Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, the energy efficiency directive updates the EU’s legal framework for energy efficiency, with a target of saving 20% of the EU’s primary energy consumption by 2020 and of making further energy efficiency improvements after that date. The directive establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the EU and lays down rules to remove barriers in the energy market and overcome market failures that impede efficiency.

My department has responsibility for the aspects relating to increasing the uptake of cost-beneficial cogeneration, usually known as combined heat and power, and waste heat recovery systems in the UK. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 that we are debating today transpose in England and Wales Articles 14.5 to 14.9 of the energy efficiency directive.

The amending regulations require operators of new or substantially refurbished combustion installations of more than 20 megawatts in size to carry out a cost-benefit analysis and therefore consider whether the installation of combined heat and power, or waste heat recovery systems and the use of waste heat, could be cost-beneficial, with the aim of increasing energy efficiency.

Where cogeneration or waste heat recovery and use options are shown to be cost-beneficial, operators will have to install such systems, and this will be a requirement of their environmental permit. By installing such systems, operators will achieve cost savings. There will also be social benefits from reduced carbon emissions and improved security of energy supply. The amending regulations are consistent with our aim of protecting the environment for future generations, making our economy more environmentally sustainable and improving our quality of life and well-being.

The choice to transpose the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis by amending the existing environmental permitting regime has clear benefits for operators and regulators alike. Environmental permitting is an established process for regulating the development, operation and refurbishment of industrial installations in England and Wales. Nearly all the installations subject to the requirements of Article 14.5 of the directive are already subject to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, as amended. Use of this existing system therefore allows implementation of the requirements of these articles in a manner which limits burdens on operators and regulators.

My department conducted a public consultation exercise between February and April 2014. There were 20 responses to the consultation. All supported the use of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations to transpose the requirements of the directive. A number of concerns were raised by respondents regarding the suitability and practicality of the thresholds applied in the instrument. These concerns have been taken on board and changes have been made to the regulations to reflect this.

An impact assessment was prepared for the implementation of these amending regulations which showed an estimated net cost of £12.4 million over the 10-year appraisal period. The costs to regulators are included in this figure and may be recouped through environmental permitting fees and charges.

There will clearly be benefits to improving energy efficiency for both the operator and society. The impact assessment was not able to quantify these benefits overall as it is unclear how many operators would introduce changes. However, the impact assessment included a number of case studies which, for example, suggest that if combined heat and power were installed instead of an industrial boiler, depending on the size and configuration of the boiler, the operator could see annual savings of between £1 million and £7 million, paying back their upfront investment within six years.

These amending regulations will help to ensure that operators install energy efficient systems and reduce the carbon emissions where they are cost beneficial. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that good explanation. Is there a ready supply of these combined heat and power boilers within the United Kingdom or elsewhere to enable operators to fulfil the terms of the regulations?

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am again indebted to the Minister for his excellent introduction to the regulations. Energy efficiency has a crucial impact on energy security across the whole of the United Kingdom. It forms part of the measures to reduce emissions to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and is a vital part of keeping energy costs down for everyone. The Minister’s department is to be commended on taking this initiative to amend the regulations to require operators to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of installations of cogeneration. Has the Minister any evidence that this was not happening previously?

I note that these regulations have been delayed past the deadline of June 2014 following consultations, and that therefore England and Wales are following the vanguard of regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. How do these regulations compare? Will these measures be applied consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom to further the attainment of the UK’s international emissions reductions targets?

The success of this measure will very much depend on the individual circumstances of each application. I note that there was extensive dialogue with affected operators during the consultation process, from which the Minister’s department has taken concerns on board in drafting these regulations. However, no details about this dialogue, or of the consultation, have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister give further clarification by providing an assessment of the likely uptake of cogeneration?

Of the estimated 18 gigawatts of electrical cogeneration potential in the UK, only 8.4 will be built by 2020. It would be helpful to understand the quantum by which that might be improved by this measure. I wondered whether the consultation process had given his department any feel for what it might be, even through no impact assessment has been provided, on the grounds that the outcomes are difficult to quantify.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states that guidance, which has also been subject to public consultation, is being prepared by the Environment Agency. Could the Minister give the Committee any indication of when it might be made public as this omission is likely to prolong the delay before these regulations will produce benefits? Meanwhile, I am content to agree to the regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether there is a ready supply of combined heat and power boilers. There is indeed. On average, 120 megawatts of combined heat and power plant has been installed per annum over the past five years, which I hope indicates that there is a supply chain.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the time it has taken to transpose the directive. There were indeed delays in finalising the text of the draft regulations, primarily due to the Government’s desire to integrate comments received by stakeholders during the public consultation. We took most of the comments received on board and reflected them in the draft regulations. In particular, we revised some of the thresholds to ensure that they fully apply the allowed derogations in the directive and avoid disproportionate burdens on British businesses, while still achieving the required level of support for energy efficiency. As he will understand, that required detailed technical discussions.

[The Duke of Montrose]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I press him further? Perhaps something that could be written down is what proportion of the current supply is based in the UK. One of our difficulties—this is something that needs to keep being emphasised—is that we keep on bringing in energy efficient technology and so on by simply buying it from abroad rather than having a home-grown industry.

[Lord De Mauley]

I share my noble friend’s keenness that we should, as a country, take advantage of this growth market. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, so if I may, I will write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the regimes compare between ourselves and the devolved Administrations. They are essentially the same across the United Kingdom. My officials have worked closely with those in the devolved Administrations to ensure this.

The noble Lord asked when the guidance will be ready. The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales have developed cost-benefit analysis guidance to assist operators, which will be published shortly. The draft guidance was subject to consultation last year. He also referred to what he saw as a gap in the impact assessment. There is uncertainty regarding how many of the operators within the scope of this instrument would have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis without the requirement being added to their environmental permit. The outcomes, including the environmental benefits through reduced carbon emissions, will be site-dependent and will depend on operators’ decisions about how to proceed. They are therefore impossible for us to quantify at this stage. However, the impact assessment provides a number of case studies to which I referred in my opening remarks.

The noble Lord asked a question related to my noble friend’s point on how big the potential is for combined heat and power in this country. The analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimates that the total technical potential for CHP in the UK is about 13 gigawatts by 2020, of which 7.8 gigawatts is projected to be economically viable by that date. The majority of this is likely to be natural gas-fired. DECC’s final Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan projects up to 600 megawatts of biomass CHP being deployed by 2020. The regulations will help to unlock this capacity.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked me another question. DECC’s research suggests that there are barriers which these regulations would address, such as a lack of awareness of CHP or the in-house expertise to assess potential projects. I hope that this response has answered most of the questions put by the noble Lord, and to the extent that it has not, I will of course write to him.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

To summarise, the benefits of introducing enforcement undertakings include: restitution for local communities and those affected, instead of court penalties; giving priority to renewed compliance and restoration of harm, with opportunities for co-operation between business and regulator and giving offenders the opportunity to address non-compliance; and freeing-up regulators’ time to focus on tougher and speedier exercise of criminal sanctions where they are needed, tackling those who wilfully and repeatedly flout the law or harm local communities. The proposal is very much in line with the Government’s better regulation agenda. No one will be made to have an enforcement undertaking, but offenders will be able to offer them for some environmental permitting offences. They will give priority to renewed compliance and restoration of what has been harmed, including restitution for local communities, instead of court penalties. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this measure. I am most grateful to see that the regulations start off by allowing enforcement undertakings in the case of any infringement of pollution. I declare my interest as a farmer and I am looking at the subject from that angle. Of course, at the moment farmers who pollute or allow noxious substances to escape from their farms are subject to penalties under the common agricultural policy and the good agricultural and environmental condition standards. Farmers can be penalised by those, first; and secondly, the Environment Agency can impose penalties. Usually the idea is that a small penalty is imposed as a warning, but there is power to impose a very much heavier penalty. I am wondering whether these enforcement undertakings will work in tandem or whether they will be the opening gun of trying to enforce regulations when people are not complying properly and causing pollution or environmental damage.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

Once again, the Minister has provided the Committee with an excellent introduction to, and explanation of, the regulations. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, brought up the situation regarding farming and these regulations. In case there should be any anxieties, I declare my interest as an owner of a dairy farm. However, my reading of the regulations is that of the nine classes of regulated activity to which they pertain, none applies to dairy farming—except, possibly, the water discharge activity. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify the extent to which farming is affected by these regulations, and how they might work together with the regulations under the common agricultural policy.

The Minister has clarified that these regulations introduce no new requirements and make no changes to existing offences and existing enforcement mechanisms, but merely allow the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings when they are on offer. I agree that the order is constructive in that it allows the Environment Agency greater flexibility in its approach to transgressions, and follows his department’s Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government. The regulations will make a positive addition to the Environment Agency’s ability to do its job well. The benefits to society include giving priority to restoration of harm ahead of criminal convictions.

The Explanatory Memorandum states, with regard to guidance, that the department will write to the Environment Agency setting out the expectation of how these enforcement undertakings will be used to ensure that enforcement is in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Will the Minister update the Committee on this progress? When does he expect that the Environment Agency will be able to publish its guidance on enforcement matters?

As the Minister explained, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no impact assessment, on the basis that the order has no impact on business or other organisations unless they fail to comply with the law. However, this was the subject of extensive discussions in the other place. The changes proposed in 2010 would have significantly reduced costs to both the Environment Agency and Natural England. As the Minister said, at the very least the order will help to free up the Environment Agency’s time.

In addition, since 2010 it is understood that consideration has been given to costs recovery. Did the Minister’s department give any consideration to recovery of the Environment Agency’s costs for monitoring and administering the new enforcement undertakings element of the order? Will he confirm that the Environment Agency can recover its costs from the order? The reply of the Minister in the other place rather missed the point to a certain extent, in his statement that it has no effect on business. It should surely be possible to produce an impact assessment on the benefits to business in this Better Regulation measure. After all, it is the aim of Better Regulation to bring benefits.

Finally, the ability to quantify the value of ecosystem services has also developed greatly since 2010. Are the Government able to give an estimate of the ecosystem services benefit of the increased compliance resulting from this change? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify his department’s approach to the benefits of this order.

Badgers: Bovine Tuberculosis

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Trees (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for bringing this subject forward for debate. I want to try to look at the problem rather holistically, which is a challenge in under 10 minutes, but I will try. Let us be under no illusions: bovine tuberculosis is a major threat to the health of domestic animals and wildlife in Britain today. This is a disease that was almost eradicated from Britain 40 to 50 years ago by means, directed at cattle, that were essentially the same as those we use now—TB testing of cattle and the removal of reactors, although a good many other measures have been put in place that mean that the controls on cattle are even tighter than they were then. A key factor that has changed in the past few decades is the emergence of badgers as a major wildlife reservoir of this infection. There is epidemiological evidence that something like 50% of outbreaks in cattle are related to badger infections.

We are faced now with a problem of infection in badgers and in cattle on a substantial and increasing scale. If I could show the Committee maps of the spread of the infection, noble Lords would see that there has been a relentless spread in the geographical distribution of bovine infection from the original hotspot in the south-west of England, when it was nearly eradicated, to the current situation where bovine TB is threatening the dense cattle populations of Cheshire and Lancashire.

Although there is an understandable focus on the adverse impact on cattle and badger health and welfare, we should not forget that there is another victim of this disease—the cattle farmer who suffers huge stress and distress every time their herd is tested and animals are removed from the herds that they have built up over many years. We do not concern ourselves enough with the human toll that this disease is having. It is a fact that the suicide rate in farmers is the highest of any professional group. Although one certainly cannot claim that this is all due to TB, the fact is that an already vulnerable group of people is being subjected to excessive anxiety and uncertainty. That is the situation that we are facing. When the average city dweller pours their milk over their cornflakes each morning, they may not understand the hard work, worry and commitment that go into producing that daily milk.

What are the options to deal with this disease? Ideally, an effective vaccine for cattle is the solution but for various reasons, which have been made clear most recently by a letter from the EU Commissioner Tonio Borg, it is likely to be some 10 years before a vaccine is accepted and licensed in the EU to be deployed in the UK. Experience shows that in the absence of a vaccine for the target domestic species—in this case, cattle—and where there is a wildlife reservoir of infection, control measures need to address the wildlife reservoir as well as the domestic animal. In the case of bovine TB, there is a wildlife host, the badger, that is present in very high numbers—10 to 15 setts on a farm is not unusual—is in close direct and indirect contact with cattle on grazing areas, in forage crops such as maize and indeed in farm buildings, has no natural predators and is excreting substantial amounts of Mycobacterium bovis into the environment. In this situation, and in the absence of a cattle vaccine, measures directed at the wildlife host, as noble Lords who spoke earlier accepted, are essential as well as stringent measures directed towards cattle.

What are the options vis-à-vis badgers? As your Lordships are aware and as has been mentioned, a vaccine for badgers is licensed for use by injection. It has various limitations, including the fact that a high coverage of the population is necessary to reduce infection and transmission. Something over 40% has been suggested, which is feasible but difficult in a wild animal population compared with a controlled domestic animal population. Animals that are already infected will not be stopped by vaccination from excreting bacteria, and susceptible young animals are constantly being born into the population. Moreover, the animals have to be cage-trapped and restrained to allow injection—itself a stressful procedure for a wild animal. This is one rational approach, and it was advocated by noble Lords who spoke earlier, but it has to be said that the effect on bovine TB incidence is unproven. It is also a very costly measure, as things stand. The current vaccination trial in Wales, which has completed two years, shows that it costs more than £600 to vaccinate each badger. With a population of probably 250,000 to 300,000 badgers in Britain, you need only do the mathematics to determine the cost of vaccinating at least even a proportion of that population.

Still, if interested parties could work together effectively and economically to deliver a vaccine, that would be hugely helpful and doubtless the cost could be reduced. It would require a co-ordinated approach by many different groups, including those working in conservation. In that context, the Welsh Government have offered grant support to private groups to subsidise the cost of vaccination by 50%, and certain conservation groups are seriously considering that option. It is regrettable, however, that so far neither the RSPCA nor the Badger Trust has taken up the invitation to commit funds to achieve badger vaccination.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Can he help the Committee by telling us at what age young badgers catch TB and at what age they can be vaccinated?

[Lord Trees]

I am not sure whether the data are available but they may be. I am sorry that I cannot answer the question; I would hate to do so without preparation.

The dynamics of infectious disease in general show that reducing the density of the population will reduce infection transmission. This does not require the complete elimination of a population—far from it. However, if the population density is lowered so that the rate at which a primary infection creates secondary infections falls below 1, the so-called parameter R₀—the reproductive rate—the infection will subside. We know that in a number of areas the R₀ for bovine TB is only fractionally greater than 1; in fact, estimates range between 1 and 1.2. Reducing that to less than 1 may be achievable with modest reductions in the badger population.

The use of contraception is a possibility to reduce badger-population density and would be a humane way of doing so, but research is at an early stage. I am told that it will be some years before we might have a deployable contraceptive method. As well as contributing to the control of bovine TB, a reduction in the badger population would benefit other species that appear to be adversely affected by predation by badgers, such as hedgehogs, ground-nesting birds and some rare species of bumblebee.

That brings me to culling. This has been used to reduce many wild animal populations, including badgers, in various circumstances. We currently cull deer, foxes, grey squirrels, seals, magpies and rodents, among others. No one likes killing animals—I certainly do not—but the majority of us accept that culling animals in certain circumstances is justified, provided always that it is done humanely. Members of this House are complicit in the extermination of rodents within these very walls.

If the culling of badgers can be done humanely and with a sound scientific basis, ruling it out at this stage as one of the tools in the control of bovine TB is premature. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, has said, we need to see the report of the independent expert panel on the current trials to evaluate their humaneness and safety, and to understand why the culling rate was less than intended and what factors were responsible for it. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned, a key meeting of experts in 2011 accepted that a reduction in TB incidence of around 16% could be achieved by culling badgers under certain circumstances, and that included allowing for the perturbation effect. One may think that 16% may not sound a huge amount, but if the infection rates from badger to badger, badgers to cattle and cattle to cattle can be reduced by just a relatively small amount so that the infection parameter R₀ can be tipped below 1, the disease will be driven to extinction, which is a goal that we all seek.

Marine Conservation Areas

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I cannot accept very much of what the noble Lord has said. Far from what he has said, over the past three years we have been changing the way we manage our seas. We have introduced marine planning, set up new organisations to police our seas, improved marine licensing, reformed domestic fisheries management and, vitally, introduced marine conservation zones.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, can my noble friend give us a little more detail on the timing that will ensue from the 31 areas that he has out for consultation at the moment? At what point will these receive European recognition as proper conservation areas, and what powers do the Government seek to enable us to control these, when they are outwith our immediate territorial boundaries?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is absolutely right to raise that issue. I have done the best I can to address the issue of timing. We will complete the consultation and, as soon as we can, we will announce its results and move on to further tranches. As regards the involvement of the European Union, and indeed individual member states, of course they will be listened to when they make their responses to the consultation.

Plant Health (Forestry) (Amendment) Order 2012

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Grand Committee

December starts on Saturday. Has the Minister any kind of updated estimate, beyond the £0.25 million, of the financial impact of these measures? With that, and with gratitude to the Committee, I take my seat.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, for raising this topic, which is very pertinent and of much interest in the country as a whole. I declare my interest as an owner of sundry ash trees and bits of woodland in Scotland.

I have two questions in my mind. First, in the aftermath of the Phytophthora ramorum outbreak, an undertaking was given that phytosanitary measures for plants would be tightened. Is this the first time that there has been any change in the legislation since then? If not, how many changes have been made in terms of tightening up our regulations on looking after plant health?

Secondly, there is obviously a premium on the planting of native British trees. I gather that one of the practices that have been going on is that foresters in the UK collect seed from native British trees, send it to Holland, have it grown into small plants and then bring them back. If plants are to qualify as native trees, should they not have spent the whole of their lifetime in the UK and not been subject to export to other countries?

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for raising this issue. Given his extensive questions, I will limit mine to one and a half. Many of us in this Room did of course have the opportunity three weeks ago to debate the important issue of the future of the British ash tree and the impact of this disease, in the very timely debate initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne.

My first question follows on from the final question from the noble Lord, Lord Knight, in relation to the final point made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and the issue of the costs for this order. It highlighted, as he rightly said, that we are imminently expecting new figures, which are to be much higher. Can the Minister confirm who will undertake that work? It was the Forestry Commission in the first instance, and since the initial measures were laid out in October, where they referred principally to forestry trees, it has now moved to cover all trees, including those for amenity use and in garden centres. Therefore the remit covers a much broader field and I would like to be reassured. Although I have the highest regard for the Forestry Commission, if we are going to get a realistic figure on those costs, it has to be undertaken by an agency that has the competence to do so. As a supplementary to that question, what areas is it looking at? The Minister will know that I have previously raised with the Secretary of State my concern that we get an understanding as soon as possible of the full costs on the rural economy of the impacts of this disease. It strikes me that the outline in the Explanatory Memorandum that we have before us is quite a narrow definition of what those costs might be.

My second question relates to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum on monitoring and review, which of course will be extremely important. It leads to the priority that the Government give to plant health. I would like to raise the point that yesterday, at the launch of the Nature Check report by the Wildlife and Countryside Link, which analysed the Government’s environmental commitments over the last 18 months, the Secretary of State referred to a radical reprioritisation within his department, which included a major new focus on animal and plant health. I believe that we would all welcome that, given the significant number of challenges that plants are facing, which we have recently seen and debated in this House.

Will the Minister give us any information about when there might be further clarity on what those plans might be, and when they will come forward? Will we get a chance to look at this radical reprioritisation of budgets within Defra to ensure that the focus on plant health is given the priority that this House believes it is due?

Agriculture: Schmallenberg Virus

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am most happy to do so. I welcomed this Question because I was aware that this matter must be of concern to a number of Peers. This is an opportunity to inform the House on the subject, and I give the assurance that a “Dear colleague” letter goes to all interested Peers on this matter.

[The Duke of Montrose]

I declare an interest as president of the National Sheep Association. Will all the reported cases be required to have laboratory confirmation of the disease? Are the laboratories able to cope with that, and does the Government’s scenario predict a seasonal peak in the next few months?

Agriculture: Animal Feed

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes. My noble friend Lady Byford rightly emphasised the need for caution and referred to the NFU position on the issue, which was similarly cautious. I remind noble Lords that we need to take consumers with us on these issues. We know how difficult that can be to ensure that consumers are totally reassured on issues of this nature.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the fact that the EU is reviewing this attitude to processed animal protein. It is generally accepted that meat and bone meal from dedicated poultry slaughterhouses could be perfectly safely fed to pigs. Does he have any indication when the EU will make a decision on this point? Otherwise, will it be included in the review that is due to be brought out in May 2012, which Defra is currently conducting?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Indeed, this is exactly the sort of issue on which we want to have proper scientific evidence before we take our own position within Europe. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend on that very point.

As my noble friend Lady Byford said, we know in this country that bodies such as the Food Standards Agency have already made comments on the European proposal, which lies at the heart of why this debate has become more topical. The UK Government, working with the devolved Administrations, are currently considering this proposal. In reaching a negotiating position, we will need to take account of the science, the control tools available, the likely market demand, and consumer views. Existing legislation does not necessarily condemn PAP to waste, and our assessment shows that most PAP produced in the UK goes into the pet food market. I have a very useful schedule of statistics here, which I will make available to all noble Lords who have shown an interest in this topic by being in the Chamber this evening. I will make sure that we make those figures available, because they are very interesting. They show, for example, that within the EU 98 per cent of poultry PAP is used in pet food. The figures are quite striking and should inform our debate.

I understand my noble friend Lady Byford’s point about GM. It is a matter to which we are alerted. I will not, however, describe it as being in the “too difficult” drawer. It is of course a complex issue, but to put it in a drawer and suggest that it is shut away for ever would be to misdescribe Defra’s view of it. We are supporting scientific work because we want to understand more what potential and opportunities may exist through the use of this technology as long as science lies at the bottom of it all.

To sum up, we are funding a review of the available evidence on the subject of today’s debate and expect the results in May next year. This is part of our commitment to tackling the problem of food waste: reducing it where we can and dealing in the most sustainable fashion with what does arise. I hope that the results of this research will help us in this aim but we must recognise the need for caution here and prioritise the need to protect public and animal health. This has been a good debate and there has been a strong consensus that reducing the amount of food waste we produce should be a major aim of us all.

Draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Grand Committee

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his forward-looking presentation of the document that he has given us. I congratulate this and the previous Administration on carrying forward this proposition. My noble friend Lady Miller was concerned about the difficulty of getting agreement between different departments. This document has also had to contend with the challenge of getting the agreement of the devolved Administrations. It is a triumph for the long-forgotten Joint Ministerial Committee, along with its supporting cast, which was revived to implement matters in this field. It is becoming more significant as we deal with climate change and the negotiation of the common agricultural policy. All these matters bridge the devolved Administrations.

I was very interested to hear my noble friend say that he hoped the adoption would be by March 2011. Considering that what we have today is a draft for consultation, and presumably it is simultaneously being considered by the other Administrations, this is a useful moment to air a number of issues, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and others have done today.

Several respondents to the consultation have expressed concern about the interaction of marine planning with terrestrial planning. When earlier planning acts were drawn up and their extent was defined as England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, was there any stipulation that these measures were confined only to the terrestrial part of the United Kingdom, or could some of the provisions be taken to apply to terrestrial waters at the same time? Somebody might raise that as an argument. It has been explained to me that the planning Acts are almost entirely to do with development, and it has been drawn to my attention by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation that in Scotland the harvesting of food is exempt from the definition of development. The federation is anxious to know whether this provision would have any read-over into the maritime area, which might make a rather interesting conflict with some of the efforts to control what is being done.

On drawing up the marine plans, I would certainly associate myself with the briefing provided by the Wildlife and Countryside Link along with other links that there are arguments for the use of the precautionary principle. However, one of our difficulties, as some noble Lords have pointed out today, is that plans will cover vast areas where little detailed knowledge exists, and it will be essential that the responsible bodies take rapid steps to consolidate data in areas where they think restrictions on existing or proposed activities might be required.

I was much encouraged by the reply I received last year from the then Government on the designation of special areas of conservation. At that time it was also pointed out that there were five offshore marine sites under consideration. It would be interesting to know whether this subject has been taken forward over the following year. Can my noble friend the Minister give the Committee some idea of the timescale that the UK Marine Monitoring and Assessment Strategy—which the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to—is aiming to meet? The paper says that it will provide a network by 2012. Will it also produce a general designation of our whole sea areas, or are its efforts concentrated on the areas that we think are most likely to need protection?

In terms of the precautionary principle, I would also like to see it limited to the first few years—it might be the first five years, I do not know—of any marine plan. As the document says, new areas and changes in management are to be led by a sound evidence base. However, I am again inclined to agree with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation in its concern that there must be a clear understanding that any sound evidence which is invoked must exceed a test of the balance of probabilities.

Perhaps the other thing that could be considered is that there should be a period for review of the plans, as knowledge and data are bound to lead to new perspectives as the whole thing goes forward. One thing that puzzled me—perhaps it is simply one’s lack of knowledge—is the stipulation that there should be protection not only for designated archaeological sites, which one can understand, but for undesignated archaeological sites. Who is to say what is an undesignated archaeological site, and who is to know what is an undesignated archaeological site?

Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

The Opposition will not oppose the regulations for the reasons that I have outlined. We hope that the Government will make rapid progress along the lines that have been described to us today.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing the regulations. I am sure that the poultry industry is most grateful for the derogation being extended. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, spoke about the public’s enthusiasm for free-range and enriched colony cages in terms of production. That is where the problems of cannibalism and pecking occur most readily. Coming from Glasgow, I was most glad to hear that the University of Glasgow was able to make a positive contribution towards resolving some of the issues linked to beak-trimming and to developing infra-red treatment. Does the Minister know whether infra-red treatment is reckoned to cause any suffering, or is it objected to because it alters the physical properties of the beak?

I was grateful to my noble friend also for taking so much time to explain the rationale behind the 2015 review, because there was some doubt as to what its purpose and outcome would be.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I, too, accept the regulations as an interim measure ahead of a ban on beak-trimming. There is much common ground between both sides of the Committee, so I shall not repeat any of the very good points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Quin.

I was slightly disappointed that no firm date for a ban has been given. The Explanatory Memorandum says clearly,

“with a view to banning … in 2016”.

How can we ensure that pressure is maintained on the industry to deliver to that timetable which we all want to see? I ask that question as a member of EU Sub-Committee D on agriculture, environment and fisheries, which is undertaking a review of innovation in agriculture. Many of the submissions that we have received tell of how the industry is struggling with the twin challenges of addressing climate change and the need for food security. Given that the industry is coping with finding funding for innovative research in those areas, how, without a firm cut-off date of 2016 for beak-trimming, can pressure be maintained on the industry to ensure that the necessary funding for research is delivered? I acknowledge what the Minister said about the research project in Bristol and the work of the Beak Trimming Action Group, but I should like to hear specifically how he will seek to keep pressure on the industry at a time when it is already struggling to find funding for innovative research in other areas of agriculture.

Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Duke of Montrose Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the stocking densities of chickens cause huge animal welfare problems, so I can be a little more congratulatory to the Government on taking this step in setting a lower density for the housing of chickens in England and for some of our counterparts across Europe and elsewhere. It is hugely to be welcomed and I hope that many animal welfare organisations will take the opportunity to ensure that a wider public see this as an early indication of how this Government intend to treat animal welfare as the coalition moves forward.

I have one question, which follows on from what the Baroness, Lady Quin, said, because one of the issues is around not just stocking density but the enrichment of the cages. I think the Minister mentioned the potential review in 2012. Will the enrichment of cages be part of that review? It clearly has benefits not just for the chickens but for the industry in minimising lameness and the resulting costs of treating it.

I am not sure whether I am allowed a quick comment, so please stop me if I am not. As these regulations show the Government’s commitment to dealing with the welfare issues around the stocking density for chickens, I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to look urgently at the housing issues for dairy cows in view of a planning application in Lincolnshire, where an early indication of the Government’s approach to stocking densities is needed to ensure that some of the application’s appalling welfare implications do not come into being.

[The Duke of Montrose]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a farmer, although it has absolutely nothing to do with poultry. My noble friend said that this was the first time that these regulations had been brought into the poultry industry, and I notice that one of the provisions says that every keeper will have to have a certificate. This is a novelty in the agricultural industry as a whole, and some farming elements are very sensitive to it and to the question of whether having a certificate will become a requirement for agricultural production generally.

I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the measure; it certainly is welcome. I wonder whether the quantity of record-keeping required is likely to increase greatly from what the industry currently does. I am sure that people keep records in the interests of their own production and so on, and the current requirement is fairly detailed, but Regulation 13 talks about recording,

“the number of chickens introduced … the number of chickens found dead ... and … the number of chickens”,

removed. I wonder whether the inspection will require reconciliation at the end of the day, which is always a headache in farming. I do not suppose that chickens evaporate in quite the same way as hill sheep tend to, but it is sometimes a rather difficult job to reconcile numbers. The regulations also want a record kept of the daily mortality rate. I presume that that is for every day that the chickens are kept.