Draft United Kingdom Marine Policy Statement

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the opportunity to debate the draft marine policy statement and I agree with others that it is a very useful moment to do so at the conclusion of this phase of the consultation process. This has not been a long debate, but it has been a thoughtful one. A number of challenging issues have emerged and searching questions have been asked. I will try not to ask the same questions as those asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and others, but those issues are none the less important and should be addressed for the benefit of the House.

Obviously, the marine policy statement raises issues that are important to the country as a whole. I do not know whether it is still true that the UK is the EU country with the longest coastline, but our coastline is certainly long and we all have a huge interest in the health and quality of our marine environment. There are also important economic considerations: our fishing industry, which has been mentioned; the link with food supply and food security; the important energy sector, with coastal oil and gas; and the increasingly important alternative energy sector—not just wind but tidal energy—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. In addition, there are port activities, which have also been referred to. There is also aggregates exploitation and indeed, coastal tourism, which is important to our economy and involves access to our coasts and the enhancement of coastal and marine heritage assets.

All those are important national issues, but they are obviously issues with strong local and regional dimensions. Such issues will be of great interest to communities around the country, especially to those areas affected by, for example, offshore energy developments—either welcome or unwelcome—and will have an impact on the future health of our coastal resorts, many of which have gone through difficult economic times in the past 20 to 30 years. Those areas are interested in the issues of economic regeneration and the importance of tourism for the future.

For all those reasons, a marine planning process of the kind that we are considering is extremely important. Obviously I welcome the fact that the work that the Government are doing is very much a continuation of the work of the previous Government—as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Eden of Winton—and follows the welcome passing of the Marine and Coastal Access Act. There is a need to ensure that that Act can be implemented as successfully as possible.

Not surprisingly, given the nature of the subject and the fact that there are diverse and sometimes conflicting interests involved, a number of concerns have been expressed in the debate that it is important to consider. As a result of the consultation, there certainly were requests for more detail on different aspects of the marine policy statement, particularly on the precautionary approach and how that will work in practice. Many speakers referred to how conflicts will be managed. Although we hope that decisions will be based on sound science, we know that that will not necessarily resolve all the conflicts on its own. How such conflicts will be managed is an important aspect.

How to link local marine plans to wider objectives, how to make effective decisions until the marine plans come in, the perceived lack of guidance for marine plan authorities and how to prioritise between different policies and activities are all matters that came up in the consultation and that need further attention in order to take forward the work.

Like other noble Lords, I have received background information for this debate from interested organisations, including the RSPB, which raised a number of issues. Again, I will not repeat those, but I hope that the Minister is aware of the submission and will respond to at least some of the points. There are a great many issues to take forward. The Minister mentioned that the marine policy statement will be adopted by March 2011, which was also referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. That is an ambitious timetable, which I would not dissuade the Government from but will mean that a lot of work must be done.

Some participants in the debate commented on the nature of the documentation. I rather agree with those comments. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, talked about “verbiage” and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about the documentation providing a not-very-clear road map. I do not think that the document is very user-friendly. I am not making a party-political point, because the documentation reflects both work produced by the previous Government and work taken forward by this Government. It is important for documents to be as clear as possible for the wider public. If concerned residents of a coastal town looked at the document, they would not find it clear. Acronyms do not help, although I do not know what the alternative to them is, because it is difficult to repeat the long names of organisations. For example, it is important to realise that the HRA is not the Human Rights Act but the habitats regulations assessment. Other such acronyms need to be looked at carefully.

I gather that further meetings are planned to respond both to the issues in the marine policy statement and to the concerns that people have raised. One or two meetings that have been held were well attended, in particular by organisations. I am glad that the task of getting the message out and starting a discussion in the country is being undertaken. Most of the responses have come from organisations—which I suppose is not surprising—but many interested individuals who are perhaps involved in marine economic activities or concerned about environmental issues will also want to be involved. In the consultation summary of responses, some environmental NGOs expressed disappointment that the consultation for the scoping stage of the appraisal of sustainability was not broadened to include individuals. Perhaps that can be addressed in later discussions on the issues.

This Government, and the previous Government, both wanted the marine planning system to be, as the policy statement says,

“Participative and informed by data provided by consultees, stakeholders, regulators and relevant experts”.

I encourage the Government to go down that route. If we are to get a sense of ownership of the plans and the planning process, it will be important for the participation procedures to be as effective as possible. That includes parliamentary involvement. There will be interest in both Houses in monitoring what happens in taking forward the marine policy statement and in implementing effectively the marine planning system and other provisions of the Marine and Coastal Access Act.

Obviously, the overarching principle of sustainability is something that we all feel strongly about, but the interpretation of that principle can give rise to difficulties. That is another example of where the devil is in the detail. In that regard, I know that Wildlife and Countryside Link sent us its views on the marine policy statement, and I hope its concerns can be addressed. In particular, that organisation is concerned that the MPS does not achieve its legislative purpose of clearly identifying those policies that will ensure that the marine planning system contributes to the achievement of sustainable development. The noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, raised some of those points, which it is important that we consider.

The devolved institutions surfaced during this debate. I note that the Fisheries Minister in another place talked about the need to have good co-ordination across the UK on fisheries and marine issues. Politically, that is something of a challenge given that we have a Conservative Fisheries Minister, a Sinn Fein Minister in Northern Ireland, a Scottish National Party Minister in Scotland and a Labour Minister in Wales. However, my impression is that the process is working well, and I applaud that. Such co-ordination will be important—I say that with a personal interest, as I come from the border area of the north-east of England. I remember that, when I first became interested in fisheries issues, I had a lot to do with an organisation called the Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation, which existed because fishing on both sides of the border was rather similar and there was a common marine area. I hope that in the new system the welcome existence of devolution will not be a barrier to joint working when that is clearly in the interests of particular communities and areas in the country.

The role of the Marine Management Organisation was mentioned during the course of the debate. In an earlier debate, the Minister and I both expressed strong support for the MMO and the work that it has to carry out, but some things are slightly puzzling to me. I understand that the MMO has designated the first two planning areas—east coast inshore and east coast offshore—and is busily planning at the moment, but this is in advance of the guidance under the marine policy statement. On what policy is planning being based at the present time? That is not clear to me. People need to know what is happening now.

I wish the MMO well in its tasks, but I understand that, as well as the change in personnel that was referred to earlier in the debate, there have been changes in the teams developing MMO planning policy and strategy. I hope that some of the staffing issues in the MMO are not going to prevent the effective action that we want to see.

I shall pick up the point that was made on the funding of the MMO. When the Minister and I discussed that at an earlier stage, he said that he would keep us informed about the situation affecting the MMO’s funding. I do not know whether he can comment on the question directly put to him about whether the departure of the chief executive and the chairman was related to funding, but it would be interesting to know that. There was general consensus that, as the organisation was set up recently when we knew of the financial crisis and its implications—in a lean and, I hope, fit-for-purpose way—for it to be subjected to any deep cuts would be unacceptable. There is a good case for saying that, as its budget was set up so recently, the MMO should be able to continue with a degree of certainty about its funding level.

Time does not permit me to deal with the issues surrounding fisheries policy, which are obviously related to the marine policy statement. A couple of weeks ago a very good debate was held in Westminster Hall on the common fisheries policy, and I hope that we will get an opportunity to debate that policy in your Lordships’ House as well. There are a number of important issues—regarding the regionalisation of the policy, whether there should be a move towards catch quotas and the move towards ending the annual wrangle in the EU about quotas—that need to be addressed. I will understand if the Minister feels that it would not be relevant to address those issues today, but again I hope that we will be able to consider them in some detail, particularly as we move towards the 2012 review of the common fisheries policy, which will be a key moment.

I agree with what the marine policy statement says on heritage protection, but obviously I hope that it takes into account existing activities. Even though this might lead to complications, I agree with the statement that,

“Many heritage assets with archaeological interest in coastal and offshore areas are not currently designated as scheduled monuments or protected wreck sites but are demonstrably of equivalent significance. The absence of designation for such assets does not necessarily indicate lower significance and the marine plan authority should consider them subject to the same policy principles as designated heritage assets”.

In conclusion, the debate has shown that there is general support for the overall approach, but we would like to see clarity about the way ahead, particularly so that those who will be deeply involved in these processes know what the priorities are and how the system will work. I accept that hard choices will have to be made and that conflicts cannot easily be resolved, but ultimately we all have a strong interest in a clean and safe marine environment and in a policy that is clearly sustainable over the long term. I am very supportive of the overall approach being taken, but I hope that some of the real issues and concerns that have been raised can be properly addressed.

Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, these regulations implement Council directive 2007/43, which establishes for the first time rules governing the conditions under which meat chickens are kept and the monitoring of the birds in slaughterhouses for poor on-farm welfare. The directive is unique in that it looks not only at inputs but at welfare outcomes.

A small section of the directive dealing with mutilations will be implemented through the regulations which the Committee has just discussed.

These regulations apply to holdings with 500 or more birds. They do not apply to breeding stocks of meat chickens, hatcheries or chickens marketed as extensive indoor, free-range or organic. However, these birds are subject to the provisions of Schedule 1 to the welfare of farmed animals regulations 2007, which sets down general conditions for the way in which animals are kept. For the purposes of these regulations, we have defined the chickens in scope as “conventionally reared meat chicken”.

Meat chicken welfare is an important issue. Around 850 million meat chickens are produced in the UK per year and 4 billion across the European Union. The United Kingdom is one of the largest meat chicken producers in the EU, and the total value of the UK industry is estimated at £1.6 billion. There has also been an increase in public awareness of meat chicken welfare over recent years, reflected in significant sales of chicken produced to higher welfare standards by major retailers.

The directive came into force on 30 June 2010. There has been a delay in implementing it in English law due to the change of government and the new processes that have been put in place to ensure the close scrutiny of all new legislation. However, I know that the industry and enforcement bodies have started to take account of the EU legislation in their activities, including training, and I much appreciate their commitment and good will in working with us on implementation. It has been an example of partnership working at its best.

Currently, there is no legal maximum stocking density for meat chickens in England. The directive permits member states to allow a maximum stocking density of up to 42 kilograms per square metre provided that certain criteria are met, including a challenging cumulative daily mortality figure over seven consecutive flocks. Therefore, a producer would have to meet these criteria and provide the evidence before being allowed to stock at 42 kilograms per square metre.

We have decided not to take advantage of this derogation on animal welfare grounds. The draft regulations set instead a maximum stocking density for conventionally reared meat chickens of 33 kilograms per square metre, with the opportunity to stock up to 39 kilograms per square metre provided that additional house documentation requirements and environmental parameters are met. This is in line with the commitment in the coalition agreement to improved standards of farm animal welfare.

There is evidence that meat chicken welfare can be compromised at densities higher than 40 kilograms per square metre. A Defra-funded study at Oxford University showed that, while mortality and leg defects were not compromised at higher stocking densities, other measures were affected, such as jostling, a reduction in growth rate and fewer birds showing the best gait scores, which is an assessment of chicken walking ability. The Farm Animal Welfare Council has also advised against the adoption of a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre. In addition, more than 90 per cent of domestic chicken production is currently subject to assurance scheme requirements, which operate at stocking densities at or lower than 38 kilograms per square metre.

Adopting this approach allows us to show leadership on animal welfare. The industry should aim to provide consumers with this information and promote the fact that English chicken meat meets the higher welfare standards set by this Government. Consumers can then make an informed choice. We are not alone in setting a maximum stocking density of 39 kilograms per square metre. I understand that Wales and Scotland have also already taken this approach.

However, we are not going to set this stocking density and walk away. The maximum stocking density will be reviewed as part of the post-implementation review of the regulations. In addition, the EU Commission will publish a report in 2012 looking at the directive’s application and influence on chicken welfare.

We intend to commission a socioeconomic research project to assess the impact of implementing the regulations on the relevant monetary and non-monetary costs and benefits identified in the impact assessment. As part of that, the analysis will look at the impact of the regulations on the industry, enforcement body activity, the effectiveness of slaughterhouse welfare triggers, welfare outcomes and the experience of other member states, some of which will be operating a maximum stocking density of 42 kilograms per square metre.

As I mentioned earlier, the regulations are unique in that they will also look at the welfare outcomes for the birds. All birds will be subject to post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse for possible indications of poor on-farm welfare.

For flocks stocked at over 33 kilograms per square metre, mortality information will also be assessed as an indicator of poor welfare. “Poor welfare” will be defined through the setting of welfare triggers for mortality and post-mortem inspections in the slaughterhouse. Any concerns will be communicated to the producer and to Animal Health in order for them to take appropriate action. That might include the drawing up of an action plan in conjunction with Animal Health to outline how a welfare problem will be addressed.

This system of welfare triggers will allow for a more consistent approach across slaughterhouses to the identification of potential on-farm welfare problems. The welfare triggers have been based in part on a pilot study that saw some of the largest meat chicken companies working with us and Animal Health. This is another good example of people working together to improve welfare.

As highlighted, these draft regulations are certainly an important step in improving the welfare of meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, the Opposition are generally supportive of these regulations and the directive behind them. Indeed, the directive was agreed in European Union negotiations under the previous Government, and the regulations implement the directive here. The Minister is correct in saying that this is a useful and important step forward. This is the first time that rules governing conditions under which meat chickens are kept have been agreed at EU level and there is monitoring of birds for poor on-farm welfare. That incorporates some of the animal welfare concerns, which are very recent concerns in EU legislation, so I welcome that.

The Minister was also right to stress that this is an important industry for us. Very often in the EU context we tend to think that other countries are more agriculturally focused than we are, but in terms of this industry, as the Minister pointed out, the UK is one of the largest chicken producers in the European Union. The industry's total value has been estimated at £1.6 billion.

Obviously, the regulations also relate to public concern in terms of the increased demand for food that is produced to higher welfare standards. There has been an increase in the number of consumers wanting assured produce in terms of animal welfare as well as other things. Speaking as a consumer rather than a parliamentarian, I find that the labels can sometimes be confusing with all the different assurance schemes that exist. I know that this has been tried for a number of years, but it would be good if we could move towards more simplification and greater certainty for consumers in this respect. None the less, the trend that we have seen overall is a welcome one.

In general, the Government have tried to strike a balance between animal welfare concerns and the dangers of getting into a situation where we become over-reliant on imports that do not meet the same high standards. It has been a difficult balance to strike. I agree with the Government that the limit of 39 kilos per square metre should be supported, as should not going up to 42.

The Minister rightly said that Wales and Scotland are working along similar lines. I understand, however, that in Northern Ireland a limit of 42 kilos per square metre has been sought. While I fully respect the devolution settlement and the ability of different jurisdictions to decide on their policies, it none the less would be a desirable goal for the UK to operate similar conditions for trading reasons, just as it is a good idea for similar high standards to operate throughout the EU as a whole, even though that is a much more ambitious goal. I do not know whether the Minister has had any discussions with his Northern Ireland counterparts about this, or whether there are special reasons for this of which I am not aware.

The Minister also said that we are not going to walk away from trying to improve standards as time goes on. I think that those were his words. While we have not gone much beyond the minimum standards of the EU in these regulations, what does the Minister see as the possibilities for reducing stocking densities further—from, say, 39 to 33 kilograms per square metre? Does he see us moving in that direction over the next few years?

The regulations are slightly late in being introduced to Parliament but that is not surprising, given that an election took place earlier this year. Does the Minister have any information about whether the regulations and the directive have now come into force in other member states, or whether there are some member states that have not yet adopted the legislation in the way that they are supposed to?

Information from the British Veterinary Association raised some concerns that it originally had about the proposed regulations. It wanted more detail on environmental enrichment to reduce the risk of leg problems in poultry, on litter management to maintain optimum conditions and on the importance of floor temperature. Does the Minister know whether the various concerns raised by the British Veterinary Association have been met?

I recognise that there are costs attached to these regulations. What I did not quite understand from the Explanatory Memorandum is how much of the costs involved are on-farm costs and how much are off-farm, relating to slaughterhouses, inspection processes and so on, to see whether animal welfare issues have arisen. If the Minister does not have that information immediately to hand, I would be happy for him to write to me. It could be, however, that it is in the information and I just have not managed to spot it.

Compliance with these regulations will be very important. The impact assessment accompanying the directive states that there was a 19.1 per cent failure rate for compliance with existing meat chicken welfare standards. Do the bodies concerned, which I understand are the Food Standards Agency and Animal Health, have the resources to try to ensure full compliance with these regulations? I know that the Minister in another place said firmly that he was determined to stamp out abuses in animal welfare practice, but it would be good if the Minister could give us any further information on this.

Finally, repeating something that I said earlier, which the Minister was kind enough to agree with, building alliances for higher welfare standards will be very important at European Union level. I wish the Government well in that task.

Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft regulations, which we hope will be agreed by the House later. The coalition Government are, as always, committed to improved standards of animal welfare. It certainly forms part of my own department, Defra’s, structural reform plan.

These regulations remove the ban on beak-trimming of laying hens which is due to come in on 1 January 2011, to allow for routine beak-trimming of day-old chicks intended for laying to be carried out using the infra-red technique only, with other methods restricted to emergency use only. I recognise that this issue has generated a lot of interest in another place. A Written Statement was provided to both Houses last month setting out the background behind these amending regulations, explaining the Government’s determination to work closely with the industry with the objective of making a ban on beak-trimming possible in 2016. That is a commitment that I made and that my honourable friend Mr Jim Paice made in a Written Statement some two months ago.

The current position is that the UK makes use of a derogation in the EU Council Directive 99/74/EC on the welfare of laying hens, which allows for beak-trimming of laying hens that are less than 10 days old if carried out by qualified staff. The procedure is only permitted to prevent feather-pecking and cannibalism, which is a common but unpredictable behaviour in commercial flocks of laying hens and a significant welfare issue. The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 implement this derogation but only allow routine beak-trimming to be carried out until 31 December 2010, after which beak-trimming of laying hens would be banned.

The ban was put in place when the laying hens directive was implemented in the UK in 2002, allowing eight years to develop a strategy to manage birds without the need to beak-trim. The Beak Trimming Action Group—comprising representatives from industry, welfare groups, Defra, scientific and veterinary professions—was established to develop this strategy. However, progress in the control of injurious pecking in England has not been sufficient to implement a ban on beak-trimming without causing a significant risk to animal welfare. In the mean time, a new infra-red technique was developed and is now used to beak-trim birds commercially, as an alternative to hot-blading. Currently, the infra-red technique is used on 95 per cent of all beak-trimmed laying hens.

The Farm Animal Welfare Council reviewed the evidence in 2007 and 2009 and recommended that the ban on beak-trimming should be deferred until it can be demonstrated reliably under commercial conditions that laying hens can be managed without beak-trimming, without a greater risk to their welfare than that caused by beak-trimming itself. The FAWC recommended that infra-red beak treatment should be the only method used routinely, as the evidence indicated that it does not induce chronic pain.

The Government’s long-term goal is to ban routine beak-trimming, but FAWC’s advice represents a sensible and pragmatic approach in the circumstances. A ban on beak-trimming for laying hens at this time would result in significant welfare problems through outbreaks of feather-pecking and cannibalism. It is therefore right that the legislation needs to be amended to remove the impending ban, which would otherwise come into force on 1 January 2011.

The Government see the proposed removal of the ban very much as an interim solution. The previous Government’s consultation on proposals to amend the legislation did not propose any dates to review the policy or for a future ban. This Government have taken heed of the strength of feeling on this issue and decided to adopt the Farm Animal Welfare Council’s recommendation of setting a review date of 2015. We will assess the output of this work, with the objective of banning routine beak-trimming in 2016. The Beak Trimming Action Group will be reconvened; its first meeting has been arranged for January. We are committed to working with the group to find solutions to this very complex issue. The group will establish an action plan to include the key milestones which were laid out in the Written Statement, leading up to a full review of beak-trimming in 2015.

The review will consider results of ongoing research projects that are investigating practical and realistic ways to rear laying hens without the need for beak- trimming. Bristol University, for example, funded by the Tubney Charitable Trust, is carrying out a three-year intervention study. It is developing a trialling and advisory package to help producers reduce the risk of injurious pecking through changes to housing and husbandry. All the key stakeholder groups are on the steering group for this project, with representatives from industry, welfare organisations, researchers, economists and Defra. The Beak Trimming Action Group will begin to consider the outputs from this study next summer.

We recognise that any future strategy will have to identify the lessons that can be learnt from those countries that already have a ban in place or just do not beak-trim, such as Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, so we have asked the industry to undertake some study tours to such countries. Feather-pecking is greatest in systems of management which do not house birds in cages. Therefore, the risk to the welfare of laying hens from injurious pecking is likely to increase after the ban on conventional cages comes into force on 1 January 2012. A review in 2015 will allow producers time to increase their experience of managing flocks in alternative systems.

The review in 2015 will assess the achievements on eliminating beak-trimming to date and advise whether a ban on routine beak-trimming of laying hens will achieve the maximum welfare outcome, which is what we desire, with a view to reinstating the ban in 2016. These regulations will improve existing welfare standards for laying hens in the short term while we work hard to find a lasting solution, which will bring an end to the need for routine beak-trimming. They also complete the implementation of Council Directive 2007/43/EC by implementing the mutilations provisions for meat chickens and I commend them to the Committee.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the instrument. We fully support the aim of ending beak-trimming and the general desire across government to do so. As the Minister explained, without this instrument the ban would legally have come into force although, given the difficulties, I imagine that even had there not been a change of Government we would have been in a similar situation, particularly given the responses to the consultation that the previous Government held earlier this year. There is the difficult equation of balancing a possible deterioration in animal welfare standards by not continuing with the derogation and the concern that changing the system at this point could have meant that we would have had extra imports coming in from countries with lower welfare standards. I can therefore see some of the difficulties that were involved in calculating how to take this issue forward for the future and, for that reason, I understand the action that the Government are proposing in these regulations.

As the Minister said, however, there is considerable public and parliamentary interest in this issue. That is not surprising because there is a strong degree of commitment to animal welfare among the public and in Parliament and to seeing increased animal welfare standards for the future. Certainly, that concern was reflected in an Early Day Motion in the other House, which was proposed by a Conservative but endorsed by Members from many parties, particularly my own. Their desire is that beak-trimming should be brought to an end as soon as practicable. Indeed, that underlines the idea of creating some kind of deadline for this to happen, which the Government have done in deciding on the review period and the ban date as the Minister outlined to us.

Obviously, 2016 is some time off. I am not trying to make a party-political point because I know that the process has already been a long one. None the less, if there are any other ways of trying to shorten the timetable I would certainly encourage the Government look at them. One aspect of the work that needs to be undertaken between now and then is the study tour of EU and other European countries that do not have beak- trimming. I would have thought that that work could start soon and I understand that it will be proceeded with expeditiously. I understand what the Minister said about the three-year research project. That obviously takes us to some time in the future. However, having said that, I certainly hope that at the very least the timetable that has been set out can be adhered to.

I do not know whether the Government considered putting the deadlines in the regulations, but I hope that it will be made very clear that this is the deadline to which the Government are working. It would not be good for a signal to be sent out that nothing much will be happening immediately so therefore people do not need to worry about it. That has been a problem in the past and we do not want it to be a problem in the future.

On another issue, I strongly support what the Minister said in terms of favouring the infra-red method as opposed to the hot-blade method. As he said, 95 per cent of production is subject to the infra-red method. However, the regulations say that in the case of a sudden outbreak, it would be possible to use the hot-blade procedure. I understand from the debate that took place in the other House that such emergencies have not occurred recently. None the less, I note that the British Veterinary Association, in its response to the Government, is concerned that the regulations could be interpreted as allowing the arbitrary use of hot-blade beak-trimming after 10 days to control moderate or even minor outbreaks of injurious pecking. The association felt that in order to counteract that, the term “emergency” should be more clearly defined. Has consideration been given to that as a way forward? Or is it that, as was described in the other House, the concerns of the British Veterinary Association are not causing too much worry to the Government at present because this procedure is not really being used at the moment?

The regulations state that holdings with fewer than 350 birds are exempt from the regulations. I would like to ask the Minister a little more about that. Why should not the infra-red technique be prescribed for those holdings as well? I do not know whether there is routing beak-trimming in holdings with fewer than 350 birdsI note that in the debate in the other place the Minister said that such holdings would in any case be covered under the Animal Welfare Act, which was passed by the previous Government with all-party support. If the provisions in that Act were sufficient, why would these regulations be necessary? I am not quite sure why the older Act is sufficient in the case of holdings with fewer than 350 birds but not for holdings with more than 350 birds. The very helpful Explanatory Memorandum says that there are 1,323 holdings housing more than 350 laying hens. Does the Minister have any statistics for how many holdings have fewer than 350 birds? I could not see that information in the Explanatory Memorandum. If it is there, I apologise for having missed it.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Caithness]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, I remember the 1976 Bill coming through Parliament. I was on the Benches that he is sitting on now. I thought it was a bad Bill then, and it has remained a bad Act, in particular with regard to ADHACs. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that this body is necessary. If it had been necessary, it would have been compulsory to have consulted an ADHAC. As it is, it is a purely voluntary agreement that an ADHAC can be used for consultation with the housing authority if necessary. The vast majority of cases are dealt with directly with the local housing association, so “necessary” was not the right word to use in this instance.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that there are 40 to 50 cases a year. I question that. My information is that the number is almost in single figures now. Sixteen ADHACs have some 10 cases a year in total. That means that half of them are not doing anything at all. It is high time we got rid of them, and I thoroughly support my noble friend in this. Could I just ask him whether, when we come to the follow-up legislation, he will propose to get rid of all 16 ADHACs at once, rather than one by one?

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in having tabled this amendment, which allowed this issue to be aired through this short debate. I know that he had some support from my noble friends who added their names to his amendment, which is symptomatic of a wider concern than if the amendment had simply been tabled in his own name. It shows concern that the issues that the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees have been dealing with are still important to address for the future in whatever way the Government are envisaging. We will be very interested to hear how the Minister responds to this debate.

It seems to me that the scale of the issue is quite important, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said. As I understand it, 30 per cent of agricultural workers live in tied accommodation. Given that there are some 150,000 agricultural workers, we are talking about a considerable number of people who could avail themselves of this service. Obviously, there is some dispute about the figures; I am also aware of the figures cited by my noble friend showing that the advisory committees deal with about 40 to 50 cases each year. The noble Earl has given us different figures. Perhaps the Minister, in his reply, might like to give us the official Defra figures for this process.

Even if the figures are lower than I and my noble friends believe, that does not necessarily mean that all the committees should disappear. There might therefore be an argument for rationalising the structure. I do not know if this is something to which the Government have given consideration. If there are cases—sensitive cases, because they concern people’s accommodation and whether they are going to be able to stay in their homes or be forced to move—being dealt with properly by the committees in a sensitive and efficient way, then it would be very unwise to simply disband the committees without having some very clear assurance as to how these matters will be dealt with in future. Perhaps the Minister can give us some figures showing whether the tempo of consultations and referrals to the committees has increased or decreased in recent years. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was quite right to stress, as the major point of his argument, the importance of how these issues are going to be dealt with in future and whether there will be people who know of the special circumstances of agriculture and the agricultural industry who will be able to deal with them.

Consultation is also important. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, is in his place. Much to the House’s pleasure, he gave it some assurances about the consultation process to which he was committed while taking forward the provisions in this Bill. It would therefore be interesting to know what consultation has taken place so far on this issue with those likely to be affected and those who are members of the committees at the moment, and to know whether they judge their work likely to decrease or increase. After all, there are quite a number of different and even specialised aspects to agricultural tenancies; for example, the different types of tenancy—protected, statutory or assured. We need to know that there will be people who understand how the system works and will be able to operate it in future. The point has also been made to me that when farm workers come up for retirement but want to stay in their homes, that can be a difficult time. Therefore, we are entitled to ask who will represent and support farmers at that stage of their lives and in those circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I reinforce the argument made by my noble friend. I drove a tractor some time ago—1943, I think it was. Whether I was underage I will leave the House to decide. I remember that we were very happy if we got 30 hundredweights an acre. We stooped it, then it was put in a stack, and it was then thrashed by a threshing machine that came around at about this time of the year.

Today, you have a computer-controlled combine harvester that does the whole thing on its own. It is about two and a half times the width of the old cutters that we used to have. I will gamble that there are very few farmers that own one of those combines. There are some in Norfolk, in the grain area of the east of England, but in my part of England—in north Yorkshire—none of the farmers owns their own combine harvester. The contractors own it—and they do the potatoes as well. There are no labourers left in north Yorkshire in agriculture. No such person exists any longer. If there is not a skill, then you cannot employ anybody in agriculture in north Yorkshire—I am not sure about north Scotland.

I contend that—never mind the £8-something—you will not get that combine driven by anyone paid anything less than £10 an hour. The statistics that I would like to understand are the actual wages in agriculture today, because—believe you me—they do not bear much relationship either to the minimum wage or to the wages that were set on 1 October by the board which we are discussing.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, support strongly the amendment and pay tribute to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, introduced this debate. It has been an interesting and powerful debate, and noble Lords from around the House have certainly brought their experience to bear on this issue. We even had the personal experience of my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere, who, at an earlier stage in his career, was affected by the decisions of the agricultural wages board.

We were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the board, in one form or another, was established a long time ago—in 1924—and has been a tried and tested institution. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, also referred, as I think did the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, to industrial action. Happily there has not been industrial action in the agricultural industry since 1923—significantly, the year immediately before the establishment of the board. However, I support the agricultural wages board not simply because it has been here for a long time. The Minister misquoted me in our last debate when he said that I had said at some point,

“that everything should continue as it is just because it always has existed in the past”.—[Official Report, 29/11/10; col. 1360.]

I can assure him that I have never said anything remotely like that, and I am very often persuaded of the need for all kinds of change. I hope, after what has been said today, particularly by my noble friends and by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, that the Government will think again about the decision to abolish the agricultural wages board. I think they should reconsider it very seriously indeed in the light of this discussion.

A number of noble Lords mentioned consultation, and there certainly has been next to no consultation on this decision. The Minister, in answer to a Written Question from me, said:

“No specific consultation was undertaken prior to the decision to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board”.—[Official Report, 26/10/10; col. WA 245.]

It is my understanding that the Welsh Assembly Government criticised their notification of this as being totally inadequate; they were given one week to respond. Indeed, in an answer to a Question from the former Defra Secretary of State in the other place, Hilary Benn, again the lack of consultation was clearly evident. Given that the agricultural wages board has been a very long-standing feature of our economic and agricultural landscape, to have no consultation is very serious indeed.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Would the noble Baroness agree that the debate has been forceful in indicating that consultation would be advisable and helpful, and that perhaps it would be sensible not to reach a conclusion on this matter in this debate, because evidently there is still a great deal of time left to consider the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

The noble Lord makes an important point. Obviously, how we proceed is up to the author and introducer of the amendment to decide. None the less, given the number of questions that have been raised in this debate on all sides, and given the fact that there has been a very strong feeling in the Chamber that this is an issue about which there should be proper consultation, I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his comments. I am sure that, in the light of whatever response we get from the Government, we would very much want to return to this in any case, because it is obviously of great concern and interest to many Members in this House and, of course, to many people outside.

The issue of cost has once again been referred to. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, in his introductory comments, said that the cost of abolishing the board was very limited. In answer to a Parliamentary Question in the other place by Willie Bain, I understand that the Government said that the costs would be “negligible”; indeed that the,

“changes to include agricultural workers within the scope of national minimum wage legislation”,

were,

“expected to be cost neutral”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/10/10; col. 14W]

Therefore this has not been brought forward to save a great deal of money, again like some of the measures that we were considering earlier. In many ways it seems to be part of a political agenda—a political decision—which I must say I very much regret. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, himself said that the abolition of the agricultural wages board was part of the Conservative manifesto but was certainly not part of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It was not part of the coalition agreement, and for that reason I think that it would be very good if it were not part of government policy here and now. I know, having looked at the Liberal Democrat Voice on the internet, that there is a concern generally about the Bill among Liberal Democrats, but also about some of the specific proposals, including this one.

I know that some farmers have come out very much in favour of abolition of the agricultural wages board, including the NFU in England. It is interesting, however, that the National Farmers’ Union in Wales has come out more in support of the retention of the agricultural wages board. Indeed, it and some other farmers have made the very important point that the agricultural wages board actually lifts from individual farmers the burden of negotiation. Quite understandably, this debate has focused on the effects of abolition on agricultural workers, but there is also a negative effect on many farmers who find the operation of the agricultural wages board helpful and valuable in terms of the recruitment and retention of skilled labour. The Government have said in the past, in debates in this House, that they value professionalism in agriculture; yet I fear that, by going down this route, we will undermine agriculture and show it as a low-paid profession where there is not proper protection for workers. We already know that agriculture is a dangerous industry in terms of accidents. We need to tackle that issue, which I think the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, referred to. At the same time we want agriculture to be seen as an industry which is attractive for new employees in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

I do not think that it is necessary for that work to have been done. As I said, we believe that with the abolition of the board the industry will be able to operate more flexibly, which would lead to more job creation and better opportunities. What the noble Lord and others have been asking us to do is describe what picture, as they put it, we see for the future. I believe that it is one where it is open to the industry to come together to set up its own system. Again, I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU ought to be out there seeking to put something together. What I did not hear from the representatives of Unite or Unite’s predecessor, the Transport and General Workers’ Union, was whether they were prepared to come together with the NFU and put something together. I do not see why the NFU, Unite and other industry representatives cannot come together and create their own advisory committee to discuss these matters. We do not think that it is necessarily a matter for the Government.

[Baroness Quin]

If I could follow up on my noble friend’s point, I thought that the Government had said that they would routinely carry out impact assessments in coming forward with legislation. I do not understand why they do not seem prepared to do so in this case.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as I made clear, I do not think that it is necessary in this case to carry out an impact assessment. If it was necessary, we would do so. What I am saying is that, after the abolition of the wages board, it is open to the industry to look at its own arrangements. That is why I was grateful for the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who said that the NFU could do this, but I do not see why the NFU cannot do it along with Unite and all the other representatives of the industry.

I appreciate that we have now spent an hour and a half discussing these matters. We will no doubt come back to this in due course. My noble friend Lord Maclennan said that there was still much time to discuss these matters. There certainly will be time, because noble Lords opposite wish to make sure that there is. We will discuss these matters further, therefore, but I have not heard anything yet this afternoon that would encourage me to say that there was a case for preserving the agricultural wages board or the agricultural wages committees. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, my noble friends have set out very well the argument against the abolition of the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides.

I compare the proposed abolition of the two committees with the recently announced cancellation of the Food Standards Agency. To a non-scientist like me, such abolition can only mean that in future people’s diets in schools and elsewhere will be more controlled by the burger manufacturers. Ours is the second most obese country in the world after the United States of America, but that situation looks like it will only get worse rather than better. If the Government’s intention in abolishing the committees is to have less government and to allow the industry to take its course, there will clearly be a risk that the manufacturers of these products—nasty or otherwise—could populate any committees that the Minister may create with academics who are funded by their companies. There is a great danger that we could end up in a similar situation to the one that both my noble friends have outlined.

The independence of such committees is absolutely fundamental. I hope that the Minister can give us confidence that their scientific independence will be preserved. As I have said, the precedent of the Food Standards Agency is extremely important. People will probably only get fat and die sooner without the FSA, whereas the abolition of these two committees will probably have a much more urgent effect. However, a similar principle is involved. I look forward to his comments.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Whitty on Amendment 18 and to use this opportunity to probe the Government’s intentions regarding these two bodies—or, perhaps more accurately, these three bodies, since the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in Northern Ireland is included.

Like my noble friend, I am glad that the Minister who is to reply is from Defra. Given the large number of bodies being modified or abolished by this Bill that are part of Defra’s area of responsibility, it is good that the Minister is responding to the debate on these bodies and, I hope, on the other agricultural bodies listed in the Bill. Given the many bodies that are listed in Schedule 1 that the Government are to have the power to abolish, it is absolutely right that each body should be looked at in turn. In many cases, the bodies in question have existed for a long time, so there certainly needs to be proper consultation about their future and how their work, especially when that is evaluated as having been very valuable, can be taken forward.

First, perhaps I may ask a few questions about the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances. The committee not only has a distinguished membership but holds regular meetings and has produced a large number of reports, which I understand have been accessed by many people. The committee has also been very open about its proceedings. I notice that, when Defra first announced the changes to arm’s-length bodies on 22 July, the Secretary of State—the queen of the quango cutters—said that she intended that, as a result of the proposed changes, the subjects covered by such bodies would be dealt with more openly. Having looked at the website for the Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances, I find it hard to imagine how much more open it could be. Its agendas, minutes and proceedings are made fully available. I understand that it has held a number of public meetings and that it expects—if it is allowed to do so—to hold such meetings in the future. Indeed, I understand that the next public meeting is scheduled for 7 December. Will that be an occasion when the future of the organisation could be aired publicly? Indeed, will the Government be involved in that meeting by giving their view on how a successor organisation might look?

I turn to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. Given that the committee was set up in 1985 following legislation by the then Conservative Government, it is fair to ask a Conservative Minister why it is no longer felt necessary to have such a committee. As my noble friends have said, there is a great deal of public concern about pesticides, the use of which can give rise to many problems, particularly if they are not properly evaluated and subject to appropriate expertise at every stage. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley mentioned, we need to consider how bodies such as the Advisory Committee on Pesticides overlap with organisations such as the Food Standards Agency. The Advisory Committee on Pesticides is concerned not only with the use of pesticides on food and agricultural products but with the health of creatures and plants. The Government are required to consult the committee in certain circumstances. Could the Minister tell us how useful that process of consultation has been?

Flooding: Cornwall

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we look at the lessons learnt from all floods and we have made great progress—as did the previous Government—in getting all agencies, whether local authorities or the voluntary sector, to work together in this field. My noble friend is quite right to refer to the role that helicopters can play, but there is also a large role to be played by the emergency services and the voluntary sector. We greatly praise the RNLI, which I know helped out in west Cumbria, the Red Cross, mountain rescue and many others who help on these occasions.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I extend from this Front Bench the Opposition’s sympathy and support for those who have been affected by the floods in Cornwall, particularly those who had to be evacuated from their homes. Given the concerns expressed by the Environment Agency, the Institution of Civil Engineers and others about funding cuts in the next four years, and given that communities such as those in Cornwall and Cumbria need certainty about which flood protection projects will go ahead, may I ask the Minister what local authorities will receive from the CLG formula grant next year and when his department will publish a definitive list of projects that will receive funding and those that will not?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness is referring to the help that we will provide to local authorities under the Flood and Water Management Act. I understand that they will receive some £21 million next year, due to phasing in, but thereafter it will be some £36 million. That will help local resilience forums, which are local authority-based, to do all the work that is necessary. We believe that the £8.1 billion that we are providing for capital work on floods is a pretty fair settlement in light of the deficit that we faced when we came into government. It represents only a very small reduction on what was available for the previous four years.

Abattoirs: CCTV

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, there are many factors other than compulsory CCTV; it is important to have vets working in all abattoirs and for inspections to take place at an appropriate level. I can assure my noble friend that any decision on whether to prosecute will be taken by independent prosecution lawyers; Ministers have no say in it. In the case that my noble friend refers to, the independent prosecution lawyer took into account previous court decisions which make it clear that evidence which has been unlawfully obtained cannot be used and will be excluded in such cases.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, given the alarming footage referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the disturbing report in the Independent last Friday, can we have an assurance that despite the decision made on court proceedings, not only will Defra’s commitment to animal welfare be reinforced rather than weakened, but the cuts imposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government will not impact on the ability of local authorities to carry out their important animal welfare role in monitoring abattoirs and markets?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, of course they will not affect the role of local authorities in that regard. What is important is that Defra, through the Food Standards Agency, will continue to make sure that abattoirs are operating carefully, and we will make sure that appropriate funds are available for that. We are also going to consult on whether we should look to a full costs recovery scheme for the costs of monitoring what goes on in abattoirs, but obviously that is something which has to be discussed with the industry.

Common Agricultural Policy

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on introducing this debate today. Like many noble Lords, I agree that it is timely, although it might have been even timelier tomorrow after having a chance to look at the Commission’s latest communication. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, and others have reminded us, we helpfully had a leaked version of the paper some time ago. I do not know whether the Minister can inform us how similar the new document will be to the old one, but I imagine that there is a great deal in the leaked version that will continue to be in the version published today.

It has also been a very well informed debate with many Members of your Lordship’ House showing their knowledge of the subject, which in many cases goes back a long way. There has been reference to the past and the history of this policy. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, gave us a particularly knowledgeable account of that. Certainly, he reminded us of some of the worst aspects of the old policy, particularly in terms of export subsidies, which harm third-world countries, surpluses and the environmental negative effects of many of its aspects.

We know, of course, that some farmers benefited very much from the old policy but I am also aware that many farmers in sectors such as the pig and poultry industries and horticulture not only did not receive support but frequently found themselves exposed to the full blast of EU competition rules limiting state aids and so on. Therefore, traditionally one aspect of the policy was that it was highly discriminatory, even within agriculture, and that often had very unfortunate effects.

My noble friend Lord Wills quite rightly said that often there is insufficient opportunity to scrutinise the policy as much as we would like. I certainly share the frustration of some noble Lords that, particularly in certain parts of the press, the debate seems not to have moved on at all and that the policy is frequently described as though it has not changed, whereas in fact many considerable changes have taken place over the years. Some of those changes have involved a significant switch away from production support—the decoupling process that has been referred to—and the emergence of the Second Pillar. That was a very important development in shaping people’s attitudes towards how the CAP might evolve in the future—certainly in terms of it being more of an agricultural and rural development policy, a way of rewarding and incentivising good environmental practice, supporting modernisation and diversification, helping farmers to develop new markets, bringing farmers closer to existing markets through marketing and commercialisation help, promoting energy crops and alternative energy systems, and in general promoting agricultural and rural development in a way that did not discriminate against certain sectors of agriculture and did not have the ossifying tendencies that the old agriculture system certainly had. We have also seen a reduction in export subsidies, although some of those regrettably persist and have negative effects. We have also seen a declining share for agriculture in the overall EU budget, and I hope that that process will continue.

We have to look at the Commission’s proposals in the current context, the first aspect of which is the financial crisis and the budgetary crises that Governments across Europe are facing. I think that the public are willing to pay for environmental and countryside policies, but they want to see clear benefits and a clear delivery of public goods in the process. Obviously they want a policy that helps meet the overall environmental commitments that we have entered into. Food security is another important issue, as the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, said; and the need for increased food production if world food needs are to be met is a very important aspect of this debate.

In the few minutes that I have, I would simply like to press the Government on their view as they approach these negotiations. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, when he says that people’s ideas on the future of agricultural policy are increasingly coming together. I think that there is more consensus than there used to be, and looking at some of the briefing provided to us today by the NFU, the CLA, the RSPB and so on, I was struck by many of the common aspects. There are certain differences, but there is more of a common approach than I recognise from the past. The Minister is therefore in a more fortunate position in starting these negotiations and finding an outcome which we hope will suit the UK and its needs.

In the leaked document—and I think it is likely to be maintained in the document today—there are basically three options, moving from an approach of very little change to one of more radical change. To which of the three approaches are the Government attracted at the moment?

Like one or two other speakers I would also like to raise the issue of co-financing. I understand that there is nervousness among our own farmers as well as farmers elsewhere that it could mean that if Governments do not put in their own share, funding could be at risk and there could be discrimination between countries of the EU. Yet at the same time we have seen some co-financing of regional and other schemes in the EU that can be successful. What is the Government’s thinking on this issue?

A number of noble Lords referred to large farms. I believe that we have to consider this question in a fairly subtle way. It is not just a question of big farms versus small farms but also of whether the subsidies to particular farms can be justified given the overall circumstances. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wills and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about what the public regard as unfairness in excessive payments. At the same time I would not want to say that it is the fault only of large farms as such. We have to look at this in a more subtle way and decide what should be supported and what should not.

I agree strongly on the point about agricultural research which a number of noble Lords mentioned. I hope the Minister will address that point. I would also like him to address the future for hill farmers and the LFA, a subject which I know is of great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and many others around the Chamber. We would like the Government’s view on whether these new areas of natural constraints are the same thing, or whether this is a definition that might go wider. I would also like to say very strongly that we do not want any of the environmental payments to be jeopardised. I hope that the funding cuts for Natural England which the Government are introducing will not undermine the good work that Natural England is doing with farmers in delivering environmental benefits.

I wish the Government well in these negotiations because they are important to our consumers, our farmers and indeed to all of us who love and value our countryside and who want to see a thriving rural economy within the overall economy of our country.

Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) (Amendment) Order 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am pleased to present this order to the Committee. It will be aware that my honourable friend the Parliamentary Private Secretary for the Natural Environment and Fisheries presented this statutory instrument in another place yesterday. As the Committee knows, better regulation across government and its network of delivery bodies is an important tenet of the coalition Government’s drive for responsible and accountable policy and delivery. This statutory instrument seeks to ensure, formally, that the Marine Management Organisation adheres to a common standard of better regulation by adding it to the existing list of bodies that are subject to the legislative and regulatory format of 2006.

The principles of better regulation stipulate that regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that these principles must underpin the effective working of all our public bodies. The MMO has been following these principles since vesting on 1 April this year. The framework document setting out its remit and corporate governance responsibilities, as agreed by the MMO and its sponsors, states:

“As a government regulator the MMO must have regard to the five principles of good regulation … The MMO will have a risk-based, proportionate, targeted and flexible approach to regulatory inspection and enforcement”.

Although the MMO already complies with this, it is nevertheless important to recognise formally its commitment to these regulatory principles.

The Committee will also know that the MMO is the Government’s key delivery body for marine policy, bringing together management for a number of marine activities including fishing, nature conservation, planning, licensing and enforcement. Delivering functions on behalf of a range of government departments, the MMO is jointly sponsored by the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence, and my department, Defra. The length and breadth of responsibilities that rest at the door of the MMO are huge and range from planning and fishing to aggregate extraction and pollution control. Its influence is felt not only locally but at a national and international level.

That is exactly what we—the Government, the Opposition and all parties—envisaged when the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 passed through Parliament. People right across the political spectrum worked together to put this important piece of legislation on to the statute book. For my part, now that we are in government we want to ensure that the legislation is enacted correctly. It is therefore right that the MMO adheres to the common standards of better regulation, and today this statutory instrument recognises its efforts. I beg to move.

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the order and for explaining it. From the outset, I can assure him of the support of the Opposition for the instrument. It is good that, as a result of the delay caused by parliamentary business, the MMO could be consulted; obviously, it is right to add it to the list of regulators and that it should have to meet the key principles of good regulation which the Minister has enunciated.

As he said, the MMO was created as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. It is a cross-cutting body that brings together key maritime decision-making powers—planning, regulating and licensing activity—in the marine area. It has the overarching emphasis on and duty to the promotion of sustainable development. Generally, I strongly agree with the Minister that the Act and the establishment of the MMO are good news for the public, particularly with the establishment of marine protected areas, which have been described as doing what national parks did for enhancing awareness of the natural environment and countryside but this time in the marine environment.

The role of the MMO is very important in fulfilling the terms of the Act. Not surprisingly, the Minister will understand that I, as a north-easterner, very strongly welcome the establishment of the MMO in the north-east of England, with its long maritime tradition, its superb Newcastle University marine research department and, indeed, allied facilities such as the very long-established research facility, the Dove Marine Laboratory at Cullercoats.

I am also glad that the Government have a strong commitment to the MMO. Perhaps, via the Minister in this House, I could congratulate the Minister in the other place who spoke to this order yesterday. He admitted that in opposition he had concerns about the MMO, but he said firmly that his reservations had been resolved after visiting the organisation and that he now had nothing but praise for the motivation of the staff and their determination to make it a success. I, for one, very much welcomed the remarks that the Minister in the other place made in Committee yesterday.

Not surprisingly, I have concerns about the effect of budgetary cuts on the organisation. It was recently established, and it was to be a lean, mean and efficient organisation without lavish start-up costs. For that reason, we are concerned that it should not bear the heavy brunt of cuts in current circumstances, and that it should have the resources to carry out its work and responsibilities.

Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Baroness Quin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Baroness Quin]

My Lords, again, I begin by thanking the Minister for his explanation of the regulations and for bringing them forward today. They are in many ways a continuation of an existing policy and approach, and derive from EU obligations. As the Minister explained, the targets needed to be updated for the immediate future. In responding for the Opposition, I simply raise a few questions that are largely stimulated by the Explanatory Memorandum. We know that consultation has taken place on the regulations, and I ask the Minister about the level of interest in the consultation and the overall responses to it. Is he happy about how extensive the consultation was and whether those who will be affected by the regulations heard about it and had a fair chance to give their views?

The Minister was uncharacteristically uncharitable yesterday at Question Time in referring to consultations under the previous Government. In my modest experience as a Minister, consultations were very important in arriving at and even changing government policy. It would be interesting to hear how effectively the Minister rates the consultation process that took place on the regulations.

At paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, mention is made of the targets being set higher to offset the exemption for small businesses. Were any problems created through that; were there any specific areas of difficulty? I am not sure what proportion of SMEs are covered by the regulations. Does the Minister consider that the burden that is now on SMEs through the renegotiation of the regulations is reasonable?

In paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government talk about longer-term targets being set. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us an idea of the timetable for that process. In paragraph 7.7, mention is made of the revenue that can be raised. It states:

“Reprocessors and exporters are not compelled to spend the revenue in any specific way”.

Was any specific obligation on the spending of that revenue ever considered? Does the Minister have any further information about that?

In paragraph 7.10, the Government say:

“Most of the changes will have a negligible impact on businesses”.

I am happy to accept that that is the case, but since “most” is not all, it would be interesting if he could give us any information about what seem to be the most significant impacts of the changes.

Paragraph 7.11, to which the Minister referred, states that there is to be:

“The removal of the requirement on reprocessors and exporters to be independently audited”.

When I first read this I felt some concern, because independent auditing requirements are often extremely important. However, I understand from a later point in the Explanatory Memorandum that the regulators were happy with this change. None the less, I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether the regulators have any outstanding concerns about that. I realise that this may not be easy to answer, but can he say whether this requirement for independent auditing happens elsewhere in the EU, given that we are talking about EU regulations?

My final question is fairly basic but important. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in these regulations will affect negatively our recycling targets and the other environmental commitments that we have entered into? We want to be reassured on that point.

Once again, I thank the Minister for the way in which he introduced these regulations and for explaining the large element of continuity in them, which certainly seems to be in evidence.

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I apologise for not being here for the Minister’s speech, except for his excellent final paragraph, but I was caught in the Chamber, having intervened on what turned out to be a rather controversial occasion. Politeness meant that I had to remain there until it had finished. I should also declare an interest—two interests, really. I was the Minister who invented these regulations and drew up the environmental regulations that were accepted by the European Union. This is unusual, because these regulations were created by Britain and France together to avoid the interference in trade that had otherwise occurred. Therefore, the regulations are permissive in the means by which we meet the ends. It is a very British concept. I also declare an interest as chairman of Valpak, which is the largest of the organisations that help businesses to meet the obligations under the regulations. It is a not-for-profit organisation set up by British industry and covers about 65 per cent of those who have to meet the regulations. I declare an interest, but perhaps I also declare knowing something about how these things work, which is not easy because they are somewhat complicated.

I have to say that there is a real and fundamental disagreement with the way in which the Government have decided to proceed. Britain has managed to become not the worst operator of recycling—as the noble Baroness knows, we have not been very good in our recycling record—by having the most permissive system that you could possibly have. It is very competitive and we have managed to do this probably more cheaply than any other country in Europe. Last year, it cost British business roughly £180 million to meet the obligations. It is likely to have cost German business about £1.8 billion. That is the difference in the efficacy of our systems; this is not a heavy burden on our businesses. Indeed, we actually have a positive advantage, because we run the system so effectively. I have to say that that is because we went in for a good capitalist system—it is competitive. Anyone who provides services has to compete with everyone else; if you do not provide or buy the evidence of recycling at the lowest possible cost, they do not come to you, they go to someone else. There is a real reason for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Quin]

In the consultation, did any of the responses raise some of the concerns that have been raised so interestingly today by the noble Lord, Lord Demon?

[Lord Henley]

“Demon”?

[Baroness Quin]

I think I said “Demon”.

[Lord Henley]

It is the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I think the noble Lord, Lord Demon, might be someone rather different. However, that might be for another life of my noble friend.