only one-third of our sites of special scientific interest are in favourable ecological condition, and this proportion is declining. Only 4% of upland peat is in favourable ecological condition.

In relation to biodiversity, the plan reports some success stories on page 21. Indeed, there are some success stories, in part due to the excellent work of organisations such as the RSPB, the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust, and the Wildlife Trusts. But these are still the exception rather than the rule. The RSPB’s State of Nature 2016 report states that 56% of the 8,000 species recorded have declined in the past few decades and more than one in 10 is in danger of extinction. Although many of the steepest declines occurred in the late 20th century, the trends have, with rather few exceptions, not stopped or been reversed. Shockingly, the report concludes that the UK ranks 189th of countries in the world for the preservation of its biodiversity. This is in spite of the fact that previous Governments have had targets for reducing or reversing wildlife declines.

So will it be different this time? At the moment we cannot tell, but if noble Lords look at the 25-year plan they will see that the actions to tackle biodiversity and habitat loss include “learn lessons”, “consider”, “investigate” and “evaluate”, none of which sounds too promising. But, as has already been mentioned, the plan also states that there will be a set of metrics by which progress in all areas can be measured. Can the Minister confirm that these metrics will be outcome-focused and quantifiable, with timescales and clearly identified owners?

Equally important is the question of who will establish and report on the metrics. The plan says:

“We will develop a set of metrics … We will report on progress annually”.


It is really important to understand who “we” is. I hope it is not the Government measuring and reporting on their own progress. As other noble Lords have already said, it would be far better to have a fully independent statutory body, analogous to the Committee on Climate Change, reporting to Parliament on progress in implementing the plan. Does the Minister agree that the public, Parliament and environmental groups would have more confidence in the implementation of the plan if there were an independent body, set up under a new environment Act, charged with reporting to Parliament on progress?

Although the plan is published by Defra, it will require commitment from across government and many other bodies to implement it. I shall take two examples from across government. Page 35 states that all newbuilds will be climate resilient and energy efficient yet, in the Housing and Planning Act 2016, the Government refused to incorporate measures such as zero-carbon homes and sustainable urban drainage systems that would help to guarantee that. Will the Minister reassure us that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is now fully committed to those requirements?

My other example relates to chapter 3, which correctly identifies the link between environmental and human health, but in only a very limited way. Is the Department of Health and Social Care fully signed up to the plan? I offer the advice of the Wellcome Trust, which has a major research programme on environment and health, if the Minister and his officials would like to take it up.

Finally, I turn to scientific evidence. Plans to enhance the environment should be based on the best available science. A recent review by the University of Cambridge showed that many of the current agri-environment schemes have little evidence to show that they work, and that other measures would be more effective in protecting and enhancing biodiversity. The same report concludes that the approximately £1 million spent in the UK on bat gantries, meant to protect bats from flying into traffic, has been a waste of money because they do not work. In this crowded and heavily exploited island, combining the protection of nature with maintaining livelihoods is a delicate balancing act, and good science is needed to ensure that we achieve the right balance. Research by the Natural Environment Research Council on shell-fisheries and shore-birds has shown how the interests of the shell-fish industry and of conservation can be satisfied if there is proper research to underpin decision-making. Can the Minister assure us that the implementation of the plan will be based on scientific evidence and that Government are prepared to invest in the necessary research to ensure that all actions, whoever carries them out, bring real benefits to our environment?

Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 17th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the chairman of the Select Committee of which I am a member for the skilful way in which he chaired our meetings and drew these two reports to powerful and important conclusions.

In my short speech, I want to talk about two questions which lie at the heart of what we have been debating this evening. First: what is the Government’s plan for feeding the nation with affordable, safe and nutritious food after Brexit? We have not had a food policy for decades, but in the light of what we have heard this evening, it seems that there is a case for the Government having a plan. Secondly—a point that we have heard a lot about—what kind of future land use policy and farming industry do the Government want?

First, a few comments about feeding the nation, and particularly about the price of food. We heard conflicting views about this, and it would be nice to have some clarification from the Minister of the Government’s view. The major food retailers and the British Retail Consortium estimate that a no deal Brexit could add about 10% to food prices, and today’s report from the Resolution Foundation echoes that conclusion. Even with a deal, if it was a hard Brexit outside the single market, there could be significant tariff and non-tariff barriers, which would add substantially to the price of food.

To the poorest people in our country, this could be the difference between being able or unable to feed their families. The lowest decile income group already spends more than 17% of its weekly income on food and non-alcoholic beverages, according to the Office for National Statistics, and research at Oxford University for the Trussell Trust has revealed that three quarters of the 1.1 million users of food banks go hungry several times a year. Undernourishment is not just a third world problem; shockingly, it is right here in the UK, one of the richest countries in the world. Therefore, have the Government estimated the impact of Brexit on food prices in a no deal or an outside-the-single-market case and, if so, what is the answer? What, in particular, is the Government’s estimate of the impact of any price changes on the poorest people in this country?

I will not say anything about food standards and safety, other than to ask the Minister what plans there are for replacing the role of EFSA after Brexit? What about the future of farming and land use? As your Lordships have already heard, the Secretary of State for Transport offered the view on Sunday that, in response to a no deal outcome or an outcome in which there are significant tariffs, farmers in the UK would step in to fill the gap by growing more food, a comment that the chair of British Summer Fruits described as, “Tripe that beggars belief”. It is an interesting idea, but I would welcome some clarification from the Minister on his department’s analysis of how any increase in production of food would be achieved. Would it involve more intensification of farming or turning over more land to farming, bearing in mind, as we have already heard, that more than 70% of the land surface in this country is already farmed, and much of the remaining land surface is populated by towns, cities and villages? Can an increase in production by UK farmers be reconciled with protection and enhancement of habitats and endangered species that will enable the Government to fulfil their promise of leaving the environment in a better state than they found it, bearing in mind that the more primary production and the more of the sun’s energy that we take for our own consumption the less there is for the rest of nature? We cannot have it both ways. Perhaps the Minister can also add which particular kinds of food would the farmers in this country grow more of if they were to increase their production?

We heard a lot about the role of non-tariff barriers in relation to animal welfare and I do not propose to repeat that, other than to say that our farmers are in favour of maintaining high standards but, given the upward pressure on food prices that could result from Brexit, there may be a downward pressure for us to import cheaper products from overseas.

As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said in his introductory remarks, and as others including the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, have said, we are in some ways faced with a fork in the road for the future of agriculture and land use. One future is characterised by free trade, low tariff and non-tariff barriers and cheap food, with a race to the bottom on welfare and other standards. In that future, many farmers would be unable to compete and there would be a real opportunity to reclaim the countryside for wildlife and conservation. So, perhaps that is the Government’s plan.

The other future is one in which tariff and non-tariff barriers are maintained to protect standards for consumers as well as to protect our farmers. This, as we have heard from many noble Lords, is likely to be associated with more expensive food. There may, of course, be a third, middle way which I have not thought of, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to share with us his department’s current thinking on these matters.

Brexit: Environment and Climate Change

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee. I am a member of the EU sub-committee whose report we are debating today. I pay tribute to our specialist adviser and our committee clerk. As my noble friend Lord Trees once commented, the committee clerk, in effect, writes a PhD thesis every week. She has an extraordinary facility.

As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already hinted, I will say a few words about climate change and in doing so I declare an interest in that for eight years I was a member of the Climate Change Committee and chaired the Adaptation Sub-Committee. I stepped down from those roles at the end of January this year.

Noble Lords will be familiar with the Climate Change Act 2008 which passed through this House with all-party support. It commits us as a nation to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. As noble Lords will know, the role of the Climate Change Committee is to advise the Government on the cost-effective path to 2050 through a series of five-yearly carbon budgets and to report to Parliament annually on the progress that the Government have made towards those budgets. The first five carbon budgets have been legislated for, taking us up to the early 2030s.

In its 2016 annual report, the Climate Change Committee stated that so far the Government are on track to meet their legally binding commitments. Emissions in 2015 were 38% below 1990 levels. This appears to be a good news story, and in some ways it is, but the good news has been achieved by a mixture of genuine progress through, for example, investment in offshore wind. The UK now has 40% of the world’s offshore wind capacity, making us the global leader. It is also partly through plucking the low-hanging fruit and in part as the result of the by-products of changes in the country that are not to do with climate change policy, such as the decrease in livestock farming and the offshoring of some heavy industries.

However, when we look to the future, the picture is not quite as rosy. In order to continue to meet the legislated carbon budgets into the 2020s and beyond, significant new policies will be required. According to the Climate Change Committee, by the mid-2020s, about half of the required emissions reductions do not yet have any policies in place to achieve them. Furthermore—this brings me to Brexit—many of the existing and future policies are dependent on European legislation. The Climate Change Committee estimates that more than half of the policy space through the 2020s is dependent on EU legislation. I shall outline some of the key areas: energy-efficient product standards for household appliances, buildings and so on; vehicle fuel efficiency standards; controls on waste and F-gases; policy on biofuels; investment in R&D to develop the technologies to transition us to a low-carbon economy; the EU Emissions Trading System, which allows us to meet some of our emissions reduction targets by buying allowances, and the EU electricity market, which enables us to purchase electricity at the best price on any particular day.

Brexit will pose substantial challenges for this country in meeting its legally binding climate targets through the 2020s and beyond. I hope that in his response, the Minister will give us some indication of how the Government intend to meet this challenge. One answer might be that the great repeal Bill will ensure that all the relevant EU legislation is translated into UK law, but as we have heard, the Secretary of State for Defra has indicated that around a third of the legislation which relates to the environment cannot be translated in a straightforward manner. We also heard evidence from an expert in environmental law, Professor Richard Macrory—about whom we have heard quite a bit in the debate and with whom I play tennis in Oxford; I declare another interest—who noted that the words “as far as practicable” have been used by the Secretary of State and could be an escape clause. I look forward to the Minister reassuring us on these points.

More generally, can the Minister tell us how far his department—along with others because climate change policy cuts across departments—has got in deciding how the Government will meet their legally binding targets post Brexit? Will we retain the same environmental standards for products? Will we remain in the EU ETS? Will we replace lost EU funding for R&D? Will we continue to retain strict controls on waste? One can imagine pressure from some industry players to lower standards, so it would be useful to hear that the Government are committed to adhering to their own climate targets and that they will be completely clear about standards so that there is a level playing field both within the UK and between the UK and the European Union.

I turn finally to the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action. We were the first country in the world to pass a law requiring us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, we have been seen as a leader both in Europe and globally. A number of witnesses told us that our influencing role as a global leader could be weakened after Brexit because we will no longer be part of the EU negotiating bloc for international treaties. The Minister, Dr Jesse Norman, told us that he intended the UK to remain a global leader, but that it was premature to speculate how this might be achieved. I wonder whether it is still too premature or whether the Minister might tell us how government thinking has developed in the intervening months.

At the previous President of the United States said:

“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”.


We should be proud of the fact that the UK has been a leader in formulating policies to do something about it. Brexit will pose new challenges for us. I seek reassurance that the Government are ready and willing to meet these challenges.

Brexit: Fisheries (EUC Report)

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee, and our committee clerk and policy analyst for their outstanding drafting skills and ability to synthesise the evidence that we heard. I will spend a few minutes talking about international trade, which, as the noble Lord mentioned in his introduction, was one of the themes of this inquiry, along with access to territorial waters and allocation of quotas.

First, however, I want to set the scene by talking about what we actually do with fish: namely, eat it. A large proportion of fish that is caught is for human consumption. Given my past as the former chairman of the Food Standards Agency, I cannot resist talking for a few moments about diet and health and fish. I am tempted to pose a quiz question to noble Lords, which I posed to my wife and daughter over the weekend: how many fish and chip meals are eaten per annum in this country from fish and chip takeaway shops? My wife and daughter both guessed around 5 million to 10 million. The answer is 380 million meals a year, according to the Sea Fish Industry Authority, from the 10,500 fish and chip shops in the UK.

In spite of that apparently large figure, it is nevertheless true that most people in this country do not eat the recommended amount of fish, which is two portions of fish a week, one of which should be oily. I said that many times when I was chairman of the Food Standards Agency; it just rolls of the tongue without having to use the brain at all. In fact, three-quarters of adults in this country do not even know what the guidelines are. Although there are a large number of fish and chip meals eaten, and 97% of households buy some kind of seafood, only a quarter of the population eats the recommended amount. The average intake is only one portion per week, 140 grams. Among younger consumers —18 to 24 year-olds—a third of them are not even aware of what an oily fish is. As a nation, therefore, we should be doubling our fish consumption, although this is not the current trend. There was a steady increase in per capita consumption from the mid-1970s up until 2008, but for some reason the financial crash coincided with a crash in fish consumption, which has gone down by 14% since 2008.

I am leading up to international trade; noble Lords should not worry. Suppose we were all to eat more fish, where would the fish come from? There is a problem, which we have heard about eloquently from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and from the noble Viscounts, Lord Hanworth and Lord Ridley, of sustainability. The figures I will quote are slightly different from those of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, but not seriously. Daniel Pauly, the fisheries biologist, estimates that about a third of the world’s fish stocks are seriously overexploited, a third are close to overexploitation, and a third are still being exploited at sustainable levels. As we have already heard from other noble Lords, an important part of European fisheries policy over recent decades—not necessarily totally successfully—has been to try to reduce over- exploitation. After Brexit, it is really an imperative, as others have already said, that we in this country manage our fish stocks sustainably. If consumption were to increase, where would the extra fish come from?

That brings me to the question of trade. Let me give a few facts. Some 70% of the seafood that we eat is imported, with cod, salmon, tuna and prawns or shrimps occupying the top slots in the league table by value. The top four countries from which we import are Iceland, China, Germany and Canada, with 32% of our imports coming from the European Union. At the same time, we export about three quarters of the fish caught by UK fishers or grown in fish farms, with salmon, langoustine—Dublin Bay prawns or scampi, depending on what you prefer to call them—scallops and mackerel topping the value league. France, the USA, Spain and Ireland are the top destination countries. Two-thirds of our exports go to the European Union. In short, international trade is vital to the UK fishing industry, both for fishers who catch and fishers who farm fish.

The fish processing industry is, in terms of turnover, an order of magnitude larger than the fish catching and farming industries and relies heavily on imports from third countries, such as Norway, Iceland, the USA, Russia and Canada. The UK is able to access key species of fish from third countries at low or even zero tariffs because the EU has negotiated so-called autonomous tariff quotas with third countries. The UK Seafood Industry Alliance told us:

“A future relationship with the EU must maintain existing market access and our ability to import zero or reduced tariff supplies from both EU and non-EU countries”.


Does the Minister agree with this statement and can he reassure us that, in the Brexit negotiations, meeting this requirement will be a priority of the Government in order to sustain the fishing industry in this country?

Defra told us that, if the UK fails to negotiate a special trade deal with the EU, it would trade under WTO rules. For the top five fish products that we export to the EU, the tariffs would range from 2% to 20%. At the same time, EU countries would face tariffs in exporting to the UK. Will the Minister tell us what assessment his department has made of the likely impact of such tariffs both on the viability of the fishing industry and on per capita consumption, because presumably the price of fish would go up?

It was particularly instructive for me to hear the evidence from Norway and Iceland, which are both members of the European Economic Area and therefore in the single market for most purposes. Even under that relationship with the EU, these countries face substantial tariff barriers, ranging from 2% to 25% on some species. These tariff barriers were seen as a serious obstacle to trade, as were the export quotas. Perhaps it is an irony that the Norwegian witness, Mr Vidar Landmark, told us that Norway had not managed to negotiate tariff-free access for salmon to the EU. He said:

“We have not managed to do that largely due to the Scottish producers”.


Those producers have argued strongly against Norway having access. I imagine that Norway will be delighted to be able to compete with Scotland on a level playing field after Brexit, if the UK does not manage to negotiate a special trade deal.

Fishing industry witnesses were divided on whether the loss of preferential access to EU markets would be bad overall for the UK. Fishing for Leave told us that fish destined for the EU would be channelled into the domestic market or into exports to third countries. On the other hand, the Seafood Industry Alliance said that UK consumers were resistant to changing their eating habits to match the fish caught by the UK fleet. We also heard that negotiating trade deals with third countries after Brexit will be a long and complicated process.

From the evidence we heard, it would seem that international trade, both with the EU and with third countries, will be essential for the future health of the UK seafood industry. In a helpful evidence session, the Fisheries Minister, George Eustice, told us that his officials are analysing the most appropriate options for the UK post Brexit. Can the Minister give us an update on current thinking within his department? Does the department’s position align with that of Fishing for Leave, which thinks that there is a great opportunity, or that of the Seafood Industry Alliance, which thinks that there will be real challenges?

Finally, I come to the question of trade-offs in negotiations. A number of our witnesses told us that the Brexit negotiations may require balancing the benefits of trading access against quota shares and access by other countries to our waters, which really underlines what we heard from other noble Lords: the complexity of the Brexit negotiations. I look forward to the Minister’s responses.

Food Waste

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the Courtauld Commitment 2025 is a very positive step. In the UK each year, there are 10 million tonnes of food and drink waste, around 70% of which is from households, and 1.9 million tonnes of food waste from households goes to landfill, compared with 2,000 tonnes from manufacturing. We need to work with WRAP and with industry and consumers to remedy this unacceptable situation. WRAP’s Love Food, Hate Waste campaign is directed towards consumers and is a key priority.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, my wife is a trustee of the Oxford food bank, which collects fresh food from wholesalers and retailers 365 days a year to distribute to local charities. Is the Minister aware that many of the supermarkets in Oxford are reluctant to provide food to the Oxford food bank? Instead they send it to landfill as waste, simply because it is too much trouble to hand it over to the army of volunteers who would like to come and collect it. Is there anything that the Government could do to encourage supermarkets to help organisations such as the Oxford food bank?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the first thing I would say is that I very much appreciate the valuable work that FareShare, Company Shop and the Oxford food bank are doing. It is absolutely essential that good surplus food does not go to waste but is directed in the waste hierarchy first for human consumption and then, if it is not fit for that, for animal consumption. The waste hierarchy is very important. I will take up the Oxford issue, because 95% of all supermarkets are engaged in the Courtauld Commitment, and part of that is precisely directed to the redistribution of food.

Water Bill

Lord Krebs Excerpts

Tuesday 8th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I return again to the issue of the use of any surplus reserves for Flood Re. I will not repeat the arguments we advanced in Committee and on Report. I feel that the House is clear that our aim is to ensure that any significant surplus funds can be used by Flood Re to encourage householders to adapt to the impacts of climate change and flooding, and so manage down risk.

I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lords Krebs, and me last week to discuss the matter again. We accept that decisions cannot be made now—pinning down in legislation what level of reserves should be built up and what should happen to them. However, we need clarity about the decision-making process that will condition what happens to surplus funds. Will the Minister confirm that Flood Re will have to draw up a strategy to manage surplus funds and that it will be published? Equally, we seek confirmation that the approach of “invest to save” is not ruled out if significant surpluses are built up. By this I mean spending on property-level protection where the economics of that approach show that it delivers the best value for money in managing down risk. Given that it has been shown that such an approach delivers a benefit of at least £5 for each £1 invested, it is too important an approach to discount. It could make a decisive difference to individual householders and their protection. It will also benefit the insurance industry by reducing the level of overall claims. It is, therefore, in the interests of a smooth transition at the end of the process of Flood Re. To that end, I beg to move.

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and me to discuss this amendment. I do not wish to say anything at length but I shall make a couple of simple points. If we accept that Flood Re, according to the Government’s own figures, will build up a reserve, we can ask what this surplus might be used for. It could be used for future discounting of policy charges; it could be saved up for—excuse the pun—a rainy day when the call on insurance may be greater than anticipated; or, as our amendment suggests, it could be used to manage down future risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, this is in effect a proposal that Flood Re should invest to save, to reduce both its own future costs by encouraging household-level protection measures and to help those householders to exit at the end of the period of operation of Flood Re.

According to the work of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, about 190,000 properties could benefit from property-level protection. It would seem reasonable that some of the money that accrues as a surplus in Flood Re should, given the returns on investment to which the noble Baroness has already alluded, be used to help some or, I hope, eventually, all of these 190,000 properties to become more resilient.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB)]

My Lords, I have some concerns about the amendment. If I can describe the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, as friends, I hesitate to object to their amendment, but I have concerns. I declare an interest in that I was, until two years ago, a chair of an insurance company.

My concerns are around the following issues. First, as a policyholder contributing to the funds that will be accumulated to create Flood Re, I am concerned that some of my contributions will be used to create resilience measures—which are, I assume, measures to reduce the risk of flooding—for a select group of properties. That is not why we will contribute the funds.