Bovine Tuberculosis
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, that is not the case at all. I have made it clear that we have consulted the Chief Scientific Adviser and he is happy with the consultation. What we are talking about at this stage is a consultation. I also make it clear to the noble Lord that the scientific evidence is clear and suggests that an active badger culling carried out on a sufficient scale—I emphasise the words “sufficient scale”—in a widespread, co-ordinated and efficient way over a sustained period will reduce the incidence of bovine TB in cattle in high-incidence areas.
Baroness Quin
May I therefore ask the Minister, in view of his reply, whether there will be a cull or not, because there is confusion within the Government? At precisely the same time as the Minister of State was announcing to farmers that there was going to be a cull, the Secretary of State said that she would await the scientific evidence. Which is it?
Lord Henley
My Lords, there is no confusion in the Government at all. We have made it quite clear that we are consulting on this issue. When we consult, we consult for those reasons. We do not consult, as the party opposite did, having already made up our minds.
Subsidiarity Assessment: Food Distribution (EUC Report)
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
My Lords, like others, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles for the work of the European Union Committee on this issue, and for the way that the subject has been introduced to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, reminded us of some of the background considerations to the procedure that we will be adopting today, which are very much in line with the debate held last week on subsidiarity issues as a result of the committee’s report. It was the first time that this kind of procedure had been presented to the House. Furthermore, while the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and I often do not agree on European issues, I agree strongly that these provisions in the treaty are ones that should be used by national Parliaments. They were included to strengthen the role of national Parliaments in European scrutiny, so it is right that when either House of our Parliament feels that these issues are important, they should be fully aired and voted upon. Certainly, our own House of Lords committee has a very good reputation among national Parliaments throughout the EU for its scrutiny work. That is of long standing, as those of us who in the past were Members in another place or Ministers can testify.
Some of the considerations surrounding subsidiarity have been aired. It is felt it should come into play where legislation at EU level is unnecessary—although obviously the word “unnecessary” can be subject to different interpretations—where such activity can be promoted without following a legislative route and where it is better done by member states. As the Government put it in their Explanatory Memorandum,
“the EU should only act where there are clear additional benefits from collective efforts, or ‘EU added-value’, compared with action by individual Member States either individually or in co-operation”.
I believe therefore that the report makes a strong case. It is right to stress, as the noble Lord, Lord Roper, did, that the scheme is voluntary and that the United Kingdom has not participated in it since the mid-1990s. None the less, although we have not participated, as EU members we are fully entitled to make use of the provisions that are available today in making our views loudly heard about this.
I also accept the case in the report that confusion can arise from the parallel operation in a member state of a national scheme and an EU scheme. I also agree strongly that the extent to which purchasers from the market contribute to the objectives of the common agricultural policy in the way that is pursued at present is questionable.
When I first saw the committee’s report I was quite startled because, like others, I remember the circumstances in which this measure came into being. Like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I was also a Member of the European Parliament—indeed I was a member of the agriculture committee in 1987 when this issue first arose. I remember the senior role that the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, had in the European Commission at that time. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the circumstances then were very different from those of today. It was basically a measure to distribute high intervention stocks rather than purchasing food from the open market in the way that it has increasingly operated in recent years and seems likely to operate in the future.
I also accept the Government’s point that there are a lot of bureaucratic procedures involved in this process. It might be interesting if the Minister can say a little more about the costs of the scheme to those who choose to operate it and why that can be a disincentive to countries adopting the scheme in the way that it is currently provided.
I am glad that this debate is much more timely than last week’s debate. Because of the parliamentary Recess, the previous measure relied on the good will of the Commission to accept our view on subsidiarity. That is not a problem with this case, where we are in good time. I understand that, according to the Government, a final decision may not be taken until towards the end of next year. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that.
I agree that national Governments and also local and regional authorities are far more appropriate to deal with this kind of issue. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, mentioned the north-east network in my own part of the country.
I hope that from what I have said so far it is clear that we support the work of the European Committee and support the Motions in front of us. The committee’s work is in line with the previous Government’s approach to this issue; there has been quite a history of consistency about this in the consideration in both Houses of Parliament in recent years. However, the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, which has also recently considered this subject, has injected one slightly different element into the discussion. This is perhaps worth raising here and asking the Minister to comment.
The European Scrutiny Committee in the other place comments that in its view the argument is more about competence than subsidiarity. The committee accepted that where intervention stocks are relied on for food aid the Commission is competent to act, because of the workings of the common agricultural policy, but where the food is sourced from the open market—as we have heard, that is increasingly the case—the link with the common agricultural policy is much more tenuous. Therefore there does not seem to be an appropriate legal base which would confer competence to act. This is an important point and it would be useful to get the Minister to comment on it. As I understand it, the Government have so far said that there may be an issue of competence, but that even if it was then ruled that it came within the Commission’s competence under the rules, there would still be an issue of subsidiarity. In that case, of course, the Government would strongly endorse the view of the European Union Committee in this House.
Could the Minister also say a little more, as other Members have encouraged him to do, about the support that we might receive from other countries in this area? In the letter that the Minister recently sent to the chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, he talked about a small number of countries but certainly more than one—even though only one country has been mentioned here today. It would be useful for the House to be able to consider any further details that the Minister has about that. It would also be useful to know when the opinions of the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of the European Union will be received and considered.
I noted that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, saw at least part of the problem in a kind of grab for power and territory by the Commission. That might well be the case; however, the Commission makes the point in its Explanatory Memorandum that, as recently as 2008, 13 million people in the European Union apparently benefited from this scheme. Perhaps it would be interesting for the House to know where the majority of those people are. Is it in the new countries—the cohesion countries? Certainly, it seems that certain organisations and populations in the European Union were putting pressure on the Commission to continue this scheme, so perhaps it is slightly unfair to say, “It is just the Commission wanting to extend its territory”, although that may be an element in the equation. Also, has there been any pressure from charities in this country to participate, despite the consensus that seems to prevail that it is actually better to deliver such programmes nationally or even sub-nationally?
Finally, the Government make a strong case about this being a social measure and therefore not appropriate to the European Union. While I accept that argument on this occasion, I am sure that the Minister will not be surprised that I do not accept that all social measures are inappropriate at EU level. Indeed, to go back to the European Coal and Steel Community treaty of 1954, social measures were quite an important element in the help to the coal and steel community and to coal and steel-producing areas, so that actually has a long history within the European Union.
I note that, later on, the House will be looking at the European Social Fund after an excellent report that was also from the European Union Committee, so although our support for the Government’s stance on this occasion is genuine I hope that the Liberal Democrats in the coalition, despite the reservations about particular directives from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will none the less keep the pressure on the Government not to have such total hostility toward anything with a “social label” in the European Union. However, on this occasion, as happened last week, it is obvious that there is widespread consensus in the House and we are therefore happy to support both the work of the European Union Committee and its conclusions on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in saying how grateful I am to both the noble Lord, Lord Roper, as chairman of the EU Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, as chairman of Sub-Committee D, for this report. I make it quite clear at once, as I think our Explanatory Memorandum made it clear, that the Government share the committee’s concern that the regulation concerned is not consistent with the subsidiarity principle. That means that much of what I say may repeat what other noble Lords have said this afternoon, because there has been general agreement around the Chamber. Still, it is important that it is on the record that these are the views of Her Majesty’s Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Roper, made clear, the then European Community’s food distribution programme was introduced back in 1987 and its main aim was to help run down the stockpiles of basic commodities that had been purchased into intervention stores under the common agricultural policy. The noble Lord, Lord Roper, went on to stress that it was the stocks of butter, milk powder, beef, sugar, rice, all those mountains and lakes that we remember—I cannot remember whether it covered wine lakes, but it did cover a whole variety of mountains and lakes—that were released to charitable organisations in participating member states annually to distribute to poorer sections of the community.
As has been made clear by a number of noble Lords, we in the United Kingdom last participated in the scheme in 1998—everyone referred just to the mid-1990s, but I can give the precise date. We withdrew both because of the sharp decline in intervention stocks in this country and because of the high administrative overheads, for government and charitable organisations alike, which made participation unattractive. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Quin, that we still believe that, under the scheme that is being looked at at the moment, there would still be high administrative burdens, which would make it unattractive. I also assure her that we are not aware of any charitable organisations having asked us to participate in this scheme, or, for that matter, to go back into the scheme after the withdrawal by the previous Administration back in 1998.
The main purpose of intervention systems, as my noble friend Lord Caithness and other noble Lords made clear, is to support market prices. However, a side-effect—in practice, it turns out to be the dominant effect—is to encourage overproduction and distract farmers from making market-based production decisions. Successive reforms of the CAP have reduced the role of intervention and, together with improvements in world commodity markets, have resulted in significantly reduced EU intervention stocks. Consequently, the Commission proposes to adapt the scheme.
The main stated purposes of the Commission’s proposals are to align the legislation to the Lisbon treaty and to modernise the scheme. The CAP is now more market-orientated and price support will play less of a role in future, so, as I have said, the accumulation of large intervention stocks is less likely. The proposal therefore provides for CAP funds to be used to purchase goods on the open market and for a wider range of goods to be purchased by participating member states on the basis of nutritional criteria rather than limiting them to the products for which intervention applies. The other major change is the proposed introduction to the scheme of cofinancing by participating member states. Under current proposals, this will be a minimum of 25 per cent of the eligible costs, with lower ranges of cofinancing, such as 10 per cent, applying to more disadvantaged areas of the European Community.
As before, participation in the new scheme—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roper, made this clear—will remain voluntary, so that, even if it goes ahead, the United Kingdom will not be obliged to participate. Providing effective help to disadvantaged people is clearly an important objective, but, as the Explanatory Memorandum explains, we remain unconvinced of the merits or the appropriateness of the proposal. In particular, we believe that the expansion of the scheme to procuring goods on the open market will mean that the new scheme is essentially a social measure—that is an assurance I can give to my noble friend Lord Caithness—which, by its design, would make it a matter for member states to decide rather than for the EU itself.
In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, a longstanding element of European treaties that is currently enshrined in Article 5 of the treaty on the European Union, the Government consider that the EU should act collectively only where there are clear additional benefits, or EU added value, compared with action by member states either individually or in co-operation.
We consider that social matters are a matter for individual member states, and that measures to assist the neediest members of society are more properly and efficiently delivered through domestic social programmes that take account of the prevailing situation and available funding in individual countries. The noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, for example, mentioned a scheme, Healthy Start, which is run by the Department of Health. I assure him that that scheme is still there; it is under review by the department and subject to a consultation about various changes in it.
I would like to mention national charitable organisations, such as FairShare. I visited one example of its outlets in the north-east, not far from the former constituency of the noble Baroness, Lady Quin. Many noble Lords will know of the valuable work that bodies such as FairShare can do in distributing food to the less advantaged. To return to the north-east, I was grateful for what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said about the north-east food action programme. It is those kinds of measures—national from the Government, from local government and from charities—that we believe we should be looking to work. I commend those bodies to those who do not know about the sort of work that they do.
The proposal itself was discussed in the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 27 September. That was followed, as I understand it, by technical consideration by officials. A number of policy and technical issues have been identified. At present—I give this assurance to my noble friend Lord Caithness—there is no qualified majority in favour of it. There might be a blocking minority against, but certainly I assure him that no member state at the moment actually supports the scheme; some oppose it for one reason, some for another. Also, as I understand it, the European Parliament has not yet given its opinion on the proposal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked about the timescale. I assure her that we still have quite a long way to go before we get to any final decision, what with the European Parliament having to consider it and some sort of qualified majority having to be found on the Council, which does not seem likely.
In addition to subsidiarity, there are two main concerns among those member states. First there is the legal base.
Baroness Quin
I thought that the proposal reflected some of the amendments that had been passed in the European Parliament, so I am somewhat puzzled that the Minister says that the European Parliament has not considered it.
Lord Henley
As I understand it, the European Parliament has not yet considered the stage that we are currently at. It might be that it considered earlier examples of it. At the moment we are at the stage where it has been through the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which talked in September about co-financing at the 25 per cent or 10 per cent level, but that has not yet gone on to the European Parliament. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Baroness to correct it. My point is that we still have quite a way to go before any of this gets through, which is why it is important that the views of this House and another place—and those of 26 other parliaments and all the Houses in them, should they wish, although we understand that only Sweden is likely to do this at the moment—should come forward so that we can reach various red lights, green lights or whatever, as appropriate.
I return to the concerns of the member states. First, I was talking about the legal basis. The new proposal is made under Articles 42 and 43(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the EU. This is similar to the existing scheme. These articles would be appropriate if the predominant purpose of the scheme was the supply of food from intervention. However, given the expected focus of the revised scheme on the purchase of goods on the open market, it is very difficult to argue that its predominant purpose is in line with the use of these articles as the legal base. A number of member states share our concern about that.
Secondly, the concept of cofinancing, which I referred to earlier, is strongly opposed by a number of currently participating member states that believe that the scheme, quite naturally, should be wholly community-financed. The Government believe that, were the revised scheme to go ahead, cofinancing would be very important to ensure that each participating member state reaches an informed judgment on how best to support its deprived communities, and because it would likely improve the governance of the scheme.
In conclusion, I emphasise that Her Majesty’s Government have not taken part in the existing voluntary scheme for many years and have no intention of taking part in the revised scheme if it were adopted. Given that there is presently no qualified majority on paper in the Council, there seems little immediate prospect of the proposal—at least in its current form—progressing that far. The effect would be that the existing scheme would continue to operate. I understand that there is a challenge before the European Court of Justice on whether the legal base for the operation of the 2009 programme is appropriate. That has yet to be heard. The point remains that it is not an activity that is best undertaken at EU level or, in our view, an appropriate use of common agricultural policy funds. Therefore, I stress that I welcome the committee’s report and support the Motion on the reasoned opinion.
Food: Labelling
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My noble friend always has the best suggestions. I did not say that we should increase the number of words on packages but, rather, that we should make sure that the wording on any package is user-friendly and can be accessed by as many people as possible. That is why we believe that voluntary, rather than compulsory, agreements are often the better way of addressing this issue.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, given that labelling is the subject of European as well as national decision-making, and given that the Government, like the Opposition, have said that they are in favour of clear labelling and a colour-coded traffic-light system, can the Minister tell me why Conservative MEPs voted not only against such a traffic-light system for Europe but against continuing such a system here in the UK? Should not the Government be consistent in pursuing policies in the interests of Britain and our consumers?
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness will be aware that, although I was formerly a Chief Whip in this House, I have no responsibility for Conservative MEPs on the other side of the channel. However, we are continuing to negotiate on the EU food information regulations and will ensure that they are as user-friendly as possible. We will also try to ensure, for example, that it is made quite clear where meat comes from. Therefore, even if, for example, the labelling says that bacon is British when the meat itself comes from Denmark, it will also say that the primary product, the pork, comes from another country—that is, Denmark.
Rural Communities: Prince’s Countryside Fund
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
My Lords, perhaps I should I begin by apologising for the state of my voice. Despite suffering the effects of a cold, I very much welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, on securing it and on introducing it in the way that he did. It has been frustrating that so little time has been available, but I hope that the noble Lord will at least find solace in the fact that the debate attracted such a large number of speakers, and was therefore certainly the subject of great interest.
We have been privileged during the course of the debate to listen to three very high-quality maiden speeches, and I congratulate all three new colleagues who have spoken in today's debate. Besides bringing a great wealth of experience, in particular to the rural issues that we have been considering, it was good that they come from very different parts of the country and therefore gave a good overall perspective of the important issues that we have been considering.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed out, this debate follows and continues the themes from some of our previous debates just before the Summer Recess, including the debate on rural communities introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the debate on biodiversity in the UK introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. However, this debate rightly focuses on the new and, we hope, important element in rural and countryside affairs: the Prince's Countryside Fund. We on this side welcome the fund and agree with its aims. As the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said in introducing the debate, it is an initiative which presents an opportunity to draw attention to the very real challenges facing rural communities, and the importance of rural communities to the future economic and environmental well-being of our country as a whole.
The new fund has excellent precedents in the form of the Prince's Rural Action Programme and that other initiative of the Prince of Wales, a countrywide rather than countryside initiative, the Prince's Trust. The noble Lord, Lord Rowe-Beddoe, said that the Prince has trodden where Governments sometimes fear to tread. I know from my experience representing in the other House a disadvantaged urban area that the Prince’s Trust was brave enough to go into areas where banks and other financial institutions had singularly failed. Its record of helping people, particularly to start new businesses, has made a huge difference to many people in many parts of the country.
It is good that this new fund is concentrating its efforts on the hardest-pressed areas. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who has just returned to the Chamber, talked about defining more precisely the areas that are most in need of support and hit the right note in that respect. It is important that the fund helps areas where help is most needed. As a north-easterner, I was very glad to see that the Upper Teesdale Agricultural Support Services scheme is benefiting because it helps farmers with administration and making the best use of IT. Broadband was mentioned by a number of speakers. It would be good if the Minister could say something more about the rollout of superfast broadband that noble Lords are keen to see implemented. I also welcome the Cumbria and Yorkshire Dales scheme which, despite the current difficulties, looks to the future of hill farming and, in particular, to the needs of new entrants with high-quality training. A number of speakers mentioned the Pub is the Hub scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Crathorne, mentioned a pub that he felt is particularly worthy of praise, so I shall cheekily mention my local pub in Harbottle, Northumberland—the village where I have been living—the Star Inn. It is very much the village hub and, like many other pubs, plays a vital role in supporting the local area in enterprising ways and provides a range of valued services which would otherwise probably have ceased to be available to local people.
We know that problems in agriculture and in rural areas, such as outbreaks of animal disease or natural disasters such as floods and droughts, can crop up unexpectedly and sometimes with devastating consequences, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. I am therefore glad that the Prince’s fund is also channelling resources to crisis relief, building on some of the schemes we have seen and on some of the acquired knowledge about how best to deal with some of these very difficult situations.
I pay tribute to the way that we have already seen farms and rural businesses respond to challenges to diversify. I was very impressed as a Minister—quite a few years ago now—by the way farmers and others were working at adding value to existing products or using modern methods, such as the internet, to link up with customers, despite being sometimes physically far removed from them as they were based in fairly isolated areas. The recent publication by the National Farmers’ Union, Why Farming Matters, underlines this point. It states that,
“some 51% of farms in England have diversified beyond their core farming activities”.
I hope the Government will support and applaud this initiative.
Given that a number of wider rural issues have been raised in this debate, I shall add a few thoughts on some of the Government’s recent policies and decisions in the rural sphere. There has been concern about the abolition of the Commission for Rural Communities, which was mentioned in our debates in July. This chimes with one of the questions at Question Time today when we looked at the work of outside agencies being incorporated into departments. I have heard it said that because some current Defra Ministers are farmers or involved in farming, they understand these issues, but I would be very worried if decisions about the future of advisory organisations were to be taken on the basis of who happened to be Minister in a particular department at a particular time. One thing we know about government in Britain is that Ministers come and go. For all Ministers, whatever their background, we need to have good sources of independent advice.
Over the summer, the Government also announced the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales. I am concerned about this because we want to see the skills of farm workers fairly remunerated and recognised, and we certainly do not want to see a drive downwards to poorer conditions or a poorer level of wages. I am sure we will revert to this issue in future. There is strong feeling on the Opposition Benches about this.
One of the aims of the Prince’s fund is to reconnect consumers with the countryside. I applaud that and also applaud the involvement of various supermarkets in this initiative. I hope that they will enthusiastically embrace the idea of the supermarket ombudsman and will look closely at the price relationship between themselves and the farming community. This was referred to by my noble friend Lord Kennedy. I have never accepted the rural/urban divide in the way that some people have described it because people in both areas have common problems: making a decent living, having access to affordable housing, transport, good local services and so on and we all have a common interest in the future of our country.
I conclude by wishing the fund much success with its various initiatives and goals, and I again congratulate the noble Lord on giving us the opportunity to debate it and wider rural issues today.
Bovine Tuberculosis
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, my noble friend, I think, refers to the gamma interferon blood test, which is used alongside the tuberculin skin test in certain prescribed circumstances to improve the sensitivity of the testing regime and identify more affected animals more quickly. I shall certainly look at whether it is possible to use that test solely, but, as I said earlier, for the moment, we believe that the comparative tests that we are using are possibly the best.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the sharp, 25 per cent decline in bovine TB which is recorded in today’s Farmers Guardian, for example. Given that Defra has shelved its own vaccination project, will the Minister assure us that the department will continue strongly to support vaccination and assist those farmers who wish to use it?
Energy: Large Combustion Plant Directive
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can confirm exactly what my noble friend said: by the directive, we will be reducing by quite large amounts the sulphur dioxide, the nitrogen oxides and the dust emissions which can be harmful to both human health and the environment. That can only be a good thing. As I said in answer to the first supplementary question, we also hope to have other capacity on stream to deal with the plants that are closing.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, the party of the noble Lord who asked the Question is of course opposed to binding EU targets on renewables, biofuels and other EU environmental initiatives, but is it not the case that, when emissions affect a number of countries simultaneously, European and international action is both welcome and indispensable? Is it not also the case that, given the recent vote in the European Parliament, while stricter emissions standards are favoured, the situation of individual member states will be more greatly taken into account in future?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can agree on that. Where emissions from one country affect other countries and the whole world, that should be dealt with internationally. That is why it is quite right that the EU should deal with them, especially those that are damaging to human health, which is the case with those dealt with by the large combustion plant directive. The noble Baroness then referred to the recent vote by the European Parliament on the industrial emissions directive. Again, we will take that forward, and it will replace the large combustion plant directive in 2016. That will further tighten the requirements, but those are matters that we have agreed, and we have introduced certain flexibilities that will make life easier for a lot of those plants until the end of 2023.
Fishing Boats (Electronic Transmission of Fishing Activities Data) (England) Scheme 2010
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)
My Lords, logbook and landing declaration information form an essential element of the means by which we monitor fishing activity data. Under Community law, fishing vessels with an overall length of more than 10 metres are required to keep a logbook to record estimates of the catch on board vessels. They are also required to submit landing declarations containing accurate figures on the quantities of fish landed.
Current paper-based logbooks and landing declarations are both cumbersome and time-consuming for fishermen to complete. The input of the data from these paper records on to computerised databases is also resource-intensive for fisheries administrations. In November 2006, European Fisheries Ministers therefore agreed that vessels with an overall length of more than 15 metres should in future submit their logbook and landing declarations electronically.
This new technology will significantly improve the real-time monitoring of fishing activity, as logbook information will be transmitted back to shore on a daily basis, rather than having to wait for the vessel to complete its trip, as at present. It will also make it harder to misrecord catches and so contribute positively towards improving compliance. The benefits of this new technology are therefore plain for all to see. However, ultimately, electronic logbooks are essentially a control tool. In the past when similar control tools, such as vessel monitoring systems, have been introduced, these have been government funded. The Government are therefore pleased to be able to offer financial assistance to fishermen in the purchase of the necessary software. Similar assistance is being provided by other fisheries administrations in the United Kingdom and in other member states.
We have aimed to ensure best value for money by adopting a type of approval process under which any software supplier can submit its product for approval, thereby offering fishermen a choice of software to meet their own needs and introducing competition between suppliers. Grant aid will be made available only for approved software systems.
I nevertheless recognise that some fishermen may wish to purchase sophisticated software that contains functions beyond those necessary to comply with our EU obligations. I believe that it is therefore reasonable to place a limit on the level of financial assistance that we will provide. The Government thus intend to limit the amount of funding that will be available to English fishing vessels to £2,000 per vessel. On this basis, the overall cost of this funding scheme is not expected to exceed £560,000 for the 280 or so English vessels over 15 metres in length. Moneys for the scheme will be found from existing budgets, with some £530,000 of this recoverable from Community funds under the EU aid regime, which provides co-financing for member states’ expenditure on statutory control measures.
The House may wonder why it has taken so long to put the funding scheme in place, given that the original date for vessels of more than 24 metres to have electronic logbooks was 1 January 2010. Noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that, as with many other IT projects, adopting this new technology has turned out to be somewhat more complicated than originally envisaged. As a result, all member states have been working hard to get their systems up and running. We now have two approved software systems, with more expected shortly. It is, therefore, now important that the funding scheme is put in place as soon as possible.
Finally, the House may be aware that European Fisheries Ministers have agreed to extend the requirement for electronic logbooks and landing declarations to vessels of more than 12 metres from 1 January 2012. A decision on the extent of any funding for 12-metre to 15-metre vessels will be taken nearer the time in the light of experience with vessels of more than 15 metres. I beg to move.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, the Opposition welcome the opportunity to debate this statutory instrument and, indeed, welcome the measure itself, not least because the work on its principles was undertaken by the previous Government after meetings and consultations with the fishing industry. We feel that the benefits of this legislation outweigh any disadvantages.
Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum attached to the instrument sums up the benefits when it describes the purpose of the scheme, using words similar to those used by the Minister, which is to ensure,
“more timely and accurate information on fishing vessel activity and enable Fishing Administrations to better manage the uptake of quotas and restrictions on fishing activities”.
That,
“in turn will contribute positively to the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fish stocks”.
There are other positive aspects to the measure, such as the reduction of the administrative burden and consequent considerable time savings, which again are detailed in the Explanatory Memorandum and the useful impact assessment.
However, while generally supporting the measure, I none the less want to put some questions to the Minister, particularly in the light of what he described, rightly, as the time pressures on us and other European states in complying with these regulations, as well as some of the difficulties connected with IT development with which we are familiar. The Minister said that two suppliers have now been identified, which means that there are two suppliers on the list that the Government have to draw up. How happy is he about the situation, given that obviously the greater the choice, the more likely it is that costs will be more competitive, particularly for the fishing industry? Can he assure us that all possible methods have been used to try to communicate with the industry and those affected by the scheme as much information as they need, so that, even with a limited choice, they will be able to make informed decisions?
In this age of devolution, the people affected will want to be assured that there is no discriminatory treatment for fishing vessels in the different UK administrations. I wonder whether the Minister can assure us of that in his reply. Certainly, the Explanatory Memorandum says that the aim is to ensure that,
“small English businesses are not placed at a competitive disadvantage compared with their UK and EU counterparts”.
Any detail on that would be welcome. Furthermore, paragraph 9(2) of the scheme stipulates that the Secretary of State must,
“reject an application if of the opinion that the port of administration of the fishing boat has been changed to England for the primary purpose of ensuring that the fishing boat is an eligible English fishing boat for the purposes of the Scheme”.
Does the Minister think that there is a risk of shopping around in that way, or is that simply an additional safeguard in the legislation?
Obviously, we are all committed to the sustainable exploitation of fish stocks. I wonder therefore whether in response the Minister could say a few words about how the scheme fits in with, and perhaps complements, other initiatives on which it would be good to be updated, such as the use of onboard catch monitoring.
We know that the Marine Management Organisation will be administering the scheme and that it is expected that that can be done within existing resources. The Opposition are committed to the work of the MMO and we would be grateful for any information that the Minister can give today about the future budget of that organisation. We would like to feel assured that it will be able to continue its valuable work, which affects all those involved in the fishing industry and the overall health of our marine environment. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place, Hilary Benn and Huw Irranca-Davies, are concerned about this.
A number of other points could be raised, but, given that the scheme will be reviewed and its effect considered over the next three years, perhaps I may write to the Minister about them as part of the ongoing review process. That would be helpful. In conclusion, I reiterate our general support for the scheme and its provisions.
Lord Scott of Foscote
My Lords, this statutory instrument was considered by the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, of which I am a member, on Tuesday 6 July. There are two respects in which the committee reached the opinion, which I share, that the statutory instrument’s drafting is profoundly unsatisfactory. Both those respects were drawn to the attention of Defra, whose written response was considered by the Select Committee the following week. The response in no way relieved the unsatisfactory respects of the original statutory instrument, so the committee decided that the chairman should write to the Minister, drawing his attention to them in the hope that he would withdraw the statutory instrument, make appropriate amendments, or cause appropriate amendments to be made, and then resubmit it. Unfortunately, the Select Committee meeting at which that was decided was on the Tuesday, and on the Wednesday or the Thursday—it does not matter which—the statutory instrument was put on the agenda for the business of the House today. Therefore I do not know what the Minister’s reaction is to the letter, or whether he has seen it. Perhaps he can clarify that.
Perhaps I may draw attention to the two respects in which the committee thought that the statutory instrument was not satisfactory. The first arises out of paragraph 6. The instrument provides for applications for grants to be made by the owners of qualifying fishing vessels to help them in meeting the costs of the software that has to be installed in order to comply with the three or four regulations that have emanated from the EU. However, paragraph 6 provides:
“The amount of the grant—
(a) must not exceed the cost of the purchase or supply of the approved software”—
that is fine, and—
“(b) may be such lesser amount as is determined by the Secretary of State”.
Read as it stands, that would give the Secretary of State the arbitrary right to reduce to a negligible amount the grant which was to be paid.
The Minister, in introducing the instrument, said that £2,000 per vessel would be the limit of the grant that would be approved. Somewhere else I saw a suggestion that £1,500 to £2,000 would be a reasonable amount. This point was drawn to the attention of Defra, which responded by stating that Defra Ministers had made a commitment to fund the reasonable costs of software. That is fine and is entirely consistent with what the noble Lord said. However, there is no word of that in the statutory instrument. The figure of £2,000, £1,500 or any other figure does not appear there. All that the statutory instrument states is that:
“The amount of the grant … may be such lesser amount as is determined by the Secretary of State”.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory to have a statutory instrument that does not spell out what are the conditions on which the grant is to be allowed. This statutory instrument does not. How easy it would have been for it to be amended so as to specify the figure of £2,000 to which the Minister referred and include it in the criteria governing the payment to be made by the Government.
One of the essential characteristics put forward about this House is that of revising legislation. Revision of legislation is generally understood as referring to primary legislation, but it is surely just as important in relation to secondary legislation such as this. The ability of the House to exercise a revising role in relation to secondary legislation depends on the points made by such committees as the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee being taken into account, the Minister having an opportunity to make such amendments as are thought appropriate, having regard to the comments from the Merits Committee. That has not been done in the present case. That is a pity. If this House is to be held up as providing the valuable role of revision of legislation, that must surely apply to secondary as well as to primary legislation. Here, it seems not to have done so.
The second point arises from paragraph (10) of the statutory instrument. It states:
“The Secretary of State may revoke the approval of an application, or withhold payment of a grant, or of any part of the grant, if it appears that”—
note, “if it appears that”—
“(a) any condition of payment of the grant, or of any part of it, has been breached or has not been complied with; or
(b) the applicant has committed or may have committed an offence under section 17 of the Fisheries Act 1981”.
The concept of it appearing that the applicant may have committed an offence is such an unusual one as to make one wonder what provision there is for an appeal. The problems about that were drawn to the attention of Defra by the Merits Committee. The department's response was that,
“the power to revoke or to require repayment of anything already paid would be exercisable if there were sufficient evidence of a breach of a condition or of an offence”.
The reply refers to “sufficient evidence”. Where does one see the reference to sufficient evidence in the statutory instrument? Nowhere. The power to revoke and the power to demand repayment is simply left, apparently, at the discretion of the Secretary of State. That is profoundly unsatisfactory. That, too, would be capable of easy amendment. It is not the Minister's opinion that will be important; it is the objective facts. To hinge the revocation of a right to receive a particular payment on the proposition that it appears to the Minister, to the Secretary of State, that an offence may have been committed cannot be right. That is quite contrary to the basis on which judicial review, for example, proceeds.
Some of your Lordships may—certainly the lawyers present in this Chamber will—remember the great case of Liversidge and Anderson, where Lord Atkin gave a dissenting judgement which has formed the cornerstone of judicial review in modern times. Lord Atkin's point concerned a piece of legislation which allowed internment of individuals within the jurisdiction of this country if there was reasonable ground for suspicion that they were foreigners who might become engaged in nefarious activities. The question was whether the expression “there was reasonable ground” could be interpreted to mean “if the Secretary of State thinks that there was reasonable ground”. Lord Atkin said that that could not be equated with “there was reasonable ground”. Either there was or there was not, which was a matter which could be tested in the courts. There is no provision for appeal against the arbitrary exercise of power by the Minister under paragraph (10). That, too, is a profoundly unsatisfactory element in this statutory instrument.
The purpose of the statutory instrument is entirely unexceptionable. The explanations given by the noble Lord are unexceptionable, but they are not to be found in the statutory instrument. I would not wish to divide the House on the question of whether the statutory instrument should be approved, but I would wish to have an assurance from the noble Lord as regards his explanation in relation to paragraph (6)—the power to reduce the amount that can be claimed and should be paid—and paragraph (10)—the power to revoke a previous decision and, in the extreme case, call for repayment of money already paid—that those powers will not be exercised unless in the first case the amount falls above the minimum amount which the noble Lord mentioned and in the second case unless there is sufficient evidence. Both features are essential if these statutory instruments are not to go through the hoops of litigation, which is highly expensive to the country and thoroughly undesirable as a matter of principle.
Agriculture: Farming
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I had a suspicion that the noble Lord or his noble friend might raise that subject. It might be that we would want to seek to renegotiate a certain number of regulations that come from Europe. If that is the case, we will try to do so. I accept that there are no quick fixes, but we are more likely to be successful if we go to Brussels with a positive attitude rather than a negative one.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, given the concern expressed yesterday in this House, will the Minister rule out transferring to Defra any regulatory role of the Food Standards Agency? Does he agree with me that the independence of the agency from Ministers and from the food and farming industries was strongly supported by his party and, indeed, was very strongly supported by the Liberal Democrats when the FSA was introduced under the previous Government?
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness should not necessarily believe everything that she reads in the papers, tempting though that might be. All I can say to her at the moment is that no decision has been taken on the Food Standards Agency and that all arm’s-length bodies in all departments will be subject to review.
Rural Payments Agency
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I can confirm that we will look at all possible options.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, while I wish the Government well in taking forward the review’s recommendations in due course, given that rural payments are so important to both the economy and the environment of our rural areas, will the Government think again about their decision to abolish the Commission for Rural Communities in order to safeguard an independent rural voice in these and other important rural issues?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will accept that that question is somewhat wide of that on the Order Paper, but no doubt I will address it in due course. Policy on this matter will still be retained by Defra, which will continue to look after rural interests and rural affairs.
Agriculture: Farm Animal Disease
Baroness Quin Excerpts(15 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would not want to make any comment about how we will deal with bovine TB, but my noble friend is right to stress how much it costs us each year. The figure that I have is in the order of £80 million and rising. We will, again, look at all evidence. We want all decisions to be made on an evidence-based model. We will make appropriate responses in due course.
Baroness Quin
My Lords, in his reply to the noble Baroness, the Minister seemed to herald a possible change in government policy. Before the election the current Minister of State ruled out cost-sharing, but the Minister wisely prefers to wait until the outcome of the report—which the previous Government set in place—and its recommendations. Is the Minister therefore saying that a change in policy on this matter, which would be welcome, is possible?