Animal By-Products, Pet Passport and Animal Health (Fees) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 18 April. This instrument seeks to make amendments to the Animal Health (Miscellaneous Fees) (England) Regulations 2018 and the Animal By-Products and Pet Passport Fees (England) Regulations 2018 to ensure that there is no under-recovery or over-recovery of costs. These amendments do not contain any changes to policy or processes, only to the fees that the Animal and Plant Health Agency can collect on behalf of the Secretary of State in relation to statutory animal health services carried out by the agency.
The fees are designed to fund APHA’s front-line statutory animal health services for safeguarding animal health and supporting our domestic and international trade. These are: inspection of consignments and licensing of facilities involved in the trade of livestock semen, eggs and embryos; inspection and licensing of facilities involved in the handling, storage or incineration of animal by-products not destined for human consumption; inspection of live animals arriving from third countries at our border control posts; surveillance of commercial poultry flocks for salmonella; licensing and proficiency testing of private laboratories carrying out salmonella tests under our national salmonella control programme; and registration and approval of premises intending to export breeding poultry, day-old chicks and hatching eggs from Great Britain.
The proposed amendments also include the removal of the fees regime for pet passports, as APHA is no longer involved in the issuance of passports for the movement of pets to and from the UK and other countries. Following public consultation, new fees for these services were last introduced in 2018, with a commitment to businesses that fees would be reviewed biennially to ensure the charges and exemptions were appropriate.
Due to the agency’s focus of effort and resources on EU exit work, Covid and avian influenza, these reviews were put on hold and the fees for these schemes have consequently not been refreshed. As a result, businesses are being charged in a way which does not reflect full cost recovery for APHA. The schemes are failing to achieve recovery of their full costs, with a deficit of between £0.4 million and £0.5 million per year. This shortfall is currently being funded by the public purse.
Following the cost recovery principles of the Managing Public Money guidelines, APHA and Defra finance teams have developed a new fee schedule to deliver full cost recovery. No additional margins or profits have been included, and my counterparts in His Majesty’s Treasury have approved the approach taken.
The average increase to overall scheme fee income to achieve full cost recovery would be 51%. Given the substantive cost increases for some elements within the fee schedules, in designing this instrument we have balanced a proportional approach for businesses with the need to cover costs. We are proposing to follow the approach agreed in the 2018 consultation and apply a phased increase in fees over two years, with 50% of the fee uplift delivered in July 2023 and full cost recovery for the services delivered from July 2024. Border control post services are the exception to this phasing option. Here, we are proposing to increase fees and achieve full cost recovery from July this year. This will help us avoid any operational conflicts with changes that may follow the review of the new borders and boundaries fees process.
Delaying this uplift further would only increase the gulf between cost and recovery, and the impact of the changes would be even greater because of the impact of compounding factors such as inflation. APHA has continued to engage with business users and business associations on service performance and service fee schedules following the 2018 consultation, and these businesses are aware of the proposed new fee schedules and have engaged solely on service performance, rather than the fee increases themselves.
This statutory instrument applies to England only. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are following a similar approach, as APHA provides the same services to both Administrations. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have laid their own corresponding legislation. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us. First, can he explain when the last consultation was? He said that there had been a consultation in 2018. Paragraph 10.1 on page 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a consultation but seems to indicate that the last one was held in 2018, which is five years ago.
Secondly, these are huge increases. They are not 5% or 10%; we are looking at a 41% increase for the cost of animal by-products regulations, a 53% increase in the current fees of the animal health regulations, 65% for the animal health regulations relating to artificial breeding controls, and a more modest 21% increase for animal health regulations relating to the poultry health scheme. In the context of the general situation and the increases we have seen in public sector salaries, everyone balked at a 14% increase and 5% or 10% increases. I quite accept that, as my noble friend said, there has not been an increase since 2018, but these are huge increases. Can he put my mind at rest and say that there has been a more recent consultation with the industry, which is feeling fairly beleaguered?
Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, referred to the cost of living crisis. What is becoming clear is that, while supermarket prices are going up, those increased costs are not being passed on to, for example, producers of meat and poultry. I am concerned. I realise that they are spread over two years but these are really big increases. If there has been a more recent consultation, I would be interested to know what the feedback from the industry has been in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this important SI, which wraps two previous SIs up into one and deals mostly with the levying of fees.
The Explanatory Memorandum indicates that the fees will use the actual
“cost to the agency and are not uplifted using inflationary rates”,
and that “no profit element” is involved. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has already said very eloquently what a large increase there has been in these fees. The fees also cover seven different service areas provided by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, APHA, which is an executive agency of Defra. The fees have not been updated for some time, as the Minister said, with Brexit and Covid somewhat dominating the agenda.
Paragraph 7.3 of the EM gives details of how the costs will be calculated and the fees collected by APHA, stressing again that inflation will not be considered. I wonder whether this is wise. If there is no allowance for inflation, how will the true costs be calculated and passed on to those involved? An annual review—if not uplift—in fees is generally accepted in all other areas of life, so why not here? The Treasury requires, quite reasonably, that true costs be recovered. If there is no annual review of these fees and inflation is not to be considered, it is not going to be very long before a full-scale review is needed again. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments.
Paragraph 7.9 of the EM, relating to border control posts, indicates that documentary and identification checks will be conducted by authorised vets
“to prevent the introduction of diseases harmful to animal and public health”.
This is especially important. However, we have had debates over the years, especially since the advent of Brexit, about the availability of adequately qualified vets to conduct this inspection work. This type of work is not high on British vets’ “must do” lists. It is nevertheless extremely important that these border checks be conducted and carried out thoroughly. Is the Minister confident that sufficient trained vets are available to implement the necessary checks?
I note that, in the instrument itself, there is a category on page 7 headed “Animals not covered by any other category”. Can the Minister say whether this includes Camelids—that is, llamas and alpacas? If not, where are they covered in the instrument?
Lastly, the uplift in fees will be implemented over a two-year period, as the Minister said, with some this year and the rest in 2024. The cost will fall on businesses, charities and voluntary bodies that have not had an uplift since 2019. It is to be hoped that they will be expecting this uplift. Whether they have looked at the fees listed in the APHA section of the Government’s website is another matter; I did not find my search of that website a terribly rewarding exercise. None the less, I am happy to support this SI.
Packaging Waste (Data Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(11 months, 1 week ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving us the opportunity to debate these regulations. I generally support them, but I have a couple of queries. One relates to the 38th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which refers to a submission from Green Alliance that questions how the offsetting set out in the regulations will work and how Defra will ensure that
“the ability to offset obligations will not create incentives for producers to recycle potentially reusable packaging before it reaches the end of its useful life, to avoid paying producer fees”.
It is important to point out that this is a very complex area of policy that the Government are trying to roll out.
I received a briefing from the Food and Drink Federation earlier this year on its concerns about extended producer responsibility, which forms the crux of these regulations and is explained in the impact assessment and the Explanatory Memorandum. The problem we face—as my noble friend is extremely well aware, having served, as I have, as an MP in the other place—is that every single local authority seems to have a different rule relating to how waste packaging is to be disposed of. There is then the problem of potential contamination, particularly if foodstuffs form part of the waste disposed of.
From the consumer point of view, it is a bit depressing to learn that, although hundreds of local councils collect household waste, each has different rules as to how it can be recycled, which bin to put it in and what consumers should do with their waste. Then they find that much of it is not recycled at all; it is incinerated. Years ago, when my noble friend and I served as shadow Ministers in the other place, I went on a visit to SELCHP—South East London Combined Heat and Power—which now is combined heat and power but at the time was not. It burned everything, but it did not do anything with the energy it could have recovered from the process. It was interesting to see that all the waste from Westminster at that time was not recycled; it was just burned.
The Food and Drink Federation has raised some very real questions, which I ask my noble friend to comment on in the context of extended producer responsibility. First, should we not have basic principles agreed at the outset by all concerned? That would include the producers of the packaging, the manufacturers of a product, the Government and the local authorities which are looking to recycle. Secondly, it asks: how should an extended producer responsibility be framed as it relates to local government, including the financing
“of potential stranded assets and management of existing local government contracts”?
How could those be managed as part of an agreed transition without hampering the development of what everyone wants to see: a long-term, world-class solution to enable the UK to reduce the cost and disruption of packaging?
Thirdly, the federation calls for “Partnership with industry” to bring about a producer-led extended producer responsibility that harnesses the considerable expertise arising from setting up these schemes all over the world. This would
“drive innovation and business growth while constraining costs”
that would otherwise
“lead to higher consumer prices”.
The example it gives is that of a biscuit wrapper, in which the flexible plastic used
“is specially designed to guarantee the freshness and quality of the biscuits in it. The companies that use this type of valuable, flexible plastic for biscuits and other food types need it back. But flexible plastics are neither collected nor recycled in the kerbside system today”.
Does my noble friend not agree that in a good end-to-end extended producer responsibility system,
“each biscuit wrapper thrown away should be collected and given a second life as part of a circular system, creating jobs and driving green growth along the way”?
That is my main concern, but the other concern the Food and Drink Federation has raised is the way in which the Government have created their producer-led scheme administrator. It seems to be different in this country from other models that have been used elsewhere. Why have the Government chosen the model that we have for extended producer responsibility?
While I support the regulations before us, there are obviously practical problems with the way they have been drafted. I think my noble friend said that these are amendments to previous regulations, which presumably came before the House as well. I realise that this is a complex area but it would be better, in one sense, to slow the process down and have regulations which are fit for purpose: for the consumer, so we know what we are doing when we dispose of the packaging; for the producer, so they know what they are doing when they create the packaging in the first place, and are held responsible for that packaging; and for the local authorities which collect and dispose of this packaging. I support the amendments but I would welcome my noble friend’s comments in this regard.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks and welcome this SI, which is intended to reduce the amount of plastic packaging in circulation. This is long overdue and I look forward to seeing a lot less packaging from McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken and other fast-food outlets littering our town centres and rural countryside.
The SI makes provision for the collection of data about plastic packaging ahead of the full implementation of the regulations in 2024. I will read out in full Paragraph 7.1 of the EM, because I will be referring to it later:
“Extended Producer Responsibility … for packaging will require producers to take responsibility for the environmental impact of the packaging they supply by obligating them to pay for the collection and disposal costs of this packaging when it becomes waste. This will provide a financial incentive for producers to reduce the amount of packaging they supply and to improve the recyclability of their packaging”.
Hooray—and not before time.
The regulations, and the need to collect and report the data on the plastic packaging used, apply to those businesses with an annual turnover of £2 million and above. But the de minimis threshold turnover is £1 million, at which level the data has to be collected but not reported. Can the Minister say why this is? What is the purpose of collecting the data if it does not have to be reported?
Defra conducted a consultation with industry on the implementation of these regulations twice: first, from February to May 2019, when there were 679 responses; and secondly, from March to June 2021, when there were 1,241 responses—nearly double that of the earlier consultation. The first consultation was a general one while the second was more detailed and outlined the proposals to require producers to report twice yearly in April and October, covering a six-month period; it could be that that detail is what generated the greater level of response.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, may I just follow up? I am trying to understand what he said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. If it is a closed-loop system and the waste is not entering the general household collection system, surely, producers should be exempt and be allowed to have their own system. My noble friend seemed to answer the question by saying that if it is general household waste collection, they could not save more than 75%, but, if this is a closed-loop system, should they not be exempt?
My noble friend referred to the EPR regulations which will come into force later this year. Will we be given a similar chance to discuss them, in a similar forum?
Lord Benyon (Con)
On the latter point, I can certainly assure my noble friend that there will be plenty of opportunity to discuss them.
Producers will not be permitted to off-set their fees where the packaging in question is collected for recycling by more than 75% of local authorities. That assesses the type of packaging we are talking about and how it impacts local authorities. Where there is a closed-loop system, we think that is the right measure to take. The key reason for this is that we do not want to incentivise producers to start collecting their own household packaging for recycling where that packaging is largely collected by local authorities. We want significantly to increase the amount of consistent kerbside collections we are conducting and thereby create economies for these products where possible. It is really important that the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, be brought to the attention of my ministerial colleague and officials so that we can talk through its impacts.
Land Use Commission
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
My concern about a commission is that it would probably have to be a creature of statute. That would take time. We would have to have consultations and pass legislation, and another factor is the cost, which the report said should be similar to that of the Scottish Land Commission, at £1.5 million, and the Climate Change Committee, which is about £4.5 million. The most important thing is that Ministers want to drive and be held to account in both Houses on this very important piece of work. We are yet to be convinced about parking it with a commission, but I am happy to have further conversations with Members of this House to get to the bottom of that.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned tenant farmers and graziers. When will the extent to which they will benefit from ELMS become clearer?
Lord Benyon (Con)
They are already benefiting from ELMS. We are working hard to ensure that they can benefit from not just the sustainable farming incentive but all the other parts of the schemes that we are bringing forward. Areas of countryside stewardship have always been a problem with landlord and tenant. We are trying to iron those things out and ensure that we are providing a future of support for all parts of the farming sector.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for presenting the regulations before us this afternoon and the opportunity to put one or two questions. He will recall the history of the attempt to frack—the use of hydraulic fracturing—in North Yorkshire, and that the one reason it was not allowed to happen was because no permit was given for the water supply and the reuse of water.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 36th Report, which says that Defra has no intention of revisiting that issue. Can I press my noble friend the Minister to ensure that there will be no end to the current moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in any part of England, to the extent that it might fall within the regulations before us this afternoon? If there was to be an end to the moratorium, can he give us an undertaking that the Government—whichever department it happened to be, as departments come and go—would actually come before both Houses with revised permitting, with regard to fracking?
I now turn to the Explanatory Memorandum, starting with paragraph 7.16 onwards, relating to groundwater activities and the use of geothermal and other green technologies. Could my noble friend explain whether, if there is a significant risk of introducing microbial pollution, no permit would actually be issued in that regard, whether it is close to a sensitive habitat or not? That is just to understand what the purposes of the permitting are. I understand, in the second paragraph of 7.18, that it does look as though this is going to become a regulated activity, so I would just like to understand entirely what the remit of the department in relation to the regulations would be.
On paragraph 7.22, and an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge into a sewer network, could my noble friend highlight specifically what activity is in play there? Obviously, there is a situation where there is a heavy rainfall and sewage can flow on to a highway and then into someone’s house. I understand that highways authorities currently have no responsibility for any sewage overflow, or do not contribute in any way to reducing flood risk in this regard. Is that a loophole, if you like, that the Government would like to close? Obviously, it is unfortunate at the moment that there are not sufficient sustainable drains in place and that there is no end to the automatic right to connect, which may mean that sewage flowing as wastewater from a four- or five-bedroomed house which has been given planning permission can come into a combined sewer and unfortunately spill into houses, either directly into an existing development, or off a highway. So there does seem to be this loophole that highways authorities are not covered. Is that what my noble friend means by an unauthorised illegal third-party discharge? I am just trying to understand what paragraph 7.22 of the Explanatory Memorandum would cover.
With those few remarks, I otherwise welcome the regulations before us this afternoon.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks to this SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this instrument in April and raised concerns about groundwater quality and sub-surface energy proposals. As a result, Defra revised the Explanatory Memorandum. Those amendments helped to clarify the instrument, but I have some comments and questions.
As the EM states, groundwater “plays a vital role” for food manufacturing, brewing, wetland ecosystems and the agriculture industry, to which the Minister referred in his opening remarks. The quality and purity of this water is vital to many of these, especially chalk streams, the protection of which was debated last week during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. This instrument indicates that it will update and clarify the existing control measures within the EPR for protecting groundwater from site-based activities. Will this include the discharge of chicken slurry into the River Wye, for instance, or is this classified as not groundwater but surface water? Perhaps those are the same.
Air Quality Strategy Consultation
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Baroness knows how I hate to see her disgruntled, so I will see whether I can make her gruntled. The consultation was open for 10 days, the department received 434 responses in total and 97 local authorities responded—but that was not the totality of it. We have engaged with stakeholders, including local government, since December 2021; we have run a series of nine workshops to gain views and input from a range of stakeholders; and more than 30 meetings were held with internal and external stakeholders, as well as over 200 stakeholders from community groups, NGOs, academia and local authorities. This Government consult like no Government have before; sometimes, I wonder whether we consult too much, but in this case I think we have got this absolutely right and created a strategy that reflects what people want.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in relation to consultation and the London mayor, does my noble friend agree that the main cause of increased traffic congestion and the knock-on effect on air quality is the lack of synchronisation of traffic lights, which is driving not just London cab drivers but all London motorists to distraction?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend raises a point that cab drivers raise with me frequently. It is a serious point. As she knows, air quality is devolved to the mayor, who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of his policies. Undoubtedly, with ULEZ and other policies, this is causing tensions, but it is for him to answer. Our point is to help local government in all its forms to deliver. We are putting in money to assist local authorities in tackling air quality right across the country. London is the biggest challenge. That is why we work with the mayor when we can to make sure that we are achieving that in the capital.
Water Companies: Licences
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is not just up to the company; it is up to the regulators, Ofwat and the Environment Agency. We are currently considering this, and there is a proposal to lift the cap on fines from the Environment Agency to an unlimited level. This is part of a concerted effort to tackle a serious problem.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, but will my noble friend exercise a degree of urgency? Wales has already implemented this, making SUDS and sustainable drains mandatory in all new builds. That one measure alone will prevent sewage spilling over antiquated pipes and leading to river and sea pollution.
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right: this was a key recommendation of the Pitt review following the floods in 2007. The Government are implementing it. It is complicated, because it is about who owns and has responsibility for the maintenance of the SUDS. My noble friend is right that this will have an impact on the amount of unwanted effluent that flows from developments into watercourses and aquifers, and it is being implemented—we are taking it forward urgently.
Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this instrument is to introduce compulsory cat microchipping in England, delivering one of the Government’s key manifesto pledges. This measure was supported by 99% of respondents to our public consultation, which received over 33,000 responses.
Microchipping improves animal welfare by increasing the traceability of pets, making it easier for lost, stray or stolen pets to be reunited with their keepers and returned home safely. Microchipping is a safe procedure involving the insertion of a chip, generally about the size of a grain of rice, under the skin of a pet. Once the microchip has been inserted, contact details are registered with a compliant database. The regulations also include provisions that relate to ensuring that microchips are inserted by competent people.
Since the Government introduced compulsory dog microchipping in England in 2016, around 90% of dogs are now microchipped. Evidence suggests that stray dogs that are microchipped and have up-to-date microchip records are more than twice as likely to be reunited with their keeper than stray dogs without a microchip.
There are over 9 million owned cats in England, but as many as 2.3 million are currently not microchipped. These measures are intended to address this. From 10 June 2024, any owned cat over the age of 20 weeks must be microchipped and the keeper’s contact details registered on a compliant database. There is an exception to this, where a vet certifies that the procedure should not be carried out for animal health reasons. However, I reassure your Lordships that this exception is rarely used. These requirements apply only to owned cats; they do not apply to free-living cats that live with little or no human interaction or dependency, such as farm, feral or community cats.
As with the existing requirements for dogs, keepers found not to have microchipped their cat may be served with a notice by the enforcement body, which will usually be the local authority. If they do not comply, they may face a fine of up to £500, and the enforcement body may also arrange for the cat to be microchipped at the keeper’s expense.
This instrument also repeals and replaces the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, bringing all the measures into a new single instrument covering both dogs and cats. There are no substantive changes to the existing provisions covering the requirement to have your dog microchipped, although we have taken the opportunity to make technical drafting changes where we considered the existing text would benefit from further clarity. Animal welfare is a devolved issue and therefore these regulations apply to England only.
Noble Lords may be aware that, last year, the Government also consulted on wider pet microchipping reform designed to improve the operation of the existing regime. This includes plans to: make it easier for approved users to access microchip records; improve the accuracy of the records; and standardise database operator processes. We will be issuing our response to this consultation shortly. However, I can reassure noble Lords that we are planning to come forward with amending regulations in due course to implement these improvements. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. I was chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the other place and, as my noble friend will recall, we took great interest in this.
My view is that this measure will be successful only if it is properly enforced. Given that that the penalties will, I presume, be similar to those imposed for a breach of the obligation to microchip dogs, how many fines have been imposed for failure to comply with the obligation to microchip dogs? Does my noble friend share my frustration that we are still 10% short of the magic 100% figure for dogs? It is hoped that the obligation to microchip cats will bring it up to that level. Is that the Government’s ambition, or are they aiming even higher than that?
At the moment, there is the vexed issue of dangerous dogs doing damage. Often, they attack a person in a public place. I assume that these dogs will be microchipped. To what extent does my noble friend think that the Government’s current obligation to microchip dogs is successful in identifying and tracing dogs that commit a grievous injury or fatality in a public place?
On the exemption, I presume that there will be potential for a feral cat to cross over and commit an injury such as biting or scratching a perfectly innocent bystander, which we know can have very significant effects. Obviously, they have no owner, so what happens in that situation, in terms of identifying the feral cat and bringing it to justice, as it were?
My final question is about the continuous issue of what I think are called boiler-house dogs: the breeding of multiple pups which, when they are not sold, are unlikely to be microchipped. For the sake of completeness, what is the Government’s policy in that regard? I understand from press reports that these dogs are literally dumped on the streets and taken in by cats and dogs homes, such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, for whose work we are grateful. Is that occurring more than it was before and is there a similar problem with cats and kittens?
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as declared in the register and as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare and as a veterinary surgeon.
I very much welcome this statutory instrument and the inclusion of cats. I also welcome the fact that there is no legal requirement in these regulations that vets must scan a dog prior to euthanasia. This matter has been of some considerable public interest, but the Government deserve credit for recognising that not only the veterinary profession but many of the dog and cat bodies—such as Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Dogs Trust, PDSA and others—have similarly opposed a legal requirement to scan prior to euthanasia. All these bodies have advocated that that should be a matter for professional codes of practice. Indeed, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has done so and has incorporated in its code of practice appropriate advice but ultimately gives veterinary surgeons powers to use their discretion. The reason is that a legal requirement could adversely affect animal welfare. In certain circumstances, it could deter individuals from bringing sick or injured animals to a veterinary surgeon if they thought the veterinary surgeons were essentially policing this microchipping requirement. That would be adverse for animal welfare.
One regret I have, which I think I share with many in our profession and many who are required to scan animals, is that there has been no attempt to reduce or limit the number of databases holding microchip information. I understand that currently, there are 22 different databases for dogs, which are fulfilling the Government’s current requirements to hold data. That creates an unnecessary and excessive burden, both on those required to put in chips and record the information and on those who need to recover the information from scanning. However, I note that there are now two portals to assist one in determining which database contains the relevant information for any particular animal. One is run by the Kennel Club and one by AVID, a manufacturer of microchips, but these are private initiatives. One hopes that they are maintained to facilitate the examination and identification of microchips.
I very much welcome this instrument, which makes a significant contribution to reuniting dogs and cats with their owners and, importantly, to the rapid identification and potential treatment of injured dogs and cats.
Oil Spill: Poole Harbour
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Benyon (Con)
Poole harbour is a large expanse of water and this is a significant spill. Booms have been put out, but they will not contain all the pollutant. Other measures have been put in place and the Environment Agency is overseeing the recovery. Repair works will be conducted close to the salt marshes, mud flats and reed beds which are used by a variety of residents and overwintering birds. As the noble Baroness will know, Poole harbour is home to a native population of spiny seahorse, short-snouted seahorse and other rare species, and there is also a mussel fishery and an oyster fishery. We will make sure, working with the Food Standards Agency, that they are safe to eat. We are advising local people to continue to use the beaches but at this stage not to swim there, and we are monitoring the situation. The Environment Agency is in charge of all outreach to local people, and is making sure that we are communicating to them what we are doing by way of recovery and to limit the effects of the spill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister pass on our congratulations to those who managed to contain the spill? It could have been so much worse. He mentioned potential loss of income to fishermen and tourism businesses. What compensation might they get if there is significant loss in that regard?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Noble work is being done, and I thank my noble friend for pointing that out. There is a very clear line of process for compensation, which is that the polluter should pay. We will assist anyone who feels they have a legitimate case to make in following that process through. However, at this stage it is unclear whether there are significant losses. As I say, we are working with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency to make sure that the food is safe and that people can continue to produce high-quality shellfish from that area.
Agriculture (Financial Assistance) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, in moving the regulations I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This is the third year of the seven-year agricultural transition period. The new financial assistance schemes under the Agriculture Act are an important part of this transition as farmers move away from direct payments. They will help to ensure that sustainable food production and the delivery of improved environmental outcomes go hand in hand. Indeed, we are investing in the very foundations of food security—healthy soils, clean water and abundant pollinators—to support a prosperous long-term future for the sector.
We are due to meet at a later date to debate the statutory instrument that sets the reductions to farmers’ 2023 direct payments. I want to be clear to anyone who is minded to support the fatal Motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats about exactly what they would be voting for. First, that vote would be against small farms. We are replacing unfair and ineffective area-based payments with targeted payments. Some 50% of the direct payments budget went to the largest 10% of recipients, so by seeking to stop the agricultural transition the movers of this Motion are voting for that unfairness to continue. Secondly, that vote would be against food security. Support for that Motion would be a vote for the EU’s area-based subsidies to continue, and they did very little for farming, food production or the environment. The link between food production and the common agricultural policy was substantially severed in 2005.
If the fatal Motion on the other regulation is successful, the effect would be insufficient funding to deliver current plans. Specifically, we would have to cancel all the agreements or plans under Countryside Stewardship 2023, the sustainable farming incentive, landscape recovery, farming in protected landscapes, support for producer organisations, the future farming resilience fund, the livestock information programme, the animal health and welfare pathway, and the Institute for Agriculture and Horticulture. This would mean immediately stopping work on projects to restore nearly 400 miles of river and to protect and provide habitat for 263 species—such as water vole, otter, pine marten, lapwing, great crested newt, European eel and marsh fritillary—across 40,000 hectares. We must therefore continue our move away from direct payments and the legacy of the EU’s bureaucratic common agricultural policy, which did little for farming, food production or the environment. I hope that, with that little taster of the debate in a week or two, I have persuaded noble Lords who were minded to table that Motion to rethink.
The regulations that we are debating today provide the legal framework for Defra and its delivery bodies to enforce and monitor the financial assistance schemes and to publish data about grant payments. This instrument makes technical amendments to those regulations to support the continuing transition to new schemes. Through this instrument, the definitions of three financial assistance schemes from the 2021 regulations have been removed. This change does not impact the schemes, which have already been launched, or their funding. It is so that the Government can be more flexible in adapting schemes to suit farmers’ needs. For example, the Government will be launching the animal health and welfare grants through the farming investment fund, which were previously defined as separate schemes.
The data publication requirements are amended so that the Secretary of State may exempt financial assistance schemes awarded to improve the health or welfare of livestock or plants if full publication would hinder the scheme’s purpose. For example, identifying a land manager who has received grants related to diseases in livestock could be damaging to their business and deter them reporting future cases. Similarly, the Government will continue to exempt the tree health pilot and animal health and welfare review from the full publishing requirement to protect the interests of affected parties. The Government have continued to name these schemes in this instrument to provide certainty to existing beneficiaries. However, as with all exempted schemes, the aggregated data for these payments will be published.
The Government are making sure that the taxpayer still knows where the funding is going. This instrument amends the data publication requirements so that, where the Secretary of State is required to publish the aggregate of financial assistance paid under a scheme, they must also publish the number of agreement holders who received financial assistance under that scheme.
These amendments will allow the financial assistance schemes to run more efficiently and effectively for farmers and help to achieve their intended benefits under the Agriculture Act while still making sure that there is accountability to the public. Therefore, this instrument is an essential step in ensuring that farmers can help build and maintain resilient businesses by spending public money in a way that helps us to secure the public good. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for setting out the detail of and background to the regulations before us today. I simply want to probe him on a couple of points, if I may, including on how these regulations will apply, especially to English farmers, and particularly tenant farmers.
The guidance was published in March 2022, and the path to sustainable farming was set out earlier. Has the guidance been updated since 2022? I do not see that in the Explanatory Memorandum, paragraph 11. If they are just technical changes, that may not be so important.
Why was no impact assessment done? As my noble friend said, this is year three of the seven-year transition and where the finances will start to bite quite dramatically. I state at the outset that English farmers will feel unfairly treated. My understanding is that the direct payments will continue in Scotland, so those farms in North Yorkshire, Durham, Cumbria and Northumberland will look across the Scottish border and see a slightly more familiar scheme to that which they have now and which is being taken away from them. Is that something that concerns my noble friend the Minister?
My real concern is the transition from basic farm payments to ELMS. My noble friend concentrated very heavily on the advantages to the environment. I press him on how this will impact on hill farmers, upland farmers and small farmers everywhere, in particular those who produce grazing stock such as spring lambs and, indeed, fatstock cattle.
In a Financial Times article on 5 March, it is calculated that a drop in farm business income—a measure of net profit—of almost two-thirds is expected in this financial year. That amounts to a drop in profit of £16,300. When I was an MP next door—as indeed was my noble friend—I worked very closely with the graziers. I would hazard a guess that that £16,000 per grazier was their total income. The question is this: what alternative money will they seek? They tend to have the rights in perpetuity but they tend to be tenant farmers elsewhere. If they do not get direct farm payments because the landowner, where they farm elsewhere, is taking it then obviously they will not be getting any compensation.
My noble friend the Minister will be familiar with the work of Julia Aglionby, a Professor of Practice at the University of Cumbria’s Centre for National Parks and Protected Areas. Her projection is that income will recover to £22,900 in two years before slumping back to £16,700; this would place it at just above a third of its 2021-22 level. I understand that of particular concern to the president of the NFU is the fact that at the heart of this squeeze on government payments is the decision to calculate payments on the basis of income foregone plus costs, meaning paying for green improvements at rates aimed at recompensing farmers for the resulting fall in agricultural income.
According to the president of the NFU, Minette Batters, for some farms that took part at the pilot stage, the work was simply not cost effective. As my noble friend the Minister will be aware, upland farms are particularly affected because they tend to produce less food than lowland sites, meaning that they are considered to have foregone less income and are paid lower rates. As I understand it, most farmers will receive £151 a hectare for managing grassland with minimal fertiliser, but those doing the same work in so-called severely disadvantaged areas or upland farms will be paid only £98. That is a severe drop in income and this is only the third year of seven.
Can my noble friend the Minister address those points? How are these farmers meant to survive? What are the department’s projections for the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh years? Where the farmers in the uplands are tenant farmers, as many of them will be—I appreciate the fact that, in North Yorkshire, where I served as an MP, and in County Durham, where I grew up in the Pennines, probably 50% of the farming community is made up of tenant farmers—what hope do they possibly have of farming in future if they are not eligible for food production grants going forward? I realise that they will get money for stonewalling, which is a tradition that we want to keep, but they are hardly contributing to food security or sourcing more food—as the Prime Minister would like them to do—for our schools, hospitals and local garrisons. What future does my noble friend see, even in this coming year, for upland farmers and, separately, for tenant farmers?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I declare my agricultural interests as recorded on the register, in that I own agricultural land and am in receipt of payments. I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations before the Committee and welcome my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent to her new Defra responsibilities.
I had thought that we would be debating two instruments today: this one and the one on direct payments to farmers. The disastrous mess being created by the Government on food production is evidenced by the loss of that second instrument today; it is to be debated later this month through separate fatal and regret Motions.
These amendment regulations, albeit seemingly on technical administrative measures, have the potential to add greater confusion for food producers while taking away parliamentary oversight and giving more powers to Ministers. The regulations will minimise the references to specific financial assistance schemes and definitions in the original 2021 regulations to allow future changes to be made to the design of specific schemes, seemingly without due consideration and process and without the need for amendments to have parliamentary approval. Seeming to be subject to constant flux cannot instil confidence in the agricultural community to align long-term business planning with the perceived lack of consistency of government objectives on environmental sustainability. Are there are guidelines regarding the duration period? How many reinterpretations of schemes might the Minister’s department pursue without necessitating a fresh mandate? Will the Government commit to undertaking consultations on every change?
The instrument proposes extending exemptions for agricultural holders, under animal and plant welfare measures, to have to publish certain information. This administrative ease brings added complexity if an agreement holder is only partly involved in such schemes, as well as others. Can the Minister give an assurance that all agreement holders will be notified in advance of all the information to be published? Will that notification be subject to challenge?
On the wider issue, will changes of personnel within an agreement holder—for example, in the case of farm partnerships—necessarily have to be notified to Defra for legitimacy and the maintenance of agreements? I presume that this would have implications where the Secretary of State is required to publish the aggregate of financial assistance paid under the schemes, necessarily adjusted for exemptions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I feel I may have confused my noble friend. I did not mention area payments. I said that there is envy of what the Scots are being paid. My concern is that the way that the calculation has been done—income forgone plus costs—is leading to this perverse situation of a fall in incomes.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will seek to address those points as I go through my remarks. We want to make sure that the £2.4 billion is spent more fairly. That means a greater incentive for smaller farmers to receive more of the pie because they have been hard done by under the common agricultural policy. I will come on to talk about this as I address other points.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, raised some important points. I make no apologies for the fact that we have amended the schemes. He quite rightly asked about consultation. The schemes are indicative. We want to make sure that, as we work through not only our tests and trials but the implementation of these schemes, we are listening to farmers. This has probably been the largest consultative process that I have experienced in my time in Defra. The food, farming and countryside team has attended agricultural shows, done webinars, visited clusters of farmers, attended the vast majority of farmers’ social gatherings that can possibly be imagined and responded to concerns raised. We will continue to do that through our standard routine engagement with organisations such as the NFU, the TFA, the CLA and others and also directly with farmers. I have been able to put farmers who have raised particular points with me straight through to the director concerned and she has been able to answer their questions, so the answer to the noble Lord’s question about continued consultation is absolutely yes.
Agreement holders will have to be notified. On the noble Lord’s point about changes in farm tenure and ownership, these will be considerably simpler under the schemes. There should be no deterrent effect to being able to transfer the schemes if, for example, a partner in a farming partnership arrangement changes and there should be no bureaucratic barrier more than a notification, if required, in those schemes. There are issues relating to the time left of a farm business tenancy, for example. If it is less than three years, I think, it can be rolled over but it needs to be notified.
We are measuring the impact on the environment of the uptake of these schemes. We will also be measuring the impact on the environment of farmers and land managers accessing private sector green finance, and making sure that we are working to strategies through our Countryside Stewardship, which now has more than 30,000 farmers in the scheme. We have raised the payments by 40% and have increased the amount of support for farmers to go into those schemes. We want to make sure that local nature recovery strategies are doing what Professor Sir John Lawton did in his ground-breaking paper, Making Space for Nature: seeking to connect environments where possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about the exemptions. It is important that we get this right. Whether it is a perception or not, perceptions are reality in this case. If there is a perception about making public the fact that you are taking part in an animal health and welfare grant scheme or you might have tree diseases on your land, and that will be a barrier to farmers taking part in the schemes, then I think we are right to seek that exemption.
As the noble Baroness points out, there have been cases where certain animal rights organisations have targeted farmers. On the question of African swine fever, it is a notifiable disease, so somebody not notifying the Government would be breaking the law, but that is an absolute nightmare prospect. In all our border security measures, biosecurity and everything that we seek to do, the risk of that sort of disease coming into our farming community is at the forefront of our minds. We are tracking what happens and where it is spreading across Europe and making sure that, with people coming to this country, in this globalised world in which we live, we seek to minimise the chance of that disease happening here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, raised the issue of food shortages. The principal cause of the headline-grabbing shortages was strange climatic conditions in southern Spain and Morocco, from where we receive most of our tomatoes at this time of year. It is a warning to us, but also to retailers, that we can expect strange climatic conditions. Our supply chains, which are resilient and were proved to be so during the pandemic, need to be prepared for such risks so that we can continue to see the food that we want to see on our shelves.
The noble Baroness’s question on resources is a good one. We in Defra are putting enormous resources into this; I can assure her that other issues we are seeking to deal with at the same time will not have an impact on the importance of rolling out these schemes, explaining them to farmers, getting as many as possible to sign up to them and making sure that we are supporting our farmers to produce food. We want them to produce food sustainably but we also have hungry mouths to feed. Food security remains an absolute priority for my department and the Government.
I will tackle other points as they have arisen and hope that I will cover all the questions. One point raised was on how we are helping farmers who will become unprofitable as a result of direct payment reductions. There are a number of ways in which farmers can be profitable without direct payments, including farm efficiency improvements, diversification and receiving money under new schemes. The actions taken will depend on the particular farm. The future farming resilience fund provides farmers with free advice from an independent provider to help them work out what to do for their business, including how best to improve business practices.
The impact on farmers of the phasing out of direct payments is obviously at the forefront of our minds. There is evidence showing that the scope—
Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering ExcerptsWednesday 8th March 2023
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 View all Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 89-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (6 Mar 2023)
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to this little group, which is intended as probing amendments that look to the power to update and the transitional part of the Bill.
The aim of Clause 16 is to provide that the national authority will have the power to update by regulations
“any secondary retained EU law, or … any provision made by virtue of section 12, 13 or 15 … to take account of … changes in technology, or … developments in scientific understanding.”
I am honing in on whether Clause 16 should stand part because I believe that the reasons for updating these regulations should also reflect other conditions, such as changes in society or economics. The rationale for making amendments in Clause 16, as currently drafted, is unduly narrow. I therefore urge the Government to consult on this clause and rethink this provision to reflect the wide scope of changes that would necessitate amendment of the law in future.
I take this opportunity to ask my noble friend, when she comes to sum up this small group, what the consultation was on this clause prior to the drafting of the Bill. I would like to understand further the thinking behind why this clause is currently so narrowly drafted.
In turning to Amendments 133 and 134, I raise a request yet again—I think this is my third or fourth attempt. It goes to the heart of not just amendments in my name but of others in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I have still not heard an answer from any noble friend to the question: what is the Government’s view of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to withhold consent? It is vital that we get an answer to that question before we leave Committee, which is at the end of today. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield said to me that I would have an answer. This is the last possible moment for me to get an answer to that question, and I think it very important. It relates not just to Clauses 16 and 19 but to other clauses that have been extremely contentious and led to fairly lengthy debates. I hope my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will respond on that vital question.
Amendment 133 would replace “appropriate” with “necessary”. As currently drafted, Clause 19(1) provides that:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act.”
Given that Clause 19(2) allows such regulations to amend any Act, including this Bill, it is my view—and that of the Law Society of Scotland, which helped me draft this small group—that the Minister should be permitted to amend those regulations only where it is necessary to do so. This applies a more objective standard to the amendment of the regulations. If my noble friend is not minded to support my amendment to replace “appropriate” with “necessary”, can she explain in which circumstances the Government would consider the provision to be appropriate for the purposes of Clause 19(1) and (2)?
Amendment 134 would require a Minister of the Crown to consult the other relevant national authorities and interested persons before making regulations under Clause 19. In particular, Clause 19(1) has been identified as providing a Henry VIII power that empowers a Minister of the Crown by regulation to make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act. Given that Clause 19(2) would allow such regulations to amend any Act, including this Bill, it is the view of the Law Society of Scotland that the Minister should be required to consult the bodies referred to—the devolved Administrations. I share that view.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I certainly undertake to write. There are some uncertainties, as the noble Baroness will understand, so I will update her as much as I can. It is important and we need to be as clear as we can be before Report.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I think the whole Committee would probably like to have sight of that letter, if we may. It goes to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, asked earlier today, because we are still very unclear as to the level of withdrawal of EU laws in connection with the Windsor agreement.
I have the highest regard and the greatest affection for my noble friend, but I have to say that I find it extraordinary that we are about to leave Committee and we still have not heard what the government response is to a very serious issue of the Scottish Parliament having announced that it is withholding its consent to the Bill. The Committee will have to form a view on that—I am sure the whole House would like to form a view on it—as we now proceed to Report. I am extremely disappointed that, having given my noble friends three or four goes, it is kind of like, “We don’t really care what the Scottish and Welsh Governments, or the Northern Irish people, think, because we’re an English Parliament and we are going to proceed”. I am afraid that is the impression I am left with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
We are the UK Parliament. I have said that we will come back to the House on these devolved issues. It may not be possible to do that today, but I thank my noble friend.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Is my noble friend able to say when? Could we have a meeting before Report? It would be helpful to know whether my noble friend will commit to such a meeting. I will take that as a yes.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have committed to write. Whether or not there is a meeting, we will certainly be in communication.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful. My noble friend will have soaked up the atmosphere, including in the responses from the two Front Benches opposite, as to the strength of feeling throughout the Bill’s proceedings as to how it would appear that there has not been formal consultation to the extent that the devolved nations would have wished. One has already registered that it has withheld its consent, which obviously calls into question what the next stage will be with the Scottish Parliament in that regard. It has amendments on the table that have not yet been tabled, so we will see what happens there.
I am disappointed that my noble friend was unable to explain—in response to not just my questions but those from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, as well—why it is only science and technology. Are we including food science in this, or science as it relates to chemicals with regard to UK REACH and EU REACH? I am afraid that more questions have probably been raised during the debate on these small groups of amendments, so personally I would like to return to this at a later stage of the Bill. I am grateful for the opportunity to have debated the amendments this afternoon and, for the moment, I will not press my amendments.