Soil Health

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am honoured to be the first person to use the new system. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. Soil is one of our greatest assets; good soil health is essential for food production, biodiversity, carbon storage and flood protection. In April 2018, Defra introduced the farming rules for water, containing measures to prevent soil erosion and improve its management. Defra is funding a range of research, including the Soil Security Programme, which is looking into soil stability, restoration of arable soil quality and understanding and enhancing soil ecosystem services.

[Baroness Boycott]

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. It is very encouraging, but I shall press a little further. Industrial agriculture, which has been the norm for 70 years, damages crucial soil structures through deep ploughing. This reduces natural fertility, which necessitates using an increasing amount of chemicals just to sustain yields. Furthermore, very deep ploughing releases CO_2, which the soil could store naturally. Conservation agriculture, where ploughing is kept to a minimum or stopped altogether, stores carbon while simultaneously limiting or even eliminating the need for chemicals. What steps are the Government taking to support this win-win practice?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this will clearly be a collaborative matter between industry and government. I am very pleased that regenerative agriculture is very much the buzzword among the farming community. The two-day Groundswell conference run by the Cherry family in Hertfordshire shows the energy for reduced or minimum till, herbal leys and winter cropping. All that is an indication of the future and the Government are right behind it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, given the increased evidence of soil degradation in the UK and its importance to the very basics of human existence, why does the Government’s 25-year environment plan not have headline targets for improving soil health with the funding to make it a reality, as recommended by the Natural Capital Committee?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am very pleased to say that research was commissioned in November 2018 to develop soil monitoring. It is being undertaken by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, which will work on healthy soil indicators—included in the 25-year environment plan indicator framework—and a framework for soil monitoring. It is very important that this is done.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, will the Government’s forthcoming environment Bill commit to improving soil health and have the targets and metrics to deliver this?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I just said, one of the research projects is undertaking to have indicators and a framework. Good soil health provides a public benefit. It obviously provides a private benefit to farmers and food producers, but it also produces a very considerable benefit for public good. That is why it is important for it to be part of the testing and trials of the environmental land management scheme.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some of the healthiest soil is that created by a peat bog? Will he pay tribute to those who were alive to the Slowing the Flow at Pickering flood prevention project, part of which was to create a peat bog, which can take up to 200 years to form. Are the Government planning to create more peat bogs as part of the public good, to be announced in due course?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as part of the England Peat Strategy, and the research we are undertaking feeding into it, we are also establishing a lowland agricultural peat task force. The Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change has suggested that there is a loss of peat soils, particularly in the East Anglian fens—where there is big production of food—but I also commend Slowing the Flow at Pickering, another example of what we do in restoring the natural ecosystem and managing flooding.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer, as set out in the register. As the Minister knows, soil is in private ownership unless the land is publicly owned. Accordingly, the Government need to make protection of the soil a public benefit under the Agriculture Bill for their policies to be successful. That entails management and measurement of the actions introduced to improve the soil and the land concerned. As with the technical solutions on the Northern Irish border, farmers are not aware of any tested measurement tools that would achieve this.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, in a number of earlier replies I suggested that work on this is ongoing. A considerable number of farmers across the land are involved in tests and trials, which will be rolled out. In providing public money for public benefits, we need to ensure that they hit the optimum. Obviously, the farmers want the optimum, but in the investment of public money, we also need an optimum in terms of the restoration and enhancement of the environment.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned minimum till in an earlier answer. This frequently involves the extensive use of roundup. Can he tell the House what research is being done on the effects of roundup on the micro-organisms, which are so important to the development of good soil?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Countess is right that part of min-till or no-till is that glyphosate is required because of the accumulation of weeds. We in the department will always act on the best independent scientific evidence available, and glyphosate is on the market because it is deemed safe.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has not mentioned devolution in this connection. Can he make some observations about its importance for the Government’s plans?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I did not raise it because soil is a devolved matter and it will therefore be for the other Administrations to work on this. All I can say is that soil is an asset of great value across the country. In Defra’s collaborations and discussions with all Ministers from all the Administrations, soil and its health are clearly of national interest—by that, I mean for the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, forgive me if this is because of my lack of understanding but when the Minister answered my noble friend Lady Parminter, who questioned whether measures would be included in the Bill, he said a lot of good things about the measures. However, I did not understand whether they were to be in the Bill or not. Can he possibly clarify?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The environment Bill has yet to be published while the Agriculture Bill is in the public domain; it is in the other place. In the payment of public money for public goods, we intend to set out clearly what would be required for that money to be received by landowners and farmers to achieve that public benefit.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords said, it is a shame that the noble Lords concerned were not there at Second Reading, where Members from different Benches raised a number of these issues. I must say, we were very satisfied with the Minister’s answer. We were persuaded that the definition of “circus” would be better dealt with in guidance, and were pleased at his assurance that the guidance will be available before the Bill comes into effect so that circus owners’ responsibilities are absolutely clear in advance. That precisely addressed the issue raised by several noble Lords this afternoon: that if we broaden the definition too much, it includes falconry and county shows, but if we make it too narrow, it imposes a burden on circus owners when managing their circuses. We were persuaded that the definition that has been spelled out here would not be helpful to circus owners in the longer term, so we agreed on this way forward.

The noble Lord mentioned wild animals, which we will come on to when we consider the other amendments. The Bill’s purpose is to deal with wild, not domesticated, animals; we should recognise the difference. On that basis, and with the assurance that I hope the Minister can give us once again, I hope that we can move forward.

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

My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment seeks to introduce a definition of “travelling circus” into the Bill. As has been said, these matters were discussed at Second Reading. My remarks may therefore repeat what I have already said to your Lordships.

We chose not to provide a definition of “circus” in the Bill because we believe that it is better to use its common meaning. We believe that the same principle applies to “travelling circus”. Let me expand on that. We do not believe that a definition is necessary. “Travelling circus” is a commonly used and well-understood term; we do not think that enforcers or the courts will have problems spotting one. In fact, my noble friend Lady Anelay went to the heart of the matter. I think that my noble friend Lord Mancroft may not have envisaged the problem with providing a definition: that it could result in a definition that is too wide and takes in other activities that we do not wish to see banned. Alternatively, it could be drawn too narrowly and provide operators with parameters by which to circumnavigate the ban. A common-understanding approach means that it will always be relevant.

Also, in its pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, the EFRA Committee agreed that we do not need to define “circus”. To assist in clarifying what the legislation will cover, we will draw up guidance; the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady Anelay referred to this. The Scottish Government, who also chose not to define “circus” in their Act, have taken this approach, and we will take a similar one. I can confirm that we will publish guidance to the Bill by 20 November, two months before the ban comes into effect, as I said at Second Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who I have misnamed? It is obviously the shock of agreeing with a Liberal Democrat on the record twice in an afternoon. I apologise to her.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, it is wonderful to be able to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his very kind remarks. I cannot promise it will be the beginning of a new order, but it is rather good to celebrate those moments. I say to my noble friend Lord Swinfen that this legislation is to make provision to prohibit use of wild animals in travelling circuses. I do not see a connection with my noble friend’s mother’s kindness in looking after an orphaned bird. I do not think we can extrapolate that from this legislation, which is specifically about travelling circuses. I imagine that my noble friend’s mother did not have a travelling circus.

Returning to my noble friend Lord Mancroft’s amendments to alter the meaning of “wild animal” proposed in the Bill, rather than an animal that,

“is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain”,

the Bill would only prohibit the use of animals, including birds, which had been living wild before being used in a travelling circus. The term “wild animal” is already well established in English legislation and the Government are content that it will cover those wild animals that we believe should no longer be used in a travelling circus.

The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Anelay were right in saying that the definition of “wild animal” used in the Bill is based on the definitions in the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, which has served us well, and the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. Both pieces of legislation require wild animals to be licensed. I should also say that zebras and camels will be subject to an annual licensing inspection under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. It is worth reminding the Committee that thinking these animals, wherever they have been bred, are somehow like domesticated pets is erroneous.

Consistency between the Bill and the circus licensing regulations is particularly important. We have been clear that the licensing regulations were an interim measure to monitor the welfare of wild animals in travelling circuses while a Bill prohibiting their use was introduced. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, might have said “about time”, but we are now attending to the matter. The licensing regulations are due to expire on 19 January 2020. It is therefore vital that the prohibition in the Bill is enacted by then to ensure those same animals that currently require a licence from Defra can no longer be used in travelling circuses.

These amendments would mean that only animals that had been living in the wild could no longer be used in travelling circuses. Of the 19 wild animals currently under licence to be used in travelling circuses, only one has ever lived in the wild—the fox, which was rescued as a cub. These amendments would therefore allow the other 18 wild animals to continue to be used in travelling circuses, following the expiration of Defra’s current licensing regime, meaning that the monitoring of their welfare alone would be significantly reduced.

Further, these amendments could well see many other wild animals reintroduced into travelling circuses. The majority of wild animals used in circuses around the world are not born in the wild. Many have been bred by circuses themselves over many generations. Training a wild animal needs to begin early in that animal’s life.

These amendments could—again, I do not think that this is my noble friend’s intention—see tigers, lions and elephants return to English circuses, without needing a licence from Defra. We cannot accept that. They would also ensure that animal species we regard as domesticated could be caught by the prohibition. I am not being facetious but I will use a stray dog as an example; where one had been living wild, it would be caught by the definition of “wild animal” in these amendments. It is not the Government’s intention to prohibit the use of dogs in travelling circuses.

It may be helpful if I use this opportunity to clarify what is understood by the term “wild” or “non-domesticated” animal. Even wild animals that have been bred and reared in captivity are still wild animals. When providing evidence to the Scottish Parliament during the passage of the Scottish wild animals in circuses Bill, Dr Dorothy McKeegan, a senior lecturer in animal welfare and ethics at the University of Glasgow, was clear that wild animals in circuses are still wild animals. She said:

“The domestication of animals is not just about captive breeding and sometimes hand rearing but about the behavioural and genetic modification of the animal away from its wild progenitor. That is not going to happen with rearing generation after generation of animals in captivity. These are still wild animals”.


Again, my noble friend Lady Anelay went to the heart of that.

I hope this makes it clear that even when wild animals, including birds, are bred in captivity over several generations they should still be considered “wild”. On that basis, I am not in a position to accept my noble friend’s amendments and I very much hope that he will not press them.

[Lord Mancroft]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has had to say. The idea that the world outside is waiting for the Bill to fail so that it can reintroduce lions, tigers and elephants to travelling circuses is stretching things a little far. It is perfectly clear that whatever the Committee does today, the world of travelling circuses is fading away at its own rate and will be encouraged to fade a bit faster with the Bill.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

For the sake of the record, I understand that among the considerable number of travelling circuses there are only two which use wild animals. This is not the end of travelling circuses and it is important that I should clarify that, so that no other circus operator should see this as an attack on them and their use of other animals, beyond wild animals.

[Lord Mancroft]

I hear what my noble friend says and would not contradict him for a moment. He knows much more about this than me but I suspect that what has happened with wild animals today will undoubtedly move on to domestic animals in future, because that is the way the world is moving. I suspect, too, that my noble friend Lord Swinfen’s jackdaw can presume that it will not have a circus career when it gets old—it is probably past it by now anyway.

One noble Lord, I forget who, talked about the welfare issues. My noble friend made it perfectly clear at Second Reading was that there were no welfare issues with the 19 wild animals mentioned. Of course, if we take away the fox there are not 19 wild animals but 18 because one of them has not become wild over generations; it is in fact a domestic animal. Zebus are domesticated animals everywhere in the world. I do not know whether they are commonly domesticated in Britain. I suspect that it is a lonely and sole zebu; nevertheless, it is a domestic animal and not a wild animal.

My father used to say that one thing you should always do is to sniff the mood of the House. My sniffing today tells me that my arguments have not attracted overwhelming support in your Lordships’ Committee, so it is probably time that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the order of commitment of 19 June be discharged and the bill be committed to a Grand Committee.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Ash Dieback

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to address ash dieback.

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

My Lords, extensive action is being taken on ash dieback. We have restricted the movement of ash trees from other countries and invested more than £6 million in ash dieback research. The UK is coming up trumps and leading on work to identify tolerant trees. We are conducting the world’s largest screening trials and will plant the first UK archive of tolerant trees in 2020. We are advising landowners on how to manage ash dieback and which trees to replant.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his reply, particularly for the encouraging news about ongoing research. Does he agree that neither the Government nor the country as a whole have woken up to the scale of the disaster that is already befalling us? Some of us who were around in the 1950s will remember the wonderful English elm. Ten million elms died of Dutch elm disease; now, only 100 are left. Only in 2012 was ash dieback identified in East Anglia, as a result of the import of a few saplings; it has already gone down to the Gower and up into Scotland. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little more about what success there has been in developing strains of ash that are immune to the disease. If and when such a strain is discovered, will the Government make plans for a massive replanting across the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the ash is a very important tree in our ecosystem, which is why we are investing in trying to find, through science, the best and most tolerant trees. We are planting 3,000 of them, out of hundreds of thousands of saplings, precisely because we recognise that that work must be done. Many research faculties, such as those at Kew, are engaged in the process. It is encouraging that we are learning much more about the genome of the ash, which is much wider than that of the elm. The noble and right reverend Lord is absolutely right—we take this seriously, as we must, because our ecosystem will be in peril if we do not deal with these diseases.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister may recognise that ash dieback is a serious problem but I want to press him further. A load of other diseases are waiting in the wings, some of which will make ash dieback look like a walk in the park. Can the Government tell us what they plan to do to develop an accreditation system for UK-sourced and grown trees, so that the trees we grow in this country are sourced, grown and propagated here, rather than imported? That would address at least one source of disease, if not all of them.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is why our work with the UK plant biosecurity alliance and the Horticultural Trades Association is so important in forming an assurance scheme that is precisely about growing more in Britain and having heightened biosecurity.

[Earl Cathcart (Con)]

My Lords, I have a high percentage of ash on my farm, but so far only a small percentage has been affected, which I find puzzling but gratifying. Given that ash dieback has now spread to all counties, what advice is Defra giving to those with ash on their land?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, a range. Obviously, health and safety issues are hugely important—this is why we are also working with local authorities—but in many parts we are encouraging landowners to retain their ash trees on farms, because that is how we will achieve natural regeneration. It will also highlight where we will find tolerance. It is essential to continue the research into finding the most tolerant strains—particularly bearing in mind emerald ash borer, which is also in Moscow.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the disease knows no boundaries. Responsibility for dealing with ash dieback in Wales lies with Natural Resources Wales. Can the Minister give an assurance that there is maximum co-ordination between his department and Wales on these matters, particularly regarding preventive steps, which he has touched on and could involve considerable expenditure in the light of road safety and associated issues?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Lord is right: it does not respect borders, which is why there was a natural spread across our seas. It is imperative that there is collaboration between all parts of the United Kingdom and, indeed, the Republic of Ireland. It is essential that we see biosecurity as an international challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Parminter]

I thank the Chief Whip. The Minister mentioned local authorities. What are the Government doing to support cash-strapped local authorities, which face huge bills for felling dangerous trees alongside roads and railways and in our towns and cities?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is precisely why we funded, and the Tree Council has published, a toolkit that helps local authorities to manage the effects of ash dieback; it contains guidance and case studies. I congratulate the authorities in Norfolk, Devon, Kent, Suffolk and Leicestershire, which are all working collaboratively. One of the key points is that, as part of the process, they are replanting, particularly in Devon. We are working closely with local authorities and other agencies.

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, as the Minister has already acknowledged, ash dieback is part of the wider biosecurity problem in this country. Can he remind the House what additional measures the Government are taking to promote biosecurity in relation not just to tree diseases, but to all infectious diseases and other organisms that might come into the country?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the whole issue of biosecurity is absolutely essential, which is why we have increased the number of inspectors at borders. It is important that we keep these pests and diseases out and, using the Asian hornet as an example, that we have the readiness, equipment and knowledge to ensure that, if it arrives, we eradicate it immediately. One of the problems is that in the past we have allowed things to establish when we really should have zero tolerance at the very beginning.

Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 May be approved.

Relevant document: 52nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument establishes a ban on the commercial third-party sale of puppies and kittens under six months of age. After six months, the puppy or kitten is then legally classified as a dog or cat.

Under animal activity licensing regulations brought in last year, it is not permitted for anyone to sell a puppy or kitten under the age of eight weeks. During this time, the animal should be in the care of its mother. After eight weeks, it is safe for them to be brought to a new and caring home. However, commercial third-party sales often take puppies and kittens when they are far too young and raise them in inappropriate environments, which evidence shows is damaging to the animal’s welfare. Third-party sellers drive unscrupulous breeding.

This legislation is the next crucial step in eradicating the abuses of unscrupulous breeding, puppy farming and illegal smuggling. This is a continuing part of the Government’s agenda to increase animal welfare in this country. This ban will give puppies and kittens a better possible start in life.

This issue has been brought into higher profile by committed campaigners and has overwhelming public support. It is popularly known as Lucy’s law as a result of the exceptional effort from the Lucy’s law campaign group, to whom I express appreciation. Lucy was a Cavalier King Charles spaniel who died in 2016 after suffering terrible conditions on a puppy farm in Wales. Her plight inspired the Lucy’s law campaign. Welfare organisations big and small, and members of the public, have supported Lucy’s law. This legislation follows a call for evidence and a public consultation which received over 6,500 responses, of which 96% were supportive.

This ban builds on the new licensing regulations which came into force in October 2018, introducing a range of welfare improvements for dog breeding and pet sales. Defra is also updating the statutory guidance for the activity of selling animals as pets to take account of this ban on third-party sales. The changes to the guidance are intended to assist local authority inspectors and licence holders by outlining how they can determine whether a licence holder bred the puppies themselves and clarifying that non-commercial rehoming does not require a licence. The guidance will outline how to distinguish between legitimate rescue and rehoming operations and those that are a front for unscrupulous breeding. Local authorities will also be required to notify existing licence holders of the change so that they can prepare appropriately. The draft guidance has been shared with the sector and will be finalised before the ban comes into force in April 2020.

This statutory instrument implements the third-party sales ban by making an amendment to the parent regulations, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018. The commercial sale of pets is already a licensable activity, and the amendment means that licensed pet sellers, including pet shops and dealers, will no longer be able to sell puppies or kittens under the age of six months unless they themselves have bred the animals. The ban will enter into force on 6 April 2020. The additional time before the ban coming into force will allow the sector to prepare. We believe that, if the ban is rushed, it may encourage the abandonment of puppies and their mothers or other unscrupulous activity.

This statutory instrument applies to England only, because the parent regulations apply in England only. Animal welfare is a fully devolved issue, and the respective parts of the United Kingdom have slightly different approaches to the licensing of pet sellers and other animal activities. I understand that, in Wales, a three-month consultation has recently concluded on banning third-party sales. The Welsh Government are now considering the responses. In Northern Ireland, there is support for a similar ban to be introduced, and officials in DAERA are following developments in England closely. Scotland has committed to reform the licensing of sanctuaries, breeders and pet shops and is considering a ban on third-party sales.

Every year, hundreds of thousands of puppies and kittens are purchased or adopted. Unsuspecting families can often be tricked during this trade by unscrupulous dealers who conduct high-volume, low-welfare operations such as puppy farms and sell via commercial sellers.

--- Later in debate ---

Having said that, we of course welcome these regulations and the Minister’s commitment to remain ever vigilant on these issues for the future. As noble Lords have all said, this issue will not be fully solved by the regulations; they are just one step in the process.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we have had an important and absorbing debate on these matters. I think there is a shared recognition across your Lordships’ House that these are valuable and important regulations. They are a crucial step in furthering the protection of puppies and kittens, but I would be the first to say, as I agree with noble Lords, that they must not be seen in isolation. They are part of a continuum and a continuing process.

I was very struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere. They were a reminder for all of us who have had dogs and cats in our lives of what we owe them and the pleasure and companionship they provide to us. I have used every opportunity available to me to say that animals should not be fashion statements. They need loving, caring homes. One of the important issues arising from the parent regulations was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in a debate some days ago. We should not breed animals from those that have disabilities or disadvantages that mean they cannot have fulfilling lives. That goes particularly for some breeds of cats and dogs. I am very struck by what the noble Lord said.

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that all of us—and by that I mean the whole community—need to be alert and vigilant. Yes, the Government and the local authorities have a responsibility, but people seeking to bring animals into their homes also need to feel a sense of responsibility.

I will seek to answer, in no particular order, as many of the questions as possible. For those that are slightly more intricate, I will of course write.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, opened his contribution by talking about the responsible sourcing publicity campaign, and I particularly want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, that this comprehensive campaign is designed to be a pre-Christmas communication. It is a vital time when families sometimes need to be much clearer that, as we all know, a puppy is for life and is not a statement for Christmas Day to amuse people. A puppy is a responsibility, and people should source their animals, whether puppies or kittens, from responsible breeders and be responsible themselves. The campaign we are launching is therefore aimed precisely at the public to encourage people to have a responsible sourcing mindset. This will ensure that people have no excuse for not knowing where to go to buy a pet. Currently, the best place to source a pet is through one of the nation’s many legitimate rescue and rehoming organisations or, specifically, a licensed breeder.

This leads me on to an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Byford, the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I refer to the rescue and rehoming sector. As we all know, legitimate rescue homes do incredible work rescuing and rehoming thousands of sick, abandoned and stray animals each year. It has been my privilege to visit Mayhew rehoming centre, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Dogs Trust, and Cats Protection, to name a few. I have seen at first hand their commitment to rehoming. It is fundamental that the quality of welfare provided at these rescue organisations is consistent, and I underline “consistent.” Noble Lords and animal welfare groups have expressed concerns about unscrupulous breeders reinventing themselves as rescue centres. We need to be confident of the benefits and the impacts of any regulations placed on the sector, particularly on some of the smaller rescue and rehoming charities, which is why we are actively exploring these issues with all organisations involved. In the meantime—this point is for the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in particular—we have updated the statutory guidance to make clear that those who rehome in the course of running a business are subject to the ban.

My noble friend Lady Byford mentioned commercial sellers. In the guidance to local authorities, there is advice on how to differentiate between commercial breeders and one-off sales. As I said, the guidance is being updated following the statutory instrument.

My noble friend Lady Byford and other noble Lords raised the issue of enforcement. Local authorities lead on implementing and enforcing animal licensing controls and have the power to charge a licence fee that factors in the reasonable costs of enforcement associated with a licensable activity. Defra works closely with local authorities, and the City of London leads on training of local authorities and inspectors.

Perhaps I could have a conversation with the noble Countess, Lady Mar, outside the Chamber about the specific points she raised, but training is clearly essential. This is why we have ensured that the parent regulations reflect the importance of training courses for inspectors. As well as attendance at one of the specialist courses, “suitably qualified” also covers experienced inspectors with prior experience of working as local authority welfare inspectors. The cost of training inspectors can be recovered by the local authorities through the full cost recovery provisions in the parent statutory instrument. As I said, there is ongoing training. I do not have the figures, but I know that this is also work very much in hand. Clearly, we need to have sufficient suitably qualified inspectors. We are raising the bar because we do not resile from the fact that we need to ensure that, when people inspect premises, they know what to look for. That is imperative.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked whether you need two licences to breed and sell puppies. No, the individual who breeds dogs and sells puppies will require only a dog breeding licence, which covers sales as well as breeding.

My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked about working dogs. Under this legislation, working dogs would be allowed to be sold by licensed third parties if the animals are over six months old. This is precisely the point of the statutory instrument: puppies and kittens should no more be sold other than by licensed breeders, with the security of knowing about the mother and so forth. If the puppy is under six months old, the sale would be prohibited. The breeder themselves, of course, would be able to sell the puppies.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Clark and Lord Trees, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones, raised the issue of online sales. Under the licensing arrangements brought in last year, online adverts now have to include a licence number and a picture of the animal in the environment in which it is reared. As I think we have discussed before, we are also continuing to work with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group to improve online advertising standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred in particular to puppy smuggling. This country has one of the toughest pet border regimes in the world. Every pet dog travelling to Great Britain on approved routes has its microchip and passport checked to confirm it is properly vaccinated and is old enough to travel. We clearly now have an opportunity to look at how we can further strengthen our controls to crack down on animal traffickers and put a stop to an abhorrent and illegal trade. We need to work to deter illegal puppy traders by buying puppies only from reputable breeders, seeing the young animal with its mother and checking its health history.

Defra wishes to tackle this matter comprehensively. For instance, we are working closely with the Dogs Trust to continue the work of the Dover puppy pilot. We regularly review our activities at the border to ensure our enforcement work aligns with the threat posed by what is, I am afraid, an evolving trade. Those involved in this trafficking are often involved in other criminal activity. I hate to say it, but we need to be much more in tune and understand that these criminals will move from one trade to another. We are increasing resources for detecting smuggled puppies, and have done so by one-third at major UK ports since 2017. We have also increased our intelligence capability by launching a new dog importation intelligence steering group, co-ordinated by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. It consists of national enforcement agencies such as HMRC, the police and the RSPCA, who form a collaborative partnership to disrupt puppy smuggling. We are also considering stricter penalties for those caught smuggling. Seeing the prosecutions, the fines and the imprisonments, I think that this is the direction of travel needed to ensure that animals are safeguarded from these unscrupulous people.

Responding to be a point raised by my noble friend Lord Lexden and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I fully accept that we committed to introducing the legislation necessary to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment. We are working at the highest level to ensure that the legislation needed to make this change is introduced at the earliest opportunity. I know that I have not given a date or a time, but I assure noble Lords that my department is fully seized of the need for this. Sometimes one cannot get as much done as one would like, but we are stressing the importance of this.

My noble friend Lady Byford raised the point about a non-supportive sample; in fact, it was a very considerable supportive sample, probably much more than for most proposals. There may have been some concern not about the regulations themselves but, as we have discussed, about unscrupulous rescue centres and unintended consequences. We must be alive to that, be pro-active to ensure that we are constantly snuffing these matters out, and develop and evolve policy as required. Sometimes one would like to do these things sooner, but this needed the consultation because we needed to ensure that there were no unintended consequences. None of us would have done a good day’s work if we had brought this in immediately and not got pet dealers well versed in the importance of this, to ensure that there were no adverse consequences to kittens, puppies and mothers in the interregnum.

I assure all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that we will have a comprehensive communications strategy before Christmas. I am sure that my private office team are listening. The campaign we are going to unfold will be put to your Lordships very clearly, so that our good faith in it is held mutually and not just within Defra. In the meantime, I commend the regulations to the House.

Motion agreed.

Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

My Lords, this is a straightforward Bill. It seeks to prohibit the use of wild animals, whether in performances or displays, in travelling circuses. There is strong public opinion in support of this and government consultations in England, Wales and Scotland show that well over 90% of respondents are in favour. This reflects the Government’s view that seeing wild animals in circuses does nothing to further our understanding or conservation of wild animals.

In 1990, there were 20 travelling circuses using over 250 wild animals between them. Now, there are two travelling circuses with 19 wild animals in total—specifically, six reindeer, four camels, four zebras, two racoons, one fox, one macaw and one zebu.

Consideration of this issue arose during debates on the Animal Welfare Bill in 2006. The Government at the time agreed to consider whether it would be possible to bring forward a ban on the use wild animals in travelling circuses under powers in that Bill, now the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Matters moved on and, in 2012, the Government announced their intention to introduce primary legislation on ethical grounds, but as an interim measure they introduced a seven-year circus licensing regime to ensure that a high standard of welfare was secured for any travelling circuses still using wild animals while parliamentary time was found to enact a ban. The regulations were recently reviewed and found to have been successful in safeguarding the welfare of the animals. In their review of the regulations, the Government confirmed that they would not be renewed.

The regulations are due to expire on 20 January 2020, which is why it is critical that we now deliver the commitment in my party’s manifesto. The Bill is essentially a tidying-up exercise following the long-term planning on the part of the Government to prohibit the use of wild animals in travelling circuses.

Clause 1 makes it an offence for a circus operator to use a wild animal in a travelling circus in England. The offence applies only to the operator of a travelling circus; that is, the person with overall responsibility for it. The “use” of a wild animal is defined as both performance and exhibition as part of the circus. This should cover those circumstances where wild animals are put on display by the circus, usually just adjacent to the big top, as well as where the animal performs in the ring.

The penalty for a circus operator found guilty of using a wild animal in a travelling circus is an unlimited fine. Where any evidence is found of a wild animal being mistreated, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 will of course apply, as is currently the case. The Act provides powers to seize animals should there be welfare grounds to do so.

Subsection (5) contains definitions for some of the terms used in Clause 1. “Wild animal” is defined as,

“an animal of a kind which is not commonly domesticated in Great Britain”.

This is based on the definitions used in the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 and the Welfare of Wild Animals in Travelling Circuses (England) Regulations 2012. The guidance to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 sets out clearly which animals should be regarded as wild or domesticated, and we intend to take a similar approach in guidance.

To clarify, a wild animal is still “wild” if it has been born in captivity. While most of the wild animals currently in English circuses were bred in captivity, usually from several generations of circus animals, they are still wild animals. Although the animals will have been tamed and trained to respond to humans, this does not mean that they have become domesticated. Domestication refers to a genetic selection process that occurs over multiple generations, often over hundreds if not thousands of years, effecting changes in traits across a population of animals. Individual or groups of “tame” wild circus animals are still wild animals for the purposes of the Bill.

The Bill does not include a definition of “travelling circus”. The Government’s view is that it is better for the term to take its common meaning and that prescribing a definition of “circus” is problematic on two counts: either it would be defined too broadly and thus reach further than intended, capturing other activities involving animals that move from place to place, or it would allow circuses to avoid the legislation by avoiding any features that captured them in the definition.

Clause 2 provides for the powers of inspection in the schedule to the Bill. Inspectors under the Bill would be appointed on a case-by-case basis by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, drawing on our existing list of approximately 50 zoo licensing inspectors. Given the expertise of these inspectors and their experience in working with captive wild animals, we can draw from this existing list of inspectors if there is ever a need to gather evidence to prove the offence in the Bill. If it were necessary for a police constable to be present during an inspection, the powers in the Bill allow for two people to accompany the inspector and use the powers of search and entry under the inspector’s supervision.

Clause 3 makes a minor amendment to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The 1976 Act requires persons who wish to keep dangerous wild animals as listed in the Act to be licensed; however, the Act currently exempts any dangerous wild animal kept in a circus from that requirement. This amendment would remove that exemption and mean that any dangerous wild animal, as listed in that Act, kept by a circus would need to be licensed by the circus’s local authority, with an annual inspection. For example, the zebras and camels would need a licence under that Act. The Scottish Government, who have already introduced a ban on the use of wild animals in travelling circuses in Scotland, have asked to extend our amendment to the 1976 Act to Scotland.

Clause 4 provides that the Act comes into force on 20 January 2020, the day after the interim circus licensing regulations expire. I confirm that we will be producing guidance in good time for 20 January, which will clarify the terms used and the enforcement powers, and will give more detail to aid understanding of the content of the Act.

The Wild Animals in Circuses (No. 2) Bill has come at a time when we increasingly appreciate that the use of wild animals in circuses does nothing to advance either our understanding of animal behaviour or the conservation of wild animals. I believe that people wish to perceive wild animals in their natural state, expressing all the natural attributes of being wild, not performing tricks in the circus ring for our amusement. The promise of this legislation was contained in my party’s 2015 manifesto and I know that there is strong support for the Bill across the parties. The timing of the Bill is critical, with the sunset clause on the regulations approaching. It is time to make progress on this legislation and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this has been an extremely thought-provoking debate from the outset. This is a measure which is designed, at this stage, to manage 19 wild animals, but we have gone into a wider debate as well. It is very important from the Government’s point of view to acknowledge the contributions from the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Bakewell, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and my noble friend Lady Byford, with all her farming experience.

There was concern about whether this could in any way be considered the first phase or step towards addressing what were described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, as “legitimate” activities. As she said that, I thought about “One Man and His Dog”, falconry displays and, as a farmer, the grand parades at county shows, as well as the respect, love and responsibility we have for our animals. As a country person, the distinction I place is that this measure relates to the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. I want to place it on record that I utterly reject the extreme actions of those who believe that intimidation is how to get their way. I am absolutely certain that all noble Lords who spoke in this debate would not for one minute think that intimidation was the right way forward.

We have thought of this as being the right way forward over time. Indeed, it was in my party’s manifesto and I rather think it was in the Labour and Liberal Democrat manifestos. We have reached a time when we have an expression or a feeling that the use of wild animals in travelling circuses for our entertainment is not appropriate for those animals. I have no doubt about what the two circus operators have said, on record, about their regard and love for those animals. As I said, the animals were found to have been well cared for in welfare inspections.

This is about whether we should be thinking much more about wild animals having what I would describe as their natural behaviour and expression. I support this Bill for those reasons. I agree with my noble friend Lady Byford that this is about seeing wild animals in their proper environments. I put on record, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that we do not see this Bill as having unintended consequences. This is a measure that we thought should be introduced. We have thought that for some while; indeed, my noble friend Lady Byford referred to her endeavours in the 2006 parliamentary skirmishes. I should say to my noble friend Lady Anelay that this measure relates to England. The Welsh Government are bringing forward their own proposals and the Scottish Government have already gone forward.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to the tigers and elephants of yesteryear. Indeed, there are circuses on the continent that still use these types of animals. The point is that without this legislation they could be reintroduced even under the current licensing regime. The Bill does not just stop the use of the 19 wild animals in question, it prevents others being added in the future—that is the point I should make.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked why the use of wild animals in travelling circuses is to be banned. Again, I ask whether these performances add anything to our understanding of conservation of wild animals. I go back to their natural behaviour. I think that wild animals in circuses, whether they are trained well or not, are trained for our entertainment and amusement. I am interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about this and I am conscious of his veterinary expertise and the points made about the BVA, but that is my distinction.

A number of points were made about other legislation in the pipeline and the desire for it. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Mallalieu, that I am fully seized of our commitment to increase sentences. This is something we wish to attend to and to introduce as soon as possible. I will say, because many of us are engaged, that Finn’s law, which has achieved Royal Assent, has very much strengthened the protection of animals. We are going to have a statutory instrument next week. In truth, we can have a bit of a political knockabout, but the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is right: actually, this Government have brought forward many modernising measures to ensure that animals are better cared for. On the point of sentience raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we have been clear that we will introduce our animal sentience proposals after we leave the EU.

The fate of the 19 was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. She used the term “get rid of them”. Actually, that is absolutely not what I understand from the operators of both circuses, who have placed it on record that the animals would either be rehomed, retired to their winter quarters or used in other work—for instance, there is television and film work. That will certainly not be banned by this legislation, which is about the use of wild animals in travelling circuses. It is right to acknowledge, as I do, that circus operators have placed on record their care for these animals: they have even referred to them as part of the family. So their future has been assured and that is important, because some are quite young. I was looking at the ages at some of the animals. Given the length of their captivity, some of them have a very long lifespan left.

I disagree, if I have it right, with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on the use of animals such as dogs and horses in circuses and racing, provided that it is respectful and that animal welfare measures are there. We have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, some of the most impressive animal welfare legislation in the world. If there is no use for animals, they will no longer be bred. As we have unfortunately a much more mechanised world, many of the animals that we used for very heavy-duty work are no longer required—and thank goodness. We need to be thinking about the manner in which we use and respect them.

On the definition of “wild”, I would say to my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that we have sought to use an approach that is consistent with other legislation and the definition of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, as I said in my opening remarks. It is important to be consistent. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, and other noble Lords asked about the definition of “travelling circuses”. We have given this a lot of thought; indeed, the Scottish Government have also chosen not to define “circus” in their Act. We think that prescribing a definition of “circus” would open up the possible risk of future circus operators seeking to avoid prohibition.

Indeed, a contrary but wider view is that we also do not wish to prohibit wider ranges of activity than are strictly intended by the travelling circus. So the common-sense approach is to draw up clear guidance. The noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell, quite rightly said from the Opposition Benches, “Come on, we want a timescale on this”. I can confirm that we will publish guidance to the Bill by 20 November, two months before the ban comes into effect. We are working on that and it is obviously important. My noble friend Lady Fookes, who is experienced in this, raised the point about guidance; as in Scotland, we do not intend the guidance to be statutory, but it must and will provide clarity on the terms used in the Bill and aid enforcement. Obviously, as with all these things, ultimately this will be determined by the courts—but the common-sense approach of our guidance will help.

My noble friend Lady Anelay also raised the question of Northern Ireland. As we all know, this is a devolved matter, and in the absence of a Government in Northern Ireland Defra officials spoke to officials in the Northern Ireland Administration. Those officials believed that,

“practical, administrative and policy considerations”,

meant that they did not feel that they wanted to participate in the Bill. However, I should say that at this time there are no travelling circuses touring Northern Ireland with wild animals, and the Republic of Ireland banned travelling circuses with wild animals last year. So officials felt that these considerations should wait until Ministers were back in place in Northern Ireland—and, of course, we all very much want the return of devolved arrangements in Northern Ireland.

My noble friend Lady Anelay also queried in a sense whether the two licensed travelling circuses could move to Northern Ireland. For these few months it is obviously a possible suggestion. That said, neither has travelled to Northern Ireland; that may well be to do with the costs involved and the distance from their winter quarters. Of course, animal welfare legislation in Northern Ireland would cover the welfare of any wild mammals there until such time as the Administration took a decision on whether to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. However, we have devolution and must respect that settlement, although the message is clear; the Republic has banned them, Wales is about to and Scotland already has. This is our legislative measure.

There are a number of other points. My noble friend Lady Anelay asked about seizure. The powers of seizure in the Bill are reserved for those powers necessary to prove the offence. We would never need to seize a wild animal to prove the offence, so we think that such a power would be disproportionate. If it were necessary to seize an animal in distress, Sections 18 and 19 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 already provide the appropriate powers. Indeed, Section 4 of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 would also allow an unlicensed dangerous animal, as listed in that legislation, to be seized.

My noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referred to international matters. I wish to record that my noble friend did so much during her term at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to protect the planet’s most iconic species. Last year we hosted the largest ever illegal wildlife trade conference, bring together more than 70 countries. We are spending £26 million to protect and support wildlife across the globe.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about enforcement powers. Interestingly, it is a small Bill with a big schedule on enforcement. The Bill provides inspectors with powers to search for and gather evidence of an offence. Defra has approximately 50 inspectors appointed for zoo inspections, as I said. Several of them inspect the two circuses currently licensed by Defra to use wild animals. All inspectors are either qualified veterinarians or have extensive experience of working with captive animals. They will be experienced in identifying and, if need be, handling species of wild animal. We can draw on the existing list of inspectors if there is ever any need to gather evidence to prove the offence in the Bill. The offence will apply only to the operator of the circus—that is, the person with overall responsibility for the circus.

On the question of police constables, again, if an animal is in distress, the Animal Welfare Act already provides powers for the police to respond quickly. The schedule provides powers to search for evidence of the offence contained in Clause 1. This includes taking up to two persons with them on an inspection. Of course, one or both of those persons could be a police constable. Enforcement of Bills such as this often requires a specialism in wild animals—but, as I said, there is every opportunity, if need be, for a police constable to be part of that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, queried what might happen in these last months. Again, we believe that it is very unlikely that such tours could happen. I shall expand a bit on why. Travelling circuses tour during the summer months and typically return to their winter quarters at the end of October each year. Acquiring new animals and training them to perform a specific routine, which takes time, would normally occur at the winter quarters. It is therefore very unlikely that circuses would change their routine and add new animals to their performances mid-term and mid-tour. Given that a ban will be in place before the next touring season, it would make very little economic sense for circus owners to invest in new animals, enclosures and equipment now. Indeed, if they were to do so, there would have been nothing to stop them doing so before this touring season commenced.

The Government made clear when they published the review of interim licensing regulations that no more licences would be issued after January 2020. I assure the noble Baroness and your Lordships that, since the Bill was introduced on 1 May, we have had no queries from circuses about introducing further wild animals before the end of this touring season.

This debate has been thought provoking. In many cases it has gone beyond what might happen to the 19 animals. It has included issues about the use of animals both wild and domesticated. I again say emphatically that the Government’s intent in this legislation is not to embark on further approaches to what we have all said on record are legitimate activities that respect animals. I beg to move.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Plastic Bag Charge

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hayward]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to make an announcement concerning the introduction of the 10p plastic bag charge in England.

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

My Lords, earlier this year we consulted on proposals to extend the charge to all retailers and to increase the minimum charge to 10p. To advance this matter, we will publish both the summary of responses and the Government’s intended action very soon. This follows the banning of plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers from next April, as well as our consultation on placing responsibility for the cost of managing packaging waste on producers.

[Lord Hayward (Con)]

My Lords, in January 2018 the Prime Minister announced the intention to extend the single-use carrier bag charge to all retailers. Eight months later, it was announced that there would be consultation. Five months later, the consultation started. Four months after that, I received a letter from Defra saying that the announcement would be made soon. That was almost two months ago. Why is it possible to choose a Prime Minister in eight weeks when it is impossible for Defra to make a decision about bag charges—which all the industry favours—80 weeks?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is an intriguing comparison, but the position is that combining the publication of the summary and intended action will reduce the overall time taken, compared to publishing each separately. We have indeed had to take a little longer because officials have needed to undertake additional policy work in response to feedback from consultation. I assure my noble friend—and all noble Lords—that we are fully seized of the importance of plastic reduction.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not wish to be discourteous to the Minister, but his answer sounded like a direct quote from “Yes Minister”. Would he like to think about it again? This is intolerable. We have been waiting years to put a charge on plastic bags. We have it on some but not on others. Why can we not just get a move on? Why does it take so long?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, that is not quite the case, as with all such things. I am well aware of the sort of responses one is given, but as I said, perhaps the interpretation of “very soon” should be in a glossary of terms. I am very conscious that we need to take action on this. By the end of this year, many of the larger retailers will not be using single-use plastic bags at all. We are working with all retailers and market traders to address this fully, because we want to get this right.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, 10p seems incredibly cheap for something that can last for 1,000 years before it biodegrades, but why is the consumer bearing all this? What regulations are the Government going to impose on the supermarkets and the food retailers to cut down the amount of packaging they use? It is insane that bananas are wrapped in plastic. I know it is complicated, and to do with how long food lasts, but will the Minister assure me that the Government will undertake proper consultation and then introduce regulation, rather than just responsibility?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that one of the complications is that certain wrapping increases how long produce lasts and stops food waste, so we need to look at these things thoroughly. We also think that those producing the packaging should be responsible for the costs of clearing these matters up—that is what we are consulting on at this very moment. The consultation is important because we need to reduce plastic packaging.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, there are now many biodegradable carrier bags being used by small retailers who handle food, including butchers. These bags are alleged to degrade in landfill in 12 to 24 months. Surely if these bags are going to landfill, this somewhat defeats the object of the tax. Do the Government plan to extend the 10p tax to biodegradable bags, and are they aware that such bags contain additives to accelerate the degeneration process? Can the Minister assure us that these are not harmful to those who have eaten food that has come into contact with these bags?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

On the last point first, it is important that research is going on, including at EU level, on certain types of degradable plastics—precisely because of chemicals and microplastics. Again, this is not a straightforward matter where we can just press a button and get something resolved. We need to worry about the unintended consequences. A lot of work is going on on these points and I will write to the noble Baroness in some further detail on her first point.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have been campaigning on the plastics issue now for two years, and progress has been too complex and too slow, for example on bags, as we have heard. Does the Minister expect to be able to announce very soon, with dates, a genuinely single system of waste collection in England and a compulsory system for marking plastic on its recycling characteristics?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, a lot of what my noble friend said is involved in the consultation, which closed on 13 May—that is the only precise date I can give—but it is therefore now being considered. We are analysing the responses on consistency of both household and business recycling collections. I know that one point which my noble friend has constantly raised is on the quality and quantity of the materials collected for recycling. The consultation seeks views on that and one proposal is for all collectors of waste to collect a core set of materials from households and businesses. We want to make it as straightforward as possible for everyone to recycle.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government really have to get a move on with this. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, it is not just about plastic carrier bags. Last year, Theresa May said that by the year 2043—there might have been several new Tory leaders elected by then—the Government aimed to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste. Yet whenever I go to the supermarket and unpack the shopping when I get home, I have far more than one carrier bag’s worth of it. In fact, when I take my wheelie bin out on a Thursday night it is almost hard to move it because of the amount of so-called recyclable materials in it. Can the Minister be a little more specific? What proposals are the Government considering now that would, first, reduce the use of single-use plastic but, secondly, task producers with dealing with the environmental impacts of their packaging?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am very pleased that, like all of us, the noble Baroness is seeking to recycle more. I think we all want to recycle much more. On the extension of the producer responsibility on packaging, she is quite right that too much plastic packaging is produced and that obviously needs to be addressed. On taxation, we have already said that by 2022 there will be a tax on producers who do not use at least 30% recycled material in their products. All this is about a mechanism to reduce the use of plastic packaging and recycle more.

Children’s Health: Vehicle Emissions

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for securing this debate. From all the contributions made today, it is clear that we all acknowledge that air pollution is the greatest environmental risk to human health. It is right that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bull, referred to this as a considerable world challenge, as well as a challenge in our own country. We all know that poor air quality affects our health and quality of life and, as has been said precisely today—by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in particular, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, in her opening remarks—children are particularly vulnerable, be it their lungs or their development. I therefore hasten, in the time I have, to set out as much as I can about the strong and urgent action that we are taking.

I understand of course what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, meant. I hope everyone will see that that we simply cannot carry on as we have in the past. The Clean Air Strategy was published this year; indeed, the WHO welcomed it as an example for the rest of the world to follow. The strategy outlines a package of comprehensive measures taking decisive action to reduce emissions of harmful air pollutants from multiple sources. It is important for us to continue to drive down emissions from all sources to reduce overall background air pollution over our cities and towns. We have already taken action on specified generator controls and medium combustion plants, and we will put forward proposals on the most polluting domestic fuels.

The clean air strategy will be underpinned by new legislative proposals in the environment Bill to ensure stronger and more effective action. I say to my noble friend Lord Dundee that the office for environmental protection will be an independent statutory environmental body, which will hold the Government to account on environmental standards. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, my noble friend, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that of course I will look at her Bill. The environment Bill is a second Session piece of legislation but a considerable one and I, or whoever else scrutinises it, look forward to doing so with your Lordships.

I would say in context that emissions of air pollutants have reduced substantially since 2010. Primary emissions of fine particulate matter and emissions of nitrogen oxides are indeed at their lowest levels since records began. This progress was achieved through regulation, investment by industry, cleaner processes and, indeed, a shift towards cleaner forms of energy. But it is clear not only from what your Lordships have said but from what the Government recognise that very much more has to be done. That is heard loud and clear. The most immediate challenge is tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations around roads. We are taking determined action on vehicle emissions and testing. Indeed, we have been at the forefront of calls for action at EU level to introduce real driving emissions testing. The first stage of this new, more stringent regime came into force this year.

In 2017, we published the UK Plan for Tackling Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations, supported by a £3.5 billion investment in air quality and cleaner transport. I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, about “no action”, and indeed gently chide the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch: I am sure she will understand that the “dash for diesel” has not helped with what we need to counter. I say that genuinely; we all seek to do the right thing but sometimes it turns out not to be the right path. We are exceeding our nitrogen dioxide targets but it is the only pollutant we are exceeding on; we need to concentrate on that, among other matters.

Noble Lords have spoken about local authorities. The Government are working closely with 61 English local councils and have placed legal duties on them, underpinned by almost £495 million of funding to tackle nitrogen dioxide hotspots. We have assessed plans to ensure they meet the strict criteria to improve exceedances in the shortest time possible. Where plans do not meet the criteria, they are rejected. I say again to many noble Lords—the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Blackstone and Lady Randerson —that local authorities are best placed to use their powers and local knowledge to take action when addressing localised pollution hotspots, including around schools. I understand that the recalibration of traffic lights, for instance, can change exceedances. I think we would all agree that it is commonsensical that there is great partnership with local authorities, and I would say that we are seeing results. Leeds and Birmingham will introduce clean air zones from next year, Nottingham is being supported to retrofit its bus fleet and Southampton docks are introducing freight consolidation and measures to encourage sustainable and indeed active travel.

We are committed to investing in and promoting active travel such as cycling and walking. Active travel can have huge benefits for health and well-being, road congestion, air quality and economic and local development. These of course are issues that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, who is a cyclist, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and my noble friend Lord Dundee raised. The investment is almost £2 billion during this Parliament. That includes £50 million for Bikeability cycle training in England outside London. In 2018-19 around 400,000 children were trained.

Our 2025 target of 55% of primary schoolchildren walking to school is being delivered through the £3 million Walk to School programme, which started in 2015. In 2017-18 205 primary schools participated, with 14,254 more pupils and their parents walking to school. Walking to school rates have increased across all schools by 30%. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that I do not need the iPlayer because I watched that documentary last night; the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, very sweetly suggested that I was already on my way home to watch it. I was very struck by the programme for a number of reasons, particularly how demonstrating behaviour changes and targeted action can deliver real change. My noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to parents. I was very struck by the positivity of parents; the gasp of horror when it was seen that driving your child to school in a car was the worst option; and the fact that the 25-minute walk to school, rather than a 10-minute drive, became a pleasure, although I know that in inclement weather that may not be so attractive.

As I have mentioned, the work that we have done and are doing to tackle nitrogen dioxide vehicle emissions is a top priority. On particulate matter, we have achieved a considerable reduction of exhaust emissions through tighter vehicle standards. On non-exhaust emissions, tyre and brake wear—I think reference was made to this last year—we issued a call for evidence to inform policy development and will take further action, informed by the Air Quality Expert Group. That will be published later this year.

As part of the £3.5 billion funding, there is an annual air quality grant. Colchester Borough Council and Hertsmere Borough Council are closely working with their schools on travel behaviour change programmes, while Islington will perform an indoor nitrogen dioxide study to test air quality. There are many more examples of local authorities working effectively with government funding.

We have plans to take further action on vehicle emissions. Our mission is to put the UK at the forefront of the design and manufacturing of zero-emissions vehicles. We also need to increase the number of electric cars on our roads. To achieve that, drivers must clearly have access to the right infrastructure, which is why the Chancellor announced a £400 million investment to make it a reality. The Government have also committed £274 million to the Faraday battery challenge to ensure that the UK is a world leader in battery technology, and have separately awarded over £300 million in grants via Innovate UK, something I know my noble friend Lord Dundee would be interested in.

By 2030 we want at least half of all new cars sold, and as many as 70%, to have ultra-low emissions. Our grant schemes and £400 million public/private charging infrastructure investment fund will see thousands more electric vehicle charge points installed. We have one of the largest networks in Europe, and in 2018 the UK was the second-largest market for ultra-low emission vehicles in the EU.

There is so much more I would like to say, but I want to emphasise that we recognise that awareness is vital for this and for taking firmer action. It is one of the reasons why I am pleased that the City of Westminster has an anti-idling policy. We need to make that much broader, and I am interested in the legislation. My understanding is that local authorities have many of these powers in any case. We are working with organisations such as Global Action Plan and the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change to improve the information and advice available to people, to ensure not only that they understand the impacts of poor air quality but can take their own action.

I strongly agree with the conclusions of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. Achieving cleaner air, which is an objective we all share, requires a partnership. It is the responsibility of government, local government, businesses and individuals. We must improve air quality through collaboration, raising public awareness and taking concerted action, with public moneys and public support. It is an urgent matter. Whichever Prime Minister is in office, and whatever the colour of government, this issue is vital and we need to manage it and deal with it. We owe that to all our citizens, but as your Lordships have so clearly stated, this is a particular issue for the next generation and we must deal with it on their behalf.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

Before he sits down, could the noble Lord answer my question? Will there be a full clean air programme specifically for children?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I have so much more to say. I will write to the noble Baroness.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Lords
Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

That the Bill do now pass.

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

My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their interest in the Bill and for their contributions. I am grateful for the positive engagement and support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Lady Kramer and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on the Opposition Benches; and I thank my noble friends Lord Eccles, Lord Selborne, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord True, and the noble Lords, Lord Whitty and Lord Campbell-Savours, for their active engagement and our constructive discussions. I have of course been struck by the level of support for, and the degree of close association with, Kew, including two previous chairmen of Kew and two previous Ministers who had responsibilities for it in your Lordships’ House. I also place on record my appreciation to Defra officials and those from Kew who have assisted us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I would also like to thank the Minister and Defra officials for their time and patience in providing the very useful briefings. These were very welcome and greatly assisted the process of understanding what the Bill was about for those of us not steeped in the history of Kew. Many of your Lordships are, and it was a great comfort to know that so many Kew experts were taking part in the debate, thus ensuring that this short Bill was improved and provided the necessary requirements.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

In the spirit of what I said before, I want to place on record again that what the noble Baronesses have said is precisely what I feel we are intended to do: to look at these matters and decide a way forward. I was very pleased to play my part in getting the resolution we all wanted: to ensure that this unique scientific institution is properly safeguarded. I am most grateful to noble Lords because we have a Bill we can all be proud of.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I intervened in Committee and put to the Minister a series of questions to which I hoped he might give me the answers in writing. They have not come, so perhaps he might ask officials to consider the questions I asked during that debate.

The most important protection for the land at Kew Gardens has been the fact that leases could be granted for a maximum of 30 years. The moment you transform that system and change the arrangement such that you can grant leases of up to 150 years, you transform the discussion about the future of that land and its potential use by developers. Even though covenants and restrictions will be in place, developers will look seriously at the long-term potential of the use of the land.

The question for me is: what has been Parliament’s intention during the passage of the Bill? As I have understood it, it is to ensure that no commercial development takes place on the site and that residential development should be restricted to a very small proportion of the land. I am not convinced by that. Parliament is being naive in thinking that the position will remain the same for the next 150 years.

So last night, lying in bed at midnight—as happened on the previous occasion—I went through the documentation that the Minister has provided for us in the past week. That is the framework document, from which I want to cite a number of paragraphs in support of my case.

Paragraph 27.1 refers to a “light touch” annual review of the framework document. It then talks about three-yearly full reviews. What will happen at the end of three years, six years, nine years, 12 years, 15 years, 18 years or 21 years? At what stage do Ministers envisage being under pressure, because the Secretary of State retains powers in these areas, to change the arrangements for future development possibilities on that site?

Paragraph 28.2 confirms the sharing arrangements for developers’ gains—so in the framework document there is recognition that there will be developers’ gains in the future. I am sure developers will study that closely. It may be that, because the intention of Parliament is not altogether clear, lawyers pore over our debates. I am not a lawyer, but I am told that they often refer to parliamentary debates to try to identify what the intention of Parliament was when a particular Bill went through.

Paragraph 7.4 refers to a requirement on Kew,

“to maximise opportunities to increase income”.

Again, that is a pressure point on Kew to maximise income available from the site. In my view, it would be for the development of commercial and residential property.

Under paragraph 7.2, the Secretary of State can set conditions on grant-in-aid funding. In other words, they could pressure Kew to maximise alternative income streams when deciding on the grant-in-aid funding to be made available in any particular year.

Paragraph 21.1 emphasises the requirement for Kew to have regard to “efficiency, costs and resources”—again, that is a pressure.

In paragraphs 23.2 and 23.3, there is a requirement to avoid balances. Under the agreement as I understand it, Kew must not pursue a policy of having balances at the ends of years. In other words, it cannot save money in that way, which will in itself put pressure on resource availability—so much so that I believe that it will seek profits from the development of land on the site.

In paragraph 25.1, a process is set out for Defra’s approval of breaches of the MPM rules, guidance and advice, and in paragraph 9.2 there is a requirement on the Secretary of State to sign off land sales. This, of course, works both ways: it can put a block on sales, but on the other hand it could serve as a notice to future generations that in 2019 it was envisaged or foreseen that land sales would inevitably take place. The question is: what land? I am not suggesting for one moment that it will be land in the body of the site, but I believe that that site has rich future potential and that developers will look at it and argue that, on the periphery of the estate, particularly near the river, there is potential for substantial development.

In Committee, I pointed to a footage price for flats on the present market. Flats down there would sell, even in today’s market, at £1,500 per square foot. That property in the future, on the river at Kew, will fetch far more money than even today’s prices, because it will become prime property. Ministers have completely underestimated the pressure that will be put on the trustees and the people who will be running Kew in the future to maximise their profits through property development on that site. I heard nothing during the debate in Committee that in any way interferes with my view. I believe that that is what will happen, and what we have in the Bill offers insufficient protection, despite all the conditions that the Minister referred to in his responses on that previous occasion.

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

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. I well understand that the noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to restrict the application of the Bill solely to residential properties. It is true that the properties currently in the contemplation of Kew following the Bill are those seven residential properties that are either currently occupied on one-year assured shorthold tenancies or are vacant and require substantial renovation work. That is not to say that these are the only opportunities for Kew, but these are the definite properties that could immediately benefit from the Bill.

I know that noble Lords want only the best for Kew—I absolutely understand what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is saying. In both what I believe I put on record about the protections and, if I am permitted, in suggesting what might follow on the next amendment, Parliament is very clear about the requirement to protect Kew. However, I agree with my noble friend Lord Eccles that restricting leases to residential properties only would have a significant adverse impact on Kew’s ability to benefit from the Bill. All noble Lords have said that we have great trust in the current trustees but we are worried about what might happen in the future. The current trustees and executive feel very strongly that to restrict the Bill will not be helpful to Kew in the future. I want, therefore, to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and other noble Lords by setting out in more detail further properties that Kew might, for example, plan for the future.

Other properties will be considered for the possibility of the grant of a longer lease when opportunities clearly present themselves; for instance, if buildings become vacant and surplus to requirements. As noble Lords know, the care and protection of Kew’s collections is one of the primary duties of Kew’s board of trustees. The board must ensure that its collections are well managed, widely accessible and secure, and provide an optimum environment for scientific collaboration and discovery. This statutory duty will entail developing contemporary world-class facilities for the collections and science research at Kew Gardens, to provide a platform for collaborative, discovery-driven, botanical science to find solutions to the urgent challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss.

As these facilities are realised over the medium to long term, this could enable other buildings to be repurposed for a means appropriate to furthering Kew’s mission and statutory objectives. These other buildings could include office accommodation which becomes surplus to requirements or is in need of significant renovation. In such cases, Kew should be able to explore options that deliver the best possible return for Kew, whether for commercial or residential letting, and which can be reinvested to further its statutory functions.

One such opportunity is 47 Kew Green. This is currently an office building for marketing and commercial staff, albeit not fit for purpose as modern office accommodation and requiring significant renovation work. Should Kew identify alternative space for staff to move out of this building into more suitable accommodation, it would be faced with a choice of renovating the building itself or finding a suitable and sensitive lessee to take the building over and improve its condition. I should add that Kew is very clear that, even with renovation, this building would not be suitable as research facilities to further Kew’s purpose—investigation and research into the science of plants and fungi. Kew may not require the office building in the future, but, equally, preventing Kew leasing it out as a business premises would restrict it, even risking that building becoming obsolete. That is clearly one of the key aims that the Bill seeks to remedy.

Another possibility is Descanso House, a grade 2 listed Georgian building on the edge of the Kew Gardens site. It is not accessible to the public and is underutilised due to its condition. It is currently office accommodation for a small number of Kew staff, with a small office let to a Kew partner on a one-year lease. It is in urgent need of repairs. If alternative office accommodation could be found, this building could be considered for refurbishment, subject to listed building consent and in accordance with guidance in the Kew world heritage site plan.

To restrict the Bill to apply solely to the residential properties would not help Kew. On the basis that the protections are already in place, which I have set out at great length—and, if I may be permitted to say, I believe those protections will be considered in the next amendment—there is no reason to distinguish between residential and commercial leaseholds. From my experience of other large estates such as Kew, I would expect a mix of leasehold lets.

I will look into the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I recall committing to write on the specific issue of the car park. A copy of that letter should have been placed in the Library and sent to all noble Lords, but I will check. I know I signed the letter, so I am confident that—

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

To reassure the Minister, I certainly received a copy of it; I believe my noble friend did as well. I do not know whether other noble Lords did, but it was an extremely reassuring letter.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will look at Hansard again, because if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, thinks that I have not attended to other matters, I of course shall.

On the question of the framework document, Kew is protected but it is absolutely essential that there is rigour in that document, given the use of public money, over the arrangements between the sponsoring department and Kew. All noble Lords would be displeased if there were not confidence that there was rigour in the custodianship of public money. I do not resile from the fact that it is important that there is this arrangement between Defra and Kew. From my experience, the relationship between the two is proper, but with a mutual respect that we understand absolutely the functions that the trustees and the executive undertake on our behalf.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister has to accept that what we are discussing today in the Bill is on the basis of the framework document that we can now see. We do not know what the framework document will say in 15 years’ time, yet we are carrying the Bill today.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, with the greatest of respect, none of us can command the certainty of what our successors may do. We are here, doing what we can. That is why I am pleased that in the next amendment we will be discussing our protections, which I have already outlined in considerable detail. I have taken great care and attention when discussing this with the trustees and the executive, all of whom have the ultimate bona fides with regard to the future of Kew.

I believe that Parliament, in its scrutiny, is undertaking what is right: the Bill gives Kew the capacity to reduce its maintenance liabilities and running costs, which must be desirable. It generates additional income from property that will help Kew to achieve its core objectives—which is desirable—maintain its status as a UNESCO world heritage site, and to improve the quality of its estate. I do not mean to be facetious, but resources are not infinite. I do not yet know any noble Lord who truly thinks that we have infinite resources, however wonderful Kew is. Therefore this approach must be right. I go to Kew often, and there are buildings there which we are not looking after as well as any of us would wish. This is what Kew wishes us to do, because this is the way that will help it to fulfil its statutory functions.

I say in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, having spoken to those at Kew, I have given examples of buildings that they believe could be better suited to a commercial let but with all the current protections and what I believe we may well go on to. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, I very much welcome the steps the Minister has taken to listen to the concerns that have been raised around the Chamber in the earlier debates and again today. I know that he has done his best to answer all the issues that we have thrown at him over that period, and he has done so again today. It was helpful to hear the examples that he gave. I felt that in earlier debates there was a bit of a black hole, but he has populated that black hole with some credible examples. None of us wants buildings on the site left empty, obsolete or run down, and if there is a plan to deal with those in a constructive way, I think we would all want that to happen.

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours was right to say that the lawyers will pore over these debates in years to come, so it has been helpful to have that on the record as Kew’s general intent. The Minister caveated his comments by pointing out that we will shortly have another debate. On the basis that there is more than one way to skin a cat—this was only one way and another is coming up—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, while moving Amendment 2, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jones, I will also speak to Amendment 3—the two are clearly interdependent.

Your Lordships may recall that I expressed my attachment to Kew, its history, scientific excellence and amenity value, and to its aspect and its contribution, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, said, to that beautiful stretch of the Thames. None of us wishes to prejudice any of that. We want to preserve all those outcomes and benefits, but I recognise that to do so costs money. I was, like the Minister, responsible for Kew for a number of years, and understand that we need to increase the private money going into it. I recognise that the 31-year restriction on the lease was an inhibition on raising some of that money.

However, as my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lady Jones said, the Bill presented to us was very open-ended and was not restricted to the seven Kew Green properties but applied to any form of asset, building or land within the Kew estate. I therefore clearly felt, as did many other contributors to that debate, that we needed to place some restriction on how leases could be extended. I recognise the need for resources and to update some of the estate, but we need to be pretty firm in ensuring that such leases as are granted by virtue of this very short and apparently innocuous Bill are preserved and that Kew can continue to provide both scientific excellence and amenity value to our people—indeed, to the planet as a whole, because Kew’s contribution to botanical science is a very important element in biodiversity and climate change strategies.

As noble Lords will recall, in Committee I produced an amendment which I thought was pretty good and nailed the restrictions necessary. It referred to any such lease having to be,

“supportive of, or be compatible with the core botanical, scientific, environmental, educational and amenity activities of”,

Kew. I thought that was pretty clear, but since then, after consultation with lawyers—both mine and the department’s—it has become clear that that is too generalised and must be anchored in existing legislation to which future generations can refer. I therefore welcome the discussion that the Minister had and allowed his officials and Kew officials to have with me so that we could come up with a form of words which I hope meets all the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours and others. There is concern in the community around Kew, in the scientific community and in the minds of those who use Kew for recreational purposes that if we allow any open-ended leases, there will be developer interest, with the disastrous effect that we have seen on other stretches of the Thames applied to this very special piece of ground.

I therefore accept the advice of the lawyers to a large extent and have attempted in my amendments to place restrictions on future leases in terms, on the one hand, of the universal World Heritage Site provisions, which are pretty clear and, on the other, under the National Heritage Act, which includes the six principles under which the trustees of Kew are supposed to operate, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred at earlier stages. That pretty much covers the basis on which we must ensure that restrictions are placed on leases.

The amendments place the obligation on the Secretary of State, who would grant the leases, and therefore on the lessee, who would have to abide by the restrictions required by the Secretary of State. That may not be 100% watertight, but it is much more watertight than the original Bill and, I think, reflects many of the assurances which the Minister has tried to give us today and at earlier stages of the Bill. I think we can move forward with confidence and avoid the kind of intrusion on, and misuse of, the assets and land at Kew that some of us have feared. I beg to move.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships if I confirmed that the Government support both amendments.

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, particularly after what my noble friend on the Front Bench said. I assure the House that I will not inflict a Second Reading speech on noble Lords.

I proposed the Bill kindly taken up by the Government, which has become the Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill. Therefore, in some senses, I am a guilty party. I apologise for the fact that, because the Bill was taken up at short notice, I could not be present either at Second Reading or in Committee. Having read the proceedings carefully, I express my thanks to all those noble Lords who have demonstrated their love for Kew and their concern for it and its importance as a world heritage site and a world scientific centre. The words used by Peers on all sides of the House have been wise and shown a duty of care. My noble friend on the Front Bench has been wise in negotiating and listening to come forward with a compromise, which I hope will satisfy the House.

I have been in the two buildings mentioned by my noble friend in the debate on the previous amendment. There is no doubt that they have a better longer-term purpose. Something was said about how people may construe the intentions of Parliament—indeed, those of all concerned. When I had the honour some years ago of being the leader of the local authority, I walked the grounds with Mr Deverell, the truly outstanding director of Kew. We discussed this problem and these propositions, which eventually led to the Bill. With the benefit of those private discussions over a number of years, I can assure the House that never at any stage was any intention expressed, either in private or in public, by those involved with Kew that would lead towards the kind of concerning developments rightly raised by some Members.

With that assurance, added to what I know of Kew’s intentions and the benefits that this Bill could secure for Kew, I will not trespass any further on the House’s patience. I apologise for not being present to support a Bill I proposed in my name and support wholeheartedly. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. Let us hope that the Bill goes forward and becomes law, to the benefit of this great institution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful for all noble Lords’ contributions. I am struck that, as is so likely in your Lordships’ House, I am looking at two former Ministers responsible for Kew and behind me on the Government Benches are two former chairmen of Kew. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, asked: what is the worst that can happen? We have all worked tremendously hard to ensure that the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, set out the right position. I am very pleased that the Government support them.

The conditions centre on Kew’s status as a UNESCO world heritage site and the functions of the board of trustees of Kew as set out in primary legislation. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said about the political composition of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. Thinking back to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I cannot imagine any local authority of any political complexion, given all the safeguards I know there are in the borough, allowing this theoretical block of flats getting into any sort of starting stall. The point about the local authority was precisely put. I regret that my noble friend Lord True, who earlier pioneered this Bill, has only now had an opportunity to demonstrate his expertise and experience of Kew and the sorts of properties that the Bill is designed to help remedy in order to provide important resources for Kew.

I share noble Lords’ aim to protect Kew when granting these leases, and I believe that the amendment provides a robust assurance in response to many of the points raised in debate in your Lordships’ House. As I have stated before, the strong and multilayered protections already in place, together with planning permissions appropriately tailored in accordance with listed status, ensure that only development in keeping with Kew Gardens and its status as a UNESCO world heritage site will be permitted.