Brexit: Environmental and Climate Change Policy
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
That this House takes note of the future of environmental and climate change policy in the light of the result of the referendum for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the European Union has produced the world’s most comprehensive body of environmental policy and legislation. It has protected our wildlife and biodiversity and has improved the quality of our water and other natural resources. It has also been pivotal in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and prompting the growth in renewable energy in our fight against climate change. As the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded,
“the UK’s membership of the European Union has improved the UK’s approach to environmental protection and ensured that the UK environment has been better protected”.
So the challenge now for our Government is to continue to improve our environment as we move outside the overwhelmingly positive, collective approach to environmental policy that we have been party to in the European Union over the past 40 years.
Given the bulwark of protections provided by that body of European environmental policy, it is good that the Government have confirmed that EU law will be transposed into domestic law on the day that the UK leaves the European Union—protections such as rules that govern the use of pesticides and nitrates, ensure fewer toxic chemicals in household products, or deliver greater product efficiency standards, as well as the birds and habitats directive, the most significant and extensive system for protecting wildlife and wild places that we have. However, this does not mean that the hard-won environmental policy gains built up over 40 years are secure. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, has caveated this transposing with the phrase “wherever practicable”. The Farming Minister, George Eustice, called the birds and habitat directive “spirit-crushing” and, at a recent event that I attended, suggested that the need to designate special areas of conservation for harbour porpoises is an example of its inflexibility, despite a review by the coalition Government that showed that the directive’s implementation worked well.
We cannot allow “wherever practicable” to become a means to oust what is, to some, burdensome red tape when, in reality, that environmental policy framework has created a level playing field for companies and our farmers to trade fairly while tackling the threat of catastrophic climate change and environmental degradation. Further unpicking—as the Prime Minister herself said—to reflect UK preferences looks even more likely, given that a key plank on which all EU environmental legislation is built is that of the precautionary principle. The Government’s opposition to the precautionary principle has been all too clear, with their stance on the EU’s ban on three neonicotinoid insecticides and its approach to GM food. Moreover, this is a Government who pride themselves on championing deregulation. They refused earlier this year to reinstate the zero-carbon homes policy, arguing that it would place unnecessary burdens on small housebuilders, despite clear evidence that it would limit carbon emissions from future homes.
Let us make it clear that this House will insist on full parliamentary scrutiny of any proposed changes to environmental legislation—no using the back door of statutory instruments. I and my colleagues on these Benches will vigorously oppose any watering down of environmental outcomes of transposed EU legislation. Any changes should be made only when demonstrable environmental benefits would result.
Leaving the European Union will mean that we are no longer part of the common agricultural policy—a policy which has hugely impacted on our rural environment and natural resources, for good and for ill. The CAP currently provides much of the funding for the conservation of terrestrial biodiversity through our green environment schemes but it has also been a major driver of damage to the environment, despite reforms to green it in more recent years. Our departure presents a major opportunity for our Government to reshape our land management and agricultural policy. Liberal Democrats will contend that future policy, and the financial support allied to it, must reward farmers for the public goods that they provide, producing healthy food and protecting the natural capital of our farmed landscapes through building healthy soils, carbon storage, clean water and flood prevention.
There is no doubt that there will be political pressure to divert the £3 billion that farmers currently receive away from agriculture—who can forget the Brexit bus and its infamous promise of £350 million a week for the NHS? By allying a new agricultural and land management policy to the provision of public goods, political will to maintain farm support, which is critical to many farm businesses, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, could be secured. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that the consultation promised within a few months on the food and farming policy will dovetail with the Government’s proposed 25-year environment plan and actively encourage public engagement, and whether the Natural Capital Committee will be formally asked for its views.
The Government committed in their 2015 manifesto to this being the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. Work on the 25-year environment plan began a year ago and we are anticipating a consultation on a framework later this month. This plan now assumes a far greater importance as we move outside the framework of the EU’s seventh environmental action plan, with its bold ambitions up to 2050. Ministers should be clear: if their environmental plan fails to set ambitious targets for our stock of natural capital and biodiversity or to place a duty on all government departments and public bodies to implement it, it will be judged a failure. Moreover, the case for legislative underpinning of this 25-year environment plan is now even stronger. Up to now, the European Union policy process has made agreed environmental measures more stable, giving public authorities and private investors the confidence to plan ahead.
As we have learned from tackling climate change, intergenerational progress is best achieved when targets are underpinned by UK legislation, with a body to help deliver progress and hold the Government to account. So we need the 25 Year Environment Plan to commit to legislative underpinning, an environment Act with overarching targets for clean air, biodiversity, water and other natural assets, and to put the Natural Capital Committee, like the Committee on Climate Change, on a statutory footing to recommend actions, meet those targets and monitor progress.
The Government have committed to put the National Infrastructure Commission on a statutory footing to deliver the hard infrastructure we need. They should now commit to empower the Natural Capital Committee to do the same for our equally critical natural infrastructure. Nature does not respect national boundaries and some of the European Union’s major environmental successes have been in tackling challenges to shared resources such as our birds, air and water quality, and our fish. When we leave the European Union, the common fisheries policy will cease to apply. Recent reforms have started to deliver more sustainable fisheries with the principle of maximum sustainable yield and banning discards. The complexity of the transition to new arrangements will be huge and there is a real risk for fish stocks if negotiations are prolonged without a new deal and the UK falls into a default scenario for several years. I look forward to the report on this issue by the EU Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy Sub-Committee, ably led by my noble friend Lord Teverson, which we anticipate will be published shortly. But what is already clear is that it will require strong political will to improve, based on British conditions, the policy interventions that the EU’s common fisheries policy is delivering in reducing the environmental burden of industrial-scale fishing.
In a post-Brexit world, getting the right new policies in place will be critical, but so too will holding the Government to account for their delivery of environmental policy. As members of the European Union, both the Commission and the European Court of Justice are there to ensure that environmental policy is delivered, as the Government have found to their cost on numerous occasions. In December 2015 alone, there were three air pollution, two energy, two waste and three water cases active relating to UK non-compliance. Outside the EU these critical backstops will be gone and new ways of holding the Government to account will be needed if—or, more likely, when—they fail to live up to their obligations. Surely expecting individuals and organisations to fund costly judicial reviews cannot be the answer, as Dr Coffey, the Under-Secretary of State at Defra, suggested in a Westminster Hall debate earlier this week. Therefore, I ask the Minister: will the Government commit to ensure the proper enforcement of future UK environmental legislation? What mechanisms do they see replacing and replicating the current enforcement role of the Commission and the ECJ?
EU environmental policy is a mature body of work, although a less developed area is that around the circular economy—producing less waste and using our resources productively. The EU is grappling with this now and it looks likely that we will have left the EU before a circular economy directive will be in force. As someone who fought hard to persuade our coalition partners to introduce the 5p charge on plastic bags, I keenly anticipate the launch next month of the Government Office for Science report on how we should produce less waste and use our resources more productively. It should be a clarion call on the benefits of a circular economy. An early test of the Government’s commitment to improving our environment outside the EU policy framework will be whether it embeds the principles of a circular economy in their forthcoming industrial strategy.
However, environment policy cannot remain static. As our scientific knowledge and evidence grow in future, the policies must develop too. Yet not only has Defra a severely depleted number of staff in its agencies due to sustained budget cuts, it will lose access to EU institutions and funding for research programmes and the vital collaborations that come with them. So what reassurances can the Minister give about our capacity post-Brexit to continue to develop evidence-based environmental policy?
As the Liberal Democrats’ Defra spokesperson, I have naturally concentrated today on the issues around the impact on environment policy, and leave my noble friend Lady Featherstone and others on other Benches to focus on the other pillar of climate policy. In doing so, I am aware that the uncertainties and challenges in that area are no less severe. The rapid progress in ratifying the Paris climate agreement is welcome, as is the Government’s acceptance earlier this year of the recommended seventh carbon budget of the Committee on Climate Change. However, we urgently need the Government to produce their plan to deliver our emissions targets, which has been delayed. Such a plan is fundamental to giving investors and public authorities’ confidence to plan to deliver the low-carbon infrastructure we need to transition our energy supply and move to a low-carbon economy.
Post-Brexit it is clear there are opportunities for improving environmental policy and outcomes, most notably the fundamental recasting of agricultural and land management policy to replace the common agricultural policy. But sizeable threats are clear too, including the watering down of environmental legislation, finding timely responses to managing shared natural resources as well as a lack of policy capacity and enforcement mechanisms to deliver them. Strong political will is required to secure policies we need to protect our environment, and the public and private investment to deliver it. The imminent framework of their 25 Year Environment Plan will tell us whether this Government are prepared to deliver that or if, as some of us fear, outside the European Union we are about to enter a new dark age for green policy.
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, I thank all Members who have participated in this debate. Again, they have shown the breadth of expertise in this House but also, as my noble friend Lord Teverson said, the breadth of environmental issues that Defra will have to cover as a result of Brexit. I thank the Minister for the answers that he has been able to give to us today; there are clearly many unanswered questions. As we move outside the European Union, which acts as a backstop holding the Government to account, as does the European Court of Justice, we need to be that backstop. This House will make sure that we will hold the Government to account.
Single Farm Payment Scheme
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as I hope your Lordships will understand, not only am I aware of these issues but I have great sympathy and understanding of them. The remaining claims that we have to deal with concern some very complicated commons issues, cross-border issues and issues like probate, where we have the money but there is as yet no grant of probate for people to receive those funds. There are a number of reasons why we are down to about 1,200 claims, but still I am looking for progress.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, farmers need reliable broadband to apply for these farm payments and run their businesses. Given the criticism this week from the Select Committee of BT Openreach’s quality of service, what are the Government going to do to ensure that we get decent broadband in rural areas?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, that is a top priority. It is why there has been considerable government investment in this, and we need to work with a number of stakeholders to improve it. One of the greatest difficulties is the last 5%. I am very interested in this; it is where our remote rural areas are being disadvantaged, and I am very keen that in Defra and DCMS we work on this with innovation to see how we can help.
Control of Horses Bill
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I add my voice in support of this Bill, which has been so ably introduced by the noble Baroness today. Both previous speakers have close associations with the Countryside Alliance and in a previous life I chaired the campaign to protect hunted animals when I was at the RSPCA. I think that that visibly demonstrates the breadth of support, not only across the political divides but among all the countryside and animal welfare organisations in the country. The way they have worked together is to be commended and I hope it will be the way of things in the future.
I wish to speak briefly to flesh out two points. The first is that of the Welsh example, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, alluded. In the one year since this Bill was introduced in Wales, more than half of all local authorities have found the need to make use of this legislation. In Swansea alone it has been used more than 175 times, which shows that this legislation is really needed.
However, it also poses a threat and a problem for England because a number of horse owners will simply try to export the problem. One particular horse owner, who is well known to local authorities and animal welfare groups, has in excess of 2,000 horses and is merely moving the problem around. If we do not have this legislation soon on the statute books with applicability in England, this problem will get worse and worse.
The second issue I want to flesh out further is the unsustainability of this problem for the animal welfare groups, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, referred. As I have said, I am familiar with the excellent work that the RSPCA does for horses. It has space for 113 horses in its care; at the moment it is looking after more than 700 horses, with the majority of the animals farmed out to private stables and accommodation. The cost to the RSPCA for looking after those horses is, at the moment, £2.95 million, and that excludes veterinary and prosecution costs.
The scale of the problem is not one that the RSPCA alone bears—it is shared by all the equine charities that we have, to our credit, in this country. It is not sustainable in the future and we need to act, and act quickly.
I therefore wish the Bill a speedy progress through both Houses. It will help local authorities, animal welfare groups, local communities and local people, but most of all it will help rescue horses, too many of whom are suffering a miserable existence because of the conditions they are forced to suffer because of fly-grazing and irresponsible horse owners.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from national advisory committees or, indeed, any of the other bodies to which he has just referred and which the Government may be in the habit of consulting from time to time?
How consistent has that advice been; for example, over the desirable economic target to plant more in order to import less?
The Forestry Act 1967 stressed the need for,
“adequate reserves of growing trees”.
To continue to achieve that aim, what planting and maintenance targets are now envisaged for the Forestry Commission and the private sector respectively?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Government are increasing woodland creation and management at a rapid rate. We hope to have a million more trees by the end of this Parliament, which is absolutely to be welcomed. However, we have long-standing domestic and international obligations to ensure that forestry is carried out in a sustainable manner. As the Minister highlighted in his opening remarks, the RSPB in its response to the commission highlighted concerns. The explanatory document makes it clear that the role of Ministers is to ensure that these commitments are delivered, stating that while,
“it is principally for the Forestry Commissioners to determine how they should be delivering their balancing duty between the management of forests and promotion, supply, sale, utilization and conversion of timber … it is ultimately for the relevant Governments’ Ministers in England and Scotland to intervene should the Commissioners be failing in their statutory remit”.
Therefore, while I am not opposed in any way to the abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, I felt that it was proper to take this opportunity to ask the Minister what plans the Government have to monitor the effects of the increase in trees and the management we are delivering to ensure that benefits are delivered for growth in the economy, people and the environment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order today. We agree with him that this advisory committee has gone the distance and that it serves no useful function, not having met since 2005, with its role having been devolved to national committees. I note that its former functions are now discharged through separate arrangements in each Administration and it has no property, rights or liabilities, so a transfer scheme under Section 23 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is not required.
The Minister makes the order under the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, and it meets the tests under that Act that it improves the exercise of public functions, does not remove any necessary protections and does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is content with the order and considers that the Minister’s department has handled the consultation process appropriately. I have asked the Minister on previous occasions when considering organisations under the Public Bodies Act to update the Committee on progress generally. If the Minister has any further news, that would be instructive for the Committee.
The measure today is non-contentious, the Minister’s department is to be congratulated on its presentation to the Committee, and I approve the order. Meanwhile, I would be grateful to hear from his department whether the forestry estate is now safe in public hands, and to hear what delayed his department from bringing forward legislation as promised.
Peatlands
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for initiating this debate this afternoon, for his constant championing of the peatlands in our country and because it allows me the chance to reminisce on a rather wonderful weekend I spent over the summer up in Exmoor on the blanket bogs, looking at the Exmoor Mires project, which is being run by South West Water—one of a number of pioneering projects by water companies that have come to understand the importance of peat bogs for their long-term business sustainability. Peat obviously dissolves in water, which then needs to be cleaned, so the companies are looking to restore the peatlands, with ensuing benefits not only for their business but the local community, wildlife and biodiversity more broadly.
My noble friend Lord Greaves outlined the challenges facing peatlands, so I want to pick up on only two issues in the time allotted to me. The first is to say a little more about what I believe is a strong need for a national plan for the restoration of England’s peatland. Some noble Lords may be aware that the Scottish Government have recently conducted a consultation on a national peatlands plan to protect and restore peatlands. The plan fully recognises the important contribution that restoring peatland makes to carbon capture and storage, clean water, flood alleviation—critically—improved biodiversity, tourism and outdoor recreation. If it is good enough for Scotland to have a clear plan with a set of long-term objectives for peatland restoration, I, too, ask the Minister what progress we are making in developing a national plan for the restoration of England’s peatland and when it will be published.
More fundamentally, I want to touch on the need for secure funding to ensure well-managed upland peatlands through a combination of market-related funding routes. I mentioned at the beginning how South West Water and other water companies are increasingly aware of the value to their businesses of investing to reverse the damage to peatlands. A further new model for the corporate sector to support the challenge of restoring and maintaining peatlands was championed by the Ecosystems Market Task Force back in May 2013. Since then, as my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned, work has begun on a peatland code to help to provide the standards and verification of the carbon storage and other benefits arising from peatland restoration projects. I am delighted that Defra has been funding the pilot phase of the UK peatland code. I say to my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness that it is very encouraging that it is using some of that funding to develop metrics to measure some of the greenhouse gas emission reduction benefits of restoration which, as he rightly said, are at the moment still at a very early stage. We cannot proceed until we have those metrics in place, but it is welcome news that Defra is contributing that funding.
As I understand it, that project is designed to provide a credible and verifiable basis for business sponsorship of peatland restoration in the UK, operating in a similar way to the Woodland Carbon Code, assuring that restoration delivers tangible greenhouse gas emissions, alongside other environmental benefits.
Although I understand that the code is in a pilot phase at the moment, working with those businesses that are very much interested in developing their own corporate social responsibility projects, I ask what the Minister sees as the longer term potential for the plan and the code. I also ask the Minister whether the Government believe that, longer term, that peatland restoration could be included in the greenhouse gas accounting guidelines, which would be a more sustainable long term way of building in further market funding to develop peatland restoration? Growing markets in this area would not only provide funding for peatland restoration, but stimulate competitive rural businesses and provide new opportunities for knowledge providers, for technical and market-support services, which can have very important export potential. It is very much in my mind that, having recently looked at the Defra website, just how geared the department is to export potential. It is important that we do not forget that peatland restoration, and finding new markets for supporting peatland restoration, could in the long term have export potential for us and our rural businesses.
For too long, the benefits of peatland in its natural state have been frankly undervalued. Consequently, as both my noble friends carefully articulated, many are in a damaged and deteriorated state. I hope that we are now entering an era where the value of peatlands is recognised for the ecosystem services that they provide, and that those benefits for society, community and businesses are reflected more broadly in public policy, and achieve more sustained leadership by the Government on this important issue.
EU: Counting the Cost of Food Waste (EUC Report)
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I am a member of the sub-committee and benefited from the very able chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Scott on this, her first inquiry for the sub-committee. I am sure that the House will benefit from many more, particularly if she carries on choosing subjects for our inquiries which are so pressing and can reach out to the wider public as well. It is important that we speak not only on issues among ourselves but, on occasions, manage to reach a wider audience.
This is indeed an incredibly pressing problem, with 90 million tonnes of food in Europe being wasted every year and environmental resources being wasted as a result of that. Greenhouse gas emissions result, while resources—water, pesticides and other resources—are being wasted by being used for producing those food products.
The report, as other noble Lords have mentioned, identifies where action is necessary. It has identified that good practice is to be found principally in the UK, for which the Government can take a fair degree of credit. It has brought the issue to the public’s attention.
I will focus on one issue that has not been mentioned so far by noble Lords: our recommendation that there was considerable room for improvement in the data reporting by the food and drink manufacturers, the retailers and the wider food service industry. Both the UK Government and the retailers are united in favouring a voluntary approach to reporting. We as a committee accept that the voluntary approach is the right one at this stage. Undoubtedly, however, it requires strong leadership, both from the Government and the umbrella groups in the industry—notably the British Retail Consortium.
The evidence from elsewhere in Europe shows the value of open data reporting at company level. In Norway we saw very clear evidence that the ForMat project—which is a collaborative effort between the retailers, the environmental organisations, the producers and indeed the Government—was a means to chart and minimise food waste. Part of the project is knowledge transfer and communication of the results, ideas and experiences, which has allowed this open data reporting to help drive down food waste by open data sharing: that is, sharing of individual company reports.
In October 2013, we had the first company in the UK to participate in open data reporting. That was Tesco. It may be thought surprising that Tesco was prepared to disclose its food waste when it had some slightly more tricky issues with auditing other accounts in more recent times. Nevertheless, it was an important and welcome initiative. It revealed that it was generating in half a year 30,000 tonnes of food waste. It used its own data and industry-wide figures produced, I think, through WRAP. It was frankly a revolutionary step change in market reporting. It was interesting to see in the Financial Times and other respected newspapers that the Tesco share price was monitored very carefully the next day to see if this had had an impact. It had not. Therefore, there was an assumption that other companies would follow suit and would publicly report their own individual food waste figures. Currently it is done privately as part of the very welcome Courtauld agreement with the support of WRAP.
Those initial hopes were dashed in January this year when the British Retail Consortium announced that the UK major supermarkets had signed up to report their total food wastage statistics, not their separate figures. I accept that all reporting of company food waste is important. It can help individual companies to identify hotspots and they can learn from that and drive down food waste. Indeed, when Tesco did that exercise, it found that 68% of the salad sold in bags was wasted. It then produced smaller bags of salad—so it can have value. But if we are seriously going to help companies save the £5 billion which they are wasting on food waste, we need to share data. We need to learn from best practice and use that peer pressure to address the problems in the industry.
Do the Government have plans to meet the British Retail Consortium and the major supermarkets after the publishing of that sectoral report in late January—in two months’ time? If those plans are not in place, I suggest a round table including government Ministers, perhaps the chairman of our committee, and the major supermarkets in the BRC. They should be brought together in order to look at those collective figures and seek to move towards the publishing of separate food waste figures by major UK supermarkets.
Of course, it is not just supermarkets we need to worry about. It is all companies which are involved with either producing food, selling food, or indeed with employees consuming food. It is here that the Government’s environmental reporting guidelines for companies should be a key plank in moving towards every company reporting its figures. From October, all major UK listed companies were obliged to report their greenhouse gas emissions in the directors’ report. Other forms of social and environmental reporting are voluntary, but in a welcome move the Government encouraged companies to do so and produced those guidelines to help. They are very much in line with the EU’s provisions on non-financial reporting for large companies, which were produced earlier this year and set out the provisions for environmental data reporting.
However, looking in some detail at the government guidelines, as I tend to do, I noticed that in the section on food waste—on page 49, for those noble Lords who want to have a quick look—food is not even mentioned as a separate category for which companies should report waste weight. Paper, glass, aluminium, plastics, aggregates and even hazardous waste are mentioned, but not food waste. Now I accept that the list is not exhaustive, but I thought that if the Government were serious, as they say they are, that companies should be looking to report their food waste figures voluntarily, their own environmental reporting guidelines would explicitly include food waste. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are seeking to encourage companies to report their food waste figures voluntarily? If so, perhaps they might revise their guidelines.
The report accepts that voluntary reporting is the right way forward for now but, given the scale of the challenge, urgent action is needed. It requires leadership from the Government and the British Retail Consortium to achieve a step change in open data reporting. The time is undoubtedly now—or perhaps future Governments in the not too distant future, or indeed the European Commission, will be likely to see the merit, as they have done for greenhouse gas reporting, of making open data reporting an obligation for all large companies.
Deregulation Bill
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
My Lords, we did not spend a lot of time in the Joint Committee on this because we were not adding things to the Bill. We made recommendations relating to further clauses, which I will not go into. I have been a regular walker in the Lake District for the past 30 years. One of my greatest regrets is that I did not discover the Lake District until I was 45. However, I would never claim that enjoyment of the countryside and the open air, and walking in the Fells, entitles me to go through someone’s garden alongside their private home. There can be no justification for a walker, a person enjoying the country, making that claim. Because of the route that a path may take—sometimes they go through a private garden—you sometimes see a sign that asks walkers not to use a child’s swing and says that if they do, they do so at their own peril. There cannot be an argument to do that.
I was involved in a case about a path being moved. The cost of moving a path a small number of yards—or metres if we are in Europe—is enormous. I cannot see that that cost can justifiably be put on the owner. It is a public good to move a path. In some ways, I am sympathetic to the principle behind the amendment, although putting it in the Bill is asking for trouble. Perhaps we need another stakeholder working group. The one relating to this Bill was admirably chaired by Ray Anderson, who seems to have done an incredibly good job getting a consensus.
By and large, there is a case for change. The Government’s view should not be, “Oh well, this is on the landowner”. It is not quite like that, particularly when you are in the Fells, which is the only area I know in some detail but it may be different elsewhere. However, it does not alter the fact that things change as regards rights of way. A path can be diverted, and the joy of the countryside and the open air can be maintained. My view is that you cannot make a claim about the right to go through a person’s garden. I am not making that claim as a walker. My claim is to access to the countryside. Therefore, there should be movement on this issue but it would be best for it not to be in this Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to attend Second Reading. I had to go to a school event with my children. This package of measures has been agreed, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and others. However, we need to reflect on the fact that it has been carefully agreed by a wide group of people over two years. If we start to unpick various elements, other issues might fall out as well. We need to bear that in mind very carefully. This has been a carefully agreed package and what might seem a small change, if introduced in one area, might undo the broad compromise and consensus secured on the wider agenda.
My second point is that, looking carefully at the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale, it seems that in this new legislation there will be a significant improvement—he alluded to this—in the process for owners and occupiers with their ability to apply to make orders to divert or extinguish public paths. I think that the authorities will have to consider such applications within four months. Combined with the draft guidance which I think has been agreed to by the stakeholder working group, and which spells out how order-making authorities must consider this issue as it moves forward, those two changes together—the draft guidance and the new rights that private landowners are being given in this legislation—should be tried and tested before we start making further amendments. For those two reasons, that it is a carefully considered package with broad consensus among a hugely divergent group of people and that there are already some new proposals in the legislation to address some of the issues that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has rightly raised, I do not feel able to support his amendment.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments but first I must declare an interest as a farmer and landowner, as an ex-chairman of the Countryside Agency and as an ex-president of the CLA. I really rose to support Amendments 17 and 18, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. Both amendments seem to bring forward consistency and clarity; certainly, Amendment 17 does that while Amendment 18 creates greater flexibility and less red tape. I endorse the question that the noble Baroness put to the Minister as both these amendments were agreed by the stakeholder working group. The reason, as enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, is that we have fairly limited reform of the rights of way legislation in Clauses 21 to 27 because those were the only agreed reforms put forward by the stakeholder working group. However, these two amendments were also agreed. Why has Amendment 17 been rejected altogether, when it seems to be very consistent with a deregulatory Bill to bring consistency across the country?
Frankly, Amendment 18 has been gralloched—a good expression meaning to remove the guts of something, in this case the amendment put forward by the stakeholder working group. It has been limited to applying only to byways open to all traffic. The other reasons for erecting gates, which are well enunciated in proposed new subsection (2) of the amendment, seem perfectly reasonable and appropriate. As I say, they have been agreed by the stakeholder working group.
On the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I am on the side here of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: I agree with their principles but they are a step too far. They ought to be thrown back to the new, reformed stakeholder working group for it to look at carefully and see where it can agree amendments about diversions or closures—preferably not closures but certainly diversions—so that they would be easier to make around domestic premises. That would be a very good idea.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and of course to my noble friend the Minister for his very full explanation of the Government’s—I believe—slightly misguided interpretation of what has been put in the Bill. Were we in the Chamber, I would withdraw my amendment in favour of my noble friend Lady Byford’s Amendment 17, which gives me exactly what I and those who have briefed me would like.
I am not sure whether my noble friend Lady Parminter wrote the government line or is following it. She said that the group package should be tried and tested. They both said the same thing, so they are clearly in concert.
Baroness Parminter
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister can speak for himself, but it is not often that he and I are said to say exactly the same things.
Lord Skelmersdale
Does my noble friend want to comment? No? Anyway, they have spoken with one voice, whether accidentally or intentionally. My noble friend Lady Parminter says that it is nice to know.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Cathcart said that Amendments 17 and 18 were agreed by the specialist working group and asked why they were therefore not in the Bill. We have heard a lot on that from my noble friend the Minister. My noble friend Lord Plumb agreed that there are occasions when walkers—was his word “misbehave” or have I interpreted what he said?
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, for having introduced this amendment. If one looks at the photographs to which he referred and others—the evidence of our own eyes—one sees that this could be described in other circumstances as wilful and irresponsible vandalism. It is the destruction of one of our greatest assets and the people doing it should be treated firmly. Of course, it is going to be a complex area and it will be difficult, but the point is that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is having a go. If his proposals are not right, let us get proposals that are effective but let us stop dilly-dallying on this issue.
Some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, are very valid, not surprisingly, and I am sure that as we take this matter forward they can be considered. If the amendment is brought back on Report, as I hope it will be, perhaps they can be considered by then, which would be very sensible.
Sometimes in this context, there is emotional talk about the right of the handicapped to access the countryside. To those of us who work in the sphere of national parks and the rest, all the evidence suggests that the responsible representative bodies of the handicapped and the others are saying that what is happening is a menace, because it makes walking—for the blind, which is a very obvious example—much more hazardous and difficult. For the deaf—and I understand that problem, being deaf myself—it can be a terrifying experience when this noise suddenly occurs, with no sort of warning.
The point that we need to remember, and it is about social responsibility, is that what a few are doing is placing significant financial penalties on people who are trying to care for these rich and special national assets. This means that the cost of that care very often gets passed on to the taxpayer, to the subscriber and the donor. Is the indulgence of those few in irresponsible behaviour to be subsidised by society as a whole? That is just ridiculous. The financial and Treasury disciplines that apply to most of our lives should mean that we make it a priority to get this situation put right. I therefore again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, most warmly and say that the sooner that we can do something about it, the better.
Baroness Parminter
Can the Minister, in his closing remarks, answer a question that I think will be of interest to all noble Lords? This amendment deals with a very important issue and I think we are very grateful for it having been raised today. The question is how we deal with it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Jopling that a stakeholder group is the best way forward. However, there have been questions raised about how much confidence we can have in that as a route to deliver. Can the Minister say what progress has been achieved in setting up a working group on this issue? Has a timetable been set for that working group and if it does not complete by that point, what actions do the Government intend to take? Perhaps the Minister can say in words of one syllable whether he, like his colleague down the other end, has confidence that a stakeholder working group can address this very real problem. The strength of feeling in this Grand Committee today shows it is something that this House wishes to be addressed quickly.
Thames Tideway Project: Contingent Guarantees
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, given the Government’s work with Infrastructure UK, Thames Water and Ofwat to identify the exceptional risks for which the contingent financial support has been offered, what measures have the Government asked to be put in place to minimise the likelihood of those risks and the resulting cost to the taxpayer?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, the latter half of my noble friend’s question is quite difficult to answer at this stage. The Written Ministerial Statement referred to the contingencies covered by the support package. There are, for example, measures to deal with situations where claims exceed insurance cover, where economic or political events affect access to debt finance, where there are exceptional cost overruns and where the IP goes into special administration. It allows for discontinuation in certain circumstances and deals with how value for money for taxpayers is to be achieved. I can assure noble Lords that we have kept this to an absolute minimum to ensure a competitive process.
Thames Tideway Tunnel
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, yes. I am grateful to the noble Lord, not only for his question but for the very valuable work that he does, which we all know about. We are required to have a collecting and treatment system for London. Exceptions on grounds of cost have to be truly exceptional, and this project does not qualify as exceptional. The environmental standards that have been set are equivalent to those in other tidal estuaries. I am therefore confident that the tunnel is the right solution for London, and the only solution compliant with the urban wastewater treatment directive. However, I assure noble Lords that we remain completely focused on keeping costs to a minimum.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Government have offered contingent financial support for exceptional risks on this project. Following discussions with Infrastructure UK, Thames Water and Ofwat, is the Minister in a position to say what those exceptional risks and the potential cost to the taxpayer are?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, we are still working on that, but I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to say that independent financial advisers have confirmed that no water company—whatever its financial structure—would have been able to access sufficient finance at an acceptable cost for such an exceptionally large and complex project without some contingent support from government. It is important that, when offering contingent support, taxpayers’ interests remain a top priority and that the taxpayer is appropriately protected by measures that minimise the likelihood of these exceptional risks.
Water Bill
Baroness Parminter Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter (LD)
I rise to speak to Amendment 13, which is in this group. It is tabled in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
I think my views on retail exit are well known in this House. I am not in principle against it, but I have concerns that it is a complex issue and therefore one should not legislate in haste. The amendments the Government have introduced today, at this late stage, give broad-ranging powers to the Secretary of State to implement changes to allow voluntary retail exit from the non-household market. Given the nature of these powers and the need to get the details of retail exit right, I believe the fullest consultation and parliamentary scrutiny are required. Only this will ensure that retail exit is introduced in a way which delivers improvements in services to all customers.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee argued yesterday that,
“the opportunity for discussion in Parliament of the extent of the powers and the manner in which they are likely to be exercised has been seriously curtailed”.
It went on to argue that,
“the powers to make exit regulations should require a strengthened affirmative procedure on their first exercise”,
and outlined what procedure it had in mind for that. I agree with the committee. My amendment does what it called for yesterday, which the Government sadly chose not to table.
Why is this important? It is because we need wide stakeholder engagement and strong parliamentary scrutiny to ensure that the real concerns about retail exit can be addressed and taken into account. It is because we need to make sure that retail exit proposals protect the rights of customers, both affected non-household customers and household customers who remain with incumbent providers who cannot divest them. Given that the retail exit is for business customers only, householders could be left with a water company that has signalled a lack of interest in providing customer services. We must ensure a good level of service for effectively stranded customers. As it stands, water companies take ownership of the provision of clean drinking water from source to tap and plan with their customers to deliver that efficiently and safely. Aggregating water retail apart from water provision means we will not necessarily have water providers working with retailers to help customers manage water efficiently. Major water-saving initiatives have been driven by robust planning by water companies which know the supply constraints and want to work with customers through their retail operation to manage that supply for the long term. We need to ensure retail exit is not done in such a way as to hinder that incredibly valuable objective.
Let us also not forget that there is no consensus in the water industry that retail exit is the best way forward, as Water UK makes clear. Indeed, the only vocal advocate among water companies is Thames Water, or more precisely Macquarie, which is one of Thames Water’s major investors. The paper it produced is about selling off customers to extract maximum value for its investors. That blatant self-interest is in stark contrast to the needs of those investing in the industry for the long term. They want stability in the sense of predictability, no surprises and carefully thought-through, outcome-based, long-term logic. We need to ensure that retail exit is done in such a way as not to unsettle the wider investment community whose investment we need to deliver long-term water resilience.
The Government’s amendments show that they are alive to these concerns. For example, they propose a requirement to consult customers prior to an application to exit, and an application can be refused on the grounds that it is not in the interest of household or non-household customers. Equally, the Government are proposing further dialogue with the industry, regulators, customers and others in advance of laying a proposed regulatory framework before Parliament, and a consultation is proposed later this year. This is all welcome, but it does not go far enough. We need a process with full consultation and then the opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise any draft proposals before regulations are put to the House, at which point they cannot be amended.
My amendment would deliver what the Delegated Powers Committee asked for and ensure that any proposed framework for non-household retail exit receives the widest consultation and full parliamentary scrutiny. That way we can be sure that retail exit improves customer service, gives investors confidence and delivers the long-term water resilience we need.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 13, which was spoken to by my noble friend Lady Parminter and to which I have added my name. I do so as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who has already spoken, is also a member—other members are in their places today—to explain why that committee takes the strong view that a strengthened procedure, often called the super-affirmative resolution procedure, is important, at least on first exercise in the case of these regulations.
The context in which these amendments fall to be considered is that they are a wide-ranging set of amendments which represent a radical change of direction in the Bill. The Bill itself introduces considerable change in the way that the water industry operates, that industry being of great importance to the UK economy as a whole and to individuals. Although these amendments on retail exit are concerned with non-household supplies, as my noble friend has already stated, they are nevertheless of wide public importance.
The noble Lords, Lord De Mauley and Lord Moynihan, and my noble friend Lady Parminter have all explained the political context and impact of these amendments. I will confine what I say to the three reasons why a strengthened procedure is so important. First, there has been very limited time for the consideration of this scheme as a whole, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, frankly recognised. The amendments are introduced in this House at Third Reading in response to amendments introduced earlier, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Lord Whitty and Lord Grantchester. However, in legislative terms, the amendments come, in this House at least, not even at the 11th hour: it is a minute to midnight. It is not, I suggest, satisfactory, and it is certainly not desirable, for nearly 11 pages of amendments to be introduced at such a late stage in the passage of the Bill without the time for lengthy and informed scrutiny of the detail of the proposed scheme. The amendments are complex and demand detailed scrutiny after all interested parties have had ample opportunity to consider them and to comment on them. The timing of their introduction has simply not permitted this to happen and the use of a simple affirmative procedure, as is proposed, would be likely to lead to a draft set of exit regulations being laid before Parliament for approval in unamendable form.
Secondly, quite regardless of the issue of timing, this is, I suggest, a case for a super-affirmative procedure in any event. The amendments would introduce into the Bill the power to make regulations which would effectively amount to an entire new legal framework to enable relevant undertakers to withdraw from the new market arrangements. If those provisions become part of the Bill without a super-affirmative procedure, then Parliament will have, as your Lordships well know, no opportunity to consider and report on the individual details of the proposed regulations and, in practical terms, no opportunity to invite detailed revision of their provisions. With the super-affirmative procedure set out in our amendment, there will be an opportunity for a committee of either House to consider the draft regulations in detail and to recommend changes to the draft for the Secretary of State to consider. The procedure proposed is similar to that in Section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008, which the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended as a model. There is no rush to introduce these exit regulations, particularly not when they are potentially of such importance. They should not be the subject of delegated legislation without a full opportunity for Parliament to consider their detail.
Thirdly—this was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—our committee was extremely concerned by the degree to which the amendments establish, not a list of requirements to which the Secretary of State must adhere in presenting the regulations, but a menu from which he can largely pick and choose at will. I have no objection to the fact that the power to make regulations in the first place, in subsection (1)(a) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 1, is permissive and not mandatory. It may be that the Secretary of State decides against exercising the power to make such regulations at all, although that is of course unlikely. However, if he makes such regulations, it is surely right that he should be required to incorporate all the safeguards of which the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, spoke, which are essential to protect customers, to ensure proper consultation with interested parties, to safeguard the public interest and to secure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Yet the amendments as drafted are almost entirely permissive in respect of such matters.
I will trespass on your Lordships’ time for a moment or two to look at a couple of examples. Amendment 1 provides that exit regulations,
“may include provision for protecting customers”,
affected by a relevant undertaker’s withdrawal. Amendment 2 provides that:
“Provision under subsection (1)(a) may require a relevant undertaker … to consult”.
Amendment 4 states that:
“Exit regulations about the transfer of a part of a relevant undertaker’s undertaking may include provision for the making of a scheme to transfer property”.
These are all matters on which this House would wish to be given the opportunity for detailed consideration.
General directions are of general application. I will address two points on Amendment 9. Subsection (1) states:
“Exit regulations may make provision for the Secretary of State to publish … a statement setting out general directions for the”,
regulators. Subsection (4) states:
“Exit regulations may make provision for the Secretary of State, before publishing a statement under the regulations, to consult”.
These are all matters which I would expect, and I suggest your Lordships would expect, to be requirements. They are matters which concerned the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The list goes on. The central point is that it is vital for Parliament to have the opportunity to consider the proposed exit regulations individually and to recommend changes to particular regulations before they become law without being restricted by the limitation inherent in a simple affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Parminter
Baroness Parminter
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and I return again to the issue of the use of any surplus reserves for Flood Re. I will not repeat the arguments we advanced in Committee and on Report. I feel that the House is clear that our aim is to ensure that any significant surplus funds can be used by Flood Re to encourage householders to adapt to the impacts of climate change and flooding, and so manage down risk.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting the noble Lord, Lords Krebs, and me last week to discuss the matter again. We accept that decisions cannot be made now—pinning down in legislation what level of reserves should be built up and what should happen to them. However, we need clarity about the decision-making process that will condition what happens to surplus funds. Will the Minister confirm that Flood Re will have to draw up a strategy to manage surplus funds and that it will be published? Equally, we seek confirmation that the approach of “invest to save” is not ruled out if significant surpluses are built up. By this I mean spending on property-level protection where the economics of that approach show that it delivers the best value for money in managing down risk. Given that it has been shown that such an approach delivers a benefit of at least £5 for each £1 invested, it is too important an approach to discount. It could make a decisive difference to individual householders and their protection. It will also benefit the insurance industry by reducing the level of overall claims. It is, therefore, in the interests of a smooth transition at the end of the process of Flood Re. To that end, I beg to move.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and me to discuss this amendment. I do not wish to say anything at length but I shall make a couple of simple points. If we accept that Flood Re, according to the Government’s own figures, will build up a reserve, we can ask what this surplus might be used for. It could be used for future discounting of policy charges; it could be saved up for—excuse the pun—a rainy day when the call on insurance may be greater than anticipated; or, as our amendment suggests, it could be used to manage down future risk. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, said, this is in effect a proposal that Flood Re should invest to save, to reduce both its own future costs by encouraging household-level protection measures and to help those householders to exit at the end of the period of operation of Flood Re.
According to the work of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change, which I chair, about 190,000 properties could benefit from property-level protection. It would seem reasonable that some of the money that accrues as a surplus in Flood Re should, given the returns on investment to which the noble Baroness has already alluded, be used to help some or, I hope, eventually, all of these 190,000 properties to become more resilient.
Baroness Parminter
I thank all noble Lords who have joined in this short but important debate as we seek to ensure that Flood Re achieves what we all want it to achieve, which is to help individual households move towards risk-reflective pricing and make them more able to cope with the challenges of climate change, as most clearly reflected in the flooding situations that we have seen. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say and was pleased to see that he again articulated that “spend to save” is not ruled out in the administration of Flood Re and, secondly, that any secondary legislation will set out that it is open to Flood Re to spend any surplus helping households invest in more resilience measures. Those are both important steps which needed putting on the record. I think both I and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will be very grateful and thankful for that comment.
On that basis, we have probably pushed this issue as far as we can. We have sought throughout the process to be helpful to the Government in their ongoing discussions with the ABI, and I hope they feel that we have achieved that. We look forward, once the Bill has completed its parliamentary stages and secured state aid clearance, to looking at the secondary legislation, where I am sure this matter will be touched on again. Finally, as this will probably be the last time I speak on this matter in the House, I would very much like to put on record my thanks to the Minister and the Bill team for all the constructive discussions and dialogues they have had with me and my colleagues on these Benches. It has been an extremely technical and complex Bill and we are grateful to them for the time that they have given to help us in our job of making sure that the Bill leaves this House in better shape than that in which it came to us.