British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his introduction of these two orders. If the Committee will allow me, I shall make a few remarks, reserving the right for my noble friend Lord Knight to respond from the Front Bench. I apologise and ask the Committee to forgive me if I have an eye on the clock and do not stay quite long enough to hear the Minister’s full response to the debate. I have pressing duties elsewhere.

From the perspective of south Cheshire, where I live and which along with neighbouring counties has extensive canals across it, the abolition of the IWAC is greeted mostly with resignation, neither receiving widespread support nor opposition. This would be in keeping with the low number of responses received to the consultation. In the past, I have been approached on several waterways issues, although on this one the Minister can be relaxed by and large. However, this lack of enthusiasm seems to be because there is a feeling among IWAC members that this order is a fait accompli, as evidenced when Defra announced the abolition of IWAC ahead of announcing the findings of the consultation about IWAC. I know that the Minister in the other place, Richard Benyon, had to issue apologies to Graham Evans MP for John Edmonds, the chairman of IWAC. Having said that, the arrangements, protections, appeals processes and so on will very much remain as before, so the change is viewed as largely cosmetic.

I know that all members of IWAC are very passionate about waterways and will always have their best interests at heart. I urge the Minister and his department to make full use of the knowledge and expertise of IWAC members, especially on such issues as volunteering, environmental protection, tourism and restoration, all of which will need to be addressed by the new Canal and River Trust. I know that members of IWAC, which is an independent, advisory and unpaid body, will give their time and expertise freely and would have gladly continued under the umbrella of IWAC. No doubt they will continue to do so. I am sure that the Minister would wish to confirm that his department recognises that that will continue to be the case, as these members would provide an excellent conduit to the CRT on behalf of all waterways users on all matters concerning the waterways.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity in setting out a number of issues around this order. Given that there are quite a few speakers, I shall focus on one issue and invite the Minister to say a few more words at the end.

The issue that I wish to raise is how we will ensure that the new charity—the Canal and River Trust—reflects the full duties and responsibilities entrusted to the British Waterways by Parliament. I refer specifically to the duty towards those who live on waterways without a fixed mooring. I have checked the Charity Commission website and can find no mention for the new charity of duties to those whose homes are on the bodies of water that the charity will control. As such, the new charity’s purposes and responsibilities do not reflect some duties that currently exist in legislation and which British Waterways undertakes. This is not a newly contentious matter as, at the beginning of the 1990s, British Waterways sought to remove the rights of boat dwellers who did not have a permanent mooring. Parliament took a different view and the result was Section 17(3)(c)(ii) of the British Waterways Act 1995, which enables boats to be licensed without having a permanent mooring as long as they do not spend more than 14 days in one place. The committee is concerned that people who have had the right to live on the waterways but without a fixed mooring might lose those rights.

As my noble friend mentioned, the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee produced an excellent report on this recently. The evidence from Mr Evans of British Waterways to the committee says that the Canal and River Trust,

“will be a much more engaged organisation that will reflect the will of the people”.

However, reflecting the will of the people is not at all the same thing as recognising historic duties and responsibilities.

Having met representatives of the proposed new charity—as a former chief executive of a small conservation charity, I wish it well and know just how difficult it is to meet all the competing needs of stakeholders—I have no doubt that it intends through its council, its waterway partnerships and its specialist advisory groups to construct a far more open constitution than ever before on the waterways. However, engagement with some stakeholders is not always easy. Itinerant boat dwellers, for example, do not have a representative body, but their needs need to be considered alongside those of all other waterway stakeholders. To that end, it is illuminating that in the Government’s own explanatory document for the transfer, paragraph 7.16 highlights the “greater involvement” of,

“communities which live alongside waterways”,

and “waterways’ users” in how the waterways are to be managed in future, but excludes any mention of communities that actually live on the water.

I understand that any future by-laws from the charity will be subject to ministerial confirmation and I am grateful for the clarity from the Minister on that point. However, I would like it to be explicit on the record that the department will write to the CRT to ensure that the new charity must take all specific needs of stakeholders into account in developing future by-laws.

Further, it should be explicit that the grant agreement, which my noble friend also mentioned and which I think is for £800 million, accompanying the grant will set out the terms of the final agreement, and that it will make clear that the safeguard to consider the specific needs of all stakeholders, including itinerant boat dwellers, will be part of a condition for the grant being given.

To be clear, the House has a long history of ensuring that the rights of all stakeholders are upheld on the waterways. In the absence of any duty towards those people who live on the waterways in the new charity’s charitable remit, the Government must by other means ensure that this duty is safeguarded in the future. I welcome what the Minister has said, but I would like to be absolutely clear on the specifics of how the Government will assure that.

[Lord Smith of Finsbury]

My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as chairman of the Environment Agency. I very much welcome the transformation of the British Waterways Board into the new Canal and River Trust and I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which he introduced our discussion. I particularly welcome two things about what is happening. First, I welcome the encouragement and facilitation of increased public and community participation in decision-making about what happens to our waterways. I very much hope that the Government’s intentions in this respect will come to fruition in the way in which the new CRT operates. Secondly, I very much welcome the funding package which the Government have put in place to enable the transfer. In the spirit of the times, it is a somewhat generous package but it will enable a really good start to be made on the work of the new trust.

It is, of course, the Government’s ambition to go a bit further in two to three years’ time and to include the Environment Agency’s navigation responsibilities in the new Canal and River Trust. I welcome that ambition and we in the Environment Agency will do everything that we can to assist the process. At the moment, we have responsibility for something like 1,000 kilometres of statutory navigation. This includes, crucially, the River Thames and the River Medway, Rye Harbour, the Great Ouse, the River Nene, the Stour in Suffolk, the Wye and the Dee conservancy in Wales—substantial navigable rivers of iconic importance. Our responsibilities for those waterways include a duty to maintain them in a condition in which people can safely enjoy the statutory public right of navigation that exists on them. We will continue to endeavour to fulfil those responsibilities to the very best of our ability in the run-up to any transfer to the new trust.

We should remember how popular our waterways are. In 2009-10, the last year for which we have accurate figures, there were approximately 70 million visits to our waterways. There are 32,000 registration holders—boat owners and operators—on our navigations alone, let alone on the canals and waterways that will come under the new body. In the current financial year we will be investing around £10 million of grant in aid and £7.5 million of income, a considerable amount of that coming from boaters, in managing and operating the navigation structures on these waterways.

As we prepare for the further handover, and as we bear in mind the responsibilities that the new trust will have, a few points need to be borne in mind, and I very much hope that the Government will do so. First, on rivers in particular—this differs to a certain extent from canals—there are different traditions for different rivers; they do not all operate in exactly the same way with the same expectations for boat operators and users. Including an appreciation of the subtle differences between different waterways in any assessment of how things move forward is going to be important.

Secondly, and with the events of the past weekend weighing heavily on my mind, we need to bear in mind the need always to manage rivers for flood risk management. The importance of marrying navigation responsibilities with the continuing flood risk responsibilities that the Environment Agency will continue to have in waterways that transfer will eventually be an important part of what happens. Thirdly, it will be important that the money is there for any enhanced responsibilities that the new trust has when transfer occurs in a few years’ time.

Fourthly, in looking at how the new trust operates, both in its initial phase and in the second phase after the transfer of EA responsibilities, it is important that the new trust all the time bears in mind the interests of boat owners and users and the people who want to use our rivers for recreation, for quiet enjoyment and for the solace that very often our rivers can bring. It is being accorded an important responsibility. I have every confidence that the team and the arrangements that are being put in place will enable that to happen, but I hope that the Government will keep a wary eye on making sure that it does.

Infrastructure Planning (Waste Water Transfer and Storage) Order 2012

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in November last year, Ministers made a Statement in the other place on the Thames tunnel. This included our plans to introduce an order amending Section 14 of the Planning Act 2008, which would classify proposed major sewer projects as nationally significant infrastructure projects, or NSIPs for short. This Section 14 order is before your Lordships today.

We conducted a 12-week public consultation on the draft order last summer and published its summary of responses in January this year. More than 900 organisations and individuals were consulted about our proposals. The consultation documents were publicly available on Defra’s website, and two question-and-answer drop-in sessions for the public were held at Defra’s offices. We received a total of 44 responses to the consultation. The majority were from local planning authorities and individuals near to potential construction sites for the Thames tunnel project proposed by Thames Water. The outcome of the consultation showed that the draft order itself was not opposed. What opposition there was came mostly from local people living near proposed Thames tunnel construction sites. They were concerned that local planning authorities were being excluded from the streamlined NSIP planning application process.

The order would perform two functions. First, it would extend the categories of NSIPs to include major sewer developments with a capacity of 350,000 cubic metres or more. Secondly, it would allow public consultations that are carried out on such proposals before being designated as NSIPs to be treated as part of the planning application process as if they had indeed been classed as NSIPs.

The main advantage of classifying proposed major sewers as nationally significant infrastructure projects is that they would benefit from the existing streamlined NSIP planning application process under the Planning Act 2008. This involves a single application to the Planning Inspectorate for a development consent order.

The NSIP planning application process ensures that local authorities and local communities are included as an essential part of the whole process, enabling them to submit representations to the Planning Inspectorate as part of its consideration of an application. Democratic accountability is built into the system, with Ministers making the final decision on such applications at the end of the 12-month process, taking account of the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate.

The planning application process for proposed major sewers was considered in February 2011 by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee as part of its scrutiny of the waste water national policy statement. The committee found it inconsistent that major sewer developments were not included as NSIPs alongside major new sewage treatment works within the Planning Act 2008. The committee recommended that the situation be rectified accordingly.

The order before your Lordships today meets that recommendation. It does not specifically refer to the Thames tunnel project. However, this is currently the only proposed major sewer development that would meet the threshold of the order. In the future there may be other such projects and so it is right that an appropriate legislative framework is in place to ensure that they too can progress with as little unnecessary delay as possible.

As far as the Thames tunnel is concerned, the waste water national policy statement was approved by Parliament and designated on 26 March. This sets out the need for the Thames tunnel as the most cost-effective, timely and comprehensive solution currently available to the problem of significant ongoing sewage pollution into the River Thames in London, when compared with the alternatives. It will enhance the ecology of the river and is estimated to directly employ around 4,200 people in its construction and in related sector works, with an estimated several thousand secondary jobs in the supply chain and wider London economy. Thames Water has set itself a target of employing local workers to make up to 20% of its tunnel construction workforce.

I know that many of your Lordships have firmly held views on the merits or otherwise of the Thames tunnel and I look forward to this debate during which, no doubt, many of these views will be put forward. However, I ask your Lordships to bear it in mind that the order may apply not only to the Thames tunnel but also to any similar major sewer projects that may be brought forward in the future. I commend the draft order to the House.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, there is clearly widespread support for this order, as the Minister said. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in another place recommended that the Government go down this route and the responses to the consultation contained widespread support, including from the local authorities that would be affected by the Thames tunnel proposals. Therefore, on this side of the coalition, we support the order. It is important to remind ourselves why it is being brought forward. It is not about trying to speed up any decisions; it is about making a process that is timely and minimises unnecessary cost but remains democratically accountable.

This is a new type of engagement for the public in terms of how they respond to major sewer proposals; in the past DCLG has been very good at public education campaigns about how the public can engage which allays fears that these are processes that are somehow to speed things up and stop them being involved. Will the Minister be speaking to his colleagues in DCLG to ensure that a proper public consultation campaign is undertaken so that people realise how they can engage in this new major infrastructure order?

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I spoke about this project—well I did not actually speak, my noble friend made my speech for me because I was on the sleeper to Scotland. He did an extremely good job especially when it apparently diverged from our party policy, but there we are. I do not have a particular problem with the concept of an order such as this amending the planning process because I have always supported the Infrastructure Planning Commission and its successor. I did, however, have a chuckle when I read the impact assessment for this project: in answer to the question of what was the CO₂ equivalent change in greenhouse gas emissions in millions of tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, the answer was “not applicable”.

When I worked out that for the Thames tunnel— I do not know whether Thames Water is still going to move all the spoil away by road—that was going to be 500 trucks a day, the idea that that would not produce any CO₂ was laughable. Of course, many other bits of CO₂ will come out of the construction, let alone the operation. The matter might be a little detailed but it needs looking at again.

Since the debate on 27 March, things have moved on and Thames Water has produced a second consultation report. It has made some changes but I do not think it has recognised that it may have an unnecessarily expensive scheme. The eminent water engineer, Chris Binnie, produced a report, about which I shall speak in a minute and which could reduce infraction fines by obtaining improvement much sooner than 2023, which I believe is the latest date for the scheme to be completed. We must not forget that the cost is now something like £4.2 billion, plus I think that the estimate of infraction has gone up to £1.5 billion. There is, of course, always a risk of cost overrun in tunnelling. Further, there is the estimated £80 per annum for 30 years that every Thames Water customer will have to pay, with or without the extra subsidy from the Government that was agreed a couple of months ago. Therefore, I suggest that the Government ought at this stage to take a step back and reflect before spending nearly £6 billion of taxpayers’ money, which may not even satisfy the European Commission’s requirements. Indeed, we do not yet know what those requirements will be until the Court has concluded its deliberations.

Mr Binnie’s report refers to a possible fine of £1.5 billion. He believes that the fish issue can be addressed much more cheaply and that the same applies to the problems of sewage, litter and health impacts in the London docks. He says that these rather smaller issues could be addressed within two or three years, although one of them will not be resolved until 2023, which is more than 10 years away. However, all this is dependent on the European Court’s judgment, which will go back to the European Commission. Therefore, I argue that it is well worth trying to introduce some interim measures. That would probably reduce the fine significantly as the matter is assessed on a five-point basis and if you make improvements, the fine goes down.

This project has gained a momentum of its own, as do many big projects, some of which one likes and some of which one does not like. This theory of mine as regards projects gaining a momentum of their own goes back many years. Ministers like to put their names to big projects but these projects do not always survive political pressures. That is true of Governments of all parties, and 2023 is a very long time away, although I am sure that the Minister opposite does not fall into that category. However, I am concerned about where the independent advice is to be found in all this. I understand that the person in Ofwat who is responsible for this project used to work for Thames Water and that the person responsible for the technical advice on this scheme used to be responsible for the Mogden sewage works. I also understand that during the hearings that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, held a few months ago, Thames Water referred to Ofwat and the Environment Agency as its team. This should not be a team. The regulator has an independent role. It is all wrong that they should all be one happy family when they are spending £6 billion of taxpayers’ money. Nobody is looking at alternatives. The Minister said in his introduction to the debate that this was the best scheme, having considered alternatives, but who is considering the alternatives?

I suppose it is not surprising that people are not looking at alternatives but this needs to be done. If one looks at some of the mitigating measures produced by Mr Binnie and others, there are probably many of them. We also need to make sure that if the Thames tunnel scheme goes ahead, it achieves the results we want. However, we do not know what the Commission will decide in this regard. I hope that the Minister will advise his colleagues that it is time to take a step back and look at alternatives. I would very much welcome a quick meeting with him to go through this in more detail. In the mean time, I shall not oppose the order and wish it well. However, I am not sure that I wish the project well at this stage.

Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances (Abolition) Order 2012

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, these Benches support the proposal to abolish the advisory committee, principally on the grounds that we are satisfied that the replacement will be independent of Ministers, that it will continue to work openly and that the public and specialist interests will be able to attend meetings. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that in the absence of the terms of reference, it is difficult to find the discernible differences between the old committee and the new committee. However, I put that to one side.

It is quite clear in the explanatory documents that the consultation took views on the terms of reference and the name of the successor body. The Minister has been kind enough to share the new name and to give some indication of the terms of reference. At this point, there does not seem to be any clarity on the number of members and the scope of representation on the proposed new committee. We want to feel reassured that the scientific experts will come from a breadth of fields across the industry and more broadly to represent some of the consumer champions that have scientific experts on their staff to ensure that the general public can have full confidence in the scientific decisions that we desperately need from this committee.

Dogs: Microchipping

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I assure the noble Lord that we take this very seriously. It is an increasing problem. As the noble Lord said, there seven attacks a month on guide dogs. Sometimes, of course, the dogs carrying out these attacks are out of control; they are not even on a lead. The whole purpose of the policy will be to try to encourage responsible dog ownership. I am very pleased with the contribution the noble Lord has made to the issue by asking his question today.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the number of stray dogs in this country has risen to 126,000 and has been steadily increasing for the past four years. Does my noble friend agree that compulsory microchipping would help local authorities with the spiralling costs of kennelling, and help them reduce the number of healthy dogs they have to put down each year, which was 6,000 in 2011?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, my Lords, I drew the House’s attention to the enormous economic cost of stray dogs; £57.5 million is spent by charities and local authorities in caring for and finding new homes for stray dogs. That is part of the thrust behind our proposals, which, as I say, we will be announcing shortly.

EUC Report: Agriculture

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the sub-committee. As our chairman, Lord Carter of Coles, said, our starting point was the issue of feeding the rising global population—as he said, rising to 9 billion by 2050. We should not forget that in the UK the population by 2030 will have risen to more than 71 million. In response to that challenge and the challenges of climate change, it is clear that we will have to use fewer of our planet’s finite resources to feed our nation. However, the challenge is also an opportunity in the UK. One opportunity is to grow our food and drink industry, which buys two-thirds of all that our UK farmers produce, has a turnover of more than £76 billion and a growing export market, and is the largest manufacturer in all sectors in the UK. Innovation in agriculture will be key to meeting that challenge, and our committee’s report is, I believe—as I suppose one would say with slight self-interest—a timely response to that debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s closing remarks and hope that he will address the four issues that I shall highlight.

The first is how in this difficult economic situation, as my noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned, we will find the necessary extra funding for innovation. Science is key and the Government should be congratulated on protecting the science budget in the 2010 spending review. That was a welcome sign of the Government’s commitment, but none of us is under any illusion that that will be sufficient funding. The sub-committee was pleased by the Commission’s proposals for the reform of CAP that were published subsequent to our report, which double the funding for innovation in agricultural research under the Horizon 2020 budget, and by the cap on the level of single farm payments. The cap is important because of the signal it sends to the public on how their money supports small and medium-sized farmers delivering public goods competing in a global market. It could deliver extra funds into innovation. With what appears to be growing support across member states in Europe for the idea of capping single farm payments, can the Minister outline the Government's views on any capped funding payments being hypothecated towards innovation-related measures under Pillar 2?

Secondly, does the Minister agree with our report’s reference to the innovation-hostile environment of Brussels? I think it is fair to say that there was some debate in our committee about the language that we might choose with which to term that issue. Does the Minister believe that the precautionary approach to developing new technology still holds good? If so, how does he feel that the legitimate views of public citizens can be effectively heard in debates about innovation which will impact on their lives every day through the food they eat? Is it the role of the British media to articulate strongly held views about the impact of innovation in agriculture, or should a more sophisticated debate be held with European citizens at an earlier stage of developing new technologies? To that end, what are the UK Government doing now to make clear to the public their support for growing GM crops in the UK, given the current debate in the EU on the national decision-making proposal that could in future allow member states to grow crops in their countries, unlike the present EU-wide ban?

Thirdly, in order to deliver food security, does the Minister agree that innovation in tackling waste in the food chain should be an equal priority to innovation in increasing food production? Estimates show that 30 per cent of all food grown worldwide may be lost or wasted before or after it reaches consumers—30 per cent. As Europe considers introducing biowaste targets, the Government are urging the adoption of a voluntary approach to reducing food waste. In doing so, results here are being closely watched by interested parties around the globe, including the UN, which is looking at the global potential of our Courtauld agreement. But could more be done? Recently announced phase 2 results of the Courtauld agreement show glacial progress by the supply chain in delivering waste reduction. Despite the commitment and hard work of WRAP and the progress of individuals, it is in the agriculture and food supply chain where there has to be further progress. Large manufacturing companies, often with European and global reach, must be used to put pressure to ensure that supply chains deliver progress from top to bottom. Without that, the case for European targets to reduce food waste will be strong as a means to deliver food security, alongside a focus on greater agriculture innovation.

Finally, and perhaps with a rather more UK-centric view than this debate might allow, I beg leave to mention the issue of whether the Government can do more to support further innovation in UK agriculture, which, in addition to contributing to our food security, supports public health goals. We know that, with the rising tide of obesity and health problems, we want more people to eat fruit. To that end, it is welcome that the Government are investing in a strong “five a day” campaign to promote it. We know that people want to buy British fruit and support local producers. Indeed, Sainsbury’s is now looking to source 50 per cent of its fruit from the UK by 2020; the figure is presently only 10 per cent. We know that rising temperatures in the UK, as identified in the UK 2012 climate change risk assessment, could mean an opportunity in future to grow blueberries, apricots, grapes and peaches. We know that people want more convenient food, such as bagged and easy-peeling fruit.

Knowing all this, surely we should be investing in further research into innovation in fruit growing here in the UK. However, one of our principal research centres for fruit and vegetables, East Malling, now employs 40 staff, as opposed to 400 staff 30 years ago. It is true elsewhere, such as in Warwick, where we once had a much greater staffing capacity than we have now. Clearly, we cannot turn the tap on just like that. However, I would ask the Minister what the Government can do to co-ordinate the work of all partners, in both the public and private sectors, to identify gaps in research in areas that not only will increase the production of food with fewer resources and increase the tax to the Exchequer from a highly successful food and drink manufacturing sector, but will meet public health goals. If funding choices in innovation have to be made, both here and in the EU, it is those areas of agriculture that should be prioritised.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords—

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, we have time. Perhaps we may hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, the estimated costs for policing this eradication programme have risen from £200,000 to £2 million per cull area. What share of those costs will Defra meet with the Home Office and what budget lines will be cut in order to take forward this programme, which may well do more harm than good?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would not agree with my noble friend’s last comments; I think she is misjudging the situation. I think this is a programme that we have to carry forward. Clearly, we have to allow for policing and Defra has agreed to meet half the costs.

Gangmasters

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that I have just given the noble Lord the answer to that question. Indeed, there is a review of all vulnerable workers across the piece. Noble Lords will accept that there needs to be balance. We do not want employment to be so difficult and complex that people are discouraged from taking on employment, but we all have a duty to make sure that vulnerable workers are properly protected.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, it is welcome that the Government have protected the budget of the GLA during this financial year. In the light of that support, is it clear that Defra will remain the lead department in order to ensure that the vital work that the GLA does to support vulnerable, low-paid, low-skilled workers will continue?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have made it clear that Defra values the GLA and sees it as being a particular responsibility to make sure that it is properly funded. Not only is its budget protected for this year, it is protected for the next four financial years in its enforcement activities. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by that and the determination of the department to make sure that it is effective in performing its task.

Water Supply (Amendment to the Threshold Requirement) Regulations 2011

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2011 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, we cannot perhaps expect quite the passion in this debate that we had with the previous statutory instrument, but I do not wish to pour cold water on contributions that noble Lords may make.

The water supply licensing regime introduced by the Water Act 2003 was an attempt to introduce limited retail competition into the water sector. It permits new entrants known as licensed water suppliers to enter the market and enables non- household customers using at least 50 megalitres of water a year to switch from their existing monopoly supplier to an alternative water supplier. To give some idea of scale, an Olympic-sized swimming pool contains approximately 2.5 megalitres of water.

There are currently seven licensed water suppliers that eligible non-household customers can switch to. A licensed water supplier is permitted to purchase water from the incumbent water company and supply those customers who are eligible to switch away from their existing supplier. The size of the non-household market is approximately 1.1 million customers and, of those, an estimated 2,200 are currently eligible to switch their water supplier. However, since the introduction of the WSL regime in 2005 it has become increasingly more apparent that the WSL is not working effectively; only one non-household customer has managed to switch its supplier.

The Independent Review of Competition and Innovation in Water Markets, carried out by Professor Martin Cave and published in 2009, considered that better value for water and sewerage services could be obtained through enabling greater competition. The report identified a number of reasons why the WSL regime had been ineffective and made a number of recommendations for a step-by-step approach towards the introduction of competition. Professor Cave recommended increasing the size of the contestable market as the first step. This would be achieved through a reduction in the threshold at which non-household customers could switch suppliers.

These regulations amend the Water Industry Act 1991 by reducing the customer eligibility threshold from 50 megalitres to five megalitres. This will significantly increase the size of the contestable market from 2,200 to 26,000 non-household customers in the area of those water companies that are wholly or mainly in England. The regulations represent a low-risk way of extending the market without the need for further investment. Further market reform changes as identified by Professor Cave will be considered in the water White Paper, which will be published by December. At this stage, we are expecting that lowering the threshold will stimulate interest in the market, reinvigorate new entrants’ efforts to gain market share and incentivise existing water companies to improve services or risk losing customers. The potential benefits associated with lowering the threshold could take the form of lower bills through keener prices, improved customer service and lower consumption due to increased water efficiency. The regulations will not impose any costs on business and do not have an impact on micro-businesses. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Baroness Parminter]

I think it is right that the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Cave report, but it is very disappointing that the impact assessment makes it clear that no guaranteed or quantifiable environmental benefits in terms of reducing water use will result from there regulations. It is all about “could” and “might be”; nothing is guaranteed and there are no quantifiables in that.

The impact assessment also makes it quite clear that, without further reforms to the water supply licensing regime, the uptake on supply switching is going to be very limited. The Minister pointed out that there is a market of 26,000, but the assessment makes it clear that, without further reform, the potential is just two or three companies per annum. It strikes me that this statutory instrument on its own is pretty unimpressive and I wonder why it has been brought forward before the White Paper, given that the White Paper is going to be coming forward fairly shortly. I am sure that some form of further legislative reform will take place following that. I should like to know why these regulations—and the cost of bringing them to this House and into the market—has been brought forward on their own, given its limited potential.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out so clearly what the statutory instrument does and to the noble Baroness for making some useful comments, with which I agree, about the impact assessment. This is a perfectly harmless statutory instrument, so I am very content with it. Like the noble Baroness, I am not sure that it is going to have a massive impact but, given that the Cave review recommended that this should happen, that the Cave review did a good job and that we look forward to the Government’s comments in the White Paper, I am certainly happy to give this statutory instrument my blessing.

I would not want to burden anybody with having to work out any more impacts but, especially given that this is a Defra statutory instrument, the rural impact would be particularly interesting. It would be interesting to know whether any thought has been given to including rural impacts in general. When I was reading through the impact assessment, I thought that it might make a difference in some urban areas because in urban areas the market is more likely to be active. In the rural parts, however, if it makes any difference at all or if there is enough of a market operating, I shall be quite surprised. If the Minister has any comments on that, I shall be delighted, but this is a pretty straightforward statutory instrument. We welcome competition in the water industry; we hope that it benefits consumers and that the department and the regulator will make sure that that happens. I am happy to give it a positive nod.

EU: Common Fisheries Policy

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Parminter]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to achieve reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

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

My Lords, I welcome this Question from my noble friend; it is particularly timely given that the Commission published its proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy earlier today. My honourable friend the UK fisheries Minister continues to encourage his European counterparts to support radical reform, and will be pressing our case for reform as negotiations develop, with further talks at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council next Tuesday.

[Baroness Parminter]

The common fisheries policy has one of the most dismal reputations of any European Union policy and is responsible for the fact that yields in our fisheries have diminished. Does the Minister agree that its reform must include the total elimination of discards, and maximum sustainable yields delivered by long-term management plans agreed at regional fisheries level?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I could be very brief in responding to my noble friend by saying that I agree with her entirely. Obviously we want to deal with the problem of discards. We have done a great deal within the United Kingdom about that matter. She is also right to talk about the need for regionalisation of the common fisheries policy and about rights-based management. However, we will discuss all that and continue to negotiate in Europe on these matters—and I think that we need support from all sides of the House, and throughout the entire country and Europe, to get a proper reform of the CFP.

Biological Diversity

Baroness Parminter Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Selborne on introducing this debate in such a timely manner, given that tomorrow the Environment Council meets to discuss the EU’s biodiversity strategy till 2020. That meeting of EU Environment Ministers will be an important test of resolve in meeting the commitments agreed at Nagoya last year to meet the huge biodiversity challenges that we face.

I applaud the Government on the welcome they have given to the development of an EU biodiversity strategy and hope that tomorrow the targets suggested by the Commission in the draft strategy are adopted. In particular, I welcome the actions suggested by the Commission relating to the sustainable use of fisheries resources, including the gradual elimination of discards. Only today, a report to be debated at the UN from the panel convened by the International Programme on the State of the Oceans warned that ocean life is at a high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.

We must stop exploitative overfishing now, and so it is vital that the reference to achieving maximum sustainable yields of fish by 2015 is retained in the EU’s biodiversity strategy. If removed, our efforts—and I commend the Government’s initiatives to date on this—to secure ambitious reform of the common fisheries policy are entirely undermined. They are undermined even before the starting gun on the reform of the CFP is fired in the next couple of weeks. Therefore I very much hope that our representative at tomorrow’s meeting will be pushing back hard on those countries, including France and Spain, which are pushing for the removal of this reference to stop overfishing.

I welcome the draft EU biodiversity strategy, but it mentions only in passing the key issue of financing biodiversity protection. Clearly, if we are to make a reality of the Nagoya conference goals, finance is key. It was this House’s EU Select Committee report on the EU financial framework from 2014 that recommended that biodiversity protection be mainstreamed through all the relevant funding instruments, especially the CAP, and that it be reflected in the framework itself.

Given that the Commission’s proposals for the new framework are due out next week, I would be keen to hear from the Minister whether the Government agree that the EU’s commitment in the area of biodiversity should be reflected in the framework. However, any financing available through the EU budget is going to be small compared to that required to meet the scale of the challenge. Two weeks ago in the welcome natural environment White Paper, the possibility of financing biodiversity protection through biodiversity offsets was raised. The Government propose to establish a new voluntary approach to biodiversity offsets and to test that approach in pilot areas.

Biodiversity offsetting schemes have been in existence in other parts of the world for some time. All the evidence from these is that such schemes must be well designed. Successful existing schemes, notably those in the US and Australia, generally involve an impartial oversight body. Their function is to monitor the size and quality of the offsets, making sure that they are calculated properly so that offset sites are ecologically similar and deliver an amount of biodiversity adequate to offset the impacts. They help developers to know how many credits, and crucially which type, they need by transparent calculation of offset needs or debits. Key to the scheme’s success is rigorous methodology to determine what trade-offs are appropriate or allowable.

I support the Government’s decision to pilot biodiversity offsetting so as to test and refine the operation, but I do question whether a voluntary scheme will generate enough interest to establish a viable biodiversity market. Moreover, I question whether a locally managed scheme where the approach to be taken,

“should be as simple and straightforward as possible”,

to quote from the White Paper, will have the necessary rigour to deliver the desired “no net loss” biodiversity outcomes. As such, perhaps I could invite the Minister to say a few words about how the Government intend to help with the design of the various schemes in the pilots as details in the White Paper are rather thin. This is a crucial part of how the Government are going to be taking forward our biodiversity commitments.

I say again that this is an extremely timely debate. Maintaining healthy, viable ecosystems over the long term is crucial to human well-being and to the survival of our planet. To that end, it is vital that we have a large-scale strategic vision, such as that drawn up at Nagoya, as well as clarity on how it will be delivered at the European, national and local levels so that we can better deliver the necessary biodiversity protection.