Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations. At first glance, this seems like a very minor matter, a mistake having been made in the date of implementation of the regulations, 2021 having been substituted for 2015. That technical error does not appear to have been picked up quickly, despite annual quotas for HFCs being set and their importance to a range of essential products, including refrigeration, air conditioning, medical inhalers and fire extinguishers.
HFCs are regulated by quota, which, had the original date of 2021 been adhered to, would have resulted in businesses receiving too little quota. However, levels of HFCs have been reducing since 2015 by 55%, as the Minister has said, so progress is being made towards the 79% reduction required by 2030. I assume that the error was picked up only when the phase-down and three-year recalculation took place. The next recalculation is due in January 2024, and the deadline for its submission is 31 October, so it is a very tight timeline to correct the calculation error.
Although the recalculation does not affect technical operability, not having a consultation is interesting. The businesses that would have been adversely affected had this error not been identified and corrected would, presumably, have suffered at least a disadvantage to their operation, and I would have expected them to have a view on this and to have been consulted. There is also no impact assessment; it has been deemed unnecessary as the instrument corrects a technical error, but that error relates directly to the level of HFCs that can be used in the various products dependent on them.
Should the other place and this Committee refuse to endorse these regulations, there would be an impact on a number of particularly important businesses. However, I understand completely that, at the time of Brexit, the sheer number of SIs passing through Defra was enormous and some errors were unfortunately made. My only surprise was that this one took a while to surface. Nevertheless, I accept the importance of this SI and am content to support it as it stands.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the regulations before us. As has been stated, this is an unusually straightforward statutory instrument as it seeks solely to correct a date error in a piece of retained EU law relating to fluorinated greenhouse gases. Therefore, I plan to keep my contribution short.
However, to reiterate the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, it is clear that the technical error, as outlined in Paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which changed the baseline date for the annual quota system from 2015 to 2021, would have a detrimental impact on the businesses affected and make compliance challenging. It is also contrary to the policy intent. However, it is concerning that the SI is before us only today, when the deadline for recalculating the underlying reference values is 31 October. In other words, the dataset needs to be calculated next week, yet His Majesty’s Government have put this before us only seven days before the deadline. When was the error identified? Could the department have brought forward the instrument earlier to give assurance and clarity to business? Can the Minister also confirm that this is the last example of this error, and that we should not expect to see any more SIs of a similar nature in the coming weeks?
While I have the Minister’s attention, Paragraph 14.1 of the EM notes that a wider review of the F-gas regulation is under way. Can he update your Lordships’ House on the timelines for the review? I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (Amendment) Order 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for his thorough introduction to this statutory instrument which, although straightforward, is confusing in some elements. Throughout the Explanatory Memorandum, there are references to what is being changed and what it will do now, but they do not always appear coherent. The AHDB was set up in 2008 under the provisions of the NERC Act 2006 and provides advice to a number of industries involved in animals and horticulture. The original 2008 statutory instrument, No 576, allows the AHDB to introduce and set levies to cover the cost of its operations to all the sectors set out in paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum to this order. The original 2008 statutory instrument is quite clear in Article 11.7 that the appropriate authority for each sector is not bound by the decision of the levy set as a result of a ballot of its sector. I understand why this would be an unwelcome obstacle to overcome and that, as the Explanatory Memorandum to this order states in paragraph 7.6, the levy rates
“have already been approved by the appropriate authority is unnecessary and inefficient. It also limits the ability of the AHDB to put forward proposals for changes to levy rates”.
However, paragraph 7.7 of this Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Final decisions on approving a proposed change to the levy rate will remain with the appropriate authority”.
This gives a strong impression that the appropriate authority can refuse to approve a new levy rate. Can the Minister provide some clarification on this issue?
Paragraph 7.8 states that Article 6 of the 2008 order will allow for
“a zero rated levy to be imposed on an industry … for a temporary period”.
Can the Minister say how long “temporary” is likely to be? It is clear from paragraph 7.2 that the pig industry is included in the provisions of this instrument, but there appears to be some dispute about what constitutes a pig keeper in terms of influencing the outcome of a vote on the levy. Why do some pig producers not pay the levy? Do the producers have undue influence on the outcome of the vote on the levy? If so, has this been the case since 2008? If so, surely this should have been sorted out before now?
I turn now to the issue of the sheep levy. As is generally accepted, sheep is not the sector that produces untold wealth for their farmers. Having looked at the actual rates proposed in the schedule attached to the original SI No. 576, I found that the levies set then per beast were a total of £8.75 for cattle, £1.50 for calves, £1.625 for pigs, and a pound for sheep. It would seem that this levy has remained the same for 10 years, although I think the Minister may have given some different information, which I am pleased about. The current SI proposes that the sheep levy will rise by 25% and the industry will be consulted. This would allow the AHDB to increase, reduce or keep the levy at the same rate. Can the Minister confirm that the 25% increase will be on the figures quoted on the original SI of 2008, or whether it will be on some other figures, which I think he has said will be 75p for the buyer for sheep and, if I heard correctly, 25p for the slaughterers? Could he confirm this in relation to sheep?
There is also a question mark over when invoices will be raised by the AHDB. Payment will be due 30 days from the date of the invoice for the levy issued. I realise that it is extremely important for budgeting purposes for invoices to be issued and payment received as soon as possible. Is the Minister able to say whether all invoices will be issued at the same time, maybe at the beginning of the financial year, or whether there will be a gradual issuing of invoices throughout the year?
Lastly, I turn to the issues raised in paragraph 7.18 of this EM, which states that buyers, slaughterers and exporters have lost levy income of between £600,000 and £700,000 per year due to admin costs. Those costs are all part of running a business, and would be expected to be accounted for in business plans. The original instrument No. 576, in the paragraph on levies, in sub-paragraph 6(3)b states that the AHDB can impose a levy to meet its administrative costs, so this would appear to have already been considered. It is important that, when these changes to the levies are implemented, all concerned accurately calculate their admin expenses in relation to the current economic climate, so that levies are not increased at a later date to retrospectively put this right.
When the consultation between December 2022 and February 2023 was conducted, there was some disagreement on establishing a statutory register of levy payers. Consequently, this proposal was dropped in favour of a voluntary approach. Given the very varying nature of the areas covered by the AHDB, I can envisage that there will not be voluntary unanimity on this subject across the various sectors. It may be that there will have to be a statutory duty to keep a register to ensure parity across those differing sectors. I am nevertheless happy to support this SI and can see that it is long overdue.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this final Defra SI before the Recess. I thank the Minister for his overview.
As we made clear in the other place, the Labour Party will support the provisions outlined in the statutory legislation. This is an important step forward for the wider agricultural and horticultural sectors. As my colleague Daniel Zeichner said in the other place:
“working across a host of agricultural sectors, the AHDB undertakes important research, development and farm-level knowledge transfer, along with working to improve supply chain transparency and stimulating demand to help develop export markets”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 18/5/23; col. 4.]
Environmental Protection (Plastic Plates etc. and Polystyrene Containers etc.) (England) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. Having been around for the previous SI on the banning of microbeads in washable products and plastic straws and stirrers, there are familiar elements. Although single-use plastic straws are already banned, reusable plastic straws are readily available in some bigger supermarkets. Having bought a packet of these for my granddaughter, I can see that they are not reusable due to the difficulty in cleaning them, and that they have a very limited shelf life.
I regret to say that I found the Explanatory Memorandum contradictory and confusing. I am afraid that the Minister has already read paragraph 2.1 out, but I am going to do so again. It says:
“This instrument is being made to restrict the supply of single-use plastic plates, bowls, and trays and ban the supply of single-use plastic cutlery and balloon sticks and expanded and foamed extruded polystyrene … food and drink containers, including cups”.
That is quite clear and understandable. However, if we move to paragraph 6.5, the EM states that
“the market access principles of the UKIM Act will only apply to this instrument in respect of the restriction it introduces to the supply of single-use plastic bowls and trays”.
That may not be contradictory to those who wrote this SI, but I fear it certainly is to me. It also seems that paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 are something of a “get out of jail free” option. The issue about clarity is one I will return to later.
Single-use plastic bowls and trays, although banned in England, can still be produced in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since there is no border between the devolved Administrations, these items will be brought into England. As the supply of all the items listed in paragraph 2.1 to the end-user are banned, this will cause some confusion.
However, it does not apply to single-use plastic bowls and trays if they are used as containers for food at the point of sale in a takeaway. One of the most pernicious forms of litter containing plastic is that which not only occurs around fast-food outlets such as McDonald’s, Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King but is strewn around the countryside, where it has been thrown out of car windows or left littering roadside lay-bys. I am struggling to see why these exemptions are being allowed. Can the Minister explain why this is to be permitted into the future? Are the Government relying solely on the extended producer responsibility legislation to sort this issue out?
I turn to the consultation which Defra conducted; the Minister has referred to this. From 20 November 2021 to 12 February 2022, an extensive consultation took place. A good response from all sides was received, with 95% of the public and non-governmental organisations supporting all the bans. However, businesses were less enthusiastic, with 20% opposing any kind of a ban on single-use plastic. On 16 January this year, a further consultation took place by way of a notice in the London Gazette, plus a weblink to the GOV.UK website and Defra’s “relevant” stakeholders, as the department put it. The timeframe for response was 15 days; not surprisingly, there was a small response. Can the Minister say just how small that response was?
I was interested to see that the Association of Chief Trading Standards Officers responded on the enforcement issues; I should declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. It is generally accepted that trading standards officers are under enormous pressure already. They are now being asked to enforce this SI and collect the fixed penalty fines, in accordance with the future published guidance.
The regulations will come into force on the 24th day after they have been made. We are debating them today, 20 June; they will doubtless be on the Order Paper tomorrow, 21 June, for agreement in the Chamber. This means that they will come into force on 15 July. Can the Minister assure us that the guidance will be published before 15 July so that trading standards officers know exactly what they are expected to do and how to execute their functions successfully?
Small businesses employing up to 50 people will have over nine months’ grace in which to implement these regulations from the date of the consultation. Can the Minister say whether this is the consultation which ended in February 2022 or the one from January this year, which was somewhat limited?
I turn now to the penalty, or fine. This is fixed at £200 and is a one-off, no matter how many offences there are. It can be reduced to £100 if it is paid within 28 days—a bit like a parking fine. Having looked at the SI—I may have missed it—I cannot see who exactly will be charged with the penalty. Is it the manufacturer, the retailer or the end-user? The level of fine appears to indicate that it is the end-user who will pay. Can the Minister provide clarification, please?
The extensive section in the SI on non-compliance gives the opposite impression. Here the inference is that the manufacturer will be liable for up to 100% of the cost of the compliance notice if they do not comply. As I said earlier, this SI is not transparent but confusing and contradictory.
Nor does the SI go far enough, and I am concerned about the plastics that it does not cover. Oxo-degradable plastics are designed to fragment in the presence of oxygen, but will not break down at all, or only extremely slowly, in environments with relatively low concentrations of oxygen, such as marine environments, or if covered by soil or buried in a compost bin. Wales, which has an international reputation for recycling and waste management, has banned the use of oxo-degradable plastics as they are regarded as one of the most pernicious types of plastic and a source of damaging microplastics. The EU has also banned them. Do the Government have any plans to ban the use of oxo-degradable plastics in England?
There is also the issue of substitution, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. If single-use plastics are banned, what other unnecessary non-plastic single-use materials are likely to be used as a replacement? The Environment Act 2021 gives powers to implement charges for single-use items, which have so far not been used. What plans do the Government have to begin charging for non-plastic single-use items?
Lastly, the UK internal market is referred to in the SI. What plans do the Government have to conduct a post-implementation review of the 2020 Act? The Act has implications for the Government’s environmental ambitions to leave the environment in a better state than they found it, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. I am not convinced that the SI moves us much closer to the Government’s goal.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I fear that I will shortly be interrupted by a Division. I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, to his place. As Defra will be a recurring theme in his diary, I look forward to working with him in the months ahead.
I am a proud resident of the Potteries, which means that I am not sure why anybody would want to eat or drink from anything other than Stoke-on-Trent-made ceramic plates and mugs—the most sustainable containers from which to eat and drink—yet we find ourselves here to discuss far less sustainable alternatives. It should therefore come as no surprise to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will support this SI. The Labour Party is committed to removing single-use plastics as quickly as possible and moving on to sustainable and, I hope, ceramic alternatives.
However, I am sure it will not surprise the Minister, especially following the interventions so far, that I have a few questions on the detail of the SI and the consultation, implementation and next steps. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, highlighted, does the Minister really think that 15 days was an appropriate timescale to consult business, local authorities and key stakeholders on the implementation plan and detail of this significant change in regulation and permissible products that are used extensively in nearly every community in the country?
Paragraph 10.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that His Majesty’s Government notified the World Trade Organization of the draft instrument on 21 March 2023 and that:
“No objections have been made pursuant to notification”.
Given that WTO processes are incredibly slow, would we have expected objections within that timeframe? Were any representations made by the WTO which stopped short of being formal objections?
Paragraphs 6.4 and 6.5 of the EM outline the exemption under the United Kingdom Internal Market Act that means that single-use bowls and trays legally produced in or imported into other parts of the UK can be sold in England, irrespective of this ban. Can the Minister inform the Committee whether Defra has done any modelling on how many items are likely to make use of this exemption? What are the process and timescale for conducting the post-implementation review of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, in which the implications for the environmental ambition of the UK Government should be considered?
REACH (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. As with a number of SIs in the past, we have been facing this issue since 2019. At that time, the Government were urged from all sides, especially the chemical industry, to stay within EU REACH. The data analysis and licensing systems that would not be made available to the UK were and are extensive. This would not be the case if the country remained within EU REACH.
The need for registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals is obvious. It protects the public, plants and animals from the harm caused by toxic chemicals, all of which have to be licensed and registered. This is a complex process. Without access to EU REACH data, a completely new set of data had to be compiled and licensed from scratch. This involves animal testing. We cannot get away from this fact. It is necessary, but it could have been avoided. It will also involve huge financial costs to the chemical industry.
On 4 March 2019, my noble friend Lord Fox and I met Defra officials along with the then Minister. We stressed the huge costs involved, which we felt ran into billions, and the long timeframe needed to get the necessary licences in place. I regret to say that we were treated with contempt and told that it would be much cheaper and quicker than our predictions.
The deadline before implementation has already been extended from that set on 26 March 2019. In answer to an Oral Question in September 2020, Defra revealed that EU REACH employed some 600 staff and took 10 years to deal with the difficulties in the system at a cost of £100 million. Defra proposed to achieve the same with 40 staff, at a cost of £13 million. By December 2020, in a debate on a regret Motion, a cost of £1 billion was mentioned.
Here we are today once again extending the already extended timeframe. This is a piece of elastic that has come to the end of its life. Defra’s estimation of the current costs for completing the licensing is now between £1.3 billion and the figure that I think the Minister mentioned of £3.5 billion. I have tremendous respect for the Minister and his predecessor, but on this occasion I have to say to Defra: “We told you so”.
In a debate in 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, began his remarks by saying:
“My Lords, I would like to echo the regret that others have expressed that we have allowed ourselves to walk into this unnecessary nightmare”.—[Official Report, 8/12/20; col. 1162.]
I could not agree more. It is clear than an extension of the timeframe is needed. Is the Minister sure that the timings now being requested will be sufficient? In its report of 11 May, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to which he referred, says that it does not believe that the alternative transitional registration—ATR—model deadline of 2024 is achievable. Can the Minister say whether, during this extended timeframe, animals will continue to be subjected to painful and harmful testing methods? Others have spoken about the effect and the danger of hazardous substances.
Given that the extended timeframe favours large businesses with the greatest tonnage, can the Minister assure the Grand Committee that the smaller but nevertheless vital businesses often providing subcontract work will be able to survive? How many, if any, businesses dealing with and producing chemicals have gone under since the country left EU REACH?
The Minister referred to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. How will the three-year extension period proposed today interact with the sunset provisions in the REUL Bill? I believe he said that there would be no impact, but I would be glad for confirmation. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this issue and the proposed extended deadlines.
In November 2022, Defra extended the submission deadlines for the consultation outcomes. Some 82% of the 289 responses had a strong preference for a three-year extension. However, the NGOs preferred no extension at all. This was due to concerns that the ATR model would be weaker and less protective of human health and the environment than current transitional arrangements, which are also still under development. UK REACH is supposed to be bound by the Environment Act’s precautionary principle. However, there is clear risk involved in the ATR model.
The Chemical Industries Association, the CIA, stresses the importance of urgently providing legal certainty to businesses. The current level of uncertainty around registration requirements, expected timelines and related costs is not encouraging new market opportunities. Extending deadlines is not providing the clarity needed on the viability of the registration model or allowing sufficient time for appropriate legislation to be developed and for authorities and industries to implement it. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, referred to this. Will the Minister please comment?
The CIA is of the view that an effective UK REACH could be achieved even without requiring a full resubmission dossier of all substances already registered under EU REACH. Sadly, so prejudiced is Defra to anything that might smack of the EU, it will not adapt EU REACH and insists that UK REACH will be better. If we ever get there, it certainly will not be cheaper.
I will give an example from the CHEM Trust. In its second-year programme, UK REACH deprioritised controls on nine hazardous substances targeted by the EU. These included concentration limits for eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons used as infill and, in loose form, in synthetic football pitches and playgrounds. These are linked to increased cancer risk. A typical sports pitch uses 120 tonnes of these crumbs. According to a 2017 study, six tonnes of potentially carcinogenic material would be non-compliant with the current EU standards. Is Defra’s prioritisation of fewer EU controls on harmful substances a short-term measure until it reaches capacity, or will it introduce other measures to close the protective gap that is opening up before our eyes?
I have serious concerns about the deliverability of the UK REACH regulations. However, I feel I have no choice but to support the extension of the timeframe for delivery. I have a terrible feeling that the ATR will not be achieved and that we will be debating this issue again before too long.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his overview of the SI before us and for his correspondence in advance of today’s debate. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which highlight the importance of the discussion. Given the discussion in the other place, it will not surprise the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will support this SI. However, we have some specific concerns relating to the direction of the post- Brexit REACH regulatory framework and the capacity of the HSE as a statutory body to provide effective enforcement.
As we discussed last week in our debate on the packaging waste statutory instrument—I am becoming a pro—the collation of this data is key to the implementation and enforcement of an effective regulatory regime. But that requires the Government to move at speed to ensure that they have the data available to make informed decisions. Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The changes provide sufficient time for the government to develop and introduce a new registration model that will cater for EU registrations transferred to Great Britain under Title 14A of UK REACH”.
The Government have known about the need to develop and introduce this model for seven years. In fact, the Minister will remember that discussions regarding the future of REACH were a regular feature of the debate around Brexit in the other place before and after the referendum. Given that the industry has been doing everything possible to support the department in reaching a new model, can the Minister inform the Committee why the department is so far behind schedule and why this is being addressed only now?
Paragraph 7.2 of the EM states:
“The statutory timelines for HSE to carry out their compliance checks on the information submitted by industry are also being extended to align with the data submission deadlines”.
I sound like a stuck record, but this is a similar situation to the ones we have seen with imports of food and certain goods from the EU, with launch dates repeatedly postponed due to a lack of preparedness. Can the Minister inform the Committee why we repeatedly need to extend the deadlines?
Later paragraphs of the EM—from paragraph 7.7 onwards—explain why His Majesty’s Government have opted to take a different approach and outline the likely timescales on implementing changes to IT systems. Why were industry concerns about the cost of the original proposal not given more weight at the time? How many civil servants have been used and how much financial resource has been spent on the original option? How much of the work that has already been done can Ministers carry over? While industry supports the changes being made, concerns have already been voiced about the workability of the alternative system and its potential implications for safety, which must remain paramount. We are not against divergence from the EU, but we must not allow gaps to form in our regulation of chemicals. Neither businesses, workers nor citizens will benefit if health and well-being are put at risk unnecessarily.
The Minister in the House of Commons, Rebecca Pow, addressed concerns about the HSE’s capacity by saying:
“Its capacity is increasing all the time … by 2025 the number of HSE staff working on UK REACH delivery is expected to grow to 50, and the number is around 60 or 70 if we consider the wider support functions”.
We welcome that ramping up of capacity, but is the Minister satisfied that this staffing level is sufficient given the areas that we are talking about? In that debate, the Minister also said that the department
“will be developing a chemical strategy”
and that we
“will hear more about that in due course”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 16/5/23; cols. 9-10.]
Can the Minister here, the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, be any more specific? How confident is he that this will not simply be added to the list of items that arrive late?
I sincerely believe that each and every one of us wants nothing more than a regulatory framework that keeps our population safe and secure. Given the nature and importance of the REACH regulations, it is therefore vital that we do not just get this right but get it done quickly.
Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oil Spill: Poole Harbour
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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?
Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent(1 year, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument and for his time, and that of the officials, in providing a briefing. I welcome his warning of impending doom should the fatal Motion be agreed in two weeks’ time.
The gist of this SI is that some information on the financial assistance that farmers receive for their activities will not now be published and therefore open to scrutiny. The Agriculture Act indicated that this information would be available for public scrutiny, and these exemptions from publication relate to the annual health and welfare review and the tree health pilot.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee considered this SI on 28 February and asked a number of questions of Defra as to why there should not be publication of the assistance farmers are receiving. The answers related to the likely disadvantages farmers would face if detailed information was published. In the SLSC report, it is clear that Defra Ministers would be able to exempt certain schemes from the full publication requirement without having to lay secondary legislation before Parliament.
Defra stated that it
“carefully considered where publication could have a detrimental impact on scheme uptake, risk achievement of target outcomes and value for money, as well as potentially damage individuals and businesses.”
Can the Minister give examples of where such instances might occur, leading to a detrimental impact on the farmer and on scheme uptake? It would be useful for the Committee to know this.
Turning to the Explanatory Memorandum itself, the last bullet point in paragraph 7.4 refers to
“the investigation of breaches and suspected offences in connection with applications for, or the receipt, of financial assistance”.
Can the Minister say how many suspected offences and breaches are recorded in any one year? Is this a big problem or only an occasional occurrence? Paragraph 7.6 states that the instrument
“omits the previous definition of the ‘farming investment fund’ that referred only to section 1(2) of the Act… For example, the policy intention is to launch the ‘animal health and welfare scheme’ as part of the farming investment fund”.
Can the Minister please give an example of just what this means?
Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that publishing a full list of financial assistance received could lead to individuals and businesses not reporting cases of pests and diseases, for fear of not being able to sell their stock or produce or being accused of having poor animal health practices. I understand this rationale but, on the other hand, it is important that everybody knows where there are outbreaks of pests and diseases. It is not helpful to neighbouring farms if, for instance, there is an outbreak of African swine fever in pigs in an area, especially if they are kept outside and neighbouring farms are unaware of that.
It is not just animal diseases which it is important to be aware of. For example, plants and trees are also under threat; in particular, they are under severe threat from oak processionary moth and Xylella fastidiosa. Can the Minister provide assurance that pests and diseases will be notified to Defra and its officials, even though they are not on the published list of financial support given to the farmer or the individual concerned?
I fully support the importance of encouraging farmers to join as many schemes available under ELMS as possible to maintain their living. It is also important for the public to understand what the money they receive is spent on. I also accept that publishing some information could give the wrong impression of what is happening on farms. It is important to protect farmers and their families from the activities of animal rights activists, wherever possible.
There is a fine line between total transparency on how public money is allocated and protection of the privacy and reputation of those engaged in agriculture in the wider sense. I am confident that the Minister is fully supportive of this. I have expressed my concerns but, generally, I support this SI.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI. While this is my first outing shadowing him, I am sure it will not be my last—unless this goes horribly wrong—and I look forward to our interactions in the months ahead. I also thank his officials for indulging my newbie questions in the briefing.
In recent weeks, our newspapers have been filled with tales of food shortages, excessive levels of food inflation and the associated food poverty. There has even been a national debate about our domestic turnips. No longer is the impact on our farmers and rural communities reserved to news stories on “Farming Today”. We live in a period of global uncertainty and economic challenge; this is no less the case for our domestic agricultural economy than for any other sector. Labour shortages, new bureaucracy and the ongoing impact of the war in Ukraine on grain and energy supplies are having a direct and daily impact on our domestic food supplies, as well as on the natural environment.
It is therefore vital that, in our post-Brexit world, we get the regulatory and payment structures fit for purpose to ensure security of food supply, and that we do everything that we can to support our farming businesses and communities. They are invaluable to our long-term sustainability and security, and we all rely on them. That is why the Labour Party will not be opposing this SI. However, I have some questions for the Minister relating to the implementation of the regulations.
The financial assistance amendment places more burden on Defra civil servants in terms of monitoring and the likely ongoing adaptation of some of the financial assistance schemes already launched. Can the Minister confirm that Defra has the resources to apply these changes in a timely manner over the next 12 months, given the additional strains which would be placed on his department by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill, should it pass into statute? I promise that I do not seek to rerun the arguments which were heard in Committee on the REUL Bill last week; rather, I seek reassurance from the Minister that this has been considered and that appropriate resources are in place.
Following on from the debate in the other place on this statutory instrument, I hope the Minister can assist the Committee in answering some specifics which his colleague, the Farming Minister, failed to address. My colleague Daniel Zeichner sought clarification on Regulation 5(c); can the Minister confirm which schemes do not require a request for payment but will instead require an annual declaration to the Secretary of State? How many cases do we believe will fall into that category each year?
I also seek clarity on points raised by the right honourable Kit Malthouse in the other place in Committee. Referring to paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, he asked:
“Does that mean that, without parliamentary consent, the Minister can start or close a new scheme or quietly”—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 28/2/23; col. 8.]
abandon a funding mechanism that is no longer viable? As my noble friend Lord Grantchester highlighted, given the significant discretion that now rests with the Secretary of State, can the Minister confirm that, when schemes are launched, amended or closed, the department will be required to consult their beneficiaries before the terms are revised? If so, to what timetable will the department work?
I know that the Minister has vast experience of this area, which I do not claim to have, and is committed to making these regulations work for our farmers. I look forward to working with him in the months ahead to deliver the best possible deal for our rural communities.