Water: Wales and England
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
There are plans for more reservoirs. A reservoir in East Anglia has increased in size and, I hope, we will very soon see plans being brought forward by Thames Water for a major reservoir that will resolve many of these issues. The reservoirs in London were closed because a ring main was created, which is sometimes quoted erroneously in this case.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, water is an essential resource, but we have seen it being polluted on a grand scale through legal sewage overflows. This week, we have also seen that the water network of Ukraine is vulnerable to catastrophic attack, causing great personal distress and huge environmental damage. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has highlighted the need to move water around the country, from areas of plenty to those suffering scarcity. Is the Minister confident that, nationwide, we have sufficient water resources to meet the current population’s demands?
Lord Benyon (Con)
If you draw a rough line from the Bristol Channel to the Wash, all that is north and west of it has a surfeit of water, but there are areas that are south and east of it where rainfall is often below that of some countries in sub-Saharan Africa. That is why our environment improvement plan sets a clear reduction of demand, halving leakage rates, developing new supplies, moving water to where it is needed and reducing the need for drought measures that can harm the environment.
Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us. First, can he explain when the last consultation was? He said that there had been a consultation in 2018. Paragraph 10.1 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a consultation but seems to indicate that the last one was held in 2018, which is five years ago.
Secondly, these are huge increases. They are not 5% or 10%; we are looking at a 41% increase for the cost of animal by-products regulations, a 53% increase in the current fees of the animal health regulations, 65% for the animal health regulations relating to artificial breeding controls, and a more modest 21% increase for animal health regulations relating to the poultry health scheme. In the context of the general situation and the increases we have seen in public sector salaries, everyone balked at a 14% increase and 5% or 10% increases. I quite accept that, as my noble friend said, there has not been an increase since 2018, but these are huge increases. Can he put my mind at rest and say that there has been a more recent consultation with the industry, which is feeling fairly beleaguered?
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, referred to the cost of living crisis. What is becoming clear is that, while supermarket prices are going up, those increased costs are not being passed on to, for example, producers of meat and poultry. I am concerned. I realise that they are spread over two years but these are really big increases. If there has been a more recent consultation, I would be interested to know what the feedback from the industry has been in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important SI, which wraps two previous SIs up into one and deals mostly with the levying of fees.
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the fees will use the actual
“cost to the agency and are not uplifted using inflationary rates”,
and that “no profit element” is involved. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already said very eloquently what a large increase there has been in these fees. The fees also cover seven different service areas provided by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA, which is an executive agency of Defra. The fees have not been updated for some time, as the Minister said, with Brexit and Covid somewhat dominating the agenda.
Paragraph 7.3 of the EM gives details of how the costs will be calculated and the fees collected by APHA, stressing again that inflation will not be considered. I wonder whether this is wise. If there is no allowance for inflation, how will the true costs be calculated and passed on to those involved? An annual review—if not uplift—in fees is generally accepted in all other areas of life, so why not here? The Treasury requires, quite reasonably, that true costs be recovered. If there is no annual review of these fees and inflation is not to be considered, it is not going to be very long before a full-scale review is needed again. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Paragraph 7.9 of the EM, relating to border control posts, indicates that documentary and identification checks will be conducted by authorised vets
“to prevent the introduction of diseases harmful to animal and public health”.
This is especially important. However, we have had debates over the years, especially since the advent of Brexit, about the availability of adequately qualified vets to conduct this inspection work. This type of work is not high on British vets’ “must do” lists. It is nevertheless extremely important that these border checks be conducted and carried out thoroughly. Is the Minister confident that sufficient trained vets are available to implement the necessary checks?
I note that, in the instrument itself, there is a category on page 7 headed “Animals not covered by any other category”. Can the Minister say whether this includes Camelids—that is, llamas and alpacas? If not, where are they covered in the instrument?
Lastly, the uplift in fees will be implemented over a two-year period, as the Minister said, with some this year and the rest in 2024. The cost will fall on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies that have not had an uplift since 2019. It is to be hoped that they will be expecting this uplift. Whether they have looked at the fees listed in the APHA section of the Government’s website is another matter; I did not find my search of that website a terribly rewarding exercise. None the less, I am happy to support this SI.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his time today and for outlining the need for the changes laid out before us. This is a wide-ranging SI, increasing the fees charged by the Animal and Plant Health Agency for a range of services, from bovine semen controls to salmonella control programmes. While His Majesty’s Opposition of course support the enforcement of our agreed regulatory framework, I worry about steep and speedy increases in associated costs, as the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bakewell, have already referred to.
Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate these regulations. I generally support them, but I have a couple of queries. One relates to the 38th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which refers to a submission from Green Alliance that questions how the offsetting set out in the regulations will work and how Defra will ensure that
“the ability to offset obligations will not create incentives for producers to recycle potentially reusable packaging before it reaches the end of its useful life, to avoid paying producer fees”.
It is important to point out that this is a very complex area of policy that the Government are trying to roll out.
I received a briefing from the Food and Drink Federation earlier this year on its concerns about extended producer responsibility, which forms the crux of these regulations and is explained in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. The problem we face—as my noble friend is extremely well aware, having served, as I have, as an MP in the other place—is that every single local authority seems to have a different rule relating to how waste packaging is to be disposed of. There is then the problem of potential contamination, particularly if foodstuffs form part of the waste disposed of.
From the consumer point of view, it is a bit depressing to learn that, although hundreds of local councils collect household waste, each has different rules as to how it can be recycled, which bin to put it in and what consumers should do with their waste. Then they find that much of it is not recycled at all; it is incinerated. Years ago, when my noble friend and I served as shadow Ministers in the other place, I went on a visit to SELCHP—South East London Combined Heat and Power—which now is combined heat and power but at the time was not. It burned everything, but it did not do anything with the energy it could have recovered from the process. It was interesting to see that all the waste from Westminster at that time was not recycled; it was just burned.
The Food and Drink Federation has raised some very real questions, which I ask my noble friend to comment on in the context of extended producer responsibility. First, should we not have basic principles agreed at the outset by all concerned? That would include the producers of the packaging, the manufacturers of a product, the Government and the local authorities which are looking to recycle. Secondly, it asks: how should an extended producer responsibility be framed as it relates to local government, including the financing
“of potential stranded assets and management of existing local government contracts”?
How could those be managed as part of an agreed transition without hampering the development of what everyone wants to see: a long-term, world-class solution to enable the UK to reduce the cost and disruption of packaging?
Thirdly, the federation calls for “Partnership with industry” to bring about a producer-led extended producer responsibility that harnesses the considerable expertise arising from setting up these schemes all over the world. This would
“drive innovation and business growth while constraining costs”
that would otherwise
“lead to higher consumer prices”.
The example it gives is that of a biscuit wrapper, in which the flexible plastic used
“is specially designed to guarantee the freshness and quality of the biscuits in it. The companies that use this type of valuable, flexible plastic for biscuits and other food types need it back. But flexible plastics are neither collected nor recycled in the kerbside system today”.
Does my noble friend not agree that in a good end-to-end extended producer responsibility system,
“each biscuit wrapper thrown away should be collected and given a second life as part of a circular system, creating jobs and driving green growth along the way”?
That is my main concern, but the other concern the Food and Drink Federation has raised is the way in which the Government have created their producer-led scheme administrator. It seems to be different in this country from other models that have been used elsewhere. Why have the Government chosen the model that we have for extended producer responsibility?
While I support the regulations before us, there are obviously practical problems with the way they have been drafted. I think my noble friend said that these are amendments to previous regulations, which presumably came before the House as well. I realise that this is a complex area but it would be better, in one sense, to slow the process down and have regulations which are fit for purpose: for the consumer, so we know what we are doing when we dispose of the packaging; for the producer, so they know what they are doing when they create the packaging in the first place, and are held responsible for that packaging; and for the local authorities which collect and dispose of this packaging. I support the amendments but I would welcome my noble friend’s comments in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and welcome this SI, which is intended to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in circulation. This is long overdue and I look forward to seeing a lot less packaging from McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other fast-food outlets littering our town centres and rural countryside.
The SI makes provision for the collection of data about plastic packaging ahead of the full implementation of the regulations in 2024. I will read out in full Paragraph 7.1 of the EM, because I will be referring to it later:
“Extended Producer Responsibility … for packaging will require producers to take responsibility for the environmental impact of the packaging they supply by obligating them to pay for the collection and disposal costs of this packaging when it becomes waste. This will provide a financial incentive for producers to reduce the amount of packaging they supply and to improve the recyclability of their packaging”.
Hooray—and not before time.
The regulations, and the need to collect and report the data on the plastic packaging used, apply to those businesses with an annual turnover of £2 million and above. But the de minimis threshold turnover is £1 million, at which level the data has to be collected but not reported. Can the Minister say why this is? What is the purpose of collecting the data if it does not have to be reported?
Defra conducted a consultation with industry on the implementation of these regulations twice: first, from February to May 2019, when there were 679 responses; and secondly, from March to June 2021, when there were 1,241 responses—nearly double that of the earlier consultation. The first consultation was a general one while the second was more detailed and outlined the proposals to require producers to report twice yearly in April and October, covering a six-month period; it could be that that detail is what generated the greater level of response.
Woodland Cover Protection and Grey Squirrel Control
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Redesdale on securing this debate and on his detailed introduction to it. I was fascinated by the idea of gene drive technology.
The promotion and protection of our native woodland cover is vital to maintain and improve the country’s biodiversity. In March 2022, the UK’s total woodland cover was estimated at 3.24 million hectares, which is 13% of the total UK land area. During 2021-22, 14,000 hectares of new woodland were created, but although woodland is gradually increasing, woodland wildlife is decreasing. The enthusiasm for planting fast-growing firs and pines as a cash crop has led to silent forests and woodland walkways. The loss of ancient trees has hastened the loss of wildlife that used to inhabit the woods. Existing native woodlands are isolated and in poor ecological condition. Disease is also a significant factor.
Non-native invasive trees and shrubs, such as rhododendron, have grown at a prolific rate, taking over the space that used to be inhabited by our native shrubs. The Minister will know that, as a member of the land use commission, I am in favour of a land use strategy, which would clearly delineate where it was important for native tree species to be protected and new saplings to be planted. We need a lot more tree cover, but it has to be the right trees in the right place.
Trees, however hardy, are under attack not just from disease and cash crops but from the other invasive species: the grey squirrel. Grey squirrels are an extremely successful invasive species, systematically destroying trees that were previously the home of the native red squirrel. Wherever the grey squirrel goes, it eventually reduces the number of red squirrels. There are several reasons for this. The grey is a carrier of squirrel pox, to which it has some immunity—not so the unlucky red squirrel. Squirrel pox is easily passed from the grey to the red, resulting in a reduction in numbers.
The grey squirrel is more successful in adapting to a changing habitat. Sitka spruce plantations are an unfavourable habitat for the red squirrel, which find that the areas where they can exist are diminishing. They are pushed into smaller areas of our countryside.
In 2014, the Government published a grey squirrel action plan, which has been referred to. This is now nearly 10 years old. Under the Countryside Stewardship scheme in this plan, landowners can be provided with financial support for controlling grey squirrels. There is apparently a new grey squirrel action plan, but it has yet to be published. Can the Minister say when this might happen?
On 24 March this year, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at Defra said, in answer to a Written Question, that
“Defra has provided £300,000, to support research and development of fertility control methods to reduce numbers of grey squirrels”.
Can the Minister say whether this is effective? Many noble Lords have asked about this.
The UK Squirrel Accord—a partnership of over 40 organisations—seeks to secure and expand red squirrel populations through the red squirrel action plan. Let us hope that the two plans together will have the desired effect of reducing greys, increasing the number of reds and assisting damaged trees to recover.
Water Companies: Customer Bills
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not agree that levelling up is a soundbite—it is really happening. I do agree that we need to make sure that we are supporting water companies and, through the regulator, making sure that they are taking a longer-term view on this. Each price round is five years, and the investment decisions we want them to take look way into the future, ahead of that. We want to make sure that we are working with the industry to create a long-term solution and that we are doing that with customers in mind. Some of the promises being bandied around about ending all sewage outflows by 2030, and those making them, really need to be challenged, because that will have a very big impact on households that are struggling to pay other bills at the moment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the first three CEOs of water companies to waive this year’s bonus due to sewage pollution were from Yorkshire Water, South West Water and Thames Water, followed by those from Welsh Water and, lastly, Southern Water. The campaign waged both inside and outside this Chamber to influence water companies has begun to have an effect. Does the Minister believe that the measures which have recently been announced by water companies are sufficient to achieve the desired outcome?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point, because the activities within Parliament and outside it on this issue have really struck home, and people are, rightly, demanding that we take into account the impact of development and growing populations on the health of our rivers. It is not just water companies; it is agriculture and the connections we all make from our sewers and septic tanks that are causing problems for our rivers. So she is absolutely right: we need to ensure that we are tackling those things, and it is right that the water companies are recognising that. Those four companies should be applauded for doing it, but we want to see much more investment from them, and that is what the Government are driving.
Land Use Commission
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises a crucial point. We talk about farmers and land managers, but those descriptions are too simple and generic, because we have owner-occupiers, registered tenants under the 1986 Act, graziers and farm business tenancies; it is an incredibly complex system of tenure. We are considering the Rock report and will respond to it.
Of course, the Church is a very big landowner. We want to make sure that it works alongside a great many other landowners, both large and small, to tackle these important issues, including feeding the population; tackling net zero; reversing declines in species; building homes; and providing space for people—all on a single piece of real estate. This is a complicated process, but it is one that we are determined to tackle.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the land use committee, I know just how many detailed evidence sessions and discussion there were on the proposals for a land use commission. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, indicated, the proposed commission is to cover all aspects of land use and more than one government department, not just Defra. However, there has been no indication of when this report will be allocated time for a debate in this Chamber. Can the Minister please put in a good word for it to be expedited before the Summer Recess?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I would love to spend hours talking about this issue; it is one of endless fascination. I have the zeal of the convert on this because I was always sceptical about what I felt was a very top-down process but, having read the report, I now see the need for it. That is why we are tackling the issue in a meaningful way right across government; if we can find time for a debate on the report, I am certain that I will be dragged in to give the Government’s view.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon and the opportunity to put one or two questions. He will recall the history of the attempt to frack—the use of hydraulic fracturing—in North Yorkshire, and that the one reason it was not allowed to happen was because no permit was given for the water supply and the reuse of water.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 36th Report, which says that Defra has no intention of revisiting that issue. Can I press my noble friend the Minister to ensure that there will be no end to the current moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in any part of England, to the extent that it might fall within the regulations before us this afternoon? If there was to be an end to the moratorium, can he give us an undertaking that the Government—whichever department it happened to be, as departments come and go—would actually come before both Houses with revised permitting, with regard to fracking?
I now turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, starting with paragraph 7.16 onwards, relating to groundwater activities and the use of geothermal and other green technologies. Could my noble friend explain whether, if there is a significant risk of introducing microbial pollution, no permit would actually be issued in that regard, whether it is close to a sensitive habitat or not? That is just to understand what the purposes of the permitting are. I understand, in the second paragraph of 7.18, that it does look as though this is going to become a regulated activity, so I would just like to understand entirely what the remit of the department in relation to the regulations would be.
On paragraph 7.22, and an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge into a sewer network, could my noble friend highlight specifically what activity is in play there? Obviously, there is a situation where there is a heavy rainfall and sewage can flow on to a highway and then into someone’s house. I understand that highways authorities currently have no responsibility for any sewage overflow, or do not contribute in any way to reducing flood risk in this regard. Is that a loophole, if you like, that the Government would like to close? Obviously, it is unfortunate at the moment that there are not sufficient sustainable drains in place and that there is no end to the automatic right to connect, which may mean that sewage flowing as wastewater from a four- or five-bedroomed house which has been given planning permission can come into a combined sewer and unfortunately spill into houses, either directly into an existing development, or off a highway. So there does seem to be this loophole that highways authorities are not covered. Is that what my noble friend means by an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge? I am just trying to understand what paragraph 7.22 of the Explanatory Memorandum would cover.
With those few remarks, I otherwise welcome the regulations before us this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks to this SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this instrument in April and raised concerns about groundwater quality and sub-surface energy proposals. As a result, Defra revised the Explanatory Memorandum. Those amendments helped to clarify the instrument, but I have some comments and questions.
As the EM states, groundwater “plays a vital role” for food manufacturing, brewing, wetland ecosystems and the agriculture industry, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. The quality and purity of this water is vital to many of these, especially chalk streams, the protection of which was debated last week during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This instrument indicates that it will update and clarify the existing control measures within the EPR for protecting groundwater from site-based activities. Will this include the discharge of chicken slurry into the River Wye, for instance, or is this classified as not groundwater but surface water? Perhaps those are the same.
Water Companies: Licences
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the announcement by Ofwat on 20 March of a change to the licences of water companies requiring that dividend payments are linked to performance.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, we support Ofwat’s new measures, which were made possible by new licence modification powers that this Government gave to Ofwat via the Environment Act 2021. The measures strengthen the existing dividend licence conditions so that Ofwat can take enforcement action against water companies that do not make an explicit link between dividend payments and their performance for customers and the environment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank the Minister for his response. Since I tabled this Question, the Government have published their plan for delivering clean and plentiful water, which is to be welcomed and offers much hope. However, river pollution has blocked the development of 20,000 much-needed new homes, and more than 7,500 days’ worth of raw sewage has been dumped in various Ministers’ constituencies. Does the Minister believe that withholding dividend payments to water company executives and shareholders will really contribute to making the difference needed to improve long-term water quality? Surely something more robust is needed.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My Lords, that is just part of a great many things that the Government are doing. The new power that the Environment Agency has to link the companies’ licences to ring-fence provision on infrastructure spending is important. This comes as part of a plan that includes the Environment Act, as I said earlier; the Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan; a strategic policy statement for Ofwat, in which the Government required very stringent new standards; and our recently published plan for water. No Government are doing more to tackle this issue.
Oil Spill: Poole Harbour
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this is an incredibly worrying time for the people whose lives and incomes are affected by this oil spill. It has now been confirmed that oil is ashore and wildlife is affected. Can the Minister advise us on when the infrastructure protecting Poole harbour was last examined for statutory compliance? Can he confirm that his department and the Environment Agency will provide support to restore the sensitive eco balance of the marshlands and harbour?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, television has shown us the extent of this spill; the oil has clearly mixed with the water in the bay. Two hundred barrels were released, allegedly containing only 20% oil, yet seabirds are being covered in it. This is not the first time such an instance has occurred. The plant is 50 years old. This is an SSSI, a Ramsar site and a European marine site, and the licence for the plant has another 15 years to run. Does the Minister agree that this is not the right environment for such a polluting activity to take place, affecting not only the environment but the bathing water status of Poole harbour?
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her point, and I agree with her that this is a very serious and worrying spill; I hope it has been contained. A lot of work has been done by a lot of agencies, including the marine coastal agency, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Food Standards Agency—regarding the shellfish produced in Poole harbour—and the local IFCA. The Dorset Local Resilience Forum has also done noble work in galvanising lots of different agencies to resolve this.
I am not aware of the legislation governing Poole Harbour, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, points out, there are overlaying environmental designations; it is a very special area indeed. There is also an enormous amount of human activity, not least that associated with the tourist income for the local area. We want to make sure that we are not only containing this but finding out what caused it and doing everything we can to make sure it does not happen again. The recovery operation has sealed the pipe. It will be replaced and we will monitor the company doing that, which owns this very large facility, and make sure that the polluter is responsible for the damage caused.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, is absolutely right: about 80% of the 200 barrels of pollutant that was released was water. As of this morning, some 20 birds have been found to be affected. It is not known at this stage whether they will recover or will require further treatment, but I very much hope that we have contained the situation.
Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “that this House declines to approve the Direct Payments to Farmers (Reductions) (England) Regulations 2023 as they would reduce the direct payments made to farmers for the 2023 year of the Basic Payments Scheme; considers that the implementation of this reduction in payments, combined with rising input and energy costs to produce food, risks the livelihoods of British farmers as they transition their businesses to producing food and public goods like environmental protection; and calls on His Majesty’s Government to accelerate urgently the roll-out of the Environmental Land Management scheme”.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. Needless to say, I have a different view and feel that he somewhat overstates his case. The statutory instrument reduces the money that farmers get from the CAP through the basic farm payments by at least a further 35%. After Brexit, the then Minister assured the House that as the Government phased out BPS payments on a sliding scale, the environmental land management scheme would replace payments, but on a different basis. The Minister gave assurances that the total sum of money—£2.4 billion, as mentioned—that had been allocated under the CAP would be maintained and reallocated under ELMS during the seven-year transition period.
The Minister at the time believed that, and I believed him. What has actually happened in somewhat different. The money may well be there, but it has not been allocated in a way that farmers can easily access. The Direct Payments to Farmers (Reduction) (England) Regulations 2022, which came into force on 15 April 2022, made the following reductions in direct payments: to those farmers receiving £30,000 or less, 20%; to those receiving more than £30,000 but less than £50,000, 25%; to those receiving between £50,000 and more than £150,000, 35%.
That is what the SI said. I believe it should have read, “those between £50,000 and no more than £150,000”, as the next category is those above £150,000—40%, on top of the previous year’s reductions. The SI we are debating today would make additional reductions as follows: for £30,000 or less, 35%; above £30,000 and no more than £50,000, 40%; above £50,000 and no more than £150,000, 50%; and above £150,000, 55%.
We can see immediately that the cumulative effect is very harsh indeed. Now, this would not matter if farmers were able to replace this lost income through ELMS. There are some excellent ELMS strands which have been rolled out, as the Minister has listed, but many are still in the pilot stage. Others have yet to see the light of day in a form which farmers can easily assimilate and assess how this would fit in with their business plans and models.
Farmers are struggling. They have seen significant cuts to their basic payment already: at least 5% in December 2021 and at least 20% in December 2022. Meanwhile, input costs have increased significantly. Energy bills are sky high, and the costs of fertilisers and animal feeds are also significantly up. Farmers are struggling to recruit people to pick produce, leaving food rotting in the fields, despite Ministers encouraging our population to move to areas where this type of work is available. The avian flu crisis is leading to egg shortages. The weather in Spain has led to major shortages of produce in supermarkets. This latter is clear evidence of climate change and an excellent example of why the UK needs to transition faster.
While farmers are struggling with all these factors, the Government are cutting energy support for them from this April by about 85%. The energy bills support scheme is being replaced by the energy bills discount scheme. Under the support scheme, farmers, like all other businesses, benefited from an absolute cap on the cost of electricity and gas per kilowatt hour. Under the new discount scheme, which starts on 1 April, businesses will get a discount: a small proportion of the bill covered. This means that farmers are likely to see energy support drop by 85%. So not only are farmers losing BPS this year, they are seeing this help cut—all during a food shortage crisis.
Farms are no longer to be classed as energy-intensive businesses, robbing them of more support. Minette Batters, president of the NFU, wrote to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget, asking him to prioritise food production. This request was ignored. Ms Batters said
“the NFU was clear that greater support is needed for the thousands of farm businesses which are trying, but struggling, to keep our nation fed amidst soaring production costs. It’s therefore extremely frustrating that the Energy and Trade Intensive Industries scheme was not extended to include energy intensive sectors such as horticulture and poultry”.
Farmers are being undermined by the new trade deals that allow food to be imported from Australia and New Zealand which, despite ministerial reassurances, is not produced to animal welfare and environmental standards currently existing in the UK. If this SI is agreed and another 35% reduction in farmers’ basic payments goes through, food production is likely to drop even more as farmers make decisions now about what to plant and produce next year. We are seeing the increased cost of both fertiliser and energy leading to tomato plantings in the UK dropping off dramatically.
Farmers should be able to replace the money lost through access to new and better environmental land management schemes. We on these Benches support ELMS. However, the Government have not handled the transition at all well. It has been somewhat botched. There was even a threat back in September, under the premiership of Liz Truss, that ELMS would be dropped altogether.
Cambridgeshire farmer Martin Lines, the chairman of the Nature Friendly Farming Network, which promotes sustainable farming, said that any delay to the ELMS would deny farmers crucial support to adapt to a changing climate. He said:
“If the government is stalling ELMS, it is failing any duty of leadership in maintaining momentum and building resilience”.
No wonder farmers are not rushing to take up those ELMS already launched.
We are six years after the Brexit vote, and two years after the start of the reduction in basic payments. On 5 January this year at the Oxford Farming Conference, Minister Spencer announced more money for farmers and landowners through both the countryside stewardship and the sustainable farming incentive schemes. As the Minister has already said, this change means that farmers could receive up to a further £1,000 per year for taking nature-friendly farming action through the sustainable farming incentive—SFI. This new management payment will be made for the first 50 hectares of farm, at £20 per hectare, in an SFI agreement, to cover the administrative costs of participation and to attract smaller businesses—many of which are tenant farmers—that are currently underrepresented in the scheme.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is undoubtedly true that the reduction in the BPS was well trailed and consulted on and appeared reasonable. As other noble Lords have said, change is always difficult, but as others have also said, it could have been handled better.
What was not anticipated by farmers was the extremely slow rollout of ELMS. The initial pilots should have been held before the beginning of the reduction of the BPS. Had this been done earlier, there could have been a faster and more efficient rollout of ELMS across the farming community. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, referred to the uncertainty farmers are currently feeling.
Most farmers are keen to take part and improve their land quality, contribute to net zero, improve biodiversity and restore habitats. However, they need to make a living at the same time. The Minister has extolled the virtue of the SFI, which last year spent only 0.44% of the overall budget on that scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the many debates we had during the progress of the Agriculture Act, and to the long-term nature of farming. We made those points over and again, but they were not listened to. Energy price hikes and fertiliser shortages have not helped. Changing to a different method of fertiliser takes time, and the shortage of fodder for animals has also had an impact. All this has had a cumulative effect on farm profitability.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, we fully support the ethos and rollout of ELMS. The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, made some very important points on the reward that farmers get for their produce, saying that it is so small and unsustainable. She promotes escalating ELMS, and we fully support her in this. What we are asking for is a pause in the reduction of the BPS. ELMS is vital and needs to speed up to catch up with the gap that the BPS has created.
Some 70% of land in the country is managed by either agriculture, horticulture or open countryside. The land needs and deserves to be managed in a sustainable way. We must ensure farmers are still here to achieve this. Some 44,000 farmers have left farming in the last four years; that is an undeniable fact. I do not believe that the whole House is on a very different page; we just do not agree on the way this should go forward. I understand and appreciate that others do not support this amendment. Nevertheless, I would like to test the opinion of the House.