Forest Holidays: Forestry Commission Stake

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect the Forestry Commission’s stake in Forest Holidays and to ensure that in the event of a sale by the majority shareholder they would not lose all management control of any future development.

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

My Lords, the control the Forestry Commission has over developments by Forest Holidays is exercised through the arrangements in the legal framework agreement between Forest Holidays and the Forestry Commission, rather than through its shareholding in the business. Any change in ownership would not change the level of control exercised under the framework agreement and as landlord.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, concern about the future of our public forest estate continues, and the Answer of the Minister does nothing to assuage the fears that there are at the moment or the anxiety over the nature of the relationship between the Forestry Commission and Forest Holidays. What is the process for approving new and existing sites? Further to that, why does there not appear to have been any competitive tender process when Forest Holidays was restructured through a joint venture in 2012?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Forestry Commission has to approve of any new sites for this activity, such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, which is a reasonably common requirement. In practice, Forest Holidays is unlikely to be able to progress a site if it does not have the full support of the Forestry Commission. Forest Holidays also has its own site selection criteria, which exclude any site where there are significant environmental constraints.

I spoke to the chairman of the Forestry Commission today, and he confirmed that only a limited number of sites are available within the public forest estate.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

I declare an interest as the chair of the Forestry Commission from 2001 to 2009. As the House may know, there have been two joint ventures with the Forestry Commission and Forest Holidays, one on my watch in 2006 and a later one in 2012. Will the Minister confirm that, on the first occasion, it followed full parliamentary procedure, had the approval of the Treasury and went out to full competitive tendering?

As regards the second venture, will the Minister assure the House that if the private sector investor decided to sell its share, the Forestry Commission would not be forced to sell the commensurate share at the same time?

[Lord De Mauley]

I can confirm most of what the noble Lord said. The terms under which the current joint venture operates are very much the same as for the original joint venture. If the controlling interest is sold, the Forestry Commission may be required to sell its interest in the company by the buyer, including the Forestry Commission’s stake in the business. The sale would not change the controls set out in the framework agreement and the site leases.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my entry in the register of interests. Public access and amenity are obviously most important, but they are not the only consideration. When it comes to marketing, will the Government ensure that the Forestry Commission does not intentionally undercut private owners and producers?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, although that is slightly wide of the Question, I think I can none the less confirm what the noble Lord says.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, when this Question was first put down, I had no idea what Forest Holidays was, but I have been looking into it, and the more I do so, the murkier the whole business seems. It appears that, since the framework agreement in 2012 and the new joint venture companies having been set up, pieces of the forestry estate have effectively been handed to venture capitalists to pursue log cabin developments. The questions that need to be asked are: first, are the public getting value for money for that through the forestry commissioners? There are arguments that they are not. Secondly, is it true that the forestry commissioners are not exercising their powers effectively over such developments? Thirdly, how far will this go? Is it the intention that Forest Holidays will expand substantially, using cheap Forestry Commission land and taking over some of the national forestry estate for its purposes?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, as I said, I discussed this matter this morning with the chairman of the Forestry Commission. As he said, the reality is that only a limited number of sites are available within the public forest estate, principally because much of the land is either ancient woodland or SSSI or protected in some other way.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, what can be done about the wild boar in the Forest of Dean eating lambs? Might this not be dangerous to people on holiday?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, that is an interesting question. It is important that we retain visibility of the trees as well as the forest. Primary responsibility for management of feral boar lies with local communities and individual landowners. This means that local land managers are free to control wild boar as they see fit, as long as that control is carried out in a humane and legal manner.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, the Forestry Commission in England is to be congratulated on the significant rise in the number of people visiting our public forest estates, not least as it is against the background of a recent report which suggests that the number of people visiting rural areas has slightly declined. It shows the huge value that our population puts on both the social and economic benefits of the forest, as well as on the environmental benefits because of carbon capture. Have Her Majesty’s Government made any assessment of the possibility of increasing the total amount of public forest estate to enhance those benefits even further?

[Lord De Mauley]

We have not given particular consideration to that, although the House will be aware of the background and the report of the Independent Panel on Forestry. It is important that we continue to increase the amount of woodland cover generally in the country. That is under way, principally funded through the rural development programme.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of the question asked by my noble friend Lord Clark of Windermere? If the private sector sells its share, does the Forestry Commission have to do likewise?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I did actually answer that. There are circumstances in which the Forestry Commission’s share is sold with that of the majority shareholder.

Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the draft orders laid before the House on 15 December 2014 and 21 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 17th and 21st Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st and 23rd Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 March.

Motions agreed.

Lake District National Park Authority

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the intention of the Lake District National Park Authority to sell areas of land in the Lake District.

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

My Lords, national park authorities are independent bodies and, as part of their responsibilities to review their services and assets, it is right that they consider the sale of land, enabling the proceeds to be reinvested to enhance the national park. The Lake District National Park Authority owns less than 4% of land within the national park. As with all our national parks, who owns the land is not the determining factor in its beauty or value to the public.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, Stickle Tarn, Coniston Water, the River Derwent. Are we really selling off treasured public spaces—some of the most beautiful land in Britain—to fund the building of visitors’ centres? Will not the Government intervene to stop this?

[Lord De Mauley]

As the noble Earl knows, the Government have no powers to direct national park authorities to dispose or not to dispose of a particular piece of land. Furthermore, it would not be right to intervene, because they must be allowed—and, indeed, encouraged—to take responsibility for their own affairs. To put it in context, the eight sites offered for sale total 59 hectares, equivalent to 0.6% of the Lake District National Park Authority’s land holdings.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is the turn of this side; I live there. Is it not shocking that parts of the national park—one of the most beautiful national parks—have to be sold off as a result of government cuts? Is there not a problem that, in a further sale of the land, the Lake District planning people might well give a more relaxed permission in order to get half the money? Is it not rather unhappy that we are doing this at all? Surely we should adamantly say that the Lake District is not for sale to the highest bidder.

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with much of the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s point, but the national park has assured me that this is not about cuts. It routinely reviews its assets and makes disposals where appropriate so that the proceeds can be reinvested into the acquisition, improvement or maintenance of other properties. It is worth saying that between 2007 and 2010—three years during which the noble Lord’s party was in government—it made sales totalling £1.9 million. In the five years from then, sales have totalled £1.8 million.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am sure that we all wish the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, many more happy years in one of the most glorious parts of England. However, is not what really matters here the integrity of the landscape and that there are no further incursions into its tranquillity? Can my noble friend assure us that whatever transactions take place, both the integrity of the landscape and its tranquillity will be preserved?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords, I absolutely agree with my noble friend. I can confirm that none of the protections afforded to the land by virtue of being in a national park is affected by a sale.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, there has not been a very satisfactory process here. The national park authority made the decision to sell these pieces of land in secret. People discovered it only when an advertisement appeared in the Westmoreland Gazette, giving them precisely one month to make bids. Surely there should be public debate about which of the 168 pieces of land owned by the national park authority should be sold if it has to sell any. Once it decides to put some forward, there should be consultation of a sufficient length of time to allow community groups—such as the Langdale Valley Association, which wants to register Stickle Tarn as a community asset—to be consulted. This takes time. Will the Minister have words with the national park authority to ask it to withdraw these proposals for the moment, to give time for public consultation and for the Langdale Valley Association to prepare its bid?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend is intimately involved in these matters. I assure him that I have obtained confirmation from the Lake District National Park Authority that it recognises the legitimate interests of stakeholders. It has consulted and continues to consult widely in a number of ways ahead of any final decisions. That includes liaison with parish councils, public notices advertising its intention to invite offers for some of the properties, direct consultation with a number of neighbouring landowners and so on.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I have spent most of my life living in the Lake District National Park, which formed the greater part of my former constituency. Can we have an assurance that there will be no interference at all with existing rights of way? What is the position on the maintenance of those rights of way and bridleways which the national park carried out previously? Can we be assured that the new private owners will maintain them to the previous standards?

[Lord De Mauley]

I can absolutely assure the noble Lord that there will be no lessening of rights of way. Indeed, in one instance, there will be an improvement in rights of way as a result of these sales.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I find this whole process and practice deeply shocking. I was not aware until quite recently that this could be done. As has been said, the Lake District is a glorious part of our country. These public spaces are for all the people of our country. I understand that the Lake District National Park has cash-flow problems but I baulk at the idea that this land can be sold, notwithstanding what has happened in the past. What would happen in the case of this land being sold, then resold at a profit? Would the Lake District National Park get any of the benefit? Secondly, I again ask the noble Lord for an assurance to this House that this plan will not—indeed, cannot—lead to any change in the planning restrictions on the land. Such a special area must be protected.

[Lord De Mauley]

I can assure the noble Baroness on her latter point that there will be no change to the planning restrictions on that land. On her former point, I hope that noble Lords heard what I said earlier. The Government have no powers to intervene over disposal or otherwise of land. It is not for central government to know about retained rights over the land going forward.

Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015

Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

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

My Lords, Schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008 enables Ministers to make an order to bring in charges for single-use carrier bags. I shall explain the main elements of the charge but, first, I should like to remind the Committee why the Government are legislating for a modest charge on single-use plastic carrier bags.

We are committed to reducing the number of these bags in distribution. This will in turn reduce the environmental impacts of the production of these oil-based products. It will also reduce the impact of plastic bags at the end of their lives, particularly on the visual environment and wildlife when they are littered. Similar charges in other countries have demonstrated how effective this simple measure can be. Customers are encouraged to reuse their bags, rather than incur the charge. When bags are charged for, we expect the profits to be directed to good causes.

There are currently too many single-use bags being needlessly distributed. Efforts to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags without resorting to legislation have led to a good deal of success in the past. Such voluntary initiatives by retailers saw a reduction in the distribution of single-use plastic bags by 48% between 2006 and 2009. This was significant progress, but the number of single-use plastic bags given out is on the rise. In England between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 18%, which is just over 1 billion bags. In 2013 alone, England’s main supermarket chains issued more than 7 billion single-use carrier bags to their customers. As we all know, far too many of these bags made their way on to the streets and into the countryside as unsightly litter. They were also discarded on beaches and in the sea, where they can cause harm to wildlife.

Plastic bags also have a negative impact on the environment through their production and disposal. The oil that is used in their creation and the tonnes of plastic that go to landfill mean that we must take action to reduce the use of plastic bags. Where they are used, these bags should be reused as often as possible and then recycled.

The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on plastic bags last year was carefully studied by the Government. There may be some details of the scheme on which we agree to disagree, but we are all in agreement that reducing bag use has real environmental benefits. It will mean lower carbon emissions, more efficient use of valuable resources and less litter.

The order introduces a requirement to charge for single-use plastic bags. There has been a largely positive response to the announcement of the charge, which is a proven tool. In its first year, the Welsh charge resulted in a decrease of 76% in the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by the seven big supermarkets. We have been able to use the experience from the Welsh charge to help shape our scheme. A similar charge was introduced in Scotland last October. The English charge will commence in October 2015. It will require retailers to charge a minimum of 5p for every new single-use plastic carrier bag—the same as in Wales and Scotland. Bags used for deliveries will incur the charge, as well as those used to carry purchases away from a store.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be exempt from the charge in England. We recognise that some wanted SMEs included but we concluded that we need to avoid administrative burdens on start-up and growing businesses in England at a time when we want to support new growth in our economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the current UK retail market is dominated by a comparatively small number of large stores with over 500 employees, employing 65% of people working in retail with 69% of all annual turnover of retail businesses. Any retailer that is not covered by the legislation will of course be able to charge for bags voluntarily.

As in Wales and Scotland, we hope—indeed, expect—retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act does not give the Government the powers to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge. However, we will require them to report to the Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make this information public and expect that pressure from customers will ensure that the net proceeds—once reasonable costs have been deducted—go to good causes. Many of the large retailers have already stated that they will be giving the proceeds to charities or community groups and will publish details on their websites.

It would, of course, be fitting if some environmental causes were to benefit from the charge in England. In Wales, charities such as the RSPB, Keep Wales Tidy and Save the Children have benefited from the proceeds of the Welsh charge. Keep Wales Tidy has used the funding to support a Routes to School project, which aims to address litter problems on school routes by engaging and educating children and their families. It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge. When littered, carrier bags cost taxpayers in England about £10 million every year in clean-up costs.

Of course, there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People may forget their reusable bags, or they may require a new bag—for example, to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and harm to wildlife if these bags were littered.

A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards and will report to Parliament before the charge comes into force on 5 October 2015. The report will state whether it appears that there is an existing industry standard or standards appropriate for excluding biodegradable bags and, if so, how that exclusion is to be implemented. We are keenly aware that the success of a biodegradable bag will also depend on more sophisticated ways of separating plastic waste. We need to ensure that the quality of recycled plastic does not suffer as a result of contamination with biodegradable bags.

We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach to this issue. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife and are extremely visible when littered in our towns, parks and the countryside. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of carrier bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and can biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags should still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered.

There are a few specific circumstances described in the legislation in which bags will not incur the charge. These include, for example: bags used solely to carry uncooked meat or unwrapped food and goods contaminated by soil, where there would be issues with food safety from contamination; bags for prescription medicines, where pharmacists have an obligation to protect the privacy of patients; and reusable bags for life. Purchases made on board planes and boats and in airports will also not incur a charge as it would be unreasonable to expect people to be carrying reusable bags in those transit places. The charge will be enforced by local authority trading standards officers. It will be light-touch, pragmatic and complaints-led. We are funding training for local authority officers.

A full assessment of the costs and benefits has been carried out. The total net impact of the scheme over 10 years is calculated to be a positive benefit of more than £780 million. That figure includes savings from reduced costs associated with littering and carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions.

Although consumers may incur an initial cost in purchasing reusable bags, these are designed to be reused many times and the supermarkets will replace them for free. Although single-use bags will now cost 5p, anyone who wants to avoid paying the charge will be able to do so by taking their own reusable bags to the shops. We encourage people to do this.

We expect that there will be an increase in sales of bin bags, as there was in Wales, as people currently often reuse single-use plastic bags to line their bins. However, even when this is taken into account, the impact of the charge in Wales has been a dramatic overall reduction in the amount of plastic used. We anticipate that the charge will reduce plastic bag distribution in supermarkets by between 70% and 80%, and overall in England by between 50% and 60%.

The order includes a review of the legislation to be carried out within five years of the charge coming into force. It will be at that stage that the reporting requirement will prove essential in assessing the effectiveness of the charge. Any changes to the legislation could also be considered at that time.

We are pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances.

In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in the order provides a fair means of charging that supports the Government’s aims of minimising waste and resource use. I therefore commend the order to the committee.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister began his speech with a ringing declaration: “We must take action”. He set out a very convincing case on financial and environmental grounds for the action that the Government propose to take.

I recall the dedication in the magnum opus of a regius professor: “To my wife, at last, at long, long last”. The key observation is on the process of government and why there has been such a long delay on what is clearly an overwhelming case for action. It is not as though this is some startling brave new initiative on the part of the Government. No, as the Minister said, the proposal is already in force in Wales and has been since 2011. There has been ample time to see the results. It is not some laboratory experiment. We can see the results in Wales already; in Northern Ireland, since 2013; and in Scotland, since last October. It is not as if the results are uncertain. If we have eyes to see, we can clearly see the results. Given the very close nexus between Wales and England, do the Government seriously think that the response of the public and retailers would be different in England? All this vast expenditure on research and consultation in England is surely otiose. The views of the Welsh public are already well known. Do the Government have any strong indication that Welsh public opinion is different? The effect of all this is further cost and degradation.

I recall that in my Parliamentary Question on 14 May 2013, I asked,

“the pilot scheme in Wales has lasted for several years. Will the Minister spell out very clearly the objections to the implementation of the scheme in England?”.

The Minister answered:

“My Lords, as I just said, we are monitoring the charging scheme in Wales and data from the first year will not be available until the summer”.—[Official Report, 14/5/13; col. 264.]

That response was given in May. Now almost two years have passed and, even for the limited scope of the Government’s plan, they have been two wasted years. Since we know that 7.9 billion bags were given out in 2013, the two wasted years effectively amount to almost 16 billion bags. There was a successful test in Wales, which was clearly accepted by the public.

To give my personal position, I shop in supermarkets and retail stores in both Wales and England. There were no concerns in Wales when the charge was introduced. People fall quickly into the habit of taking along shopping bags to the supermarkets. When I shop in London, I do so with exactly the same habit and take along a shopping bag. I am sure that the bulk of people in Wales would do the same.

I note also that in Article 1(d) the Government have suggested an end date of 5 October 2022, as though they are not wholly convinced. What is the purpose of having an end date for this long experiment? It is something that is already working successfully in Wales. Does this mean that the Government are not wholly convinced? We know that a Government can review or end such a situation at any time if they choose to do so. Why include a sunset clause when the evidence is so clear?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect the Minister was hoping for full approval for this government initiative. I am gratified that the Government have finally got around to it. I have been campaigning on this front for at least 15 years, so I am glad that, 13 years after the Republic of Ireland, and then following the devolved Administrations within the UK, we have at last reached this position. To continue the scriptural allusions of my noble friend Lord Dubs, there is always much joy in heaven for a sinner who repenteth, and we should all appreciate that. Nevertheless, we could have had a much clearer policy announced today—one that would have been better understood by the public. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that it is people who litter, not bags. That is absolutely true. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, the whole point of this tax is effectively to change behaviour. It is not a tax; it is a levy.

My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to the experience in Wales. I happened to be in Tesco in Dundee on Sunday with a young lad. I would not say that he had great green credentials nor that he was always affected by prices, but he had already—this is relatively new in Scotland—changed his behaviour and brought a bag with him. That is the point. Yes, in the end, it is people who create litter and, by using these plastic bags, not only cause unnecessary carbon emissions but bring desecration to our countryside, wildlife, marine life, beaches and many of our city centres. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Golding found only one plastic bag in her car park, but I must say that that is not the general experience in either urban or rural car parks, or in other open spaces. It has been reported that some 2,000 of them can be found on every square kilometre of beach. That is atrocious from the aesthetic as well as the environmental and economic point of view.

I welcome the principle, but it has been unnecessarily curtailed, and in such a way that it does not do what it alleges it intends to do. The big exemption is for retailers with fewer than 250 employees, which exempts quite large retailers and represents around a third of all retail outlets. These exemptions do not exist in the devolved Administrations, but the exemption for very small retailers from completing the reporting mechanisms—the real red tape and administrative burden—is set at 10 employees. That seems to be a sensible approach. The exemption should be from the reporting and administrative burden, not from the requirement to impose the charge.

The exemption makes a big difference to the figures in the Government’s own impact assessment. The net present value of this over 10 years, according to the impact assessment set out on page 7 of the Government’s report and as indicated by the Minister, is £782 million. However, it would rise to more than £1 billion if all retailers were included. The Government’s position would be understandable if the retailers themselves were strongly pressing for this exemption, but I am sure that other noble Lords have seen the representations from a number of organisations that represent retail outlets, all of whom are saying, “This is daft and will actually impose a burden on retailers that will put them at a competitive disadvantage in certain respects”.

The British Retail Consortium has said that it is unfair to put smaller retailers in a position where they have to choose whether to charge. There are doubts about having an inconsistent position across the UK. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that some 60% of its members support a single-use carrier bag levy being applied, and in Wales, where it has actually happened, more than 80% of convenience stores support it. The association would strongly support its own membership being covered by this in England as well as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The British Independent Retailers Association, which is the voice of the independent retailer and is often critical of the red tape of government regulations, has said that this should cover businesses of all sizes and that the only exemption should be on the administrative burden, to which I have referred. The Government do not have the support of those who would allegedly benefit from the substantial exemption this order provides for.

There are other exemptions or potential exemptions which can also be queried. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has spelt out comprehensively why the issue of oxo-biodegradable bags is not worthy of being considered as an exemption because of their knock-on effect on waste management and the reusability of plastics in general. Others have queried whether other sorts of bags that are being exempted should have that exemption. The big issue I refer to in that respect is: why should non-reused paper bags be excluded when they themselves have a very high carbon content and are a significant part of the litter around our towns and countryside?

Given, therefore, that there is now a general acceptance of this approach, and that the alleged beneficiaries of the exemptions do not seem to be in favour of the Government’s position, why do the Government persist in doing this? Why, in particular, do they do so when the rest of the United Kingdom does not provide for those exemptions, or most of them, and when we may well be faced with a European directive at some point, which will probably not have those exemptions either?

As I say, we should give at least two cheers for the Government for coming forward with this at last. Nevertheless, it is a pity that they have botched it a bit, and I hope that maybe they will fairly rapidly rethink this, and that, even if we adopt this statutory instrument today or when it is considered in the Chamber, they will come back and say, “Actually, these exemptions are pretty much a nonsense. Let’s make it straightforward so that everybody can understand it, and it will have the effect on everybody, whether they are a customer of a small or large business, whether they have a plastic bag or a paper bag, and whether they are in the country or the centre of our towns”. I hope that the Minister will take that at least as partial support, but some rethinking would be appropriate in his department.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their comments, but in particular I thank those noble Lords who have given at least the partial support that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, offered. I will see how many of noble Lords’ questions and comments I can address, bearing in mind that our process may shortly be interrupted. However, I will see how far I can get.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, asked why there had been a delay in getting to where we have. I know that I will not satisfy him entirely, and I suspect that he may have heard me say this before. However, I will say again that we carefully considered the situation and looked at the effect of the scheme in Wales to enable us to design what we considered to be the most appropriate scheme in England. As he knows, we first used voluntary industry initiatives to reduce bags, which proved successful up to a point. The other point it is worth making is that we needed to work with retailers to give them time to prepare. I know that I am not satisfying him entirely, but he will allow me to make that point.

He also asked what the purpose of an end date to the legislation is. It is standard practice from the perspective of Better Regulation to include a sunset date. It gives the Government of the day the opportunity to review the legislation to decide whether it is fit for purpose, and indeed to amend it if they wish to do so. Seven years is standard practice in that regard.

The noble Lord raised the exclusion of SMEs, as did a number of noble Lords. I am aware that some SMEs wish to be included within the scheme, but we have chosen to exempt small and medium-sized businesses from the charge to reduce the administrative burden on start-up and growing businesses at a time when we are supporting new growth in our economy. It is important to remember that the large majority of single-use plastic bags are distributed by the large retailers, and the seven major supermarkets gave out more than 7 billion of those bags in 2013. Small and medium-sized businesses are able to charge on a voluntary basis if they wish, and we have been told about some that already charge voluntarily and are generating significant financial benefits from a reduction in the number of bags they supply. I thoroughly encourage that. There is a requirement in the order for the system to be reviewed within five years, and the scope of the review will be set by the Secretary of State at the time, but I am confident that the SME exemption will be one element of the policy that will be considered as part of that review.

The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked a related question. The impact assessment also states that there is an overall net benefit to society when SMEs are excluded from the scheme. The Government have therefore chosen to exempt them from the plastic bag charge to avoid placing an administrative burden on them at a time when, as I said, we are supporting growth in the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm for the record that biodegradable bags degrade into carbon dioxide from their carbon content?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, I am quite sure that the right reverend Prelate’s chemistry is still current in that regard.

[Lord Dubs]

Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions. One is on unwrapped fruit. If one goes shopping, one normally buys a lot of things, including, say, four oranges. That means the shopping will be automatically exempt from the charge. That seems to be an inconsistency and, to my mind, not all that sensible. My other question is about publicity for the scheme. Surely one needs to encourage supermarkets to have publicity at the point of sale and wider so that people know what they are about. That will encourage people to take reusable bags.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, my experience when buying oranges in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that supermarkets tend to offer a very light bag specifically for that purpose. We are talking about a very light bag, not one into which he could put the whole of the rest of his bottles and other heavy items. I hope I made that as clear as I can. He also asked about publicity and I entirely agree with him. We very much hope that retailers will do as he suggests.

[Lord Dubs]

I wonder whether we could all go shopping together because the noble Lord talked about a different world from the one that I inhabit when I do the shopping. It does not seem like that. Those little bags are still plastic.

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord makes an almost irresistible offer.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Advisory Committees on Pesticides) Order 2015

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Advisory Committees on Pesticides) Order 2015

Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, this is an order to be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. As detailed in the explanatory document accompanying it, it delivers one of the outcomes of the Government’s programme of reform for public bodies. The order will abolish the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the equivalent body for Northern Ireland as statutory non-departmental public bodies. The Government will then establish a new expert scientific committee.

I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is not an attempt on the Government’s part to stem the flow of impartial and independent scientific advice on pesticides—in fact, quite the reverse. We are very clear that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has several strong features that must continue. These include: expertise, independence, impartiality, transparency, a direct line to Ministers, and the ability to initiate its own lines of inquiry. We will retain these qualities, but we see an opportunity to make improvements. I firmly believe that there will be benefits from the successor committee operating in a different and more flexible way, while of course retaining its independence.

We need new arrangements to reflect wider changes in the regulatory landscape for pesticides since the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was set up nearly 30 years ago. We need to establish a broader, more strategic and proactive role for the successor committee while meeting the continuing need for independent expert scientific advice in this area.

Over recent years, Defra has taken steps to improve its management of the wide range of scientific advice and evidence that underpins its work. As an expert scientific committee, the successor body to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides will work in a more co-ordinated and peer-reviewed environment. This is overseen by our chief scientific adviser and science advisory council. They do not interfere in the work of experts but provide valuable co-ordination, challenge and support.

We have consulted widely, as required by the Public Bodies Act, on the future of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. As we have reported, there was clear support for our proposals. We also have the full support of other UK departments and the devolved Administrations. We have secured the required clearance from the devolved legislatures for the order. I believe we have gained this support because we acknowledge that these other parties have a strong interest in the future arrangements. We have worked closely with them and with the committee itself to draft the terms of reference for the new expert scientific committee. The input of the committee members is particularly important because they will transfer to the successor body.

The draft terms of reference have been discussed at two meetings of the committee and small but important adjustments have been made. These changes have satisfied members that the draft clearly sets out a shared vision of the independence of the committee, its right to initiate work and its right to communicate directly with Ministers. This text has now been put to departments for final agreement.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report on the order highlighted several issues to be captured in the terms of reference. These included addressing the comments by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in the earlier consultation about independence and proactivity. It also mentioned the importance of the Principles of Scientific Advice to Government and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees. The report also called for the establishment of escalation routes to ensure that advice from expert scientific committees can be submitted directly to Ministers, as appropriate.

In flagging those points, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee nevertheless concluded that the Government have demonstrated that the draft order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions as set out in the 2011 Act, in line with the considerations contained in it. The committee was consequently content to clear the order within the 40-day affirmative procedure.

I am glad to be able to confirm that the issues raised by the scrutiny committee are all carefully and fully addressed in the draft terms of reference for the successor body. I can also confirm, as outlined earlier, that the members of the current Advisory Committee on Pesticides and all the relevant departments have been closely involved in this work. The existing Advisory Committee on Pesticides has provided real value over a number of years and the Government are determined to carry over its strengths to the new body. However, the new structure will be more flexible and efficient. I commend the draft order to the Committee.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for spelling out the content of this order. Clearly, with the passage of the Public Bodies Bill—four years ago now—the authority to abolish this committee, provided the Government followed the appropriate procedure, has been there.

In Committee on the Public Bodies Bill, I queried the wisdom of abolishing this committee, and my noble friend Lady Quin queried it on Report. The significance of that for those who are not all that familiar with the history of Defra is that my noble friend Lady Quin was the last MAFF Minister to have responsibility for pesticides and I was the first Defra Minister to have responsibility for pesticides. We relied very heavily on the objectivity of the statutory committee, as well as the operations of the pesticides department—PSD—within Defra, because there are always some very difficult, if not controversial, issues arising about pesticides.

The difficulties and controversy have, if anything, increased in recent years. A number of bans at European level have been contested by the industry and some others in crop protection. There has recently been a serious disagreement between the Government and our European colleagues on neonicotinoids. There are always concerns for wildlife and, in particular, the bee population, the effects of various pesticides on them and therefore on their ability to fertilise a whole range of cultivated and wild plant life.

Within what is a no doubt objective and highly scientific area, there are quite often serious disagreements between experts. One of my main memories of my time as a Minister in this area was one huge row where—I will not go into the details—somebody was appointed to the committee whom the crop protection industry was not particularly keen on. It was always important to ensure a balance on the committee, with a range of people. Of course, that is quite difficult for government appointments. Almost everybody with a scientific background in this area, whether at university or in industry, has at some point in their career been employed or had their research sponsored by companies within the industry. It is therefore very important that transparency, accountability, independence—from industry as well as from government—and balance are clear in the advice that the Government receive.

Actually, the non-departmental public body requirements help to ensure that. My concern about the abolition of the committee was that we might lose that balance. The Government have gone through the correct procedures to ensure that there is understanding of the new way of carrying things out. I appreciate that and have every faith in the Government being very diligent in ensuring that that balance and independence are still there. They put it within a wider context where, effectively, this is an expert committee reporting to the science advisory council, which oversees the whole of Defra’s scientific work. That makes sense to a degree, provided that that is well resourced and that the expert committees covering specialist areas maintain the balance and independence I referred to.

I accept the Government’s good intentions within this area but they have to recognise that it is one where, publicly, media-wise and in the scientific community, controversy can jump out at Ministers who are without great expectation or, frankly, much knowledge of the balance of understanding on the scientific argument. That means the Government must be able to defend whatever future, more flexible arrangements are put in place. The Government refer to flexibility of advice. That should not be too ad hoc or Ministers would be open to the accusation that they have chosen the advice from those people most likely to favour their or the industry’s position. That would be unfortunate in an area where a degree of objectivity has generally been respected over the years.

Pesticides used in our agriculture and horticulture have an important effect on the countryside, wildlife, bystanders, rural communities and the productivity and economic structure of our agricultural sector, so this is an important issue. I hope that the new arrangements work as well as the old ones. I dug out the latest annual report. It is clear from even the summary of the activity—where there were 12 important authorisations of pesticides, some more authorisations of equipment and some serious discussions about the regulatory regime of pesticides in that very year—that that intensity is unlikely to diminish.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Government will ensure that the new committee maintains the same high standards and recognises that Ministers and civil servants will need objective and independent advice, and that there is a substantial public interest that goes beyond the esoteric aspects of quite complicated science. With those remarks and those cautions, I welcome the Minister’s presentation and do not propose to oppose the order.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I agree with him about the complexity of the issues that arise. He said that the intensity of activity is unlikely to diminish and I am sure he is right. I agree with him, too, that objectivity is crucial and I accept much, if not all, of what he said. We absolutely respect the need for that objectivity, for independence and for the transparency, accountability and balance that he referred to. I further agree with him that the effect of the Public Bodies Act should be to ensure that these qualities are safeguarded, but, more than that, there is a strong will across government, both at ministerial level and—as has been strongly impressed on me—within the Civil Service and within Defra, to ensure that they are.

The noble Lord wondered whether there was a danger that scientific expertise might reduce and referred specifically to Kew. On Kew, we have seen in the press all the bad news that the Science and Technology Committee chose to air. If he was to review the detailed evidence that the committee heard, he would read the evidence from the Chief Scientist at Kew, who has completely rewritten its science strategy so that it is much more focused on Defra’s business, to help us achieve what we want to do, and on the good that can be done for the country’s biology and botany and so on. I think that the noble Lord would be hugely impressed with what they are doing at Kew, which reflects what we are trying to do elsewhere with our science.

The maintenance and even improvement, where possible, of our scientific advice are a top priority for me. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words and I hope that the Committee will approve the order.

Motion agreed.

Control of Horses Bill

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for bringing the Bill to your Lordships’ House and for her detailed contributions on this very serious matter of equine welfare. I should also declare an interest as a thoroughly horsy person. I am not currently an owner, but I will not be outdone by my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury, although I might not dwell on it at quite such length. I have also ridden under rules. In fact, I have someone else’s animals on my holding with, I emphasise, my full consent. I welcome the opportunity to confirm that the Government fully support this Bill. I equally welcome the support of everyone else who has spoken.

My honourable friend George Eustice expressed in another place our conviction that the Bill, if enacted, could go a long way towards improving the existing remedies to tackle fly-grazing in the Animals Act 1971 and, in the process, improve the state of equine welfare in this country.

As the charities have reported, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has said, several thousand horses are currently being left to graze on other people’s land without consent. This affects both public and private land and shows that certain horse owners show disregard for their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Instead, this duty of care is imposed, unsolicited, upon others, who have to care for fly-grazed horses on their land, often incurring substantial and sudden costs in the process.

It would be remiss of me not to join the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, in paying tribute to my honourable friend Julian Sturdy, the Member for York Outer, for bringing forward the Bill in another place and his handling of it there. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, rightly said, there was consensus in another place that the Bill offers a chance to introduce a fairer and more effective remedy against fly-grazing and horse abandonment. That consensus has been echoed here today.

As a horse lover and the Minister responsible for animal welfare, I have a strong interest in the issue of fly-grazed horses and how to deal with the problem.

Four key Acts of Parliament apply in this area. As well as the Animals Act and the Animal Welfare Act, which is relevant to horses in distress, there is also the new Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which gives stronger and swifter powers to deal with the owners of fly-grazed horses where those owners are able to be identified, and the Highways Act 1980, which gives powers to the police with respect to horses straying on the highway. We have acknowledged that making some relatively small but important amendments to the Animals Act would go a long way towards ensuring that the provisions in that Act work better for those trying to deal with fly-grazing. It would bring the legislation up to date and make the process more efficient and less burdensome.

In September last year, I attended a hearing of the House of Commons EFRA Select Committee on horse welfare. What was remarkable about that discussion was that, despite the wide variety of groups participating—from horse welfare charities to the RSPCA, the NFU, the CLA, local authorities and other community representatives—all participants agreed that action was needed to address fly-grazing. They were all keenly aware that the matter has a significant bearing on animal welfare. Following that committee, and after considering the telling case put by the coalition of welfare, countryside and farming interests, I am delighted to say that we were able to offer support for the Bill and help it progress to this stage in as smooth a manner as possible.

Several noble Lords asked questions. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury asked whether anything can be done about the indiscriminate overbreeding of inferior-quality horses. Overbreeding of horses is of course a significant concern and a sign of irresponsible horse ownership and neglect. Part of the problem lies in the need for better education for owners and potential owners. They must ask themselves: do they need to breed from their horses? Do they have a market for their foals? Can they afford the costs of caring for those foals, including the costs of grazing or stabling?

The overpopulation of low-market-value horses may also be traced to the large number of abandoned animals that have been left to breed indiscriminately. The Bill could help improve the situation by introducing a remedy to allow landowners and occupiers to take swift action to deal with such horses if they stray on to their land. The remedy will ensure that the horses, once detained, will not be released back to their previous state of abandonment. They would be sold, rehomed, gifted or, ultimately, euthanized, depending on their condition and the opportunities available in each respective case.

My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury also asked about the application of the horse passport regime. Since February 2005, all owners of horses, ponies and other equines in the United Kingdom have been required to have a passport for each animal in order to comply with European legislation. Since 2009, in addition to being passported, all equines are required to be microchipped. Derogations from those requirements may apply to defined populations of wild or semi-wild horses. Derogated areas exist in England and Wales. In England, that applies to the Dartmoor, Exmoor and New Forest ponies.

The Government believe that the regime needs strengthening. A number of steps have been taken to address that at a national level—for example, by agreeing new operating standards for horse passport issuing organisations, which came into full effect on 1 April last year, and by giving clear guidance to owners and vets about their responsibilities under the legislation.

In addition, the EU adopted a revised EU-wide horse passport regulation last autumn. The key changes are: all member states to have a central equine database with greater sharing of information between member states; tighter controls over microchips and an option for member states to require chipping of older horses; a requirement to notify when a horse has been signed out of the food chain following medical treatment, with details recorded on the database; and new minimum standards for passport-issuing organisations, with stronger powers to allow Governments to suspend or withdraw approval to passport issuing organisations which fail to meet the standards. All those new rules come into effect on 1 January 2016—apart, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, from the central database, which must be in place on 1 July 2016 for those member states which do not currently operate central equine databases, which include the United Kingdom.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether the Government will implement the power granted in SANCO 7063, the new EU horse passport regulation, mandating microchipping of all horses rather than only those born since 2009. At the outset, noble Lords may like to know that the UK was instrumental in securing that provision in the newly revised EU horse passport regulation, which, as I said, is due to come into effect from January next year. The original proposal contained no such provision, and I know that it is one which the equine sector has welcomed. It has congratulated the department on securing that small but potentially important change. My officials are now working closely with representatives of the equine sector council to develop the necessary analysis of the costs and benefits of making retrospective chipping mandatory. It is an optional provision in the revised EU regulation, and I hope that noble Lords will approve of the fact that the arguments and justification for doing so must be robust and make sense for horse owners and regulators alike. I am encouraged, however, by the way in which the sector has responded to the challenge to produce that analysis and we will continue to work closely with it on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked what safeguards are in place to ensure that a horse owner can protect his or her horse and recover it if it accidentally strays and is detained under the provisions. The primary safeguard to prevent a horse straying and being detained is, of course, responsible ownership. The Defra code of practice on the welfare of horses prescribes that persons responsible for a horse should check on it at least once a day—something that will have been drilled into the noble Baroness, as it was into me, from an early age. In addition, the Animals Act already contains a safeguard system, in that it requires that the police be informed and maintain a record-keeping system for any reports of detained and missing horses.

The Act also requires that notices be issued to the horse’s owner if this person is known. Information given to the police is retained through a call and command computer system, and in practice details are often shared with local authorities. The process should enable horse owners to come forward to claim their horse within the specified detention time. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to that as four days; it is in fact four working days, which is slightly longer in most cases. This allows the owners to know with some certainty that if the horse has been detained, the police will have the details of the detention. The police will be able to advise the horse’s owners of their rights under the Animals Act. Under the Bill, the safeguard process would remain although the police would be required to receive details of a detained horse within 24 hours, instead of within 48 hours as at present. This enables horse owners to act more immediately, which is in the interests of all parties, not least the detained horse.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also asked about the reason for fly-grazing, and alluded to the fact that it is probably complex, and indeed it is—there is a range of reasons. The reason that we are really focusing on here is the deliberate theft of other people’s grazing, often by large numbers of horses.

The Bill provides a tremendous opportunity to address what has become quite a widespread problem of fly-grazing, and to improve the legal protection afforded to abandoned or fly-grazed horses. I support this Bill and we thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for taking it forward. I hope it will have a speedy passage on to the statute book.

British Agriculture

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for raising a series of very important matters. Like the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, I start by declaring an interest as the owner of a farm and the beneficiary of the common agricultural policy.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has repeatedly emphasised her vision for our farming industry to be the best in the world. Indeed, at the NFU conference earlier this week, which has been much mentioned in this debate, she set out a long-term economic plan for food and farming which will ensure that this vital industry continues to grow and create jobs. One key element of this plan—making EU regulations work for British food producers, so that they can innovate and grow their businesses—is closely linked to the subject of today’s debate. As we have heard, being part of the EU brings benefits as well as challenges—regulations, in fact, on most areas of British agriculture and on the consumer. Quantifying those impacts is complex and challenging. However, noble Lords should be aware that the Government’s review of the balance of competencies between the EU and the UK, published last year, addressed these matters in great detail. Three of the reports published related directly to regulations affecting British agriculture. The consensus was strong support, including from the British farming industry, for the single market for agricultural goods, and for the EU’s powerful role in negotiating global trade deals for those goods.

Still, it is important to note that the views on more specific issues varied considerably. We have heard about several areas of division already today, so perhaps noble Lords will allow me to address some of them directly. On the common agricultural policy, we advocate a fundamental review of the current system of support payments. We want to see more emphasis on measures targeted at improving competitiveness and protecting and enhancing the natural environment. We were firm in advocating these beliefs during the CAP reform negotiations in 2013, and continue to press for further reform to reduce burdens on farmers and improve value for money. More immediately, we are committed to simplifying our own implementation of the CAP now. We are actively engaging in the latest CAP simplification agenda initiated by the European Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, of whom my noble friend Lord Caithness spoke optimistically.

Although I would never suggest that we have arrived at an acceptable CAP, I would like to give some examples of how the UK has applied pressure to improve the original proposals from the Commission. First, the original proposal did not cut the CAP budget at all, which would have been a disgrace. The final agreement cut the CAP budget by 13% in real terms.

As a result of our efforts, greening has been made less burdensome by raising eligibility criteria and adding more flexibilities. The crop diversification procedure proposals, for example, were originally for everyone with more than three hectares of arable land. Then there is the issue of ecological focus areas, which were originally to have been 7% of arable land. They have been reduced to 5% and, furthermore, nitrogen-fixing crops will now count towards the farmer’s EFA.

The original proposal for the active farmer test involved farmers’ accounts being checked to see what percentage of their income was from agriculture, which would have been hugely bureaucratic. We now have a much simpler approach based on a negative list of businesses deemed not to be farming.

Several member states argued that production quotas for sugar should continue for the whole of this CAP programme. In the end, we successfully argued to end these quotas in 2017. I am not saying that the result is good. However, we have been able to move it from terrible to bad. That is why we are maintaining the pressure.

To the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, with whom I agree on a surprising amount in this whole area, I have to say that I do not recall such effectiveness from the previous Labour Government. He asked why we had not done a better job. The answer is that we have to negotiate with the Commission and 27 other member states, but I can give him some examples of what we have done in terms of lobbying. A great deal of pressure was brought to bear by my right honourable friend Owen Paterson when he was Secretary of State, and my right honourable friend Liz Truss has retained that level of pressure. She wrote to the new Commissioner in October stating our concerns about the greening measures, and met him at November’s Agricultural Council to discuss the issue. Senior officials met their counterparts at the Commission in November, and my honourable friend George Eustice met a number of MEPs in December, January and February to raise UK concerns on greening and to encourage them to feed into the Commissioner’s CAP simplification exercise. The Secretary of State hosted a visit from Commissioner Hogan on Monday ahead of the NFU conference. They met farmers directly affected by the three-crop rule, allowing them to put their views to the Commissioner face to face. The Secretary of State is replying in very clear terms to the Commissioner’s request for suggestions on simplification.

It is not only the Commission and the Parliament with which we have engaged; at the meeting last October of the Stockholm group—consisting of senior officials from the UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden—simplification was high on the agenda. The UK, Germany, Denmark, the Czech Republic and Sweden signed a letter to the Commissioner in December calling for ambitious action on simplifying the CAP. And so it goes on.

As a result of all that work, Commissioner Hogan has committed to simplifying the CAP. He is currently, as my noble friend Lord Caithness said, undertaking an exercise to identify areas to reduce red tape and administrative burden. In answer to my noble friend, he has committed to producing a simplification strategy by the end of the year. He wrote to all member states last month asking for ideas on how to simplify the CAP without opening up regulations, focusing on the administrative burden for farmers. We consulted with the devolved Administrations and across the UK farming industry, and the Secretary of State will be responding tomorrow, calling for more ambitious action to simplify the CAP, including extending the review of the EFA requirements for greening to include the three-crop rule by 2016. Commissioner Hogan has also committed to reviewing direct payments, which include greening, ready for the 2017 payment year. The UK will be fully engaged in pushing for the most ambitious action to simplify the CAP in Commissioner Hogan’s mid-term review in 2017 to make UK farming more competitive. We believe that the only way to simplify the CAP properly is by making changes to the regulations, hence we are calling for more ambition and providing Commissioner Hogan with suggestions that require changes to legislation.

Various questions were asked by noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Byford talked about crop diversification, specifically in the area of dairy farming. She might like to know that farmers with fewer than 10 hectares of arable land are exempt from the crop diversification requirements, and those with 10 to 30 hectares must grow at least two different crops. It is therefore stepped so, to the extent that a dairy farmer is not growing arable crops, he will not bump into those rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, referred to current pressures on dairy farmers more generally, and he is quite right. We are doing all that we can to help dairy farmers overcome current pressures. The Rural Payments Agency has paid EU direct payments to 98% of farmers more than two months ahead of schedule, and almost every first-milk farmer has been paid. We are also working on longer-term resilience. He will know that the global market for dairy products is actually growing so, provided we can make ourselves as competitive as possible, we should be able to take advantage of that. The question is how we bridge the gap until we get there, and that is something we are acutely focused on.

On pesticides, the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Grantchester, and my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lady Byford, among others, referred to neonics. The UK has consistently argued that decisions should be made on the basis of proportionate risk assessment, not an approach that rules out any conceivable risk, however improbable.

Noble Lords are right in what they say about the effects of a ban on yields. We raised these issues repeatedly with the Commission last year, and will continue to pursue the point with the new Health Commissioner. There is a review clause in the EU regulation and we will press for that to be carried out thoroughly, taking full account of costs as well as benefits. The European Commission has given an undertaking to commence a review of the science on neonicotinoids in 2015.

My noble friend Lady Byford asked about research on bees. I assure her that there is a great deal of research and monitoring on pollinators and this will continue, including under the national pollinators strategy.

Several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Grantchester, talked about GM. I know that they would not disagree that we must ensure that all GM products for cultivation in the UK must have passed a rigorous safety assessment. As written, the EU regulatory regime could allow timely market access for safe GM products but, in practice, as we all know, most member states oppose GM and vote against the science. Over time, this has become increasingly problematic and restrictive. We have been pressing hard for positive changes in the operation of the regulations. We want a pragmatic and proportionate regime. The recently agreed cultivation proposal did not go as far as I would have liked, but it could help to unblock the EU-level approval mechanism as it will allow those member states that do not want to cultivate GM crops to restrict or ban them while allowing countries that are open to the technology to use it.

A large number of questions were raised in this debate and I do not have time to answer them all. I will respond to noble Lords in writing where I find that I have not been able to do so in the debate.

My noble friend Lord Caithness raised a really important point about gold-plating. We are committed to avoiding, where at all possible, going beyond the minimum requirements of any measures being transposed. Taking such an approach will ensure that the UK does not create unnecessary legislative burdens and place UK business at a competitive disadvantage. To ensure that we do not gold-plate, my department must satisfy the reducing regulation committee that it has identified the aims of the EU law and the relevant policies of the UK Government and how, save in absolutely exceptional circumstances, it does not go beyond the minimum requirements of the measure being transposed. The policy teams have clear guidance and, indeed, specific training on policy development and consultations to ensure that they take steps to check whether their intended policy goes beyond the minimum requirements and to provide stakeholders with maximum opportunity to engage with us on our proposals.

Several noble Lords referred to Professor Anne Glover. I regret that the Commission decided not to continue the post of EU scientific adviser. Anne Glover was, and I know will continue to be, an enormous force for good in science. She served extremely well in Brussels and we intend to work closely with the Commission to ensure that any new arrangement is well suited to the purpose, providing first-rate scientific evidence.

I fear that I am out of time. I know that a number of other important points were raised; I will do my best to summarise them in letters to noble Lords.

Soil Quality

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the soils in England will sustain food production at current levels in the long term.

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

My Lords, we are committed to delivering the natural environment White Paper aspiration of ensuring sustainable management of all soils by 2030. We have introduced new cross-compliance rules to protect soils while reducing paperwork for farmers. Through our agri-tech strategy and sustainable intensification platform we will help farmers to take advantage of the latest techniques, to help them improve productivity while protecting the environment.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to this issue, because of course no soils equals no foods. He will know that 2015 was designated the International Year of Soils to help to highlight this fact and the enormous soil loss, which in the UK is 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil alone per year. He mentioned the new rules that have been introduced. Perhaps he could tell me how farmers will receive practical advice on their soil management from people who are not seeking to sell inputs. Could he also tell me—given the rate of the loss of soil and microbial health, and even the loss of soil scientists, as they are not being replaced at the rate they need to be—whether he thinks that the actions being taken are urgent and effective enough to ensure the continued and, indeed, increased production of British food?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend asks a number of questions. The Farming Advice Service is a service to help farmers understand and meet the requirements of cross-compliance, greening and the European directives on both water protection and sustainable pesticide use. It has a helpline, newsletters, guidance and technical articles. During 2015 its priorities will be to give advice on the changes to the cross-compliance rules, which include the new soil standards, which go to the prevention of erosion, which she mentioned; maintaining soil cover; and the protection of organic matter.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the study of the soil, its microflora and microfauna, and its interactions with trace elements is both fascinating and essential? In view of the shortage of soil and plant scientists, will he tell us what the Government are doing to increase the numbers of those scientists, and impress upon them how important it is that we have them?

[Lord De Mauley]

I very strongly agree with the noble Countess. She might be comforted to know that we are investing £10 million through NERC and BBSRC programmes specifically to investigate soil security, with a strong focus on soil biology, which she referred to. We are also undertaking research on soil management approaches to stimulate soil organisms.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I thank the noble Baroness. Does the Minister accept that tree planting plays a critical role in stopping the erosion of soil? As this problem gets more and more acute, what plans do the Government have to engage with the Forestry Commission to allow it to get more in touch with farmers to point out the advantages of tree planting and the disadvantages of removing hedges?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. He will be pleased to know that over the past five years not only have we planted 1 million trees, principally in urban areas, through the Big Tree Plant, we have also planted 10 million trees, funded through Pillar 2 of the CAP. We think it is extremely important and I agree with him very strongly on that.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, does my noble friend think it is entirely wise to cover good-quality agricultural land with solar panel farms producing electricity at an enormous cost to the taxpayer and the user of electricity?

[Lord De Mauley]

I take my noble friend’s point entirely. The Government’s position is that farmers should not be subsidised twice. They should either take the subsidy for the solar panels or take the subsidies through the common agricultural policy.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer receiving CAP payments. Healthy soils were also identified in the Pitt review, which recommended,

“water retention through management of infiltration”,

to reduce flood risk and delay water flow during flash-flood events. Given the pressures for efficiency in farming, with the ever increasing use of heavy machinery leading to soil compaction and run-off, what were the principal reasons behind the Government’s recommendation that the EU withdraw its proposed soil framework directive to establish a common framework to protect soils, bearing in mind that none of us wants excessive bureaucracy and regulation?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord makes an important point. He is right that matters such as compaction affect flood risk. The proposal from the EU lacked flexibility and it was overly prescriptive for member states that already have effective soil protection measures in place, such as the United Kingdom, where we have cross-compliance rules that specifically have measures in place to stop erosion, to maintain a minimum level of soil cover and to protect soil organic matter. There is already a large tranche of existing EU legislation that addresses soil protection.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the healthiest soils in this country are to be found in allotments? Will he therefore encourage local authorities to avoid building on allotments wherever possible and, when they cannot avoid it in the public interest, to ensure that the land that is given in compensation is of similar quality? Not any old piece of land will do—it takes 20 years to develop a good soil.

[Lord De Mauley]

I certainly take my noble friend’s point and I will take it back. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reminded me that I should also have declared an interest as a recipient of CAP funds.

Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the scheme, draft order and draft regulations laid before the House on 6 January and on 2, 15 and 17 December 2014 be approved.

Relevant documents: 16th, 17th, 18th and 20th Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 4 February.

Motions agreed.

Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015

Lord De Mauley Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, the energy efficiency directive updates the EU’s legal framework for energy efficiency, with a target of saving 20% of the EU’s primary energy consumption by 2020 and of making further energy efficiency improvements after that date. The directive establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the EU and lays down rules to remove barriers in the energy market and overcome market failures that impede efficiency.

My department has responsibility for the aspects relating to increasing the uptake of cost-beneficial cogeneration, usually known as combined heat and power, and waste heat recovery systems in the UK. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 that we are debating today transpose in England and Wales Articles 14.5 to 14.9 of the energy efficiency directive.

The amending regulations require operators of new or substantially refurbished combustion installations of more than 20 megawatts in size to carry out a cost-benefit analysis and therefore consider whether the installation of combined heat and power, or waste heat recovery systems and the use of waste heat, could be cost-beneficial, with the aim of increasing energy efficiency.

Where cogeneration or waste heat recovery and use options are shown to be cost-beneficial, operators will have to install such systems, and this will be a requirement of their environmental permit. By installing such systems, operators will achieve cost savings. There will also be social benefits from reduced carbon emissions and improved security of energy supply. The amending regulations are consistent with our aim of protecting the environment for future generations, making our economy more environmentally sustainable and improving our quality of life and well-being.

The choice to transpose the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis by amending the existing environmental permitting regime has clear benefits for operators and regulators alike. Environmental permitting is an established process for regulating the development, operation and refurbishment of industrial installations in England and Wales. Nearly all the installations subject to the requirements of Article 14.5 of the directive are already subject to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, as amended. Use of this existing system therefore allows implementation of the requirements of these articles in a manner which limits burdens on operators and regulators.

My department conducted a public consultation exercise between February and April 2014. There were 20 responses to the consultation. All supported the use of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations to transpose the requirements of the directive. A number of concerns were raised by respondents regarding the suitability and practicality of the thresholds applied in the instrument. These concerns have been taken on board and changes have been made to the regulations to reflect this.

An impact assessment was prepared for the implementation of these amending regulations which showed an estimated net cost of £12.4 million over the 10-year appraisal period. The costs to regulators are included in this figure and may be recouped through environmental permitting fees and charges.

There will clearly be benefits to improving energy efficiency for both the operator and society. The impact assessment was not able to quantify these benefits overall as it is unclear how many operators would introduce changes. However, the impact assessment included a number of case studies which, for example, suggest that if combined heat and power were installed instead of an industrial boiler, depending on the size and configuration of the boiler, the operator could see annual savings of between £1 million and £7 million, paying back their upfront investment within six years.

These amending regulations will help to ensure that operators install energy efficient systems and reduce the carbon emissions where they are cost beneficial. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.

[The Duke of Montrose (Con)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that good explanation. Is there a ready supply of these combined heat and power boilers within the United Kingdom or elsewhere to enable operators to fulfil the terms of the regulations?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether there is a ready supply of combined heat and power boilers. There is indeed. On average, 120 megawatts of combined heat and power plant has been installed per annum over the past five years, which I hope indicates that there is a supply chain.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the time it has taken to transpose the directive. There were indeed delays in finalising the text of the draft regulations, primarily due to the Government’s desire to integrate comments received by stakeholders during the public consultation. We took most of the comments received on board and reflected them in the draft regulations. In particular, we revised some of the thresholds to ensure that they fully apply the allowed derogations in the directive and avoid disproportionate burdens on British businesses, while still achieving the required level of support for energy efficiency. As he will understand, that required detailed technical discussions.

[The Duke of Montrose]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I press him further? Perhaps something that could be written down is what proportion of the current supply is based in the UK. One of our difficulties—this is something that needs to keep being emphasised—is that we keep on bringing in energy efficient technology and so on by simply buying it from abroad rather than having a home-grown industry.

[Lord De Mauley]

I share my noble friend’s keenness that we should, as a country, take advantage of this growth market. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, so if I may, I will write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the regimes compare between ourselves and the devolved Administrations. They are essentially the same across the United Kingdom. My officials have worked closely with those in the devolved Administrations to ensure this.

The noble Lord asked when the guidance will be ready. The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales have developed cost-benefit analysis guidance to assist operators, which will be published shortly. The draft guidance was subject to consultation last year. He also referred to what he saw as a gap in the impact assessment. There is uncertainty regarding how many of the operators within the scope of this instrument would have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis without the requirement being added to their environmental permit. The outcomes, including the environmental benefits through reduced carbon emissions, will be site-dependent and will depend on operators’ decisions about how to proceed. They are therefore impossible for us to quantify at this stage. However, the impact assessment provides a number of case studies to which I referred in my opening remarks.

The noble Lord asked a question related to my noble friend’s point on how big the potential is for combined heat and power in this country. The analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimates that the total technical potential for CHP in the UK is about 13 gigawatts by 2020, of which 7.8 gigawatts is projected to be economically viable by that date. The majority of this is likely to be natural gas-fired. DECC’s final Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan projects up to 600 megawatts of biomass CHP being deployed by 2020. The regulations will help to unlock this capacity.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked me another question. DECC’s research suggests that there are barriers which these regulations would address, such as a lack of awareness of CHP or the in-house expertise to assess potential projects. I hope that this response has answered most of the questions put by the noble Lord, and to the extent that it has not, I will of course write to him.

Motion agreed.