Water and Sewage Regulation (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, on his excellent introduction to this brilliant report. All contributors to the debate have raised the worrying operational methods of the water companies. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, raised the absence of water testing.

Water is a resource we have taken for granted for far too long. We assume there will always be a sufficient supply for our needs: we turn on our taps and are able to drink clean water, we can shower whenever we wish, and we assume that when we flush our toilets, the system will deal with it and all will be well. Sadly, those days are gone, and everyone has a part to play in ensuring that our water supply is plentiful and fit for purpose and that our streams, waterways and coastlines are not stinking and polluted.

Primarily, it is the role of the water authorities to ensure that water supply and sewage disposal are fit for purpose. However, there has been little infrastructure investment over a long period. No new reservoirs have been built since 1991 and are not likely to be before 2029. The population of this country, however, has increased dramatically over this period. Water authorities appear not to have taken any of this into account in their business plans or strategies. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this absence.

There have been failures on all sides: Governments have not provided sufficient funding for enforcement or set a central direction, and Ofwat has not required water companies to provide sufficient investment in infrastructure but has encouraged keeping consumers’ bills low. The Minister has, in the past, raised the difficulty of increasing water bills. During a cost of living crisis, care is needed to protect the vulnerable to ensure that water supplies are not cut off due to inability to pay water and sewage charges—the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, referred to unaffordable bills.

It will be a challenge but there must be more investment in solutions. There do not need to be costly concrete constructions, which Defra seems to prefer; the lower-cost, nature-based solutions are much preferable. NBS help with restoring habitats, storing water, creating new woodlands and rewetting bogs. However, when such solutions are put before government, they are rejected in favour of costly concrete solutions, with technical specifications cited as a reason. In a time when water is seen as a finite resource, it is not reasonable to apply the same technical specification to nature-based solutions as apply to concrete ones. A quite different approach is needed, and the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave an excellent example. Ofwat, the Environment Agency and Defra need to encourage nature-based solutions and, together, provide new guidance to make this happen. Reaching net zero is vital and if it is possible to assist in this process, then this should be a priority.

Nutrients are polluting our waterways due to runoff from both farming and housing developments. Developers have been dragging their feet on this issue. Due to the right to connect, they have failed to separate surface water runoff from foul water discharge. This has, in part, led to the current scandal of increased sewage overflows, especially when there has been no rain. Instead, developers should be encouraged to ensure that all new buildings have rainwater harvesting capabilities. It is time the right to connect was repealed.

I was dismayed to find that despite the vote in the Chamber banning nutrient discharge from housing developments, the Government are delaying the implementation of this measure, which would assist in improving countryside and wildlife habitats. Biodiversity net gain would have been mandatory in planning from November—that is, next month—but the Government have told developers that this will now not be implemented until sometime next year. Can the Minister say when exactly this law will be implemented and what the Government are doing to ensure that developers take rainwater harvesting seriously?

In April this year, the Government produced a plan for water: their integrated plan for developing clean and plentiful water. This was a step in the right direction but does not go far enough. An effective national water strategy is needed. Recently, the Secretary of State for Environment wrote to water companies via the Environment Agency, suggesting investment plans should be slowed down in order to keep water bills at a low level. This is a false economy. We need a water and sewerage infrastructure that is fit for purpose and can meet its current demands, not one that is antiquated, creaking at the knees and crumbling.

The Environment Agency has seen its budget cut drastically, from £170 million in 2009-10 to £76 million in 2019-20. Some increases have been made to its budget since then, but nothing takes it back to its original level and it does not account for intervening inflation. Underfunding has led a to lack of enforcement action, which is no longer a deterrent. The polluter pays principle is not taken seriously. Fines have been derisory compared to the profits which water companies have made.

Privatisation has led some water companies to put share dividends and directors’ bonuses before infrastructure investment. I noted in the report that it was suggested that no reward payments should be made when a water company did not meet its water quality targets. I fully support this view. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has spoken eloquently on this.

In 2021, storm overflows, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, were used 325,533 times for 2.6 million hours. Given that polluted water is a human health risk, I support the view that individual CEOs and directors should be held personally accountable for failures, with the penalties increased dramatically for them. I fully support paragraphs 252 to 256 of the report. It is time the softly, softly approach was abandoned altogether. The mechanism is there in the Environment Act for this to happen. The Office for Environmental Protection has a critical role to play and has already demonstrated that it is up for the challenge.

As I said at the beginning, this is a problem where we all have to play a part. I turn to wet wipes. The vast majority of packaged wet wipes indicate that they are not flushable, but this is in ridiculously small print. It is time the consumer realised that by flushing wet wipes and other plastic items down the toilet, they are responsible for helping to create fatbergs which are clogging up our sewerage system. It is time to ban plastic in wet wipes, but do we really need consultation, as the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, indicated? Manufacturers should move away from plastics. The information on flushability must be on the front of the package and in a minimum of 10-point characters, so that a magnifying glass is not needed to read it. Consumer awareness should be raised via advertising.

My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted raised the issue of water usage by householders, including watering their gardens and washing their cars—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, indicated, should be minimised. Use by farmers, horticulturists and manufacturing industry must be minimised where possible. This must be coupled with a programme of reservoir provision, both small local and larger regional provision. Not to do so is to adopt the attitude of the ostrich. The water and sewerage system must meet the demands of the current population, which is not predicted to decrease: quite the opposite. I know the Minister is aware of the difficulties surrounding the water industry and I look forward to his response to the many justified questions raised in this debate, especially those from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.

Farming: Net Zero

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 20th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord has great experience in this field. He is right that there are a great many tools available for use by farmers and their advisers to support on-farm calculations and audits. The Government and I share his concern because a number of those tools differ widely in their complexity and underlying methodology. We are therefore working at pace to find the most credible and consistent on-farm tools to assist farmers to understand their baselines and thereby to prove additionality, so that they can actively seek carbon credits and biodiversity credits, which will help them to hit net zero and their income accounts.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, everyone, including farmers, has to be committed and involved in attempting to achieve net zero. This year the Government turned away farmers from their higher-tier countryside stewardship and landscape recovery schemes. Those farmers were ambitious to cut greenhouse gas emissions and restore nature to the land. In future, is Defra likely to encourage farmers, rather than discouraging them from playing their part in cutting GHG?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I do not know where these stats come from. We have doubled the number of farmers in countryside stewardship. When we increased the rates two years ago, the number of farmers entering countryside stewardship doubled. I do not know where the noble Baroness is getting these figures.

Windsor Framework (Enforcement etc.) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the regulations in front of us today deal with one specific aspect—a major aspect—of the Windsor Framework but, in another way, they are symptomatic of the wider problems in terms of the Government’s presentation of the Windsor Framework and the substance of the framework.

Turning first to the Government’s presentation, we have had a plethora of spin since the signing of the Windsor Framework. Indeed, when the England one-day international squad was announced the other day, I was surprised that, given the amount of spin, no government Minister had made it into the final 15. We saw at the time of the Windsor Framework the presentation of a veritable utopia for Northern Ireland. We were very much getting the best of both worlds. Some of that has been echoed by some of the phrases that have been mentioned today. There was no direct reference to unfettered access but we were told that this would create smooth access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It was reiterated that it would remove the Irish Sea border—that was quoted by my noble friend Lord Dodds and I think I am accurately quoting what was said by the Minister today—and that we would have a situation in which there was a common approach to trade across the whole of the United Kingdom. All those things are a level of spin.

The best that can be said in relation to some of the proposals is that, in certain aspects, they may not be quite as bad as the protocol. However, let me draw on an analogy from my own life. About two years ago, roughly speaking, I underwent surgery. There was a certain level of uncertainty going into that surgery and I ended up with a toe being amputated. When I came round, I was ultimately glad that it was not two toes or a foot that had been amputated—what actually happened was clearly preferable to that situation. Was it analogous to the position that I had been in prior to that, with 10 toes? No, it was not. It certainly was not the best of both worlds, seen as some great leap forward. So it is with the regulations in front of us today.

We are told that this measure creates smooth access, and on other occasions unfettered access, with the rest of the United Kingdom—that is, it removes the Irish Sea border. However, as my colleagues have indicated, at best it can be said that it creates an alternative form of border in the Irish Sea. On the reality, let us again take one of the things said by the Minister: that it was a common approach across the United Kingdom. The analogy that was drawn in the Government’s Command Paper at the time of the Windsor Framework was that this would be the same type of paperwork as if you were transporting something from Southampton to the Isle of Wight.

However, anybody who takes a look at the regulations in detail will see, as has been indicated, that there will be SPS forms and an export number will be given. There will be border control posts and there will be a requirement that anybody who is looking to transport goods through this provision will have to be part of a trusted trader scheme. Indeed, if they fall foul of that, they could be excluded from that trusted trader scheme. I ask this genuinely: is this supposed to create a similar position and a common approach across the United Kingdom? Is that the case if we are transporting goods from Glasgow to Carlisle or from Southampton to the Isle of Wight? It is patently not the case. If the Government were to show at least a little bit of honesty and were to say that this is not the same level of burden as would be there under the original protocol, they could make that argument—but that is not what they have been saying and what they are saying is not the reality of the situation.

Similarly, as indicated by my noble friend Lord Dodds, what we have here—we should remember this specific aspect—is not about goods that are moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, to the European Union and to the single market. It is not even about goods that are deemed as being at risk of going into the European Union; then, at least, we could see some reasons for the levels of checks. This is specifically about goods of which it has to be proved that their end destination is within the United Kingdom, yet we have all these new burdens that have been put in place. There is a situation, as was indicated and outlined by my noble friend Lord Morrow, where this is in effect permitted to happen only at the grace and favour of the European Union. What if something that is entirely internal to the United Kingdom should be felt by the European Union not to be working or is in some way not acceptable to it? It could be withdrawn at a later stage on that basis.

Similarly, in terms of the practical realities, it is understandable that my colleagues and I will be deeply exercised about some of the wider constitutional implications of this. However, as has been highlighted by a number of colleagues, this also has deeply practical implications for trade. Mention has been made of the Tesco situation—I suspect that that will not be a unique situation—where the additional burdens that have been put in place by these regulations will lead to a direct divergence of trade. This is not some sort of ghost in the machine or empty threat; it is beginning to happen in reality, as we have seen. It is beginning to happen in reality with regard to haulage firms, where there is that divergence of trade. The reality is that, if you have a large company such as Tesco and if the supply chain is coming from the Republic of Ireland and other parts of the EU, it is a much better way of bringing goods into Northern Ireland. How much more difficult will it be for small and medium-sized firms, which are faced with the same level of bureaucracy but are not generating the same volume of trade? It is actually a much easier route.

That has implications for Northern Ireland, but it also—and this has been somewhat overlooked—has major implications for Great Britain too. If it is felt that accessing goods from the Republic of Ireland is an awful lot easier than accessing them from Great Britain, that will mean that British firms within mainland Great Britain will miss out on trade to Northern Ireland. It will have an economic impact for them as well.

Finally, on the concerns over these regulations, it has been highlighted by the committee that deep concerns have been raised in relation to process in terms of the way that this legislation has been brought forward. Mention has been made of the fact it was laid in the summer at a time when Parliament was not sitting, so there are issues around timing. There are issues around consultation, which does not seem particularly transparent at the very least. If we are most generous and say that there has been some level of consultation, none of us are particularly aware of what consultation has taken place. We are told that at some point in the future there may well be an impact assessment, but it has not been brought forward.

If it was one of those three things, that could perhaps be overlooked, but the combination of all three leads to only one of two conclusions or indeed to a combination of both. Either the Government in their approach to these regulations have been utterly disrespectful to Parliament in disregarding proper parliamentary process, or alternatively, by avoiding an impact assessment and minimising consultation by putting it out at a time when there is not the level of scrutiny, the Government seem to be sending out a signal that they are not particularly comfortable with close examination and scrutiny of these regulations because it would be seen that what is being put forward does not match up to what is there on the tin and what was said in the first few days of the Windsor Framework.

In terms of a positive way forward, it must surely be that the Government need to continue discussions to produce solutions which deliver what they said they were putting forward a number of months ago. That does not seem to be an unreasonable request from politicians in Northern Ireland—the effective removal of the Irish sea border. Similarly, the Government need to find political solutions which both communities can buy into because it is abundantly clear that what is there through these regulations and the wider political context is not bought into by the Unionist community within Northern Ireland.

By contrast, that is the positive way forward and the route which I urge the Government to take. This is why it is concerning—and we know that a lot of games will be played around this—that there is talk of the Government simply jumping in and imposing solutions which simply disregard where Unionist opinion, and indeed wider opinion within Northern Ireland, lies. That is a route of madness, and we need, as we have seen throughout decades in Northern Ireland and perhaps learned to our cost, to get solutions to which there is buy-in by both communities.

The Government are in danger of repeating the phrase that was used about the Bourbons: that ultimately they forgot nothing, and they learned nothing. Let us not see the Government go down that route. Even at this eleventh hour, they should start taking actions which respect all opinion within Northern Ireland and the integrity of trade within the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, has set out the rationale for this SI. Others have contributed to the debate and given a less enthusiastic reception, to say the least. I regret that my knowledge of the history and the subject matter is far less than that of those sitting opposite me. It would be churlish to suggest that if we had not left the EU, we would not be debating this SI this afternoon. However, this SI will be an improvement for Northern Ireland on the bureaucratic regulations it is currently operating under, although I accept that others will not agree with this.

The Windsor Framework will create the new Northern Ireland retail movement scheme, which will enable consignments to move around on the basis of a single certificate, without routine physical checks and on the basis of GB public health, marketing and organics standards. This will apply to agri-foods, wholesalers, caterers, et cetera, including those supplying food to public institutions, such as hospitals and schools. All this seems good to me.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I suggest I have a different understanding of how an OEP investigation works. Let me be absolutely clear about this: the OEP has not satisfied itself, on the balance of probabilities, that Defra has failed to comply with environmental law; rather, the OEP believes it has reasonable grounds for suspecting the Defra has failed to comply with environmental law and has asked us for more information to help it make its decision, and of course we are complying with this process. Her allegation is that this is a done deal; the OEP’s concerns that the Government have somehow broken the law is under discussion. We now have two months to reply, and the OEP then has two months to adjudicate.

The aims of the OEP investigation are to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the public authorities—Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency—and to determine whether they have failed to comply with their respective duties. The OEP will consider the responses from all three public authorities in detail before deciding next steps. We should not prejudge its conclusions. The OEP’s press release clearly states that:

“If the response changes the OEP’s view on whether there has been a failure to comply with the law, or sets out steps the public authority intends to take to rectify the failure, then the OEP may decide not to take any further action in relation to the alleged failure(s).”


My answer to her final question is: yes, of course we will comply. We have created the OEP to try to find the best possible way to hold government to account on environmental policy following our leaving the European Union, where we were subject to infraction fines if we had broken the law. Through the Environment Act, we wanted to create something that held government departments to account. We believe in the OEP and what it does, and we will certainly comply with its findings.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, in its statement on Tuesday, the OEP identified serious breaches of environmental law. Despite what appears to be heavy investment to combat combined sewer overflows, Defra is accused of breaking Sections 18 and 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and other water regulations in deliberately allowing sewage overflows to continue when there has been no rain. Given yesterday’s debate on nutrients, are the Government really serious about protecting the environment as set out in the Environment Act, or are they only paying lip service?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I know the noble Baroness well enough to know that she does not really believe that. We sat through hours and hours of debate on the Environment Act, the Agriculture Act and the Fisheries Act. She knows that this Government have done more to protect the environment and deal with the unacceptable problem, which has existed for centuries, of sewage going into our rivers. She knows that we are investing in monitoring. The previous Government did not have a clue: they knew of 7% of sewage outflows. I started that change in 2012, and we now know of 91%; by the end of this year, we will know of 100%. That light of transparency is helping resolve this problem.

We have a record investment programme of £56 billion to deal with the problem. We have tougher regulation: there was a debate on nutrients yesterday and a debate in the Grand Committee on increasing penalties for breaches of rules from £250,000, where they are capped, to unlimited amounts. That is an example of tougher regulation that we are bringing in. At the moment, we have the largest ever criminal investigation by the Environment Agency into this matter, and we have a very serious civil investigation by the regulator Ofwat. We are absolutely committed to dealing with this, and we are doing more than any other Government have done previously.

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: New Breeds

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I know that the Act is sometimes held up as a poster boy for the malign effect of knee-jerk legislative reaction to a terrible incident. However, as I said, the pit bull terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro—the four species banned under the Act—are not breeds that have been involved in these awful attacks. One could therefore argue that there may have been more attacks if they had not been banned, but we are looking to make this effective and we want urgent action.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the phrase that there are no bad dogs, only bad owners, is patchy as breeds vary considerably. Spaniels are excellent at identifying victims in earthquakes; border collies are excellent at working with sheep. Labradors are brilliant assistance dogs; Alsatians and Rottweilers are brilliant guard dogs. For all, it is part of their inherent nature. The DDA should be reviewed bearing this in mind. Will the Minister give assurances that, if such a review takes place, it takes account of more evidence than just a single video clip?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I absolutely can give that assurance. We in government are lay people in this. There are real experts who understand animal behaviour and lawyers who can advise us on what will stand up in court. If we are to review this Act, we must make sure that we do not lose any benefits we have had from it and that we keep this House informed of every stage of the process.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has, as always, introduced this SI with clarity. This SI relates to extended producer responsibility for packaging, whereby the producer pays a levy or tax for the waste that it produces, which is then collected by the local authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has in the past accused me of being “nerdy” over certain issues. I fear that waste is one of those issues.

The public consultation took place on this scheme from March to June 2021. As a result of the responses to the consultation, Defra has made changes to the scheme and the implementation date has been extended to 2024. The postponement of the implementation date, along with the possibility of changes to the scheme itself, has caused concern in the plastics and glass industries. On Monday evening, I attended a dinner hosted by the Industry and Parliamentary Trust entitled “Unpacking Waste Regulation: Extended Producer Responsibility”. The discussion around the table was fascinating with many raising concerns about the lack of clear and transparent goals.

I am also perturbed about the scope of the material facilities, referred to in the EM as “MFs”. There is nothing giving further information on what form these material facilities will take. Can the Minister give information on the distinct types of material facilities? Paragraph 7.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that waste will arrive at the MFs unsorted. However, in many areas of the country, consumers are already separating their waste into glass, paper, card, plastic bottles, aluminium, steel et cetera. Consumers are up for helping with the problem of waste and separating it out themselves and should be encouraged to do so. What is needed is consistent kerbside recycling collections. What are the plans for this? There needs to be a complete plan for a circular waste economy. Can the Minister please give a timetable for the introduction of this?

Paragraph 10.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum gives a list of the responses to the consultation on the part of the Government. There is clarity over the collection of data on weighing and measuring the waste received and the collection of data will give a reasonably accurate picture of what is being produced, but what then happens to the waste? This is equally important. What it does not tell us is what happens to the waste. Does it go to incineration or chemical recycling or is it shipped offshore to be dealt with by other countries, such as Turkey? Currently, 60% of our waste is sent to Turkey. Can the Minister say what will happen with glass?

Paragraph 11 indicates that guidance will be issued for materials facilities in advance of October 2024 when the regulation comes into force. I am not sure whether the Minister said that that guidance had been issued. If not, he will understand that businesses need a long time to adapt to new regulations, in some cases as long as 18 months. However, it is already too late for that deadline to be met. Has the guidance been produced? If not, when is it likely to be produced?

The original proposals were for 60 kilograms of every 125 tonnes of mixed waste from each supplier to be tested. This has now been increased to 60 kilograms for every 75 tonnes of waste. Are suppliers likely to have mixed waste? Will it not already be separated? Some MFs deal with single waste streams or already separated waste while others do not. Can the Minister say what percentage of MFs receive separated waste and what percentage receive mixed waste?

Although this SI is an excellent step forward, there has been a lot of delay and uncertainty. Are the Government confident that the infrastructure is there to deal with the implementation?

I turn to the impacts set out in paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am afraid it is simply not true that there is

“no significant impact on business”,

as stated in paragraph 12.1. The DRS itself is likely to add 10p per bottle, which is unlikely to be absorbed by businesses. In paragraph 12.4, the number of MFs in scope is reduced from 739 to 159. This is a dramatic reduction; can the Minister please explain it?

Paragraph 12.6 refers to

“a larger proportion of privately operated facilities”,

thus reducing the cost to local authorities. However, some local authorities may not have their own facilities. How many local authorities use privately run facilities? There will undoubtedly be additional costs to local authorities, despite the offset to be received from the EPR levy.

Who, or which organisation, will the EPR scheme administrator be, and when is the appointment likely to be? It will be important for local authorities and businesses to know this in sufficient time before the implementation.

I apologise for the number of questions, but I am keenly interested in this subject and ensuring that the scheme operates effectively. I support the SI but am concerned that its implementation should operate efficiently and effectively.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of this statutory instrument. I am very grateful for the detail. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, there was much discussion in the other place about the detail of this SI and its financial impact. Although I do not wish to rerun the debate, it would be helpful to the Committee if the Minister could provide us with a little more information.

Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that a post-implementation review of the original 2016 regulations “was completed in 2020”, and it made a number of recommendations about changes to the regulations. Other than the need to make this change to support the rollout of extended producer responsibility for packaging, why has it taken the department three years to bring the instrument forward? Are any other changes due and, if so, when can we expect to see them?

A key justification for this instrument is that new data will improve quality monitoring and the consistency of recycling collections. There remain, however, substantial differences between recycling collections across different parts of the country, and we know that work on new schemes, including the deposit return scheme for plastic bottles, is behind schedule. Given the complexity, why have these workstreams not been given greater priority?

Paragraph 7.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that all material facilities must

“comply with the regulations from 1 October 2024”.

Can the Minister outline what steps would be taken if material facilities are found not to be complying?

During debate in the other place, it was made clear that stakeholders are concerned about the lack of clarity regarding the implementation of the new regime. Paragraph 11.1 states that guidance is forthcoming, but it would be fair to say that the Government have an occasionally poor track record on providing timely guidance. Can the Minister commit to a fixed date to reassure the sector? Also highlighted in the House of Commons was a survey that found that over half of recycling facilities lacked the space to undertake the enhanced sampling required under these regulations. What kind of advice or support is Defra providing? If there are extra costs, either in relation to these checks or arising from the need to store data for longer, where will they fall?

Finally, I wonder whether the Minister can build on the discussion in the other place and the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, regarding the lack of an impact assessment and the discrepancy in views between stakeholders and the department, with some material facilities suggesting that 80 new staff will have to be employed, at a cost of £1 million a year. What additional conversations has the department had, what reviews are being put in place to judge the impact and what are the timescales for these? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) (Amendment) Order 2023, which was laid before this House on 12 July, be approved. In doing so, I hope that it will be useful to your Lordships if I speak also to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) (No.2) Regulations 2023.

The purpose of the instruments before the Committee is to strengthen environmental civil sanctions and provide environmental regulators with the tools that they need to hold operators to account. The instruments have been grouped as they form a package of amendments to the civil sanctions available to Natural England and the Environment Agency.

A public consultation on these proposed changes was held earlier this year, first trailed in the plan for water, and received majority support from the public and a range of operators under the legislation in question. Strengthening regulations that hold polluters to account, from water companies to waste operators, is part of the Government’s wider plan to reduce pollution and protect the biodiversity and ecology of our natural environment. Earlier this year, we published our environmental improvement plan. It provides an ambitious five-year road map for a cleaner, greener country, with a delivery plan for restoring nature and improving environmental quality across the board. We have since gone further with our comprehensive integrated plan for water, which will deliver clean and plentiful water.

To deliver on our ambitions, we must ensure that regulators have all the tools they need to take action on unacceptable breaches of environmental regulations. The current provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 is capped at £250,000. This means that some operators may think that they can price in the penalty rather than follow the law. Therefore, current penalties do not act as a strong deterrent, particularly for large operators with significant turnover.

The limitation can be resolved by the amendments before the Committee today, which will entirely remove the cap. This will future-proof penalties to ensure that Natural England and the Environment Agency can determine the amount of the penalty in line with their enforcement policy. Penalties will be based on the degree of environmental harm and culpability as well as the size of the operator, ensuring that penalties are calibrated to act as a proportionate deterrent and punishment.

Currently, there is no provision for variable monetary penalties under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016. The majority of Environmental Agency investigations are conducted under the environmental permitting regulations but the agency is limited in its enforcement options to warnings, advice, guidance or criminal prosecutions. A “justice gap” exists for moderate to severe offences. This limitation can be resolved by the instruments, which will introduce variable monetary penalties to the environmental permitting regulations.

Strong safeguards for determining the penalty, including a requirement on the Environment Agency to take into account an operator’s ability to pay, remain in place. The Environment Agency will also continue to use the guidelines for environmental offences published by the independent Sentencing Council as the basis to determine the amounts of all variable monetary penalties. The guidelines include a number of safeguards to ensure that penalties are proportionate and take into account the size of an operator, its ability to pay, its degree of responsibility and the seriousness of the incident. The instruments require the environmental regulators to update and publish guidance that sets out their methodology for determining the amounts of these penalties. A consultation on updating the guidance has been launched and will ensure a fair, proportionate and consistent approach.

The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area. The Government’s environmental improvement plan and integrated plan for water make our commitment to protect the environment clear. These instruments will ensure that the regulators are able to act swiftly against those who would threaten to harm it. They build on announcements earlier this year, with the proceeds of fines going into water improvement schemes through a new water restoration fund, and on water company dividends being linked to environmental performance. Together, this is a strong package designed to target those companies most egregiously harming our environment.

I commend this draft instrument to the House.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks on these two statutory instruments. It is regrettable but not entirely surprising that businesses find it cheaper to pay the current fine of up to £250,000 than to fix the problem causing the breach of environmental law. There have been numerous debates in the House on storm overflows and the resultant sewage spills into waterways. It is time that this was resolved in a way that effectively deters the polluters from their anti-social activities. I fully support the removal of the cap of £250,000 for a larger fine and hope that the threat of a more substantial fine will be a sufficient deterrent.

I have looked at the consultation questions and responses on changing the cap. There was enormous support, with 88% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with the proposals to change the cap. I smiled to myself when I saw that the lowest support for this change came from the waste and resource management and energy sectors. Some 27 organisations ranging across a wide variety of interests are listed as having taken part in the consultation, from the Clean Rivers Trust and the River Otter Fisheries Association to Severn Trent Water and Wessex Water. There was a good cross-section of responses.

I noted that there was some concern that removing the cap might result in disproportionately high penalties. This would obviously depend on how someone had been affected by the breach of legal protection; the Minister set out the process for assessing fines. A minor breach is unlikely to receive a high penalty whereas a major incident that results in contamination over a large area and on a scale that takes huge resources to clean up should, quite rightly, deserve a substantial penalty.

Only by implementing the “polluter pays” principle in full will our environment eventually be cleared up. I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also supports closing the gaps in the enforcement regime. I fully support this SI.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we have been debating this amendment for some considerable time. There is a concern that we will not be able to get to the amendment with the real meat in it, so I will do my bit now.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her stamina and determination to do everything she can to protect animals from cruelty, harm and death no matter where they live. She has a reputation for being a doughty campaigner and is to be congratulated on agreeing to sponsor this Bill through the Lords. I have no interests to declare. I am not an animal expert but I have read the briefings.

This is a Bill that has government support. Originally, the measures would have been in the kept animals Bill, which was abandoned in favour of introducing various measures through Private Members’ Bills. This should have shortened the time taken to get measures on to the statute book. The glue traps Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, was one such Bill; the Sharks Fin Bill in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, was another.

I apologise for not being present at Second Reading due to other commitments, but my noble friend Lord Rennard covered the ground very thoroughly at the time. Although not perfect, this Bill is short and to the point and bans the import into Great Britain of a trophy from an endangered animal that has been hunted. This trophy can be any part or derivative of an endangered animal that has been obtained by hunting.

We on the Liberal Democrat Benches fully support the aims and objectives of this Bill, as I believe do the Labour Benches. However, from the number of amendments that have been tabled, it is obvious that this Bill does not have unanimous support on the Government Benches. But it does have overall support across the whole House, as the hunting of wild game animals, while a sport that attracts those with unlimited resources to spend on their pursuits, is abhorrent to the vast majority of the Chamber and the general public.

Turning to Amendment 1, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, gave—at length and very knowledgeably—the rationale for his amendment, which would in effect ensure that the Bill is not able to progress. The effect of this amendment is, first, to grant the Secretary of State alone the power to decide whether a legal prohibition applies that is beyond the scope of the proposed prohibition, which is intended to be a blanket ban. Secondly, the proposal is not a standard clause retained in conservation or animal welfare legislation. On that basis, we do not support this amendment.

I regret and apologise for the fact that I am not able to stay until the end of this evening’s business, which I suspect will be long-winded and repetitious. What we have before us this evening is a Minister of great integrity, knowledge and compassion alongside four female Members of the House from different political parties all attempting, on behalf of their parties, to enable the aims and objectives of this Bill to move towards ending animal trophy hunting by preventing the importation of those trophies into Great Britain.

I regret to say that, ranged on the other side, we have some of the landed gentry of the country—mostly hereditary Peers—doing their utmost to filibuster and talk the Bill out. They are entitled to express their views, of course. I generally have great regard for the contribution made to the work of this Chamber by the hereditary Peers, but I fear that, this evening, they will not do their reputation among their colleagues or the public at large any favours at all. Despite the words of the noble Lord, Lord Swire, the opposers of this Bill will take the opportunity this evening to attempt to kill it off by filibustering to ensure that there is no Report stage due to a shortage of time. They do this because they know that if the Bill got to Report, none of their amendments would be passed and they would be roundly defeated.

This tactic was used to talk out the hereditary peers by-elections Bill, despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, and came mostly from a section of the Conservative Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, would have us believe that trophy hunting is of great benefit to all, including the animals. I take completely the point about conservation and economics but the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that the trophies themselves do not matter at all is breathtaking.

The hunting trophies Bill was in the Conservative 2019 manifesto. Although supporting the Conservative manifesto is not my main aim in life, I and my colleagues do support this Private Member’s Bill and are passionate about protecting endangered wild animals from the revolting practice of being killed for their body parts. In whatever way those opposing this Bill may argue their case, they are unlikely to get support from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, after that speech, I should begin by declaring a few non-interests. I am not a hereditary Peer. I am not a landowner unless you count a small garden about half the size of this Chamber on the Hampshire/Berkshire border. I am not a trophy hunter, nor do I oppose the import of all trophies.

However, I speak in support of my noble friend Lord Caithness’s amendment. I go back to where he started, namely with the markhor—that is, Capra falconeri, the screw-horned goat that is the national animal of Pakistan. Last year, I was lucky enough to see the extraordinary landscapes where these animals live in Baltistan, Chitral and Hunza; there are also isolated pockets of them in Afghanistan and India. In fact, they were thought to be extinct in India as recently as the 1990s and were in the most extreme category of UN extinction watch as recently as the end of the last century—that is, until their numbers were revived through the carefully targeted sale of a very small number of hunting licences, the revenue from which is reserved to local communities. Those communities then have every incentive to preserve habitats and are in effect turned into so many gamekeepers that they ensure that no animals except the elderly, post-reproductive males marked for culling are in danger. The result of that change is that the markhor has rebounded immensely.

It is not the case that trophy hunting is always a tool of conservation. That is why I say that I am not against the whole concept, but I want to speak in favour of the distinction that this amendment makes. Let me give an obvious example from the other side. There is no evidence that the ban on whale hunting has had a detrimental effect. On the contrary, the recovery of whale numbers has been one of the unremarked miracles of the past couple of decades. We have seen an amazing bounce-back in the number of humpbacks and bowheads although, sadly, we have not yet seen the same for blue or gray whales.

Even there, there is a habitat aspect to things. A lot of whales are killed because they swallow fishing gear that has been discarded or get in clashes with vessels. However, I am not going to argue—I do not think that anyone else will—that a hunting ban there is ineffective or that a trophy ban would make a difference but, where we are talking about habitats, it is vital to give local people an incentive to conserve that habitat. I cannot put it better than my noble friend Lord Lucas just did: it is easy for us to be sentimental at a distance about lions, tigers, elephants and so on because we do not have to live next to them. Without any incentive to preserve their numbers, local people will naturally see them as, at the very least, competitors for resources but also as a danger. Without the right incentives, they will have every reason to hunt them to extinction, as I am afraid human populations have done to large mammals on every continent going back to our hunter/gatherer days.

This amendment draws a distinction, giving the Secretary of State a last-ditch power to decide where there would be an unintended consequence for conservation. By the way, I would love to have a general power to stop unintended consequences of legislation. Almost always you get the most unintended consequences from Bills that have been passed in response to some public campaign. People have not thought through all the implications and we hear exactly the arguments that we are hearing tonight, that the public demand this law. If you are presented with, as a general proposition, the idea that we should not kill magnificent animals, then of course, everyone will agree with that—I would, and I hope that everyone would. However, we are looking at ways in which to modify this legislation so as not to have a detrimental effect on conservation.

I do not want to be accused of filibustering, so I will keep this very brief and close by saying that, as I understand it, that is precisely the reason why we exist here as a second Chamber. What function do we have if not to act as a break on the necessary radicalism of the popularly elected House? Being here, we have the privilege to look beyond the headlines and to consider in full the implications and the potential unintended consequences of laws that have been drafted in a knee-jerk way. This legislation is precisely an example of such lawmaking. Therefore, it seems to me the proper role of this Chamber to approve it and to take out the parts of it that would have the most harmful impacts.

Clothing Sales: Sustainability

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend is a living example that buying from thrift shops is what we should all be doing. This month in particular, we should be encouraging people to do that. Slow fashion is the way forward. We need to continue to make sure that we are requiring manufacturers and retailers to make and sell goods that last longer, are properly supplied and do not go landfill when they come to the end of their natural life. Recycling is an emerging technology, but the most important thing is that we all stop buying so many new things.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, an estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste are created annually by the fashion industry. This is set to increase by 2030. Thinking of Marrakesh as an example, would the Minister agree that it would be better for this redundant clothing to go to parts of the world where people have lost their homes and possessions, instead of to landfill?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

Like everyone in this House, I pay huge tribute to those charities and organisations that do precisely that. It is absolutely vital that support is given to people in vulnerable circumstances who have lost everything so that they can clothe themselves and their families. It also shows us the importance in our lives of trying to develop policies, both as a Government and societally, so that we use less, consume less and, where we can, support those in need.

Orphan Sites: Hazardous Waste

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My Lords, I once asked the then president of the Campaign to Protect Rural England what he thought the Government should do about fly- tipping and littering, and he said a shoot-to-kill policy. I think he was joking, but at times, I am sort of with him in spirit. The Government have provided more funds, increased the fines for fly-tipping and increased the ability of local authorities and the police to, for example, fine people for littering from a vehicle and to accept dashcam evidence. We are serious about trying to prevent this scourge. There is an organisation which now brings different groups of people together to assist landowners, who bear the brunt of fly-tipping, to minimise the chances of fly-tipping taking place in hotspots, but also provides them, through the local authority, with funding that will catch the criminals and take them to justice.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, the cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites can be enormous—as in the case of the sheepskin factory in Glastonbury bought by the previous RDA, where sections of land had to be abandoned. Given the extreme shortage of housing, does the Minister agree that it would be more cost-efficient to clean up orphan hazardous waste sites for new homes rather than paying to clear up newly and deliberately nutrient-polluted waterways? Given his comments on water pollution in the past, can he please explain the volte-face on this issue?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness is conflating two very different issues. What we are talking about here is orphan waste sites where the owner has in most cases gone out of business and nobody, in effect, owns them. We need a mechanism whereby an owner is found and the contaminated waste is cleared. What she is referring to is a system that has failed to unlock much-needed new housing and which has been grossly misrepresented with respect to its impact on our waterways. I would be very happy to have a longer debate with the noble Baroness on that matter.