Queen’s Speech

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, much of which I agree with. However, I will focus more on climate change. In this context I very much welcome the advent of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to this House and approve of her speech, which accords with much of what I have to say.

The gracious Speech included precisely six words on climate change. The Minister had a few more this morning, but not many. Yet this is the biggest challenge facing us and, as the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has reminded us, we will not be on course for the next two periods of carbon budget. We have a lot to do. There are potentially things in this legislative programme that will help, but by no means enough.

We must remember that we have set a target for 2050, and there is some argument over whether that should be brought forward. Even if that is the target, it is how we approach it that is important—it is no use doing it in a straight line or backloading it. We need to take some drastic early steps if we are to reduce the concentration in our atmosphere of those dangerous gases.

The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister this morning announced that he was going to set up a new climate change committee. I think he—or Downing Street, given that he is rather busy elsewhere just now—may rather belatedly have found out that there was a bit of a reaction to the lack of reference to climate change in the legislative programme in the Queen’s Speech. Incidentally, I have argued elsewhere that this House should establish a new climate change committee, which would help hold the Government to account in this light.

The legislation on this is inadequate. There is, as has been pointed out, no transport Bill. Transport is a major emitter. There is no energy Bill, yet energy is a huge part of what we need to deal with. There is no housing Bill, yet the nature of buildings is very important. The bits which are proposed as serious contributions against climate change are not properly spelled out. I have tried to read the Environment Bill. I am not sure I understand it completely and certainly welcome the inclusion of the principles in it, but the structure it is proposing for the Office for Environmental Protection is unclear—its independence, powers, potential sanctions and relationship with existing organisations and other public bodies all need greater clarification as we take the Bill through this House. Frankly, it does not have the implied authority that the European Commission used to have in threatening Governments with fines and reputational damage were they to fail to meet the legislative requirements or targets of the European Union. This House needs to address that very seriously.

We are not quite sure what shape the agriculture Bill will be in when it reaches us. We hope it will resolve some of the uncertainty in the agricultural community and give us a strategic medium-term programme for agriculture. I see that it proposes abolishing the single farm payment. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will recall that I was partially responsible for bringing the single farm payment through this House during the reforms to the agricultural policy at that time. It was not brilliantly handled, one must say, but the principle of the single farm payment is that it applies to all agricultural land. As I understand it, the Bill proposes that there will be public good arrangements with farmers that will apply to pieces of land. However, it is no use having the best agricultural scheme for a quarter of your land if the other three-quarters are being farmed by plough, pesticides and fertilisers in an inappropriate way that damages our soil, air and water. There is something to be said for an all-agricultural land approach.

On the other legislation, I welcome the references to a building regulations Bill in relation to the post-Grenfell safety requirements, but with building regulations, you need to enforce them. The problem, as with other aspects of local government, is that the building regulations departments of most local authorities have been severely run down. If we are to improve safety regulations, we need to make sure that they are properly enforced, but improved building regulations also need to include regulations on energy and water saving. Energy efficiency is vital. Not having an energy Bill in this programme is a big gap. That Bill needs to step up the commitment to renewables and the nuclear programme if we are to meet our targets for emissions reductions. It also needs a major chapter on energy efficiency—in housing and elsewhere. That needs to be a central part of our national infrastructure strategy. At the moment it is only half there, if that.

Another vital decision on energy has yet to be taken. Domestic heating, mostly gas and partially oil, is a big cause of emissions in most of our homes. A decision needs to be taken on how we are going to switch that to a lower-carbon source, whether that is electrification, hydrogen, increased use of biogas or a mixture of those. That will mean the intrusion of government policy and industrial action into all our households that currently run on gas. That will mean taking consumers with you. It will mean taking workers in the industries with you. It will mean taking the public with you in what will be the biggest transformation of domestic heating—rather bigger than in my youth, when we had the introduction of North Sea gas.

Climate change is the issue of our time. We have spent a lot of time on the failure of statesmanship on Brexit—the failure of British and European politicians to resolve that complex issue. We have spent most of the past three years arguing about that. But a much bigger failure of statesmanship is the failure to tackle climate change. It is our fault: 85% of all emissions in all concentrations in the atmosphere have occurred during my lifetime; more shamefully, nearly half have happened since the Rio conference, when statesmen theoretically recognised the science and that something needed to be done. We are the generation that needs to change that, and we need to do so rapidly. We need to beef up this legislative programme as a contribution to doing so.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “such a lease” and insert “a lease granted in reliance on subsection (1)”

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, while moving Amendment 2, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones, I will also speak to Amendment 3—the two are clearly interdependent.

Your Lordships may recall that I expressed my attachment to Kew, its history, scientific excellence and amenity value, and to its aspect and its contribution, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, said, to that beautiful stretch of the Thames. None of us wishes to prejudice any of that. We want to preserve all those outcomes and benefits, but I recognise that to do so costs money. I was, like the Minister, responsible for Kew for a number of years, and understand that we need to increase the private money going into it. I recognise that the 31-year restriction on the lease was an inhibition on raising some of that money.

However, as my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lady Jones said, the Bill presented to us was very open-ended and was not restricted to the seven Kew Green properties but applied to any form of asset, building or land within the Kew estate. I therefore clearly felt, as did many other contributors to that debate, that we needed to place some restriction on how leases could be extended. I recognise the need for resources and to update some of the estate, but we need to be pretty firm in ensuring that such leases as are granted by virtue of this very short and apparently innocuous Bill are preserved and that Kew can continue to provide both scientific excellence and amenity value to our people—indeed, to the planet as a whole, because Kew’s contribution to botanical science is a very important element in biodiversity and climate change strategies.

As noble Lords will recall, in Committee I produced an amendment which I thought was pretty good and nailed the restrictions necessary. It referred to any such lease having to be,

“supportive of, or be compatible with the core botanical, scientific, environmental, educational and amenity activities of”,

Kew. I thought that was pretty clear, but since then, after consultation with lawyers—both mine and the department’s—it has become clear that that is too generalised and must be anchored in existing legislation to which future generations can refer. I therefore welcome the discussion that the Minister had and allowed his officials and Kew officials to have with me so that we could come up with a form of words which I hope meets all the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others. There is concern in the community around Kew, in the scientific community and in the minds of those who use Kew for recreational purposes that if we allow any open-ended leases, there will be developer interest, with the disastrous effect that we have seen on other stretches of the Thames applied to this very special piece of ground.

I therefore accept the advice of the lawyers to a large extent and have attempted in my amendments to place restrictions on future leases in terms, on the one hand, of the universal World Heritage Site provisions, which are pretty clear and, on the other, under the National Heritage Act, which includes the six principles under which the trustees of Kew are supposed to operate, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred at earlier stages. That pretty much covers the basis on which we must ensure that restrictions are placed on leases.

The amendments place the obligation on the Secretary of State, who would grant the leases, and therefore on the lessee, who would have to abide by the restrictions required by the Secretary of State. That may not be 100% watertight, but it is much more watertight than the original Bill and, I think, reflects many of the assurances which the Minister has tried to give us today and at earlier stages of the Bill. I think we can move forward with confidence and avoid the kind of intrusion on, and misuse of, the assets and land at Kew that some of us have feared. I beg to move.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I confirmed that the Government support both amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty—partly for his patience, because obviously we have been in discussions—and to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and to many other noble Lords for bringing their experience of Kew and Richmond and for their understanding of the importance of getting this right. Of course I respect the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, but I believe that one would be prone to having an ulcer all the time if one always felt that we were going to get this wrong. We have all tried to get this as right as we can. We have entrenched protections, and I believe that what we have achieved is a very good example of the importance of your Lordships’ House. We have found a resolution that satisfies most of what noble Lords have been concerned about—that is, to protect Kew—so I commend the amendment tabled by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that, and for the discussions that he and his officials have had in reaching this point. I welcome the widespread support throughout the House for these amendments. The House, the Minister and his successors, the trustees and their successors all recognise the anxiety that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours expressed, which these restrictions are intended to assuage; this will need constant vigilance both by them and by Parliament. I welcome the fact that Parliament has paid a lot of attention to Kew in the last few weeks and, as a result of the intervention by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, may look again at the more detailed provisions on the scientific contribution of Kew.

On a lighter note, there were two unexpected contributions to this debate: the first was from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who envisaged the possibility of Richmond upon Thames becoming a Labour council, for which I am grateful; the second was from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about the river entrance, which took me back 70 years to when I was a small boy. What they used to call Isleworth Gate was already closed but, as a nine or 10 year-old, you could still get in and avoid the one old penny that you would have had to pay at the turnstiles—that gave me a great afternoon out in those days. I hope it did not contribute to Kew’s financial difficulties in later decades. Given the recognition both of Kew’s need for resources and of the need to ensure there are restrictions on what can be done under this Bill, I hope we will see a positive and united future for the scientific and amenity value of Kew Gardens. I beg to move.

Amendment 2 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State may grant a lease in reliance on subsection (1) only if satisfied that the lease would not have an adverse impact on—(a) the outstanding universal value of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, as a World Heritage Site, or(b) the ability of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, to carry out its functions under section 24 of the National Heritage Act 1983.(4) In subsection (3), “World Heritage Site” means a property appearing on the World Heritage List kept under article 11(2) of the UNESCO Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage adopted at Paris on 16 November 1972 (list of properties recognised by the World Heritage Committee as having outstanding universal value).”

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, at end insert—
“( ) Leases granted or extended under this Act shall be subject to the condition that activities on or in the land or buildings leased will contribute to, be supportive of, or be compatible with the core botanical, scientific, environmental, educational and amenity activities of the Royal Botanic Gardens, its World Heritage status and its charitable objectives.”

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief, but I am afraid I will revert to many of the points which were touched on under the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and I am not entirely sure that the Minister has entirely convinced me.

There is a central point. I am all for simplicity of legislation, but the Minister keeps referring to the seven cottages on Kew Green and the wish to extend the existing leases. Everybody understands that, and I do not think there has been any great dissent in the Committee about the desirability of so doing, but the Bill refers to,

“the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years”.

That to me means all land. The Crown can and does give leases. The specifics on the two royal estates which make up Kew add complexity to the issue, but as it stands we could have 150-year leases on any of the land that Kew covers. There is no distinction in the drafting of the Bill between core and non-core land. I appreciate the Minister’s assertions that this one of the most protected pieces of land in the nation. I accept that there are all sorts of protections built into the current situation. I also deeply appreciate the Minister and his staff and the staff of Kew meeting me and discussing this at some length, but I come back to the text of the Bill. There is no difference between us on the objectives, but for the first time 150-year leases could be granted under this Bill, without restriction, on any piece of land which the botanical gardens now cover.

I understand all the protections that are built in, but I go along with the French of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Times change. Secretaries of State change. The arrangements for the Charity Commission will change. It may be that the implications of being a world heritage site change. It may even be possible that the political control of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames changes dramatically—that is slightly less likely. Kew Gardens need to be protected against change. In so far as this Act will continue to be the basis on which leases are granted for 150 years over an unlimited period forward, we have to have rather more protections here.

The regulatory structure that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has identified is complex. Therefore, it is almost certain that departmental structures and memoranda of understanding will change over the next 150 years and beyond, and rightly so in many respects. However, we are dealing with the Bill as it stands. As I said, I do not object to Kew’s ability to raise money. In many respects, I think that it will greatly benefit from private finance coming into the organisation—or more so than is the case at present, although it has been quite successful at raising money in recent years. However, we need a restriction on the way in which the land will then be used.

My amendment recognises the multifaceted aspects of Kew. Essentially, it is scientific, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, said, but Kew’s objectives relating to science, the environment, education that stems from that science, and the amenity and enjoyment value—the sixth function, as the noble Viscount called it—all need protection. Therefore, my amendment stipulates that the use of the land should not challenge or undermine any of those objectives and outcomes. It is couched in pretty broad terms. It says that the use of the land must either contribute to or support Kew’s objectives—support can mean bringing in the finance for those objectives—or at least be compatible with them. The word “or” there in my amendment should perhaps be “and”, because in a sense compatibility with those objectives is my central point.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours asked whether a developer could build possibly unsuitable residential buildings on those sites. The Minister said that everybody would object to that, so it would not happen. However, under the Bill it could happen. That is my point. At Second Reading I explained my ancestral and childhood love and affection for Kew, and that is shared with a wide range of people. However, certain developments in the rest of London, including those along the Thames in, say, the neighbouring borough of Wandsworth, which we can look at over the bridge down the road, have not exactly been compatible with their surroundings.

If anything impinged on Kew, it would be detrimental to its amenity value, it would probably undermine its UNESCO world heritage site designation, and it could change the public’s attitude towards it. I completely accept the Minister’s view that such development is unlikely. In the short term it is almost impossible because Ministers will have the present apparatus of regulation and planning controls at their disposal. I have no desire to challenge the intentions of the Minister, the department or the Kew trustees in bringing forward these proposals. However, this House and this Parliament need to say, “Well, yes, do all that, but let’s write in a general restriction to ensure that these probably imagined and scaremongering possibilities do not arise”. I would feel a lot safer, as I think other lovers and supporters would, if those restrictions were put in.

I hold no great attachment to the precise wording of my amendment. I would be delighted if at the end of this debate the Minister said, “We accept the principle but we will ask parliamentary counsel to draft an alternative form of words that will achieve the same objective”. That outcome would be very helpful and I would welcome the Minister saying something like that at this stage. If he could bring something forward on Report that achieved those objectives, I would very much welcome it. However, in default of that, I would like the Minister and the House to take my amendment seriously. I beg to move.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I have my name to my noble friend Lord Whitty’s amendment but I also have Amendment 4 in this group so I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I introduce it at this stage; it addresses the criteria to be used for any lease extensions.

I should say, as is implied, that we support Amendment 2 in the name of my noble friend Lord Whitty. This goes back to the Second Reading debate, where—I agree with the Minister—we are more or less on the same page; we are trying to find a way around some of these issues. During the Second Reading debate there was some concern from around the Chamber, expressed in different ways, about what was perceived as an inevitable weakening of controls over the use of the land and property, which could indeed result in developments which adversely impact on Kew’s global status and reputation. I heard what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said. I am not sure that anybody will try to build a high-rise block of flats, but there could be issues around the commercial development of restaurants or shops and so on which could—not necessarily at the outset but as time went by—damage the reputation of Kew. These are some of the issues that we need to extract, and ensure that they are put to rest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I referred to buffer zones. This is an issue for Kew in terms of how planning proposals beyond the curtilage of Kew Gardens may, in turn, impose upon the world heritage site. I will write to the noble Baroness about the precise element of the car parks, but they are all part of Crown land, which is part of—ah, the noble Baroness is signalling that that may not be the case. May I come back to the noble Baroness on the question of that car park?

In conclusion, it is important to note that the Bill will not supersede the application of any existing legislation or policy already in place. This includes any proposals for new build or changes to the use of buildings, including on the wider estate. I mention that because Kew is a proactive scientific institution and therefore it is inevitable that, in protecting Kew and its wonderful historic site, we will have to have future state of the art scientific buildings with laboratories to help us find solutions to protect our natural ecosystem. So I deliberately raise the fact that, in protecting Kew, we will need new contemporary buildings to assist it in advancing scientific knowledge. I want to protect this great, historic site, and I am sure that it is our objective to entrench that for ever.

I repeat that I have looked at this in great detail and I cannot think of anywhere that has more protected elements, with so many varied facets, than Kew. So I say to the noble Lord, and to all noble Lords, that obviously I am in tune with what they want from this. I would like to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and other noble Lords, because I want to get this right. However, in the meantime, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, and I thank all noble Lords who have supported the intent of the amendment. The Minister clearly spelled out the number of protections that currently apply in different statutes and regulations. I concede that they make Kew probably one of the most protected acreages in the world. Nevertheless, I think I am right in saying that none of the protections existed 150 years ago—and not all of them existed 31 years ago. Therefore, we cannot be sure that they will exist in 31 years or 150 years—yet the leases will have been granted when the Bill becomes an Act.

I am grateful for the Minister’s offer to discuss this further. I understand about all the protections, but they could all change—and, even if they do not, issues could still be raised. I am mindful of another UNESCO world heritage site: the Liverpool waterfront. A building adjacent to it has raised serious questions. I think that in the end UNESCO accepted that it did not offend the status of the site. However, looking at it as a lay person, one might think that it came dangerously close. If a similar building were put on the Kew car park—although I suspect the protections would stop it—it would challenge a lot of what Kew stands for and what it looks like.

I am not suggesting that we should preserve Kew in aspic. I recognise, as the Minister has just said, that new buildings and new facilities will be needed to keep up with the scientific and educational activities of Kew—of course that will happen. But my amendment allows for supportive and compatible development, and we must make sure that the outcome of such development is compatible with and supportive of the general objectives of Kew.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not offer to draft a rather better government amendment for Report. However, I look forward to discussing this with him to see whether perhaps he could go some way down that road. In the meantime, I reserve the right to bring this back should that development not pertain. I thank all noble Lords who participated in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Whitty Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I too wish the objective of this Bill well. I have a long and affectionate link with Kew. My grandfather, Lawrence Lavender, after whom I am called, was an apprentice at Kew in the 1890s. When I went there as Minister, I was given his application form, which shows the archival accuracy of Kew on administrative as well as scientific, horticultural and botanical matters. He returned to Kew and became the manager of the Temperate House in the 1920s and was a long and proud member of the Kew Guild until he died in his 90s.

I used to live across the river in Isleworth. It is not quite as fashionable as Kew. Nevertheless, I used to go for walks in Kew. It was a bit of countryside in town, which I deeply appreciated. When I returned to my association with Kew as a Minister nearly 20 years ago, I was very pleased. My sheet as Minister started with “Sort out the foot and mouth epidemic”, but further down it said I was responsible for Kew Gardens, and that cheered me up no end. Indeed, it was in that period that Kew got its world heritage accreditation and I welcomed Her Majesty the Queen there to celebrate that occasion.

I wish Kew well, and I want to ensure that it has adequate resources from government, private and charitable resources and those who visit. I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that I can remember when there was a huge row in the community when the turnstile charge went up from one old penny to thruppence. It is now somewhat higher, as she said. Regrettably, that reflects the cost of maintaining its scientific, horticultural and botanical lead. I therefore understand the reasons for this Bill and for extending the leases on some of the existing leased property. I understand the good intentions of the trustees and the Minister in this respect.

I would usually applaud a very short Bill, but I think that some of the things the Minister said in his introduction to the Bill need to be in the Bill. Any extension of leases or any new leases have to be in support of the central objectives of Kew—scientific, botanical, horticultural and amenity value—otherwise, on the face of it, this is an open-ended Bill. A 150-year lease could be granted on any part of the estate for activities not entirely compatible with the central aims of Kew. I might be forced to propose a very short additional clause in Committee effectively saying that any such extension of leases or new leases have to be compatible—preferably supportive, but certainly compatible—with the main aims of Kew. Those additional two lines would not overburden the legislature and would make this Bill into a Bill that did not raise the kind of suspicions that I think some people have about its real aim.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and others have said, we need a few more details about the finances before we end the process on this short Bill, and we need in the Bill some restrictions on what otherwise appears to be an opened-ended commitment to extend leases of one of this country’s jewels in the crown—a jewel for all of us. Any implication that it could be diverted for commercial and residential property, as so many other properties around London have been converted in recent years, would undermine the objectives that the Minister and the Kew trustees have in promoting this Bill. I hope the Minister and his department will seriously consider putting that qualification in the Bill.

REACH etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

I should inform the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call either of the other amendments to the Motion on the Order Paper by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, in the light of that, I should like to speak to my amendment and to the contributions made so far. It is some time since I have found myself on the Front Bench, so I had better observe the niceties.

First, I thank the Minister for spelling out these complex regulations. No one denies the need, post Brexit, for robust regulation in this field. However, I contend that the way in which the Government are going about it is causing excessive bureaucracy and cost. The Minister rightly referred to the work that his department has done in talking to the industry, and the industry appreciates that, but he must be aware that there are still grave concerns among large sectors of the industry and firms, as well as downstream firms, about the situation post Brexit. I thank his department for all that work and I thank him for producing the latest UK REACH guidance yesterday, bringing together previous technical notes and updating them, but it is a little late given that these regulations were laid when we thought that by Friday we might be out of the EU.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. I agreed with pretty much every word he said and I will try not to repeat his points—at least not at great length—but I disagree with the purport of his amendment. The regrettable fact is that we are in an unenviable position here. These regulations could have come into effect on Friday and might still come into effect in two and a half weeks’ time. As is the case with so many of the no-deal contingency regulations that we have been through, whatever we might think and whatever the ideal outcome might have been, industry, consumers and the workforce need some degree of certainty about what happens on Brexit day and the day after. If we do not have these regulations, as is the intention of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we will be in a legal vacuum. Given the complexity of this area, the potential danger and the hazardous nature of many of the chemicals covered by the regulations, as well as the legal and insurance situations, I suspect that a lot of trade will grind to a halt. That would be very dangerous for the environment and very expensive to the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Whitty]

At the end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations fail to fulfil the Prime Minister’s intention to maintain the United Kingdom’s participation in the European Chemicals Agency, which would have avoided (1) the duplication of registrations and the consequential increased costs to United Kingdom manufacturers, downstream users and importers, (2) the duplication of testing procedures, including animal testing, and (3) the pressure on the resources and expertise of the Health and Safety Executive and the environment agencies, which could increase the risks to United Kingdom citizens’ health, and to our environment; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to make continued United Kingdom participation in the European Chemicals Agency and REACH an objective in negotiations with the European Union”.

[Lord Whitty]

In view of the widespread concern around the House, I beg to move.

Common Agricultural Policy and Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

Yes, and I think it has been clear from the department that, like any responsible Government or department, we would act if issues arose. The noble Lord mentioned the sheep sector; in the temporary tariff regime we brought forward, we recognised the sensitivity and potential vulnerability of that sector. He is absolutely right: we need to be alive to, and ready to act on, issues of weather or markets. That point is well made.

The noble Lord raised the issue of the euro. Defra and the DAs have agreed to retain references to the euro in retained EU legislation at the point of exit. This is because, at the point of exit, the CAP will be part-way through making payments under current schemes. To minimise disruption and avoid a difference in sums paid to farmers before and after exit, we will retain the euro until an appropriate time when we can make the change to sterling with minimal disruption. We intend to bring forward regulations to amend euro references to sterling later. These regulations will of course be subject to normal parliamentary scrutiny. In addition, we will work with the devolved Administrations on any changes.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked about retention. On implications for farmers, I reiterate that the Government have guaranteed that the current level of agricultural funding under Pillar 1 will be upheld until 2020 as part of the transition to new domestic arrangements, and that all CAP Pillar 2 agreements signed before 31 December 2020 will be fully funded for their lifetimes. The exchange rate for BPS 2018 is already set for the scheme year, meaning that farmers paid either side of exit day will be subject to an identical exchange rate.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked how many state aid rules there will be after exit. The state aid regime will be rolled over by this statutory instrument, as will the whole architecture through the BEIS statutory instrument. We are not making any changes to the current EU regime beyond those required to make these matters operable.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether the SIs will be necessary if the Agriculture Bill gains Royal Assent before the end of the current implementation period. If the current withdrawal agreement is agreed, these SIs will still be needed to ensure that the retained EU CAP legislation is operable in a UK context at the end of the implementation period. This will be the case even once the Agriculture Bill has gained Royal Assent. This is because the horizontal framework regulations, as amended by the SIs, will be required while we continue to operate legacy CAP schemes under retained EU law. Likewise, some CMO regulations will remain after the Agriculture Bill comes into force.

The noble Lord asked about the discontinuity in state aid: will DAs have their own rules and do they take effect at exit day or at the end of the implementation period? This is a reserved policy area, but, as with all the SIs I have had to deal with, there has been a close working relationship with the devolved Administrations. BEIS is working on a memorandum of understanding with the DAs, and my noble friend Lord Henley is working on this. If there is any further information I can bring forward from that, I will let your Lordships have a copy.

In a no-deal scenario—

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

I intervene because I have been dealing with state aid provisions more generally. The European system regards state aid for agriculture as part of a block exemption. In other words, it does not regard it as state aid.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord was not in the Committee at the start of debate.

[Lord Whitty]

I was.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I have written here: “Whitty (late)”.

Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Byford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing this section of statutory instruments and have listened carefully to what he said: there is no change in policy. Indeed, it is important that we pass these statutory instruments to maintain the existing regulations that we have been connected with.

My noble friend also talked about sustainability in the long term but recognised that the current audit and labelling schemes will no longer be valid. Perhaps I might press him a little more on that because clearly we will have to introduce a scheme to replace the existing ones. Is he able to tell us a little more about that and how the department will approach it? Also on that issue, I think he said that we were going to be consulting more widely. Again, it is a matter of timeframe: how soon that will happen? Clearly, that would help us in dealing with this statutory instrument.

Lastly, my noble friend mentioned that some aspects of existing EU law have become out of date and we would need to transfer powers to a new set of regulations. Can he give us any indication of how many of the changes taking place are to regulations that are considered out of date?

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, in general, this is obviously a sensible regulation. However, I have a number of queries, one of which is exactly the same as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. There are references to redundant and inappropriate regulations, but there is no list, as far as I can see, of which regulations they are or whether further regulations might be deemed to fall within that category. I may have misread the rather complex way in which the regulations are presented, but there may be a whole batch of regulations which, down the line, Defra officials may decide are redundant and use the power under the Act to take off the statute book.

My other two questions are these. It is true that EMAS and Ecolabel have been a bit of a slow burn, but, nevertheless, there is a degree of consumer recognition and take-up. Is the Minister saying that in no circumstances could we use those terms under British law to continue to reflect the qualities that some consumers have now come to recognise, or will his consultation be directed to providing an entirely new British scheme—which, by definition, will require a further educational and informational period before it begins to be recognised? Even in the more benign context of a deal of some sort, would it not be sensible for some mutual recognition and continued use of the existing labels to operate post the UK leaving the EU?

Finally, I declare my presidency of Environmental Protection UK, one main concern of which has been air pollution and air quality. The Minister referred to that in passing. The problem with the air quality regulations is that, hitherto, the effective enforcement of those regulations has depended substantially on the Commission’s intervention and on campaigners—ClientEarth, mainly, in this case—taking the British Government through the courts on the basis of EU law.

In both those respects, I am not entirely sure what mechanism replaces that. Is it the much-heralded but still unclear new environmental statutory body, which will presumably appear in the environment Bill when we eventually get it, or is it simply to be enforcement of these new regulations, having become British law, or retained EU law, enforceable through the British courts? The problem hitherto has been that it has been government bodies at local and national level which have failed to meet, for example, the provisions on maximum NOx levels for air quality. Unless we stipulate in the new regulations who will enforce equivalent standards to the European standards, we may well have something on the statute book but we will be unable to enforce it.

Plant Protection Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

There are some significant issues around costs, on whether the precautionary principle will be upheld, and on how we will hold the Secretary of State to account on an issue which is of such importance to human health and the environment.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a fairly fundamental objection to this set of regulations. I am sure that most of the detail is absolutely correct and necessary and I cannot say that I have read every sentence of these two regulations, but I have long held, going back to my days as the Minister in Defra, that the current regime for the regulation of pesticides, both at British and European level, has been inadequate for a number of reasons, some of which have already been touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. I am rather afraid that the “solution” of leaving the European Union is going to aggravate that position.

Most of the issues I have approached the department on in recent years have related to human health, but it is a much wider issue than that. I believe that the totality of the approach to pesticide regulation does not take into account the widespread effects of misuse of pesticides, the lack of enforcement on the way pesticides are used and the relative ease with which new pesticides and modified pesticides come on to the market. In some cases, the EU regulation has actually been held back by previous British interventions. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, I commend the current Secretary of State on neonicotinoids, but in general it is the Brits who have held back and there has been a lot of pressure—corporate pressure, one has to say—on the totality of the system. This could reinforce that tendency.

I understand, and I have been in some contact with the department about, the need to introduce provisions on chemicals broadly—on REACH provisions. These regulations tend to mirror, in a sense, the broader regulation structure of REACH. In the main, I think it is very sensible to maintain the success of the REACH provisions, but pesticides are different. They are different because they have a serious and often unacknowledged human health impact. More particularly, I want to emphasise tonight the effect they have on the environment in general: the effect of pesticides on the air, the water and the soil.

Soil has been degraded as a result of the overuse of pesticides. Pesticides in the air have affected both human and particularly insect life: this week we have seen very serious effects in the form of the worldwide reduction in insect life, some of which has been caused by pesticides here and elsewhere, and on the water system. One of the successes, to some extent, of the water framework directive has been to reduce that effect; nevertheless, there is still a very serious problem in our water supply, as the effect of pesticides comes through the soil, into the water and has an effect on insect life and on whatever you call those creatures that crawl on the bottom of our rivers—I am sure that my noble friend Lady Young can name them all, but I cannot—and therefore on our diversity. A lot of those are affected by the misuse or overuse of pesticides.

It is true that successive Governments have attempted to rationalise and pinpoint the use of pesticides more effectively in terms of agricultural use. However, unlike the industrial chemicals that will be covered by the transposition of arrangements on REACH, the use of pesticides—this particular form of chemical—is a matter not so much of industrial use but of agricultural use: its effect on the environment, on land management, on soil management and on air quality. I therefore find it somewhat surprising that we are to retain the HSE rather than an environmental body to oversee this. I know that the HSE has access to significant scientific information, and the transfer of a separate pesticide arrangement into the HSE probably was an improvement, but would I argue that if we are going to move to a new regime post Brexit, the appropriate body is actually the Environment Agency, because it has responsibility for agricultural practice and land use; for air, water and soil.

That is where, together with human health, pesticides have an impact. I am therefore disturbed that the whole rationale for these arrangements is to assign that role to the HSE and not to the Environment Agency and devolved environment agencies. I ask the Minister to think about that; it is not necessary, but we are moving into a new era, and the responsibility ought to be with an environmental body rather than with one which deals with the industrial use of other chemicals.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as set out in the register. I thank the Minister for his introduction and for his courtesy in meeting us before this debate. I also thank the two noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues about these SIs, all of which I agree with. They both made very powerful points.

These SIs go to the heart of our concerns about the transposition process. This goes right back to our earlier discussions on the amendments to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The use of pesticides is of huge public interest—a point made by the noble Baroness—and they present significant environmental and public health challenges. It is an issue where the use of the precautionary principle is vital—supported of course by strong scientific evidence and detailed scrutiny of the potential impact of the new products.

At the moment, we have in the EU a thorough process of evaluation of products. The responsibilities for risk assessments are shared out across member states. There are clear decision-making roles for the European Food Safety Authority, the rapporteur member state, individual member states and the European Commission. All this is supported and backed up by access to the best scientific advice. While no process is perfect, there is considerable assurance that within the EU a detailed assessment of the risks has been carried out and cross-checked.

These proposals are intended to replace all of this with an assessment by the Health and Safety Executive and a decision in the hands of one person, the “competent authority” as described in the text—otherwise known as the Secretary of State. Under these proposals, full power to make, amend or revoke guidance, principles and regulations for the UK rests with the Secretary of State and the devolved Ministers. There is a major loss of scrutiny, checks and balances, and audit powers.

This really is not good enough. It does not represent an accurate transposition of the current EU provisions into UK law. It also reopens our argument about the need for an independent environment watchdog to oversee the application of these new rules. This is a point other noble Lords have made—my noble friend Lady Young made it very eloquently in the earlier debate. That watchdog clearly needs to be in place from day one. I know that the Minister has said he cannot be precise about the timetable for this, but it would be helpful if he could reassure us again that the watchdog will be in place from 1 April, and that there will be no delay.

There is another big issue about what we will lose when we transpose to the UK. How can it be acceptable that the only reporting mechanism on national decisions for new active substances will be to publish the information online, when the previous EU regime required a report to be made to the EU Commissioner and a proper process of scrutiny and approval?

It also raises once again the fact that, by leaving the EU, we are cutting ourselves off from access to a huge resource of scientific data and analysis. Should we not be taking urgent steps to agree with the EU that we will continue to share this data for mutual benefit? For example, we will no longer have access to the advice of the European Food Safety Authority and will therefore have to pay considerable sums of money to try to replicate its advice. Would it not make sense to negotiate a mutual recognition agreement with the EU so that decisions taken in the EU and the UK continue to be mutually honoured? Can the Minister say whether discussions are taking place to create a shared register of approved pesticides and a mutual recognition scheme across the EU and UK, and what the timescale is for the outcome for those discussions?

Water Abstraction Regulations

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I welcome any opportunity to speak about the environment, in particular its relationship to agriculture. My most relevant interest to the debate is the work I do with the Water Industry Commission for Scotland and the fact that I am an honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities.

I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Byford said. I will make some additional points. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said that this was a long time. Fourteen years is indeed a long time, but seven of those years were under the stewardship of a different Government, who had every opportunity from 2003 to 2010 to bring forward the regulations. It would be interesting to know for what reason they did not have the chance to do so. The noble Baroness also said that she felt that the Government were placing more importance on the business community than environment concerns. I disagree. The statutory instruments before us clearly show the extent to which business interests, the various uses of water and the environment are intrinsically linked.

I will follow up one of the questions the noble Baroness raised with my noble friend the Minister as to what the position is on abstraction policy, in the sense that the Government made a very clear commitment when I was in the other place. We need to set out our stall as to what the abstraction policy will be. As my noble friend Lady Byford said, there have been stresses. The number of licences that have already been issued in East Anglia show how they are more subject to water stress, as opposed to areas such as Yorkshire where we seem to go from lots of flooding one minute to near drought the next. It is incumbent on the Government to come forward with a revised abstraction policy.

I would also be interested to have confirmation that the 25-year environment plan also covers the farming and agricultural aspects. It was of real concern to farmers and agricultural industrialists that there would be two separate plans competing with each other. It would be very neat if all the farming issues could be addressed under the 25-year plan.

I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have stated that the regulations comply with the requirements of the water framework directive but without gold-plating. I do not know whether my noble friend is in a position to say this, but I am very exercised as to what the arrangements will be when the water framework directive and other daughter and sister directives that are currently being revised are approved before or just about the time we propose to leave the European Union. Is there any way the department can let the House know before the agriculture and environment Bills come through? That will be very helpful indeed. My take on this is that we will comply with the new commitments, but my concern is that Ofwat will agree a price review before that time that will apply for the next five years from 1 January 2019. If we are to sign up to these new commitments we ought to give the water companies the chance to put this in their five-year plans. I note that the cost of introducing and applying the regulations will be £89.6 million, with the benefits estimated at only £15.3 million. The costs are substantial.

I have a particular question on the impact assessment. With drainage boards being so prevalent across North Yorkshire, this is of particular interest to me. On page 34, paragraph 6.44 says that Defra is in,

“ongoing discussion with IDBs about their abstraction and none of these discussions has led us to believe that there will be curtailment”.

So it goes on, but it says that there is a certain degree of “uncertainty” owing to the “complexity”. At this late stage, it would be very helpful to know exactly how the regulations will impact internal drainage boards. If it is possible to know that today, that would be very helpful indeed. It would be helpful to know on what date the statutory instruments will come into effect. With those remarks and those questions to my noble friend the Minister, I would give swift passage to these statutory instruments.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on raising this issue and on the forensic way in which she approached the analysis of the regulations before us and the history of how we got to this position.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who was my opposite number for a large number of years. I was responsible for taking the 2003 Act through this House, in the teeth of her forensic analysis, and we came to a compromise, in effect. I asked my officials at the time why on earth there were still licences which provided for unrestricted abstraction and why there were significant exemptions. Logically, neither of those should have existed if we were going to have a rational approach to the management of water, particularly in the upstream areas which have such a dramatic effect downstream, both in relation to agriculture and to droughts and floods.

The answer was that, as far as the exemptions were concerned, there were relatively small companies—farmers, miners and quarriers—who would be very severely affected by removing the exemption. We accepted that argument, and we also accepted at the time that there was the possibility of technological solutions, in particular in mines and quarrying but also in relation to farming, primarily if the Government could be somewhat more encouraging of storage of water for those parts of agriculture which were likely to be hit by shortage of water at particular times of year and where the intensity of water use, unfortunately, usually coincided with the least precipitation and the least access to water—namely, the summer months.

While the mines and quarries, I am informed, have actually restricted and reduced their use of water, and some farmers have restricted their use of water and some storage has existed, actually, government policy never, under any Government, came closer to encouraging, as part of an agri-environment scheme or whatever, that storage of water would be provided. This was particularly important for the horticulture sector, and it has not happened.

The reason we did not immediately move to consult on ending the exemptions after the passage of the Act was principally that we needed time for those changes to take place. The Labour Government did, of course, consult in 2009, and part of the result of that consultation was that not enough had changed for the industry to be prepared to accept the change.

Most of the House will have completely forgotten this, but for one very brief period during the coalition Government I sat on the Front Bench when water legislation was being introduced at that time. That was mainly about introducing competition within the water industry, which has not gone quite as smoothly as it might have done and as we all hoped it might at the time. At that time, we also received assurances from the Government that we would have a strategic approach to abstraction. Indeed, there was some hope of new measures at the upstream end of water, which might involve water trading and possible trading of licences, so that we could gain efficiency at that end in the same way that we are trying to gain efficiency by introducing a degree of competition at the retail end. None of that has happened either, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, has just said.

Effectively, the coherent approach to abstraction reform has been put well and truly on the back burner. All we have, therefore, is these regulations to do the easiest bit of it, albeit that it is a slightly painful bit for some abstractors—namely, to end exemptions. It seems to be sensible that we do that. It is, however, now 14 years on, as people have said, and we have also missed the deadline under the water framework directive.

Generally speaking, the water framework directive is regarded as a good exemplar of European legislation because effectively it is outcome related and is not overprescriptive, but it is a relatively good piece of European legislation, one which we would have thought we would be very happy to comply with. We have actually failed to comply with it in a number of important respects, some of which are being put right by these regulations tonight.

Brexit: Environmental Enforcement Agency

Lord Whitty Excerpts

Monday 8th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I assure your Lordships that it will be a full and proper consultation. We want to have detailed consideration with stakeholders and your Lordships so that we get the right decision because we recognise that something needs to be done to fill what we acknowledge is a governance gap. I am not sure about the precise timings, but the whole purpose of an early consultation is so that we can move this forward.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, this will be a powerful new organisation, which I understand will have the ability to fine or otherwise sanction other public bodies. In that case, is it the Government’s intention to produce primary legislation for the introduction of this body or are they still assuming that it will be dealt with in delegated legislation? My other question is: will this body have some jurisdiction in the remaining seven years of the present system of farm support in fulfilling the role of making sure that environmental standards are met by agricultural practitioners?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the whole purpose of the detailed consideration and our consultation is to decide, and to have reflection from stakeholders, on the best way forward. That is why, at this stage, we have not made a firm decision as to the route because we think we should not pre-empt what is a serious consultation. As to the matter of agriculture, we have been very clear that we wish there to be a transitional phase. However, the arrangements in the withdrawal Bill are that existing EU law will be brought on to the UK statute book. What we are looking at is how we deal with the situation after we have left the European Union and, potentially, after an implementation period.