Environmental Targets (Public Authorities) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. As an aside in relation to the previous Bill, as a former chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I published a report on the appalling abuse of delegated powers by all Governments over the past 30 years. It is just as well that I was not replying for the Official Opposition, because I would have probably supported the Bill in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.

When the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, proposes something, we should all pay close attention because he speaks from a position of great authority. We have all had in the past 24 hours—at least, Conservative Members have—a note from the Chief Whip reminding us of the proper appellations and how we should address people in this House. In this House, we have noble and gallant Members and noble and learned Members. I always thought we should have a category of noble and expert Members, of which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, would be the prime example. I recall a debate during the gene editing Bill, when the noble Lord was making some important but totally inexplicable technical point about DNA with the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It was inexplicable to every other Peer present, as we had no idea what they were talking about.

On this occasion, I think I understand the thrust of the noble Lord’s argument. I worry about overreach and that it may detract from the core tasks some of these public bodies have. That is the fourth reason I would worry about the Bill, not that I necessarily support the other three reasons; I have no objection to them in principle.

Take national parks, about which I know a little. Legislation which has received universal support over the past 75 years gives them two purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the designated national parks, and promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of those areas by the public. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that the national parks do not have an economic objective. In fact, one of the criticisms many of the national parks make is that they do not have that economic objective in their powers.

We all agree that national parks and AONBs, now called national landscapes, need to do more to recover wildlife and biodiversity. I have lived in the Lake District national park for many years and, as the Minister will agree, it is just as devoid of wildlife as the areas outside it, unlike US national parks. Recognising that, Defra introduced the grant scheme for farming and protected landscapes. It offers grants to farmers, provided that they deliver on climate change and biodiversity goals. They must support nature recovery and mitigate the impacts of climate change. They must provide opportunities for people to discover, enjoy and understand the landscape and its cultural heritage. They must protect or improve the quality and character of the landscape or place.

I suggest that these remain in sync with the national park aims and that we need to let these develop. Indeed, I would urge the Government to expand them before imposing the requirements in this Bill. I also suggest that the national parks will be out of their depth in trying to assist in meeting a target for particulate matter or air improvement. On water quality, we shall probably debate amendments to the water Bill on sewage in Lake Windermere, over which the national park has no control.

On local authorities, this House made some substantial changes via the Environment Act 2021 to amend the NERC Act 2006 to conserve and, now, enhance biodiversity. A public authority must consider what action it

“can properly take, consistently with the proper exercise of its functions, to further the general biodiversity objective”.

That objective, set out in the Act, is

“the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in England”.

Section 104 of the 2021 Act creates local nature recovery strategies, and 48 designated “responsible authorities” are now developing such strategies, covering every inch of England. Every nature organisation agrees that this will be the greatest boost to wildlife recovery in our lifetime.

Noble Lords may say that takes care of the biodiversity targets, but what about climate change, water and air? To that I would say that many of the organisations listed here do not have the ability or competence to assist in meeting those targets. We spoke about the problems of water quality at Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill last week and will debate it in more detail in Committee, but the only organisations that can improve water quality are the water companies, the Coal Authority, which has a specific obligation, the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I see that Ofwat is listed in Clause 2(2)(i) as a public body which must

“take all reasonable steps to meet the environmental recovery objective”.

I think there was probably agreement from all sides of the House last week that Ofwat has failed in its relatively narrowly defined key regulatory role, and no one would trust it with any responsibilities on climate change adaption, air quality and biodiversity recovery.

I would have similar concerns if we gave all local authorities the duties under this Bill to assist with all the targets on climate change and the Environment Act. My concern is that many local authorities with no expertise in the targets in this Bill would be diverted into doing this badly instead of the day job. As we have seen, many local authorities have gone off on woke tracks in recent years. If given these duties they will, I am certain, merrily employ climate change, air and water quality officers, and our dustbins will not get emptied regularly and recycling rates will fall further behind.

Let us look at Ofgem’s priorities. They are:

“shaping a retail market that works for consumers … enabling infrastructure for net zero at pace … establishing an efficient, fair and flexible energy system”,

and

“advancing decarbonisation through low carbon energy and social schemes”.

Ofgem is already on board with the net-zero targets and, I suggest, would be at a loss to assist with air quality and biodiversity aims.

Take Great British Nuclear, which was created in 2023, not 100 years ago. It has as its objects

“to facilitate the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear energy generation projects for the purpose of furthering any policies published by His Majesty’s government”.

I do not think you can make a better contribution to net zero than that.

I will not go through all the 28 organisations, but a final example is Network Rail, which has as its objective

“to get people and goods to where they need to be, and in turn to support the UK’s economic prosperity. Our role is to run a safe, reliable and efficient railway, serving our customers and communities. We oversee the running of the railway as an entire system and work closely with train operators to deliver train services as safely, reliably and punctually as possible. We lead the industry’s planning for the future of the railway, and we’re committed to a sustainability agenda”.

I say that with a straight face. I think we all have views on how well Network Rail has fulfilled its primary purpose, and I would dread to see it having the slightest responsibility for net-zero or biodiversity objectives.

I am glad that this building is not included because I have counted six oil heaters trying to boost the heating in this building, as our 150 year-old steam generators are not quite working yet. I am not sure what contribution we are making in this House to burning extra carbon and use of electricity.

I have spoken more about biodiversity and nature recovery than climate change—possibly inevitably, since I am, for the next two months, still the deputy chair of Natural England and a member of the board of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, both organisations listed in the Bill. I submit that those two organisations do not need these provisions to drive forward, within their areas of expertise, all the relevant targets. They are already leading the way.

I also believe that climate change and nature recovery are two sides of the same coin and that, if we restore our peatlands, which hold 3 billion tonnes of carbon, plant the right trees in the right places, conserve our sea-floor and keep carbon trapped there, and go for nature-friendly solutions, then we can avoid the excessive cost of going too far, too quickly on heat pumps, electric cars and getting rid of gas boilers, not to mention the appalling damage to our natural landscape caused by wind turbines and pylons.

Personally, I have always considered biodiversity loss to be more important than climate change. With enormous political will and an awful lot of money, climate change can be reversed, but once a species is lost it is lost for ever, and the world is losing species at an alarming rate.

In Committee, I will judge the Bill by what these 28 public bodies can legitimately do, without detracting from their core duties, to increase species abundance and recover nature. I believe that that is the top priority and the key to unlocking climate change improvements and water quality. I wish the noble Lord well with his Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to it.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, for clarification, he appears to be suggesting that climate change and nature have to exist in certain silos and that getting people around the country by rail is a different and entirely separate silo. Do I take it from that that His Majesty’s Opposition’s position is that we should not mainstream climate and nature across all areas of action of government and public bodies?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

Of course we want to “mainstream” it, but I am suggesting that some of the Bill may be overreach for some of the authorities and that they may not be competent to do it. I am not making any argument that it may be too costly, but we must try to achieve our targets on climate change reduction and in the Environment Act by the measures that the last Government took and that the current Government plan to take. I would be rather worried if we gave additional powers in the Bill to some of those authorities, but I remain to be convinced in Committee. I am sort of neutral on the Bill, and I respect the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his ability. In Committee, we can explore the points the noble Baroness raises.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 9th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register.

This is an interesting little Bill. Among the first bits of advice I had from my illustrious predecessor, the great Willie Whitelaw, when I became an MP in his place, was, “Remember, David, in Parliament always distinguish between activity and achievement because there are those who run around being highly active but achieve nothing”.

I understand where the Government are coming from with this Bill. There are problems in the water industry—that is not the fault of privatisation, which has been successful, but of inadequate regulation by Ofwat. Those problems were addressed by the previous Government in the extensive Plan for Water, and the new Secretary of State, in his speech to the water industry on 5 September, seemed to repeat most of the items in that plan. He ruled out nationalisation and said that water companies need to attract private investment. He said he wanted to address catchment-level water solutions, and to that end intends to run a full review and seek a reset of the industry and a new partnership. He also wanted nine more reservoirs built, along with pipelines and peatlands, to help store water. These are very important issues. If that could be delivered then that would be a major reset and a real achievement. We all want to see that review conducted as speedily as possible, especially since the Plan for Water, published by the previous Government in 2023, set out most of what seems to be on the Secretary of State’s agenda.

Then we come to the Bill and what it will achieve. In launching the Bill and the proposal to double compensation for water cut-offs, the Secretary of State used phrases such as “crack down” and “toughen up” as he outlined measures to send executives to prison, automatic fines by the regulator, changing the burden of proof and a whole new range of unspecified powers for the Secretary of State and the Environment Agency. To me, it sounded very much like a remake of Tony Blair’s

“Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”—


which did not work then, despite the rhetoric. That is a lot of activity, but where is the impact assessment by the Government to show what it will achieve? The Government hope that automatic fines and the changed burden of proof will free up the Environment Agency to pursue the larger and more complex cases. If that is the case then we should see the calculations leading to that belief.

Will the measures in this Bill improve water quality? Charles Watson, the chair of River Action, said that while it was a “relief” to see the new Government acknowledge problems in the water sector, only a “comprehensive and holistic review” of regulation would fix matters. James Wallace, the chief executive, said:

“Talking about CEO bonuses is not going to sort things out. What we really need to see is a regulator, the Environment Agency, with its teeth given back and its funding given back”.


The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, while welcoming the review, said it is of paramount importance

“that this review cuts right across the activities of all government departments. From Defra, through housing, transport, energy, health and more. It mustn’t be kept in a Defra-sized box, or it will fail to match Reed’s ambitious pitch”.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the review will cut across all those different government departments and agencies.

Those I have just quoted welcome the Bill as a little step forward, but the real achievement would be if the Government could deliver on the Secretary of State’s vision in the review. That is why I conclude that the Bill is good political talking tough, but it might achieve little; it is possibly activity over achievement. However, we shall examine it fairly and seek to improve it, while asking some key questions.

First, I want to look at new Section 35B of the Water Industry Act 1991, which introduces the concept of “specified standards”. The existing Section 35A already deals with remuneration. The company has to base it on meeting “standards of performance,” in the wording of Section 35A of the 1991 Act. The water services regulation authority, Ofwat, will be given the power to draft rules on what these specified standards are, including whether someone is a fit and proper person to be a senior officer,

“or in respect of other matters”.

That is quite a wide-ranging power. How will it interface with the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, which provides extensive powers to disqualify a director? The Financial Conduct Authority also has rules on what is a fit and proper person.

In future, we could see water company executives who will have satisfied all the company law criteria to be a director, but their remuneration will be subject to new so-called “specified standards”. Those standards will include

“consumer matters, … the environment, … the financial resilience of undertakers, and … the criminal liability of undertakers”,

and

“any other matters that the Authority considers appropriate”.

Who on earth will ever want to be a director of any water company with those potentially onerous conditions? We have no idea yet what those conditions will be, and it is essential that we have some indication of that before we get to Report. The Secretary of State has to be consulted under new Section 35C. Since the Government have specifically made a big fuss about these new rules, the Government must have some idea of what they want in them and cannot say, “Oh it is not up to us; it is entirely up to the authority in due course to invent the rules”.

Punishing directors for carrying out the wishes of the shareholders is surely the wrong approach. When Macquarie had 48% of the shares in Thames Water, jacked up the debt by £2.8 billion and took out £1.1 billion in dividends, do we really think that the managing director and directors could have stopped that? The majority shareholder, I submit, was in the driving seat. Macquarie and other shareholders would have rapidly replaced those directors and executives if they tried to limit dividends and spend more of the profits on infra- structure. There is no question on these Benches of us seeking to let water companies off the hook. Where they have failed to deliver, they should suffer sanctions and penalties. However, penalising the management is targeting the wrong group; it is the shareholders who should lose out financially for company wrongdoing, however that may be defined. The description of a person in a “senior role” includes

“such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified”.

We need to know a little more about who those people might be. That is something we shall need to explore in Committee.

I turn to Clause 4, which amends Section 110 of the Environment Act 1995 with a new imprisonment provision, of which the Government have made a big thing. Sections 110(1) and (2) of the Act sets out the offences of knowingly obstructing “an authorised person” from carrying out lawful duties, of failing

“to comply with any requirement”,

of preventing

“any other person from appearing before an authorised person”

or of failing to “provide facilities” for an investigation. That person shall be guilty of an offence. The penalty is a summary fine or imprisonment to the maximum of the magistrates’ court levels. On indictment, it could be a fine and/or up to two years in prison.

That is the current law, so how does Clause 4 change it? It makes not a single change to the offences in Sections 110(1) and (2). It makes not a single change to the fines and imprisonment. I am very happy to be corrected by the Minister, and I hear what she said about there being a difference. I am happy to be educated on that in Committee, but it seems that the Government here are dancing on the head of a pin—making a big thing about a tiny little change. I think these offences were included in the past. This clause seems to replicate existing provisions to let the Government boast that they are taking tough action against water undertakers, to make a political point.

I instinctively dislike civil penalties imposed by government or arm’s-length bodies or other organisations, whether it is the Inland Revenue or a parking fine company. It avoids due process. I leave it to the noble and learned Lords in this place to give their opinions on the dangers of changing the burden of proof from “beyond reasonable doubt” to just “the balance of probabilities”. I have no problems if a company has genuinely committed the offences and deserves the penalties, but changing the balance of proof could mean that some were unjustly penalised. That could result in large fines and damage to the company’s reputation.

I have similar concerns with Clause 6, on automatic penalties for specified offences that will be created by the Secretary of State. At least those have to be laid before Parliament under the affirmative procedure, and we will have a chance to debate them. As the noble Baroness pointed out on the delegated powers, the Bill gives enormous powers to government agencies. I look forward to reading the Delegated Powers Committee’s report to see what it says about the powers in the Bill and whether it agrees with the Government that the scrutiny they propose is adequate. I also want to see more of the Government’s thinking on the regulations they propose. They cannot say that it will be up to Ofwat and the Environment Agency to invent the rules, and that it is nothing to do with them. They have clear ideas about what they want in the regulations, and we need a steer.

We will also want to explore the Government’s thinking on the involvement of consumers in board decision-making. The Bill is exceptionally vague on that. Clause 1(3) requires a water company to involve consumers in any decisions

“likely to have a material impact”

on consumers. I suggest that any decision made is likely to have an impact on consumers, so what is the Government’s definition of “material”? Clause 1(3) also says that consumer views may be represented by someone being on a “board, committee or panel”. These are radically different concepts, from executive decision-making to an advisory panel. Again, we would like to hear more of the Government’s thinking.

The Secretary of State made a major speech to the water industry on 5 September, and committed the Government to building nine new reservoirs, multiple large-scale water transfer schemes and 8,000 kilometres of water mains pipes, and to upgrading 2,500 storm overflows. As the noble Baroness said, Ofwat costed that at £88 billion. The Secretary of State, in his interview last Sunday, was adamant that every penny of that money would be raised in the private sector and invested within the next five years. As the Secretary of State is clear that these things need to be done—a lot of them were set out in the Plan for Water of 2023 —and it would be a real achievement to do them, why are they being kicked into a long-term review? That is what we should be discussing in this House as soon as possible—the balance between investment and increasing water bills.

The Secretary of State’s endorsement of privatisation and bringing in private investment was interesting. He said that his plans would

“unlock the biggest ever investment in our water sector, and the second biggest private sector investment into any part of the economy for the entirety of this Parliament”.

In other words, he was saying that privatisation worked, but proper regulation was inadequate.

Those are the big issues that will actually deliver a better water industry, not the presentational matters in the Bill. Nevertheless, we will explore it constructively, support it where it is right, and seek to amend it where necessary to ensure due process and clarity. We look forward to addressing all that in Committee.

Environment and Climate Change Committee Report: An Extraordinary Challenge: Restoring 30 per cent of our Land and Sea by 2030

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, in standing in for my noble friend Lord Roborough, who could not be present at the start of this debate, I must tell the Committee that the last time I clutched a Dispatch Box desperately seeking inspiration was Thursday 20 March 1997. I was the last Conservative Minister to answer a departmental Question at 3.15 pm, immediately followed by John Major answering his last PMQs, and then we prorogued for the general election. Some 28 years later I am an example of His Majesty’s policy of patching up and mending old things, and putting them to work again.

I need to declare my interests as on the register but to go further too. I remain for the next three months the deputy chair of Natural England. I have checked with the clerks and, while I can talk factually about nature, Natural England, this report and the last Government’s response, under the Addison rule I cannot speak officially for Natural England, nor answer questions about its activities or advocate its policies—only the Minister can do that. Because of my position in Natural England, I am automatically on the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, so I leave it to the Minister to say what a brilliant job we are doing in Natural England.

I welcome the Minister to her post. There is no one better on the Labour Benches in the Lords to do it, and she is an excellent addition to the Defra ministerial team.

I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and all the noble Lords who conducted the 30 by 30 inquiry, on their recommendations. I also commend the 16 noble Lords who have spoken today. They made excellent points, including in the superb speech by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is welcome to take this seat back any time he likes.

A lot has happened since the report was published in July 2023, and not just the change of Government. Noble Lords have read the last Government’s response, and in the changed circumstances I see no point in rehashing it all today. The report called for national parks to be given a new statutory duty to protect nature, and Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act imposed a new duty to do just that; I hope that my noble friend Lord Harlech will be reassured by that. As I recall, that was the Lord Randall amendment in the Lords.

The report called for local nature recovery strategies to be given statutory underpinning in local development plans. Schedule 7 to the levelling-up Act did that; I believe that was the Baroness Parminter amendment. On SSSIs, I say to my noble friend Lord Harlech that Natural England has now moved fully to assessing the condition of SSSI features at the site scale, and the focus is on bringing SSSI condition assessments up to date and in line with the EIP target to complete this by the end of January 2028—although that is highly dependent on not cutting Natural England’s grant in aid.

Natural England is also progressing the EIP target to have action under way and on track by January 2028, which will bring 50% of SSSI features into favourable condition. Natural England is continuing to look for improvements in the approach to monitoring —to make more use of modern technology, such as earth observation, to increase the contribution of participatory science, and to utilise condition assessments gathered by third parties, such as ENGOs, which my noble friend Lord Lucas called for—and we aim to grow that.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that I have been involved in about six new SSSI designations or extensions. They may not be many in number but two were absolutely massive, including a large one down in west Cornwall—which was slightly controversial—and another large one near RAF Fairford and the waterworks around there.

The report underplays the role played by national nature reserves, which I argue are a legitimate component of other effective conservation measures. I submit that the country’s NNRs meet the OECM criteria defined in CBD 15 and in the Government’s nature recovery Green Paper. There are currently 221 national nature reserve sites, which comprise 110,000 hectares or 427 square miles. That is 0.85% of England’s area. Natural England manages 134, the Wildlife Trusts 50, the National Trust 20, local authorities 29 and the RSPB, National Parks, other NGOs and other government agencies 34.

Let me cite a superb example: the new, supersized Purbeck Heaths NNR announced in 2020. Seven organisations manage it: Natural England, the National Trust, the RSPB, the Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Trust, the Dorset Wildlife Trust, Forestry England and the Rempstone Estate. The new NNR is larger than the original NNR, which was 996 hectares—it is now 3,331 hectares, a 234% increase. It is better, as it is increasing biodiversity and creating a more dynamic and resilient landscape, and it is more joined up, as it has a huge continuous grazing area and landscape-scale objectives.

Another excellent example is the Somerset Wetlands “super” NNR which links up six pre-existing national nature reserves on the Somerset Levels and Moors. It is managed in partnership by Natural England, the Environment Agency and five other NGOs. The crucial point is that some say NNRs should not be included in the OECM category nor count towards 30 by 30, since they are not statutorily protected—but that is a feeble point. These organisations are all approved by Natural England to manage reserves properly and bring about species recovery and conservation. Thus, I say to the Minister that they should be included as part of our 30 by 30 targets, since they may be managed by other effective means, as my noble friend Lord Lucas pointed out.

Finally on national nature reserves, paragraph 83 of the report said:

“We recommend that the Government enable and resource Natural England to develop and publicise accessible digital and offline tools and communications to enable members of the public to learn about and engage with their local protected areas”.


I agree entirely but, before doing so, we need to sort out proper online publicity for the 134 national nature reserves run by Natural England. I invite everyone, including the Minister, to search “visit a national nature reserve” on Google. Up will pop some very sexy sites with superb photos, but they are all from the National Trust, the RSPB, the Wildlife Trusts and NNRs run by similar organisations. Down that list somewhere will be a GOV.UK site called “National Nature Reserves in England”. Click on that and it will reveal 11 regional categories. Click on “North West NNRs” and it will reveal seven more categories. If the Minister clicks on “Cumbria”, that will list 37 NNRs—without a single map to help you. If she clicks on “Bassenthwaite Lake”, she will get this:

“The reserve is a shallow, balanced nutrient lake in the north-west of the Lake District. Main habitats: open water”.


To paraphrase Bob Geldof, is that it? It is the most beautiful landscape—after Ullswater and Blencathra, of course—and there is not a single photo of it, nor of any other national nature reserve, featured on GOV.UK. No wonder the NNRs managed by the other organisations have five times the visitor numbers. We all want people to access nature for the benefits it brings to health. I hope the Minister will have far more success than I have had over the last six years trying to get a dedicated site for national nature reserves, rather than buried in the bowels of GOV.UK.

The report, in paragraphs 73 to 75, urges the Government to prioritise working with the overseas territories. As the Minister will know, 94% of the United Kingdom’s biodiversity is not in Great Britain and Northern Ireland but in our 14 overseas territories, their unique islands and their 6.4 million square kilometres of ocean. The Darwin Plus scheme applies to our OTs.

I was the Minister way back at the first Earth Summit in 1992 in Rio, which launched the Darwin Initiative. I must admit, as a new, five week-old Environment Minister, I had not a clue what I was launching. I read the brief and had no idea how successful the scheme would turn out to be. Now, the Government have funded over 1,275 projects at a cost of £230 million, achieving both biodiversity conservation and multi- dimensional poverty reduction. Twelve years ago, I worked with our overseas territories for a few years and saw at first hand the splendid work the Joint Nature Conservation Committee did in our OTs and how the OTs desperately wanted more JNCC input, if only it could afford it.

Minister, it is an easy and impressive win for us in here in the United Kingdom to support the Blue Belt programme and the overseas territories biodiversity strategy being worked up at this precise moment by the JNCC and Defra. The JNCC has also done work on creating blue finance criteria, so that companies can invest in nature recovery projects in our United Kingdom’s oceans and our overseas territories’ seas and know that it is not genuine and not bluewashing.

The report made some very important recommendations on marine monitoring, and discussing all the implications could be a full day’s debate in itself. The last Government’s response pointed to the targets in the EIP and said that monitoring is very complex. Indeed it is. Natural England identified our marine protected areas in just 10 years. That was a splendid achievement, but identifying and designating them is one thing; managing them is another. All of us here can stand on a piece of land and have a fair idea of what it is, its condition and what we think we would like to do to improve it, but we can stand at the edge of the ocean and we have not got a clue what is happening under the surface. If we cannot measure it, we cannot manage it.

All I can say today is that I encourage the Government to step up all marine monitoring efforts, which are essential for biodiversity and carbon capture and form part of our 30 by 30 target. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Caithness, the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lord Banner, on bottom trawling. I have been deeply involved in all this for the last six years and, as your Lordships know, I can bore for England—or Natural England—on it, but let me give some general observations and advice to the Minister, if I may be so impertinent.

Much of the Government’s growth talk has been about building houses, and more houses are urgently needed. I accept that not all so-called green-belt land is sacrosanct and there are poorer bits which can be built on, but genuine high-quality green belt must be protected. Growth and nature are not exclusive; they are complementary. If the Government build houses on grey belt land, they must ensure that there is green space right around them for gardens, space for nature and rewilding, tree-lined streets and not just a token little green park 15 minutes away. I agree with my noble friend Lord Gascoigne, who made that exact same point. Nature recovery is essential in our towns and cities, not just the countryside.

On the countryside, I appeal to the Minister to maintain the £2.4 billion expenditure on ELMS and innovation grants. Farmers are key to nature recovery, as well as producing the food we need.

My main disagreement with my noble friend Lord Banner is that, in my experience farmers excel with carrots rather than sticks. I hope the Government will take on board the points made about tenant farmers by my noble friends Lady Rock and Lady McIntosh of Pickering.

Also, Minister, please get the message across to all those doing big infrastructure projects to consult Defra’s arm’s-length bodies, including Natural England, at a very early stage to look at what protected species might be affected. Workarounds can then be done in the early stages, but if they wait until the bulldozers are about to demolish the bat roosts, the ancient woodlands or the Ramsar sites, then delays will occur—delays caused not by the intransigence of Defra’s arm’s-length bodies but by the law.

Over the last few years, the Forestry Commission, the Environment Agency and Natural England have liaised to increase co-operative working on the ground. That makes sense. If we are to deliver 30 by 30, then we have to work together. If, for example, we look at a river catchment area, the Environment Agency will have a view on river flows and dredging, the Forestry Commission will have a view on what trees should be planted on the banks or nearby and Natural England will have a view on what other flora and fauna, such as beavers or voles, could be present. By co-operating, we get the best possible solutions to reduce flooding, increase woodland and recover nature and wildlife, and that will help deliver 30 by 30. Working together would assist in removing the uncertainty that concerned the noble Earl, Lord Devon. My plea to the Minister is that all the Ministers, in the Commons and here, and the directorates in Defra collaborate in the way that the three ALBs I mentioned are collaborating on the ground at operational level.

As the Government look to create three new national forests and nine new river footpaths, deliver the best possible nature recovery programmes in ELMs and revise their EIP targets, can we ensure, for example, that the forests link in with existing SSSIs, national nature reserves or landscape recovery projects to create wildlife corridors which are more joined up and protected, as my noble friend Lord Gascoigne suggested? Our national forests could also be part of our 30 by 30 targets, as well as the ELM and landscape recovery schemes, provided they meet the criteria. The take-up of schemes for landscape recovery has been incredibly excellent and is beginning to make a real difference for nature recovery: that is farmers volunteering to farm for food and nature. A time may soon come when these could also be included in our 30 by 30 target, provided that they meet the quality thresholds.

Let me conclude on this note: the one area where the Government cannot blame the Tories—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

Is there just one?

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

There is more than one, but one area is our Environment Act, which has given us the tools for nature recovery for the first time in our history. I invite all colleagues to look at Sections 98 to 116, which include “Biodiversity gain”, the “duty to conserve and enhance” nature, “Local nature recovery strategies”, “Species conservation strategies”, “Protected site strategies”, controlling tree felling and “Habitats Regulations”. Add in “Conservation Covenants” in Part 7 and the ELM schemes from the Agriculture Act and we have the greatest raft of measures for nature recovery that this country has ever seen. As nature recovers in those areas, then they can become protected and could qualify for 30 by 30. I suggest to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that these powers are better than the new commission she suggested, but I do wish her a speedy recovery for her trusty right boot, provided it is not used on me.

Indeed, the Labour manifesto, on page 58, calls it “our Environment Ac.t” I did not expect it to say, “Michael Gove’s brilliant Environment Act”, but what I take from that wording is that they will tweak the EIP targets and tweak some other things, but they will not undermine the excellent new levers in our Environment Act. Let us use every lever in that Act, not just to bend the curve on nature loss, but to achieve real, sustained and progressive recovery of nature in this country.

Pet Abduction Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 10th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to give my full support to my noble friend’s excellent Bill, and I look forward to getting it on the statute book. I like that the word used is “abduction” and not “theft”, since theft is of an inanimate object; “abduction” is the right word here to describe other intelligent living things.

However, I have a number of concerns. In the other place, my honourable friend Sir Christopher Chope made the fairly valid point that there were 130,000 motor vehicle thefts and 2,000 dog thefts in 2022, and the police were not very good at catching the criminals involved in the organised theft of motor vehicles and therefore might not be very good at catching those abducting pets either. I would like to hear from my noble friend and from the Minister what steps will be taken to emphasise to the police that, while a cat may cost a fraction of the cost of a Range Rover, the devastation to the owners of a lost, stolen or abducted pet is infinitely greater than the cost of 20 Range Rovers.

While I support the Bill, I will want to move some amendments in Committee. Take the penalties. Theoretically, they are quite good,

“not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court”,

which could be up to 12 months and an unlimited fine or, if tried on indictment, up to five years in prison. But that will never happen, because once the rather wet, woke, liberal Sentencing Council produces its sentencing guidelines, no one will get the maximum; the average sentence will be watered down to a few hundred pounds, and the fine will not be paid, just as happens with lots of other sentences we pass in this Parliament. I plan to move an amendment stating that abducting a pet will be a summary offence in the magistrates’ court and the fine will be £5,000 irrespective of ability to pay. Where it is organised gangs, or two or more people acting in concert, then it should be tried on indictment with a set fine of £20,000 and 12 months’ imprisonment—and nothing less. If there is cruelty involved, it should be five years’ imprisonment and nothing less.

Some other amendments are also necessary. I want to make exceptions to some of the abduction offences. I have been privileged to serve as deputy chairman, under the brilliant Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, as he has delivered on the superb policies in the Environment Act—the brainchild of Michael Gove, assuredly the finest Secretary of State for the Environment we ever had. The Addison rules forbid me speaking about Natural England, but I can refer to Tony’s article last month that said that we are on track for the greatest recovery of nature on a landscape scale that we have ever had. However, in relation to this Bill, I want to praise what he said on the BBC last week: that cats allowed outside should have a collar with a bell to reduce the massive killing of wildlife that they do. All independent studies suggest that cats that are allowed to wander at will kill about 260 million mammals per annum in the UK and 60 million garden birds. Of course, there are other predators killing animals and birds, as letters in the Telegraph this week have pointed out, but the contribution from roaming cats is massive and unnecessary. Studies by three UK scientists, published in the Applied Animal Behaviour Science journal, show that in the UK cats with bells killed 34% fewer mammals and 41% fewer birds. We need every measure we can have to preserve our declining garden birds, so I would seek to make collars with bells compulsory for cats allowed outside.

I would go further and ban cat flaps completely. The organisations the Mammal Society and Garden Bird point out that it is natural behaviour for cats to hunt and kill mammals and birds, but the prime time is sunset and dusk, when birds are feeding. They suggest that, if you want to let your cat outdoors, you should let them out only after the sun has risen and before it sets. There is no justification whatever for cat owners taking a laissez-faire attitude and letting their cat go in and out when it pleases. Do not call yourself a cat lover if you have no idea where your cat goes at night, where it can be attacked or run over, catch fleas and diseases and kill precious wildlife. Over the last 30 years, the Americans have completely changed their behaviour over letting cats outside. Some 70% of UK cat owners let their cats roam outside, but only 10% of United States cat owners do this, because they consider it risky and neglectful to do so—and I agree.

My amendment will make it not an offence for anyone to abduct a cat which is in a public place outside its home. The abductor would have to take it to an animal refuge, charity or shelter, or he would then be committing an offence. Do not tell me that that is interfering with the natural behaviour of cats. How natural is it for people to give them processed cat food or put down litter trays, groom them and give them veterinary care? I passionately support those interventions and, as a devoted cat lover, I say: keep your cats in at night, feed them properly and do not let them kill birds in your garden, or anyone else’s garden—especially my garden.

I also want to make a major exception to Clause 3 on other animals commonly kept as pets. The trouble is that this definition is very vague. I turn to the Defra guide to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. Annexe A on page 29 attempts to define “normally domestic” and “normally non-domestic” animals. Unfortunately, it begins:

“The Secretary of State is not in a position to give an authoritative statement on which animals fall into the ‘normally non-domestic’ and ‘normally domestic’ categories ... However, an informal view on the more common cases that have caused uncertainty is set out below”.


It lists five categories and, leaving aside farm animals in the normally non-domestic category, these are: dogs, cats, rabbits, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, and other species most of us would say are commonly known as pets. Columns three and four list animals which are wild but may be farmed, such as bison, ostriches, buffalo and wild boar. We would not normally consider them to be pets. However, it is column five that concerns me. It lists every other wild animal, including dangerous invasive species, which some misguided and foolish people keep as pets.

In February, the Born Free organisation published a big study conducted in 2023. It says:

“The staggering fact that there are nearly three thousand wild creatures classified as ‘dangerous’ under UK law, being kept as ‘pets’ across Britain, is of great concern to Born Free. The keeping of such animals threatens the safety of people and other animals, and results in considerable animal suffering. Unlike domesticated animals, which have been bred over generations to live alongside humans, these wild animals have complex physical, psychological, nutritional, social, and environmental needs which cannot be met by a life in captivity. As a result, these, often threatened, creatures can suffer poor health and psychological damage. Increased demand for exotic ‘pets’ also puts pressure on wild populations of many already threatened species”.


That includes 400 venomous snakes, which is far more than we have in our zoos.

Do we want a repeat of dangerous and invasive species being released into the wild when the owners get fed up with them or cannot cope? Have we not learned from the disaster of grey squirrels and African bullfrogs? Some morons are now even importing racoon dogs from the United States. Just look at all the species in the Schedule to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976; there is not a single one that any individual should be permitted to keep at home. Attitudes on how we keep wild animals have changed in the last 48 years. If my noble friend cannot withdraw the licences and ban these species in ordinary houses in the UK, I shall try an amendment permitting anyone to abduct these species and take them to a proper licensed zoo.

I regret—in the few seconds I have left—that we did not go far enough with the regulations on keeping primates. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, was right. We should not license private individuals to keep primates. Sometimes, I think that even some of our best zoos are borderline on giving them the sort of habitats they need. If we have difficulty finding the right habitat for lynx in Kielder Forest, how in the name of God can some people keep lynx at home?

So, with these few simple additions that I would like to make to my noble friend’s Bill, I repeat that I fully support it. It is an excellent Bill and I commend it to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I start by putting on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Black for supporting this important Bill. He is a great champion of animal welfare overall, and I know he has followed the discussions on today’s topic particularly closely. I am delighted that he has chosen to steer this Bill through the House. I know it will be in safe hands, in the animal Parliament that he described.

There are more than 20 million cats and dogs in the country, and over a quarter of households own at least one of these animals. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bakewell, both spoke passionately about the companionship and friendship that animals bring. In my own home in Scotland, there are always four happy faces and wagging tails there to greet me when I return from a week here in London.

The Government strongly support this Bill, which represents another important step in our progress on animal welfare. It delivers one of the key recommendations from the Government’s pet theft taskforce. This cross-government group was convened in 2021 in response to an apparent rise in pet theft during the Covid pandemic, at a time when many households decided to buy or adopt a new pet.

We understand the devastating impact that the theft of a pet can have. While stealing an animal is already an offence, the fact that the item stolen is a live animal is not explicitly recognised by existing theft offences. The Pet Abduction Bill changes that by making abduction of a cat or a dog a specific offence in England and Northern Ireland. The intention is that this Bill will allow the courts to place greater focus on the impact on the welfare of the animal as well as the interests of its owner when deciding on the appropriate penalty in an individual case. It also allows pet abduction cases to be recorded and therefore traced, to help inform the scale of the issue, a point raised by a number of noble Lords this morning.

The Bill focuses on cats and dogs, given their status as the most popular pets. However, we recognise the value of other pets. The Bill includes an enabling power that will allow the Secretary of State in respect of England, or the Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in respect of Northern Ireland, to introduce similar bespoke offences for other species commonly kept as pets, if there is evidence of the need for this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about repatriation across devolved Administrations. I hope that we will not get to that—the devolved Administrations have similar plans to introduce this type of legislation, and we are working closely with them.

As my noble friend Lord Black has already eloquently outlined, the abduction offences differ between cats and dogs, in that the cat abduction offence is limited to the taking, only, of cats. This reflects the lifestyle differences between cats and dogs, with cats often roaming independently and enjoying the odd nap on someone else’s sofa—perhaps not the sofa of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as it will be full of mice, although that might be why they would go there—or a bite to eat from a different feed bowl. Simply feeding someone else’s cat will generally not be an offence. However, one can imagine cases where someone deliberately uses food or other tactics as a means of taking a cat. It is right that the Bill allows flexibility for those cases to be tried as pet abduction. This difference also strikes the right balance in not wanting to discourage people from looking after stray cats that need their help. Animal welfare organisations such as the RSPCA, Cats Protection and Battersea have excellent information available on what people should do if they find a cat that they believe is a stray. There are also clear legal requirements around what people must do when they find a stray dog, both in England and Northern Ireland. In both countries, this includes a requirement to involve the local area’s authorities.

The offences in the Bill will not apply in certain situations where disputes about the ownership of a dog or cat are likely to arise between members of a household when they separate and cannot agree on which member should be allowed to keep the dog or cat. This approach reflects one of the findings of the pet theft taskforce—that reports to the police of pet theft were sometimes linked with divorce cases. By excluding these types of cases, the Bill will rightly prevent attempts to use the new offence to address household disputes about pet ownership.

My noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Holmes asked about the police taking seriously the unlawful taking of pets. The public rightly expect police to respond when a crime is reported to them, working with partners across the criminal justice system to see more criminals charged and prosecuted. Police forces across England and Wales have committed to pursuing all lines of inquiry when there is a reasonable chance that it could lead to them catching a perpetrator or solving a crime.

My noble friends also raised a number of points around sentencing. This Bill is designed to deal with the unscrupulous people who abduct a cat or a dog. The maximum sentence attached to this crime will be up to five years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. This is the same as the maximum term for animal welfare offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. I hear what my noble friends say, but I feel it is right that the maximum penalty aligns with other serious animal welfare offences in this way.

In response to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond’s points about guide dogs, they are very much in the scope of the dog abduction offence. The Bill applies to dogs as a species and does not distinguish between types of dogs. When dealing with an offence, the courts already have a broad range of sentencing powers to deal effectively and appropriately with offenders. In deciding what sentence to impose, the courts take into account the circumstances of the offence and any aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra rightly pointed out that the popularity of pets is subject to trends. The wording of the enabling power allows it to remain relevant over time, even if the pet-keeping practice changes. The assessment of whether such animals can be considered to be a species commonly kept as a pet for the purposes of this Bill would form part of the consideration to engage the Bill’s enabling power. That power is further restricted by the Government’s duty to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before making legislation. In addition, any such legislation is subject to the affirmative procedure. The House will therefore have the opportunity to scrutinise the rationale for adding to or removing from the Bill any particular species, should that power be used.

My noble friend Lord Blencathra also raised the issue of cats predating on songbirds—but perhaps not the cat of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in this case. My officials met the SongBird Survival charity recently. They heard about research by the University of Exeter, which showed that owners can reduce their cat’s hunting by adjusting their cat’s diet or by spending short periods playing with them. SongBird Survival’s education campaign, run jointly with Cats Protection, aims to spread awareness of how to reduce cat hunting this spring. We look forward to continuing our engagement and hearing the outcome of this campaign.

Before I finish, I want to touch on the issue of microchips, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and my noble friend Lord Black, when he spoke very eloquently about Clooney, the Siamese who disappeared from his owner’s garden in Norfolk. My noble friend referenced Clooney’s microchip and the fact that it had been scanned and checked while Clooney was missing from his home, but that, heartbreakingly, his owner had not been made aware. Microchips are the best way to reunite people with lost and abducted animals. The microchipping of dogs has been compulsory in England since 2016, and for even longer in Northern Ireland. From 10 June this year, cats in England that are older than 20 weeks will need to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database. There is abundant evidence that microchipping works to bring animals home, which is why it is so sad to hear that in Clooney’s case it did not work.

To conclude, the Government are committed to this Bill. We have further strengthened this commitment during the passage of the Bill through the other place by adding the commencement date for these offences in England into the Bill. They will enter into force here three months after Royal Assent. This Bill addresses an issue that campaigners have long been calling for. I am grateful for the support from the many animal welfare organisations and individuals. This Bill also further strengthens our already strong track record on animal welfare, something that I know noble Lords rightly feel strongly about. I thank noble Lords for their considered contributions to this debate; it is clear that this is a subject close to people’s hearts. I too express my hope that we can work together to get this Bill on to the statute book by the summer—and in time for my noble friend’s birthday.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

In view of my noble friend’s assurances that the Government will not allow willy-nilly any species to be classed as a commonly kept pet, and if he continues his work in Defra discussing how cat owners can make sure that their cats are not killing too many songbirds or others in the garden, I can give the House an assurance that I may be persuaded not to move any amendments.

[Lord Douglas-Miller (Con)]

My noble friend is very kind.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 7th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Taverne. We are having problems, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thank my noble friend the Minister for his sterling work over the last seven days in Committee, for his incredible stamina, and for his courtesy and politeness when replying to debates. I will be very brief, since the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has set out very clearly and convincingly the essential case for permitting gene editing as soon as we are free of the EU, very ably supported by my noble friend Lord Ridley, who also made a thoroughly learned speech.

Did we not hear passionate speeches last week on controlling the use of pesticides? Gene editing will give us crops which will not need pesticides because they will be pest-resistant. I passionately believe in growing more of our horticultural crops and a lot more under glass. That is expensive, but what if we could double the yield of tomatoes grown under glass? That has been achieved by Professor Lippman in the United States with just one type of tomato. We can do that with all crops, vegetables and fruits, increasing yields, making them more pest- and drought-resistant. We might be able to make them more water-resistant so that we do not lose so many thousands of tonnes of potatoes, as we did in the wet autumn of last year.

Imagine the health potential of crops which are more nutritious, sweeter but with less sugar or gluten, crops which ripen with less heat or sunshine or mature in a shorter period. The potential, as described by my noble friend Lord Ridley, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and other noble Lords, is enormous. This will be the next agricultural revolution and the UK can be in the lead in Europe and the world once again. Our crop geneticists will also overtake America once we are freed from the dead hand of the EU. Those who argue that we still need the EU court controlling our affairs should remember that it was the EU court which ruled that gene editing should be governed by the same controls as genetic modification, a decision that made no sense in science, morality or logic.

I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment, and, if the wording is not perfect, that they will bring forward a government amendment on Report.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I too rise with some trepidation after the contributions from luminaries with such vast experience, for whom I have tremendous respect.

In his first speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister set out his priorities for government. He outlined the role that genetically modified crops could play in our future:

“Let’s start now to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bioscience sector from anti-genetic modification rules, and let’s develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”


Given that statement, it is surprising that this amendment was not introduced in the other place when the Bill was debated there. Did the Prime Minister not trust his fellow MPs and colleagues to pass the amendment?

In November 2017 the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, ruled out allowing more GM foods in the UK. However, negotiations for a free trade deal with the US are expected to include a push for loosening restrictions on GM foods in the UK to create a market for US GM crops. The cultivation of GM crops is currently banned in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 6th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 23rd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Naseby [V]]

My Lords, I have a different point of view. I was brought up in Bedfordshire for much of my life. At one point I was a consultant to Fison’s Agrochemicals. We are not just talking about the generic term “pesticide”, which conjures up images of locusts doing this, that and the other, we are talking about insecticides, fungicides, herbicides or weed killers, and we need to differentiate between them.

I want to make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. First, nobody should be spraying in windy conditions so that children in a back garden are somehow drenched. That particular farmer is way outside the code of conduct and he would not be doing any good for his employer because the spray would not be going on to the crops it was designed for. Secondly, if you live in a village—I live on the edge of one—you know that most people have gardens and use some form of pesticide for the various problems in a garden. Ordinary consumers are reasonably well briefed. They read the instructions on the container. They know they may or may not have to mix, and it is fairly rare to mix two chemicals. In most cases, you pour 20 millilitres, or whatever it may be, into 2 litres of water. You make sure that the container is clean and that the sprayer is working properly. Quite frankly, the idea that people living in rural villages have no idea about pesticides is a myth.

We have only to go back to the 1960s when the British Agricultural Association had a code of conduct; I have the old booklet here somewhere. Over time, that code has been improved immeasurably. Furthermore, the scientific work that is done on agrochemicals is every bit as thorough as that done on medicines, medical trials and so on. If there is a failure in the use of spraying somewhere in the UK, that farmer should be jumped on, but most of the farmers I know are careful.

I live next door to the RSPB. It and others have done a wonderful job of restoring birds in the countryside in co-operation with British farmers. Spraying is altered to suit particular bird species. Along with granddaughter I have been to RSPB briefings recently and you cannot help but be impressed by the way the industry is working with those who are trying to look after our wild birds. I say to my noble friend that this is all very nice. If pesticides are used properly, I do not think that people are dying. I do not think that any harm is being done to them. Further, let us not forget that this is not the year in which to make dramatic changes to any sector of agriculture. This is the year of transition. It is a year where we need to move forward smoothly to ensure that our dear farmers can take on board changes that are being forced on them without having to muck about with whether less herbicide x or fungicide y should be used here or there.

I shall say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that he may not be 100% popular but, for my money, he should strongly resist both these amendments.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Naseby, especially since I agree with so much of what he has said. On this occasion, however, I regret that I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I shall be brief because I am conscious that I must leave time for those colleagues who wish to speak on every single amendment. Where I take issue with my noble friend Lord Randall is on the words, “application” and “any pesticide”. I have made this point previously so I need not go into the detail, but we must not demonise all pesticides if they are no threat to humans, animals and wildlife, and if they are applied properly, as my noble friend Lord Naseby has just said. I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall that I do not want to see clouds of aerosol spray wafting across fields and settling on people, animals and buildings outside the intended zone, even if that spray is just soapy water, and I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said in his moving introduction to this amendment. It is just not acceptable for people anywhere to be sprayed with any substance, no matter how harmless, from agricultural activities.

As a former MP for a rural constituency with lots of villages, I deplored incomers who would complain about cowpats on the road, but everyone is entitled to a pesticide spray-free environment. However, we are now getting the technology that can permit the micro-application of tiny amounts of pesticide. The chemical is not sprayed over everything, but is applied to the individual weed. I used to use Roundup in the garden because it was an excellent pesticide, but latterly I applied it by touching just one leaf of the weed with a tiny bit of it on a sponge attached to the end of a cane. That is the poor man’s garden method of micro-application. Farmers cannot do that over vast acreages, but I do not want to see a blanket ban on all pesticides, however safe and however applied, as the amendment suggests. The technology is coming onstream to permit the safe application of small amounts of pesticide directly on to weeds. They are of crucial importance and they cause no harm to people, food or the environment.

[Lord Greaves]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, in this Committee, not least because I am mesmerised by the picture of that wonderful mountain, Blencathra, in the background while he speaks. I have a terrible problem listening to what he is saying because I am remembering wonderful days out on Blencathra. I congratulate him on a common-sense speech. It saves me having to try to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

I wanted to add my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, because it is a cross-party amendment and I thought there should be a Liberal Democrat on it, but the list was full, so I added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness instead. They are both sensible amendments with which to pursue this debate. In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, concentrated mainly on the problems for residents who are subjected to spraying, whether it is done in ideal conditions or whether it is being done in accordance with the instructions on the packet. That the health of too many people is suffering as a result of this is pretty well established. Many of us have had letters before this Committee with individual instances and anecdotes. As someone once said, anecdote is the singular of data, and there is enough of it around.

It is also a problem for people who visit the countryside and use footpaths that are not adjacent to fields but are around the field margins or across the middle of the field. At the very least, we ought to be moving to a situation where notices are put up. Farmers may say that is an imposition, but it is not. During the recent Covid lockdown, loads of farmers put up notices asking people to behave sensibly and to keep away from their houses. Some very sensible notices were produced by the NFU which showed how farmers could comply with the access law and at the same time ask people to behave sensibly when they—we—were walking on their land, so it can be done. A requirement for sensible signage during the periods when spraying is taking place telling people what is going to be sprayed is only sensible so they can watch out. People go walking in the countryside for their health, and they do not want to walk through clouds of poison.

I support both these amendments and hope that the Government will find a way of adding a provision to the Bill on Report.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, the last time that I can remember being called to speak by the noble Baroness the Deputy Speaker is when she was chairman of Lancashire County Council and I was a somewhat dissident member on the back benches. The reception and politeness that I have found in your Lordships’ House since I came here a long time ago is of an altogether greater level than the shouting and ranting I got in Lancashire County Council from time to time. Noble Lords can decide whether they ought to be a bit more robust when I speak—I do not know.

I spoke in the debate last Thursday afternoon about what I might have said today on this amendment, so I will not repeat it. I was accused of being gloomy by the Minister and one or two other people; I thought I had perhaps gone a bit over the top—in a Lancashire County Council sort of way—until I read Hansard. Having read Hansard, I thought that what I said was rather good, but Hansard sometimes has that effect on what noble Lords say in this Chamber.

I very much support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said this afternoon. I understand the point that my noble friend Lord Teverson and others are making about the need to get on with transforming agriculture and the countryside in this country for ecological reasons and climate change and so on. Nevertheless, the thought that this new, extremely complex, top-down system of working out what people are paid for, with individual assessments of every farm and three tiers that have to be linked together, will be carried out by the Rural Payments Agency fills me with dread. I say to the Government—in a friendly way, because I do want this to succeed—that, in modern parlance, it is a huge car crash rushing over the horizon. We will see. It requires huge resource, effort and ability to introduce large, complex computer-based schemes, which British Governments—not just this Government—are not terribly good at doing. I say no more about it.

I was very pleased indeed to put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Again, the particularly small hill farms are the main concern here. As I said on another amendment, which now seems a long time ago in this Committee, unless these farmers get a considerable amount of subsidy, which not only allows them to do things that are desirable environmentally and for the landscape but to carry out their basic job of hill farming and make at least some profit from it, they will simply go out of business. I do not believe that the Minister and the Government have, so far, explained how such farmers will survive under the new system and continue to do their farming. We all know how the sheep farming system in particular works in this country: the people who rear sheep in the lowlands require the sheep to come down from the hills; it is all pretty integrated. If the hill farms close down and stop keeping their sheep, it will have an effect right across the industry and the country. The most important thing is that the hill farmers themselves get the support they need for their own benefit and the benefit of their communities and landscapes.

Can the Minister explain how the new system will do this, when it is supposed to provide only for what are known as public goods and is not meant to be a production subsidy? I do not see how hill farms can continue unless a significant part of the money they get from public funds is, in effect, a production subsidy, whether or not the Government disguise it as something else.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register. It is a pleasure to the follow the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and in relation to his comments on Hansard, I tell him, and indeed the whole Committee, that I once asked the late Lord Armstrong, who I rate as one of our greatest ever Cabinet Secretaries, “Robert, when you wrote up the Cabinet minutes, did you write what the Minister said or what he thought he had said?” He told me, “Oh, no, David. I wrote what the Minister would have said if he had thought of saying it.” I sometimes wish Hansard would do the same with my speeches.

I oppose the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, in that the seven-year period should not be reduced to five. However, he is right to draw attention to the importance of CBD15 next year. It is every bit as important as COP26. Indeed, in a sensible world, there would not be two conventions but one, since they are inextricably linked. Habitat loss leads to more carbon and more zoonotic diseases as animals are forced closer to humans. However, that is not for this Bill. I think Defra has got the seven-year period right, and so has my noble friend Lord Randall; moving the deadline does not necessarily buy us more time.

This is the greatest and most exciting change in British agriculture since 1970. I am old enough to remember those UK White Papers produced by the ministry of ag, fish and food—MAFF, an excellent department, if I may say so—such as Food from Our Own Resources, which exhorted us to “produce, produce, produce”. One of the many excellent things about leaving the EU is that we will once again be able to design plans to produce food from our own resources and protect the environment at the same time. But let us not pretend it will be a simple change. Studies on ELMS are being undertaken, and the three tiers are being designed, but it will be a mega change for UK agriculture.

The EU system of giving every farm money based on acreage is simple, but utterly wrong, yet giving farmers payments for undertaking environmental land management schemes is infinitely more complicated; farmers need time to adjust, and Defra needs time to tweak the schemes. Of course, we want rid of the perverse EU payments system as soon as possible, but I prefer to take seven years and get it right than five years and get it wrong.

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as stated in the register. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggests in Amendment 130 that the period of the first plan should be five years rather than seven years. In Amendment 142, he seeks to reduce the seven-year transition period, during which the direct payments scheme will be phased out, to five years. Farmers are already anxious about how their business models will have to change, and would not welcome the shortening of the transition period. Particularly because they do not have enough information on the new scheme, the noble Lord’s amendment is unwarranted and would be damaging.

However, there is considerable merit in Amendment 143 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, in that the seven-year transition period should start 18 months from now, rather than six, which would give more time for the Government to work out the details of the scheme, and would be neutral in terms of costs to the Exchequer.

The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in Amendment 144, is right to seek to ensure that payments under the new schemes compensate for the reduction in and ultimate removal of payments under the direct payments scheme. But I think his intention to limit the reduction in total support to 25% is rather modest. I believe direct payments for larger farms are set to be reduced by 25% in 2021, and the noble Lord’s amendment would still permit this to happen, even if such a farm receives zero under the countryside stewardship scheme and other current schemes. As I said previously, the larger farming businesses employ the majority of agricultural workers.

I would not support Amendment 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, except in so far as it equates to Amendment 143 to delay the changes by one year. The seven-year transition period is not too long, given the extent of the changes farmers will need to carry out.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, seeks to use this Bill to advance her concerns regarding animal welfare, but I cannot agree with her Amendment 147, which assumes that animal welfare standards are higher or lower, whereas different standards may produce different outcomes, and it is a fine balance. I regret that I do not see the justification for supporting her Amendments 147, 148 or 154.

My noble friend Lady Rock has eloquently explained the reasons behind her Amendments 150 and 151. I can see that where moneys are unspent, the amount provided in a subsequent year might increase if the Government accept carryover procedures. As for her Amendments 152 and 153 on delinked payments, they seem to provide an improvement to the Bill.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 16th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is an honour to have participated in the debates today. They have been informed by the wisdom and farming experience of noble Lords who collectively have farmed this country and made our land what it is with over 1,000 years of experience between them. I refer to two Dukes, four Earls, a Viscount—and of course we Barons, who are 10 a penny. As a Scot, I might be right in saying that the nobility of Dundee and Montrose have about 1,000 years of experience of farming in Scotland between them.

However, tonight, I want to commend in particular a Baroness, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her words of wisdom. We do not need a new ADAS; the best advisory service on nature-friendly farming, the environment, wildlife and ELMS is Natural England, and I declare my interest, as per the register, as a member of its board.

I did not seek to speak after the Minister, my noble friend Lord Gardiner, at the conclusion of his last wind-up but, wearing my hat as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I stress that the codes of practice that he referred to should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny simply via the negative procedure. Far too much government guidance and far too many codes that avoid parliamentary scrutiny are coming out, imposing possibly quite severe consequences for business and subjects. Parliament should have a chance to look at those codes.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and I often agree on things—to our joint consternation—but on this amendment I disagree with her. I trust and have trusted the Government, the Secretary of State and his predecessor before him when they have said that the Government will spend the same amount on supporting British agriculture, although by different means, as has been spent under the EU regime. I passionately support maintaining the same level of funding.

I am afraid that it is a bit naive of us, and it is also fairly meaningless, to try to put that commitment on the face of the Bill, since it guarantees nothing. If a Chancellor of the Exchequer wanted to reduce the amount in the future, a simple amendment in the Finance Bill would negate such a provision and remove this clause. If it were possible to tie the Treasury’s hands to a future level of funding when passing a Bill, the statute book would be awash with such Acts of Parliament. I am confident that the Government will honour the promises they have made and that there is no need for this amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]]

My Lords, this group also deals with funding and the snappily titled “multi-annual financial assistance plans”. We have heard much about the level of funding that the Government are guaranteeing for the farming community. This is set at £2.8 billion. It sounds sufficient, but exactly what it is proposed to cover is unclear. Many of the amendments that we debated on the first day in Committee sought to ensure that certain aspects of our agriculture were included in that funding.

Many noble Lords have spoken in favour of Amendment 105. Payments to farmers should definitely arrive on time. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is seeking to ensure that the overall financial assistance is not reduced and that no more than 5% of this assistance is spent on administration and consultancy. I am sure that we have all had experience of the costs of consultancy spiralling out of control. My noble friend Lord Greaves referred to this. The Government will have difficulty in reining consultancy back once it has begun. Similarly, it is important that any funds unspent in one year are carried forward to the next and future years, rather than being returned to the Treasury, when they will likely be lost to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, drew attention to that. Can the Minister give us some reassurance that this will happen?

The question of public access to farmland, water and woodland, and how it will be funded and monitored, was raised by my noble friends Lady Scott of Needham Market, Lord Addington and Lord Greaves, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. This is also extremely important for the health, well-being and enjoyment of the public in general. It is necessary to understand how the plan will work to deliver public good in this area.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Lords Chamber

Debate on Amendment 29 resumed.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, for all amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as on the register.

When we concluded last Thursday, we had heard some excellent speeches on nature-friendly farming and agroecology, and I will comment on the amendments in this group that speak about those subjects. They are not the same thing, as I recall my noble friend Lord Caithness saying in his speech. As an aside, he also mentioned an anecdotal indicator that highlights the severe decline in our biodiversity. Like him, I cannot recall when I last saw bugs or moths squashed on my car windscreen—at least 20 years ago. Where there are no bugs and beasties, birds will be in decline also.

I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kept referring to “nature-friendly farming” in her excellent speech. I have had the benefit of looking at examples of farms in the agroecology network and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and, while both do excellent work, it is important that we get it right if we build either of these terms into legislation.

I am grateful to my friend Professor Michael Winter of Exeter University, the UK-renowned expert on this subject, who is also on the board of Natural England. He has briefed me as follows: “There is a significant difference between the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Agro-Ecology. The Nature Friendly Farming Network is a broad grouping that includes organic and the Linking the Environment And Farming the LEAF/integrated approaches. Agro-ecology dates back to the 1980s and the term was coined by a Chilean scientist (now a professor at Berkeley) called Miguel A. Altieri. It is resolutely organic and anti-GM, and closely linked to the food sovereignty movement. In the UK, agroecology has been adopted by the Landworkers’ Alliance. There are many things to commend agro-ecology but it is not easily compatible with mainstream broadacre UK agriculture, and I am sceptical about the hegemony of organics and the wholesale opposition to mainstream food retailers.”

Professor Winter goes on to say: “I advocate three things in this space: 1) more policy attention and encouragement to agro-ecology as just one part of the tapestry of ensuring faming becomes more nature-friendly; 2) a pragmatic acceptance that most UK agriculture for the foreseeable future is not likely to radically divorce itself from the conventional food chain (as advocated by the Landworkers’ Alliance), and therefore that LEAF/integrated and nature-friendly approaches are needed within the mainstream food system; and 3) the need to encourage research that bridges the gap between the agro-ecology-based approach and the conventional Research Council/Sustainable Intensification approach.” In light of that, I am content that any amendments that mention nature-friendly farming are opposed to those that advocate agroecology, unless they are part of a nature-friendly farming system, which I passionately support.

Finally, I will comment on the speech on pesticides from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which has tempted me to say something. On Thursday, we heard the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He described how new robotic technology now makes it possible for machines to travel down a field and place a tiny drop of pesticide on a single weed leaf and kill it. No pesticide touches the food crop or soil. I do not want Roundup sprayed by aerosol over everything—weeds, food, trees, humans and animals—but we must look again at some of these banned pesticides, if they can be applied in the future in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We must not demonise all pesticides and herbicides. If someone invented a herbicide that killed Japanese knotweed or the fungus that destroys ash trees, would we not grab it with open arms, provided it did not harm humans or wildlife? So let us keep an open mind on pesticides and be prepared to change our mind if the technology changes.

[Lord Burnett (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 38, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. This amendment adds implementation of comprehensive integrated pest and weed management measures, based on an agroecological approach, as an additional criterion for financial assistance.

Before I speak to Amendment 38, I shall say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom the previous speaker referred. She made a compelling and valuable contribution last Thursday evening in support of her Amendment 259. She was powerfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a co-signatory to the amendment. I have considerable sympathy for the principle of a periodic review of the safety of herbicides and pesticides.

Reverting to Amendment 38, I start by declaring that of course I understand that competition is valuable when it is fair and based on common rules and standards. I think that all noble Lords will agree that British agriculture has high standards of animal welfare, and that farmers and growers strive to protect the environment and our landscape. They rightly strive to produce healthy and safe food, not only for human consumption but also for animal consumption. I remind noble Lords that much of the grain produced in the UK goes toward animal feed, and that some of those animals are slaughtered for human consumption.

The experiences of foot and mouth and, prior to that, BSE vividly illustrate the consequences for individuals and this country when standards are allowed to slip. Our growers produce much-needed high-quality vegetables and fruit for human consumption and, to grow the crops, there has to be a system of pest, weed and disease control. This process should be

“based on an agroecological approach”,

in the words of Amendment 38. Unfortunately, when the transition period ends on 31 December this year, many of our likely new trading partners will not be inhibited from using methods and chemicals that are toxic and potentially damaging to human physical and mental health. These products are also potentially damaging to animal health. Some of them have carcinogenic side-effects. Even exercising rights of way by walking or running near crops sprayed with toxic sprays would be a danger to health from inhalation.

There are reports that British consumers face being exposed to toxic chemicals linked to serious health problems if they buy food imported from, for example, America, under the terms of a new trade agreement being negotiated with the USA. Experts say that supermarkets and restaurants will be flooded with cheap produce that has been sprayed with toxic pesticides which are currently banned in Britain and the European Union. I have seen a list published in a respected national newspaper of 70 pesticides that are widely used in the USA but banned in Britain and the EU.

A Toxic Trade study also shows how US farmers use vast quantities of pesticides compared to producers in Britain. If we allow these products to be imported into this country, the price will include a significantly increased risk to human health, which will be borne by the British consumer. It is my hope that Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House will come together to enact legislation in the Bill to ensure that the British consumer is protected from this threat. With the financial assistance provided for in this amendment and with other statutory provisions, we should go some way to keep our standards high and our food safe.

Finally, the Government have manoeuvred us out of the European Union on terms yet to be agreed. This leaves all businesses scandalously and perilously short of time to plan and prepare. The Government themselves have rightly been manoeuvred away from a reliance on the People’s Republic of China. We are not in a strong bargaining position. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Government comply with the commitments they have repeatedly made to farmers, growers and the public to keep our food safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra [V]]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the wise words we heard last week and today from my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who always brings not only wisdom and farming experience to our debates, but sound common sense, which seems to be a government policy at the moment.

I am afraid that some of the amendments here are misguided in that they talk of farmers producing healthy food. I submit that all food that leaves UK farms is healthy, but it may not be so healthy when it is processed and on the supermarket shelves, exactly as my noble friend Lord Caithness so rightly said.

Many amendments mention the word “food”, but I can see only one with the word “diet” in it. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was the only Peer to mention “diet” until the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned it a couple of minutes ago. There are no bad foods, just very bad diets, yet people keep demonising certain foods which are perfectly okay if eaten as part of a balanced diet or in moderation.

Many years ago, when I and others did winter warfare training in the Cairngorms, we would scoff an enormous fry-up for breakfast, two Mars bars on the top of some mountain and a very big dinner. We would come away half a stone lighter and a lot fitter at the end of a week. We are becoming a nation of inactive, obese blobs, and that is nothing to do with British farmers.

I am perfectly willing to be informed, but I cannot think of anything grown or produced on a UK farm that is intrinsically a bad food of itself. Since we have the tightest controls on pesticides and antibiotics of any country in the world, healthy food leaves the farm gate. Are we to tell farmers to stop growing potatoes because some people eat far too many chips? The chickens and lettuces leaving our farms are healthy, but by the time, say, Pret a Manger has slathered them in mayonnaise—making them taste delicious, I accept—in their giant sub sandwiches, then they are very heavy on the calories.

I do not see any benefit to the environment in trying to stop UK framers producing meat, then flying in avocados from Brazil and almond milk from California. We should concentrate on people’s overall diets and their lack of exercise, and not tell farmers to produce healthy foods, which they already do.

If we want farmers to grow different food, that means getting food manufacturers to create the demand based on what their customers demand. There is no point in farmers growing what noble Lords in this debate have called healthy food if there is no market for it. It is the role of the whole of government—not just Defra, but especially the Department of Health—to attempt to educate the public to change to healthier diets, and I stress “diets”.

Every amendment here concentrates on the production of, rather than the demand for, food. Like it or not, the demand has to come first. Farmers do not need to be encouraged to switch to grains and pulses production. If the supermarkets want more tofu, quinoa or lentils then British farmers will soon find a way to supply it, just as they rapidly moved into growing oilseed rape and linseed as soon as the EU started paying for it. British farmers will rapidly adjust what they produce if the demand is there. I agree with and passionately believe in the need for healthy diets, but that is not the job of British farmers.

[Lord Carrington (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support Amendments 56, 60 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it is so important to encourage the production of food by our farmers in an environmentally sustainable way.

I also believe that farming with new technology will be possible and appropriate in the urban environment, so I very much support Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Industrial farming is moving to farm to fork, which looks more sustainable. Localism and resilience are the current watchwords, but some products, whether fruit or vegetables, can be grown only in hot climates. This is where technology comes in and where Amendment 63 is so important. Vertical, indoor farms are emerging, as fruit and vegetables can be grown in confined spaces, with light, heat and water controlled by technology. This can take place in cities, next to consumers, and, of course, uses less land. The Bill needs to provide for the next generation of farms, whether rural or urban. Look at Singapore, which imports 90% of its food and aims to produce 30% locally by 2030. Much of this is urban, using new technologies. I therefore support these amendments, which provide a setting for food security in the United Kingdom.

Agriculture Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 9th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I now call the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. There is a problem with connecting to the noble Lord. We move on to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.

[Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I think we have all been slightly caught out there. For all the amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as in the register.

I am sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Lucas. While I am in complete agreement about the need to improve agricultural technology, robotics and genetics, I just do not think his amendment is necessary, since my reading of subsection (2) is that it does just that. It says that the Secretary of State may give financial assistance to

“starting, or improving the productivity of, an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity”.

To me, that seems to cover what my noble friend has suggested in his amendment.

I agree entirely with him that we need a huge leap forward in technology, especially in the horticultural sector. I have read that one side-effect of President Trump’s curtailment of cheap Mexican and Latin American labour has been a big increase in robotics and technology in the United States to plant and harvest crops. We need to do exactly the same here. Exciting robotic machines are now being developed in the UK. In swotting up for this amendment, I looked at a recent video showing a machine operating in a vegetable-growing area; it had what I would call very fine fingers or tines knocking out the weeds between the plants but leaving the lettuces completely intact. Technology is the solution, not cheap eastern European temporary workers.

I also look forward to changes in the rules when we leave the EU so that we can do gene editing—not genetic modification, just gene editing. It is terribly important that we move to do that as quickly as we can when we leave the EU. We do not need anything in this Bill to give us the powers to do so.

I cannot support Amendments 43 and 54. These small local community farms do a good job, and they may currently qualify for support under ELMS, but they cannot feed the nation. I do not accept that they can supply up to 80% of the food this country needs. Huge changes are coming to mainstream farm production. I want all Defra’s efforts to be concentrated on the big picture of delivering ELMS and not diverted on to something nice but at the moment irrelevant to feeding the nation. It is quite possible that many of these local enterprises may qualify under the ELM schemes when they are fully developed. We should leave it at that.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 12, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, and Amendment 13, which improves on the original amendment. We confirmed last time that forestry was included in the Bill. Amendment 13 spells this out, making the link between forestry and climate change. We all appreciate that trees have a massive beneficial effect in capturing carbon and climate change. We all want to try to take that forward.

I spoke in the first day of debate on this Bill about trying to open up forest areas for public access. I explained how the Forestry Commission had decided that all its freehold land should give access on foot under the right to roam legislation. Since then, issues have been raised. Could the Minister take these on board and give them some thought, not necessarily today but moving forward? We in the Forestry Commission, as a government department, took the decision to dedicate that land for open access in perpetuity. It has been suggested that, if the land is sold, that right falls. That is not what we thought was the case at the time. What is the case?

This has a bigger implication for how we work and give farmers greater freedom to farm in upland areas, where there is a lot of opportunity for increased tree- planting, which helps the economy of the area and the farm, and helps with climate change. If a piece of land on a hillside, currently subject to the right to roam under the freedom to roam access legislation, is converted to forestry, does that right of access fall? These two examples are quite important, because it might affect how this piece of legislation will help build the future sustainability of upland areas—or not.